The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A preliminary typology of organizational learning: Synthesizing the literature
Abstract
Two fundamental contrasts among major organizational paradigms are used to construct a typology of organizational learning: these are voluntarism vs. determinism, and methodical vs. emergent behavior. Six kinds of learning are identified: the methodical modes, in descending order of voluntarism, include analytic, experimental and structural learning. The emergent modes, again in descending order of voluntarism, include synthetic, interactive and institutional learning. Hypotheses are generated about the appropriate contexts, typical outcomes and common relationships among these kinds of learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113 · cited 3×
“Another distinction is the radical@ of what is learned-the degree to which it promotes a fundamental change in basic assumptions or orientations (Argyris & Schon, 1978).”
BackgroundOrganizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
Cited by
Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.23466005 · Cited by 3,701
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361 · Cited by 2,829
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256948 · Cited by 2,855
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.86 · Cited by 852
Organizational learning capability: A proposal of measurement
Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.11.002 · Cited by 765
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 485-505
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2026480643
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A preliminary typology of organizational learning: Synthesizing the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0149-2063(96)90033-1
- The paper
- Miller, D. (1996). A preliminary typology of organizational learning: Synthesizing the literature. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(96)90033-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
