Search results

This study aims to identify how and why chief learning officers (CLOs) build the learning organization. The study was undertaken in the conceptual framework of leadership and change by using the lens of the Marquardt Systems Model.

This exploratory study used semi-structured interviews with 20 participants. The purpose of the interviews was to understand the themes and subthemes associated with how CLOs define and build the learning organization, as well as the activities and strategies they use to build a learning organization.

Four major conclusions were drawn from the study: CLOs collaborate and encourage others to collaborate both within and outside of the organization; they assess and measure learning and development programs consistently; they seek and secure funding and resources; and they have a vision for the learning organization and realize that vision through strategy development and implementation.

This study is the first to provide comprehensive research on how CLOs build learning organizations, as well as the first to analyze this role using the Marquardt Systems Model.

To be successful in the new global environment, twenty‐first century leaders must increase their ability to function in seven key roles, namely, as a systems thinker, change agent, innovator, servant, polychronic co‐ordinator, teacher‐mentor and visionary. Action learning has quickly emerged as one of the most effective and powerful tools in developing the necessary competencies and experiences to carry out these roles. In this article, the author describes how the elements of action learning (i.e. real problems, fellow leaders in the action learning team, a reflective inquiry process, commitment to action, and focusing on learning) contribute to the building of each of these critical leadership skills.

Many organizations now utilize action learning, and it is applied increasingly throughout the world. Action learning appears in numerous variants, but generically it is a form of learning through experience, “by doing”, where the task environment is the classroom, and the task the vehicle. Two previous reviews of the action learning literature by Alan Mumford respectively covered the field prior to 1985 and the period 1985‐1994. Both reviews included books as well as journal articles. This current review covers the period 1994‐2000 and is limited to publicly available journal articles. Part 1 of the Review was published in an earlier issue of the Journal of Workplace Learning (Vol. 15 No. 2) and included a bibliography and comments. Part 2 extends that introduction with a schema for categorizing action learning articles and with comments on representative articles from the bibliography.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a practice-based understanding of leadership based on the concept of “leaderful” practice. In supporting this concept, the paper describes the contexts that shape leadership capacity and introduces an integrative framework that further illustrates “leaderful” practice.

The paper draws on prior research conducted by the authors in a variety of industries. Insights were gleaned from both theoretical perspectives and qualitative data drawn from a number of empirical studies.

In order to lead confidently in turbulent times, leaders need to first unlearn the conventional wisdom of leadership. Three contextual enablers contribute to “leaderful” practice, namely problem, action, and experience. Becoming “leaderful” is being mindful of how these three enablers could be harnessed and integrated to facilitate change in meaningful ways.

In order to promote “leaderful” practice, both reflective and conversational spaces are imperative. Such spaces help leaders to be mindful of their internal and external contexts, including a keen awareness of self and others in framing references of the past for the future. In doing so, leaders need to be “present” to confront “wicked” problems and take action through collective experience and intelligence.

Understanding how leaders think, feel, and act in actual practice helps us understand the genuine characteristics of leadership. The paper introduces a framework of “leaderful” practice with a focus on leading with confidence. It extends current understanding of leadership practice by viewing “leaderful” practice from the perspective of problem, action, and experience.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the influence of technology on organizational change during an electronic government implementation in a public organization in East Malaysia. It also examines the interpretation and enactment of technology as affecting organizational performance.

The research utilized a case study approach involving semi-structured interviewing with 18 employees representing department heads, middle managers, and technical officers. The data were triangulated by unobtrusive observations of meetings and work processes as well as archival records.

Technology could either constrain or enable change based on the interplay of intended and unintended use. The way actors interpret the role of technology during change also affects their enactment of technology, leading to both innovation and disruption in work practices. In turn, their enactment patterns shape organizational structure, strategy, and performance.

The paper contributes to the organizational change literature by exploring how individual-level change has led to organizational outcomes as a result of technology. It extends the technology enactment and sociomateriality literature by considering technology use as an organizing process to facilitate change in order to understand the interplay of the social and material aspect of technology.

Employees should be made aware of and accountable for the consequences of unintended use or avoidance of technology in order to enable positive change. Collective sensemaking of technology-induced change should be encouraged to transform work practices so as to shape organizational structure, strategy, and performance.

Unlike similar research, this study extends the structuration perspective of technology in work organizations by exploring how technology enables and constrains organizational change through intended and unintended use. It further illuminates the power of human agency to innovate and organize structures of action that modify social relations and organizational strategy influencing organizational performance.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the development of learning organization concepts from the perspective of Dr Michael Marquardt and presents an interesting evolution of his work spanning three decades in the learning organization field.

Through a conversation with a thought-leading scholar, Dr Michael Marquardt, this paper discusses several topics pertaining to the evolution of the learning organization debate and provides his perspective on the development of his theories.

The learning organization debate may have differing perspectives. However, the theories foundational to Dr Marquardt’s research originated from those in the field during the 1980s and 1990s. He built upon the foundation through his consultancy work to develop his current perspective.

The discussion with Dr Marquardt reveals his perspective on the evolution of the learning organization debate. He began with similarities to others and over time built his definition based upon those areas of that he saw most impactful in practice.

This article couples organizational theory with practice with the union of action learning and the ambidextrous organization. It aims to show how action learning contributes to the creation and sustainment of an ambidextrous (learning) organization.

A side-by-side comparison of action learning and the ambidextrous organization was used.

Action learning “teaches” and promotes the framework and processes of ambidexterity and the practical creation of learning organizations. An action learning team in action performs like an ambidextrous organization to the extent that “acting” is synonymous with exploitation and “learning” with exploration.

Action learning is a powerful tool for the ambidextrous organization, serving as a template for the practitioner to create a learning organization.

This paper extends the literature on organizational structure, leadership, culture and change as it relates to ambidexterity, learning organizations and action learning. It integrates learning theory through action learning with the practice of the ambidextrous organization. A synergistic theory/practice circle is created through the combination of the processes of “theory informing theory” from academia and “practice informing practice” from industry, creating a “theory informing practice and practice validating and updating better theory” circle.

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the learnings from prior interviews with thought leaders in learning organization conceptual development. Prior interviews with Karen Watkins, Victoria Marsick, Michael Marquardt, Bob Garratt and Peter Senge are included in the summary, which is an interim step as The Learning Organization continues to explore the learning organization history and evolution.

The paper summarizes prior interviews to uncover commonalities and differences in the development and evolution of the learning organization concepts as described by thought leaders.

Both commonalities and differences exist in definition, development of theory and resilience since original publication. Common threads in concept develop appear across the authors mainly in influences by Revans, Argyris and Schön. Differences also exist in how each author developed learning organization constructs.

The synthesis reveals that although the learning organization may have differing definitions, there are commonalities that tie some concepts together. Additional interviews will be continued in the exploration of the learning organization evolution.