Search results

The purpose of this paper is to argue that effective and ethical governance and government can and should benefit from many influences and inputs. These influences and inputs, in the form of evidence, information, knowledge and informed public participation contribute to the quality and legitimacy of government analysis and action.

The approach in this viewpoint is to use persuasive communication in an advocacy and illustrative way to introduce learning governance as an approach to governance.

The viewpoint states the case for the usefulness and relevance of evidence and ideas based learning governance linked to learning leadership in governance for effective and ethical leadership in governance.

The value of the viewpoint is to stimulate and elicit discussion and debate on learning governance and leadership as approach to governance leadership.

Actors of territories faced with new managerial innovations have to develop new knowledge and behaviours to seize these innovations and create a vision of the territory. This is part of what we call governance learning: the ability of individuals to create new knowledge and behaviour for collective action within the territory. The purpose of this chapter is to explore this concept.

Drawing from a case study of a periurban territory in France, we analyse how the board members of a Community of Communes can learn to work together, articulating organisational learning theories, actor-network theory and the concept of organisational myths.

We explore the enrolment process necessary to ‘build’ the network and interest them in using the innovation; identify three types of governance learning that turn the network into a collective: sensemaking, instrument-seizing and sensegiving; show how these myths are necessary to turn collective knowledge into organisational knowledge.

With both a behavioural and evolutionary approach to governance, we show that power, relationships and learning processes are tightly intertwined within the governance networks. Our use of organisational learning theory also demonstrates how it can be used in a more systematic way to describe the learning processes witnessed in governance situations.

This research brings new light to the understanding of how territorial governance can be developed and how managerial innovations can provoke learning situations and more specifically how stakeholders learn to define common goals and a shared vision of their territory to enable collective action.

This study aims to discuss science governance in Europe and the network of associated nonprofit institutions. The authors posit that this network, which comprises both (partial) learning organizations and non-learning organizations, has been observed to postpone taking up “responsibility” as an issue in science governance and funding decisions.

This paper discusses the challenge of learning and policy implementation within the European science governance system. By exploring how learning on responsible innovation (RI) in this governance system can be provoked, it addresses the question how Senge’s insights in organizational learning can clarify discourses on and practices of RI and responsibility in research. This study explores the potential of a new organizational form, that of Social Labs, to support learning on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) in standing governance organizations.

This study concludes that Social Labs are a suitable format for enacting the five disciplines as identified by Senge, and a Social Lab may turn into a learning organization, be it a temporary one. Responsibility in research and innovation is conducive for learning in the setting of a Social Lab, and Social Labs act as intermediary organizations, which not merely pass on information among actors but also actively give substantive shape to what they convey from a practice-informed, normative orientation.

This empirical work on RRI-oriented Social Labs therefore suggests that Social Lab–oriented temporary, intermediary learning organizations present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies in a networked, nonhierarchical governance setting.

Based on this research funding and governance organizations in research, policy-makers in other domains may take up and create such intermediary organizations to aid learning in (science) governance.

This research suggests that RRI-oriented Social Labs present a promising form for implementing complex normative policies, thus integrate learning on and by responsible practices in various governance settings.

European science governance is characterized by a network of partial Learning Organization (LOs) and Non-Learning Organization (nLOs) who postpone decision-making on topics around “responsibility” and “solving societal challenges” or delegate authority to reviewers and individual actors, filtering possibilities for collaborative transformation toward RRI. social lab (SLs) are spaces that can address social problems or social challenges in an open, action-oriented and creative manner. As such, they may function as temporary, intermediary LOs bringing together diverse actors from a specific context to work on and learn about issues of science and society where standing organizations avoid doing so. Taken together, SLs may offer temporary organizational structures and spaces to move beyond top-down exercise of power or lack of real change to more open, deliberative and creative forms of sociopolitical coordination between multiple actors cutting across realms of state, practitioners of research and innovation and civil society. By taking the role of temporary LOs, they may support existing research and innovation organizations and research governance to become more flexible and adaptive.

This contribution argues that there is a fundamental problem for the multi-level governance (MLG) approach in that what the approach is trying to explain has never been fully agreed by the vast group of scholarship that references it. The chapter then examines and proposes that ideas and concepts from network governance, principal–agent (PA) and learning can provide the necessary micro foundations for the MLG approach.

The chapter examines and critiques the original MLG formulations and the later efforts at elaboration. It then reviews the literature and concepts for three public policy approaches that have been associated with European governance to see how core explanations can be elaborated upon in a multi-level context: network governance, principal–agent (PA) and learning.

This contribution suggests that co-ordination, and the resources that help maintain this co-ordination, is the key dependent variable that underpins the MLG approach. With multiple principals and multiple agents, operating at a number of levels of analysis, direct authority and control is harder to evoke. The key explanatory variable underpinning this MLG co-ordination is learning by the participants.

Researchers need to concentrate both their theoretical and empirical efforts in understanding the conditions that support multi-level governance and that sustain its effort.

The contribution outlines some of the key practical questions that policy-makers must face. Can they manage resources and induce learning from all the relevant public and private stakeholders to engage in the MLG effort?

Not only does an effective MLG process involve engaging a wide range of societal stakeholders, these stakeholders have to be persuaded to invest effort in learning about the nature of the governance system, the challenges of the policy problem and the implications of the efforts to resolve these problems.

This chapter isolates the fundamental lacuna at the heart of the MLG project and offers academics and practitioners a conceptual lens for building a clearer analytical structure for studying MLG.

Inter‐firm knowledge sharing and learning constitute one of the main avenues to improve supply chains' performance in today's business environment. This paper aims to examine how effective different governance mechanisms are in promoting knowledge transfer, learning and performance in supply chains.

Following on from the literature in inter‐organizational learning, transaction costs economics, business‐to‐business relational marketing, and supply chain management, a model is presented and tested using structural equations modeling. Data were collected from 219 Colombian apparel manufacturers.

This paper finds that from more influential to less, social mechanisms of governance, hostages and behavioral control favor knowledge sharing, learning and performance in supply chains. Output control exerts a negative influence on learning in supply chains.

Governance has a key role in promoting transparency and learning in supply chains. Future research should analyze whether it impacts on the firms' learning intent.

Knowledge sharing and learning have a positive influence on the supply chain's performance. Results of the study suggest that the supply chain's competitiveness lies in the adequate governance of the interfirm relationships, i.e. by using trust, hostages and behavioral control to support knowledge exchange.

Compared with studies that limit their analysis to the impact of one specific type of governance mechanism, generally trust, the paper for the first time jointly examines the role of several types of governance on knowledge‐sharing in supply chains, on learning and on performance. This allows a comparison of the different mechanisms in terms of their safeguarding and coordination role.

The purpose of this paper is to link two modes of governance (transactional and transformational) to organizational learning by examining the example of academic teaching. Consequently, the “transformational” strategies of best practices that have been used by German universities to achieve teaching excellence are interpreted as double-loop learning. In delineating two exemplary cases of double-loop learning concerning the university-wide implementation of a new teaching formats as part their institutional strategies to develop teaching excellence, the authors want to answer the following research question: Which kind of governance is required to manage double-loop learning processes?

The purposive sample comprised four universities that had won awards for their teaching excellence. In 2014, a total of 21 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted in these universities within the following status groups: members of the rectorate, full professors, and university management professionals. The coding procedure followed a directed content analysis.

Both forms of governance are required for the management of double-loop learning. In the case of a top-down instigation of organizational learning, transformational governance is especially required in terms of idealized influence and inspirational motivation. In the case of a more bottom-up trigger of organizational learning, intellectual stimulation becomes more important. Transactional governance is required for the university-wide implementation of new routines (e.g. a mandatory quality management tool, obligatory coaching for newly appointed professors or competitive teaching grants).

This paper contributes to the empirical research on organizational learning in higher education institutions by adding a governance perspective.

Different studies have analyzed the relationship between organizational learning and value creation. However, the question of how crowdsourcing affects the relationships between organizational learning and value creation remains unexplored. This paper aims to explore the mediating role of crowdsourcing in the relationship between organizational learning and value creation in local governance.

The hypotheses were tested based on data collected from 205 local governance units in Poland using crowdsourcing. Data collection was carried out by using a set of standardized questionnaires. Correlation analyses were used to specify the strength of the relationships between the variables. To test the hypotheses, multiple regression analysis was used.

The results have shown that in the local governance organizational learning is related to crowdsourcing, while organizational learning is not related to value creation. Crowdsourcing does not play a mediating role in explaining the relationship between organizational learning and value creation.

A research model was developed based on the relevant literature in the field of organizational learning, value creation and crowdsourcing. This study urges researchers to explore the relationship between organizational learning and value creation in other public organizations using crowdsourcing.

This is the first study on the intermediate role of crowdsourcing in the relationship between organizational learning and value creation in local governance. The proposed model enriches the existing literature and allows better understanding of how crowdsourcing acts as an intermediary in the organizational learning-value creation relationship.

Organizational learning in inter‐firm exchange relationships poses a double‐edged sword. On one hand, inter‐firm learning is a desirable extension of organizational learning, developing a firm’s knowledge base, and providing fresh insights into strategies, markets, and relationships. On the other hand, inter‐firm learning can lead to unintended and undesirable skills transfer, resulting in the potential dilution of competitive advantage. This risk can be exacerbated by disparities in inter‐firm learning, resulting in uneven distribution of benefits and risks in the collaborative relationship. This paper articulates these two different views on inter‐firm learning, and second, develops a framework for the role of governance in regulating knowledge transfer. In particular, appropriate governance mechanisms must be crafted which match the learning intentions of the partners, the type of knowledge sought, and the designed duration for the collaboration, so as to maximize the benefits of learning while minimizing the risks. Implications for strategy and future research are offered.

Despite the growth in research on conditions for successful learning by organizations and the introduction of expanding practices and approaches, a progressive and shared understanding of the link between organizational learning and governance is currently missing. This paper aims to take a closer look at organizational learning from a governance angle alongside an institution’s strategic and performance improvement goals.

This article takes a reflective approach through which the author’s observations and experiences in guiding organizational learning efforts are presented.

The nature of participation and advances in learning how to participate in organizational learning are noted as areas for further inquiry. Dimensions such as desirability, discipline, decision-making, democracy and dividend are presented as critical elements through which organizational learning as governance can be better understood. This novel view of organizational learning is suggested to require more thoughtful and sensitive empirical inquiry and theory development, particularly in contexts with a history of less-than-good governance.

This viewpoint makes an original contribution to the literature by introducing a new lens through which a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the practices, processes and performance of organizational learning can be further pursued. The article invites researchers, practitioners and leaders in organizations to take another look at how knowledge generation and use is governed. This paper also positions developing and less-developed contexts as ripe and necessary fields within which organizational learning capacities should be explored and strengthened.

This paper aims to explore the enhancement of value-added characteristics in strategic supply management by considering manufacturers’ willingness, opinions on relational governance and the effect of relational governance on relationship value.

After a literature review, this study identified the antecedents of relational governance affecting manufacturers, and explored the effect of relational governance on relationship value, taking relationship quality and interfirm learning as the intervening constructs. Data collected from 259 valid questionnaires completed by purchasing managers for the top 2,000 Taiwanese manufacturers were assessed using a structural equation model.

The results indicated that relational governance is directly and positively correlated with relationship quality and interfirm learning; relational quality and interfirm learning are directly and positively correlated with relationship value; and consumer orientation and management innovation are directly and positively correlated with relational governance.

The high explanatory power of the results of the deduced model in this research helps to explain the relational governance of manufacturers toward the suppliers. However, the factors affecting the sustainability of cooperative relationships in service contexts might differ.

Relational governance complements the adaptive limits of contracts by fostering the continuance of exchange and entrusting both parties with mutually agreeable outcomes. Relational governance affects manufacturers’ ability to flexibly adapt and overcome uncertainty in the supply chain relationship.

This study investigated the relationship among governance features that support interorganizational relations and developed precise measures of relational governance. The effect of relational governance on the evaluation of relationship value was examined.