The relationship of learning and memory with organizational performance: The moderating role of turbulence

Extensive research has documented how firms’ learning orientation and memory are related to organizational performance. The objective of this study is to examine the moderating role of turbulence on the relationships between firms’ learning orientation and memory and their organizational performance and innovativeness. The study also provides insight into the differential relationships of firms’ learning orientation and memory to their performance and innovativeness. Using survey data collected from 200 supply management professionals, the results suggest that the extent to which learning and memory are associated with organizational performance is contingent on the level of environmental turbulence. Specifically, under low environmental turbulence, learning orientation and organizational memory appear to be related to performance and innovativeness; however, under high environmental turbulence, only learning orientation is a useful predictor.

[1]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[2]  G. Huber,et al.  Retrospective reports of strategic‐level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy , 1985 .

[3]  Bernard J. Jaworski,et al.  Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences , 1993 .

[4]  Allen M. Weiss,et al.  Marketing in Turbulent Environments: Decision Processes and the Time-Sensitivity of Information , 1993 .

[5]  G. Hult,et al.  Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination , 1998 .

[6]  Christine Moorman,et al.  The Convergence of Planning and Execution: Improvisation in New Product Development , 1998 .

[7]  Rajdeep Grewal,et al.  The Role of Relational Knowledge Stores in Interfirm Partnering , 2004 .

[8]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

[9]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[10]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[11]  James M. Sinkula,et al.  Learning Orientation, Market Orientation, and Innovation: Integrating and Extending Models of Organizational Performance , 1999 .

[12]  James M. Sinkula.  Market Information Processing and Organizational Learning , 1994 .

[13]  P. Ghemawat.  Market Incumbency and Technological Inertia , 1991 .

[14]  Andrew Hargadon,et al.  Special Issue: Knowledge, Knowing, and Organizations: Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[15]  Allen M. Weiss,et al.  The Nature of Organizational Search in High Technology Markets , 1993 .

[16]  Araújo,et al.  An Evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[17]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  The Impact of Organizational Memory on New Product Performance and Creativity , 1997 .

[18]  James M. Sinkula,et al.  A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior , 1997 .

[19]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Know-how and asset complementarity and dynamic capability accumulation : The case of R&D , 1997 .

[20]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[21]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[22]  James M. Sinkula,et al.  The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance , 1999 .

[23]  Rashi Glazer.  Marketing in an Information-Intensive Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an Asset , 1991 .

[24]  C. K. Prahalad,et al.  Strategic Intent , 2007 .

[25]  Maurizio Zollo,et al.  Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities , 2002 .

[26]  P. Chisnall.  Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[27]  J. March.  Continuity and Change in Theories of Organizational Action , 1996 .

[28]  David J. Miller,et al.  The structural and environmental correlates of business strategy , 1987 .

[29]  D. Teece,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT , 1997 .

[30]  C. Prahalad,et al.  To revitalize corporate performance, we need a whole new model of strategy. Strategic intent. , 1989, Harvard business review.

[31]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  Practical Issues in Structural Modeling , 1987 .

[32]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  The Impact of Organizational Memory on New Product Performance and Creativity , 1997 .

[33]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study , 2001 .

[34]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics of organizations , 1996 .

[35]  Jeannie L. Johnson,et al.  Market-focused strategic flexibility: Conceptual advances and an integrative model , 2003 .

[36]  G. Huber.  Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

[37]  John C. Narver,et al.  Market Orientation and the Learning Organization , 1995 .

[38]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, WHAT ARE THEY? , 2000 .

[39]  F. Fisher.  Tests of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions: An Expository Note , 1970 .

[40]  James M. Sinkula,et al.  Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation: Delving into the Organization's Black Box , 2002 .

[41]  John C. Narver,et al.  Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship? , 1994 .

[42]  A. Shapiro,et al.  On the multivariate asymptotic distribution of sequential Chi-square statistics , 1985 .