Introduction

Citation

Putnik, G.D. (2009), "Introduction", The Learning Organization, Vol. 16 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo.2009.11916caa.001

Introduction

Article Type: Guest editorial From: The Learning Organization, Volume 16, Issue 3

Introduction

The papers presented in this Special Issue of The Learning Organization – An International Journal (TLO) are the papers built upon shorter papers and presentations on the First International Conference on Business Sustainability, 2008 – Management, Technology and Learning for Individuals, Organizations and Society in Turbulent Environments, held in Ofir, Portugal [1].

In this issue six papers are presented, of which three are conceptual (Edwards, Garrido, and Putnik), two are research papers (Backström and Hagström et al.) and the last in a case study. In my opinion this creates a beneficial, almost ideal structure for this theme of “complexity and learning” providing us with presentations of relevant theoretical and conceptual approaches to complexity and learning for sustainability.

All the papers (except that by Putnik which provides a deeper insight of the previous papers within the complexity, i.e. Chaordic system thinking (CST), framework) propose and explore use and implementation of some complexity and learning mechanisms with the objective of contributing to enterprise sustainability. The rationale in the conceptual papers and research results (i.e. the thesis validation) in the research papers and the case study present and demonstrate the validity and utility of the complexity and learning approaches for the management of sustainable organizations in turbulent environments.

The context of the issue

In this issue complexity is addressed for the third time as a theme in a TLO special issue, which, in a way, reflects the great interest and expectations of the complexity phenomena contribution to learning organizations. While the earlier special issues [2] that addressed complexity focused more on the concept of complexity itself, the focus of this special issue is in its presentation of the frameworks, concepts and research results of how complexity, and learning, could be applied to the emergent management objective: sustainability. In fact, this issue explores the relationship of the learning organization to complexity, learning, sustainability, and turbulent environments.

“Sustainability” is a new “buzzword” emerging in the research, management and policymaker communities as a possible solution to today’s management challenges, once the older, “classical,” strategies (e.g. productivity, leanness, agility, competitiveness, and intelligence) have been found to be ineffective in dealing with challenges of the present highly dynamic and turbulent environment.

Sustainability is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. Moreover, it is a complex phenomenon. Definitions of sustainability range over such different domains as ecology, energy and other natural resources, organizations, and society. Unfortunately all of these definitions are more or less different, with no one satisfying totally requirements from all perceived domains, and sometimes conflicting creating paradoxes. Nevertheless, in this issue we will keep “open” the question of an “ideal,” or “complete,” definition and we will “pragmatically” focus on further investigation of the phenomena, implementation and validation of tools which we believe (or by definitions – based on sustainability models hypothesis, and sustainability concepts proposed) contribute to sustainability. Naturally, our focus domain here is the sustainability of organizations. And furthermore, our focus domain is the sustainability of organizations in turbulent environments.

In Eijnatten and Putnik (2004) the authors presented the thesis that “an actual company – seen as a learning organization” might evolve towards a chaordic enterprise – the enterprise based in complexity, i.e. based in CST, and, inherently, learning – as its “end state.” In other words, the complexity and learning for capability “of self-organization and transformative change under hyper-turbulent conditions.” The capability “of self-organization and transformative change under hyper-turbulent conditions” might be seen as capabilities for sustainability and, in the same time, as features of a sustainable organization. Or, in other words, (organizational) sustainability in turbulent environments is rooted in complexity and learning – which is our principal thesis.

Curiously, the present global economic situation (by which we mean the global economic/financial crisis), is a very good example of “hyper-turbulent conditions” and a true challenge for developing and implementing capacities for “self-organization and transformative change” and, I would add – sustainability, “under hyper-turbulent conditions.” And this issue is one more contribution towards this goal:

This perspective, the perspective of the crisis that requires innovative approaches and transformative changes, is one of the perspectives we would suggest to the readers when reading the papers of this issue.

Many say that the present crisis is, or will be, a bigger crisis than the famous “Great Depression.” Paradoxically, from a complexity point of view, this type of crisis could be seen as a big chance as “there is nothing better of a crisis if you want to change” (ME). Of course, this statement probably raises other fundamental questions, but let us leave such questions for another opportunity.

Overview of the issue

In the first paper, Mark Edwards, from Australia proposes “An integrative metatheory for organisational learning and sustainability in turbulent times.” The need for “An Integrative Metatheory” lies in the fact that organizations face some fundamental paradoxes when apply “isolated theoretical models of sustainability, especially under the conditions of turbulent environments.”

The second paper is by Paulo Garrido, from Portugal, and presents “Business sustainability and collective intelligence.” The paper “establishes a connection between sustainability, organizational learning and the intelligence of the organization.” Assuming the autopoietic theory, the perspective of (organizational) sustainability is built “in terms of its contribution to self-coherence and coherence with the environment of human species or societies.” The:

[…] concept for collective intelligence (is) based on the idea that if one sees an entity as a system, the intelligence of the entity must be of a collective nature. […] collective intelligence and organizational learning are mutually necessary and reinforcing.

The papers concludes that the “Collective intelligence” provides the systemic arguments in favor of turning “employeeship” into “ownership,” inside “businesses” as way towards business sustainability.

The third paper “How to organize for local resource generation,” authored by Tomas Backström, from Sweden, puts the generation of resources as “a central issue for the sustainability of companies.” The thesis was that “three requirements for sustainable decentralized resource production are deduced: worker’s autonomy, worker’s integration in the organization, and demands on increased fitness.” In validating the thesis the author used traditional well known and verified techniques: interviews, questionnaires and the balance scorecard. The empirical base for the thesis validation is “the study of four different Pharmacy-districts, each with a different organizational solution.” The findings confirmed the thesis.

The fourth paper “Sustainable competence: a study of a bank,” authored by Tom Hagström, Tomas Backström, and Susanna Göransson, also from Sweden, approaches company sustainability “in terms of learning and developmental characteristics of decentralized work systems in a company culture context.” The research was based on an “abductive” approach that has combined “different lines of reasoning” such as action theory, adult learning and developmental theory, “complexity theory” and “holon theory,” “linking the ideas of competence and competence development individually and collectively.” The validation method used is statistical using multiple linear regression analyses for the data analysis, and the research case study was a Swedish competitive bank. The conclusions are that:

[…] the strong integration in the company culture, the decentralized work settings and the close connections with the engagement in the regular work activities may be considered as promoting sustainable competence, providing security and motivation as well as action space for autonomy and social integration.

Which are in fact the mechanisms of the complexity based management, i.e. the CST based management.

The fifth paper “Towards communication and learning based leadership – observations in Finnish public research organizations,” by Eveliina Saari and Heli Talja from Finland, presents a case study of the organizational changes and development of research groups in Finnish public research organizations. The authors present “a new framework for understanding the worldviews of top managers and employees in knowledge creating organizations when facing the challenges of globalization” and “the challenges arising from the gap between top-down type management and the research built on a bottom-up basis.” For the practitioners, this case study, of a real-life and highly competitive organization, suggests:

• •

  “guidelines for constructing dialogue between managers and knowledge workers”; and

• •

  “highlights the importance of embedding communication and learning as an integral part of a knowledge organization’s practice.”

As a conclusion, as well as further practical implications, the authors “encourage crossing of positions and building up accessible arenas and forms for continuous communication between managers and employees.”

Finally, in the sixth paper “Complexity framework for sustainability: an analysis of five papers,” by Goran D. Putnik, from Portugal (and the Guest Editor of this Issue) presents a deeper insight of the previous five papers. The paper considers how they implement complexity theory, more specifically the CST features and mechanisms in their contribution to the organizational sustainability. The first part of the paper presents the complexity, i.e. the CST, framework and, then, in the second part for each paper are identified the CST features and tools that are used or proposed in the concrete cases or theory models proposed.

Finally, I would like to thank to the authors for their contributions, the reviewers for reviewing the papers and helping in their improvement as well as in the learning process, and TLO’s Editorial team: Professor Deborah Blackman, Editor, Peter A.C. Smith, Consulting Editor, and Nancy Rolph, Publisher, for their great help in the development of this issue.

I believe that readers, both theoreticians and practitioners, will find in these papers valuable explanations, ideas and tools, both for concrete applications in enterprises and organizations, and for further research and development of the learning organization, complexity, learning and sustainability.

In organization by University of Minho, Superior Institute of Engineering of Porto and Polytechnic Institute of Cávado and Ave, all from Portugal, June 2008.

The Special Issue on “Complexity and chaos for organizations that learn,” Vol. 10 No. 6, 2003, and The Special Issue on “Chaordic system thinking for learning organizations”, Vol. 11 No. 6, 2004.

Goran D. PutnikGuest Editor