Given the multitude of Asian countries and the diversity of Asian cultures and institutional contexts, it is not possible to distinguish substantive themes that cover each of these locations. Prior research into organizational learning in Asia (excluding Japanese organizations on home soil) has explored four broad issues, which we shall review below. The first two of these are theory-oriented while the latter two focus more on practice (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2003). The issues are:
- knowledge management involving joint ventures in Asia;
- knowledge management involving wholly-owned subsidiaries in Asia;
- transfer of organizational learning practices to Asia; and
- measuring organizational learning in Asia.
Knowledge management involving joint ventures in Asia
Among studies of Asia-based joint ventures, we can distinguish those undertaken in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from those undertaken in non-Chinese countries. Studies of PRC-based cross-national joint ventures involving partners from Hong Kong or Singapore indicate that the flow of managerial and technical expertise has been overwhelmingly one-way to the mainland partner (Wang and Nicholas, 2005). Learning for the overseas Chinese partners has derived from the joint venturing experience itself, including how to work amicably with PRC-based partners while signaling to them, without causing loss of face, that proprietary knowledge is not open to disclosure (Wang and Nicholas, 2005). Reflecting ethnocentricity, the more ‘developed’ partners have typically suffered ‘learning myopia,’ in two respects. First, they seem not to have been open to knowledge flow in the ‘reverse’ direction, whether through instruction or vicarious learning, and second, while they have engaged in serendipitous experiential learning both from overseeing operations from a distance and from hands-on, in situ, managerial effort, they have not sought systematically and proactively to acquire and capture such learning (Tsang, 1999; 2002). Evidence that operating PRC-based joint venture firms requires the development of dynamic capability, and hence the in situ creation of new knowledge (Zhan and Luo, 2008), and that prior joint venturing elsewhere in Asia provides useful preparation for managing PRC-based subsidiaries, suggests that failure to adopt systematic means to capture learning arising from joint venturing is an important omission by foreign parent companies (Tsang, 1999).
In a study of knowledge sharing between Korean firms in alliances with one another outside the chaebol structure, Bstieler and Hemmert (2008) found that interaction intimacy between partners at operational level contributed to effective knowledge exchange, indicating the importance for Koreans of jeong, the building of strong social bonds that cover personal as well as business matters. Berrell, Gloet, and Wright (2002) identified strong tensions between Australian and Malaysian partners involved in an educational alliance in Malaysia. The Australians, preferring critical enquiry, explicitness, and proactivity as approaches to addressing problems, became frustrated with the Malaysians’ apparent preference to avoid overt conflict and to defer to instructions passed down from respected seniors. The authors attribute the break-up of the alliance to inadequate expatriate selection and training. In the context of international partnerships in Vietnam, Napier (2006) points out that the Vietnamese possess valuable knowledge resources and discusses the potential for reverse knowledge flow from Vietnamese to foreign partners. She argues that the foreigners should demonstrate willingness and openness to learning from the Vietnamese as mentors.
Knowledge management involving wholly-owned subsidiaries in Asia
Regarding inter-subsidiary knowledge flows in Asia, mainly within Western-owned multinational corporations (MNCs), Wang-Cowham (2008) discovered that there has been considerable networking and knowledge sharing between human resource management units based at different PRC-based sister subsidiaries, through forums and joint projects organized by PRC-based regional HQ offices. By contrast, Jonsson (2008) found that within a Western-headquartered MNC, cross-national, inter-subsidiary, lateral knowledge flows involving units in Japan and the PRC were driven by personal networks, characterized as ‘your insurance policy for not making mistakes.’ Jonsson (2008) found also that the value of undertaking inter-subsidiary projects was perceived to be higher if the respective markets were seen to pose similar challenges, unlike the markets of Japan vis-à-vis the PRC.
Other studies have examined transfer of knowledge from overseas headquarters to Asia-based subsidiaries. Jonsson (2007) found that employees in a Japan-based subsidiary faced considerable difficulties in interpreting and digesting knowledge in the form of lists, metaphors, and manuals from the headquarters of a Western MNC. They preferred instead to learn through face to face consultation with superiors, facilitators, and local experts or through brainstorming meetings. Staff canteens appeared to provide an open atmosphere for informal lateral knowledge sharing across business units.
Research into the transfer of knowledge from headquarters of Japanese MNCs to their subsidiaries in other Asian countries provides a mixed picture in terms of the transfer of organizational learning practices and systems. Takeuchi, Wakabayashi, and Chen (2003) found that the transfer of team-based problem solving approaches to overseas Asian subsidiaries was positively related to their financial performance, and that the likelihood of such transfer was increased by adopting Japanese-style policies of in-company welfare, long-term commitment, and employee skill development. Hong, Easterby-Smith, and Snell (2006a) found that some companies were able to implement a Japanization strategy, through various socialization vehicles and human resource policies, and by adopting open plan architecture, but that in some companies these methods were not applicable, limiting the extent to which Japanese learning systems could be transferred. With specific reference to a graduate trainee program in one Japan-headquartered MNC, Wong (1996) found that little attempt was made to transfer organizational learning systems to the Hong Kong subsidiary, where lifetime employment of graduate trainees was not assumed, and where the latter were not expected to play a significant role in organizational learning.
Regarding the attenuation of ‘reverse’ knowledge flow, and the neglect of the need to capture experiential learning arising from managing subsidiaries, Wong (2001; 2005) found evidence of institutionalized learning myopia, driven by ethnocentrism and xenophobia, at the Japanese HQ of a Hong Kong-based subsidiary. Japanese expatriates regarded their own international exposure as a form of exile and sought to remain aloof from local adaptation in order to avoid being seen by HQ as being contaminated by alien values and mindsets.
Transfer of organizational learning practices to Asia
Chwee (1999) found that among senior native Chinese executives in the PRC, those with prior employment experience within foreign-invested firms were more proactive, open-minded, outward-looking, and adventurous than those with prior experience only in state-owned enterprises, who were more passive, conservative, and inward-looking.
A number of studies have documented how organizational learning practices have, with some success, been introduced to the more ‘traditional’ cultures of Asia. Among them are three studies by Barry Elsey and his colleagues. Elsey and Leung (2004) describe a process improvement program based on action research in a foreign invested enterprise in the PRC. While employees’ concern to maintain face between hierarchical levels appeared to rule out highly participative approaches, front-line staff participated in two cycles of action research, with facilitation by consultants and by selected supervisors and middle managers, and these activities led to improvements in service quality, as perceived by customers. Elsey and Tse (2007) describe action learning and action research oriented intervention, involving frontline workers at a Hong Kong-based bakery. The consultants found it possible to establish an open and democratic culture of workplace learning, with evidence of ongoing sharing of new knowledge and skills, and of the adoption of team-based problem solving approaches. Elsey and Sirichoti (2003) report on a program to establish integrated pest management (IPM) among durian growers in rural parts of Thailand, through adult education interventions by indigenous agricultural extension workers (AEWs). The growers became committed to the adoption of IPM, once they had seen the results of putting it into practice over time, and had experienced its value for their own practical survival. The AEWs lacked resources but were strongly motivated to serve as change agents and instructors, using a blend of transmission, learning facilitation, and learner-centered collaboration.
Among studies by other authors, Selamat and Choudrie (2007) investigated the impact, in a large manufacturing organization in Malaysia, of a training program, designed to motivate and equip professionals to participate in the externalization of implicit knowledge. The program appeared to improve trainees’ ability to reflect on problems, and to engage in rational discourse. After the training, employees played an active part in bringing about constructive changes to information systems, by actively documenting their ideas and reflections in the course of their day to day work. Yeo (2006) reports the impact of introducing ‘reflective-action learning groups’ (RALGs) to teachers in a further education institution in Singapore. The group meetings appeared to be characterized by social bonding, and open and frank expression of views, with members psychologically engaging with the issues under discussion. Although there was some skepticism, especially among junior employees, about organizational impact, the RALGs appeared to help members to adopt more effective teaching approaches. Yeo (2007) also reports a two-year intervention into organizational learning within a Singaporean firm. Senior managers, as unifying leaders, sought to reassure and support less senior employees, who initially felt considerable stress and fear in the face of the unknown. They facilitated team learning and joint decision making, provided space for continuing dialog, and treated employees’ ideas with respect.
Relatively unsuccessful attempts to introduce organizational learning practices have also been documented. Retna and Tee (2006) report an attempt by the head teacher of a Singaporean school to develop it into a learning organization, and suggest that progress was constrained by the wider societal culture and by pressures for quick results. Staff tended to accept the use of dialog as a means to solve problems, but preferred not to share knowledge and skills with one another. Some staff found the leader’s adoption of egalitarian leadership unacceptable. Greater trust had developed, but this was tempered by a lingering, culturally-framed fear of authority. Kim (2003) reports an unsuccessful attempt by senior managers, all with Western-based education and working experience, to embed the structures and processes of a team-based organization into a medium sized IT company in South Korea. The prospect of nominal job titles, use of first names, and collaborative team learning appeared to break social taboos, and were strongly resisted. A middle layer of members preferred hierarchy and leadership based on command and control and denied developmental opportunities to younger members, who sought instead to acquire knowledge through private sharing with friends, and through external networks and courses.
Measuring organizational learning in Asia
A number of quantitative studies using Western-originated instruments have been conducted in Asia. Zhang, Zhang, and Yang (2004) established that the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) (Watkins and Marsick, 1993; 1997) had acceptable psychometric properties when used in six large companies in the PRC. Kumar (2005) used the DLOQ to discover that individual and organizational-level learning, but not team-level learning, were positively associated with the financial performance of private colleges in Malaysia.
Some studies have examined the impact of leadership styles and organizational culture on organizational learning. Based on data from various government departments in Brunei, concerning individual learning orientation (Ames and Archer, 1988), team learning (Edmondson, 1996), and organizational learning orientation (Baker and Sinkula, 1999), Chan, Lim, and Keasberry (2003) concluded that high power distance and emphasis on harmony maintenance may deter individual employees from challenging the assumptions of their leaders and may prevent individual learning from being shared at organizational level. In a study in the life insurance sector in Taiwan, Hsu, Lee, Chih, and Chiu (2009) found that organizational learning capacity (Hult and Ferrell, 1997) was a function of the innovativeness and supportiveness of the organizational culture (Wallach, 1983) and of leadership styles oriented toward contingent reward and individualized consideration (Bass and Avolio, 1996). Based on data from the Indian banking sector, Singh (2008) argued that vision articulation, intellectual stimulation, and high performance expectations, as dimensions of transformational leadership (Podsakoff et al., 1990) positively predicted scores on Marquardt’s (1996) learning organization scale.
Limpibunterng and Johri (2009) developed their own measurement scales in a study of public and private sector telecommunication companies in Thailand. Their sub-scales of organizational learning capacity included shared understanding about company direction, the fostering of aspiration, team working, flexibility, envisioning, planning for handling impact, testing of new services, and testing of feedback channels. They found that various leadership tasks, such as doing alignment, cohesive teaming with commitment to common goals, empowering people, encouraging learning though mistakes, and resourcefulness, had positive impact on organizational learning capacity. They noted that the public sector companies had relatively poorly developed organizational learning capabilities and attributed this to their characteristics as ‘power centric bureaucracies.’
Summary
Thus far, we have reviewed research on Asia-based organizational learning that has been undertaken outside Japan. Recurring emphases in such research appear to be attempts to transfer etic learning practices and concepts into Asian countries, which have either been met by resistance, or have been adapted and absorbed. Aside from a small number of studies highlighting the importance of interpersonal relationships and networks, and of particular styles of and approaches to leadership, very little has been done to identify emic characteristics of effective organizational learning in Asia, with the exception of Nonaka’s theory of knowledge creation, which we review next.