Search results

Introduces diversity management as managing the increased diversity of issues that confront humankind in contemporary organizational and societal affairs. Defines triple loop learning as being about the increase in the fullness and deepness of learning about the diversity of issues and dilemmas faced. Presents the contours of diversity management and triple loop learning. Sees the latter as the dénouement of single loop learning and of double loop learning. Provides a “quickmap” of the contours of diversity management and triple loop learning.

Through a survey of firm’s experiences with strategic alliances and a structural equation modeling approach, the aim of this study is to stimulate further interest in modeling and empirical research in the area of N-loop learning. Although the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning, in particular, are well established in the literature, limited research has been directed toward their empirical validation and finer understanding.

Based on a large sample of technology firms, a MIMIC model is proposed and tested with respect to the development of collaborative know-how via the adoption and conduct of different structural choices on how to deploy strategic alliances (single-loop vs double-loop approach). Results are cross-validated.

Based on the results of two structural equation models, the findings support the fit of the proposed conceptual model and the notion that, overall, the greater the extent of double-loop over single-loop learning, the higher the level of collaborative know-how derived.

The call for the empirical investigation of N-loop learning is met by providing an example of survey-based research. The possible benefits of “double-loop” over “single-loop” learning are modeled and tested empirically.

Accounting for quality and improved organizational performance has recently received attention in management control research. However, the extent to which process innovation changes have been integrated into management control research is limited. This paper contributes to that integration by drawing from institutional adaptive theory of organizational change and process innovation strategies. The paper utilizes a 2 by 2 contingency table that uses two factors: environmental conditions and organizational change/learning strategies, to build a process innovation framework. A combination of these two factors yields four process innovation strategies: mechanistic, organic, organizational development (OD) and organizational transformation (OT).

The four process innovation typologies are applied to characterize innovations in accounting such as activity based costing (ABC). ABC has been discussed as a multi-phased innovation process that provides an environment where both the initiation and the implementation of accounting change can occur. Technical innovation can be successfully initiated as organic innovation that unfolds in a decentralized organization and requires radical change and double loop learning. Implementation occurs best as a mechanistic innovation in a hierarchical organization and involving incremental change and single loop learning. The paper concludes that if ABC is integrated into an OD or OT intervention strategy, the technical and administrative innovation aspects of ABC can be utilized to manage the organization’s operating activities.

The paper extends the organizational learning framework: Structural-Functional (SF)-single-loop or Conflictual-Radical (CR)-double-loop learning to the management accounting literature. The sociological approach of organizational learning is utilized to understand those contingent factors that can explain why management accounting innovations succeed or fail in organizations.

We view learning as enhancing an organization’s strategic competitive advantage by making it better able to adopt and diffuse innovation in respond to changes in its environment in order to manage improved performance. The success of management accounting innovations is contingent upon whether its learning process involves SF-single-loop or CR-double-loop learning to adopt and diffuse process innovation.

The paper suggests that the learning strategy that the organization chooses is the reason why some management accounting innovations are more successfully adopted than others and why some innovations are easily diffused in some organizations but not in others. We propose that the sociological approaches to learning provide an alternative framework with which to better understand the adoption and diffusion of process innovations in management accounting systems.

It has become evident that management accounting researchers need to pay particular attention to an organization’s approach to adoption and diffusion of innovation strategies, particularly when they are designing and implementing process innovation programs for an organization. According to Schulz (2001), there are two interrelated stages of the learning that can shape the outcome of the innovation process in an organization. The first stage is related to the acquisition/production (adoption) of knowledge that results in gathering information, codification, and exploration. This is followed by the second stage which is the distribution or dissemination (diffusion) processes. When these two stages – adoption and diffusion – are applied within an accounting context, they address issues that are commonly associated with the successes and/or failures of management accounting innovations.

Although innovation involves learning, the nature of the learning process does not completely describe the manner in which an innovation affects the organization. Accordingly, we suggest that the two interrelated organizational sociological dimensions of innovations processes, namely, (1) the adoption and diffusion theories of Rogers (1971 and 1995), to approach organizational learning, and (2) the SF (single loop) and CR (double loop) approaches to learning be used simultaneously to describe management accounting innovations.

When an innovation is implemented, it initially can be introduced as an incremental change, one that can be limited in both in its scope and its breadth of administrative changes. This means that situations which are most likely to benefit from its initiation can serve as the prototype for its adoption by the organization. If successful, this can be followed by systemic accounting innovations to instituting broader administrative changes within the existing accounting reporting and control systems.

The purpose of this paper is to take an in‐depth look at the differences in learning based on the nature of the process, analysing the influence of CEO perceptions of personal mastery, shared vision, environment and strategic proactivity on the learning level.

This investigation drew up a structured questionnaire to better understand how CEOs face learning issues. A series of χ², t‐tests, Harman's one‐factor tests, correlations, and regression analyses were used. The hypotheses are tested using data from 239 firms located in Spain.

This investigation shows the influence of CEO perceptions of several strategic factors and capabilities (personal mastery, shared vision, environment and strategic proactivity) in single‐ and double‐loop learning and the influence of this learning level on organizational innovation and performance. It adds theoretical and empirical arguments to the two main learning levels in the literature.

The research provides empirical evidence that: personal mastery and a stable environment have a positive and significant impact on the generation of single‐loop learning; personal mastery, shared vision, ambiguous environment and strategic proactivity have a positive and significant influence on the generation of double‐loop learning; and both learning levels affect the generation of greater organizational innovation and performance.

This paper aims to encourage greater clarity and stimulate further interest in thorough empirical research in the area of learning levels. The broader motivation here is to urge researchers to not only theorize but also undertake elaborate and much needed empirical work.

Part I of the study rests on a reflection and review of the literature concerned with “N-loop learning”, that is, the different hierarchical levels and stages of organizational learning.

The study provides some views and classification schemes on how to reconcile and think about different levels of learning. Some learning archetypes are identified that guide further reflection and elaboration on learning stages and hierarchies.

“N-loop learning” is introduced to encapsulate and systematize a vast array of views, models and levels of organizational learning. From zero learning and single-loop learning to quadruple-loop learning, a series of learning archetypes are presented. The case for a proper and clear nomenclature of learning levels is singled out. Finally, a strong case for empirical testing in this area is advocated.

This research examines the effects of the context on the relationship between work design, learning mechanism and total quality management (TQM). The exploratory study examines the differential effects in context on how human resources and their activities are strategically managed for achieving TQM. Two theoretical frameworks – activity theory and contextual learning theory – are concurrently used for analysis. Specifically, the manufacturing companies, the authors examine are (1) technology-intensive company which has bought technology from a global foreign establishment (MU1), (2) technology-intensive companies having their own technology (MU2) and (3) labor-intensive units (MU3) of varying organizational sizes.

This case study-based research consists of 27 in-depth interviews with managers and employees of different hierarchies in each manufacturing unit. The authors interviewed them using semi-structured questions that were pre-validated by five senior HR experts from the manufacturing industry. Document analysis, multiple site visits and website content helped triangulation. The data are coded and analyzed using Dedoose software for qualitative research.

Activity diagrams for each manufacturing unit provides task and interaction analysis. Within and cross-case analysis address complexity and challenges of contextual reality, influences on work design and learning mechanism. HRD executives must recognize that there may be well-differentiated learning behaviors that align with organizational strategy. The learning behaviors may not be well-differentiated and become very dynamic. This dynamism may be characterized by double loop and single-loop learning feeding into each other.

This study provides substantial practical implications for HRD and other managers in the manufacturing sector.

The new theoretical framework adds to organizational behavior studies through multi-level and cross-contextual approach. It informs strategic combinations and interactions between internal and external context, and learning needs implicating work design and TQM.

The purpose of this paper is to report the empirical findings of a survey aimed to investigate the need to improve cross‐phase learning between design and construction. Through exploring the need to introduce a design‐construction feedback loop, combined with the barriers against its development, an expansion of knowledge surrounding the deficiencies of current practice is provided.

The paper reports the results from an online survey conducted in spring 2011 targeted at experienced personnel in the planning, design, construction and facilities management phases of healthcare infrastructure projects.

The current approach of detecting and correcting errors is significantly hindering the extent to which learning from previous experiences is taking place. It is shown that improved integration between design and construction is required in the form of improved feedback if continuous improvement in the areas of efficiency, quality, value and general learning from previous experiences/projects is to be achieved.

The focused population of this study limits the extent to which the findings can be generalised. However, it is viewed that this context is potentially one of the most complex and unique project participant arrangements to overcome. Therefore if the need and ability to share learning outcomes across such a complex arrangement can be achieved, then it may be easier within traditional arrangements.

The practical implications of moving away from single‐loop learning towards a double‐loop learning approach are provided.

This paper identifies that there is a distinct need for further efforts to be applied in the area of improving feedback between the phases of design and construction.

The organizational learning literature distinguishes different levels of learning (zero learning and single, double and triple loop learning) in order to understand the complexity and dynamics of changes in policies, objectives, mental maps, and structures and strategies for learning. This article explores the case of an emerging new organizational design, the circular organization, in order to understand the role of triple loop learning. The circular model was developed on the basis of ideas about the relationship between organizational structure and behavior taken from theories of dynamic systems. Circular design precepts appear to provide a structural facilitation of single and double loop learning. In this respect, the circular design tends to act as a facilitating infrastructure for triple loop learning, that is, exploring the structural opportunities and key competences people need to participate in making well‐informed choices about policies, objectives and other issues.

The purpose of this paper is to apply the organizational learning framework to the management accounting literature to better understand why management accounting innovations succeed or fail in organizations.

A theoretical framework integrating diffusion and organization learning theories is developed. Diffusion theory is used to describe the process whereby the innovation is implemented. Argyris' and Argyris and Schon's theory of organizational learning is used to describe the type of learning – single loop or double loop – required by the innovation. Finally, the works of Attewell, and of Schulz relating to organizational learning, and of Rogers and of Sandberg relating to adoption and diffusion theories, were utilized to identify and understand the potential pitfalls faced by managements implementing an accounting innovation.

The paper advances the notion that an organization's approach to learning and innovation should be of interest to management accounting researchers. The single‐loop (incremental/organizational development (OD)) and the double‐loop (radical/organizational transformation (OT)) learning influences the adoption (stage one) and diffusion (stage two) strategies that are appropriate for the design and implementation of management accounting innovations.

The paper makes an important contribution to the behavioral accounting literature by integrating sociological diffusion and organizational learning behavior literatures and relating them to management accounting research.