Search results

Today's business environment is changing tremendously due to economic forces that result in the redesign of systems to decrease cost, the need to speed up product development and the focused attention on satisfying customers. These conditions have caused organizations to utilize project management to implement strategic initiatives through projects. By utilizing a “big picture” systems approach to analyze how the system components interact, decisions can be made which are in the “best interest” of the overall project. Project management is ideally matched to this business environment. The study addressed 24 project managers and their associated projects in six organizations from varied industries. The results of the study found that a project manager's transformational leadership style has a positive impact on actual project performance, that emotional intelligence ability contributes to a project manager's transformational leadership style and subsequent actual project performance.

The purpose of this action research is to gain insight into how people learn to think systemically. An examination of the themes that emerged from this action research will be undertaken.

An action research approach was adopted which involved the collection and reading of 120 journals that were kept by graduate students in their systems thinking course.

A theory of practice identified and supported three significant areas in systems thinking: how the structure of the system influences the behavior of its members; the consequences of decisions on other parts of the system and a shift from blaming to seeing how one is contributing to the situation; and insights gleaned from actually learning to think systemically: meta‐learning of systems thinking.

The positive implications that emerged from this action research indicate that, once students are introduced to systems thinking theory, tools and application, they are able to link their decision‐making abilities to consequences; see the delays in a system; move away from blaming external “others” and look to see how they are contributing to an issue or problem. Limitations include other areas that could have been included: challenges, stories, and questions that emerged from the action research. Data from other groups would also be warranted.

The paper shows that systems thinking can be taught…that the benefits are being realized on different levels!

This action research presents one of the first attempts to actually gather data on how people learn to think systemically and to begin to categorize the themes and patterns that emerged from the data.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss how communication and cooperation in inter‐organizational networks may bring about organizational learning. A case study of 13 inter‐organizational school networks in Germany is carried out for this purpose.

Results of a quantitative survey assessing the performance of the 13 networks are presented. A subsequent qualitative survey of two highly innovative networks takes into account the learning effects in school practice. The analysis is predicated on an activity theoretic view on learning and development.

Two levels of consideration are distinguished: the learning platform where representatives of the schools regularly meet and the operational work at the schools. The perception of how the representatives in the network learned how the colleagues at the schools who are not directly involved learned and how the school as a whole learned is appreciated differently. Outcomes vary from “exchange of new ideas” to “implementation of school development.”

The paper is based on empirical research carried out at one point in time. A longitudinal study of inter‐organizational network performance could shed more light on the dynamic validity of the model.

Understanding networks allow to appreciate their outcomes. The outcomes of this paper provide guides on how to design more effective learning networks.

The conceptual model distinguishes between two network levels, its interrelated learning effects and the different stages of learning and development. Learning networks can be assessed due to the learning categories, and success factors can be identified.

Canada's Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Research and Technology Initiative (CRTI) uses an operating model that is unusual in government. It is created to enable cross‐boundary capability and capacity building and learning. Some consider it a model for other federal science initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of leadership – and its relationship to perceived effectiveness – in this complex network of counter‐terrorism communities, where parts of the network are functioning better than others. At a more academic level, it explores whether complexity theory can inform leadership theory.

This qualitative, empirical study uses phenomenography and elements of ethnography as methodologies. Data are gathered through interviews and observation.

CRTI personnel refer to their initiative as a counter‐terrorism network of communities. The leader of each community works – without positional authority – with participants from many organizations and locations. The paper reveals qualitatively different ways of understanding leadership. Even though CRTI groups have much in common, participants' ways of understanding that work vary greatly. Some understand their work environments as complex systems rather than as traditional government structures; this way of understanding is associated with perceptions of effectiveness. This finding can change the ways in which science and technology professionals make sense of their work in complex, trans‐disciplinary fields such as counter‐terrorism and global warming.

This qualitative, empirical research complements and supports some of the conceptual work about leadership and learning in complex environments.

Organizations as complex networks aim to survive. The purpose of this paper is to provide an alternative perspective to current organizational challenges by considering team learning as key factor for surviving this turbulent environment.

The dominating approach in this paper comes from the complexity paradigm. This paper examines team learning of an actual case of an organization in a fast changing environment. It explores the business applicability of concepts of complexity theory to the issues described in the case. Furthermore, it synthesizes these concepts with literature on learning in general and team learning in particular.

For coping with highly dynamic environments, management should reconsider traditional ways of thinking. Teams as networks of learning are a valuable corporate asset that an organization needs to foster when aiming to survive. Measures like minimal interaction rules, individual autonomy and a flexible organization structure demand a new perspective in which subjectivity, non‐linear methods and understanding replace attempts for objectivity, linear thinking and control.

The alternative approach from the complexity paradigm may be of benefit when handling managerial and organizational issues. Like the challenge of the organization of this case study is shifted from managing teams to facilitating team learning.

The paper offers a better understanding of the team learning process and how learning is shared within an organization from an alternative perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the emergent nature of leadership in a university‐based learning network of mature‐aged practitioner‐scholars.

The paper draws on previously published work, interviews, and current research.

The paper finds that once initial structures have been established, the leadership role falls to different members depending on the needs of the group. Intellectual leadership becomes important in this setting.

The study is drawn from a single case although supported by research done in a similar group in the UK. Research indicates that cohorts and support networks increase success rates in PhD completions. This paper outlines one example of the structures and processes of a successful one.

There is significant leverage for universities in developing the network structures and process, beyond the simple supervisor/student relationship that support doctoral students. It focuses on the contribution a learning network can make to mature‐aged part‐time students.

This paper develops the current literature on supervision of doctoral students.

This paper aims to develop the understanding of how organizations can derive more value from participating in inter‐organizational learning collaborations.

The collaboration is viewed as one “level” within an extended organizational learning system and both feedback processes between levels and the dynamics within the collaboration itself are explored. Seven learning‐based inter‐organizational learning collaborations are studied using a qualitative exploratory research design. An extensive literature review is used to design the semi‐structured interviews undertaken with participants in the collaborations, as well as the convenor of each.

Multiple forms of value are evident (individual capacity building, operational value, affirmation, reputation and relationship building and learning about how to collaborate more effectively), though subject specific organizational capability building is rarely achieved. Two main factors seemed to influence this: individuals not translating the implications of the learning, and the organizations not transferring and amplify that learning. Building capability required a visible long‐term commitment by leaders to the collaboration.

Confirmatory research is needed to refine the proposed framework of actions to develop the organizational capability to derive value from participating in this kind of collaboration.

A coherent set of actions is proposed for organizations wishing to build the capability to derive more value from participating in inter‐organizational learning collaborations. Recommendations are also generated for those wishing to convene a collaboration.

The contribution is the development of the concept of the organizational capability to participate effectively in inter‐organizational learning collaborations, and the identification of a coherent set of actions required to develop this capability.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the key roles embedded in the informal organizational structure (informal networks) and to outline their contribution in the companies' performance. A major objective of the research is to find and characterize a new key informal role that synthesises problem solving, expertise, and accessibility characteristics.

A framework for an in‐depth informal structure analysis based on social network analysis (SNA) methodology is structured and applied in a case study of a knowledge‐based enterprise operating in the information systems industry.

The paper identifies and characterizes the key informal roles (namely opinion leaders, central connectors, bottlenecks, experts, consultants, or helpful people) and a new one, called pilus prior (first lancer) that synthesises problem solving, expertise, and accessibility characteristics.

Future research will move through the enlargement of the sample that will allow a better generalization of the results and the development of a model to quantitatively evaluate the performances of individuals recognized as informal leaders.

The proposed framework has a general applicability and can be a valuable tool for an in‐depth organizational analysis based on SNA methodology. Consequently, some directions are provided to increase cooperation and knowledge sharing flows inside the company and to align the formal organizational processes to the informal one.

The results of the research have been achieved by using an original approach, the joint analysis of three informal networks. The case suggests that pilus priors are the informal emerging leaders in the company who outperform their colleagues.

Relationship learning is a topic of considerable importance for industrial networks, yet a lack of empirical research on the impact of relationship governance structures on relationship learning remains. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of relationship governance structures on learning in partnerships.

This paper contributes to the closure of the research gap by examining sample data drawn from 42 interviews on the subject of 199 customer‐supplier relationships within the Finnish metal and electronics industries. As a method, the paper applies cluster analysis and analysis of variance mean‐comparison.

The results of this paper show that balanced hybrid governance structures explain learning in partnerships, which suggests that certain combinations of relationship governance mechanisms (price, hierarchical, and social mechanism) produce the best learning outcomes in partnerships. Results suggest that managers should use hybrid relationship governance structures when governing their supplier partnerships.

The paper has some limitations such as limited sample size, cross‐sectional data, and difficulties due to measuring social phenomenon such as learning. Owing to the interview method being applied, research is bound to apply a sample data drawn from companies that operate in the west coast in Finland. These limitations need to be considered when applying the results.

The results encourage managers to use different governance mechanisms simultaneously when managing their company's supply chain partnerships. The result emphasizes the role of active relationship management.

The paper is one of the first to empirically show that relationship learning is best facilitated by using various relationship governance mechanisms simultaneously. Trust needs to be complemented by hierarchical and possibly by price mechanism.