1 / 28

Gaps and progress in our Knowledge of learning organizations

Francis D. (Doug) Tuggle, Ph. D. OLKC 2013. Gaps and progress in our Knowledge of learning organizations. Editor in Chief (since March, 2012) of The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Critical Studies in Organizational Learning

rea
Download Presentation

Gaps and progress in our Knowledge of learning organizations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Francis D. (Doug) Tuggle, Ph. D. OLKC 2013 Gaps and progress in our Knowledge of learning organizations

  2. Editor in Chief (since March, 2012) of The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Critical Studies in Organizational Learning • Author of 75 refereed papers in diverse journals; most revolve around knowledge, learning, and organizations • Jay Forrester (MIT) and Herb Simon (Carnegie Mellon) had the biggest impact on me • Current interest: making the transition to being a learning organization background

  3. Assess progress in the field of what is known about learning organizations Identify important gaps in what is still to be discovered about organizations that learn Provide observations and inferences about the sidebar comments from associate editors and reviewers directed to the editor in chief …all from examining the first 19 years of TLO objectives

  4. Started with Volume 1 in 1994 Presently printing issues of Volume 20, 2013 Currently publishing 6 issues per year, with 4-6 articles per issue TLO published physically and electronically; it enjoys several hundred thousand downloads per year Data from Serenko and Bontis (J. of KM, 2013) indicates TLO has 3rd highest citation impact The journal (TLO for short)

  5. Occasionally, book reviews published, but this has not been a recent practice Often, 2 or 3 “special issues” during a year—commissioned by a SI editor who oversees papers dedicated to a single topic, such as Social Networks and Social Networking (Vol. 16, #6) and Lean vs. Agile Organizational Sustainability (Vol. 19, #3) Otherwise, papers appearing in the journal are either conceptual, case studies, or reports of analyzing data; all submissions are double-blind reviewed Overview of journal content

  6. From Vol. 19, #6 (2012)—”Linking Views on Knowledge and Organizational Networked Learning” “The paper proposes a framework which identifies four different ways of studying and understanding the outcomes of learning and knowledge processes in organizational networks.” (structural capital; social access; environmental shaping; contagion or self-created networks) “The framework supports researchers, policy makers, (human resource) managers and practitioners…” Example of a conceptual study

  7. From Vol. 19,# 1 (2012)—”How Does an Organic Cotton Production Network Learn to Keep its Hybrid Nature?” “A qualitative case study was conducted in Justa Trama, a Brazilian-based organic cotton production network formed by six members with different roles and organizational logics…a compromise strategy is required at the internal level and a manipulation strategy is required at the external level…” Example of a case study

  8. Also from Vol. 19, #6 (2012)—”How Knowledge Management is Affected by Organizational Structure” • Data from 112 companies in the automotive industry in Iran • Hypothesized that four different structural characteristics affect KM: • Centralization and Formalization affect KM negatively • Complexity and Integration affect KM positively Example of data analysis

  9. Effects on KM could be one or more of • Knowledge creation • Knowledge sharing • Knowledge utilization • Hypotheses confirmed • But the authors do recognize their relatively small sample size More on the data analysis example…

  10. Comparison of 2002 vs. 2012

  11. Increase in number of articles published (21 in 2002 vs. 33 in 2012) Percentage of conceptual articles published declined--18/21 (86%) in 2002 vs. 18/33 (55%) in 2012 Number of case studies significantly higher (3 in 2002 vs. 11 in 2012) From zero data analysis articles in 2002 to 4 in 2012 observations

  12. Comparison of 1994 vs. 2004

  13. Again an increase in number of articles published (15 in 1994 vs. 33 in 2004) But, the percentage of conceptual articles published increased!--8/15 (53%) in 1994 to 22/33 (67%) in 2004 Number of case studies was about the same (6 in 2004 vs. 7 in 1994) From zero data analysis articles in 1994 to 5 in 2004 observations

  14. Grand comparison: first 9 years versus the second 9 years

  15. Significant increase in total number of articles published (182 the first 9 years; 295 the last 9 years—a 62% increase) A smaller percentage of conceptual articles was published--127 of 182 articles (70%) the first 9 years; 134 of 295 (45%) the last 9 years More case studies were reported on (120 vs. 52; or, 41% of published articles vs. 29%) More data analysis papers were published (41 vs. 3; or, 14% vs. 2%) observations

  16. Many stemmed from idiosyncratic characteristics of certain manuscripts • Possible plagiarism or self-plagiarism • Manuscript deemed too similar to recently published ones • “Least publishable research”? • A few led to reflections on the field • ”why isn’t someone studying the effects of X against Y” • “TLO needs a special issue examining W in situation Z” • Infrequently, the issue of book reviews arises—again (Vol. 11, 2004, had at least one book review in each of its 6 issues—but it was then curtailed) Sidebar conversations with the editor

  17. More research being published A transition from “reports” to “data” is occurring Subjectively, reviewing standards seem to have been inching upwards—acceptance rates seem to be moving downwards (N.B.: this is not yet tracked by Emerald or previous editors, but is on my to-do list) What progress has been made?

  18. Importantly, articles are trickling in that examine the financial dimension of learning organizations Example: a 2004 study that looked at the relationship between human and relational capital and the market and book value of firms listed on the Istanbul stock exchange Why are such studies needed? Many managers will not change their behavior unless and until there is compelling evidence that doing so has significant financial impact More on progress and looking ahead

  19. Many articles in TLO do NOT cite another TLO paper; but, that is beginning to change….consider a recent data analysis paper: Charlotta A. Siren, “Unmasking the Capability of Strategic Learning,” Vol. 19, #6, which builds upon John Kenny, “Strategy and the Learning Organization,” Vol. 13, # 4, which in turn progresses from Peter Y. T. Sun and John L. Scott, “Exploring the Divide—Organizational Learning and Learning Organization,” Vol. 10, #4, which in turn cites several (12!) previous articles in TLO Another sign of progress in the field(or is it just with the journal?)

  20. Taewon Suh, Jae C. Jung, and Bruce L. Smith, “Learning Creativity in the Client-Agency Relationship,” Vol. 19, #5 stems in part from Jyotsna Bhatnagar, “Measuring Organizational Learning Capability in Indian Managers and Establishing Firm Performance Linkage,” Vol. 13, #5 which in turns cites Swee C. Goh, “Improving Organizational Learning Capability: Lessons from Two Case Studies,” Vol. 10 # 4 Ditto case study research….

  21. Judith Kearny and Ortun Zuber-Skerritt, “From Learning Organization to Learning Community,” Vol. 19, #5 cites both Henk Eijkman, “The Learning Organization as Concept and Journal in the Neo-Millennial Era,” Vol. 18, #3, and Peter A. C. Smith and Carol Sharicz, “The Shift Needed for Sustainability,” Vol. 18, #1 Eijkman (former EIC of TLO) cites 8 other TLO papers, and Smith/Sharicz cite 2 other TLO papers) And also conceptual studies…

  22. Making the transition to being a learning organization On being a learning organization The effectiveness of learning organizations Contextual factors affecting learning organizations What are the major gaps?

  23. What are the “triggers” that lead to making the change? Are such changes deliberate, or do they occur because some unit implements learning procedures? What roles do variables such as leadership, strategy, organizational crises, and environmental munificence play in such transitions? 1. Making the transition

  24. Is being a learning organization a dichotomous state (one either is or is not), or are there “degrees” of differences? When being a learning organization does not span the entire organization, does learning manifest itself more in peripheral units or in core units? When learning is present in organizations, what is (and is not) learned? What is more likely to be subject to learning—strategic factors, tactical factors, or unimportant factors? 2. On being a learning organization

  25. Does being a learning organization lead to an increase in employees’ morale, loyalty, and/or productivity? Does being a learning organization lead to higher levels of customer/client satisfaction or increase their proclivity to do business with the firm? Does being a learning organization make it more effective in its marketplace and/or more effective at raising resources and/or more effective with suppliers and/or responding to other pressures? 3. The effectiveness of learning organizations

  26. The role of technology—does it accelerate or impede learning procedures being adopted and implemented; does it enable or hinder success? Is there a tipping point in terms of human talent and the skill base in the organization? Does the political/legal/economic system in effect in a country affect the adoption of learning technologies? What about the degree of industrialization? When organizational fail to make the transition to being a learning organization, what factors were critical impediments to success? 4. Contextual factors and learning organizations

  27. The usual—”much progress but more research is needed” 1900, David Hilbert and the 23 most important or interesting open problems in mathematics Social sciences not quite there yet Stories of learning organizations’ successes, and failures, will prove instructive Janus in april

  28. Dr. Francis D. (Doug) Tuggle tuggle@chapman.edu 714-997-6537 (office) 714-287-8591 (cell) contact

More Related