Search results

This paper aims to gather empirical evidence for what colleagues from different organizations reported they learned from informal professional learning conversations. Informal learning conversations with colleagues is a powerful yet understudied source of self-directed, professional development.

This study of mixed methods investigated the types of learning 79 leaders from 22 organizations reported they learned via post-conversation surveys from 44 peer-led discussions over a two-year period.

Survey data suggest empirical evidence of five learning outcomes – informational, conceptual, operational, reflective and social learning. The study describes these categories, the overall distribution of these types of learning in the community and how most conversations were “high-yielding” in a particular outcome.

To the knowledge of the authors, this study is the first to suggest empirical evidence of categories of learning that participants report from informal, cross-organizational learning conversations.

Despite the growing body of literature on both organizational learning (OL) and corporate venture development (CVD), very few attempts have been made to establish connections between these two literature streams. While existing literature provides some evidence that OL may facilitate the process of CVD, several interesting research issues remain unexamined. We know very little about (a) what type of learning processes are effective at various stages of CVD; and (b) whether and how knowledge created through various OL processes enhances venture performance. These research issues are examined in this paper by integrating the literature from OL and CVD. We develop a conceptual model that integrates organizational learning with the antecedents and outcomes of CVD. We argue that (a) organizational learning in CVD occurs through two distinct and yet complementary processes; (b) productive organizational learning occurs when organizations vary their emphases on different types of learning depending upon the stages of CVD; and (c ) different types of learning are associated with different types of venture outcomes. Propositions are developed and implications are discussed to facilitate empirical research.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for understanding the learning outcomes of strategic alliances.

On the basis of two dimensions of any strategic alliance – that is, similarity or dissimilarity of contribution of partners and explorative or exploitative nature of alliance – the author proposes a framework that recognizes four types of learning outcomes.

The distinction of four types of alliance enables the author to identify their distinctive characteristics and learning outcomes.

The paper increases the awareness of managers about the learning outcomes of strategic alliances, which helps managers to consider intended learning outcomes not only in planning, managing and evaluating any individual alliance but also in managing the alliance portfolio.

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the supply chain learning (SCL)–performance relationship based on the existing empirical evidence.

We sampled 54 empirical studies on the SCL–performance relationship. We proposed a conceptual research framework and adopted a meta-analytical approach to analyse the SCL–performance relationship.

The results of the meta-analysis confirm the positive effects of SCL on the performance of both firms and supply chains. In addition, building on the knowledge-based view, we found that learning from customers has a stronger positive effect on performance than does learning from suppliers, while joint learning has a stronger positive effect on performance than does absorptive learning. Business knowledge had a greater effect on performance than did general knowledge, process knowledge or technical knowledge, while explicit knowledge had a stronger effect than tacit knowledge. Moreover, the SCL–performance relationship is moderated by performance measure and industry type but not by regional economic development, highlighting the broad applicability of SCL.

This study is the first meta-analysis on the SCL–performance relationship. It differentiates between learning from customers and learning from suppliers, examines a more comprehensive list of performance measures and tests five moderators to the main effect, significantly contributing to the SCL literature.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

In today’s workplace, employees are taking responsibility for their own learning and development. The learning paths they take are often strategically motivated and directed, as opposed to simply provided and planned by human resource professionals. Some learning-path types can be found specific to certain occupations, while learning-path strategies and motives can be found in employees regardless of occupation. For successful learning, individual learning paths must be recognized and it is also necessary to consider a specific occupational context.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

This article brings a new, broad conceptual framework to the quest for understanding dynamic capability in organizations (i.e., “managing on the edge of chaos”). This approach rests on two major ideas: (i) a duality–paradox perspective and (ii) new typologies of organizational learning (OL) and individual action/thinking. A case of radical innovation at Microsoft provides a multilevel stimulus. Understanding it requires a focus on two dualistic challenges. For use in future ODC research and practical assessment, this broad new conceptual framework includes: (i) collaboration as a central concept; (ii) duality–paradox as a key source of conflicts that can threaten collaboration; (iii) five types of OL, (iv) four types of individual action/thinking, including paradoxical thinking, and (v) the proposition that “golden dualities” can be created from once-troubling duality situations (where critical collaboration was in danger) which have been transformed from the metaphorical “odd (contentious) couple” into a “productive (collaborative) partnership.”

This chapter exemplifies how assessment is performed in innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) at the university education and how educators apply and view formative assessment as an important tool in enhancing students’ learning outcomes.

A case study methodology was applied to characterize the diversity of assessment and evaluation in I&E-education. Covering major scholarly disciplines 10 cases were selected based on mapping of course outlines obtained from university databases across 7 Danish universities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with course responsible educators focusing on alignment between learning goals, assessment forms and criteria, and feedback.

The analysis shows that educators emphasize the importance of formative and learner-centered assessment forms alongside summative, credit-giving assessment. Educators experience that logbooks, learning journals, prototypes, informal feedback session with stakeholders have a crucial potential for enhancing students’ transformative learning.

This study is descriptive and solely based on the educators’ perspectives. To provide more scientifically sound knowledge on the relationship between assessment types and I&E learning outcomes, future research should include students’ perspective and preferably apply both quantitative experimental and qualitative research designs.

The study provides inspiration to educators, researchers, and policy-makers on how to conduct assessment that stimulates students learning in I&E-education.

Considering that the research on how assessment in I&E-education impacts students learning is limited, this study provides important contribution by identifying links between formative assessment types and enhancement of student learning.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of a study designed to understand how management accounting changes when an organization evolves in a more network‐oriented direction, informed by an experiential or integrated approach to learning.

This paper draws on a longitudinal case study initiated by the findings from a previous action research study at a manufacturing plant, the Volvo Floby factory.

By introducing and elaborating on the concept of local management accounting system (LMAS), this paper contributes to the debate about how management accounting reacts to new organizational forms and technologies. Two types of management accounting information are identified: one corresponds to the accountability aspect of accounting – Type 1 information, while Type 2 information refers to problem solving and control. A LMAS is supportive of both local accountability, which draws on valuing skills, and of local problem solving, which relies on decision skills.

One of the research implications of this study is that a LMAS may function as an important mechanism for innovation by explicitly integrating the holistic and the analytic dimensions of experiential learning.

The reported case illustrates how management accounting may facilitate process innovation in a practical setting.

By adopting an experiential learning methodology to develop new knowledge, the production plant studied has succeeded in creating an environment characterized by continuous innovation.

Proposes a framework for gaining a greater understanding of all types of managerial learning, which builds on Bateson′s notion of levels of learning, which provides an ideal context in which to position the range of views expressed by the management tutors. Reveals that their assumptions and beliefs about learning and teaching tend to be guided by the essential nature of their respective subject discipline, which revolves around the notion of “hard” and “soft” disciplines and, hence, provides a rationale for teaching different types of learning and affects course content and design. Analyses the differences of approach by dissecting the learning process into a series of phases which are part of a cyclical model. Reveals large variations in the degree of importance placed on pre‐ and post‐course activity. Explores this model in greater depth by discussing a particular Ashridge general management programme, which uses this framework extensively to guide its development. Concludes by suggesting that management educators should refrain from deluding both themselves and their clients that all tutors, from a variety of subject disciplines, share the same basic assumptions about learning. In fact, it is imperative that they do not share the same basic assumptions, if they are really serious about tailoring learning to individual client needs.

This paper aims to examine how distinct sequences of organizational learning types (experiential and vicarious) underpin processes of exploratory versus exploitative innovation.

Data collection consists of 16 interviews conducted with senior personnel at two firms in the biopharmaceutical sector, with sequences of organizational learning types derived from the associated innovation projects. These sequences and their differential emphases on experiential or vicarious learning are used to construct a conceptual model. Propositions describe the structural differentiation and integration mechanisms useful to foster organizational ambidexterity.

Technological brokering emerges as a key means by which organizations can reconcile the learning sequences underlying exploration and exploitation. For exploration, a structure incorporating cross-industry technology brokerage during the initiation and development phases of innovation is posited. For exploitation, a structure harnessing intra-industry technology brokerage during the development phase of innovation is suggested. Integration of these projects can be accomplished through cross-unit interfaces incorporating both types of brokerage roles, with emphasis on their use during implementation.

This paper considers the ways in which organizations focus on separate types of organizational learning at different stages of the innovation process. Insights are provided into how firms mobilize internal and external knowledge to advance these projects independently, as well as to link these efforts and thereby facilitate ambidexterity.