Organizational Learning, Innovation and Internationalization: A Complex System Model
| Author | Ricardo Chiva,Pervez Ghauri,Joaquín Alegre |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12026 |
| Date | 01 October 2014 |
| Published date | 01 October 2014 |
Organizational Learning, Innovation
and Internationalization: A Complex
System Model
Ricardo Chiva, Pervez Ghauri1and Joaquín Alegre2
Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain, 1King’s College London, London, UK, and 2Universitat de València,
València, Spain
Corresponding author email: rchiva@emp.uji.es
Research on organizational learning, innovation and internationalization has tradition-
ally linked these concepts through linear causality, by considering any one of them as the
cause of another, an approach that might be considered contradictory and static. This
paper aims to clarify these relationships and proposes a dynamic theoretical model that
has mutual causality at its core and is based on ideas originating in complexity theory.
The final model results from case studies of two clothing sector firms. The authors
consider that the three concepts constitute a complex system and can adapt and tran-
scend, as any alteration can take the system to the edge of chaos. Adaptability is fostered
by concentration, improvement and discussion. Transcendence is fostered by attention,
dialogue and inquiry. The different paces of the two case study companies led their
systems to two different models: the incremental complex adaptive system model and the
global complex generative system model. The incremental model is characterized by
adaptive learning, incremental innovation and low internationalization; and the global
system is characterized by generative learning, radical innovation and global interna-
tionalization. The paper ends with an exploration of the academic and management
implications of the model.
Introduction
Organizational learning, innovation and inter-
nationalization are key ingredients for the
knowledge-based economy in the age of globali-
zation. We are leaving behind an industrial age
based on the transformation of raw materials into
finished goods to enter the age of the creative
knowledge-based society, in which organizations
must continually break down mental and physical
barriers in order to learn, innovate and interna-
tionalize. Organizational learning, innovation
and internationalization imply novelty or new
actions, views, activities or behaviours developed
by organizations.
In recent years, research on organizational
learning, innovation and internationalization has
linked these three concepts through linear causal-
ity (e.g. Alegre and Chiva, 2008; Molero, 1998),
where one concept causes another, but the latter
has no effect on the former. In so doing, authors
are taking a deterministic world view in which the
universe is no more than a chain of events follow-
ing one after another according to the law of
cause and effect. Furthermore, and given that
some papers conclude that one concept affects
another, and other papers find the opposite, this
body of research could be considered contradic-
tory or inconsistent. It may also be regarded as
The authors would like to thank the Spanish Ministry of
Education (through the Program ‘Salvador de Madar-
iaga’ Ref. PR2009-0533) and the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation for their financial support for
this research (Ref. ECO2011-26780 and ECO2011-
29863).
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Management, Vol. 25, 687–705 (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12026
© 2013 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
static, because it does not thoroughly explore the
evolution of these relationships. Therefore, a new
approach is required to clarify and understand the
dynamics of these relationships.
As Aristotle (350 bc) suggested, things can be
causes of one another, reciprocally causing each
other, which is known as reciprocal, mutual or
circular causality, a relation of mutual depend-
ence, action or influence of cause and effect.
Maruyama (1963) considers mutual causal
systems to be those whose elements influence each
other, either simultaneously or alternating. Con-
sequently, these concepts may require us to move
beyond linear causality, reductionism and deter-
minism, to adopt a new, more complex and holis-
tic paradigm. In sum, a paradigm shift, from lines
to circles. This new paradigm is based on a world
view characterized by certain epistemological and
ontological beliefs such as holism and mutual cau-
sality (Anderson, 1999; Dent and Powley, 2004;
Simon, 1996; Tsoukas, 1998). Tsoukas (1998, p.
293) justifies the appearance of a new scientific
approach, namely complexity theory, as follows:
‘If nature turns out to be much less deterministic
than we hitherto thought . . . then perhaps our
hitherto mechanistic approach to understanding
the messiness we normally associate with the
social world may need revising.’
Within this new and complex paradigm, we
suggest that the concept of complex systems, an
essential topic within this literature (Simon, 1996),
may be a useful starting point for understanding
the way in which organizational learning, innova-
tion and internationalization interact and evolve,
since it stresses the importance of mutual causal-
ity and interconnections.
Thus, complex systems might help us to frame
the relationships between the three concepts (Miles
and Huberman, 1994). In so doing, we follow a
metaphorical approach (Houchin and MacLean,
2005; Tsoukas, 1998), which emphasizes the
behaviour or characteristics of complex systems.
We therefore consider that organizational learn-
ing, innovation and internationalization consti-
tute a complex system. Complex systems are made
up of heterogeneous elements that interrelate
with one another and with their surroundings
(Anderson, 1999; Simon, 1996). Their complexity
resides in their diversity, as they are made up of
several interconnected elements. Chiva, Grandío
and Alegre (2010) distinguish between complex
adaptive systems and complex generative systems.
Complex adaptive systems learn rapidly from
experience, adapting their behaviour to prevailing
circumstances (Anderson, 1999; Houchin and
MacLean, 2005). Adaptability is a system’s capac-
ity to adjust to changes in the environment without
endangering its core organizational features. In
contrast, complex generative systems can undergo
changes that involve modifying these core organi-
zational traits (Jantsch, 1980), a process that leads
to the creation of a new reality.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse, through
case study research, how these three concepts
relate to each other and evolve, and to present a
conceptual framework that allows us to appreci-
ate these interactions. The goal of studying
mutual causality is not to find out where every-
thing started, but how these relationships work
and develop. Ideas from complex adaptive and
generative systems might further our understand-
ing of them.
The basic contentions of this paper are that the
three concepts constitute a complex system inter-
relating with one another and with their sur-
roundings; the system evolves when any of the
concepts reaches the edge of chaos, which acts as
a catalyst for the complex system. There are two
main directions in which the system can evolve
once the edge of chaos is attained: adaptability or
transcendence. The former is fostered by concen-
tration, discussion and an attitude of improve-
ment within the organization, which brings about
adaptive learning, incremental innovation and
low internationalization. The latter is fostered by
attention, dialogue and an attitude of inquiry
within the organization, which brings about gen-
erative learning, radical innovation and global or
high internationalization.
In the sections that follow, we begin with a brief
conceptualization of the existing linear causality
literature on the subjects and some notions on
complex adaptive and generative systems. We
then present a preliminary model based on
complex systems. This is followed by an analysis
of two Spanish clothing industry case studies, and
an introduction to our model. Finally, we discuss
the implications of this research.
Theoretical background
Organizational learning has for some time been
one of the most thoroughly explored concepts in
688 R. Chiva, P. Ghauri and J. Alegre
© 2013 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management © 2013 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial