The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0955-534X.htm

EBR
32,1 Exploiting market-oriented
collective learning cycle to
leverage competitive advantage
86 at a foreign subsidiary in
Received 9 March 2018
Revised 5 July 2018
emerging markets
12 October 2018
15 November 2018 Gamal Mohamed Shehata
Accepted 16 November 2018 Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Commerce,
Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how a foreign subsidiary operates in emerging markets
and integrates market orientation with organizational learning to achieve a competitive lead. It is an attempt
to fill an evident gap in the literature of integrating organizational learning into a market-oriented competitive
strategy through using a four-step collective learning cycle at General Motors Egypt (GME).
Design/methodology/approach – The paper adopts a qualitative case study methodology to thoroughly
examine the viewpoints of 90 respondents via in-depth and unstructured interviews with both managers and
employees working in a variety of divisions inside GME. An integrative qualitative data analysis approach is used
to explore, synthesize, interpret and derive relationships resulting from the collected data.
Findings – This work advances the theory of organizational learning by testing the theme of collective
learning cycle in a real work setting. It presents a real example of aligning market orientation into a collective
learning cycle directed toward achieving competitive advantages.
Research limitations/implications – This study provides scholars and practitioners alike with a real
scenario on how and why a four-step organizational learning cycle functions as a building block to generate a
competitive advantage. It also discusses the elements of collective learning that are not captured by the four-step
collective learning cycle. Factors facilitating market-based organizational learning are also explored. However, the
results generated are contingent on the investigated case study circumstances, which are limited in generalizability.
Practical implications – The paper addresses a set of directions through which auto assembly firms
leverage both collective learning practices and knowledge-driven strategy to gain competitive advantages.
The GME paradigm indicates how a firm can use collective learning not only to respond to an internal need
for change but also to react to external market forces and constraints.
Originality/value – This study is the first of its kind to investigate the value of the cyclic learning concept
from a strategic viewpoint in a multinational organizational context. It enriches the primarily practitioner
literature on aligning collective learning into strategy with rich empirical examination of the learning practices of
a leading foreign subsidiary. It resolves a gap in the literature regarding how organizational learning and
knowledge management processes are aligned to market-oriented competitive strategy. The paper draws a
number of critical research issues that call for refinement of the organizational learning cycle theory.
Keywords Organizational learning, Single case study, Case study, Market orientation,
Competitive advantage, Emerging markets, Qualitative methods, Knowledge
Paper type Research paper

European Business Review

Vol. 32 No. 1, 2020
pp. 86-128
Introduction
© Emerald Publishing Limited The interest in studying emerging markets is growing since those markets are attractive for
0955-534X
DOI 10.1108/EBR-03-2018-0063 foreign direct investment, global sourcing, and exporting. Besides, advancements in
information and transportation technologies inspire significant interest in emerging Foreign
markets. Emerging markets such as the Egyptian market has witnessed significant market subsidiary in
liberalization, a massive privatization, and apparent government’s efforts to eliminate trade
and foreign investment barriers. Research on the importance of market orientation,
emerging
organizational learning and competitive advantage is gaining popularity (Siu Loon, 2008; markets
Farrell and Oczkowski, 2003). More studies are needed to explore the influence of market
orientation and learning on competitive advantages (Slater and Narver, 1995). Market
orientation and learning orientation are considered to be resources that firms use to attain
87
competitive advantage (Baker and Sinkula, 1999). However, it is hard to find a model
that incorporates the three elements together. Thus, we seek to use organizational learning
to discover unique practices that put general motors Egypt (GME) on a competitive lead in
the auto assembly industry. As Crossan et al. (1999, p. 522) put it “organizations need to
learn and acquire new ways of exploiting what they have already learned”. Accordingly,
collective learning can be used to help the firm renew itself as well and to strengthen
its competitive gains. This demand opens an opportunity for this study to not only to
explore collective learning but also to examine how a multinational firm exploits it to
manage the challenges of a market-oriented competitive strategy. As Crossan et al. (1999,
p. 522):
[. . ..] although theorists have recognized the strategic importance of organizational learning as a
means of providing a sustainable competitive advantage [. . .], few organizational learning
frameworks have illustrated the tension between exploration and exploitation that is at the heart
of strategic renewal.
Aligning learning to strategy is one of the effective tools that companies use to meet the
emerging challenges and changes in today’s business environment (Kohtamäki et al., 2012).
This responds to the increased interest of researching organizational learning in the strategic
management literature (Voronov, 2008). This answers Crossan and Berdrow’s (2003) argument
in which they asserted that the field of strategic management is a rich ground for research ideas
seeking the success of a firm. Market orientation is an organizational culture devoted to
delivering better customer value (Narver and Slater, 1990; Homburg and Pflesser, 2000). This
culture is visible in the activities and processes of the firm (Slater and Narver, 1998; Slater and
Narver, 1995). Market orientation rests on an organization wide generation and dissemination
of intelligence activities related to customers and competitors. Kohli et al. (1993, p. 468) stated
that “market orientation refers to the organization wide generation of market intelligence
pertaining to current and future needs of customers, dissemination of intelligence within the
organization, and responsiveness to it”.
Market orientation rests on promoting multi-departmental intelligence activities,
disseminating such intelligence company wide, developing of business and marketing
strategies in light of intelligence gathered. Actions and decisions are taken on the basis of
such intelligence (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990). The importance of
market orientation stems from its contribution to business strategy (Hunt and Lambe, 2000)
and also, is considered to be an important strategic direction (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997). It
is believed that a competitive strategy built on market orientation is likely to give a firm
competitive lead and a better performance. This, in turn, reinforces this study to explore the
potential influence of organizational learning on enhancing a firm’s capability through
serving the needs of a market-oriented business strategy. This requires the effective
execution of collective learning and also, on a business strategy gaining good intelligence of
both customers and competitors. Today, organizations are required to develop their
innovative and competitive capabilities by relying more on internal and external sources of
EBR knowledge (Ardito et al., 2015; Ferraris et al., 2017). In foreign subsidiaries, managers are
32,1 required to capture knowledge from external sources (West and Bogers, 2014). The notion of
scanning external and turbulent environment for knowledge has received significant
attention in past literature (Berchicci, 2013). Focusing on a foreign subsidiary like GME is a
new level of analysis that opens a new venue for research. Organizational learning literature
suggests that navigating knowledge through networks requires firms to promote learning
88 and exploit opportunities for capability development (Yoruk, 2018).
Organizational learning is increasingly viewed as an effective tool to strengthen
innovation and improve firms’ capability to respond to change and market trends (Brandi
and Rosa, 2015; Teare, 1997). Clanon (1999, p. 147) argued that “no management issue has
generated more attention and experimentation of the past two decades than how
organization can successfully initiate and sustain change”. Organizational learning is
viewed as a critical driver for organizational change and hence, managers need to promote
for learning on external and internal environments, organizational behaviors, and look for
strategies to achieve the alignment (Beer et al., 2005). This research responds to Moon et al.
(2017) claim that strategic learning capability of an organization is crucial to both research
and practice. Learning from foreign partners and competitors becomes an important tool for
firms that seek to maintain global competitive advantage (Liao and Wu, 2010; Prange and
Bruyaka, 2016). Kohli and Jaworski (1990) argued that firms develop market intelligence and
respond to it, tend to perform better and satisfy customers than rivals. It is also noted that
high level of market orientation has been related with higher business performance (Kohli
and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990). Market orientation is widely recognized as
vital success factors in organizations today. Knowledge driven strategy is viewed as a
dynamic process explains the elements of a distinctive competitive advantage (Osgood,
2004). According to Dixon (1994), organizations that can create a learning cycle, which
promotes collective learning, will be able to transform themselves in response to an internal
need for change and in response to external constraints.
The rationale for conducting this study stems from a number of widely cited research
gaps in past and recent literature. They represent long-lasting gaps in the literature that
demands focus on collective learning and knowledge contribution to increase business
success, competitiveness, and performance (Garratt, 1999; Yeo, 2003). Here, some major gaps
are underlined. First, the fragmented nature of the organizational learning subject
represents a central impediment to the progress of the field (Callahan and Schwandt, 1999;
Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-Smith, 1997; Easterby-Smith et al., 1998; Fiol and Lyles, 1985;
Gallagher and Fellenz, 1999; Lundberg, 1989; Miner and Mezias, 1996; Miller, 1996; Nicolini
and Meznar, 1995; Tsang, 1997). Second, the theoretical or descriptive nature of major
contributions in the field represents another crucial gap in the field (Easterby-Smith, 1997;
Easterby-Smith and Araujo, 1999; Huber, 1991; Sims and McAulay, 1995; Shrivastava, 1983;
Søberg and Chaudhuri, 2018; Sullivan and Nonaka, 1986) Third, there is less work done in
the area of aligning organizational learning into strategy (Bosua and Venkitachalam, 2013;
Curado and Bontis, 2011; Mintzberg et al., 1998; Pangarkar and Kirkwood, 2008). Fourth, the
role of collective learning in transforming market orientation demands into performance
improvements and innovativeness is a key gap that has received little attention in past
works (Farrell and Oczkowski, 2003; Norbani et al., 2014; Srivastava and Kailash, 2016;
Stake, 1995; Wang et al., 2015).
This study responds to the above gaps in four integrated ways. First, it fills the critical
need for rich empirical studies by conducting in-depth qualitative study on a foreign firm
operates in emerging markets in which there is a collaborative market-orientated learning
system. Second, it corresponds to the vital need for more growing work on the subject by
submitting the basic conceptual perspectives that exist in Dixon’s (1994) collective learning Foreign
cycle into empirical examination. Third, it provides evidence on how collective learning subsidiary in
guides multinational firms through their market-oriented strategies when they operate in a
global market. Fourth, it addresses the consequences of aligning organizational learning and
emerging
knowledge management into a firm’s competitive performance (Bosua and Venkitachalam, markets
2013). That is, it capitalizes on Crossan and Berdrow (2003, p. 1102) claim that “future
organizational learning research may be more mindful of the potential for different patterns
of organizational learning”. Also, it capitalizes on Crossan et al. (2011) call in which they 89
assert the significance of associating knowing or learning with knowledge management.
Earl (2001) argued that scholars should offer executives with models, frameworks, or
methodologies that enable them understand knowledge initiatives and investments and
also, to decide the ones that make sense in this regard.

Aligning organizational learning and market orientation into collective

learning cycle
The volume of publications on organizational learning has increased over the last two
decades (Andreas and Lindsay, 2006; Sanzo et al., 2012; Thames and Webster, 2015; Zhu
et al., 2018). Crossan and Guatto (1996), in their bibliographic review, found that during the
1990s, 184 articles were written on organizational learning, compared with 50 articles during
the 1980s, 19 articles during the 1970s and 3 articles during the 1960s. Through reviewing
the literature on the subject, a number of strands that influence the growing interest are
identified. One strand for this interest comes from introducing the “learning organization”
concept as an efficient solution to tackle problems resulting from increased competition.
This notion has fascinated the interest of scholars and managers alike (Argyris, 1991; Casey,
1993; Cohen and Sproull, 1996; Dale, 1994; Easterby-Smith et al., 1999; Elkajaer, 1999; Flood,
1999; Jin and Stough, 1998; Marquardt, 1996; Pedler et al., 1997; Pedler and Aspinwall, 1998;
Senge, 1990; Shaw et al., 1998; Swieringa and Wierdsma, 1992). Researching the
organizational learning topic from the position of different disciplines constitutes another
strand that has expanded the idea (Burgoyne, 1998; Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-Smith, 1997).
Organizations that are determined to cope with the dynamic nature of a competitive
environment, where creativity and flexibility are considered to be key determinants to
survival, represent another key strand that has widened the subject (Denton, 1998; Duncan,
1974; Grant, 1996; Hult and Nichols, 1996; Hurley and Hult, 1998; Jelinek, 1979; Sanchez and
Heene, 1997). The speed of technological change is considered to be another driving force for
the growth of this phenomenon (Denton, 1998; Dodgson, 1993; Easterby-Smith et al., 1998).
Speed of technological change, as an external factor, requires organizations to continuously
learn in order to do things differently. The increasing competitive nature of a global
business environment constitutes another important strand that has widened the interest in
organizational learning (Denton, 1998; Duarte and Snyder, 1997; Easterby-Smith et al., 1998;
Hamel, 1991). Organizational learning is the most influential factor in firm success and the
ability to learn faster than competitors is seen as a key source of sustainable competitive
advantage (Dickson, 1992). The actionability of the subject that arises from its direct impact
upon a variety of academic disciplines and business communities; forms another strand that
has extended the field (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Fulmer and Keys, 1998; Margerison, 1994;
McMillen et al., 1994; Revans, 1998). Cavaleri (2004, p. 159) argued that the notion of
enhancing people capacity for taking effective action is “more important today than ever”. A
shift in the relative importance of factors of production away from capital towards labor,
particularly intellectual labor, is another strand that has broadened the subject (Denton,
1998; Drucker, 1992). Finally, both the dissatisfaction among managers and employees with
EBR an existing management paradigm and pressures placed on companies by customers
32,1 constitute critical antecedents for propagating an interest in the subject (Denton, 1998;
Hayes and Allinson, 1998).
The literature offers a large number of definitions that describe the term “organizational
learning”. For instance, the dictionary definition states that learning is an acquisition of
knowledge or skills. Learning, hence, encompasses two meanings:
90 (1) an acquisition of a skill or know-how, which implies a physical ability to produce
some actions; and
(2) an acquisition of know-why which means an ability to articulate a conceptual
understanding of an experience.

A number of theories in the literature take advantage of such connection between thought
and action (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Dixon, 1994; Kolb, 1984). Argyris and Schon (1978,
p. 29) contended that organizational learning occurs when members of the organization act
as learning agents for the organization, responding to changes in the internal and external
environments of the organization by detecting and correcting errors in organizational
theory-in-use, and embedding the results of their inquiry in private images and shared maps
of organization. Kolb (1984) has depicted a four-stage learning cycle in which an experience
is translated into concepts, which in turn are used as guides in a choice of new experience.
Dixon (1994) has expanded Kolb’s experiential cycle in order to construct a four-step
collective learning cycle. Dixon (1994, p. 5) defined organizational learning as an intentional
use of learning processes at the individual, group, and system level to continuously
transform the organization in a direction that is increasingly satisfying to its stakeholders.
Within this context, Dixon (1994) used the word “learning” to refer to the processes that
organizations use to gain new understanding or to correct a current understanding.
Organizations exploit these processes not only to create new knowledge but also to revise
current knowledge. That means, learning is a dynamic process that an organization uses to
construct and reconstruct a meaning. In contrast, Levitt and March (1988) claimed that
organizations are seen to be learning by encoding inferences from history into routines that
guide an organization’s behavior. Levitt and March’s (1988) argued that organizational
learning occurs when it results in reworking the organizational routines upon which the
organization’s behavior is built. While the definition of Fiol and Lyles (1985) was built on
the notion that organizational learning occurs when a behavioral change is observed. Fiol
and Lyles (1985) thus argued that organizational learning means the process of improving
actions through better knowledge and understanding. Stata (1989) defined organizational
learning as a principal process by which innovation occurs. Here, organizational learning is
seen as a process that incorporates new insights and a modified behavior. In this regard,
Bouwen and Fry (1991) clarified organizational learning as an increased process capacity to
innovate in the future within the same organizational setting, while Kim (1993) contended
that organizational learning is increasing an organization’s capacity to take effective
actions. Slater and Narver (1995) explained that organizational learning is the development
of new knowledge and insights that have the potential to influence behavior. In like manner,
Miller (1996) identified that organizational learning is an acquisition of new knowledge by
actors who are able and willing to apply that knowledge in making decisions or influencing
others in the organization. Organizations can be viewed as systems with a number of
processes that create new knowledge or adjust existing knowledge (Connelly and Kelloway,
2003).
Generally, the literature on organizational learning demonstrates that there are as many
definitions as there are writers in the field (Tsang, 1997). The literature on organizational
learning reveals that scholars used two similar and closely related terms. These incorporate Foreign
“organizational learning” and “learning organization”; sometimes these two terms were used subsidiary in
interchangeably (Denton, 1998). This view contends that a learning organization is one that
practices organizational learning – that is, a learning organization is an entity, while
emerging
organizational learning is a process. As a result, the learning organization can be created markets
once the concept of organizational learning is settled. Although the term “organizational
learning” receives a growing popularity among scholars and practitioners, the definition of
organizational learning remains somewhat unclear (Dodgson, 1993; Crossan et al., 1999; 91
Crossan and Guatto, 1996; Easterby-Smith, 1997; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Miller, 1996; Nicolini
and Meznar, 1995; Tsang, 1997). The literature on the subject, in both the UK and USA,
provides a large number of definitions, some of them are more implicit than explicit, and
many of them are virtually different (Fortune and Peters, 1995). Scholars sought to describe
the term “organizational learning” as if the idea was homogeneous. Nobody, however, seems
to have succeeded with this attempt, since there is still a need for more clarification (Garvin,
1993; Jones and Hendry, 1992). Each scholar deals with the concept from a different
perspective, leading to more divergence. Accordingly, the concept of organizational learning
was not used consistently with a same meaning.
Connecting organizational learning to market orientation can be grasped via the theme of
collective learning cycle. This study attempts to assimilate the basic steps that exist in the
Dixon’s (1994) organizational learning cycle model into empirical examination so as to
validate their theoretical coherence. Here, the study primarily uses the conceptual context of
Dixon’s (1994) model to examine the practice of organizational learning in a unique
organizational context. The examination process focuses on identifying the different stages
that GME is going through to develop its learning capability. Dixon’s (1994) model
inherently intends to explicate and describe, in a simple form, a complex phenomenon,
which is organizational learning. Accordingly, it is inevitably tending to simplify the
complex nature of organizational learning as a “social-dynamic phenomenon” (March, 1991).
As Starkey (1998, p. 540) pointed out, “current theories of the learning organization are
resolutely rational in their image of organization”. The Dixon (1994) model offers a number
of basic conceptions and processes that explain how and why organizational learning
occurs. These conceptions exist in the different elements that construct the organizational
learning cycle. The most significant point to be made here is that the development of Dixon’s
(1994) model has relied not only upon an intensive review of the literature but also upon
empirical evidence gathered from different organizations. Our investigation of GME
marked-based learning system encompasses the following two facets: studying the ways by
which GME develops the capability of organizational learning and exploring the different
stages that GME is going through to develop the organizational learning cycle. Table I
summarizes how the four-step organizational learning cycle is deployed in this work.

GME case background

Establishing a subsidiary for General Motors (GM) in Egypt was approved on September 17,
1981 and became a legal entity on April 17, 1983 as a joint stock Egyptian company under
the investment law 43 of 1974. Egyptian private nationals hold 33 per cent interest, the GM
31 per cent, Isuzu Motor Limited 20 per cent, and GM Corporation holds 16 per cent. GME
plant occupied an area of 15 hectares in the industrial zone of a new community 6 October
city about 45 kilometers west of Cairo, 220 kilometers south Alexandria and 160 kilometers
west Suez Canal. The GME was originally capitalized at L.E.16.8m. The shareholders agreed
in November 1984 to increase the capital to L.E.25.2m. Both the original capital and the
increased were paid in US dollars. The company is managed by a board of directors of seven
EBR members elected by shareholders. GME has management and technical assistance
32,1 agreements with GM, which provides the company with new technological developments in
the auto manufacturing field. GME has a similar agreement with Isuzu Motor Limited. With
these agreements, GME has the full back up and expertise of multinationals, their
subsidiaries, affiliates and associated companies anywhere in the world. GME follows the
SBU concept in organizing its main operations and activities. Søberg and Chaudhuri (2018,
92 p. 87) claimed that technical knowledge creation in emerging high-tech industries requires
opportunities to work with and more develop knowledge in its tacit form rather than only
forcing its codification. GME hires more than 1,500 highly qualified workers who received
state-of-art-training in the auto assembly business. GM Egypt operates as a subsidiary of
GM Company. GM Egypt sells more than 100,000 vehicles a year. GM Egypt manufactures
cars, trucks and pickups for its various markets.
The SBU concept recognizes and regroups the existing responsibilities for production,
marketing, sales, information, research and development (R&D) and all other activities
related to a particular business into several distinct individual businesses, based solely on
the product markets they serve. The key criterion is the marketplace and the key question of
what segment belongs to a particular SBU is; do they share the same customers? If not they
should be separated. The management of GME rests upon core cornerstones that
incorporate leading in advanced technologies and quality in creating the world’s best
vehicles, providing its employees more responsibility and authority and then hold them
accountable, and creating positive, lasting relations with customers, dealers, communities,
union partners and suppliers to drive its overall operating success. GME introduces us with
a firm that promotes learning on individual, small group, organizational, and international
levels. It brings with a mutual sort of learning that integrates a western learning style with
an emerging nation learning style. GME displays many features of N-form sort of
organization including, promoting collective work, facilitating interpersonal relationships,
allowing more empowerment to middle managers, promoting lateral communication and
enhancing collective dialogues, encouraging top leaders to serve as catalysts not
authoritarians, and adopting a network structure free of hierarchical assumptions (Hedlund,
1994). These features make GME a good organizational setting for exploring learning and
knowledge management practices. This complies with Søberg (2011, pp. 204-5) notion that
“Western countries are likely to create implications for innovation-related activities within
foreign invested R&D units in emerging markets”. In 1996, the 100,000th vehicle left the
production plant. In the same year, GM Egypt was honored by GM as the best producer of

Aspects of the four-phase collective Main Reasons for examining the four-step organizational
learning cycle at GME learning cycle at GME

Stage one: widespread generation of Examine the various methods that GME uses to capture internal
information and external information. This stage also explores the different
approaches that GME uses to diffuse out new information
Stage two: integrate new information into Investigate the different techniques that GME exploits to
an organizational context integrate new information into the overall work context
Table I.
Stage three: collectively interpreting the The actual methodology that GME uses to make collective
Steps of examining information interpretations from new information
market-oriented Stage four: take authoritative actions Explore the existing initiatives that GME adopts to motivate
learning cycle at based upon interpreted meanings organizational members to align their efforts to competitive
GME advantage
Opel vehicles worldwide, on account of the production quality of the vehicles. In the Foreign
following year, the company achieved an annual production capacity of 24,225 units. subsidiary in
emerging
Research methodology
This study examines the organizational learning cycle in terms of what Garud and Nayyar
markets
(1994) named the transformative capacity, which strengthens an organization’s ability to
generate business opportunities by exploiting its store of internal knowledge. This
particular examination of GME case study helps us answer a couple of questions that are
93
widely raised in past works. These questions are as follows. Do GME personnel have the
motivation, understanding, capability, and opportunity to interpret their unique business
environment? Do individuals and teams inside GME use their past experiences to develop
shared meaning? How well do individual insights become shared, integrated and embedded
in the organization? What barriers are there to integrating individual and group
perspectives? What initiatives do GME implement to help its members share their unique
experiences and intellectual capital? How does institutionalized learning facilitate or impede
collective interpretation and company-wide integrating of resulting knowledge to generate
competitive gains? How different parts of GME learning system impact one another? What
can scholars and managers learn from such organizational setting in terms of advancing
both the theory and practice of the cyclic learning concept? Can organizational learning
serve as a strategic tool to guide a market-oriented competitive strategy in emerging
markets? The answer to these questions is very significant; especially when linking
dynamic nature of organizational learning, market orientation, and competitive advantage.
The research strategy of the current paper is the case study approach in which the
qualitative inquiry dominates. That is, the empirical study of this paper is done at GME
organizational settings. The case study methodology was chosen because the question of
interest pertained to the main processes of collective learning and market-oriented
competitive strategy. The case study approach was used in different disciplines and hence,
was given different meanings (Barlow and Hersen, 1984; Bastin, 1985; Bromley, 1986;
Douglas, 1976; Hamel et al., 1993; Merriam, 1988; Sheridan, 1979; Vidich and Lyman, 1994).
The case study approach is a general term that represents the description and analysis of a
particular entity. This entity might take the form of an object, a person, a group, an event, a
state, or a specific condition. These individual entities represent specific incidents with
definable boundaries. They exist and operate within a context of surrounding
circumstances. They also remain over a short period of time relative to that context
(Bromley, 1986). The case study approach seeks to underline the features of social life,
whether this social life is perceived as a set of interactions, as common behavior patterns, or
as structures (Hamel et al., 1993; Hammersley, 1990). The case study approach primarily
refers to a social methodology in which the examiner explores a single entity or phenomenon
(the case) restrained by the time and activity (a program, event, process, institution, or social
group) and collects detailed information by using a variety of data collection procedures
during the period of study (Creswell, 1994). The single case study approach is suitable to an
in-depth analysis of multifaceted phenomenon. It is also suitable when aiming to collect data
from multiple sources in terms of face-to-face interviewing of respondents per site,
documents, and researcher’s observations during interviews and visits of the targeted site
(Yin, 1994). As a research strategy, the representative characteristic of the case study is that
it sets out to examine a simultaneous phenomenon in its real life context, particularly when
the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not apparent (Yin, 1994).
The case study as research strategy represents a complete methodological approach,
with a design that incorporates specific methods of data collection and data analysis. The
EBR case study approach is not a data collection method or a design feature alone, but it
32,1 represents a comprehensive research methodology that stands on its own means and
assumptions. The case study approach is the preferred research strategy when “how”
and “why” questions are being posed, when the examiner has little control over events,
and when the focus is on a simultaneous phenomenon within some real life context
(Yin, 1994). For the sampling of this study, and since it is a qualitative research, a
94 purposive sampling technique was used. This means that the selection of the
respondents is based upon certain characteristics. The respondents were chosen to
represent the various units of the company, gender diversity, different organization
level, different job categories, and various experiences and work background. The
data were collected during the period of April 2017 to November 2017. In-depth
interviews were conducted guided by a list of open questions that enable informants to
elaborate on the phenomenon under investigation. Table II illustrates the sample
profile of this study.
The data collection steps applied in the current research include:
 setting the boundaries for the study;
 collecting data through interviews, documentary materials, observations and
informal interviews; and
 establishing the protocol for recording data.

The main criterion is to deliberately select informants or documents or visual materials that
best answer the research questions (Creswell, 1994). The in-depth interview technique has
been the major method for collecting the primary data of this study. Qualitative
interviewing is commonly intended to refer to in-depth, semi-structured forms of interviews
(Mason, 1996, p. 38) or it can be termed “conversation with a purpose” (Burgess, 1984,
p. 102). The in-depth interview is ideally chosen to examining the phenomenon of this study
in which different levels of meaning need to be explored. Table III indicates the various
sources of data collection deployed in this study.
Three types of coding were used in conducting the data analysis part of this study. First,
open coding in which the researcher segments or divides the data into similar groupings and
forms preliminary basic categories of information about the subject being examined.
Second, following the intensive open coding step, we begin to bring together the categories
identified into groupings. These groupings resemble themes discovered and serve generally
as new ways of seeing and understanding the phenomenon under study. Third, selective
coding in which the researcher organizes and integrates the resulting categories and themes
in a way that articulates a coherent understanding of aligning collective learning and
resulting knowledge, into competitive gains realized by GME. This study adopts an
interactive approach of qualitative data analysis that entails three interrelated stages. These
include data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing and verification. The
implementation of data reduction allows for an enormous amount of data from different sites
and respondents to be condensed. A recent review of the literature, a choice of specific cases
to examine, an emphasis on specific research questions, and a choice of particular data
collection methods are all factors that guide the data reduction phase of this research.
Drawing on Miles and Huberman (1994) and Strauss (1987), data reduction, simplifying, and
abstracting are taking place throughout the writing of memos, coding and testing out
themes. Data reduction proceeded as a continuous process before, during, and after the
fieldwork. Data reduction is also viewed as a part of the analysis process, since the examiner
has to decide on which data should continue to be coded and which to take off, which models
 Age
Job category Average years of experience with GME category Gender
No.
Division Frequency % of years Frequency % Age Frequency % Gender Frequency %

Marketing and Sales 18 20 0-5 10 12 30-35 10 12 Male 72 80

HRM 11 12
Production 27 30 5-10 30 33 35-40 44 49
Supply 7 8
Finance 13 14 10-15 28 31 40-45 12 13
Logistics 9 10 Female 18 20
Information technology 5 6 > 15 22 24 > 45 24 26
Total 90 100

frequency statistics
subsidiary in

Sample profile and

95
Foreign

Table II.
markets
emerging
EBR Formal in-depth interviews Informal in-depth interviews Documentary materials
32,1
53 formal in-depth interviews with: 37 informal in-depth interviews with: Major GME Documents involve:
Senior managers Sales professionals GME fact book
Supply directors HR director and specialists Training materials
Training managers Production and operations Policy manuals
Sales managers and professionals supervisors Internal magazines
96 Productions managers Team leaders Brochures
Logistics and supply facilitators Board members Government and industry
Financial managers and Technical and engineering statistics
Table III. professionals professionals
Data collection Marketing manager and Planning specialists
techniques professionals

best abbreviate a number of issues and which developing story to narrate (Miles and
Huberman, 1994).
In contrast, data display is used in this research to organize and to compress data in a
form that allow conclusions to emerge. It is a process whereby the examiner incorporates the
field-data in an accessible form (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994). Consequently, the examiner
is able to view and to recognize what is happening in a particular setting. Data display
contains decisions on what sort of data is to be displayed, in what form, and how it should
be handled (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This process helped the examiner to deal with a
number of prepositional statements that are emerged during conducting this research. The
conclusion drawing and verification phase, alternatively, enhances the interpretation of final
conclusions. It is a process whereby the examiner is able to understand what things mean, to
observe regularities, to build patterns, to make explanations, to explain relationships and to
raise valid propositions. The comparison between what is predicted based on the literature’
with what is emerged from data analysis, consequently, allows new patterns and
relationships to develop. The verification process is also practiced to validate and
substantiate results. This process requires the examiner to revisit the original data and field-
notes repeatedly. The verification process is also helped the examiner with the revision of
the research argument, to build interrelated explanations, to establish consensus and to
replicate findings in another data set. Because the investigation focused, first, on what is
going in a particular setting and second, on how and why it is going on, data reduction, data
display and conclusion drawing and verification are treated in parallel with the data
collection stage. Adoption of Miles and Huberman (1994) interactive model of data analysis
enables us to aggregate the data collected from archival and interviews to build generalized
findings. Accordingly, data were composed into bins with source references included.
Subsequently, data were classified within each bin as to factors, processes, behaviors,
and outcomes. Factors, processes, behaviors, and outcomes for each bin were generalized,
and such generalizations were interpreted independently by researchers and compared.
Similarities and exceptions were identified. Observations were generated through analysis
of each of the four phases of the collective learning framework and resulting competitive
outcomes. An example of applying this process is shown in Table IV. Using interviews’
data and archival documents enables us to reduce source representation bias. Both
interviews’ data and archival materials allow us to assemble the four-phase cycle of GME
learning system as well as to see how such a cycle enables the company to realize a
Theme Data Generalization Interpretation

Collectively generating information Respondent #1(training manager): Respondent# 1 views that updated Factors considered to facilitate
from both internal and external without good, accurate, and up to internal and external information is collective learning:-
sources (phase 1 of the deployed date information, it is difficult to an essential starting point the GME Effort to generate internal
organizational learning framework) make business decisions and react learning systems and a good base for information and to collect market-
appropriately to the widening world effective decisions oriented information.
outside the company. The concept of Information is critical to make
organizational learning plays an market-oriented decisions so as to
important role in ensuring that the enhance the firm’s success in local
right information is available to market.
management before the decision Competitiveness results from the
process begins successful integration of internal and
external information
Respondent # 2: (sales manager): it’s Respondent #2 believes that the
the integration between internal and integration between internal and
external information that really external information is critical to
gives you the new products and take innovation and brining new
you forward. The internal tells you products to the market
what you’re capabilities are, the
competence you have but also it’s a
case of understanding where you
lack a competence in order to serve
the external feedback”

analysis process
Table IV.
subsidiary in

Example of the data

97
Foreign

markets
emerging
EBR competitive lead from a market-oriented competitive strategy. Consistency is assured
32,1 because the data are processed by the research alone.
Because of the use of multiple methods in the data collection stage, an exercise of
triangulation is valuable to improve and to verify the findings obtained from the study.
By confirming a specific interpretation through using different sources of evidence, the
triangulation process reduces the uncertainty associated with that interpretation
98 (Campbell and Fiske, 1959; Webb et al., 1971). Triangulation is a “process of using
multiple perceptions to clarify meaning, verifying the repeatability of an observation or
interpretation” (Stake, 1994, p. 241). However, it should be noted that no observation or
interpretation is completely repeatable. The logic beyond triangulation develops from
the notion that no sole method will allow an investigator to develop propositions free of
rival interpretations (Denzin, 1989). The comparison of data from different sources adds
intelligence unavailable from comparison of data within a single source (Webb et al.,
1971). Triangulation intends to clarify a meaning by outlining the different ways
through which the phenomenon is being viewed (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Triangulation assumes that any bias intrinsic in particular data sources, investigator
or method would be naturalized by association with other data sources, investigators,
or methods (Jick, 1979). Triangulation, consequently, places much weight on
propositions that can repeatedly be noted in more than one source leading to the same
analytical conclusion. Consequently, it is desirable throughout this research to locate as
many data sources as possible to increase the possibility that the emerging inferences
are reliable. To ensure reliability, interview protocols and recording of information
were used. Table VI presents the core features of case study approach adopted.
This research adopts the pattern matching mechanism that was built on the idea of
linking similar pieces of information from the same case into some theoretical
framework (Miles and Huberman, 1994). This process allows themes to emerge and
also, provides the basis for discovering the learning practices of GME. Table VI below
demonstrates that four tests are used to reassure the quality of the case study
approach. The first test is one of constructive validity that represents the establishment
of correct operationalization and rationale for the concept being studied (Yin, 1994). To
achieve this, the current research uses a variety of tactics such as building up multiple
sources of evidence, highlighting the chain of evidence and re-examining key
informants’ views. These tactics were applied during the data collection phase of this
research. The second test is one of internal validity that refers to the establishment of a
causal relationship, whereby particular conditions are shown to lead to other
conditions, as distinguished from false relationships (Yin, 1994). Pattern matching
compares an empirically based pattern with a predicted one. If the pattern matches, the
results will strengthen the internal validity of the case study. Such a technique was
used during the data analysis phase of the research. The third test is that of external
validity that refers to the establishment of the dominance to which the study findings
can be generalized (Yin, 1994). Accordingly, the current research adopts replication
logic as a core tactic in the case study approach. Such a tactic was used during
the research design. The final test is that of reliability that refers to demonstrating that
the operations of the study such as the data collection procedures can be repeated
with the same results (Yin, 1994). Here, major activities such as the case study protocol
and database, which organize the fieldwork, were used to increase the reliability of the
case study approach. These tactics were applied during the data collection phase of the
research.
Results and discussion Foreign
The collective learning cycle of GME: market orientation as antecedent to collective learning subsidiary in
at GME emerging
Here, we attempt to interpret the qualitative data collected from GME to shed more light on
how GME collects, integrates, interprets and acts collectively on interpreted knowledge. markets
Because the automotive industry is changing rapidly, GME devotes a considerable
emphasis on developing its knowledge management practices on an ongoing basis along 99
with the support offered by its affiliate companies. GME encourages organizational
members to learn from others and additionally, from themselves as a “community of
learners” and also, must reduce defensive routines (Argyris, 1986). GME thus adopts
strategic approach that places more emphasis on organizational learning. GME has started
to build-up its dynamic learning system when first opened for business. Murray (2003,
p. 308) clarifies that in dynamic driven learning systems thinking is common and innovation
and knowledge creation are highly valued. GME has thus realized the importance of
developing effective manpower for this particular type of business at an early stage of its
operations. GME swaps the capacities of its members from doing 100 per cent physical work
into doing 100 per cent full computerized and networked work. This is a critical challenge
for GME because finding qualified manpower at that point of time is so difficult in the
domestic market. GME often runs what is named “an orientation course”. An orientation
course is designed for all new employees that often join its workforce. This course is
targeted to provide newly hired employees with a background about the company, its
establishment, management, philosophy, strategy and policies, and also, an idea about the
mechanical department policy, GME’s procurement system, and finally, the safety and
security system of the company. This course is often offered to all newly hired personnel
and always target employees from all departments such as marketing and sales,
engineering, supply, HR, finance and accounting and production and operations.
GME adopts a management methodology, which is called “continuous improvement
process or CIP”. This methodology simply classifies the main business units into different
work groups. The main challenge that faces these work groups is to think up how their
business units can innovate and operate differently. The implementation of CIP is directed
to eliminate all kinds of waste and non-value-added practices as well as to value ideas
developed by the GME’s members. This, in turn, allows the company to improve quality,
reduce costs, and develop its processes. This matches with Jamali et al. (2006) argument that
the learning organization is one that promotes continual organizational renaissance by
bringing together a set of core processes that foster a positive tendency to learn, adapt, and
change. The CIP is also supported through the interconnection between company and its
worldwide affiliates, which allow for best practices and experiences to be exchanges among
the GM group. This is also supported through providing GME’s members with all required
tools that help them to achieve these objectives. GME applies a reward scheme that aims to
compensate individuals for developing creative and unique ideas based on using the shared
and collectively created knowledge. This existing learning mechanism increasingly
encourages the GME members to think up new ideas by reflecting on past experience and
historical information. As a supply manager puts it:
[. . .] a lot of the solutions that we come up with are experienced based. I mean we don’t just sit
down and dream these things up. More often than not we’ve come across a similar situation in the
past or we can relate to something similar in the past. We’re not reinventing the wheel every time.
But yes, it’s developing on the knowledge we’ve got. Without our experience we wouldn’t go
very far that’s for sure.
EBR GME capitalizes on some key factors in building its learning system. First of all, it has a flat
32,1 organizational structure. Second, a well-developed and maintained work flow design; which
prescribes the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of its managers and workers alike. Each
individual employee the company hires has to be informed about the various aspects of his/
her job during the first days of joining the company. The early type of training he/she gets
when joining the company also supports such a direction. Furthermore, GME provides an
100 internship scheme for universities’ students that usually spend about three months in the
company to learn real life cases in different functions. GME tends to hire the most
outstanding students among those trainees and thereby, they get ready and familiar with
their new jobs rapidly. Thirdly, GME consider quality as a cornerstone of the existing
management approach and this is supported by its affiliate companies. Fourthly, the
intensive reliance on IT and research constitutes a key factor of the present management
approach. Fifthly, the strategic planning process within GME represents a critical factor in
running its business. Finally, caring about workers is a key indicator for GME’s success.
Factors such as; job security, health care, organizational learning, housing and social
activities, amiable workplace, and pension system, are allowing GME to retain a highly
effective workforce.
Three main categories of information are being developed within GME knowledge
management system. Recurrent information, it refers to information on the same topic such
as market share, supply/demand statistics or competitors prices that must be updated
regularly. Monitoring information, it refers to the collection of exceptional information for
especial purpose such as new product, new processes, new markets, potential competitors,
or changes in government regulations, tariff and trade (such as the impact of the world trade
organization WTO on markets). Requested information, it relates to product studies, new
investments or special attitude surveys that are provided on a once-basis in response to
specific requests by managers. GME’s knowledge management system also aims at
developing effective manpower at a broad level within the domestic labor market. GME
presumes the function of developing the nation’s human resources. Since its founding, GME
has prepared a generation of managers, technicians, and plant operators that now run most
of its complexes and businesses. GME considers collective knowledge and learning to be
major weapons to tackle uncertainties and unexpected market conditions that encounter the
company. This, in turn, fits with what Pedler and Aspinwall (1998, p. 25) stated, “learning
covers a wide spectrum of knowledge and understanding, from memorizing of simple facts
to deep understanding of complicated ideas”. As one manager puts it:
Without good, accurate, and up to date information, it is difficult to make business decisions and
react appropriately to the widening world outside the company. The concept of organizational
learning plays an important role in ensuring that the right information is available to
management before the decision process begins [. . .].
It has been also noted that GME uses information systems and networks that link the entire
organization and value chain partners together. Milovanovic et al. (2016) argued that
firms often use strategic networking to leverage specialization, efficiently allocate
transformational resources, and optimize support through information sharing. This system
distributes new information to different users throughout the entire value chain of the
company. GME uses two complementary structures of information. The first structure;
which is intensively deployed inside the company, is based on the concept of Integrated
Information Management Systems (IIMS). The second structure is based on the concept of
Functional Information Management Systems (FIMS). By using SA 400, SAP systems, and
Oracle applications, the FIMS structure interconnects different divisions together such as
sales and marketing, finance, public relations, production, HRM, material management Foreign
along with senior management. The aim of IIMS is to enhance the innovation capability subsidiary in
through promoting various R&D activities within the company. GME capitalizes on what
Boisot and Cox (1999, p. 525) noted in their I-space framework that it “advances in the design
emerging
of computer architectures and networks have led to new ways of representing, creating, markets
manipulating and distributing knowledge. To accomplish this objective, GME adopts an
ideology that rests on three well-integrated initiatives. Firstly, GME’s top management
believes that the continuous investment in acquiring the state-of-the-art technology is a 101
fundamental principle to create an innovative organization. Secondly, GME’s company-
wide managers understand the significance of investing in the continuous development of
GME’s HR in order to be able to compete in a highly competitive market such as the auto
assemble and manufacturing one. As Crossan and Berdrow (2003, p. 1090) put it “as the
alignment shifts over time, a firm must be capable of reinterpreting its environment and
incorporating its understanding into new products, processes, strategy, and structure.”
GME has devised plan to develop well-trained national human resources that enable it to
win the competition and also, to make better use of the recent auto assembly technology.
Tavani et al. (2018) argued that the level of collaboration with different partners can enhance
firms’ innovation capabilities only if the focal firm’s managers have developed the ability to
search and acquire external knowledge. Thirdly, GME depends increasingly on a strong
alley with its mother firm to equip itself with the modern manufacturing technology so as to
improve its internal operations. It has also noted that GME operates one of the very effective
business portfolios that use a world-wide knowledge and expertise in such type of industry.
This, in turn, enables GME to successfully maintain a strong competitive position in the
Egyptian market throughout the past two decades. The IIMS adopted at GME rests on a
number of core aspects. Those aspects include quality of data transformed into the system, a
high level of experimentation to manipulate this data, the use of advanced tools to work out
and analyze obtained data, and finally, commercializing the outcomes generated from such a
system. To enhance its learning capability, GME usually integrates its strategic plans with
its internal resources strategies. GME’s managers thus view that the internal knowledge
constitutes a critical and positive factor in developing its members both technical and
conceptual skills. This, in turn, helps GME to increase its overall productivity, to transfer
state-of-art- auto assembly technology from foreign affiliates, and to adopt global best
practices essential for its future developments. As one manager puts it:
[. . .] all departments meet regularly and pass over information, so that we’ve constant learning
internally. And each manager from departments will also have formal meetings on a regular basis
so that all information is passed over and the knowledge is shared amongst the whole company.
And it is a teamwork, we’re very good close knit team and the attitude of all persons is to succeed
in what we do.
As Simons et al. (2003, p. 41) put it “team learning ability is an important part of learning
organizations”.
GME with more than 1000 people import machine and auto components from all over the
world; from Japan, Germany, USA, Italy, and South Korea into Egypt. It then assembles
them and distributes complete autos to the Egyptian market. These autos can be sold
through either direct selling or intermediaries; they are also supported with after sale
services applications. GME knowledge cycle should almost respond to this commercial
structure in order to keep the company ahead of its rivals. Figure 1 below depicts the
organizational learning cycle of GME in light of interpreting data collected through 90 in-
depth interviews with GME’s key managers. Figure 1 below indicates that GME has a four-
phase cycle that it goes through to build its collective learning system. Phase one highlights
EBR Sources of Information at GME
32,1 External Information:-
 Feedback information on competitors.
 Customers' Surveys
 Access suppliers and dealers reports
 Egyptian government statistics
 Access other affiliates reports
102  Trade literature, fairs, and exhibitions
Internal Information:-
 Historical information.
 Teamwork and think-tanks
 Training sessions, conferences and
seminars.
 Internal feedback
 Reporting system.

Collective Action at GME Information Integration at GME

 Compensation and pay  Meetings

 Reward individual performance.  Lotus Notes Database.
 Promotion based on merit  Employees' rotations
 Reinforce knowledge sharing  Information transformation
practices  Management information systems
 Promote GME core values  Canban system
 Flat structure  Knowledge sharing practices and
 Cross-functional team interaction. strategies.
 Promote learning culture
 Promote "pride objective scheme".

Collective Interpretation at GME

 Consolidate Procurement Organization

(CPO)
 Integrated Information Management
Systems (IIMS).
Figure 1.  Information interpretation.
 Interdepartmental meetings
How GME connects
 Communication systems
market orientation  Consensus strategies
into its organizational  Best practices database
learning cycle  Problem solving mechanisms

how GME gathers its data and information. It can be seen that GME deploys a number of
external information acquisition tools. GME forms work teams to collect and report on key
competitors. This information usually assists GME in devising a reliable competitive
strategy as well as in deciding an appropriate competitive response. GME also deploys a call
center designed mainly to survey customers’ viewpoints and feedback. It also conducts
diverse market researches to gain customers’ knowledge and to build effective customer
relationship. As a marketing manager puts it:
Most of our actions and decisions are based on information and as an example I run a group
called the performance improvement group. And we’ve been through the process of defining a
system, which gathers data for us from reported problems and from customer inquiries and as
well, from different customers’ locations. And we’re going to use or to analyze this data to
measure a set of measures we’ve defined in our contracts with clients.
GME uses information systems that aim to acquire up-to-date information on its key Foreign
suppliers and intermediaries. GME also trains its members to collect national information subsidiary in
and statistics that can guide its future plans and potential fit with the external environment.
This, in turn, helps GME’s management to realize potential threat and opportunities that are
emerging
likely to impact its strategic planning. As Friedlander (1984, p. 206) pointed out ‘whereas markets
differences and ensuing conflict are essential ingredients of learning, trust and valuing
between subsystems are conditions that permit differences to be accepted and integrated
into a new formulation or learning. GME also directs its people to collect relevant 103
information on its key partners and affiliates. GME’s managers view that this information
assists them in better managing the global value chain of the entire organization. Figure 1
also shows that GME encourages its members to go through valuable documents such as
trade literature, fairs, and exhibitions to gain access to information that might impact the
organization future. Figure 1 also clarifies that GME has a number of internal sources
through which information can be generated. First of all, GME encourages its members
company-wide to search past and historical data to arrive at new information. Mangers
believe that many of the excellent ideas came about in the past as a result of digging out
historical information. Second, GME also reinforces its members to come across new ideas
via cross-functional teamwork. As Vithessonthi and Amonrat (2011, p. 203) put it
“organizational members in a firm with a strong organizational learning culture are more
likely to be open to new ideas, thereby making them more receptive to change”. Third, GME
uses internal training, search seminars, and conferences as a predesigned methodology to
think up new information and ideas needed for continuous development and improvement.
Finally, GME adopts a flat structure that enables managers to have a continuous feedback
system supportive for learning and knowledge generation. There are no barriers in place
that stop interactive communication between managers and followers. That is, the adopted
design opens up opportunities for sharing of and creation of new knowledge.
Figure 1 below also illustrates that GME encourages its sales force to capture market
information through a direct interface with customers. The sales manager explains that
sales people pass information on over from whenever they are in the marketplace. GME
conducts many surveys and extensive market research studies in order to collect
information that guides its business policies. The top management often runs a monthly
meeting along with other operational departments’ leaders in order to analyze and discuss
the impact of new information upon the everyday business operations. This way of practice,
accordingly, strengthens the management capability towards understanding the nature of
customers’ expectations and needs. As a sales manager puts it:
Customer base is of course what we’re anticipating and creating. So you’re looking inevitably into
the market and trying to understand what people are looking for, what they’re also unhappy
about, and so that the product you develop meets their needs.
Because of the dynamic nature of the marketplace, gathering information from customers is
always seen as an ongoing process. To survive, organizations need to stimulate learning and
provide meaning for all those involved in the organization, not just those that are at the apex
of an “organizational triangle” (Burdett, 1994). GME often launches new services and
products based on customers’ feedback. The production manager explains that the
company draws its plans as a result of further external information. He goes on to describe
that producing a new product or adjusting an existing one should always fit with customers’
needs. As an example, GME has recently begun after sale services campaign called a “Clinic
Service Campaign”. This campaign was a response to customers’ needs in the marketplace.
Throughout this campaign, customers were offered free services, parts, and valuable gifts.
EBR A considerable number of customers participated and were overwhelmed with the services
32,1 rendered by the company and its authorized service dealers. A long-run relationship with
customers is increasingly perceived as a central element by which the company strengthens
and maintains a competitive advantage. As the sales director put it:
[. . .] for our customers to achieve their goals, they need to be able to get information and services
from us when they need it in the way that they want it. Because of that, we’re using all our
104 resources to make sure that our customers can get the information and services they need from us
at anytime from anywhere
Collecting external information is also extended to include information about domestic
competition. By capturing information on competitors, GME intends to stretch its internal
capacity to take on new business opportunities and ideas. As Friedlander (1984, p. 199)
pointed out, “organizational learning occurs at the interfaces between persons, between
organizational units, and between the organization and its external environment”. Because
of the local market sensitivity to price changes, the company gathers information regarding
local competitors’ prices on a daily basis. In this manner, the company can be better placed
to rationalize its pricing policy on a regular basis. Connecting the entire company via full-
computerized information systems not only facilitates this way of practice but also allows
the company to react to contingencies. GME has also established something called a
“Product Portfolio” approach. The product portfolio approach was developed in the light of
available information on global and domestic products. The company gathers this
information either through accessing government reports or by surveying the local market.
GME also conducts a variety of business studies so as to make rational decisions regarding
an investment in new products. A number of employees from different divisions including
finance, supply, manufacturing, sales, and engineering often participate in performing these
studies. This way of practice not only helps the company to develop new products and
services but also to strengthen the capacity of complying with changing customers’ needs.
Sims et al. (1993, p. 198) described a learning organization as an organization that benefits
from a “flexibility in changing its work practices to meet shifts in business circumstances”.
This flexibility reinforces GME to sustain an existing market share in the domestic
marketplace.
Figure 1 above also illustrates the different ways through which GME members
integrate gathered information either internally or externally into the overall business
context of the entire organization. As Crossan et al. (1999, p. 528) put it “for coherence to
evolve, shared understanding by members of the group is required”. Divisions’ leaders
inside GME are encouraged to find new business solutions by integrating both internally
and externally generated information. The GME adopts a Lotus Notes database since two
decade ago to help its members to share their ideas and information by electronic
networking. GME also rotates its members to various jobs inside the company to help them
build up integrative perspective to the business. GME operates a think tank that assists its
members in transforming new information into relevant business context. GME reinforces
its people relate new information into their business units so as to improve their work
outcomes. GME integrates its information systems with its key suppliers and intermediaries
across the entire value chain locally and globally. This, in turn, helps GME to realize a
competitive advantage via either cost reduction or better differentiation. Besides, GME
deploys a system named Canban, which is directed to help engineers and operation
specialists to find better solution to technical-based problems. This corresponds to Pedler
et al. (1997) claim that learning affords self-development opportunities for individuals to
practice analytical and problem solving skills and consequently to share knowledge with
others through feedback, inquiry, and support. Finally, GME has in place the foundations Foreign
needed to help its members share company-wide information. This initiative is cultivated in subsidiary in
GME’s people since joining the company via the orientation and training courses offered.
Garavan et al. (2002, p. 69) clarified that organizations need to manage the work
emerging
environment of people proactively by creating opportunities to enable them discover and markets
apply the latest technology.
Figure 1 also identifies a variety of ways in which GME get its members to interpret
generated information collectively. Dixon (1992) explains that organizational success 105
demands competence in learning at both the individual and organizational levels. One way
to collectively interpret gathered information is the consolidated procurement organization
(CPO) that GME uses to reach a consensus decision regarding supply issues. GME uses
IIMS. The IIMS serve as a key tool to help GME’s member interconnect throughout the
entire organization and accordingly, make better collective decisions. This responds to
Combe and Botschen’s (2002) call for employees to be included in the decision making
process by contributing knowledge gained through practice. GME motivates and rewards
its members company-wide for sharing their individual knowledge and experience so as to
assist in better managing the organization. As McGuinness and Robert (2005, p. 1318)
clarify it “commitment to learning is a shared value that impels members of an organization
to seek understanding of the causes and effects of their actions”. GME regularly runs
interdepartmental meetings to open room for its members to reach a well-integrated
perspective about the business and market conditions. This initiative is also supported by
the seminars and training sessions that GME runs to help its members build up collective
understanding on various business subjects. As said by Maani and Benton (1999), dialogue
is essential to team learning as it allows a group to exchange meanings and words through
the negotiation of viewpoints. Simons et al. (2003, p. 44) explained that team learning rests
on “good communication between team members”. Another tool that GME puts into effect to
reach collective meanings from gathered information is the continuous exchange of
information and ideas with its key affiliates. As Crossan et al. (1999, p. 528) put it
“interpreting is a social activity that creates and refines common language, clarifies images,
and creates shared meaning and understanding”. This, in turn, opens a room for GME’s
members to learn best practices from its global affiliates. Finally, GME devotes significant
efforts to work collectively when analyze past information to reach creative solutions to
emerging business problems so as to enhance its market-oriented competitive strategy. As a
line manager puts it:
If there’s a problem let’s share the problem. Let’s work together and just the fact that everybody
knows about the problem, doesn’t necessarily mean he is directly involving in resolving- coming
up with a solution. But they are thinking about it. And there may just be that spark that comes
through and it filters back through the system. And “hey” I’ve been thinking about your problem
and I’ve got this idea. And you get that cross over and it’s the only way for us to work.
Figure 1 presents diverse indicators on how GME benefit from the interpreted knowledge to
make effective decisions and better actions. GME has unique ability to interpret, sense, and
respond to internal and external sources of information (Chiva and Alegre, 2005) GME tends
to compensate its members who act in light of the collectively derived meaning. GME blends
tangible and intangible reward schemes to compensate individual contribution based on
interpreted knowledge. This, in turn, enhances GME’s members to put their learning
contributions into effect. Furthermore, the company also advances its people into top
position in the hierarchy based on their learning outcomes. GME encourages collective
decision making through adopting group work, interactive communication and meetings,
and putting knowledge into group practice. These core values are widely support by the
EBR senior managers of GME. This responds to Lester (1998) call for more senior management
32,1 support that serves as a critical success factor for aligning learning into strategy and
innovation. The existing informal communication and the friendly atmosphere support
group decision making. GME develops a corporate culture system that encourages people to
share their knowledge and understanding core elements of its value system. GME creates an
internal initiative called “Prime Objective Scheme (POS)” that helps its members mobilize
106 their efforts into a cohesive Endeavor. Once the action and decision making phase is
completed, the cycle begins again by creating new information and knowledge that help
GME management not only to run the business but also to leverage a sustainable
competitive advantage. Table V summarizes GME learning system main characteristics.

Modeling the interrelationship among market orientation learning, knowledge

processes and competitive advantage at GME
This section discovers the way through which GME integrates market orientation and
learning to realize a competitive lead. Data analyzed provide the real pattern that GME
devises to achieve such a competitive lead via the integration between market orientation
and learning orientation. This fits with Dickson (1996) claim that both learning orientation
and market orientation are keys to performance. Collective learning encourages firms to tie
their unique and valuable knowledge to competitiveness. GME directs employees’ learning
behaviors to successful performance. It encourages them to value knowledge, to be open-
minded, and to strive for a shared vision. GME scenario assists in unfolding alignment
difficulties addressed in past research between knowledge generated from learning and
market-oriented competitive strategy (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993; Baker et al.,
2011). Self et al. (2015) argued that organizations increasingly use knowledge management
to identify, create, and share critical information so as to strengthen their competitive
advantage in the industry. A knowledge results from collective learning helps GME to
create aligned system through which competitive lead is sustained. Here, we attempt to
present concrete examples on how to develop deep understanding of how the knowledge
management cycle at GME promotes for sustainable competitive advantage. As a financial
manager put it:
I can see real benefits in having a knowledge structure and it would really support a competitive
advantage. I think our knowledge structure is very ‘hap-hazard’. And I think we’ve pockets of
knowledge. And I think the bits of knowledge that we have, are definitely key to our competitive
strategy.
This responds to Sheehan (2004) claim that organizational learning necessitates group
engagement in the dynamic process of knowledge creation and understanding the purpose
of how the building of knowledge contributes to the competitive advantage of the
organization.
GME created a learning system that capitalized on learning from past experiences,
highlighting both individual and group achievements, facilitating a wide sharing of
collective knowledge, and targeting knowledge to competitive advantage. Drawing on
Shrivastava (1983) and Dixon (1994), this paper views organizational knowledge as the
result of performing a set of organizational learning processes. Organizational learning thus,
not organizational knowledge itself, is critical to organizations. Organizational learning
results in enhancing the knowledge competency of GME to realize its strategic goals. It is
such a competency that assists GME in adjusting and aligning its personnel collective
experiences and expectations into competitive advantage. This fits with Jacobs and Coghlan
(2005) and later, belle (2016) theme of relating organizational experience and learning into
 Foreign
(GME)
Promoting collective learning via establishing the basis of
subsidiary in
mutual understanding between top management and lower emerging
Characteristics GME Learning System operational levels markets
1. The types of Knowledge that are widely Subjective: GME encourages individuals to acquire personal
shared in the organization knowledge. Each employee has to go through an internal
training course that gets him to a point and that training 107
course is not on and off one. Unless a candidate applies this
knowledge it will be very difficult for GME to retain it. GME
provides its employees with a range of introductory and
focused courses to help them develop their personal skills and
knowledge
Objective: GME increasingly places much value on the
diffusion of objective knowledge. With the association of its
worldwide affiliates and partners, GME intends to provide the
organizational tools and context through which objective
knowledge can be developed and widely communicated. GME
also works together with its worldwide partners and affiliates
to exchange knowledge and best practices
2. The structuredness of organizational Medium: GME preserves a sort of cooperation between the
learning activities central management and other operational levels in the
organization. The top management defines the general goals
and policies and also, allocates major resources. The SBUs are
in charge to develop detailed strategies, to integrate core
aspects of the business, and to manage the everyday business.
Not only does this sort of collaboration help GME to maintain
its long-term continuity but also it provides the tools for
pursuing organizational improvements on a regular basis
3. Explicitness of rules Medium: The close association between top management and
other operational levels of management creates a reasonable
degree of explicitness upon which individuals can be better
placed to get the picture of their rules. This way of practice
usually produces a work context in which socially created and
maintained meanings can emerge. This can, in turn, establish
the basis for mutual understanding, for capable
communication, and for effective co-ordination in managing
the organizational learning activities
4. The scope of organizational learning Task specific: GME encourages individuals to get together
and to share learning in view of a particular organizational
mission. In such a situation, individuals get together and
share knowledge in order to embrace new ideas and move on
them. They are better positioned to understand how sharing
of knowledge helps them to learn and to build experience that
hard to find in somewhere else
5. Media for communication GME uses a range of channels for communicating information
including face-to-face meetings, conferences, phones calls,
Internet, faxes, memos and reports, printed literature, voice
Table V.
mail and seminars. However, cross-functional meetings are Characteristics of
considered to be the main medium for diffusing out GME learning
information inside the company system as concluded
6. Motivation for learning activities Decision-making needs are for the most part the driving from the data
forces for learning activities in company. Individuals are interpretation
(continued) process
EBR
32,1 (GME)
Promoting collective learning via establishing the basis of
mutual understanding between top management and lower
Characteristics GME Learning System operational levels

increasingly motivated to share learning because they always

108 recognize that the capability to communicate and share
learning with other is beneficial for the business. Technology,
structure, and business environment are considered to have a
significant impact upon this way of practice
7. Time frame of information Historical information is widely shared and used in GME.
Various management levels use information on past
experience and past cases when they make decisions or draw
new business initiatives. A supply manager pointed out that
each employee in GME has the ability to draw out meanings
from past experience so that GME will have the very best
business potential
8. Organizational make-up of learning Organizational learning practices and initiatives are often
practices organized in view of business units or divisions operations.
This sort of organization involves cooperation of ongoing
projects that help key organizational members to access
modern and user-oriented systems for effective business
management
9. Caveats exist in each of these learning Emphasizing on objectivity might prevent individuals from
approaches (as informants view them) sharing their personal perspectives with other peers in the
organization
Focusing on accuracy and precision in communication and in
documentation may postpone the decision-making process
Poaching key individuals by competitors via financial
Table V. incentives may create a knowledge gap in the organization

company’s competitive lead. It is a viable approach that GME adopts to make better use of
data and knowledge produced by aligning it to its sustainable competitive advantage. As a
supply and logistics manager put it”:
I’ve been fortunate to work on the development of some bits for big contracts. And we’ve put
together cross-functional teams. So I’ve seen how the regulators people work, how financial and
pricing people work, how the legal guys work, how the sales person works and how customer
service person would think. And that’s good because you then get to see how facts and customer
data can be taken and developed in different ways and between ourselves. And this is really
where a competitive advantage is actually matching your solution.
The capability of organizational learning can, for instance, facilitate implementing a new
production process and enhance providing new services and products valued by the
external market. It can also be applied to understand new customers’ needs, to overcome
behavioral barriers for change, to solve top management teams’ problems, and to help in
designing innovative strategy. The capability of organizational learning also enhances GME
capacity to develop goal-oriented behavioral patterns or routines that assists in responding
to market changes. This initiative fits with what was pointed out by Levitt and March (1988)
and Winter (1987) when addressing the role of organizational learning to facilitate
organizational change. GME transforms its existing knowledge for routine problems into
new knowledge appropriate for uncertain and new problems (Chang and Chuang, 2011). Foreign
Such collectively created and shared organizational knowledge affects the internal subsidiary in
development efforts and hence, the success of the organization, particularly in knowledge-
intensive industries (Berrell et al., 2001; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Ergi and Frost, 1994;
emerging
Graham and Pizzo, 1997; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Figure 2 indicates how GME markets
generates a competitive advantage from its learning cycle that rests on formal and informal
learning practices.
Figure 2 indicates that GME focuses on acquiring its information from internal and 109
external sources. It allows its various business units to process this information according to
their needs and their desired objectives. This responds to Teare and Rayner (2002, p. 354)
call for a strategy to serve as a guiding and inspiring framework helping a firm to reach its
desired outcomes. Within business units, each member is permitted to use the driven
information as well as to add his/her own interpretation to it. The entire company is
connected through a full computerized information network that facilitates the flow of
information to various internal users. Faced with a turbulent, dynamic and hostile business
environment, GME trains its members to share knowledge that impacts the bottom line of
the business to various stakeholders. The existing knowledge structure- the GME
methodology that it uses to capture, interpret, and disseminate collective knowledge- allows
GME to develop unique competencies based on sharing and using the readily available
information. As personnel specialist put it:
[. . .] now if you didn’t have the cross-functional knowledge sharing, I might not connect
something in my part of the business with something in somebody else’s part of the business.
Which if we put the two together, you’ve got a potential for a business opportunity.

Align Information Integrate Business Units via Competencies of GME Desired Competitive
Capture relevant and
Processing into Business Information Networks Knowledge Strategy Outcomes
reliable information through
Needs

 Innovative solutions
Each business unit aligned based on past cases
with the overall strategy  Doing things differently
Internal sources such as: should:  Eliminate sources of
 Sharing of Past  Analyze information that waste & non value added
experiences influences its operations and activities
 Historical information decisions. Continuous Improvement  Improved quality
 Interactive team work  Disseminating this Process (CIP)  Reduced costs
 Training and seminars information to company-  Improved processes
 Orientation & focused wide.  Shorten set-up time
courses  Utilize this information to  Shorten supply period
 Repetitive problems better achieve planned  Developed personnel
 Integrated information
 Management conferences goals. management systems
skills
 Store refined information (IIMS)
for later usage.  Functional information  Match customers needs
management systems  Initiate product
Market Orientation (FIMS)
Building effective portfolio
development
 SAP databases  Improved after sale
 AS 400 of products services
External sources such as: Each business unit must  ERP system  High potential financial
 Survey customers' allow its members to:-  Quality of data obtained performance
opinions.  Participate in collective  Experimentation
 Gathering up-to-date work to apply gained  Commercialization
competitive information.
 Accessing suppliers and
knowledge
 Think up new ways for
 Achieve backward & Figure 2.
forward integrations
dealers information bases
 Collecting public and
improving things in relation
to existing rules and Online access to suppliers
 Master quality
 Reduced scrapping cost
Modeling the
routines. and dealers information
official statistics
 Searching trade literature,  Organize information and systems
 Reduced stockage time
 Increased market share
evolving
keep it accessible.
 Localization
fairs, and papers.
 Obtaining information  Retrieve and reflect on
 Rationalized prices
relationships among
from international partners past information
and affiliates market orientation,
 Overcome shutdown
Legend: Consolidated Procurement
problems
 Reduced mistaken orders
organizational
Strong Influence
Organization (CPO)  Reduced costs
 Extract information any
learning, knowledge
Weak Influence
time
management
 Prevent waste in bulk processes and
Reciprocal Influence materials
Canban Systems & Lean
Manufacturing
 Prevent folk-lifts
 Reduced pollution
competitive
 Reduced handling time
 Speed up processes
advantage at GME
EBR This responds to Kenny (2006, p. 364) demand for organizations to develop more responsive
32,1 strategic process by which managers establish a culture of trust, encourage participation
and support individuals to learn from their experience and contribute their practice based
knowledge to formation of better strategic outcomes. These various practices and
competencies are conceptualized in light of participants’ viewpoints. They involve CIP,
effective portfolio of products, strong relationship with suppliers and dealers, better
110 internet-based value-chain management, CPO and Canban system and Lean manufacturing.
By using these competencies, GME is being capable to achieve some competitive
advantages such as better quality, saved time, cost reduction, better backward and forward
integration, creation of human capital, and exceptional innovation. This corresponds to
Vithessonthi and Amonrat (2011, p. 201) argument that “a firm with strong organizational
learning may be able undertake strategic change at lower costs than a firm with weak
organizational learning”. It is widely viewed that knowledge created via collective learning
is a key to GME survival. As one manager pointed out:
[. . .] without developed knowledge you will not be able to understand the markets and
competition [. . .] Moreover, you’ll not be able to understand how your strategy works [. . .] From
my job perspective, unless I’ve up-to-date knowledge, I’ll not be able to strongly negotiate
different offers and prices. More knowledge [. . .] more information to me, means a better way of
running the business and getting the best outcomes from it.
Knowledge helps GME differentiate its products and services, and its processes from competitors
in the eyes of its customers. Søberg and Chaudhuri (2018, p. 94) argued that frameworks on
organizational learning and knowledge management should foster novel ideas and also,
incremental ones. GME considers organizational knowledge as a central factor for overall
performance and organizational survival. As Daft and Huber (1987, pp. 6-7) pointed out
“organizations purposefully disseminate information to carry out the function of decision making
and control”. Participants broadly believe that organizational knowledge increasingly provides
an essential basis for sustainable competitive advantage. Participants view GME’s experience in
the auto assembling industry as unique and hence, it is far difficult for competitors to replicate.
The way through GME generates competitive advantage from knowledge fits with the concept
transformative capacity that explains the dynamic nature of the resource-based view of the firm
(Garud and Nayyar, 1994). This concept demonstrates how new resources and competences can
be created within an organization. Participants explain that for competitors to start from scratch
and to build up the experience that the GME currently obtains is an increasingly difficult task
because those competitors have to go through a long learning curve, which is quite costly for
them. This uniqueness results from organized preparation not only to maintain knowledge but
also to constantly update it. As a sales manager puts it:
It is only knowledge and if there’s a product available for us and the market is quite good, unless
we’ve got the experience of selling into that market, we don’t bring that product in. We would far
rather bring a product in that we already have the knowledge or we have 50% of the knowledge
and we can grow on. And that’s what most of this business success comes from, it’s from our
knowledge and people skills
It is suggested in light of the data analyzed from GME that the company can trace its competitive
advantage to collective knowledge in a variety of ways. First, organizational knowledge
strengthens the company to maintain a cost advantage in organizational activities. Second,
organizational knowledge supports the company to achieve a time advantage in a number of
operations and processes. Third, organizational knowledge assists the company to improve the
quality of its operations and products. Fourth, organizational knowledge reinforces the company
to meet customers’ expectations. That is, GME aligns its competitive goals to customers’ needs
and wants (Simons et al., 2003). Fifth, organizational knowledge allows the company to leverage a Foreign
past experience to new markets. Sixth, an internal knowledge base, which is maintained, is subsidiary in
difficult to transfer outside the organization. A line manager explains that internal knowledge
gives them a competitive advantage over their competitors in that those competitors are not so
emerging
able in doing that as themselves. He continues to describe that internal knowledge gives an markets
experience that helps them to design things or to talk to the customer knowledgeably about what
products they are going to give him. He adds that by using internal knowledge, they are in a
better position to understand what the customer requires and can therefore provide him with a
111
product that meets his requirements.
It is widely argued in past studies that the main outcome of organizational learning is a
kind of connection between employees and work that drives the firm to realize a unique
competitive lead over rivals (Yeo, 2006). GME responds to Crossan et al. (1996, p. 20) claim
that “the best companies distinguish themselves from all others by their ability to adapt to
and capitalize on a rapidly changing and unpredictable environment”. To sum up, GME
benefits from five core factors when leveraging collective knowledge to maintain a
competitive advantage. First, it exploits a flat organizational structure. Second, it
implements a well-established management system that firmly describes roles,
responsibilities, and authorities of organizational members. Third, it considers quality as a
cornerstone of an existing management system. Fourth, it intensively relies on computer-
based activities and a research work. Fifth, it cares for workers in that it provides them with
a job security, health care, learning opportunities, housing, social activities, medical care,
and a pension system. Not only do these factors facilitate and promote a learning culture
throughout the entire organization but they also strengthen the company’s capability to
sustain an organizational success in a domestic market. This responds to Yeo’s (2003, p. 80)
claim that “organizational learning influences organizational performance by increasing
employee competence through upgrading of skills and knowledge”. Drawing on managers’
perspectives, figure 2 below demonstrates the way in which GME assimilates and exploits
collective knowledge to sustain and to strengthen its sustainable competitive advantage in
the Egyptian market for more than three decades. Imran et al. (2016) argued that
organizations which have a clear process regarding organizational learning can learn faster
and sustain their competitive advantage in the market. GME sets a good example in
emerging market on how to exploit knowledge generated from the market to direct its
market-oriented competitive advantage. As R and D professionall put it:
But we’ve been working together as a cross-functional team and we’ve come up with a brand new
range basically, which will be launched very shortly and again it was something that really was
born out of the mix of the technology and the new consumer need and I don’t think either of us
thought it would have been possible and so it’s used the technology in a new way. And that has
meant the actual product development time has really been shortened. And we’ve actually got
something out of the end, which neither of us could have envisaged, on our own.

Contributions
Some empirical elements not captured by the organizational learning cycle
This research has provided a rich description of the GME learning cycle and also, has
indicated how learning promoted by market orientation can impact its competitive
advantage. We identify here a number of critical issues not captured by the collective
learning cycle. GME tends to conduct regular reviews of its strategy to ensure that it is
aligned with what it does internally and what challenges it faces externally (Pietersen, 2010)
Organizations, which constantly learn are more adaptable to changes posed by the external
EBR environment. These uncovered elements can serve as directions for mangers in similar auto
32,1 industry contingencies. As Crossan et al. (1999, p. 532) put it:
[. . .] organizational learning is a dynamic process. Not only does learning occur over time and
across levels, but it also creates a tension between assimilating new learning (feed forward) and
exploiting or using what has already been learned (feedback).
This describes the learning cycle of GME which begins by generating information and ends
112 by reflecting on exploited leaning and experiences. However, we outline here a number of
issues that emerged from the empirical examination of GME case setting and can serve as
base for future research concern. They can be named challenges to win a competitive
advantage from aligning collective learning into a market-oriented competitive strategy at a
foreign subsidiary reside in emerging markets. Emphasizing these obstacles here helps us
shed more light on the complex nature of organizational learning. As Crossan and Berdrow
(2003, pp. 1103-4) put it “if researchers and managers continue to focus on only the perceived
positive aspects of organizational learning they will fail to comprehend its full complexity.
Table VI below addresses such elements that open a room for future research agendas.

Conclusion
Key success factors and barriers to the application of organizational learning at GME
Although this study is limited by the retrospective nature of the case study methodology, it
can be seen as a first step toward developing a better explanation on how and why learning
takes place. The purpose of this paper has been to explore qualitatively the actual practice of
organizational learning at GME. GME uses organizational learning as an alignment tool
between the organization and its environment; since a rapidly changing auto industry
environment can cause misalignment (Kloot, 1997). The empirical data collected and
analyzed on the phenomenon has demonstrated the existence of a growing collective
learning system at GME. It has been explored that GME capitalized on some key success
factors when approaching its collective learning cycle. These factors were as follows:
 flat organizational structure;
 a well-established management system;
 a clear emphasis on training in quality;
 a strong knowledge sharing culture;
 a global value chain management;
 an integrated internal and external networks;
 a continuous process of environmental scanning;
 a deployment of competitive and business intelligence technology;
 an integrated financial and non-financial reward system;
 a rigorous process of strategic planning; and
 an effective teamwork methodology.

However, we come across some elements that impede collective learning and thus need to be
investigated in future research. These barriers were as follows:
 indeliberate knowledge work;
 intensive reliance on outside consultants;
 a knowledge gap resulting from moving key employees around various business units;
 Foreign
Elements Meaning and Interpretation Relevant Interviewee’s Quote
subsidiary in
Personnel Throughout the course of the empirical As a human resources manager put it: emerging
turnover phase of this research, personnel turnover “We have concerns about the exit of
was cited as a critical factor that impact talented workers and those of special markets
unconstructively upon collective learning. competences to work in other competing
Great value should hence be attached to companies, which have spread in an
the influence of personnel turnover upon unprecedented manner recently. So the 113
the knowledge sharing capability of an company has developed a plan to retain
organization. Not only should the and keep them”
management examine the cause of
personnel turnover at regular intervals but
also it should place much emphasis upon
protecting knowledge owned by key
individuals inside each individual division.
It is important to recognize and further, to
protect valuable knowledge from getting
wasted through personnel turnover. The
systemic feature of collective knowledge is
thus considered to be an effective tool that
can be used to protect useful knowledge
from imitation
Information Investment plans in information As IT professional put it: “The IT
technology technology should be targeted towards Department designs many applications
widening individuals’ participation and and procures applications that help to
should facilitate and enable learning spread knowledge and improve the
opportunities inside an organization. In communication process between
other words, it is important to ensure that employees to achieve consistency between
investments made to information what they do and the strategy of the
technology do support people who are company in general”.
actually working in a particular Also, a manufacturing engineer put it “the
community. Otherwise, IT investments social interaction, the more social things
may go into overhead and end up you do, the more team relationships you’ll
supporting not people but infrastructure. get and people working together as a
That means, technology has to be married team. I see the scope of my business unit
with individuals’ needs of knowledge knowledge turns on how it is structured
acquisition, processing, and sharing. As and shared among its users and
Bruce (1998, p. 20) put it clearly: managers producers. And that’s deeply affected by
must champion collaborative efforts to the information technology available to us
draw on the collective energies of business and the social articulation and
and IT leaders to shape the role of IT in transmission of such knowledge”
creating value toward that strategy”
Organizational During the course of this research, As a planning and budgeting specialist
culture organizational culture has been addressed put it. “I do actually think that there is a
as s significant perquisite for creating a very good culture of sharing knowledge
learning organization. The support of key within the development function of our
individuals, employees’ participation and business and I’m not quite sure why but
attitude to learning and a clear reward the information is shared very readily. I
scheme are all mentioned as core elements think a very important asset of our
in building a learning company. As business unit is the knowledge that it Table VI.
Branson (2008, p. 380) summarizes it actually has even though the knowledge Elements of
“attending to the creation and maintenance isn’t organized that well. So we’ve really organizational
of an appropriate organizational culture is got to look at organizing that knowledge learning not-captured
at the heart of leading a successful learning so it’s a lot more accessible to all” by the four-step
(continued) framework
EBR
32,1 Elements Meaning and Interpretation Relevant Interviewee’s Quote

organization”. The management should

thus promote an overall understanding
throughout the whole organization of why
a knowledge-friendly culture is very much
114 important and beneficial to the business.
As Kenny (2006, p. 353) put it: “if
appropriately designed, purposeful
strategic activity will help to develop an
organizational learning culture”.
Informants interviewed in this study view
that senior executives support is
considerably important, that is, if senior
executives are doing it the rest of a
company will follow but if senior
executives are saying it but not doing it the
rest of a company will not follow. As
Barakat and Moussa (2014, p. 282) put it “a
person’s culture congruence theory of
learning emphasizes the importance of the
interaction between a person and the
environment for better understanding of
cross-cultural learning. Culture represents
the softer side of aligning organizational
learning into strategy and hence, serves as
a core driver to desired change
(Heracleous, 2003)
Reflecting on The examination of GME case indicates As senior manager put it: “I mean we’ve
prior learning that individuals are in a need to reflect on got quite a, if you look at the overall
prior learning at certain stage and to strategy, I think we spend a considerable
identify a number of outcomes that impact time reflecting on our learning of our
upon the future development of the successes and weaknesses and indeed
business. Simons et al. (2003) clarified that learning of our competitors’ successes and
integrative reflections make people weaknesses and studying them. Both
practice learning effectively. Reflecting on studying them- our competitors- to work
prior learning situations has been out what they do better than us and could
addressed as a significant process to we do that but also to understand them
widening people’s participation and as a and to say well if this is what they have
result, they can be better positioned to been doing-what are they likely be doing.
update their skills and knowledge. It is And in that scenario what will be the
thus important that people who engage in situation for our company. So we do
learning activities to be given an spend a considerable amount of time
opportunity to reflect on prior learning reflecting on our learning and knowledge
whether it is considered to be a success or now. Again I think historically we didn’t.
failure. As Gherardi and Nicolini (2000, But I think we are now getting to a stage
p. 332) put it “learning is not conceived as a where our strategic planning is pretty
way of knowing the world but as a way of respected. I think again, I think there’s a
being in the world”. This, in turn, asserts long way to go. I think that’s the key with
that the promotion of action in learning a learning organisation-that you never
rests on both participation and reflection stop learning”
(Goh and Richards, 1997; Romme, 1996).
This responds to Gourlay (2006, p. 1431)
Table VI. (continued)
 Foreign
Elements Meaning and Interpretation Relevant Interviewee’s Quote subsidiary in
call in which he stated that academic
emerging
research could also perhaps fruitfully markets
consider to what extent and how reflective
activity can become part and parcel of
typical managerial work 115
Learning from Informants interviewed in this study As a marketing director put it “If there’s a
failure acknowledge the notion that senior problem or a sort of failure let’s share the
executives should learn to accept failure. In problem. Let’s work together and just the
such a situation, not only does the fact that everybody knows about the
management need to learn accepting problem, doesn’t necessarily mean he is
failures and mistakes but also it needs to directly involving in resolving- coming up
consider mistakes as normal practice and with a solution. But they are thinking
to encourage people learn from that. It is about it. And there may just be that spark
important that people learn from mistakes that comes through and it filters back
so that they do not have to repeat them. through the system. And ‘hey’ I’ve
The management should therefore open up been thinking about your problem and
opportunities and challenges on the basis I’ve got this idea. And you get that cross
of learning from unconstructive over and it’s the only way for us to work”
experience. Unconstructive practice that is
emerged in a particular community of
practice should also be shared as widely as
possible through existing formal and
informal networks. Such a facet of
learning, that is identifies clearly in the
examination of the case study, often
encourages individuals to explore many
ways to deal with the situations they faced.
People naturally learn best when they are
able to ask questions about why they
understood the situation as they did and
whether their thinking approach was true
or false
Formal vs During the course of the study informants As a sales director put it “Since its
Informal repeatedly referred to social networks of establishment, GME has promoted the
learning relationships as an essential factor for idea of informal learning. The company
learning. The examination of the case allows for the liberalization of the
study has demonstrated the fact that business climate and attempts to integrate
collective learning can take place either as informal communication and use it to
result of a number of programmes disseminate knowledge and improve the
designed to help individuals follow a learning process at the company level”.
learning approach or as a result of As an IT professional put it “the company
unintentional efforts that often derive from has quite a strong social environment, a
any social and conversational interaction. lot of people know each other, the rate of
Hence, the importance of informal learning professionalism in most areas is fairly low
to the business should not be in compared with our competitors and
underestimated. Stacey (1995) explained therefore people get to know things and
that informal networks are essential tools, get to know what’s going on and form
by which organizations are equipped to fairly strong social structure. I think that
manage emerging change and volatility in informal element is probably quite
marketplace. One reason this study offers important”
for such an emphasis on informal learning
(continued) Table VI.
EBR
32,1 Elements Meaning and Interpretation Relevant Interviewee’s Quote

resides in the failure of a formal

intervention to instill adequately a
permanent capacity to learning. Stacey
(1995) explained that informal networks
116 are essential tools, by which organizations
are equipped to manage emerging change
and volatility in marketplace
Reward At GME, progress of each organizational As a production manager put it “We also
Scheme member is monitored through a feedback operate a merit scheme every three
designed to report, which often contains a section months, in which people are graded on
promote about his contribution to an innovation in how they are doing their jobs, time
learning his area and whether or not he supports keeping, knowledge, and experience. All
and interacts with other colleagues at the that’s discussed with every individual. It’s
workplace. GME has also put into practice quite time consuming but I believe it does
a merit system that links an existing pay benefit and the employee at that stage
reward scheme to organizational members’ is encouraged to offer suggestions. We’ve
performance. Cooperation, communication, a notice board on the shop floor that’s
team spirit, and knowledgeability are key saying how many suggestions have we
elements that are taken into consideration made and how many have we acted upon”
when implementing the merit system
Market- GME carries out an internal control As the sales manager puts it: “If you’ve a
oriented conference that sets out to improve the skills very good training course established or
training of employees that work in the internal training concept established within the
quality control division. These practices are business, you then look outside and say
increasingly seen as crucial factors in well what about my dealers I’ve got to
sustaining and strengthening organizational train them. If I’m talking on a distributor
achievements. The training manager that’s going to sell my products in the
describes knowledge and people’s desire to market. Then under those circumstances
move forward as the driving forces to I’ve got to give them ever more training
maintain a corporate success. He goes on to than I give to my people to be able to
clarify that maintaining such success support these products out in the
provides the reference for other work; since marketplace”
employees view learning as a continual
feeding process. Working with GME case
study, it is apparent that the top
management significantly emphasizes
training as an essential learning tool, not
only for those inside the company, but also
Table VI. for outside stakeholders

 competition among team members impede knowledge sharing;

 no permission for experimentations;
 absence of proactiveness;
 lack of constructive feedback system;
 knowledge workers are non-identified;
 spread of culture of blame;
 business units’ competition; and
 ambiguous organization for knowledge management activities.
GME aligns its organizational learning practices into strategy by considering learning as a Foreign
base for improving the skills, insights, and competences of its people not only to perform subsidiary in
well at work but also to become problem solvers, creative thinkers, and more confident
(Kumaraswamy and Chitale, 2012). We highlighted the various initiatives put in place by
emerging
GME to realize competitive advantage. Our findings here match with Saito et al. (2007, markets
p. 101) outlines: “we say that a given KM program is strategic if: there is a knowledge
strategy in place, which defines the knowledge intents that support a particular knowledge-
based competitive strategy; and the program includes a set of KM initiatives that directly or
117
indirectly support those knowledge intents”. It is made clear that the current knowledge
management practices at GME permitted the company to develop a set of internal
competencies upon which GME’s competitive advantage was based. Acquiring, sharing,
and using the existing knowledge enabled GME to launch its CIP, to create effective
portfolio of products, to capitalize on accessing suppliers and dealers information bases, to
apply the CPO and to implement advanced manufacturing techniques. The development of
those competencies allowed GME to achieve unique competitive advantages that resulted in
cost reduction, quality improvement, better time management, innovation, increased
localization, high responsiveness, and accordingly, increased market share. These finding
support the standpoint that the concept of learning organization is the most suitable model
for guiding organizational changes (Porth et al., 1999; Randeree, 2006).

Rethink the organizational learning cycle notion

Throughout the course of this research, the framework of collective learning cycle (Dixon, 1994)
was used to examine the practice of organizational learning in terms of the four-stage cycle.
However, there are particular concerns with regards to notion of collective learning cycle. First,
organizational learning cycle framework contends that a dissemination of accurate and
complete information is an essential prerequisite for collective learning. However, scholars
neither describes what it is meant by accurate and complete information nor explains how an
organization defines whether or not a piece of information is accurate and complete. Dixon
(2000, p. 26) pointed out that the type of knowledge that is being transferred makes a difference
in what methods of transfer works best. A second concern on the subject of collective learning
cycle emerges from scholars’ argument that collective learning takes place as a result of an
“intentional” use of the learning processes. In so doing, past models overlooked the fact that
collective learning can emerge as a result of socio-cultural routines and past practices. A third
concern results from the rationale that the collective learning cycle theme pays no attention to
the influence of the control that managers maintain over the knowledge sharing process in an
organization. Power and politics are considered to be significant for learning organization
(Coopey, 1996; Correl and Gregoire, 1998). A fourth concern emerges from the fact that linking
the organizational learning cycle to an organizational memory was considered another issue
that past models overlooked. Past collective learning cycles (see for example, Dixon, 1994; Kolb,
1984) have devoted insufficient attention to the concept “organizational memory”. The four
stages of the organizational learning cycle often proceed as if an organization acquires
information for the first time or as if organizational learning and individual learning are similar
in that they involve the same process of information storing. Organizational memory is
increasingly considered to be a significant element in describing the collective learning process
(see for example, Cohen and Bacdayan, 1994; Moorman and Miner, 1997; Schwandt et al., 1999;
Shrivastava and Schneider, 1984; Walsh and Ungson, 1991; Weick and Roberts, 1993). Cook
and Yanow (1993, p. 378) pointed out that “what organizations do when they learn is
necessarily different from what individuals do when they learn”.
EBR Fifth, past collective learning cycle models assumes that the learning process proceeds in
32,1 an ideal way. By this means, the collective learning model was unsuccessful in addressing two
major things. Organizations have to consider the individuals’ skills and abilities required to
carry out the four steps of the cycle in a particular learning situation. The other has to do with
the consequences that can arise if learners decide to move in a transverse manner rather than
following a circular sequence. Drew and Smith (1995, p. 13) claimed that “broken learning
118 cycles such as a failure to reflect on, or learn from, experience, are evident in the frequency of
projects which reinvent the wheel”. Sixth, taking an action based on a collectively interpreted
meaning stage can be substituted by leveraging collectively developed knowledge to a
sustainable competitive advantage. Organizational learning strengthens an organization’s
competitive advantage through generating effective patterns of behaviors, routines, rules, and
cognitive processes and sense making (Edmondson and Moingeon, 1996; Helleloid and Simon,
1994). While past organizational learning cycle models focused entirely on connecting action to
a collectively interpreted meaning, they fail to explain not only the contingencies of taking an
action but also the potential outcomes of that action. That’s, scholars can capitalize on the
framework generated from GME case study to understand the way through which
organizations with similar contexts create long-term values from organizational learning. This
complies with Denton (1998) notion in which organizational learning is viewed as the ability to
adapt and use new knowledge as a source of competitive advantage.

Limitations
Due the limited resource and time constraints, there were a limited number of interviews. A
large number of interviews would have enabled us to collect more data and consequently,
enhance the possibility to generalize the findings of this work. In addition, our case study
approach does not develop testable generalizations and hence, it can be criticized in not to be
enough scientific. This is due to the small number of subjects investigated. This, in turn,
impedes our ability to replicate research’s findings in other organizational settings.

Directions for future research

In light of the results of this study, a number of areas for future research can be outlined.
There is emerging demand for conducting more quantitative research on the relationships
between market orientation, organizational learning, and competitive advantage to test the
consensus of causality on the constructs of the three elements. In addition, more
comparative researches are widely needed to differentiate market-based learning practices
of the developed nations from those practices in emerging markets. Aligning multinational
corporations’ learning practices into foreign subsidiaries’ specific needs is another area for
future research. More research is also required to tackle the debate between market-oriented
learning paradigm and knowledge-based view paradigm. More research is required to look
for modeling the relationships between collective learning and market orientation in other
major industries via quantitative methodology. The unique features of market forces in both
the mother and host countries of various multinational enterprises are also important
subject for future research. The tension between formal and informal learning also opens
opportunities for further research. Features determine the inimitability of competitive
advantage emerge from collective knowledge is a pertinent subject for future research. The
search for a new model that integrates market orientation and organizational learning into
corporate performance is another subject that requires more future research.
References Foreign
Andreas, R. and Lindsay, N. (2006), “Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder subsidiary in
partnerships in the public policy development”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 24-39.
emerging
Ardito, L., Petruzzelli, M.A. and Albino, V. (2015), “From technological inventions to new products: a
markets
systematic review and research agenda of the main enabling factors”, European Management
Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 113-147.
Argyris, C. (1986), “Skilled incompetence”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 74-79.
119
Argyris, C. (1991), “Teaching smart people how to learn”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 99-109.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning, a Theory of Action Perspective, Addison
-Wesley Series on Organizational Development, Boston.
Baker, J., Jones, D., Cao, Q. and Song, J. (2011), “Conceptualizing the dynamic strategic alignment
competency”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 299-322.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), “The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning
orientation on organizational performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 411-427.
Barakat, A. and Moussa, F. (2014), “Variables influencing expatriate learning and organizational
learning”, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 275-292.
Barlow, D.H. and Hersen, M. (1984), Single Case Experimental Designs, Strategies for Studying Behavior
Change, Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Bastin, R. (1985), “Participant observation in social analysis”, in Walker, R. (Ed.), Applied Qualitative
Research, Gower Publishing Company, Aldershot.
Beer, M., Voelpel, S.C., Leibold, M. and Tekie, E.B. (2005), “Strategic management as organizational
learning: developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 445-465.
Belle, S. (2016), “Organizational learning? Look again”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 332-341.
Berchicci, L. (2013), “Towards an open R&D system: internal R&D investment, external knowledge
acquisition and innovative performance”, Research Policy, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 117-127.
Berrell, M., Wrathall, J. and Wright, P. (2001), “A model for Chinese management education: adapting
the case study method to transfer management knowledge”, Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 28-44.
Boisot, M. and Cox, B. (1999), “The I-Space: a framework for analyzing the evolution of social
computing”, Technovation, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 525-536.
Bosua, R. and Venkitachalam, K. (2013), “Aligning strategies and processes in knowledge management:
a framework”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 331-346.
Bouwen, R. and Fry, R. (1991), “Organizational innovation and learning, four patterns of dialogue
between the dominant logic and the new logic”, International Studies of Management and
Organization ( Organization), Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 37-51.
Brandi, U. and Rosa, L.I. (2015), “Innovative organizational learning technologies: organizational
learning’s rosetta stone”, Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 3-5.
Branson, C.M. (2008), “Achieving organizational change through values alignment”, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 376-395.
Bromley, D.B. (1986), The Case-Study Method in Psychology and Related Disciplines, John Wiley and
Sons, Chichester.
Bruce, K. (1998), “Can you align IT with business strategy?”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 16-20.
EBR Burdett, J.O. (1994), “To coach, or not to coach- that is the question”, in Mabey, C. and Lyles, P. (Eds),
Managing Learning, Biddles, Guildford and King’s Lynn, pp. 133-145.
32,1
Burgess, R.G. (1984), In the Field, an Introduction to Field Research, Allen and Unwin, London.
Burgoyne, J.G. (1998), “Learning, conceptual, practical and theoretical issues”, Paper Presented at the
British Academy of Management Annual Conference, The University of Nottingham Business
School, Nottingham.
120 Callahan, J.L. and Schwandt, D.R. (1999), “The academy as social system, a Meta-framework for
organizational learning”, Paper Presented at the Organizational Learning Conference, Lancaster,
Lancaster University, pp. 208-232.
Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959), “Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-
multimethod matrix”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 81-105.
Casey, D. (1993), Managing Learning in Organizations, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Cavaleri, S.A. (2004), “Leveraging organizational learning for knowledge and performance”, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 159-176.
Chang, T.C. and Chuang, S.H. (2011), “Performance implications of knowledge management processes:
examining the roles of infrastructure capability and business strategy”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 6170-6178.
Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2005), “Organizational learning and organizational knowledge: towards the
integration of two approaches”, Management Learning, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
Clanon, J. (1999), “Organizational transformation from the inside out: reinventing the MIT center for
organizational learning”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 147-156.
Cohen, M.D. and Bacdayan, P. (1994), “Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory,
evidence from a laboratory study”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 554-568.
Cohen, M.D. and Sproull, L.S. (1996), Organizational Learning, Sage Publications, London.
Combe, I.A. and Botschen, G. (2002), “Strategy paradigms for the management of quality: dealing with
complexity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 5/6, pp. 500-523.
Connelly, C.E. and Kelloway, E.K. (2003), “Predicators of employee’s perceptions of knowledge sharing
cultures”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 294-301.
Cook, S.D. and Yanow, D. (1993), “Culture and organizational learning”, Journal of Management
Inquiry, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 373-390.
Coopey, J. (1996), “Crucial gaps in the learning organization, power, politics, and ideology”, in Starkey,
K. (Ed.), How Organizations Learn, International Thomson Publishing, London, pp. 348-367.
Correl, J.G. and Gregoire, R.M. (1998), “Power learning, racing ahead of your competition”, Hospital
Material Management Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 63-67.
Creswell, J.W. (1994), Research Design, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage Publications, London.
Crossan, M.M. and Berdrow, I. (2003), “Organizational learning and strategic renewal”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1087-1105.
Crossan, M. and Guatto, T. (1996), “Organizational learning research profile”, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 107-112.
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W. and Roderick, R.E. (1999), “An organizational learning framework: from
intuition to institution”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 522-537.
Crossan, M.M., Maurer, C. and White, R. (2011), “Reflection on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have
a theory of organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 446-460.
Crossan, M.M., Roderick, W., Henry, L. and Leo, K. (1996), “The improvising organization: where
planning meets opportunity”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 20-21.
Curado, C. and Bontis, N. (2011), “Parallels in knowledge cycles”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1438-1444.
Daft, R.L. and Huber, G.P. (1987), “How organizations learn, a communication framework”, Research in Foreign
the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 5, pp. 1-36.
subsidiary in
Dale, M. (1994), “Learning organizations”, in Mabey, C. and Lyles, P. (Eds), Managing Learning,
Biddles, Guildford and King’s Lynn, pp. 22-33.
emerging
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, How Organizations Manage What They
markets
Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Denton, J. (1998), Organizational Learning and Effectiveness, Routledge, London. 121
Denzin, N.K. (1989), The Research Act, a Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, Prentice-Hall,
NJ.
Dickson, P.R. (1992), “Toward a general theory of competitive rationality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56
No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Dickson, P.R. (1996), “The static and dynamic mechanics of competition: a comment on Hunt and
Morgan’s comparative advantage theory”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 102-106.
Dixon, N. (1992), “Organizational learning: a review of the literature with implications for HRD”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Dixon, N. (1994), The Organizational Learning Cycle, How We Can Learn Collectively, McGraw-Hill
International.
Dixon, N. (2000), Common Knowledge, How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know, Harvard
Business School Press.
Dodgson, M. (1993), “Organizational learning: a review of some literatures”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 375-394.
Douglas, J.W.B. (1976), “The use and abuse of national cohorts”, Shipman, M. (Ed.), The Organization
and Impact of Social Research, Six Original Case Studies in Education and Behavioral Sciences,
Routled and Kegan Paul, London.
Drew, S.A.W. and Smith, P.A.C. (1995), “The learning organization: change proofing and strategy”, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Drucker, P. (1992), “The new society of organizations”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 20, pp. 95-104.
Duarte, D. and Snyder, N. (1997), “From experience, facilitating global organizational learning in
product development at whirlpool corporation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 48-55.
Duncan, R.B. (1974), “Modification in decision structure in adapting to the environment, some
implications for organizational learning”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 705-725.
Earl, M. (2001), “Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 215-233.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997), “Disciplines of organizational learning, contributions and critiques”, Human
Relations, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 1085-1113.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999), “Organizational learning, current debates and opportunities”,
in Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (Eds), Organizational Learning and the
Learning Organization, Sage Publications, London, pp. 1-21.
Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (1999), Organizational Learning and the Learning
Organization, Development in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, London.
Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R. and Gherardi, S. (1998), “Organizational learning, diverging communities
of practice?”, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 259-272.
Edmondson, A. and Moingeon, B. (1996), “When to learn how and when to learn why, appropriate
organizational learning processes as a source of competitive advantage”, in Edmondson, A. and
Moigeon, B. (Eds), Organizational Learning and Competitive Advantage, Sage Publications,
London, pp. 17-37.
EBR Elkajaer, B. (1999), “In search of a social learning theory”, in Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and
Araujo, L. (Eds), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, Sage Publications,
32,1 London, pp. 75-91.
Ergi, C.P. and Frost, P.J. (1994), “The organizational learning politics of sustainable development”, in
Thomas, H., O’Neal, D., White, R. and Hurst, D. (Eds), Building Strategically Responsive
Organization, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, pp. 215-230.
Farrell, M.A. and Oczkowski, E. (2003), “Are market orientation and learning orientation
122 necessary for superiors performance”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 197-2002.
Ferraris, A., Santoro, G. and Dezi, L. (2017), “How MNC’s subsidiaries may improve their innovative
performance? the role of external sources and knowledge management capabilities”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 540-552.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), “Organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 803-813.
Flood, R.L. (1999), “Rethinking the Fifth Discipline, Learning within the Unknowable, Routledge, London.
Fortune, J. and Peters, G. (1995), Learning from failure-The Systems Approach, John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester.
Friedlander, F. (1984), “Patterns of individual and organizational learning”, in Shrivastava, S. (Ed.), The
Executive Mind, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 192-220.
Fulmer, R.M. and Keys, J.B. (1998), “A conversation with Chris Argyris, the father of organizational
learning”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 21-32.
Gallagher, A. and Fellenz, M.R. (1999), “Measurement instrument as a tool for advancing research in
organizational learning”, Paper presented at the Organizational Learning Conference, Lancaster
University, Lancaster, pp. 418-442.
Garavan, T.N., Morley, M., Gunnigle, P. and McGuire, D. (2002), “Human resource development and
workplace learning: emerging theoretical perspectives and organizational practices”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 26 Nos 2/3/4, pp. 60-71.
Garratt, B. (1999), “The learning organization 15years on: some personal reflections”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 202-206.
Garud, R. and Nayyar, P. (1994), “Transformative capacity, continual structuring by intertemporal
technology”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 365-385.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 78-91.
Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997), “Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2000), “To transfer is to transform: the circulation of safety knowledge”,
Organization, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 329-348.
Goh, S. and Richards, G. (1997), “Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 575-583.
Gourlay, S. (2006), “Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonaka’s theory”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 1415-1436.
Graham, A.B. and Pizzo, V.G. (1997), “Competing on knowledge”, Knowledge and Process Management
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 4-10.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 109-122.
Hamel, G. (1991), “Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic
alliances”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. S1, pp. 83-103.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S. and Fortin, D. (1993), Case Studies Methods, Qualitative Research Methods Series,
Sage Publications, London, Vol. 32.
Hammersley, M. (1990), Reading Ethnographic Research, a Critical Guide, Long-mans, London. Foreign
Hayes, J. and Allinson, C.W. (1998), “Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and subsidiary in
collective learning in organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 847-871.
emerging
Hedlund, G. (1994), “Model of knowledge management and the N-Form corporation”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. S2, pp. 73-90. markets
Helleloid, D. and Simon, B. (1994), “Organizational learning and a firm’s core competence”, in Hamel, G.
and Heene, A. (Eds), Competence-Based Competition, John Wiley and Son, Chichester,
pp. 213-239.
123
Henderson, J.C. and Venkatraman, N. (1993), “Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology
for transforming organizations”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 472-484.
Heracleous, L. (2003), Strategy and Organization: Realizing Strategic Management, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Homburg, C. and Pflesser, C. (2000), “A m-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture:
measurement issues and performance outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 449-462.
Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning, the contributing processes and the literature”,
Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 89-115.
Hult, G.T. and Nichols, E.L. (1996), “The organizational buyer behavior learning organization”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 197-207.
Hunt, S.D. and Lambe, C.J. (2000), “Marketing’s contribution to business strategy: market orientation,
relationship marketing and resource-advantage theory”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17-43.
Hurley, R.F. and Hult, G.T. (1998), “Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning, an
integration and empirical examination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 42-54.
Imran, M.K., Muhammad, I., Usman, A. and Ubaid-Ur, R. (2016), “Organizational learning through
transformational leadership”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 232-248.
Jacobs, C. and Coghlan, D. (2005), “Sound from silence: on listening in organizational learning”, Human
Relations, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 115-138.
Jamali, D., Khoury, G. and Sahyoun, H. (2006), “From bureaucratic organizations to learning
organizations: an evolutionary roadmap”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 337-352.
Jelinek, M. (1979), Institutionalizing Innovations, a Study of Organizational Learning Systems, Praeger,
New York, NY.
Jick, E. (1979), “Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods, triangulation in action”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 602-611.
Jin, D.J. and Stough, R.R. (1998), “Learning and learning capability in the fordist and post-Fordist age:
an integrative framework”, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, Vol. 30 No. 7,
pp. 1255-1278.
Jones, A.M. and Hendry, C. (1992), The Learning Organization, a Review of Literature and Practice, the
Centre for Corporate Strategy and Change, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick,
Coventry, pp. 19-33.
Kenny, J. (2006), “Strategy and the learning organization: a maturity model for the formation of
strategy”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 353-368.
Kim, D.H. (1993), “The link between individual and organizational learning”, Sloan Management
Review, pp. 37-50.
Kloot, L. (1997), “Organizational learning and management control systems: responding to
environmental change”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 47-73.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, J.B. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
EBR Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, J.B. and Kumar, A. (1993), “Measure of market orientation”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 467-477.
32,1
Kohtamäki, M., Sascha, K., Markus, M. and Mikko, R. (2012), “The role of personnel commitment to
strategy implementation and organizational learning within the relationship between strategic
planning and company performance”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-178.
124 Kolb, D.A. (1984), “Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood cliffs, NJ.
Kumaraswamy, K.S.N. and Chitale, C.M. (2012), “Collaborative knowledge sharing strategy to enhance
organizational learning”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 308-322.
Lester, D.H. (1998), “Critical success factors for new product development”, Research-Technology
Management , Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 36-43.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology , Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 319-340.
Liao, S.H. and Wu, C.C. (2010), “System perspective of knowledge management, organizational
learning, and organizational innovation”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 1096-1103.
Lundberg, C.C. (1989), “On organizational learning, implications and opportunities for expanding
organizational development”, in Woodman, R.W. and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 61-82.
McGuinness, T. and Robert, E.M. (2005), “The effect of market and learning orientation on strategy
dynamics: the contributing effect of organizational change capability”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 11/12, pp. 1306-1326.
McMillen, M.C., Boyatzis, R.E. and Swartz, L. (1994), “Contextual integration of knowledge, experience
and action learning for management education”, Management Learning, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 215-229.
Maani, K. and Benton, C. (1999), “Rapid team learning: lessons from team New Zealand America’s cup
campaign”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 48-62.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Margerison, C.J. (1994), “Action learning and excellence in management development”, in Mabey, C.
and Lyles, P. (Eds), Managing Learning, Biddles, Guildford and King’s Lynn, pp. 109-117.
Marquardt, M. (1996), Building the Learning Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Mason, J. (1996), Qualitative Researching, Sage Publications, London.
Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R. (1994), Beginning Qualitative Research, a Philosophical and Practical
Guide, The Falmer Press, London.
Merriam, S.B. (1988), Case Study Research in Education, a Qualitative Approach, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications, London.
Miller, D. (1996), “A preliminary typology of organizational learning”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 485-505.
Milovanovic, B.M., Primorac, D. and Kozina, G. (2016), “Two-dimensional analysis of the influence of
strategic networking on the entrepreneurial orientation and business performance among
SMEs”, Tehnicki Vjesnik, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 247-255.
Miner, A.S. and Mezias, S.J. (1996), “Ugly duckling no more, pasts and futures of organizational
learning research”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 88-99.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through the Wilds of
Strategic Management, Free Press, New York, NY.
Moon, H., Wendy, R. and Tom, V. (2017), “Organizational strategic learning capability: exploring Foreign
the dimensions”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 222-240.
subsidiary in
Moorman, C. and Miner, A.S. (1997), “The impact of organizational memory on new product
emerging
performance and creativity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 91-106. markets
Murray, P. (2003), “Organizational learning, competencies, and firm performance: empirical
observations”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 305-316.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”, Journal
125
of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
Nicolini, D. and Meznar, M.B. (1995), “The social construction of organizational learning, conceptual
and practical issues in the field”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 727-746.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Norbani, C.H., Mavondom, F. and Mohd-Said, S.S. (2014), “Performance or learning goal orientation:
implications for business performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1,
pp. 2811-2820.
Osgood, R.T. Jr, (2004), “Translating organizational strategy into real estate action: the strategy
alignment model”, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 106-117.
Pangarkar, A.M. and Kirkwood, T. (2008), “Strategic alignment: linking your learning strategy to the
balanced scorecard”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 95-101.
Pedler, M. and Aspinwall, K. (1998), A Concise Guide to the Learning Organization, Lemos and Crane,
London.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1997), The Learning Company, a Strategy for Sustainable
Development, McGraw-Hill, London.
Pietersen, W. (2010), Strategic Learning: How to Be Smarter than Your Competition and Turn Key
Insights into Competitive Advantage, Wiley and Sons, NJ.
Porth, S., McCall, J. and Bausch, T. (1999), “Spiritual themes of the learning organization”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 211-220.
Prange, C. and Bruyaka, O. (2016), “Better at home, abroad, or both? How Chinese firms use
ambidextrous internationalization strategies to drive innovation”, Cross Cultural and Strategic
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 306-339.
Randeree, E. (2006), “Structural barriers: redesigning schools to create learning organizations”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 397-404.
Revans, R. (1998), The ABC of Action Learning, Lemos and Crane, London.
Romme, G. (1996), “Making organizational learning work: consent and double linking between circles”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-75.
Saito, A., Umemoto, K. and Ikeda, M. (2007), “A strategy-based ontology of knowledge management
technologies”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 97-114.
Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (1997), “Competence-based strategic management, concepts and issues for
theory, research, and practice”, in Heene, A. and Sanchez, R. (Eds), Competence-Based Strategic
Management, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Sanzo, M.J., Santos, M.L., Garcia, N. and Trespalacios, J.A. (2012), “Trust as a moderator of the
relationship between organizational learning and marketing capabilities: evidence from
Spanish SMEs”, International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 700-726.
Schwandt, D.R., Casey, A. and Gorman, M. (1999), “The dynamic role of collective memory in
knowledge systems, a human action theory perspective”, Paper presented at the Organizational
Learning Conference, Lancaster University, Lancaster, pp. 910-933.
EBR Self, D.R., Terry, S., Tish, M. and Mike, S. (2015), “Improving organizational alignment by enhancing
strategic thinking”, Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal,
32,1 Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 11-14.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Shaw, G., Brown, R. and Bromiley, P. (1998), “Strategic stories, how 3M is rewriting business planning”,
Harvard Business Review, pp. 41-51.
126 Sheehan, M.J. (2004), “Learning as the construction of a new reality”, Journal of Workplace Learning,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 179-196.
Sheridan, C.L. (1979), Methods in Experimental Psychology, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Shrivastava, P. (1983), “A typology of organizational learning systems”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Shrivastava, P. and Schneider, S. (1984), “Organizational frames of reference”, Human Relations, Vol. 37
No. 10, pp. 795-809.
Simons, P.R.J., Germans, J. and Ruijters, M. (2003), “Forum for organizational learning: combining
learning at work, organizational learning and training in new ways”, Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Sims, D. and McAulay, L. (1995), “Management learning as a learning process, an invitation”,
Management Learning, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Sims, D., Fineman, S. and Gabriel, Y. (1993), Organizing and Organizations, an Introduction, Sage
Publications, London.
Siu Loon, H. (2008), “Benefiting from customer and competitor knowledge: a market-based approach to
organizational learning”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 240-250.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1998), “Customer-led and market-oriented: let’s not confuse the two”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1001-1006.
Søberg, P.V. (2011), “The transfer and creation of knowledge within foreign invested R&D in
emerging markets”, Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 203-215.
Søberg, P.V. and Chaudhuri, A. (2018), “Technical knowledge creation: enabling tacit knowledge use”,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 88-96.
Srivastava, R.R. and Kailash, L.B. (2016), “Mediating role of organizational learning on the relationship
between market orientation and innovativeness”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 370-384.
Stake, R.E. (1994), “Case studies”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative
Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 236-247.
Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, Sage Publications, London.
Starkey, K. (1998), “What can we learn from the learning organization?”, Human Relations, Vol. 51
No. 4, pp. 531-546.
Stata, R. (1989), “Organizational learning: the key to management innovation”, Sloan Management
Review, Spring, pp. 63-74.
Strauss, A.L. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, New York,
NY.
Sullivan, J.J. and Nonaka, I. (1986), “The applications of organizational learning theory to Japanese and
American management”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 127-147.
Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A. (1992), Becoming a Learning Organization, Addison-Wesley,
Wokingham.
Tavani, S.N., Tavani, Z.N., Audé, P., Oghazi, P. and Zeynaloo, E. (2018), “How collaborative Foreign
innovation networks affect new product performance: product innovation capability,
process innovation capability, and absorptive capacity”, Industrial Marketing
subsidiary in
Management, Vol. 73, pp. 193-205. emerging
Teare, R. (1997), “Enabling organizational learning”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality markets
Management, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 315-324.
Teare, R. and Rayner, C. (2002), “Capturing organizational learning”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 354-360. 127
Thames, R. and Webster, D.C. (2015), Chasing Change: Building Organizational Capacity in a Turbulent
Environment, John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Tsang, E.W.K. (1997), “Organizational learning and the learning organization, a dichotomy
between descriptive and prescriptive research”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 73-89.
Vidich, A.J. and Lyman, S.M. (1994), “Qualitative methods, their history in sociology and
anthropology”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 23-59.
Vithessonthi, C. and Amonrat, T. (2011), “Strategic change and firm performance: the moderating
effect of organizational learning”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 194-210.
Voronov, M. (2008), “Toward a practice perspective on strategic organizational learning”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 195-221.
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991), “Organizational memory”, The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-91.
Wang, Y., Han, X. and Yang, J. (2015), “Revisiting the blended learning literature: using a complex
adaptive systems framework”, Journal of Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 380-393.
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D. and Sechrest, L. (1971), Unobtrusive Measures, Nonreactive
Research in the Social Sciences, Rand McNally and Company, Chicago.
Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. (1993), “Collective mind in organizations, heedful interrelating on fight
decks”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 357-381.
West, J. and Bogers, M. (2014), “Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research
on open innovation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 814-831.
Winter, S.G. (1987), “Knowledge and competence as strategic assets”, in Teece, D.J. (Ed.), The
Competitive Challenge, Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, Ballinger Publishing
Company, Cambridge.
Yeo, R.K. (2003), “Linking organizational learning to organizational performance and success:
Singapore case studies”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 70-83.
Yeo, R.K. (2006), “Building knowledge through action systems, process leadership and organizational
learning”, Foresight, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 34-44.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage publications, London.
Yoruk, D.E. (2018), “Dynamics of firm-level upgrading and the role of learning in networks in emerging
markets”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 145, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.042
Zhu, C., Liu, A. and Chen, G. (2018), “High performance work systems and corporate performance: the
influence of entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning”, Frontiers of Business
Research in China, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
EBR Further reading
32,1 Senge, P.M. (1995), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random
House, Sydney.

About the author

128 Gamal Mohamed Shehata is a Professor at the Business Administration Department,

Faculty of Commerce, Cairo University. He has a Bachelor of Business
Administration from Cairo University, Egypt; MSc in Management from Cairo
University, Egypt; and PhD in Knowledge Management from the University of
Nottingham, UK. His research interest covers a variety of areas incorporating
knowledge management, intellectual capital, e-commerce in emerging markets,
organizational learning, e-human resources management, virtual learning and global
strategies. He has published in the International Journal of Knowledge-based Development, the Journal
of Information and Knowledge Management Systems (VINE), Information Technology and People and
the Learning Organization Journal. He has published a book entitled Organizational Learning and
Transformative Capacity: A Real Road Map to Transform Knowledge created via organizational
learning into business success by Lap Lambert publishing. The author also wrote a number of books
entitled Human Resources Management, Egyptian Public Administration and Business
Communication and Time Management. Gamal Mohamed Shehata can be contacted at:
[email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]