Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature

Organizational learningand knowledgein public serviceorganizations:A systematic reviewof the literatureijmr_257 463..494

Lyndsay Rashman,1 Erin Withers and Jean Hartley

This paper is a systematic review of the literature on organizational learning and knowledgewith relevance to public service organizations. Organizational learning and knowledge areimportant to public sector organizations, which share complex external challenges withprivate organizations, but have different drivers and goals for knowledge. The evidenceshows that the concepts of organizational learning and knowledge are under-researched inrelation to the public sector and, importantly, this raises wider questions about the extentto which context is taken into consideration in terms of learning and knowledge moregenerally across all sectors. A dynamic model of organizational learning within and acrossorganizational boundaries is developed that depends on four sets of factors: features ofthe source organization; features of the recipient organization; the characteristics of therelationship between organizations; and the environmental context. The review concludes,first, that defining ‘organization’ is an important element of understanding organizationallearning and knowledge. Second, public organizations constitute an important, distinctivecontext for the study of organizational learning and knowledge. Third, there continuesto be an over-reliance on the private sector as the principal source of theoretical under-standing and empirical research and this is conceptually limiting for the understanding oforganizational learning and knowledge. Fourth, differences as well as similarities betweenorganizational sectors require conceptualization and research that acknowledge sector-specific aims, values and structures. Finally, it is concluded that frameworks for explainingprocesses of organizational learning at different levels need to be sufficiently dynamic andcomplex to accommodate public organizations.

International Journal of Management Reviews (2009)doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00257.x

© 2009 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

International Journal of Management Reviews Volume 11 Issue 4 pp. 463–494 463

Introduction

This systematic review aims to understandthe literature on organizational learning andknowledge relevant to public service organiza-tions, and to explore implications for the fieldof organizational learning and knowledge moregenerally. The review focuses primarily but notexclusively on theoretical developments andempirical studies in inter-organizational learn-ing and knowledge transfer in public services.

Specifically, the objectives of the reviewwere to:

• investigate the factors that influence orga-nizational learning, inter-organizationallearning and knowledge in public serviceorganizations

• compare the similarities and differences inorganizational learning and knowledge inthe public and private sectors

• illuminate issues of organizational learningand knowledge in both private and publicorganizations.

The review also makes an important meth-odological contribution by applying elementsof systematic reviews originating from medicalsciences to the organization studies field, in afield of enquiry where the concepts are poorlydefined and operationalized.

The literature in the organizational learningand knowledge transfer field has grown expo-nentially over the past 15 years, resulting in theemergence of a ‘learning perspective’ (Bapujiand Crossan 2004). The field is vigorous and isexpected to continue as a focus of academictheorizing, empirical investigation and method-ology development (Lyles and Easterby-Smith2005). However, there are some importantlacunae in theorizing about the field. First, it isstriking that there is little research on learningand knowledge transfer in the non-profit sectors.Second, as Shipton (2006, 233) suggests, thefield of organizational learning research hasbecome diverse and ‘fragmented, with littleevidence of overlap between inter-disciplinaryboundaries’. This review seeks to addresssome of these complexities by synthesizing

and analysing the literature in the context ofpublic sector organizational knowledge andinter-organizational learning.

Learning and Knowledge in PublicService Organizations

There are important reasons for consideringlearning and knowledge transfer in publicservice organizations. First, the scale of publicsector organizations is of sufficient signifi-cance to warrant attention from organizationaland management researchers (Ferlie et al.2003). Second, in recent decades public orga-nizations have undergone substantial reform,driving the need to create and share organiza-tional knowledge, but they remain under-represented in literature on organizationallearning and knowledge. Third, the literatureon organizational learning and knowledgemakes frequent reference to contextual analy-sis but tends to focus on internal context,whereas this review of the literature on publicorganizations calls for increased attention todistinctive external contexts of organizations.Fourth, attention to the specific features thatinfluence learning and knowledge in publicorganizations may help to expand knowledgeabout the field across all types of organization.

The scale of recent public sector reform hasbeen sufficiently extensive to produce ‘bigissues that demand attention and action frommanagement scholars’ (Pettigrew 2005, 975).Despite significant growth in the literature inthe organizational learning and knowledge fieldsince the 1990s, relatively little attention hasbeen given to public service organizations, butthey exist in a specific context which is worthyof consideration (Kelman 2005). Exploration ofpublic service organizations provides a widerrange of organizational contexts within which todevelop understanding of knowledge creationand learning, and can help to illuminatefeatures of private sector organizations. Ofcourse, there are wide variations in the contextand processes both within and across the publicand private sectors, such that ‘publicness’should perhaps be seen as a dimension not a

Organizational learning and knowledge

464 © 2009 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

dichotomy (Bozeman and Bretschneider 1994)but on the other hand, there can be differencesin goals, purposes, structures and stakeholdersfor example, which render the public servicecontext noteworthy. Thus, the article does notseek to define a distinctiveness for publicservices per se, but to examine how contextand purpose may shape learning strategies,processes and outcomes. This is potentiallyrelevant for understanding the contributionsand limitations of theories of learning andknowledge transfer which claim to be genericbut which in fact have been constructed on apartial or sectoral basis.

Public organizations are critical to nationalcompetitiveness in creating the necessaryconditions and infrastructure for private sectoreffectiveness at national, regional and locallevels (Hartley and Skelcher 2008). They playa crucial role in leading and governing localcommunities and managing complex inter-relationships between the state, the market andcivil society (Benington 2000). The scale ofpublic service organizations is also important:public services account for over a third of GDPin OECD countries and increasing UK expen-diture on public services suggests that, by2005, they accounted for 45% of GDP (Petti-grew 2005). Over 5.8 million employees, over25% of the UK workforce, worked in publicservices in 2006 (National Statistics 2006).

The application of organization and man-agement theory and the design of organiza-tional research need to be contextualized andtake into account social, economic and politi-cal factors to be directly relevant to the specificinstitutional context (Pettigrew 2005). Themanagement of public services is often dis-tinct, because it operates in a complex policyand political environment, under the formalcontrol of politicians, and is subject to a highdegree of scrutiny and accountability (Hartleyand Skelcher 2008). Public services aim not toproduce profit but ‘public value’ and to impacton citizens, as well as balancing competingstakeholder interests (Moore 1995). Moore(2005) argues that there is a different relation-ship between ideas, practices and organizations

in the public and private sectors. If the purpose,drivers, catalysts and key actors are differentbetween sectors (Hartley 2006), it is possiblethat the nature of knowledge and knowledgecreation differs also.

Both private and public sectors have had torespond to periods of rapid change to meetcustomer or citizen demands, but governmentpolicies and pressures for performance are asignificant catalyst for change in the publicsector, compared with market-driven pressuresfor knowledge to develop new products andservices in the private sector (Hartley and Ben-ington 2006; Kelman 2005). Radical changesin leadership, management, organization andstructures have been sought by governments,leading to ‘shifting boundaries and inter-dependency between the private and publicsectors and civil society; between national andinternational bodies; and between differentparts of the public services within the sameeconomy’ (Pettigrew 2005, 975). Public sectormanagers have adopted some entrepreneurialand customer orientations from private sectororigins, and the public service ethos hasincreased in both sectors but, overall, there isevidence of continued dissimilarity betweensectors over the past 20 years (Poole et al.2006).

Public service organizations are subject topressures for learning and innovation whichderive from users’ expectations, other tiers ofgovernment and across a wide range of stake-holders (Hartley 2008), and from the creationof complex inter-organizational structures.Additionally, the sharing of knowledge iscentral to improvement in public services,because the aim is to add value to the publicsphere. This means that good ideas and prac-tices are not, in theory, limited to one organi-zation or partnership, but need to be transferredbetween services and levels of government(Hartley 2008).

Learning within and between organizationshas been identified as central to the processesof public service improvement in, for example,the two largest parts of the public service sector:the health service (Bate and Robert 2002;

December 2009

465© 2009 The AuthorsJournal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management

Nicolini et al. 2007; Nutley and Davies 2001)and local government (Newman et al. 2000;Rashman and Hartley 2002). However, despitethis work, relatively little attention has beenpaid to the means by which public service orga-nizations create, transfer, share and applyknowledge. This paper aims to identify thebarriers to and opportunities for knowledgetransfer and application in public organizations,because ‘the literature around implementingand evaluating knowledge management in thepublic sector is negligible’ (Bate and Robert2002, 655), though some recent work hasstarted to identify important avenues for furtherresearch (Ferlie et al. 2005; Greenhalgh et al.2004; Hartley and Rashman 2007; Rashmanand Hartley 2002).

In contrast to private organizations, wherethe relationship between knowledge absorptionand its advantage to ‘the firm’ is well estab-lished, government policy initiatives for thereform of public organizations have largelyfailed to promote knowledge creation. The UKGovernment’s drive for the ‘modernization’andimprovement in public services has resulted ina plethora of research around performance,assessment and improvement (Gray et al. 2005;Martin 2005). However, the improvementapproach – and consequently associated research– has largely focused upon audit and inspectionto build capacity and raise performance. Auditand inspection are approaches based on verticalpressures, in the form of top-down, centralgovernment-identified practices, to developimprovement (Rashman and Radnor 2005).In addition, the current government has alsopromoted an approach to service improvementthrough self-improvement, based on the volun-tary, lateral (i.e. between organizations) sharingof good practices between organizations atthe local level (Rashman and Hartley 2002).However, the amount of funding and attentionto lateral learning makes it the ‘poor cousin’of audit and inspection (Hartley and Downe2007), though empirical research has shownthat learning approaches can be instrumentalin tackling improvement (Greenhalgh et al.2004).

Methodology and Descriptive Analysisof the Reviewed Literature

The review was informed by this theoreticalcontext and public policy agenda. We turn todescribe the systematic review methodology.Systematic reviews in the social sciences arerelatively new (Greenhalgh et al. 2004; Pitt-away et al. 2004; Tranfield et al. 2002). Themethod was first developed in the medical sci-ences as part of the search for a better evidencebase for policy-making and for clinical prac-tice (Tranfield et al. 2003). They have beenused in a range of health, social care and edu-cational fields in order to synthesize research inan orderly and transparent way (e.g. Boaz et al.1999; Davies et al. 2000; Tranfield et al.2002).

We adopted some but not all of the elementsof the orthodox methodology of systematicreview in the management field (Tranfieldet al. 2003). These include a commitment tomake the literature review replicable, scientificand transparent (Tranfield et al. 2003), andestablishing a number of steps to frame theenquiry and present the results. However, ouremphasis is not on the quantitative analysis ofarticles (except where this is directly useful tothe elucidation of concepts and frameworks),but rather to provide conceptual clarity, eluci-dation of frameworks and typologies usefulfor public service organizations, and the iden-tification of areas where knowledge is stilllacking. We treat the material gained from thesystematic review as a set of concepts, ques-tions and issues which are of interest toacademics, policy-makers and practitioners. Inthis sense, our approach builds on a conceptualsynthesis (Nutley et al. 2002), though withfuller coverage of the literatures, and also usingdata extraction sheets (used in systematicreviews) in order to make the sources of mate-rial and their evaluation transparent.

The reason for taking this particular approachin relation to organizational learning and know-ledge is that these fields of research lack para-digmatic consensus. There is a wide varietyof ways in which the concepts of learning,



knowledge and capacity are defined and used inthe literature, as well as a range of ways inwhich they are researched, so it would be pre-mature to quantify papers.

The review procedure is summarized inFigure 1. The search strategy aimed, as far as

possible, to eliminate bias and be widespreadby using a database search, cross-referencingbetween researchers and applying agreedinclusion criteria at each stage. The reviewprocess was iterative, moving through a numberof stages. First, 14 seminal papers in the field

Figure 1. Summary of systematic review process.

December 2009


of organizational learning and knowledge, asrecommended by an expert colleague, werereviewed. This initial investigation helped toestablish the focus for the following stages. Atthis point and later, and in common with othersystematic reviews focused on public services(e.g. Greenhalgh et al. 2004), we found thatstudies from public service organizations weresparse. The review was extended to includeliterature from all sectors.

A key tool in the search process was thedatabase search. The database used was Web ofScience, consistent with other reviews in thepublic management field (e.g. Boyne 2003)and because it has a wide coverage of organi-zation studies and public sector journals. Basedupon a review of the initial 14 papers, theresearch team limited the search period to1990–2005, with exceptions for notable textsthat pre-date 1990. This period was selectedbecause the explosion of interest in recentyears, as noted by Bapuji and Crossan (2004),has resulted in the majority of relevant litera-ture on organizational learning and knowledgebeing written during this period. Some addi-tional literature post-2005 is used, but this is onan ad hoc basis. The search covered peer-reviewed articles written in English.

In addition to the database searching, searcheswere conducted across 17 key management,public management and organizational learningjournals, over the same time period, includingAcademy of Management Journal and PublicAdministration and Administrative ScienceQuarterly. The search terms applied across thekey journals were: ‘organi?ation* learning’;‘organi?ation* knowledge’; ‘inter organi?ation*learning’; ‘knowledge management’; and ‘know-ledge transfer’. Additionally, citations weretracked from the initial 14 sources used in thescoping stage to gather further references.

The database searches, plus key journalsearches and citation tracking resulted in 435initial references. Standards for inclusion wereset, and three researchers independently assessedand then cross-referenced judgements on thepapers, based on reading the 435 abstracts.These standards included a requirement for

the theory and empirical data to be clear, and sopurely descriptive papers were rejected. A pro-portion of papers on the learning organizationand implementation of learning fell into thislatter category and were therefore excluded. Forpapers to be included, they had to address orga-nizational learning, organizational knowledgeor inter-organizational learning (not learningexclusively at the level of the individual). Inaddition, prescriptive papers providing unsub-stantiated and/or normative advice on how tobecome a learning organization; and papersaddressing learning across individual profes-sions (e.g. medicine) were also excluded.Papers related to public organizations were pri-oritized over those in specialized industrial andmanufacturing settings.

At this stage, 167 papers were put forward tothe next stage in the process, having beenjudged to have fulfilled basic criteria of rele-vance and quality on the basis of the abstract.Data extraction sheets (available on request)were designed as a template for the full readingof papers and application of inclusion criteria.They included: details of the publication; aimsof the research; research design; definitions ofkey terms; relevance to the public organiza-tional context; key themes derived from theresearch aims; whether the paper was theoreti-cal or empirical; and results and conclusions.The data extraction sheets aided reading, analy-sis and synthesis, and also provided an addi-tional quality control stage. Following the dataextraction process, 131 papers were included inthe systematic review. Excluded papers usuallycame from a specialized field of private organi-zations (such as the mining industry) or lackedeither a strong conceptual or empirical basis(such as prescriptive papers on organizationallearning). This paper presents an analysis of thereview of literature on organizational learningand knowledge. We have excluded analysis oforganizational capacity, which was part of theoriginal review, for reasons of space.

We suggest that there are advantages of thereview method as a sequence of stages com-bining conceptual synthesis and more orthodoxmethods, where the literature sought is sparse



and/or diverse. The iterative process permittedredefinition of review strategy and criteria, andthe use of data extraction sheets to analyse fullpapers increased consistency and transparencyin the stages of selection, appraisal and synthesis.We recognize that limitations include judgmentregarding relevance assessment and a necessarilyinterpretative element in the thematic analysis.

Of the 131 papers included in the review, themajority of the theory and literature on organi-zational learning and knowledge is locatedwithin the private sector and tends to be domi-nated by North American authors (as noted byBapuji and Crossan 2004; Easterby-Smith andLyles 2005). Just over 22% (n = 29) are relatedonly to the public sector, compared with over46% (n = 61) related to the private sector only(the remainder are either both, do not specifyor are related to the third sector). Of the empiri-cal research, 65% explores private organiza-tions. Twenty-nine per cent of the papers arebased upon Canadian and North Americanstudies (both empirical and conceptual), whileapproximately 24% are based upon studiesfrom the UK (both empirical and conceptual).Approximately 60% are empirical and 40%theoretical.

This suggests that the literature is dominatedby the private sector and, despite attempts tofocus predominantly on research in public sectororganizations, about twice as many articlesfinally selected drew on the private comparedwith the public sector. The research withinpublic organizations tends to be fragmented, asit relates to diverse institutions and is spreadacross a number of disciplines and journals.

Key Concepts Defined

This paper examines and distinguishes betweenthe concepts of organizational learning andorganizational knowledge. There is a profusionof definitions of these concepts, each of whichmay illuminate different features of learningand knowledge (Chiva and Alegre 2005).Easterby-Smith et al. (1998) depict this varietyas signifying two endemic problems in the fieldof organizational learning: confusion and over-

simplification. Confusion derives from appli-cation of numerous disciplines, definitionsand diversity of perspectives, yet there is alsoa risk of over-simplification when conceptsare transferred between disciplines withoutauthors being aware of the original underlyingassumptions. Therefore, it is important to beclear about the definitions and how they arebeing used.

A number of reviews and critiques identifycornerstone publications (e.g. Easterby-Smithand Lyles 2005; Prange 1999). Foundationalworks are acknowledged here to indicate thesignificance and extent of the field but aretouched on lightly, as the paper’s main purposeis to consider their relevance to public organi-zations specifically. Easterby-Smith and Lyles(2005, 7) propose a historical taxonomy ofmajor sources on organizational learning andknowledge: classic works, foundational worksand popularizing works.

We note the influence of four classic works:Dewey (1916) on the experiential and sociallearning perspective; Polanyi (1958) on discus-sion about the tacit and explicit nature of orga-nizational knowledge; Penrose (1959) on theimportance of knowledge as an organizationalresource; and Hayek’s (1945) economicsperspective.

Cyert and March’s (1963) general theory oforganizational learning and organizational rou-tines; and Nelson and Winter’s (1982) empha-sis on tacit knowing are among foundationalworks. Popularizing influences include:Argyris and Schön’s (1978) theory of actionwhich distinguishes the defensive, non-learningroutines of Model 1 behaviour from that ofModel 2 individual, collective and ‘double-loop learning’; and Nonaka’s (1994) contribu-tion to debates about knowledge conversion oftacit and explicit knowledge. Senge (1990) hasinfluenced both academics and practitioners,developing the notion of organizations assystems and popularizing the concept of thelearning organization. Historical underpin-nings include Kolb and Fry’s (1975) approachto experiential learning, the learning cycle,and Kolb’s typology of individual learning

December 2009


styles (1984), which have been applied tonumerous disciplines, organizational contextsand professions.

Organizational Learning

Organizational learning can be described as aprocess of individual and shared thought andaction in an organizational context, involvingcognitive (DeFillippi and Ornstein 2005;Dodgson 1993), social (Gherardi et al. 1998;Lave andWenger 1991), behavioural (Cyert andMarch 1963) and technical elements (Huber1991; Levitt and March 1988). The social per-spective (Gherardi 2006; Gherardi et al. 1998;Lave and Wenger 1991) treats learning asinseparable from social interaction and engage-ment in work practice. Rather than focusingprimarily on cognitive processes, the social per-spective places emphasis on social interactionwithin a specific organizational context. In anintegrated view of learning, working and inno-vation, practitioners may form ‘communities ofpractice’ (Brown and Duguid 1991), which canbe the sources of collective knowledge stimu-lating organizational change.

From the review evidence, the social approachappears to be of particular relevance to publicservice organizations, especially those whichare professionally dominated, where individu-als learn through collaborative action (Bate andRobert 2002), to build professional judgementand make sense of their experiences at work(Bate and Robert 2002; Nutley and Davies2001). The public services are often characterizedby professional communities that span organi-zational boundaries. These communities have aspecific context and increasingly work throughnew organizational forms, such as networks andpartnerships, which aim to increase intra- andinter-organizational collaborative and partner-ship arrangements (Bate and Robert 2002;Knight and Pye 2005; Newman et al. 2000).Professional boundaries may present practicaldifficulties to sharing knowledge, resulting infragmentation of knowledge and a preferencefor knowledge derived from local sources(Nicolini et al. 2007).

The implementation of organizationallearning is a dominant theme that illustrateskey practical aspects of organizational learn-ing and knowledge processes and practices, asimplied by Gorelick (2005, 384): ‘If organ-izational learning is seen as a continuouslearning cycle, then an organization can notarrive at a point in time when it declares itself“a learning organization”, a noun or an endstate. On the other hand, any organizationcan identify with being in a constant state oflearning and declare itself to be practicingorganizational learning.’

Some authors who take a social view of learn-ing warn that its highly situated nature maymake transfer from one context to another pro-blematic or unviable (Gherardi et al. 1998)because learning is rooted in a specific domainand part of the ‘idiosyncratic’ knowledge can-not be transferred. The paucity of longitudinalresearch, and the variety of contexts of empiri-cal studies, from Italian construction sites(Gherardi et al. 1998) to prosthetics services inthe English health sector (Knight and Pye2005), has led to a fragmented debate, centredon theoretical conceptualizations and opera-tional features, with less emphasis on manage-rial implications and the means to recognize,enact and measure organizational learning.

Organizational Knowledge

In contrast to the social perspective of organ-izational learning, the literature on organizationalknowledge derives mainly (but not exclusively)within economics, strategic management andinformation management fields, influenced bysystems theory and computer science (Chivaand Alegre 2005; Easterby-Smith and Lyles2005). Many authors (Lam 2000; Nonaka 1994)share the view of knowledge as constituted ofdifferent forms; based in part on perception andexperience and in part as a resource that can beaggregated, codified and stored. Knowledge isseen as a key component of organizationallearning, cognitive, experiential, context-specificand relational (Chiva and Alegre 2005; Nonaka1994). Organizational learning depends on



the interaction between different forms ofknowledge.

It is important to distinguish between data,information and knowledge because they differin the extent to which individual processing andjudgement are involved (Hartley and Rashman2007; Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001). Data arean ordered sequence of given items; informa-tion is a context-based arrangement of items;knowledge depends upon the ability to drawdistinctions and exercise judgement, based onan appreciation of context or theory or both(Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001, 979).

There is a distinction between the posses-sion of explicit knowledge that can be codifiedand stored, and tacit knowledge, which cannot(Nonaka 1994; Polanyi 1967). These twodimensions of knowledge are two sides of thesame coin, and tacit knowledge underliesexplicit knowledge (Tsoukas 2005).

Some influential authors have argued thatknowledge creation is more dynamic than orga-nizational learning because it includes thedevelopment of the organization’s cognitiveresources (Nonaka 1994). Critics of this approachsuggest that there is a risk that knowledgecreation and knowledge management tend toplace emphasis on leverage of knowledge as aresource or asset and less emphasis on the pro-cesses of organizational learning that involveputting knowledge into action (Scarbroughand Swan 2005; Vera and Crossan 2005).

An alternative approach has a focus on know-ing as an active process that individuals andorganizations do, rather than a static definitionof knowledge as a resource that organizationspossess (Blackler 1995). Social constructivistviews of knowing and knowledge prevail inpublic service literature, linking knowledge todynamic, collective activity, practice andperformance (Bate and Robert 2002; Hartleyand Allison 2002; Newell et al. 2003; Vinceand Saleem 2004). Definitions tend to focuson knowledge management, with a particularemphasis on the institutionalization of knowl-edge in service-specific practices and processes(Haynes 2005) and the extent of the tacit natureof knowledge within a complex organizational

structure, where collective professional judge-ment may form the basis of a unique decision.

Boundaries and overlaps between organiza-tional learning and organizational knowledgeare contested: some authors (e.g. Nonaka andTakeuchi 1995) argue that organizational learn-ing and knowledge creation are different con-cepts, but increasingly learning has been definedin terms of knowledge processes. Authorsstudying knowledge acquisition, creation andapplication are ‘likely to be studying the samephenomena from different perspectives and withthe use of different terminology’ (Vera andCrossan 2005, 137). The literatures on the learn-ing organization and knowledge managementhave in common prescriptive approaches andtools for the effective management of learningand knowledge in organizations. Easterby-Smith and Lyles (2005, 3) distinguish organiza-tional learning that is focused on the processesof learning in organizations from organizationalknowledge, that is the ‘content’ of learning thatthe organizations possess, but acknowledge thelimitations of over-simplification.

Integrative Perspectives onOrganizational Learning andOrganizational Knowledge

An integration of the two approaches ishelpful because it helps to reduce confusionand encourages multiple perspectives betweenoverlapping fields (Vera and Crossan 2005).Chiva and Alegre (2005) identify two broadperspectives across the organizational learningand knowledge literature: the cognitive-possession perspective; and the social-processperspective (cf. Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001).These authors suggest that future research willneed to explore learning and knowing in rela-tion to working practices and factors that havebeen avoided or neglected within the cognitiveapproach, such as participation, power, organi-zational politics, conflict and collaboration.These research areas are of particular impor-tance for public organizations, where activity isinherently participative, political and contested(Hartley and Skelcher 2008; Haynes 2005).

December 2009


Defining ‘Organization’

The paper draws attention to the problematicconcept of the organization with regard to bothlearning and knowledge. Easterby-Smith et al.(1999, 17) note that the ‘magic juxtaposition ofthe terms ‘organization’ and ‘learning’ stresses,rather than hides, the need for clear and elabo-rate conceptualizations of what is meant byboth ‘organizations’ and ‘learning’’.

This is a view echoed by Tsoukas andVladimirou (2001), who argue for an under-standing of a theory of knowledge and a theoryof organization to understand organizationalknowledge. Many of the papers that wereviewed failed to give a full or clear definitionof either organization or knowledge. There is amarked tendency in the literature to assumeby default that the organization is a privatecompany (e.g. Argote et al. 2003; Beeby andBooth 2000; Child and Faulkner 1998). Theterms ‘organization’, ‘firm’ and ‘company’ areoften used interchangeably, with the two latterterms predominantly used. Furthermore, thereare few papers which define or describe eitherthe specific organizational context or type oforganization being studied. The dominantassumption that an organization is likely tobe a private sector firm has an impact on thedefinition of organizational learning andknowledge, because the characteristics oforganizational learning and knowledge tend tobe framed by private sector, market-orientedconceptualizations.

This is particularly ironic, as many defini-tions emphasize that organizational knowledgeand learning is context-specific (e.g. Bateand Robert 2002; Jensen 2005; Newell et al.2003) and therefore the context of the organ-ization becomes relevant to the understandingof knowledge. Nutley and Davies (2001)identify organizational and institutional fea-tures, such as managing power and politics,managing conflict between organizationalgoals and national policy direction and ten-sions between professional development andcollective, organizational, learning that areoften absent from organizational definitions

and descriptions but they argue that these arecentral to understanding public service organi-zations. They suggest a distinction betweenstandardized and bespoke services and pro-ducts, arguing for the need for conceptualmodels which take account of embeddednessin a political context (impacted by centraliza-tion of policy goals and strategies, politicalintervention, and tensions between profes-sional values and public demands to providea rapid and error-free service), and thereforethe contested and political nature of theservice processes and outcomes. The evidencereviewed showed that, compared with writerson public organizations (Ferdinand 2004;Haynes 2005; Knoepfel and Kissling-Naf1998) many writers tend to simplify (Lam2000) or ignore these features by makingassumptions that the organization is a privatefirm (e.g. Argote et al. 2003; Baum and Berta1999; Bierly and Chakrabarti 1996).

In summarizing this section, the reviewfinds: that there are multiple definitions oforganizational learning and knowledge; par-ticular relevance of social perspectives topublic organizations; and a lack of definition oforganizational domain and context. Founda-tional works generally describe the importanceof learning and knowledge for the ‘firm’, andmake few references to public organizations. Itis difficult to identify equivalent ‘foundationalworks’ within the public sector literature. Thefields of organizational learning and organiza-tional knowledge have developed different focibut study overlapping phenomena from differ-ent perspectives. This paper argues for concep-tualizations that clearly define the specificorganizational context of learning and knowl-edge and the extent to which generalizationscan be made from one organizational contextto another.

Location of Learning and Levels ofAnalysis

Learning can take place at individual (Holmqvist2004), group (Brown and Duguid 1991, 2001;Lave and Wenger 1991), organizational (Finger



and Brand 1999; Jerez-Gomez et al. 2005) andinter-organizational (Araujo 1998; Childand Faulkner 1998; Dyer and Nobeoka 2000)or population (of organizations) (Miner andMezias 1996) levels. Organizationally, groups,rather than individuals, are often the locus ofactivity, formally with specific goals and time-frames (Bate and Robert 2002; Edmondson2002; Scribner et al. 1999; Storck and Hill2000) and informally, through networks andcommunities of practice (Brown and Duguid1991, 2001; Lave and Wenger 1991).

Debates regarding the ontological relationshipbetween the concepts of individual and organ-izational learning have attracted considerableattention.According to individual learning theory,individuals learn cognitively in organizations,but there is no clear relationship between theindividual and the organization (Elkjaer 2005).Some authors reject learning and knowledge atthe organizational level, asserting that organi-zations do not learn. The existence of localinteractions and routines does not constitute alarger social system (Stacey 2005). Organiza-tional routines are reified, where only cumula-tive patterns of interactions exist (Stacey 2003,2005) and explanations of how individual levelsof learning lead to organizational levels oflearning appear to be absent or unsubstantiated(Prange 1999). The use of appropriate culturalmetaphors can aid collective communication oftacit knowledge and render organizationallearning ‘visible’ to researchers (Yanow 2000),but some forms of metaphorical reasoning havelimited explanatory power in organizationallearning research (Prange 1999).

Other scholars argue that learning andknowledge can exist at the aggregate, adaptive(Cyert and March 1963), interpretive (Daft andWeick 1984) and social level of the organization(Brown and Duguid 1991; Lave and Wenger1991). In social learning theory, learners aresocial beings; their activities are part of organi-zational practice within a context which ishistorically and culturally produced (Elkjaer2005). Organizational leaders scan the environ-ment for productive knowledge (Jensen 2005)to enhance the performance of the whole

organization (Rashman and Hartley 2002);and knowledge-management relationships,rules and tools become generalized throughpractical action in specific contexts (Tsoukasand Vladimirou 2001). The development ofinformation-technology-based knowledge repos-itories and learning systems in organizationssupports this second perspective (Vera andCrossan 2005). Only effective organizationscan translate individual learning into organiza-tional learning (Kim 1998). Learning at groupand sub-unit levels assists the institutionalizationof shared meanings in organizational systemsand routines (Inkpen and Crossan 1995).

Linked to assumptions about the concept ofan organization, the concept of an organiza-tional group, team or unit (and its interactionwith other units) may have a different meaningin a public service than in the private sector.For example, departmental and service-levelboundaries were found to present structuraland cultural barriers to learning and knowledgeflow in local authorities (Newman et al. 2000)and health services (Bate and Robert 2002).Finger and Brand (1999) suggest that appropri-ate structural arrangements in organizations,including small, interactive units and decen-tralized hierarchies are essential to individual,collective and organizational capacity to learn.

Individual roles may be more complex anddifficult than they are theorized from research inthe private sector. Within the public sector, indi-viduals may belong to a multitude of shiftinggroups and networks, many of which do notnecessarily work as a team or operate as acommunity of practice as envisaged in theliterature (Bate and Robert 2002). It may beimportant to clarify on what basis an individualis present in a learning network – as an individuallearner, as a representative of an organizationalunit, as a representative of an organization, asa learner about networks and even as an electedpolitical representative or as a citizen.

Analysis at the population level of organiza-tions is important for public services, as it islargely at the population or institutional levelthat government policy intends to create change(Newell et al. 2003; Vince and Broussine 2000),

December 2009


and public value is often determined at this levelnot only at the organizational unit level(Benington and Moore in press; Hartley 2008;Moore 2005). Knowledge-sharing and learningin public services has tended to focus on thelevel of a specific service or professional group:an increased focus on organizational andcollective learning may be particularly helpfulfor creating, sharing and maintaining goodpractice (Vince and Broussine 2000). Indi-vidual public service organizations are config-ured differently from each other, so there maybe limited generalizability within as well asbetween sectors. For example, research intonetworks in the health sector found that learningand change were contingent upon local contex-tual and organizational features in specific ser-vices including in those of prosthetics (Knightand Pye 2005), cataract diagnosis and surgery(Newell et al. 2003), and services for olderpeople (Gabbay et al. 2003). ‘Analysis ofcontext is not just about whether a factorenables or constrains change, but how factorsinteract and compound or reduce one another’simpact upon the way learning episodesdevelop’ (Knight and Pye 2005, 379).

A relatively small number of articles (Araujo1998; Inkpen and Crossan 1995; Daft and Weick1984; Lane and Lubatkin 1998; Newell et al.2003; Reagans and McEvily 2003) addresslinkage between organizations as a means ofcreating relationships which provide access tonew knowledge for individuals and groups,which can be distinguished from a network,a specific organizational form without formalauthority structures (Knight 2002). Theselinkages can be strategic or emergent (Powellet al. 1996), formal or informal. An importantcharacteristic of inter-organizational learningrelationships is whether an organization learnsfrom or with a learning partner (Inkpen 2002).This is important to consider, because learningthrough collaboration incorporates the potentialto accumulate experience and knowledge abouthow to manage alliances. Organizations canlearn together as a network, rather than onlysharing existing knowledge between members(Knight 2002). Newell et al. (2003) argue that

knowledge transfer and knowledge creation arelinked processes and that transfer cannot existindependently of creation.

Learning relationships include strategic alli-ances (Child and Faulkner 1998; Inkpen andDinur 1998), ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ organiza-tions (Lane and Lubatkin 1998; Hartley andRashman 2007; Newell et al. 2003), networksof an organization and its partners, such asToyota’s supplier network (Dyer and Nobeoka2000), an organization providing technicalconsultancy services for a network of customerorganizations (Reagans and McEvily 2003),and public sector partners (Bate and Robert2002).

The concept of networks of organizations isan important one in the public sector, where‘networked governance’ is creating additionalvertical (i.e. between levels of government)as well as lateral cross-boundary networks(Benington 2001; Newman 2001) and wherecross-organizational professional relationshipswhich offer potential for learning are becom-ing both more common and more complex(Hartley and Allison 2002; Haynes 2005).Knoepfel and Kissling-Naf (1998) describepublic policy networks as political problem-solving structures and define them as an arenain which collective learning processes occur(see also Benington 2001). In comparison withcompetitive, market-based drivers of strategicalliances, networks and joint ventures in theprivate sector (Child and Faulkner 1998), inpublic organizations central government policyis an important catalyst for the co-creation ofknowledge, the co-production of public ser-vices and the construction of new inter-agencyorganizational and governance structures(Audit Commission 2007; Benington 2001;Hartley and Benington 2006).

A number of authors (e.g. Inkpen 2002;Hartley andAllison 2002; Hartley and Rashman2007; Mowery et al. 1996; Rashman and Hartley2002) argue that inter-organizational learningrequires further conceptual development and em-pirical research to create a richer appreciationof how alliance learning happens; to increasecross-fertilization of ideas from different



research streams; and to address significantgaps, including the nature of alliances, and theprocesses, impact and measurement of learningbetween organizations. Bate and Robert (2002)report a number of problems and challenges inpractice for collaborative knowledge transferbetween health-care organizations, highlight-ing the need for local customization ofapproaches that draw on, but modify, as appro-priate private sector lessons in general in theidentification of organizational impedimentsspecific to the health service. Research intonetworks of local authorities (Hartley andAllison 2002; Rashman and Radnor 2005) sug-gests that comparison with other organizationsin the sector is an important element of learningin public service organizations. The reviewfound a sparse stream of literature on inter-organizational learning (e.g. Child andFaulkner 1998; Hartley and Allison 2002;Inkpen 1996; Knight and Pye 2005).

We summarize this section by suggestingthat there is a need for theoretical approachesthat address the external as well as internalcontexts of organizations. Particular policy,political, professional and historical features ofpublic organizations shape important aspectsof their external contexts for learning andchange (Pettigrew et al. 1992) and their struc-tural and governance arrangements. Theirinternal variety of sub-units and structures mayspan organizational boundaries and types.Debates continue regarding the integration ofindividual learning with organizational learn-ing: we suggest further empirical research isrequired, in a variety of organizational settings.

The public sector literature suggests thatnew governance and service-delivery struc-tures in public organizations drive knowledgecreation differently from private alliances,networks and joint ventures. We argue that par-ticular combinations of external contextual andinternal contextual factors may lead to sector-specific learning drivers, goals, needs, struc-tures, systems, practices and outcomes. Withinthe public sector, individuals may belong to amultitude of shifting groups and networks,many of which do not necessarily work as a

team or operate as a community of practice asenvisaged in the private sector literature. It isimportant to describe the context-specificfactors for a level of learning and to describethe nature of different participating organiza-tions, as well as the network structure itself. Inthe next section, we explore processes of orga-nizational learning and knowledge transfer.

Processes of Organizational andInter-organizational Learning

The review found a wide variety of perspectiveson organizational and inter-organizationallearning processes.Arange of literature followsHuber’s (1991) knowledge and informationprocess categories, such as López et al.’s(2005) four stage approach: knowledge acqui-sition; distribution through the organization;interpretation; and embedding. Organizationallearning is a multi-level, dynamic processincorporating cognitive, behavioural and socialelements (Crossan et al. 1999; Nonaka 1994;Zollo and Winter 2002). Some authors (e.g.Crossan and Berdrow 2003) identify conceptu-ally distinct ‘stages’ of learning processes, butothers argue for an interactive and continuousprocess, placing emphasis on the recursive,dynamic characteristics of organizational learn-ing or knowledge creation (e.g. Nonaka 1994).Social processes are integral to Nonaka (1994),Crossan et al. (1999) and Zollo and Winter’s(2002) models which emphasize individual andshared understanding at a group level throughinteraction and the embedding of knowledge atan organizational level. Among dynamic andrecursive models, Zollo and Winter (2002)propose a ‘knowledge evolution cycle’; Weick(1996) stresses continuous renewal and conti-nuity in organizational learning processes; andKnoepfel and Kissling-Naf (1998) develop theconcept of a ‘learning path’ to describe collec-tive learning stages and patterns.

We identified the following four commonprocesses (see Figure 2) of organizational learn-ing that extend across different levels of analysis:individual intuition, thinking and reflection;development of shared understandings and

December 2009


perspectives at a group level through com-munication and interaction; diffusion throughorganizations via organizational routines, com-munication and interaction; application, institu-tionalization and embedding of learning throughorganizational routines (e.g. Crossan et al. 1999;Inkpen and Crossan 1995; Knoepfel andKissling-Naf 1998; Soo et al. 2002; Thomaset al. 2001; Zollo and Winter 2002). In Figure 2,we provide examples of five authors and theirrespective terms to describe the four commonorganizational learning processes of: individualperspectives, shared understanding, diffusionand embedding in the organization. Of the fiveauthors, only one (Vince and Broussine 2000) isdrawn from the public organization literature.

In addition, the review indicates the existenceof the two following inter-organizational learn-ing processes: identification of the need forinter-organizational learning and recognition ofnew knowledge (Lane and Lubatkin 1998); andinter-organizational interaction by individualsand/or groups across organizational boundaries(Bate and Robert 2002; Hardy et al. 2003;Lorenzoni and Lipparini 1999; Newell et al.2003).

Much of the knowledge-managementliterature explores learning as a process ofcapturing knowledge and extracting it from itscontext (Soo et al. 2002; Thomas et al. 2001),but others (Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001)argue that an understanding of context isintrinsic to the value and use of knowledge.Dixon (2000) argues that processes of intra-organizational learning need to be aligned withthe type of knowledge to be transferred and thespecific organizational goals. In a single casestudy in a UK hospital, Newell et al. (2003)found that knowledge was not easily trans-ferred from one context to another, because thelocal processes of knowledge generation wereintegral to changing practice. These authorsargue that ‘process knowledge’ about relationalaspects of collaborative knowledge creation isan essential part of the knowledge to be createdand transferred.

Some theorists argue for the importance ofembedding individual learning at an organiza-tional level. In a public sector context, Brodtrick(1998) suggests that three processes form thecore of organizational learning: encouraging andembedding individual learning and embedding

Figure 2. Common organizational learning processes across levels of analysis

Examples ofauthors

Common organizational learning processes

Individualperspective Shared understanding Diffusion

Embedding inorganization

Nonaka 1994 Reflects on tacitknowledge

Knowledge creationin teams

Middle managers actas catalysts

Structure andconditions forknowledge creation

Crossan et al.1999

Intuiting ideas andtacit knowledge

Interpreting ideas andintegrating in context

Feed forward(exploration) andfeedback(exploitation)

Routines, rules,diagnostic systems

Vince andBroussine 2000

Reflection andreflexivity

Working groupscreate and reframemeaning

Inter-level dialogueaddresses emotional,relational andpolitical tensions

Address systemictensions, politicaland cultural barriers

Zollo andWinter 2002

Generate variationof ideas

Internal selection Diffusion, variationand spatial replication

Retention androutinization

López et al.2005

Knowledgeacquisition

Interpretation toachieve sharedunderstanding

Distribution amongorganizationalmembers

Organizationalmemory, systemsand rules



the results of this into organizational culture andpractices; reviewing and modifying organiza-tional assumptions and shared mental models toensure environmental fit; and engaging in learn-ing partnerships with citizens. Public organiza-tions face particular challenges to combineexplicit systems and protocols with profes-sional creativity in team-based professionalwork (Haynes 2005). Newell et al. (2003)found that shifts in relative power and roleboundaries were critical to sharing knowledgebetween professional groups.

Rather than organizational learning beingthought of as a movement from individualthrough to collective levels, a number of writerssee the movement in reverse: collective learningdriving individual learning. Knoepfel andKissling-Naf (1998), together with Ghosh(2004) and Blackler (1995) perceive social andinteractive processes as shaping group and indi-vidual cognitive perspectives. Bate and Robert(2002) and Newell et al. (2003) describe inter-action as the basis of simultaneous knowledgeconstruction and transfer. Interaction can developshared meaning and perspectives, which is thebasis of knowledge. The emphasis in thesepapers (e.g. Newell et al. 2003; Nicolini andMeznar 1995) is on the socially constructedand context-specific nature of knowledge and

learning. This perspective contends that knowl-edge is developed through interaction andwithin practice, and any attempts to move itfrom the context of this interaction will beproblematic.

In summary, processes of organizationaland inter-organizational learning can be seenas dynamic, social and contextual. The require-ment to assimilate and embed new knowledge,as outlined in a number of the papers address-ing processes of organizational learning andknowledge, may be influenced by organiza-tional culture and practices, as well as sharedmeanings and routines. Relational and politicalfactors and the need to operate within com-plex networks and structures can impedeknowledge-sharing in public organizations.

Factors Influencing Organizational andInter-organizational Learning,Knowledge and Knowledge Transfer

In this section, we present a framework (Figure 3)to guide the exploration of the literature onfactors influencing, first, organizational learningand knowledge, and second, inter-organizationallearning and knowledge transfer. This reviewseeks to illuminate themes emergent from alarge and diverse literature through a conceptual

Figure 3. Organizational and inter-organizational learning (Source: adapted from Hartley and Rashman2007).

December 2009


model. The model is intended as an evidence-based aid to describe and examine the factorsinfluencing intra- and inter-organizationalknowledge transfer. It is not prescriptive andwill require further research to test the model ina wider range of contexts.

The framework for sharing of knowledgebetween units within an organization andbetween organizations depends on four sets offactors (Hartley and Rashman 2007): featuresof the source organization (or unit); features ofthe recipient organization (or unit); the charac-teristics of the relationship between organiza-tions (or units); and the environmental context.The focus of the model is on knowledge-sharing, either intra-organizational betweenunits (individuals, groups) within a singleorganization or inter-organizational betweenunits (individuals, groups, organizations)across organizational boundaries. The frame-work does not address how units learn togetherfrom other sources, but does suggest that learn-ing between the units, through communities ofinteraction, can be reciprocal.

This model is distinctive compared withother models of organizational learning. Itemphasizes the two-way process of knowledge-sharing and the importance of the interactionbetween the recipient, source and relationshipfactors in this knowledge transfer (Cross andSproull 2004). Thus, it pays attention both to thesource and the recipient organization. In addi-tion, the model critically places emphasis on thecontext of learning and inter-organizationallearning, and identifies the need to understandboth the immediate context of the relationshipbetween the source and the recipient and thewider policy and practice context.

Context

Outer context and policy and practice contextThe environment in which an organization isoperating can have a profound influence on thelearning process (Fiol and Lyles 1985; Lam2000; Miller 1996). External factors such asthe wider societal and the institutional contextmay impact in specific ways upon the learning

process and organizational ability to mobilizeknowledge. For example, regulatory policiesand financial incentives in Swiss public policyareas influenced the forms of learning andpotential for learning, as well as the conditionsunder which learning could lead to successfulpolicy outcomes (Knoepfel and Kissling-Naf1998). Industry conditions, such as aggressiveinternational competition or ‘serious attack’can influence the viability and imperatives ofknowledge exchange in international joint ven-tures (Inkpen and Dinur 1998). The publicsector faces a number of particular pressuresinfluencing the need for and processes of orga-nizational learning (Finger and Brand 1999).These pressures include: local, national andinternational competition from the private (andother sectors) for service delivery and increas-ing public expectations of services.

Organizational learning can take place withinorganizational practice, interaction and com-munication, and can be generated through ‘on-the-job’ activities (Brown and Duguid 1991,2001; Gherardi et al. 1998). The difficulty fororganizations and individuals of providing acontext for knowledge transfer is underlinedin Bate and Robert’s (2002) study of NHSCollaboratives. These cross-agency groupsdesigned to share good practice are made up ofpeople who do not necessarily work togetherregularly or form part of a professional commu-nity and do not operate in contexts in whichknowledge is transferred or generatedsmoothly. Bate and Robert (2002) argue that intheir current form, these Collaboratives are onlycapable of sharing explicit knowledge becausethey focus on replication of evidence-basedknowledge, rather than actionable knowledge,and its adaptation to local contexts. Taking abroader perspective of the public sector, Haynes(2005) contends that, in order for inter-organizational learning to occur, a partnershipapproach is needed between managers, profes-sionals and service users. However, this partner-ship approach is arguably undermined byincreasing competition among public serviceproviders and a reduction in trust, accompaniedby increasing defensiveness (Nutley and



Davies 2001). Another contextual barrier tointer-organizational learning and knowledgetransfer is the existence of professional barriersand assumptions that can block new ideas(Newell et al. 2003).

Cultural features of the internal organiza-tional context, such as belief systems (Fiol andLyles 1985), trust (Araujo 1998), leadershipand internal relationships (Reagans andMcEvily 2003) may influence organizationalcapacity to learn. Learning may take placethrough networks external to the organizationor beyond everyday practice, and the charac-teristics of each context will influence organi-zational learning. The assimilation andembedding of new learning may be hindered orstimulated by continuously changing and attimes conflicting political priorities andagendas, locally, regionally and nationally(Coopey and Burgoyne 2000).

Embeddedness. Knowledge partly resides inthe shared systems, routines and norms of orga-nizations, where it may be embedded as eithertacit or explicit knowledge (Newell et al.2002). Social, cultural processes of organiza-tional learning proposed by Brown and Duguid(1991), Tsai (2002), Popper and Lipshitz(2000), Lee and Cole (2003), Gherardi et al.(1998) and Araujo (1998) interpret organiza-tional learning as a process of both informaland formal interactions between individuals,which are context-specific and embedded.Klimecki and Lassleben (1998, 409) suggestthat knowledge is shared ‘reality constructions’held by members of the organization. Thesewriters suggest that knowledge can rarely beconceptualized as an objective resource, inde-pendent from actors or action, and emphasizethat knowledge is not a product of communica-tion alone but is the ‘interplay of actions, lan-guage, technologies, social structures, implicitand explicit rules, history and institutions’(Blackler 1993, 882). Few writers describe thespecific knowledge features and their interplaywithin a single embedded context.

The concept of ‘knowledge as abstract,disembodied, individual and formal’ is rejected

as ‘unrealistic’ by Blackler (1995, 1034). Thisview contrasts with writers who suggest thattacit knowledge embedded in the contextwithin which it is developed and developedthrough practice and experience can some-times be captured, codified, ‘de-embedded’and managed by organizations (Thomas et al.2001; Zollo and Winter 2002). Warningsagainst generalization and the limitation thatnot all knowledge is capable of abstraction andbeing made explicit (Gherardi et al. 1998)draw attention to the inherent characteristics oftacit knowledge, located within the habits andtraditions of an occupational community andthe specific, institutional setting. A relativelysmall number of papers (Bate and Robert2002; Brown and Duguid 1991; Gherardi et al.1998; Knight and Pye 2005; Newell et al.2003; Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001) describethe distinctive, operational features of specificlocal contexts that contribute to the embeddingof knowledge. The review finds a contrastbetween such conceptualizations of learning ashighly embedded in practical activity withoutan equivalent emphasis in the empiricalevidence.

In addition, this review questions the extentto which generalizations about organizationallearning and knowledge can be ‘de-embedded’from private sector organizations and appliedto public organizations. A number of authorssuggest that the organizational form determinesits capability of mobilizing collective knowledge(Blackler 1995; Lam 2000), typically identifyingpublic organizations as professional bureauc-racies in Mintzberg’s (1979) terms. Such dis-tinctions suggest that the particular institutionalnorms, structures and routines within whichknowledge is embedded are likely to influencethe degree to which there is transferabilityof knowledge to other types of organization.Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001) argue thatorganizations constitute a particular domainof action, a concrete setting, a set of abstractrules and a historical community, where appli-cation of knowledge depends upon historicallyevolved collective understandings. Such context-specific, embedded features appear likely to

December 2009


inhibit the transferability of knowledge betweensectors, as well as inhibiting theoretical gen-eralization about learning and knowledge.

Relationship Characteristics

Networks and interaction. Networks based onhigh levels of reciprocity and interaction havebeen found to support organizational learningprocesses (Chen 2004; Inkpen 1996; Knight2002; Mann et al. 2004; Rashman and Hartley2002; Reagans and McEvily 2003; Scott 2000).Strong ties, characterized by mutual trust,regular communication, commitment and inter-personal connections, help to share knowledgeand create shared perspectives (Granovetter1973; Reagans and McEvily 2003). However,highly consensual networks can actually impedelearning where they fail to challenge sharedviews and common assumptions, potentiallyleading to actions with negative consequences.Janis and Mann (1977) identified this problemin groups, labelling it ‘groupthink’: whengroups that work well together and share similarperspectives fail to challenge shared views. Dif-ferent network relationships can serve differentpurposes (Cross and Sproull 2004; Granovetter1973); weak networks can be used for problem-solving and stronger relationships can provide abasis for problem reformulation.

The nature of formal and informal network-ing in the public and private sectors may influ-ence organizational learning. The relativelylow level of competition between public sectororganizations may facilitate the developmentof strong network ties, as an aid to intra- andinter-organizational learning. However, thevaried and localized nature of public organiza-tions may act as a barrier to reciprocal learn-ing, suggesting that differences (perceivedor otherwise) in organizational hierarchies,structures and cultures may impede sharedunderstanding and strong relationships.Brodtrick (1998) argues that public sectororganizations need to develop interactive learn-ing partnerships with citizens and customerswith the aim of the partnership being to achieveresults that are valued by civil society.

The wider the range of networks that anorganization is engaged in, the greater access itwill have to appropriate and use knowledge solong as it can recognize and exploit those rela-tionships and that knowledge. The quality ofthese relationships is also an important factor.Emergent, informal social networks, wherelearning is not separate from the practice ofwork activity, may have greater tie strength,trust, challenge and knowledge transfer thanformalized, strategic groups (Bate and Robert2002; Reagans and McEvily 2003). These areimportant considerations when establishinglearning networks. There is disagreement asto whether mechanisms, routines and systemscan be purposely designed to facilitate inter-organizational learning from experts (Thomaset al. 2001) or management ‘top down’ orwhether, instead, once a network has been estab-lished, its goals and strategy should emerge(Bate and Robert 2002; Storck and Hill 2000).

A degree of similarity of source and recipi-ent units and a common knowledge base arelikely to aid knowledge transfer (Darr andKurtzberg 2000; Mowery et al. 1996; Reagansand McEvily 2003). Similarities can improvecommunication and also facilitate the identifi-cation and application of useful knowledge.Additionally, similarities can encourage unitsto engage with one another more readily thanvery distinct organizations can unless there iswill and intention to learn from differences.Learning between dissimilar organizationscan, however, be stimulating as long as thelearning is reflective about underlying pro-cesses and outcomes (Downe et al. 2004).

Power, politics and leadership. Power andpolitics, both formal (managing relationsbetween levels of government and with those informal roles including elected representatives)and informal (forms of control, influence andauthority), are important considerations whenexamining learning within the public sector.Few authors include a political dimensionin their definition of organizational learning –in other words, the influence of key actors andinterests to direct or constrain outcomes. In a



seminal paper, Coopey and Burgoyne (2000)argue that a consideration of organizationalpolitics helps to widen understanding of orga-nizational learning processes. The authorssuggest that open political systems that recog-nize the existence and role of politics in organi-zations can support organizational learning.Formal political activity in organizations cansupport learning by carving out a ‘space’ forpeople to put forward and share ideas and canencourage multiple viewpoints, which in turncan aid knowledge creation by widening therange of knowledge sources and increasingdiversity (Coopey and Burgoyne 2000; Levittand March 1988; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).Power based upon formal authority can providestability and continuity; influence can facilitateaccess to resources and expertise (Lawrenceet al. 2005). Dekker and Hansen (2004) high-light the complexity of organizational learningin the public sector and argue that it can beeither facilitated or inhibited by organizationalpolitical processes that reveal underlying sys-temic causes of problems, minimize ambiguity,avoid blame, achieve broad political consensus,and institutionalize changes into formal rules,operating procedures and information systems.

Power and influence can also lead to thesuppression of learning and knowledge; thoseorganizational members that hold valuableknowledge may manipulate or withhold theirknowledge, impeding knowledge-sharing(Foucault 1972; Geiger et al. 2005). Power canadversely and/or positively affect organizationallearning. Lawrence et al. (2005) argue that theconnection between organizational politicsand organizational learning has been under-conceptualized. They theorize a set of specificconnections between political strategies andprocesses of organizational learning, and assertthat any theory of organizational learning willbe incomplete without an understanding ofpolitical dynamics within the organization.

The public sector has both formal (democratic)and informal politics, which may support orhinder organizational and inter-organizationallearning. The role of elected politicians and theinterests they serve are an important influence

on learning and innovation in the local environ-ment (Hartley and Benington 2006; Newmanet al. 2000; Rashman and Hartley 2002) as wellas in regional and national politics. Theseelements of democracy add dimensions ofinfluence to those of informal organizationalpolitics. The role that influential individuals orlearning champions play in driving change in anorganization is potentially more complex in thepublic sector where both elected politicians andmanagers may be involved in such roles. Anunderstanding of features that are central topublic organizations may help to elucidateaspects of power and politics in all organiza-tional sectors, including the role of elected poli-ticians and government policy; an increasingemphasis on partnerships between public,private and the third sector for planning, deliv-ery and funding of services; citizen and stake-holder engagement; and tensions betweenprofessional disciplines.

Leaders can play an important role in bring-ing people together, creating an environmentconducive to learning and championing organi-zational knowledge creation (Brodtrick 1998;Lawrence et al. 2005; Nonaka 1994; Storck andHill 2000), but the review found surprisinglylittle evidence on this topic, and it is both impor-tant and interesting to note this gap.

Recipient and Source Characteristics

Organizational culture, structures and systems.An organizational culture that encouragestrust, cross-boundary networking and risk-taking can support organizational learning(Weick 1996). A learning culture can encour-age the questioning of established assump-tions; challenge and critique (without blame)the work of others; and share knowledge andresources (Brodtrick 1998; Naot et al. 2004;Storck and Hill 2000). A climate of trustbetween learning partners is advocated by anumber of writers: Inkpen 1996; Rashman andHartley 2002; Reagans and McEvily 2003;Sanderson 2001; Scott 2000; however, as dis-cussed below, the nature of a learning part-nership has different motivations, meanings

December 2009


and goals in the context of private and publicsectors.

In their studies of the UK public sector,Vince and Broussine (2000) and Vince andSaleem (2004) suggest that the existence of ablame culture negatively impacts upon com-munication and reflection processes. Brodtrick(1998) argues that the regulatory nature of thepublic sector’s service delivery constrains it byhaving to provide certain services and productsand therefore leaves it with less flexibility thanthe private sector to respond to change: unlikea private sector organization a public sectororganization cannot exit a ‘market’.

Strong subcultures within an organization ora network of organizations can impede learningacross and between communities (Pak andSnell 2003; Rashman and Hartley 2002). Dif-ferences in norms, values, technical languageand fundamental concepts between individuals,groups or organizations can act as barriers or asa stimulus to knowledge-sharing and collectivelearning, depending on, inter alia, receptivity,capacity, capability and openness of communi-cation of knowledge partners (Child andFaulkner 1998). Sub-cultures, explicit institu-tional and bureaucratic procedures and rewards,and implicit practices may exert particularinfluence on knowledge development in publicservice organizations (Haynes 2005). Bringingtogether individuals from a variety of profes-sional backgrounds may be important to gener-ate new knowledge (Hartley and Allison 2002)but may present obstacles to an appreciationof relevance and receptiveness (Newell et al.2003). An understanding of the emotions(including fear of blame) and political pro-cesses involved in learning can lead to a betterunderstanding of organizational learning(Vince and Saleem 2004).

Organizational design, structure and systemscan support or inhibit knowledge creation andparticipation in learning in all types of organi-zation, but we argue for greater attention toparticularity of institutional, structural andsystemic features. Decentralized, informalhierarchies – either intra-organizational or inter-organizational – are suggested to best support

certain forms of explorative learning andknowledge creation (Finger and Brand 1999;Nonaka 1994; Tsai 2002) but relational, hierar-chical power structures can impede knowledgecreation and transfer in local government(Vince 2000) and health services (Newell et al.2003).

Learning systems need to be intentionallygeared to the scale and urgency of organiza-tional learning required and are constrainedby the prior knowledge and capacity of theorganization (Kim 1998). Institutionalmechanisms and processes, for example, post-project reviews, can be used to develop andstore collective knowledge in order that it canbe shared and utilized (Popper and Lipshitz2000). Formal structures can assist with thecapture and application of explicit knowledge,and they can also provide a framework withinwhich more informal, boundary-crossing,social mechanisms of organizational learningcan take place. However, some authors notethat structural and professional boundariescan also inhibit the natural development ofsocial learning and sense-making in publiccontexts such as health services (Nicoliniet al. 2007), and this suggests that moreresearch is needed to examine the influenceson learning systems.

Absorptive capacity is an important, multi-level concept which contributes to understand-ing of organizational knowledge assimilation:‘the ability to recognize the value of new exter-nal knowledge, assimilate it, and apply it tocommercial ends’ (Van den Bosch et al. 2005,280). In common with organizational learningand knowledge in general, there has been aprivate sector focus on absorptive capacity.The concept might be usefully applied topublic organizational contexts, such as reform,‘turnaround’ (Turner and Whiteman 2006)and inter-organizational knowledge-sharing(Hartley and Rashman 2007) where there hasbeen relatively sparse research on organiza-tional capacity (Rashman 2007).

Organizations vary in their capacity to absorband adapt knowledge. Considerable preparationand effort are required to absorb knowledge



effectively from external sources. A visionary,entrepreneurial, management coalition iscrucial for investing in and directing focusedknowledge acquisition (Kim 1998). Features ofHyundai’s transformation from ‘a mere assem-bler of Ford models to designer and exporter ofits own cars’(Kim 1998, 517) include long-termplanning, construction of creative crises,intense effort to acquire and assimilate knowl-edge, and risk-taking. The preparatory phasebefore implementing computerized designsystems involved 14 months internalizingexplicit knowledge. Acquisition of tacit knowl-edge included poaching of experienced staff,observation of facilities in operation abroad for18 months and intensive social interaction.Public organizations are required to transformthemselves (Audit Commission 2007), butknowledge exploration is given comparativelylittle emphasis and resources (Cabinet Office2006). Research into different sectors can helpto identify features and mechanisms of absorp-tive capacity that are distinctive and sector-specific, and those that may be transferable.

Experiential learning. Experiential learningcan lead to a reduction in costs as an organiza-tion develops expertise and develops practicesto reduce mistakes; speeds up and improves itsprocesses; and is better able to predict and planfor changes. However, knowledge and expertisemay dissipate over time if there are inadequatemechanisms to embed learning in technology,standard operating procedures, methods ofcommunication and shared understanding aboutwork processes (Argote et al. 1990). One formof experiential learning is the organizational‘stockpiling’ of knowledge and expertise throughexperience (Argote et al. 1990; Zollo andWinter 2002). Another form is the consciousdrawing upon and consideration of existingknowledge to inform the development of newknowledge (Zollo and Winter 2002). An alter-native explanation is that experiential knowl-edge has two dimensions: task-based, whichis related to learning how to do the task betterand relationship-based, related to how to workwith colleagues better (Reagans et al. 2005).

In the public sector, individuals have a highdegree of professional, task-based knowledgewhich they apply in developing relationship-based, collective knowledge (Haynes 2005).

The tacit, subjective nature of certain aspectsof professional knowledge makes building up a‘stockpile’ of knowledge problematic. Newellet al. (2003) found that new work practicecould not be transferred from one hospitalcontext to another where it was applicable,because the proposed recipients had notengaged in a sense-making process, in whichthey had taken the perspectives of others.

Experience can impede organizational learn-ing if routines lead to repetitive, rather thanadaptive, activities. Repetition can aid theembedding of organizational knowledge, butsuccess in particular activities can lead to acycle of positive reinforcement that may inhibitchange and learning (Brown and Duguid 2001;DiBella et al. 1996) where there is a need torespond to changes in the environment.

Knowledge intentions and strategies. Anumber of papers address the issue of intention-ality in organizational learning and how itshapes the alignment of learning with organiza-tional purpose. Intentionality (Miller 1996)refers to the extent to which individuals andtheir institutions are autonomous or constrainedin their cognition and action; dependent uponthe extent to which action is constrained, typesof learning vary in their approach, scope, out-come and context. Thomas et al. (2001) suggestthat strategic learning involves organizationsconsciously and actively pursuing learningopportunities. Kim (1998) identifies the impor-tance of crises for driving organizational learn-ing, which may originate externally (by stateintervention, changes in citizen demands,markets or technology) or internally, to focusintensive efforts on learning and innovation.

Araujo (1998), Balbastre and Moreno-Luzon(2003), DiBella et al. (1996) and Nicolini andMeznar (1995) suggest that organizationallearning is an ongoing process inherent inorganizational life (Balbastre and Moreno-Luzon 2003, 372). ‘Knowing and learning as

December 2009


inevitably implicated in the everyday of collec-tive practices ... rather than a special practiceassociated with major change episodes ordiscontinuous innovation processes’ (Araujo1998, 318).

This perspective contrasts with the conceptthat learning must be initiated and planned asthe only way in which learning occurs; rather,these writers (e.g. Araujo 1998; DiBella et al.1996; Nicolini and Meznar 1995) depict learn-ing as emerging through routine organizationalactivities. The contrast between planned andemergent perspectives has important implica-tions for public policy, where learning is oftenassumed to be related to top-down initiatives.

In a rapidly changing and competitive envi-ronment, the deliberate acquisition of knowl-edge has been argued as the key to competitiveadvantage for the ‘firm’ (Grant 1996), but thisreview seeks to explain the equivalent motiva-tional force driving knowledge acquisition forthe public organization. The central relation-ship between the creation of knowledge andachievement of competitive advantage sug-gests that it is the intentional accumulation andleverage of knowledge that explains differ-ences in organizational performance (Cohenand Levinthal 1990; Grant 1996; Vera andCrossan 2005). The basis of ‘advantage’ to ‘thefirm’ is the internal embedding of knowledgeand the prevention of knowledge transfer tocompetitors (Argote and Ingram 2000): evenmotivation for co-operative learning relation-ships is usually economic, aimed at overcom-ing rivals in chosen markets (Child andFaulkner 1998). In contrast, public organiza-tions have been encouraged to share and spreadinnovation and to recreate excellent practice atpopulation level (such as local government)or geographically between public agencies(Hartley and Benington 2006).

Public organizations are often concernedwith the production of intangible, relationalservices and outcomes, and are dependent ontrusted, collaborative relationships (Hartleyand Benington 2006). Organizations may bebiased towards knowledge exploitation ratherthan exploration (Crossan and Berdrow 2003;

Levinthal and March 1993) because it is per-ceived as ‘tried and tested’ and less risky thanexploration. The policy context for publicservice organizations is an important influencebecause, on the one hand, openness to sharingpractice from external sources is encouragedbut, on the other hand, risk and learning fromfailure are discouraged (Newman et al. 2000).For example, a context of competitivenessbetween public sector organizations or ofpunitive measures for failure may inhibitknowledge-sharing, transparency and risk-taking (see Vince and Saleem 2004).

It has been argued that learning and knowl-edge are only likely to lead to better performancewhen they are ‘aligned with the firm’s strategy’(Vera and Crossan 2005, 137). In contrast tobusiness strategy, where managers seek to alignorganizational goals with a vision of requiredknowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) toremain competitive (Fiol and Lyles 1985),defining strategy in public organizations may becomplex and problematic. In the public sector,organizations are subject to both the same pres-sures to learn as private sector organizations,such as competitive pressures, globalizationand technological advances, but there existadditional specific constraints and pressuresthat create a more complex context (Finger andBrand 1999; Hartley and Skelcher 2008).Factors include: the range of catalysts and rolesof politicians, policy-makers, managers, pro-fessionals, partner agencies and users (Hartley2006); the formal political environment withtensions between demands of political actors,citizens and stakeholders; bureaucratization;public and administrative law (Finger and Brand1999); public policy and reform (Rashman andRadnor 2005); professional boundaries (Miller1996; Newell et al. 2003) and professionaltraining and development (Nutley and Davies2001); and the nature of the public managementrole (Vince 2000). Public service organizationsmust pursue multiple and potentially conflict-ing strategic objectives (Finger and Brand1999; Moore 1995). Such complexity in theorganizational environment suggests that thereare many specific, distinctive and interacting



aspects (Bate and Robert 2002) that will deter-mine the type of knowledge that will be impor-tant for the achievement of performanceoutcomes in public services.

Overall, learning is embedded in the socialprocess through which knowledge is createdand developed. Context-specific, distinctiveand interacting factors influence the purpose,type of knowledge and knowledge utilizationthat will be important for the achievement ofperformance outcomes in public services andfor knowledge-sharing between public organi-zations. Networks between individuals andgroups, built upon reciprocity, trust and face-to-face interaction, can support organizationallearning. The quality of the relationshipsimpacts upon what knowledge is shared anddeveloped in the relationships. Organizationaldesign, structure, values, culture and sub-cultures can support or inhibit knowledge cre-ation and participation in learning in both thesource and recipient organization. There is aneed for further empirical research into theirinter-relationships and contingencies and toexplore whether significant differences existbetween private and public sector organiza-tions. Organizational learning is an inherentlypolitical process, and both formal and informalpolitics can both support and/or underminelearning efforts. Power, control, influence andpolitics are relatively under-developed con-cepts in organizational knowledge and learningperspectives.

Outcomes and Measures ofOrganizational Learning

Within the literature, measures of the outcomesof organizational learning are generally absent,and this is perhaps rather surprising. Outcomesof learning need to be defined before measure-ment can take place of the impact of learningon improved performance (Easterby-Smithet al. 1998). Different conceptions of organiza-tional learning influence the definition of orga-nizational learning outcomes.

Time-lags between learning, implementedchanges and performance outcomes make

empirical evaluations of the efficacy of learn-ing very difficult (Inkpen and Crossan 1995).The ‘improvement bias’ in the literature leadsto an assumption that learning is always a posi-tive thing; however, it is important to recog-nize that organizations can learn the ‘wrong’things or inefficiently expend resources onlearning disproportionately useless knowledge(Huysman 1999; Miner and Mezias 1996), ormay be myopic (Levinthal and March 1993) orhistory dependent (Baum and Berta 1999).

There is an underlying assumption by somemanagement theorists that cooperation inlearning alliances between organizational part-ners will lead to performance improvementsand longer term to strengthening ‘competitiveadvantage’ (see Child and Faulkner 1998).However, research into joint ventures has iden-tified that the assumption is difficult to confirm(Inkpen 2002). Public sector improvementsare judged not by the market and marketmechanisms, but by the addition of publicvalue (Benington and Moore in press; Moore1995) or the contribution to the public sphere(Marquand 2004), and these outcomes can bedifficult to measure, and also in any caseare subject to contested values and debates(Hoggett 2006; Moore 1995). There is a lack ofmeasures of the effectiveness of organizationaland inter-organizational learning processes aswell as outcomes, both generally across differ-ent sectors and specifically in relation to thepublic sector.

The review found that there is an absenceof evidence to either support or refute a linkbetween organizational learning and per-formance, despite a number of assertions orassumptions about the link between learningand performance. Authors describe a range ofoutcomes, which include changes in individualbehaviour, such as better task performance,changes in systems, such as logistics, andchanges in organizational performance, suchas financial results (López et al. 2005). Veryfew studies provide empirical evidence oflearning outcomes or have determined whetheran organization’s learning processes pro-duced the desired results. There is a need for

December 2009


development of methods for measuring learn-ing processes, learning outcomes and theirimpact on organizational performance. Someknowledge-management strategies appear tobe more effective than others in creating learn-ing (e.g. the creation of a strategic relationshipbetween the organizational partners) andfeatures of the context, such as industryconditions and managerial commitment, caninfluence learning outcomes (Inkpen and Dinur1998). Some measures that have been devel-oped in the private sector appear to have valuein highly specialized contexts and may not beapplicable to the public service sector, Forexample, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) usedResearch and Development (R&D) spendingas a proxy measure to assess a firm’s willing-ness to invest in absorptive capacity, but publicservice organizations are less likely to have aformal R&D unit, and service-based R&D is,in any case, often more diffuse than in manu-facturing. The aim of producing ‘public value’outcomes (Moore 1995) leads to complex defi-nitions of performance for public organizations(Boyne 2003).

The development of measures that help toestablish this relationship would benefit orga-nizations in all sectors. It is important for theevaluation of UK policy initiatives intended tocreate service improvement that they developmeasures that can assess the effectiveness ofprocesses and outcomes of learning on an orga-nization’s structures, systems, products, ser-vices or processes. We argue for researchmethods that take into account the medium- tolong-term public policy horizons and thevariety of stakeholders.

Conclusions

From the research of organizational and inter-organizational learning and knowledge in thepublic sector, there are conclusions for publicorganizations in particular and for the field ingeneral. The commercial value of organizationallearning and knowledge to scholars and busi-ness strategists in private organizations is wellestablished as critical to long-term business

success (Child and Faulkner 1998; Dixon2000; Easterby-Smith et al. 1999; Nonaka andTakeuchi 1995). Managing knowledge is ‘argu-ably the single most important challenge beingfaced by many kinds of organizations acrossboth the private and the public sectors’ (Newellet al. 2002, 2). In contrast to private organiza-tions, the argument for why organizationallearning is critical to success in public organi-zations is under-developed (Finger and Brand1999; Nutley and Davies 2001), as is the con-tribution to the field of research into publicorganizations.

First, defining ‘organization’ is an importantelement of definitions of organizational learn-ing and knowledge, given that the literatureshows how context-specific much learning isand the need for sectoral explanations, theoryand empirical research.

Second, the review argues that public orga-nizations constitute an important, distinctivecontext for the study of organizational learningand knowledge. Sector-specific features withinthe public sector are likely to influence organi-zational and inter-organizational learningprocesses, and further research is needed tounderstand the processes and contingencieswhich shape the nature and extent of organiza-tional learning. Public organizations are sus-ceptible to externally generated crises (Kim1998) from national and regional governmentpolicy and political shifts, and the demands andexpectations of stakeholders, partner agenciesand local citizens. In contrast to private organi-zations, the public sector is constrained bypolitical goals and tensions (Vince and Brous-sine 2000), and different pressures to directresources to drive intensive learning (Hartleyand Benington 2006). The persistent scale andpace of reform has led to radical changes inleadership, internal organizational culture andcomplex structural arrangements, which makepublic organizations of importance in organiza-tion and management research.

Third, an important contribution of this reviewis that there continues to be an over-relianceon the private sector as the principal source oftheoretical understanding and empirical research.



Among papers reviewed, there was a tendencyto assume by default that the context was theprivate sector firm, and that ‘the firm’ issynonymous with ‘organization’. This includedpapers that argued that contextual features ofknowledge are important (e.g. Araujo 1998;Argote et al. 2003; Brown and Duguid 2001).Foundational and classic works in the fieldrarely consider the public organizationaldomain.

Among limitations of the private sector lit-erature, it often assumes contextual factorsthat apply to ‘the firm’, and ignores thosefactors that apply in particular to public orga-nizations. We argue that contextualized theory,empirical research and design of research(Pettigrew 2005) are essential to understand,analyse and support organizational andinter-organizational learning and knowledgecreation. There are few papers which makeexplicit the external social, economic andpolitical organizational context or type oforganization being studied. These are amongimportant factors in all types of organization,and we argue that increased attention to theexternal and internal organizational contextwould increase the potential for understandingthe specific situated practice, and its transfer-ability to other sectors.

In particular, we suggest that there is a needfor robust theory that takes into account thecomplex nature of public service organiza-tions’ institutional, governance and structuralcontext. The limitations of generalizabilitywere often within sector, ‘in other companies’(Edmondson 2002, 144), rather than extendedto other sectors. ‘Concepts derived from theprivate sector should not be mechanisticallytrundled across the sectoral divide’ (Pettigrewet al. 1992, 5) but a broader range of concep-tual approaches to organizational learning andknowledge needs to be developed and applied.

In contrast, the review found that contextualfactors were often given relatively greaterprominence in research in public service orga-nizations. Such authors placed emphasis upon:specificity of external environmental and inter-nal cultural pressures in the Swiss postal

service (Finger and Brand 1999); publicservice reform in local government (Rashmanand Hartley 2002); improvement and innova-tory practice in the National Health Service(Bate and Robert 2002; Nutley and Davies2001); and political processes (Vince andSaleem 2004). Public organizations face addi-tional pressures to those on private companies,requiring judgement to take into account thecomplex knowledge requirements of nationalpolicy priorities, as well as formal political andcontested national and local needs. The publicorganizational literature appears to be drawnmainly from research into health care servicesand local government, which reflects consider-able interest from within the medical sciences(Nicolini et al. 2007) and production of theliterature from within healthcare (Nicoliniet al. 2007) and local government sectors(Rashman and Hartley 2002). However, sec-toral knowledge is also fragmented by strongprofessional boundaries.

Fourth, there are some similarities across allorganizational sectors, and also variationwithin them, but we suggest that the differ-ences between them require conceptualizationand research. All types of organization facechallenges of globalization, new technology,market pressures, innovation and survival. Themotivations, purpose, barriers, opportunities,mechanisms and outcomes of organizationallearning and inter-organizational learning arelikely to differ between sectors. The deliberateacquisition and leverage of knowledge assetsfrom external sources is an established, entre-preneurial activity in private organizations(Child and Faulkner 1998; Kim 1998), whereasknowledge creation in public organizations ismore likely to be a factor of policy implemen-tation, rather than an explicit goal (Bate andRobert 2002). External policy drivers of publicservice reform tend to drive the sharing ofknowledge between organizations, to drive up‘industry’ standards and performance, ratherthan protect knowledge and generate commer-cial or competitive advantage for individualorganizations. Further research into under-developed themes, such as the role of power

December 2009


and formal and informal politics, leadershipand the measurement of organizational learn-ing outcomes, would increase understanding inboth sectors.

Fifth, the dynamic models proposed bysome writers involve a relatively linear processof learning incorporating individual, group andorganizational levels. Envisaging how thesemodels can incorporate the complexities ofmultiple partnerships, vertical pressures,democratic structures and complex decision-making are an important challenge for futureresearchers.

The review has identified a number ofknowledge gaps on which further research intoorganizational learning and knowledge shouldbe focused. From a synthesis of the literature,we have developed a dynamic, evidence-basedmodel of organizational learning within andacross organizational boundaries that dependson four sets of factors: features of the sourceorganization; features of the recipient organi-zation; the characteristics of the relationshipbetween organizations; and the environmentalcontext. There is a need for investigation of theinfluence of external contextual features on allfour sets of factors in the model, with particularemphasis on testing the model in a range ofexternal contexts across the private, public andvoluntary sectors.

Note

1 Address for correspondence: Dr LyndsayRashman, Manchester Business School, Universityof Manchester M15 6PB, UK. Tel: (44)1612756361; e-mail: [email protected]

References

Araujo, L. (1998). Knowing and learning as network-ing. Management Learning, 29, 317–336.

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer:a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organi-zation Behavior and Human Decision Processes,82(1), 150–169.

Argote, L., Beckman, S.L. and Epple, D. (1990). Thepersistence and transfer of learning in industrial set-tings. Management Science, 36, 140–154.

Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R. (2003). Man-aging knowledge in organizations: an integrativeframework and review of emerging themes. Man-agement Science, 49, 571–582.

Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978). OrganizationalLearning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Audit Commission. (2007). The Transition from CPAto CAA. London: Audit Commission.

Balbastre, F. and Moreno-Luzon, M. (2003). Self-assessment application and learning in organiza-tions: a special reference to the ontologicaldimension. Total Quality Management & BusinessExcellence, 14(3), 367–388.

Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M. (2004). From questions toanswers: reviewing organizational learningresearch. Management Learning, 35, 397–417.

Bate, P. and Robert, G. (2002). Knowledge manage-ment and communities of practice in the privatesector: lessons for modernizing the National HealthService in England and Wales. Public Administra-tion, 80, 643–663.

Baum, J.A.C. and Berta, W.B. (1999). Sources,dynamics, and speed: a longitudinal behaviouralsimulation of inter-organizational and population-level learning. Advances in Strategic Management,16, 155–184.

Beeby, M. and Booth, C. (2000). Networks and inter-organizational learning: a critical review. TheLearning Organization, 7(2), 75–88.

Benington, J. (2000). Editorial: modernisation andimprovement of government and public services?Public Money and Management, 20(2), 3–8.

Benington, J. (2001). Partnership as networked gover-nance? Legitimation, innovation, problem-solvingand co-ordination. In Geddes, M. and Benington, J.(eds), Local Partnerships and Social Exclusion inthe European Union. London: Routledge, pp. 198–219.

Benington, J. and Moore, M. (in press). Debating andDelivering Public Value. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Bierly, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (1996). Generic knowl-edge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry.Strategic Management Journal, 17, 123–135.

Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the theory oforganizations – organizations as activity systemsand the reframing of management. Journal ofManagement Studies, 30, 863–884.

Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work andorganizations: an overview and interpretation. Orga-nization Studies, 16, 1021–1046.



Boaz, A., Hayden, C. and Bernard, M. (1999). Atti-tudes and Aspirations of Older People: Reviews ofthe Literature. Social Security Report no 101.Leeds: Department of Social Security.

Boyne, G.A. (2003). Sources of public serviceimprovement: a critical review and research agenda.Journal of Public Administration Research andTheory, 13, 367–394.

Bozeman, B. and Bretschneider, S. (1994). The ‘Pub-licness Puzzle’ in organization theory: a test of alter-native explanations of differences between publicand private organizations. Journal of Public Admin-istration Research and Theory, 4, 197–224.

Brodtrick, O. (1998). Organizational learning andinnovation: tools for revitalizing public services.International Review of Administrative Sciences,64(1), 83–96.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizationallearning and communities of practice: toward aunified view of working, learning and innovation.Organization Science, 2, 40–57.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge andorganization: a social-practice perspective. Organi-zation Science, 12, 198–213.

Cabinet Office. (2006). The UK Government’sApproach to Public Service Reform – A DiscussionPaper. London: Cabinet Office.

Chen, C.J. (2004). The effects of knowledge attribute,alliance characteristics, and absorptive capacity onknowledge transfer performance. R&D Manage-ment, 34(3), 311–321.

Child and Faulkner. (1998). Strategies ofCo-operation: Managing Alliances, Networks andJoint Ventures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2005). Organizational learn-ing and organizational knowledge – towards theintegration of two approaches. Management Learn-ing, 36, 49–68.

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptivecapacity: a new perspective on learning and innova-tion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

Coopey, J. and Burgoyne, J. (2000). Politics and orga-nizational learning. Journal of Management Studies,37, 869–885.

Cross, R. and Sproull, L. (2004). More than an answer:information relationships for actionable knowledge.Organization Science, 15, 446–462.

Crossan, M. and Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizationallearning and strategic renewal. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 24, 1087–1105.

Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R. (1999). Anorganizational learning framework: from intuition

to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24,522–537.

Cyert, R. and March, J. (1963). A Behavioural Theoryof the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Daft, R. and Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model oforganizations as interpretation systems. Academy ofManagement Review, 3, 546–563.

Darr, E. and Kurtzberg, T. (2000). An investigation ofpartner similarity dimensions on knowledge trans-fer. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 82(1), 28–44.

Davies, H., Nutley, S. and Smith, P. (2000). Whatworks? The role of evidence in public sector policyand practice. Public Money and Management, 19(1),3–5.

DeFillippi, R. and Ornstein, S. (2005). Psychologicalperspectives underlying theories of organizationallearning. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A.(eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning andKnowledge Management. Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 19–37.

Dekker, S. and Hansen, D. (2004). Learning under pre-ssure: the effects of politicization on organizationallearning in public bureaucracies. Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 14, 211–230.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: AnIntroduction to the Philosophy of Education.London: Collier-Macmillan.

DiBella, A.J., Nevis, E.C. and Gould, J.M. (1996).Understanding organizational learning capability.Journal of Management Studies, 33, 361–379.

Dixon, N. (2000). Common Knowledge: How Compa-nies Thrive by Sharing What They Know. Boston,MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning – Areview of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14,375–394.

Downe, J., Rashman, L. and Hartley, J. (2004). Evalu-ating the extent of inter-organisational learning andchange through the Beacon Council Scheme. PublicManagement Review, 6, 531–553.

Dyer, J. and Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and man-aging a high-performance knowledge-sharingnetwork: the Toyota case. Strategic ManagementJournal, 21, 345–367.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (eds) (2005).Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowl-edge Management. Oxford: Blackwell.

Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L.(1999). Organizational Learning and the LearningOrganization: Developments in Theory and in Prac-tice. London: Sage.

December 2009


Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R. and Gherardi, S. (1998).Organizational learning: diverging communities ofpractice? Management Learning, 29, 259–272.

Edmondson, A. (2002). The local and variegatednature of learning in organizations: a group-levelperspective. Organization Science, 13, 128–146.

Elkjaer, B. (2005). Social learning theory: learning asparticipation in social processes. In Easterby-Smith,M. and Lyles, M. (eds), Handbook of Organiza-tional Learning And Knowledge Management.Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 38–53.

Ferdinand, J. (2004). Power, politics and state inter-vention in organizational learning. ManagementLearning, 35, 435–450.

Ferlie, E., FitzGerald, L., Wood, M. and Hawkins, C.(2005). The non-spread of innovations: the mediat-ing role of professional groups. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 48, 117–134.

Ferlie, E., Hartley, J. and Martin, S. (2003). Changingpublic service organizations: current perspectivesand future prospects. British Journal of Manage-ment, 14, S1–S14.

Finger and Brand. (1999). The concept of the ‘Learn-ing Organization’ applied to the transformation ofthe public sector: conceptual contributions fortheory development in organizational learning andthe learning organization. In Easterby-Smith, M.,Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (eds), Developments inTheory and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 130–156.

Fiol, C. and Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning.Academy of Management Review, 10, 803–813.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge.London: Tavistock.

Gabbay, J., le May, A., Jefferson, H., Webb, D., Love-lock, R., Powell, J. and Lathlean, J. (2003). A casestudy of knowledge management in multi-agencyconsumer-informed ‘communities of practice’:implications for evidence-based policy developmentin health and social services. Health: An Interdisci-plinary Journal for the Social Study of Health,Illness and Medicine, 7, 283–310.

Geiger, D., Koch, J. and Kliesch, M. (2005). Power/knowledge structures in organizations – betweenenabling and suppression. Paper presented at theSixth European Conference on OrganizationalKnowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Boston.

Gherardi, S. (2006). Organizational Knowledge: TheTexture of Workplace Learning. Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998). Towarda social understanding of how people learn in orga-nizations. Management Learning, 29, 273–297.

Ghosh, A. (2004). Learning in strategic alliances: aVygotskian perspective. The Learning Organization,11, 302–311.

Gorelick, C. (2005). Organizational learning vs thelearning organization: a conversation with a practi-tioner. The Learning Organization, 12, 383–388.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties.American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory ofthe firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122 (Special issue).

Gray, A., Hartley, J. and Broadbent, J. (2005). Edito-rial: the state of public management: improvementand innovation. Public Money & Management,25(1), 7–9.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P.and Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovationsin service organizations: systematic review andrecommendations. Millbank Quarterly, 82, 581–620.

Hardy, C., Phillips, N. and Lawrence, T. (2003).Resources, knowledge and influence: the organiza-tional effects of inter-organizational collaboration.Journal of Management Studies, 40, 321–347.

Hartley, J. (2006). Innovation and Its Contribution toImprovement: A Literature Review for Policy-Makers, Policy Advisors, Managers and Academics.London: Communities and Local Government.

Hartley, J. (2008). The innovation landscape for publicservice organizations. In Hartley, J., Skelcher, C.,Donaldson, C. and Wallace, M. (eds), Managing toImprove Public Services. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 197–216.

Hartley, J. and Allison, M. (2002). Good, better, best?Inter-organizational learning in a network of localauthorities. Public Management Review, 4, 101–118.

Hartley, J. and Benington, J. (2006). Copy and paste,or graft and transplant? Knowledge sharing throughinter-organizational networks. Public Money andManagement, 26(2), 101–108.

Hartley, J. and Downe, J. (2007). The Shining Lights?Public service awards as an approach to serviceimprovement. Public Administration, 85, 329–353.

Hartley, J. and Rashman, L. (2007). How is knowledgetransferred between organizations involved inchange? In Wallace, M., Fertig, M. and Schneller, E.(eds), Managing Change in the Public Services.Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 173–192.

Hartley, J. and Skelcher, C. (2008). The agendafor public service improvement. In Hartley, J.,Skelcher, C., Donaldson, C. and Wallace, M. (eds),



Managing to Improve Public Services. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–23.

Hayek, F.A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society.American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

Haynes, P. (2005). New development: the demystifica-tion of knowledge management for public services.Public Money and Management, 25(2), 131–135.

Hoggett, P. (2006). Conflict, ambivalence and the con-tested purpose of public organizations. Human Rela-tions, 59, 175–194.

Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processesof exploitation and exploration within and betweenorganizations: an empirical study of product devel-opment. Organization Science, 15, 70–81.

Huber, G. (1991). Organizational Learning: the con-tributing processes and the literatures. OrganizationScience, 2, 88–115.

Huysman, M. (1999). Balancing biases: a criticalreview of the literature on organizational learning.In Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L.(eds), Organizational Learning and the LearningOrganization: Developments in Theory and Prac-tice. London: Sage, pp. 59–74.

Inkpen, A. (2002). Learning, knowledge managementand strategic alliances: so many studies, so manyunanswered questions. In Contractor, P. andLorange, F. (eds), Co-operative Strategies and Alli-ances. London: Pergamon, pp. 267–289.

Inkpen, A. and Crossan, M. (1995). Believing is seeing– Joint ventures and organization learning. Journalof Management Studies, 32, 595–618.

Inkpen, A. and Dinur, A. (1998). Knowledge manage-ment processes and international joint ventures.Organization Science, 9, 454–468.

Inkpen, A.C. (1996). Creating knowledge through col-laboration. California Management Review, 39(1),123–140.

Janis, I. and Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: APsychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice andCommitment. The Free Press: New York.

Jensen, P.E. (2005). A contextual theory of learningand the learning organization. Knowledge andProcess Management, 12(1), 53–64.

Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning capabil-ity: a proposal of measurement. Journal of BusinessResearch, 58(6), 715–725.

Kelman, S. (2005). Public management needs help.Academy of Management Journal, 48, 967–969.

Kim, L. (1998). Crisis construction and organizationallearning: capability building in catching-up atHyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9, 506–521.

Klimecki, R. and Lassleben, H. (1998). Modes of orga-nizational learning; indications from and empiricalstudy. Management Learning, 29, 405–430.

Knight, L. (2002). Network learning: exploring learn-ing by inter-organizational networks. Human Rela-tions, 55, 427–454.

Knight, L. and Pye, A. (2005). Network learning: anempirically derived model of learning by groups oforganizations. Human Relations, 58, 369–392.

Knoepfel, P. and Kissling-Naf, I. (1998). Social learn-ing in policy networks. Policy and Politics, 26, 343–367.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning; Experienceas the Source of Learning and Development. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D.A. and Fry, R.E. (1975). Toward an appliedtheory of experiential learning. In Cooper, C. (ed.),Theories of Group Processes. New York: JohnWiley.

Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizationallearning and societal institutions: an integratedframework. Organization Studies, 21, 487–513.

Lane, P. and Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptivecapacity and inter-organizational learning. StrategicManagement Journal, 19, 461–477.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning.Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:University of Cambridge Press.

Lawrence, T., Mauws, M., Dyck, D. and Kleysen, F.(2005). The politics of organizational learning: inte-grating power into the 4I framework. Academy ofManagement Review, 30, 1.

Lee, G. and Cole, R. (2003). From a firm-based to acommunity-based model of knowledge creation: thecase of the Linux kernel development. OrganizationScience, 14, 633–649.

Levinthal, D. and March, J. (1993). The myopia oflearning. Strategic Management Journal, 14,95–112 (Special issue).

Levitt, B. and March, J. (1988). Organizational learn-ing. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

López, S., Peón, J. and Ordas, C. (2005). Organiza-tional learning as a determining factor in businessperformance. The Learning Organization, 12, 227–245.

Lorenzoni, G. and Lipparini, A. (1999). The leveragingof interfirm relationships as a distinctive organiza-tional capability: a longitudinal study. StrategicManagement Journal, 20, 317–338.

Lyles, M. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2005). Organiza-tional learning and knowledge management:agendas for future research. Handbook of Organiza-

December 2009


tional Learning and Knowledge Management.Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 639–652.

Mann, P., Pritchard, S. and Mummery, K. (2004). Sup-porting inter-organizational partnerships in thepublic sector. Public Management Review, 6, 417–439.

Marquand, D. (2004). The Decline of the Public. Cam-bridge: Polity Press.

Martin, S. (2005). Public service improvement: cur-rent developments and future research agendas.Local Government Studies, 31, 531–540 (Specialissue).

Miller, D. (1996). A preliminary typology of organiza-tional learning: synthesizing the literature. Journalof Management, 22(3), 485–505.

Miner, A. and Mezias, S. (1996). Ugly duckling nomore: pasts and futures of organizational learningresearch. Organization Science, 7, 88–99.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organisa-tions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Moore, M. (1995). Creating Public Value: StrategicManagement in Government. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Moore, M. (2005). Break-through innovations andcontinuous improvement: two different models ofinnovative processes in the public sector. PublicMoney and Management, 25(1), 43–50.

Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. and Silverman, B.(1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledgetransfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2),77–91.

Naot, Y., Lipshitz, R. and Popper, M. (2004). Discern-ing the quality of organizational learning. Manage-ment Learning, 35, 451–472.

National Statistics (2006). http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pse1206.pdf (accessed February 2007).

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982). An EvolutionaryTheory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan,J. (2002). Managing Knowledge Work. Basingstoke:Palgrave.

Newell, S., Edelman, L., Scarborough, H., Swan, J.and Bresnen, M. (2003). ‘Best Practice’ develop-ment and transfer in the NHS: the importance ofprocess as well as product knowledge. Health Ser-vices Management Research, 16(1), 1–12.

Newman, J. (2001). Modernising Governance: NewLabour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.

Newman, J., Raine, J. and Skelcher, C. (2000). Inno-vation and Best Practice in Local Government: AResearch Report. London: DETR.

Nicolini, D. and Meznar, M. (1995). The social con-struction of organizational learning – conceptual andpractical issues in the field. Human Relations, 48,727–746.

Nicolini, D., Powell, J., Conville, P. and Martinez-Solano, L. (2007). Managing knowledge in thehealthcare sector: a review. International Journal ofManagement Reviews, 10, 245–263.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizationalknowledge creation. Organization Science, 5,14–37.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Nutley, S. and Davies, H. (2001). Developing organi-zational learning in the NHS. Medical Education,35(1), 35–42.

Nutley, S., Davies, H. and Walter, I. (2002). Learningfrom the Diffusion of Innovations. Research Unit forResearch Utilisation. St Andrews: University of StAndrews.

Pak, C. and Snell, R. (2003). Programmed,autonomous-formal and spontaneous organizationallearning. British Journal of Management, 14, 275–288.

Penrose, E.T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of theFirm. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pettigrew, A. (2005). The character and significance ofmanagement research on the public services.Academy of Management Journal, 48, 973–977.

Pettigrew, A.M., Ferlie, E. and McKee, L. (1992).Shaping Strategic Change: Making Change inLarge Organizations. London: Sage.

Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D. andNeely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: a sys-tematic review of the evidence. InternationalJournal of Management Reviews, 5, 137–169.

Polanyi, M. (1958). The Study of Man. London: Rou-tledge & Kegan Paul.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension. New York:Anchor Books.

Poole, M., Mansfield, R. and Gould-Williams, J.(2006). Public and private sector managers overtwenty years: a test of the ‘convergence thesis’.Public Administration, 84, 1051–1076.

Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizationallearning: mechanisms, culture, and feasibility. Man-agement Learning, 31, 181–196.

Powell, W., Koput, K. and Smith Doerr, L. (1996).Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus ofinnovation: networks of learning in biotechnology.Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.



Prange, C. (1999). Organizational learning – desper-ately seeking theory? In Easterby-Smith, M.,Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (eds), OrganizationalLearning and the Learning Organization. London:Sage, pp. 23–43.

Rashman, L. (2007). Capacity Building Through theBeacon Scheme. London: Communities and LocalGovernment.

Rashman, L. and Hartley, J. (2002). Leading and learn-ing? Knowledge transfer in the Beacon CouncilScheme. Public Administration, 80, 523–543.

Rashman, L. and Radnor, Z. (2005). Learning toimprove: approaches to improving local governmentservices. Public Money and Management, 25(1),19–25.

Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2003). Network struc-ture and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesionand range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48,240–267.

Reagans, R., Argote, L. and Brooks, D. (2005). Indi-vidual experience and experience working together:predicting learning rates from knowing who knowswhat and knowing how to work together. Manage-ment Science, 51, 869–881.

Sanderson, I. (2001). Performance management,evaluation and learning in ‘Modern’ Local Govern-ment. Public Administration, 79, 297–313.

Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2005). Discourses ofknowledge management and the learning organiza-tion: their production and consumption. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. (eds), Handbook ofOrganizational Learning and Knowledge Manage-ment. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 495–512.

Scott, J. (2000). Facilitating inter-organizational learn-ing with information technology. Journal of Man-agement Information Systems, 17(2), 81–113.

Scribner, J., Cockrell, K., Cockrell, D. and Valentine,J. (1999). Creating professional communities inschools through organizational learning: an evalua-tion of a school improvement process. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 35(1), 130–160.

Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: buildinglearning organizations. Sloan Management Review,32(1), 7–23.

Shipton, H. (2006). Cohesion or confusion? Towards atypology for organizational learning research. Inter-national Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 233–252.

Soo, C., Devinney, T., Midgley, D. and Deering, A.(2002). Knowledge management: philosophy, pro-cesses, and pitfalls. California Management Review,44(4), 129–150.

Stacey, R. (2003). Learning as an activity of interde-pendent people. The Learning Organization, 10,325–331.

Stacey, R. (ed.) (2005). Experiencing Emergence inOrganizations: Local Interaction and the Emer-gence of Global Patterns. Abingdon: Routledge.

Storck, J. and Hill, P. (2000). Knowledge diffusionthrough strategic communities. Sloan ManagementReview, 41(2), 63–74.

Thomas, J.B., Sussman, S.W. and Henderson, J. (2001).Understanding strategic learning: linking organiza-tional learning, knowledge management, and sense-making. Organization Science, 12, 331–345.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2002).Undertaking Research: Developing an Evidence-Based Approach for Management Research.Conference paper, August. Denver, CO: Academy ofManagement.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003).Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of sys-tematic review. British Journal of Management, 14,207–222.

Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘coopetition’within a multiunit organization: coordination, com-petition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing.Organization Science, 13, 179–190.

Tsoukas, H. (2005). Do we really understand tacitknowledge? In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.(eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning andKnowledge Management. Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 410–427.

Tsoukas, H. and Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is orga-nizational knowledge? Journal of ManagementStudies, 38, 973–993.

Turner, D. and Whiteman, P. (2006). Learning from theexperience of recovery: the turnaround of poorlyperforming local authorities. In Martin, S. (ed.),Public Service Improvement. Abingdon: Routledge,pp. 627–654.

Van den Bosch, F., Van Wijk, R. and Volbreda, H.(2005). Absorptive capacity: antecedents, modelsand outcomes. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles,M.A. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Learningand Knowledge Management. Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 278–301.

Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2005). Organizational learn-ing and knowledge management: toward an integra-tive framework. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles,M. (eds), Handbook of Organizational Learning andKnowledge Management. Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 12–141.

December 2009


Vince, R. (2000). Learning in public organizations in2010. Public Money and Management, 20(1),39–44.

Vince, R. and Broussine, M. (2000). Rethinking orga-nizational learning in local government. Local Gov-ernment Studies, 26, 15–30.

Vince, R. and Saleem, T. (2004). The impact of cautionand blame on organizational learning. ManagementLearning, 35, 133–154.

Weick, K. (1996). The role of renewal in organiza-tional learning. International Journal of TechnologyManagement, 11, 738–746.

Yanow, D. (2000). Seeing organizational learning: a‘cultural’ view. Organization, 7, 247–268.

Zollo, M. and Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learningand the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organi-zation Science, 13, 339–351.

Lyndsay Rashman is from Manchester BusinessSchool, University of Manchester, ManchesterM15 6PB, UK. Erin Withers is from Stafford-shire County Council, Tipping St, Stafford,Staffordshire, ST16 2DH, UK. Jean Hartley isfrom the Institute of Governance and PublicManagement, Warwick Business School, Uni-versity of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.



Documents

Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature