Search results

The interrelationship between organizational learning (OL) and organizational culture (OC) is often assumed at an abstract theoretical level, but there is yet no systematization of scholarly knowledge allowing to conceptualize and understand its precise nature. In this article, we therefore ask “How can we, based on the insights from the dispersed research studying OC and OL, conceptualize the interrelationship between the two concepts?” Our purpose is to create an overview on the past development path and the current status of research interrelating OL and OC, to use it as basis for the conceptualization of this interrelationship and to identify avenues for future research.

This article utilized a systematic literature review methodology by combining bibliometric and content analysis using relevant articles identified from the Scopus database. A two-stage literature review research approach was employed: (1) Bibliometric analysis was used to identify 416 relevant contributions and to present a comprehensive contextual picture of the interrelations between OL and OC research by analyzing the 162 most relevant articles. (2) A subsequent qualitative content analysis of the 45 most relevant academic contributions detailed and solidified the insights.

We identify four weakly linked thematic clusters on the interrelationship of OC and OL. Based on that, our analysis confirms the theorized bidirectional relationship between OC and OL: OC acts as antecedent, driver and result of OL processes, and OL processes are constrained by and alter OC. We moreover develop three propositions that put knowledge at the center of scholarly attention for understanding this interrelationship in more depth and develop avenues for future research.

Our research has important implications for managers as it shows that mastering leadership challenges is central for the success of OL processes and OC change. We moreover specify the leadership challenges that relate to particular types of OL processes. Managers need to take this interrelationship into account when setting out for OL or OC change processes, and carefully reflect on whether or not the decided OL measures fit the given OC, and the other way round.

Our contribution to existing research is threefold: It first lies in analytically mapping out the research field, second in conceptualizing the interrelationship between OC and OL and third in identifying open research questions and topics.

The purpose of this paper is to review and discuss the potential of available event formats for facilitating the initiation of organizational change processes. It presents unconferencing, a relatively new event format, which seems to provide unique opportunities for this purpose. It reports and analyzes the case of a large Swiss university which initiated its pro‐sustainability transformation by organizing an unconference.

Researchers studied the effects of unconferencing and the mechanisms, which brought them about in a case study. In the empirical setting of a large Swiss university, a qualitative study triangulating participatory observation, narrative and problem‐centered interviews, participant survey and documentary analysis was carried out. Data were collected and analyzed at different points in time.

Empirical findings suggest that unconferencing is an appropriate event format for facilitating the initiation of the pro‐sustainability organizational change process of a university. In our case, unconferencing achieved systems connectivity, enabled mutual learning and generated excellent outputs in form of project proposals.

The paper raises the awareness of other universities and organizations of an event format they might wish to apply in their organizational change processes.

So far, research has not provided satisfactory answers to the question, how to best initiate organizational change. This paper provides a systematic investigation of available methodological approaches. It furthermore explains unconferencing, which is increasingly applied by practitioners but so far has stimulated only little discourse in the scientific community.

Companies’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities tend to be regarded with suspicion: Taking managerial decision about engaging in CSR or communicating, this decision does not constitute the actual execution of this decision itself. A gulf can exist between deciding, speaking and doing. In fact, this gap between speaking and doing has longed fuelled the discussion about the risks, benefits and pitfalls of CSR, mainly for one reason: It remains unknown what happens to CSR concepts when they are transformed from formal decisions at the top of the hierarchy to concrete action in the rest of the organization. This paper explores this internal transformation process by combining the macro- and micro-levels of observation.

From a macro-perspective, the authors use Nils Brunsson’s notion of organizational hypocrisy to elucidate the societal conditions of the intraorganizational enforcement of CSR. Second, the authors combine this framework with Karl Weick’s organizational sensemaking approach to understand better how employee generate meaning and actions from contradictory expectations on the micro-level of the organization. By combining these two streams of theory, the authors provide a clear understanding of the internal sensemaking mechanisms brought about by contradicting societal norms. This approach and its usefulness is illustrated by means of an empirical case study.

The paper illustrates the characteristics of the unavoidable difference between organizational talk and action, the contradictions employees face on the shop floor when executing CSR and the challenges CSR execution has to overcome.

Given the combination of theoretical and empirical reflection, the paper remains explorative.

The moral dilemmas of employees become much clearer, as much as the organizational hypocrisy which CSR drives companies into. That can help managers to better deal with employees’ and the public’s reaction to own CSR efforts.

Combining Nils Brunsson (hypocrisy) with Karl Weick (sensemaking) in the context of CSR has not been undertaken. Accordingly, the insights are unique.

Communities of practice (CoPs) have been found to support knowledge creation by enabling knowledge sharing among experts in firms. However, some perform better than others. This paper seeks to explore what incentivizes employees to share knowledge in intra‐firm CoPs.

The paper presents a longitudinal case study in a large automotive company that introduced 82 cross‐functional CoPs into its engineering department. Using extensive qualitative data, two sets of communities: best and worst performing were analyzed.

It was found that perceived benefits and the employees' willingness to invest individual efforts into community work are stronger in better performing communities. Members of the better performing CoPs drew most benefits from participating in organizational decision processes, as they were able to influence the agenda and create relevant standards. The patterns observed relate to the efforts, benefits, and barriers of community work.

The single case study design limits the generalizability of the results beyond the company studied. Furthermore, some of the data employed were perceptional and relied partly on self‐reporting of the community members.

The paper argues that management support for CoPs should aim at influencing the individual cost‐benefit calculus of community members. Respecting and implementing results from the communities' work is likely to provide the very basis for innovations to emerge at all.

Other than extant studies on CoP performance that focus on company benefits from deploying CoPs, this paper offers a new perspective by exploring the benefits and incentives available to community members.

In innovation networks, SMEs' capability to innovate is both enhanced and restricted by more powerful or better positioned partners. The purpose of this article is to ask how managers of processing SME suppliers in Italian and Swiss food innovation networks experience their relationships with innovation network partners and how they configure modes of interaction with them.

A series of problem centered interviews with managers of six Swiss and five Italian food sector SMEs was conducted.

Findings describe how SME managers in the two regions perceive the nature of interaction as well as benefits and disadvantages resulting from asymmetric relationships within networked innovation process. Differences in the perception frame and their impact on behavior in innovation networks are analyzed.

The data are only valid for the food sector in the two regional markets. Furthermore, this paper only displays the perspective of managers of first and second processing food SME suppliers. Additional data should be gathered on the perspective of other network partners as well as on real‐time communication between them.

The findings suggest that active cooperation with especially customers in innovation networks supports innovation opportunities of processing food SME suppliers.

Scholars so far have comprehensively deduced potential advantages and problems resulting from asymmetries in power and positioning of partners for knowledge sharing in innovation networks but have not yet investigated its specifics. Particularly, empirical work on the perspective of managers from processing SME suppliers on innovation related cooperation with their partners in the value chain on networked innovation is yet almost scant.

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.

Innovation and creativity are prerequisites to successful development of both new processes and new products. Therefore, these attributes are essential for companies wishing to remain competitive. But where do these necessary attributes come from? Is it through good management? Is it by hiring the most creative individuals? Does it require an institutional culture that fosters creativity? These are all important questions that need to be addressed by firms wishing to increase creativity and competitiveness. Small and medium‐sized enterprises (SME) may be particularly keen to discover how they can compete with larger companies by becoming more innovative and creative than their larger competitors.

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.

Professor Slawomir Magala is a full professor of Cross-Management at the Department of Organization and Personnel Management in Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University (RSM, 2015). His education stems from Poland, Germany and the USA, and has taught and conducted research in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Croatia, Estonia, the United Kingdom and Namibia. He is a former Chair for Cross-Cultural Management at RSM and has achieved many things, from being editor-in-chief of the Journal of Organizational Change Management (JOCM), to receiving the Erasmus Research Institute in Management (ERIM) Book Award (2010), for The Management of Meaning in Organizations (Routledge, 2009). It has received honors for being the best book in one of the domains of management research. It was selected by an academic committee, consisting of the Scientific Directors of CentER (Tilburg University), METEOR (University of Maastricht) and SOM (University of Groningen). All these research schools are accredited by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This is a review of Professor Slawomir Magala’s contributions as editor of Journal of Organizational Change Management.

Slawomir (Slawek) Magala will be known for many contributions to social, organizational, managerial research, and it will be remembered that he has created a great legacy in the field of cross-cultural competence and communication on processes of sense making in professional bureaucracies. He has authored and co-authored many publications including articles, books, professional publications, book contributions and other outputs, and is an established professor of cross-cultural management at the Department of Organization and Personnel Management in RSM, Erasmus University. He will be known for his work as editor of Qualitative Sociology Review, and one of the founding members of the Association for Cross-Cultural Competence in Management, not to mention the Journal of Organizational Change Management. Many of his articles have appeared regularly in leading refereed journals, such as the European Journal of International Management, Public Policy, Critical Perspectives on International Business and Human Resources Development International. His greatest legacy is in the field of cross-cultural management, but branches out to many other management studies.

The research is limited to his work in capacity of editor of Journal of Organizational Change Management.

This review provides a guide for positive role model of an excellent editorship of a journal.

Magala’s legacy acknowledges this research and its power to create numerous papers and attract a lot of attention (Flory and Magala, 2014). Because of these conferences, these empirical findings have led to disseminating the conference findings with JOCM (Flory and Magala, 2014). According to them, narrative research has become a respectable research method, but they also feel that it is still burdened with a lot of controversies on with difficulties linked to applying it across different disciplines (Flory and Magala, 2014).

The review covers the creative accomplishment of Professor Magala as editor.

Organizations develop cultural artifacts to create and sustain organizational meaning. Symbolism creates organizational reality such that assumptions become taken‐for‐granted. This paper examines the way in which symbols function to create meaning. For example, metaphor actually causes one to focus on certain aspects of concepts to the exclusion of others. We propose that the creative symbolism used in organizations can be transferred to the classroom to foster shared meaning as conceptual building blocks for further learning. Several examples of how symbolism may be used to strengthen teaching and learning in “quantitative” courses are provided.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse how a company’s orientation enables sustainable practices in its supply chains. Specifically, it focusses on how the strategic orientation of a company may stimulate new behaviours in supply chains.

Two in-depth qualitative case studies were conducted. Each company’s orientation to sustainable supply chains was studied using cross-case analysis.

The organisations in this study have a market-driving (i.e. proactive) orientation instead of market-driven (i.e. responsive) behaviour. Using analysis from the process of change for sustainability and explaining some challenges faced by both organisations, findings indicate that a corporate strategy of sustainability modified the companies’ management processes, even for the company that changed its orientation during the time (i.e. sustainability was not the main strategy at first). Practical examples of actions are provided to illustrate the study’s conclusion that a corporate orientation towards sustainability is an enabling factor in developing sustainable supply chain management (SCM).

Strategic management plays an important role in a company’s orientation towards sustainability – internally and throughout its supply chains. Based on the findings, future research should measure the effect of a company’s orientation on sustainable SCM.

This study contributes to the understanding of companies’ strategic orientations and explores ways to introduce sustainability into supply chains.

The paper examines an underexplored debate regarding to how strategic orientations are related to sustainable SCM, focussing on both market-driving (i.e. proactive) and market-driven (i.e. responsive) orientations.