Search results

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.

This study aims to investigate whether soft-skills trainers and hard-skills trainers have different perspectives regarding their required instructional knowledge and skills.

An online questionnaire was completed by 129 soft-skills trainers and 61 hard-skills trainers. The authors used 14 items covering relevant instructional knowledge and skills based on the training literature.

An exploratory factor analysis identified the following two factors: managing interactions and instructional activities. A multivariate analysis of variance showed significant differences in the assessments of managing interactions (p = 0.00) and instructional activities (p = 0.01) between soft- and hard-skills trainers. The differences in managing interactions were larger than those in instructional activities. The soft-skills trainers showed higher agreement with all items. Most individual items had medium effect sizes. The differing perspectives of soft- and hard-skills trainers are not an effect of different educational backgrounds.

These findings suggest that differences exist in the required instructional knowledge and skills depending on whether trainers teach soft or hard skills. Further research should consider the training content.

Practitioners can ensure that soft-skills trainers meet the respective requirements.

This study is the first to investigate the differences in soft- and hard-skills trainers’ perceptions of instructional requirements.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how Frederick Taylor's achievement as the originator of a science of work provided a theoretical foundation for first generation academic management programs in the Progressive era. The paper aims to show the implications of this match for Taylor's continuing high position in the history of management thought.

A methodology is used involving analysis of published and unpublished historical sources including Taylor's own work, writings from his contemporaries, and writings from key figures in first generation university public‐ and business‐management programs.

The paper gives evidence of the impact of Taylor's work on management education in the Progressive era and the implications of this impact for Taylor's reputation and the management programs themselves.

The analysis uses a wide variety of published and unpublished sources. It compares educational developments in the public and business management fields which are generally analyzed in separate literatures.