Search results

What is the learning organization? Why is it important? Learning is often seen as an individual level activity but organizational learning is concerned with collective learning processes. The second half is an annotated bibliography of key books in the field.

This paper aims to take a critical view of the concepts of the Learning Organisation and Organisational Learning (LO/OL) and respond to two questions about their current state: are existing perspectives on LO/OL still fit for purpose? What are the possibilities for an alternative paradigm of LO/OL?

The paper critically reviews the literature of LO/OL and uses the concept of problematisation together with some guiding principles from ancient wisdoms to articulate an alternative paradigm.

Two waves of LO/OL are identified. A first wave rests on a series of assumptions that have shaped a predominant understanding of LO/OL, including the suppositions that all learning is good; that those organisations adopting LO/OL strategies are engaged in useful work and in pursuing socially valuable ends; and that neo-liberal beliefs favouring market-based solutions are the most appropriate response to organisational problems. A more reflexive approach to LO/OL has challenged these predominant views, and although it has had little impact on practice, it paves the way for a possible second wave perspective. With the help of a theoretical excursion of Taoism and Buddhism, the authors portray a possible picture of a new paradigm for LO/OL.

Whilst existing critical accounts have problematised the mainstream assumptions of LO/OL, they have not clearly indicated any different perspectives. Drawing upon ancient wisdom, the paper identifies some guiding principles for an alternative LO/OL paradigm and discourse.

It has recently been suggested that the learning organisation (LO) is dead (Pedler, 2013). The authors make the case here that it is still alive. This paper provides a brief history of LO and organisational learning, follows this with some survey findings, a discussion and an exploration of some related contemporary issues and concludes with an overview and summary of the conclusions.

Survey of practitioners.

From this small survey, whilst some of the 16 respondents are still excited by the idea, a larger group sees the learning organisation as more of a background concept, performed in ways that might not fit with the aspirations of 20 years ago.

The authors started with the question: is the LO idea still alive in 2016? No clear answer emerges. Given the variety of the responses, it is difficult to sum them up in a simple way. The yea-sayer will find plenty of evidence for the LO’s continued existence and relevance, but the nay-sayers will also feel at least partly vindicated. What does emerge clearly arise from the mixed messages, are the opportunities for further research.

This paper calls for further research and suggests useful directions.

LO is still seen as socially useful.

The paper is based on small empirical sample of practitioners who display multivocality on this concept.

The purpose of this paper is to outline an alternative view of leadership development that acknowledges the likelihood of unintended and contradictory outcomes in leadership work. Helping leaders to engage with contradictions is as important as developing their positive capabilities. A focus on the contradictions of leadership can help to address the emotional and political limitations that development programmes unwittingly impose on learning.

The paper discusses how leadership development currently falls short in helping people to lead in complex organizational environments. This argument is illustrated by examples taken from MBA teaching programme in a School of Management together with an analysis of contradictions in the National Health Service Healthcare Leadership Model. The final section gives four examples of how to put the contradictions back into leadership development.

The paper does not seek to present empirical findings. The illustrations support an argument for changes in practice. Examples are provided of a different approach to leadership development.

The paper critiques approaches to leadership development on the grounds of its relentless positivity regarding leadership behaviour and that focusses primarily on the development of individuals. Attention is called to the contradictions inherent in leadership work which extend to the leadership development process itself. Once acknowledged, these contradictions offer important leadership learning opportunities for both individuals and organizations.

Personal development involves individuals acting and reflecting on the world and themselves, and learning from this. The practical issues faced by facilitators in setting up and running self‐development groups are discussed. The structure of the process is focused on and a number of guidelines presented.

This paper aims to identify the ethical foundations and principles underpinning the learning organization (LO) concept.

By interviewing one thought leader in the field, Professor Robin Snell, this paper traces how his early days in academia shaped the development of an ethics-driven research agenda on LO.

An ethical perspective advocates the importance of establishing a covenant or constitutional foundation of rights that would enable and empower organizational members at all levels to enact the processes of LOs, thus signifying the importance of employee development and a more sustainable approach for developing LO.

A personal reflection of Robin Snell on his own academic career development and research trajectory offers some insights into how an ethical perspective of LO evolved and flourished as a field of study.

Aims first, to develop an instrument for a holistic analysis of learning organizations; and second, to test the validity and reliability of this instrument. The framework developed was mainly influenced by the work of Mike Pedler, Tom Boydell and John Burgoyne, Peter M. Senge as well as Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schön. Analyses eight existing diagnosis tools. The Learning Organization Diamond Tool was based on a concept of a learning organization regarded as a structure of related elements. Data consisting of 691 answers were gathered from 25 Finnish organizations in 1998. After analysis the reliability of the instrument was measured with Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alphas for the elements of the tool varied between 0.5141 and 0.8617. Validity of the tool was established by presenting the process as a chain of phases from theory to statements. Comparison between the tool developed and other tools presented in this article yields somewhat contradictory findings, because the purposes of the instruments differ. The tool developed here aims to create a holistic picture for further analysis and discussions and to serve as an internal tool for development. More tailored instruments should be developed for more specific purposes. The article is aimed at an audience involved in learning organizations and their development.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.