in 150 - 200 words summarize and rephrase this article, and write one sentence the most takeaway and one-sentence criticism from this article (Method and Psychological Effects on Learning Behaviors and Knowledge Creation in Quality Improvement Projects)

This study investigates two mechanisms of knowledge creationone that is method driven and the other that is psychologically driven. Results show that the two mechanisms have different effects on the learning behaviors and knowledge created in Six Sigma projects. The method mechanism directly influences learning behaviors, while the psychological mechanism directly affects knowledge creation. The effects of both mechanisms on knowledge creation are complementary, yet independent. Findings suggest that the value of adhering to a method may lie in modifying the learning behaviors that subsequently create knowledge. When a firm adopts a quality program such as Six Sigma, the method and the degree of its adherence can shape how the firm innovates and creates knowledge.

1. Introduction Where constant changes and high uncertainties are the norms, a learning orientation toward quality improvement becomes critical to sustained organizational performance (Sitkin et al. 1994). Learning and knowledge creation are related. Prior studies have investigated learning in quality, but most have inferred knowledge from some forms of learning (e.g. Lapr and Van Wassenhove 2001, Mukherjee et al. 1998). There is limited study on the direct impact on knowledge itself. In the knowledge-based view of the firm, knowledge represents a strategic resource that the firm uses to develop sustained competitive advantage (Kogut and Zander1992). In this study, knowledge is defined as new ideas, improved understanding, and the capability of a team to do a quality project. To better capture how knowledge is generated, we differentiate knowledge from learning. We study learning as behaviors that involve information seeking, discussions, and asking questions. Therefore, learning behaviors can be viewed as a process variable and knowledge created as an outcome measure. Given the cognitive nature of knowledge creation and learning, we investigate two cognition-influencing mechanisms method-driven and psychologically drivenand their influence on organizational members cognitive processes to learn in a quality improvement setting. The method mechanism represents a structured and technical approach, and the psychological mechanism an unstructured and social approach, to knowledge creation and learning. While it is possible that strong adherence to a method such as Six Sigma could stifle learning behaviors and hinder improvement efforts, it is also possible that the psychological effects could dominate the method effects because of human biases against following a method (Boiral 2003). The relative importance of the method and psychological effects on learning behaviors and knowledge creation, however, has not been directly examined in prior literature. This research found that the method mechanism and psychological mechanism exhibit different and independent effects on learning behaviors and knowledge creation. The method mechanism influences learning behaviors, while the psychological mechanism affects knowledge directly. This finding suggests that the value of adhering to a method in quality improvement settings, such as Six Sigma, may lie in modifying the learning behaviors, which combines well with the effect of the psychological mechanism on knowledge creation. Such combined effects can alter the learning path of a firm and have an impact on the effectiveness and sustainability of a quality program. This study uses Six Sigma as an example, but the theory is not based entirely on Six Sigma.

2. Theoretical Development Among some researchers, quality management is viewed as problem-solving: Quality management is the quest for improvement in organizational routines through the application of a particular collection of problem-solving heuristics and techniques (Winter 1994, p. 93). The use of the scientific method is a distinctive feature in quality improvement that represents an important source of learning (Hackman and Wageman 1995). It is associated with conceptual learning and the creation of know-why in quality improvement projects (Mukherjee et al. 1998). Besides the scientific method, problem-solving heuristicssuch as the flow chart and cause-and-effect diagramhelp teams use their knowledge collectively to identify and analyze opportunities to improve quality (Hackman and Wageman 1995, p. 314). Quality improvement projects usually assume a structured process much like a traditional problem-solving model with problem identification and diagnosis, followed by solution generation and implementation (MacDuffie 1997, March and Simon 1958). A commonly applied problem-solving model in quality management is the PDCA (PlanDo-Check-Act) cycle (Deming 1986, Shewhart 1939). quality improvement process combines a problem-solving model and a collection of statistical and nonstatistical tools. In a Six Sigma project, these problem-solving elements are integrated into an overall structured method, consisting of specific problem-solving steps with recommended statistical and nonstatistical tools in each step. The Six Sigma method can be defined as A method that sequences and links improvement tools into an overall approach (Snee 2000, p. x). Using this structured method is a key component in Six Sigma projects (Pande et al. 2000). A structured method such as Six Sigma can provide a rational and systematic way of capturing and generating knowledge. Like artificial intelligence, it assumes a programmatic approach to learning and creating knowledge (Ericsson and Hastie 1994). From this vantage point, a structured method that is a standardized problem-solving process can be viewed as a meta routine that systematizes the problem-solving process (Adler et al. 1999). A structured method, then, represents a cognition-influencing mechanism that leads to learning behaviors and knowledge created in quality improvement teams. Besides a structured method, quality improvement contains a psychological component. Any sense of threats, such as punishment for failures and fear of judgment, can pose a negative effect on the cognitive processes in people and prevent the organizational members from learning effectively and identifying opportunities for quality improvement (MacDuffie 1997, p. 499). In the organizational learning literature, Edmondson (1999) developed a sociopsychological construct called psychological safety that affected team learning. Psychological safety is a shared belief held by team members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.

5. Discussion and Conclusions This study investigates knowledge creation in quality improvement projects from two sourcespsychological safety and structured method. Despite their cognitive association, they are distinct and noninteracting. In an environment increasingly driven by knowledge, an organization can manage knowledge creation by considering these two distinct sourcesstructured method and psychological safety, which can be managed independently. Due to this independent property, the two mechanisms can be handled flexibly. A manager can provide an environment with both mechanisms present but may choose to emphasize one mechanism over the other. For instance, Six Sigma projects with highly structured tasks, typically those for improving manufacturing or service processes, could focus mainly on using the method because the problems are relatively structured and stable. Conversely, Six Sigma projects that are highly unstructured, such as those for developing a new product or service, could focus on creating a trusting and psychologically safe environment where team members can freely explore opportunities in problems that are ill-defined and dynamic. This implication could apply to other knowledge-intensive projects and activities such as decision analysis, technical support, and software development. In addition to the independence property, the structured method and psychological safety have different effects on learning behaviors and knowledge creation. A structured method has a direct influence on learning behaviors and an indirect one on knowledge created. It also indirectly influences performance. While some research found TQM tools and techniques to have no direct effect on performance (Powell 1995, Samson and Terziovski 1999), others found that for innovation-oriented organizations process management techniques could have a second-order effect on performance (Ittner and Larcker 1997). This suggests that the impact of tools and techniques on performance is probably indirect. Our research findings support such an indirect relationship using a knowledge-based argument. In particular, adhering to a method can modify the learning behaviors in quality improvement, which subsequently have an impact on knowledge creation and performance. The choice of a method and the degree of adherence can shape the learning path of the firm and affect how a firm innovates and creates knowledge.