Learning in Organizations Triggered by Formal Practices in Work Environment

Abstract

This article aims to assess the degree to which formal practices introduced in work environment contribute to organizational learning. The theoretical background recognizes that companies adapt to the environmental by individual knowledge absorption in collective properties. This knowledge is incorporated in organizational practices. At the moment companies deal to changing environmental they need to exploit current resources, explore new ones and turn into their practices. Such flow is called by organizational learning.The systematic problem-solving method is considered as one of most recommended formal practices to promote organizational learning. However if the one side there is the valuation of such method on the other hand the literature needs its critical evaluation. In other words, there are a few empirical evidences that assess the real contribution of this method to promote organizational learning. Thus there is a gap between recommendation for its use and theoretical underpinning of such suggestion. This article asks in what measure the systematic problem-solving method contribute to organizational learning. This question is important to highlight its effects over the organizations that employ it.Thus the research focus on MASP, one of the systematic problem-solving method more release in Brazil. To do so, it was considered that organizational learning is composed by four dimensions: knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. It was conducted a survey with three different organization. The analyses have been focused on how MASP is related to the four dimension of organizational learning. More specifically, it was identified what dimension and the type of organizational learning that are supported by MASP.The statistical tests pointed out that the using of MASP contributed to learning at all organizational dimension, such as knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. However, this learning was restricted to corrections in routines, which means that the method itself was not able to trigger learning at deeper levels. In reality, the depth of learning seemed to be correlated to the contextual factors in organizations.