The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding Organizational Learning Capability
Abstract
This paper presents data on how learning takes place in four organizations, what gets learned, and the factors and processes that facilitate or impede learning. Seven orientations for describing organizational learning capability and understanding learning styles are identified. Each of these orientations is conceived as a bi‐polar continuum that reflect learning processes. Knowledge source is defined as the extent to which an organization prefers to develop new knowledge internally versus the extent to which it is more likely to seek inspiration in ideas developed externally. Product‐process focus refers to a preference for the accumulation of knowledge related to product and service outcomes versus a preference to invest in knowledge about basic processes that support products. Documentation mode refers to attitudes as to what constitutes knowledge and to the repositories of knowledge that are supported. Dissemination mode pertains to the difference between establishing an atmosphere in which learning evolves and one in which a more structured, controlled approach is taken to induce learning. Learning focus has to do with whether learning is concentrated on methods and tools to improve what is already being done versus testing the assumptions underlying what is being done. Value‐chain focus indicates which functional, core competencies are valued and supported. Skill development focus involves the orientation toward individual versus collective learning. Organizational learning may be increased by building on existing capabilities or developing new ones. the latter involves a change in culture, the former involves improving current capabilities. Organizations can enhance their learning capability through either approach.
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
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Organizational 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
Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework
Lam, A. (2000) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840600213001 · Cited by 1,456
Planning and Studying Improvement in Patient Care: The Use of Theoretical Perspectives
GROL, R. P. T. M., BOSCH, M. C., HULSCHER, M. E. J. L., ECCLES, M. P., & WENSING, M. (2007) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x · Cited by 943
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
Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain
Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2007) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.09.006 · Cited by 608
Rashman, L., Withers, E., & Hartley, J. (2009) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00257.x · Cited by 394
Metadata
- Authors
- Dibella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 361-379
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W2169487054
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.10
- 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: Understanding Organizational Learning Capability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00806.x
- The paper
- Dibella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M. (1996). Understanding Organizational Learning Capability. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00806.x
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.