Learning in Strategic Alliances: A Vygotskian Perspective
From WikEd
Contents |
[edit] Learning in Strategic Alliances: A Vygotskian Perspective
Ghosh reviews literature on the resource based view of the firm and organizational learning to craft a theory of inter-organizational learning in alliances which he integrates with Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of learning. Specifically, the collaborative learning process from organizational learning, to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development.
The characteristics of collaborative learning include joint responsibility, mutual respect, and a sense of personal and group identity. He further writes that “firms get engaged because of the perceived value they see in partners’/ alliances’ knowledge” p. 304 They are similar in some ways but have different members, histories, routines and processes, therefore it is in their “divergence in convergence” that they learn from and trust each other.
The themes (principles) from Vygotsky include that learning is dependent on historical evolution and development, “learning occurs at a social level before occurring at individual level which also includes that: learning is mediated by others and; social dialogue is an important component of learning and cultural tools are accessed and acquire meaning in social contexts.” Lastly, that individuals learn through exposure to experts in their environment. [Lave and Wenger]
Ghosh integrates these two perspectives through Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to a strategic alliance (SA) that learns through a collective Zone of Proximal Development (CZPD), where learning occurs through negotiated meaning, “In strategic alliances one would expect members to resolve their divergent views about a goal directed activity by acquiring mastery of a shared jargon/speech and other artifacts” (p. 307). Learning in alliances occurs dynamically, first, at a social level whereby group members learn from each other, getting socialized; second, assimilation and absorption, accommodation and sense making; third, problems become routines and activities; fourth, tacit becomes explicit; fifth, learn by performing the task/activity and internalize the skill/know how.
Figure—Capturing the dynamics of Vygotskian inter-organizational learning in alliances
Conclusion & Question:
1) Can the zone of proximal development be operationalized for organizational learning and learning in alliances?
2) Does a collective zone of proximal development impact the future performance of alliances?
[edit] Vygotsky: Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
Tools and Symbol in Child Development (link); “the most significant moment in the course of intellectual development, which gives birth to the purely human forms of practical and abstract intelligence, occurs when speech and practical activity…converge” p.24
Internalization of Higher Order Psychological Functions (link); “Its meaning and functions are created at first by an objective situation and then by [the] people. process of internalization…a) external activity is reconstructed; b) interpersonal transformed into an intrapersonal; c) the transformation of an interpersonal process into an intra personal one is the result of a long series of developmental events” p. 56-57
Interaction between Learning and Development (link); “the zone of proximal development is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult [superior/expert] guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” p.86
[edit] Strategic Alliances (SA)
Ireland, R.D., Hitt, M.A., Vaidyanath, D. (2002). Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 28(3), p. 413-446
i. Strategic alliances are cooperative agreements with a focus on content and process between two or more firms to gain or improve a competitive advantage. They can create two types of advantages; complementary integration of resources to create value and leveraging resources through an alliance portfolio.
ii. Doz (1996) OL and SA; the initial conditions in each of the alliance partner firms’ were either facilitated or hampered by the partners’ learning about the alliance’s environment. Alliances can fail because: 1) frustration, 2) allow cognitive learning but behavioral learning difficult, 3) successful learning followed by negative reevaluation
iii. Learning is an important outcome from alliances. Even though learning may not be the primary reason to create an alliance, it is an important factor in overall alliance success.
Tsai, W. (2000). Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, p. 925-939
i. By collaborating with the new unit the existing unit can gain new expertise and learn how to adapt in new or changing environments, and the new unit learns form the routines and best practices, as well as gaining legitimacy and leverage within or between organizations.
ii. Social capital describes the social context that facilitates or constrains selection of exchange partners and strategic relatedness characterizes the extent to which two organizations are similar and have opportunites for sharing resources. These two concepts explain the motivation for creating interunit linkages, the zone of proximal development of a strategic alliance.
iii. Potential benefits of creating intraorganizational strategic linkagescan be achieved only if trustworthiness exists among units, determined by each others’ perceptions of integrity and reliability in the exchange.
[edit] Communities of Practice (CoP)
Communities of Practice are, “groups of people who share a concern, set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, 2002, p. 4). They are built around the three dimensions of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire but are informal and ‘hidden’ both within and across departments as members self-select to join, yielding mostly intangible outcomes of knowledge and process improvement (Stamps, 1997; Wenger, 1998; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Later Wenger, McDermontt and Snyder (2002) identified a structural model for Communities of practice that included three elements; Domain—common ground and identity, Community—social fabric for learning, and Practice—shared frameworks, ideas, tools, language and information.
The theory behind Communities of Practice (CoP) is Situated Learning Theory also from Lave and Wenger (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. [link to Lave and Wenger]
Situated Learning Theory (SLT) has roots in Social Learning Theory which places emphasis on interpersonal relations and the study of cognitive processes based on the four components of Meaning—learning as experiences, Practice—learning as doing, Community—learning as belonging, and Identity—learning as becoming (Wenger, 1998). Communities of practice follow this theory as a process of learning by becoming a group identified by their shared concern or passion and sharing their experiences by interacting and doing on an ongoing basis. The members are mutually engaged in negotiating—creating—meaning of their actions agreeing and accepting accountability in the joint enterprise of creating the meaning of their shared repertoire of activities, jargon, symbols, artifacts, and tools.
[edit] From ZPD to CoP
“the alliance brings the members of two firms (communities of practice) together and their shared knowledge and understandings helps them build on what they already know” p. 305
“the team members of both firms come together and a community emerges…, when the members become insiders and…. learn to speak its language with the passage of time” p. 306
“each of the firms learns from the other and has a capacity to perform better when assisted by its partner firm in the alliance.” P. 307
Figure –Characteristics of a CoP
1. sustained mutual relationships—harmonious or conflictual
2. shared ways of engaging in doing things together
3. the rapid flow of information and propagation of innovation
4. absence of introductory preambles, as if conversations and interactions were merely the continuation of an ongoing process
5. very quick setup of a problem to be discussed
6. substantial overlap in participants’ descriptions of who belongs
7. knowing what others know, what they can do, and how they can contribute to an enterprise
8. mutually defining identities
9. the ability to assess the appropriateness of actions and products
10. specific tools, representations, and other artifacts
11. local lore, shared stories, inside jokes, knowing laughter
12. jargon and shortcuts to communication as well as the ease of producing new ones
13. certain styles recognized as displaying membership
14. a shared discourse reflecting a certain perspective on the world (Wenger, 1998, p. 125-126)
Figure—Design For Learning (On operationalizing the CZPD)
“the relevance of a social perspective is not limited to special situations of learning, because all learning eventually gains its significance in the kind of person we become”
Summary principles of the social perspective
1. Learning is inherent in human nature
2. Learning is first and foremost the ability to negotiate new meanings
3. Learning creates emergent structures
4. Learning is fundamentally experiential and fundamentally social
5. Learning transforms our identities
6. Learning constitutes trajectories of participation
7. Learning means dealing with boundaries
8. Learning is a matter of engagement
9. Learning is a matter of imagination
10. Learning is a matter of alignment
11. Learning involves an interplay between the local and the global
“Learning cannot be designed: it can only be designed for – that is, facilitated or frustrated.” (Wenger, 1998, p. 226-229)
[edit] From CoP to Strategic Capital (SC)
The definition of Social Capital most relevant to CoP comes from Nahapiet and Ghoshal(1998), “Social capital as the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit” (p. 243). The key aspects of their definition that relate to CoP are that social capital is embedded within, available through and derived from relationships of individuals or groups. Their definition identifies three dimensions of social capital; Structural, Relational, and Cognitive. Structural refers to the “the properties of the social system and of the network…overall patterns of connections between actors” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 244). Relational addresses the relationships among actors developed over time that influences their behavior, and Cognitive “the resources providing shared representations, interpretations, and systems of meaning among parties” (p. 244). The authors describe a cyclical process where social capital facilitates the creation of intellectual capital that has the ability to result in organizational advantage for the firm. It is the importance of Social Capital as the facilitator for intellectual capital through the exchange and combination process that makes their work important because the community of practice is where the exchange and combination occur. Their framework suggests how the three dimensions link to motivate parties across hierarchy to combine their current capabilities in anticipation of value of increased capabilities.
Lesser, E. L., & Stork, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), p. 831-841
i. The social capital available in and through CoP leads to behavioral change and behavior change leads to knowledge sharing and positive influences on performance. “the vehicle through which communities are able to influence organizational performance is the development and maintenance of social capital among community members” (Lesser & Storck, 2001, p. 833).
ii. Based on their interviews with CoP members from seven different organizations they identified four benefits. “Decreasing the learning curve of new employees, Responding more rapidly to customer needs and inquiries, Reducing rework and preventing “reinvention of the wheel” and Spawning new ideas for products and services” (Lesser & Storck, 2001, p. 836).
[edit] From ZPD to SC
“human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” p. 88
problem solving under adult [superior/expert] guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” p.86
“properly organized learning results in mental development and sets in motion a variety of developmental processes that would be impossible apart from learning.” “the developmental processes do not coincide with learning processes…the developmental process lags behind the learning process; this sequences then results in zones of proximal development
“the unity but not the identity of learning processes and internal developmental processes…although learning is directly related to…development, the two are never accomplished in equal measure or in parallel”
Figure
