Search results

Modernised health and social care services require that qualifying practitioners have the necessary skills for them to practise collaboratively. The nature of interprofessional working is, however, poorly understood. This article describes the development of learning outcomes regarding interprofessional working that are relevant to all professions.

Organization development is focused on implementing a planned process of positive humanistic change in organizations through the use of social science theory, action research, and data-based feedback methods. The role of personality in that change process, however, has historically been ignored or relegated to a limited set of interventions. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a conceptual overview of the linkages between personality and OD, discuss the current state of personality in the field including key trends in talent management, and offer a new multi-level framework for conceptualizing applications of personality for different types of OD efforts. The chapter concludes with implications for research and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to present a new learning and growth perspective for the balanced scorecard (BSC) that includes more specific measures of integrated thinking and value creation to help improve integrated reporting (<IR>). Practical, relevant definitions of these historically vague concepts may improve intangible asset disclosures (IAD) and increase uptake of the<IR> framework.

The paper is conceptual. The authors use organisational learning to theorise about the learning and growth perspective of the BSC, within the context of the practice of IAD.

Several criticisms of IAD, the<IR>framework and the BSC have acted as barriers to implementing the<IR>framework. The improved version of the BSC’s learning and growth perspective, presented in this paper, addresses those criticisms by redefining the concept of integrated thinking (learning) and more fully connecting that learning to future value creation (growth). The model is designed to be used in tandem with the<IR>framework to operationalise integrated thinking. A new BSC strategy map illustrates how this revised learning and growth perspective interacts with the other three BSC perspectives to create long-term shareholder value through the management and growth of knowledge within an organisation.

Organisational learning is an important source of competitive advantage in the modern knowledge economy. Here, the authors encourage further debate on how to report and disclose information on intangible assets, driven by a new conceptual strategy for organisational learning that fully supports the BSC’s capacity to help integrated thinking and future value creation for the<IR>framework.

From its roots as a performance measurement system, the BSC has become a widely used strategy execution tool. The<IR>framework has struggled to gain traction, but still has value in exploring intangible assets and its disclosure from a systems thinking perspective. The model is designed to bring an explicit understanding of how to improve integrated thinking for the<IR>framework facilitating better measurement, management and reporting of human and structural capital. By doing so, the new model enables a firm to use the BSC to engage with<IR>more effectively, which should also be useful for practitioners given the widespread use of the BSC.

The analysis of the BSC’s learning and growth perspective reveals two dichotomies – one between resources and growth, and another between systems and capability. The revised perspective resolves these dichotomies with clear, forward-focused measures of learning and intangible asset growth, and multiple vertical and horizontal connections between the perspective’s four constructs. The authors demonstrate practical paths to value creation through a range of strategic impacts.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an integrated model of action learning based on an examination of four reviewed action learning models, definitions, and espoused outcomes.

A clear articulation of the strengths and limitations of each model was essential to developing an integrated model, which could be applied to Lynham's general method of theory‐building research in applied disciplines. The paper examined common themes according to the model structure, methods, and methodologies. The four models selected for this review were Gregory's Group Action Learning Process Model, Paton's Systemic Action Learning Cycle, Paton's Systemic Action Learning Spiral, and Watkins and Marsick's Continuous Learning Model.

A comparison of the key variations in the definitions of action learning and desired outcomes explained differences in model designs. HRD practitioners need a better understanding of the variables that affect the outcomes of action learning through exploring learning transfer issues and through testing multiple methodologies. Similarly, the integrated model was designed to indicate how change takes place within an organization, dictated by either internal or external factors. A description of the construction of the integrated model is provided.

Owing to the disconnect between the conceptual development and application phases of theory‐building research, more empirical evidence is needed to support the connection between action learning models and methodologies and desired outcomes. The integrated model was designed from a systems perspective with particular emphasis on soft systems in the problem and analysis phases to illustrate the role of organizational modeling of the relationships among members, processes, and the internal and external environment. HRD practitioners could re‐examine their decision making, particularly in approaching large‐scale change. HRD practitioners could document their specific approaches to action learning, including a combination of action research methods and soft systems methodologies. A comparison of outcomes versus the methodologies could be made.

The objective of the integrated action learning model is to improve decision making related to facilitating change from an HRD perspective, given the theories and principles underlying each model. The integrated model could serve as the basis for gaining new knowledge about critical systems theory and action research as it relates to action learning and change facilitation. It is the paper's intent that the proposed integrated model will spur further theory‐building research in employing action learning as an organizational change intervention.

This paper aims to shed light on the complex multiplicity of domestic violence interagency work. It proposes a new conceptualisation that reflects the entangled nature of professional practice and learning.

The research on which this paper draws is an ethnographic study of practice in an integrated local domestic violence initiative. Data include focussed workplace observations, semi-structured interviews and key documents. The study draws on practice-based sociomaterial approaches and the conceptual framework, and methodology is informed by actor-network theory, in particular, the work of Annemarie Mol.

Findings suggest that interagency work that starts from the victim and traces threads of connection outwards is able to “hang together” as “practice multiple” in integrated service provision. I argue that the learning that happens in these circumstances is a relational effect and depends on who and what is assembled in the actor-network.

The research has significant implications for framing understandings of domestic violence interagency work, as it firmly anchors “working together” to victims. Findings are expected to be of interest not only to practitioners, educators and researchers but also to policymakers.

The paper addresses a current gap in the literature, applies a novel research approach and proposes a new conceptualisation of domestic violence interagency work.

Rhetoric and reality lead separate lives when it comes to integrating health and social services in Scotland, and it is making planning and implementation difficult for practitioners of integration. This paper is a collaboration between a practitioner and two academics who teach, research and write about integration. It explores the views of other integration practitioners about the policy, language and nature of integration, and the issues practitioners are currently grappling with, especially how the policy language of ‘integration’ fails to connect with integration in practice. It appears that ‘integration’ has less to do with broad policy aspirations and principles of service (re)organisation, than with the specific aims, objectives and outcomes of individual projects delivered in very specific circumstances. Acknowledging the localisation of integration, and allowing the time for productive problem solving which can generate a new language, ought to be essential elements of integration.

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.

This paper aims to evaluate a range of best practice knowledge management (KM) ideas used to manage knowledge resources. In total, four KM toolkits and 16 KM tools were tested over a five-year period (2008-2013), as part of a large-scale longitudinal change project. Each tool was assessed against an evaluative framework designed to test criticisms of KM: strategy, implementation and performance. The results provide empirical evidence about which KM tools work and which do not and why, and outcomes for practitioners, researchers and consultants.

The case study organization participating in the study was selected because it was a knowledge-intensive organization, with an ageing workforce. An invitation and cover letter explaining the study were sent via email to all 150 engineering and technical staff at the case study organization. Therefore, the entire population was included in the study. Respondents were asked to attend training workshops. Following each workshop, respondents were asked to complete feedback in the form of learning journals and to be involved in work-place based trials of the KM tools. Both management and staff participated in the project.

The results provide empirical evidence that KM can be used to manage knowledge resources. The highest rating toolkit was knowledge strategy, followed by knowledge measurement. The most value was created by using KM to introduce objectivity into future thinking (future capability requirements) and decisions when filling competency gaps (sourcing). The results tended to support criticism that KM is difficult to implement and identified the main barriers as participation located at the operational action research level, i.e. how do we make this work? Evidence that KM works was found in progress towards learning organization capacity and in practical outcomes.

The action research cycle and learning flows provide opportunities to examine barriers to KM implementation. The research also presents opportunities for further research to examine the findings in other organizational and industry settings, for example, the relationship between the KM toolkits and organizational change and performance, presents an important area for further research. Researchers might also consider some of the toolkits which rated poorly, e.g. knowledge creation (KC), and challenge these findings, perhaps selecting different KC tools for testing. The paper has limitations. It is based on a single case study organization, offset, to some degree, by the longitudinal nature of the empirical evidence. It is ambitious, and the findings may be controversial. However, the depth of the study and its findings provide rare longitudinal empirical evidence about KM, and the results should be useful for practitioners, researchers and consultants.

There are many critics of KM. It has been described as overwhelmingly optimistic and managerial rhetoric; that its claims are false; and that many KM initiatives fail and, therefore, it does not create value for the firm, and its return on investment is unlikely. There is a shortage of empirical studies demonstrating an actual connection between KM and organizational performance. Despite widespread interest and growth in investment by practitioners and growth in research, KM needs validation to give people confidence in its value and some of the problems associated with implementation. This paper provides rare empirical evidence gathered from a five-year (2008-2013) large-scale longitudinal change project to address this gap. For practitioners, the research findings provide management with an evaluative framework to use when making decisions regarding KM.

Much of the previous research on this topic looks at specific KM tools only, and often at one point in time. This study examined a wide range of best-practice KM tools as part of an integrated set of KM systems, launched at the same time and studied over five years. The study did not examine what the case study does in terms of KM. Instead, it deliberately introduced tools which were new to the case study organization. The results provide practical outcomes in terms of the effectiveness of KM when introduced to an organization as a system of integrated tools, and what happens in the five years that follow.

The librarian and researcher have to be able to uncover specific articles in their areas of interest. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume IV, like Volume III, contains features to help the reader to retrieve relevant literature from MCB University Press' considerable output. Each entry within has been indexed according to author(s) and the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus. The latter thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid retrieval. Each article or book is assigned its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. This Volume indexes 29 journals indicating the depth, coverage and expansion of MCB's portfolio.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a conceptual framework for work-applied learning (WAL) that fosters the development of managers and other professionals as lifelong learners and practitioner researchers – through reflective practice, action research, action learning and action leadership, for positive organisational change.

The theoretical framework is designed from a holistic, affective-socio-cognitive approach to learning, teaching, research and development. It is based on a phenomenological research paradigm and informed by aspects of various theories, including experiential learning theory, strengths-based theory, grounded theory and critical theory/realism.

Based on classical and recent literature and the authors’ extensive experience, the WAL model presented here is an effective and practical approach to management education, research and development. It is useful for present and future requirements of business, industry, government and society at large in this twenty-first century, and in pursuit of a world of equality, social justice, sustainable development and quality of life for all. This is because of the nature of the research paradigm, particularly its collaborative and emancipatory processes.

This paper provides a theoretical, pedagogical and methodological rationalisation for WAL. This model is particularly useful for developing individual, team and organisational learning and for cultivating managers – or professional learners generally – as practitioner researchers. These researchers may act as role models of collaborative action leadership in their organisations with a cascading effect. This paper therefore advances an incipient literature on practitioner researchers as action leaders.