Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the inherent problem of Senge’s learning organization, embedded in his seminal work, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. The authors contend that such a problem has an enduring quality that leads to a highly problematic state of learning organization, and a radical shift in the understanding is necessary.

This paper is based on a critical review of relevant literature in the areas of learning organization. Some of Senge’s own works will also be reviewed.

This paper contends that Senge’s project of learning organization is a managerial attempt to remove bureaucracy and, as such, the concept of learning has been displaced from the outset. Hence, the theory of learning organization offers a weak response to the pressing issues such as climate and global warming. While some of Senge’s other works seem to show an awareness of the necessity of new managerial visions, the authors argue that what is required is a scrutiny of the belief that corporations are able to achieve a wider social and ecological goal.

This paper offers a radical account of Senge’s concept of learning organization, including Senge’s dialogue with Nan Huai-Jin, published in Chinese. The authors question the mysterious state of learning in Senge’s learning organization and offer a possible new account of learning organization.

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.

In accordance with Latour, this paper aims to respond to the call for a “down-to-earth” post-learning organization approach to sustainability, which is critical of Senge’s conception of learning organization (LO).

“Gaia storytelling” is used to define a LO that is “down-to-earth”.

Gaia is understood through the notion of a critical zone, which foregrounds the local and differentiated terrestrial conditions in which life on Earth is embedded.

Gaia storytelling implies perceiving LO as a network of storytelling practices enacted and told by unique creative citizens. Such an organization sustains and grows through several entangled storytelling cycles that allow Gaia to shape learning.

The article distinguishes five different storytelling cycles as a way to explore how the Gaia theater cycle connects to other cycles. The four other cycles are: Gaia thinking, explorative, creative and Gaia truth-telling.

A Gaian LO is a new beginning for LO.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the formation of knowledge management (KM) decisions, including intention for knowledge contribution and knowledge exploration. The authors build on the goal-directed model and a trust-based lens to develop a belief-trust-decision framework. The authors theorize belief as individual factors (one’s virtual skill) and environmental factors (cooperative norms, familiarity), and trust as emotional trust and cognitive trust. Individual factors represent one’s virtual skill to control knowledge exchange, while environmental factors reflect the level of support/control for this exchange by the context.

This study uses a survey method to collect data and partial least squares to analyze them.

The authors found that KM decision is affected by two types of trust, directly or indirectly. They are, in turn, influenced by individual factors and environmental factors.

Generalizability of the findings to virtual communities with different collaboration protocol deserves further investigation. This study contributes to the research on KM and social behavior by providing a comprehensive explanation on KM decision through one’s goal achievement in knowledge exchange behavior, in terms of trust development. Besides, the authors theorize one’s belief on knowledge exchange as skill-control and context-control to represent the drivers for trust.

The results provide suggestion for managers regarding how skill-control and context-control should be managed to improve trust development, which serves as goal achievement for KM decisions.

The authors extend prior work by yielding a new insight into how and why one’s beliefs on skill-control and context-control for knowledge exchange are transferred into KM decision through one’s goal achievement, characterized as trust development at both emotional and cognitive levels.