Pluralism in Organizations: Learning from Unconventional Forms of Organizations

The bureaucratic organization is still regarded as the conventional organizational form, but is ill‐suited to an increasingly pluralistic world. Research on the variety of organizational forms has increased dramatically over the past three decades and offers the potential to understand better how pluralism is manifested and managed within organizations. However, this research remains fragmented. The purpose of this paper is to review and synthesize research on unconventional organizations to explore how organizations resolve or attenuate the tensions related to pluralism. Drawing from research in leading management journals, it covers seven distinct literatures: ‘referent organization’, ‘temporary organization’, ‘pluralistic organization’, ‘meta‐organization’, ‘bridging organization’, ‘hybrid organization’ and ‘field‐configuring event’. For each literature, the authors trace the genealogy of the key concepts and review their distinct insights regarding organizational pluralism. They then synthesize and discuss their collective contributions and conclude with avenues of research for pluralism in organizations.     

Collective Intuition: Implications for Improved Decision Making and Organizational Learning

This article establishes the foundation for research on collective intuition through a study of decision making and organizational learning processes in police senior management teams. We conceptualize collective intuition as independently formed judgement based on domain‐specific knowledge, experience and cognitive ability, shared and interpreted collectively. We contribute to intuition research, which has tended to focus its attention at the individual level, by studying intuition collectively in team settings. From a dual‐process perspective, we investigate how expert intuition and deliberation affect decision making and learning at various levels of the organization. Furthermore, we contribute to organizational learning research by offering an empirically derived elaboration of the foundational 4I framework, identifying additional ‘feed‐forward’ and ‘feedback’ loop processes, and thereby providing a more complete account of this organizational learning model. Bridging a variety of relevant but previously unconnected literatures via our focal concept of collective intuition, our research provides a foundation for future studies of this vitally important but under‐researched organizational phenomenon. We offer theoretical and practical implications whereby expert intuitions can be developed and leveraged collectively as valuable sources of organizational knowledge and learning, and contribute to improved decision making in organizations.     

The War of the Woods: Facilitators and Impediments of Organizational Learning Processes

This study examines unfolding organizational learning processes at MacMillan Bloedel, a company which, after years of resisting stakeholder pressures for change, disengaged from the field’s dominant paradigm and developed a new solution. We elaborate the Crossan, Lane and White multi–level framework of organizational learning processes, finding support for the four feedforward learning processes they identified (intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing), and adding two action–based learning processes: ‘attending’ and ‘experimenting’. We introduce the concept of a ‘legitimacy trap’ to describe an organization’s over–reliance on institutionalized knowledge when external challenges arise. The trapped organization rejects external challenges of its legitimacy when it perceives the sources of those challenges to be illegitimate. Feedforward learning is blocked as the organization escalates its commitment to its institutionalized interpretations and actions. Taking a grounded theory approach, we discuss how individuals attend to new stimuli and engage in intuiting about them, how groups interpret, experiment with and integrate new solutions, and how the firm validates and institutionalizes the successful solution. Facilitators and impediments of each of these learning processes are identified. Our additions to the model recognize the importance of context in organizational learning processes, and suggest how power may impact organizational learning.     

Beyond trust: towards a practice-based understanding of governing ‘network organizations’

In recent past the concept of the ‘network’ or ‘network organization’ has emerged as one of the most prominent concepts for thinking, understanding and conceptualizing the coordination of ‘productive activities’. In the literature on network organizations, ‘trust’ is commonly understood to be the main coordinating mechanism of this organizational form. Highlighting the problematics involved in this prime focus on trust, this study combines practice-based theory (Schatzki in Social practices: a Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008) and a Foucauldian understanding of governing to contribute to a more differentiated understanding of the coordination of everyday activities in network organizations. By focusing on how the ‘network organization’ and its subjects are ‘produced’ in power-infused practices, this study provides insights into the complexity of mechanisms involved in such organizations. Empirically this is illustrated at the example of a consulting company which describes itself—internally and externally—as ‘network organization’. Based on an ethnographic participant observation and in-depth semi-structured interviews, the analysis of the case questions the centrality of trust as coordinating mechanism and provides deep insights into the constitution of this specific ‘network organization’.     

‘Space,the final frontier’? Social movements as organizing spaces for applying HRD

This article suggests a qualitatively different type of ‘space’ that fits the classic definition of what constitutes an ‘organization’, but that is frequently rejected as being beyond the scope of HRD because it does not fit preconceived notions of an ‘organization’. In this article, I describe how social movements are spaces analogous to organizations that can enrich our understanding of HRD principles and that may benefit from our professional experience in fostering learning and development for and within organizations. Using concepts of sensemaking in the organizing process (Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) and concepts of space (Foucault, M. 1986. “Of Other Spaces.” Translated by J. Miskowiec. Diacritics 16 (1): 22–27; Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell), I show how the social movement, Occupy Wall Street, can be seen as an important site of HRD practice and research.     

A ‘No Blame’ Approach to Organizational Learning

In high‐reliability organizations (HROs) even minor errors can seriously hinder the very existence of the firm and the safety of employees and customers. Field studies have shown that HROs encourage the reporting of errors and near misses, exploiting these incidents to improve their operative processes. In this paper, we describe this practice as a ‘no blame’ approach to error management, and link it to learning theory, showing how no blame practices can enhance organizational learning. By taking a cognitive perspective of organizations, we draw on existing contributions and on a set of empirical case studies to discuss the characteristics of no blame practices, and their applicability in traditional, non‐HROs. Our findings show that, in exploiting information from error‐reporting, no blame practices are beneficial in environments where learning and reliability issues are particularly relevant. Empirical evidence suggests that a no blame approach can be extremely constructive for organizations that want to enhance their learning processes. We conclude that a no blame approach is a valuable way to achieve an organization that has flexibility and variability. However, no blame practices imply a set of organizational issues and costs that pose significant challenges to firms operating in non‐high‐reliability settings. The findings from our study contribute to the literature on HROs and organizational learning.     

Critical Aspects of Organizational Learning Research and Proposals for Its Measurement

Based on an extensive literature review, this paper reveals several gaps in organizational learning (OL) research that need filling before we can really talk about a theory of organizational learning or verify the traits and very existence of learning organizations (LO) as a phenomenon. The critique, however, is not targeted at any single model or theory of organizational learning, but at theory building, which constantly drifts away with new definitions and approaches that break up rather than construct a theory. Despite the fact that numerous consultation tools for turning organizations into learning models have been developed and applied, the concept of organizational learning itself still remains vague and there is an urgent need for a holistic model of OL. Too much emphasis is put on studying the learning of individuals instead of concentrating on the learning of organizations. Since the theory is highly dispersed and does not really build on earlier findings, rich empirical studies are needed in order to validate measures of organizational learning. Modelling of the organizational learning process and clarification of how learning of individuals is turned into learning of organizations is needed. This paper introduces one set of OL measures developed to study whether organizational learning occurred during the operational and business culture change process of a single case company. Suggestions for further OL research are made on the basis of experiences gained when empirically testing this model.     

Resurrecting organization without renouncing society: A response to Ahrne,Brunsson and Seidl

In a recent article in this journal, Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl (2016) suggest a definition of organization as a ‘decided social order’ composed of five elements (membership, rules, hierarchies, monitoring, and sanctions) which rest on decisions. ‘Partial organization’ uses only one or a few of these decidable elements while ‘complete organization’ uses them all. Such decided orders may also occur outside formal organizations, as the authors observe. Although we appreciate the idea of improving our understanding of organization(s) in modern society, we believe that Ahrne, Brunsson, and Seidl's suggestion jeopardizes the concept of organization by blurring its specific meaning. As the authors already draw on the work of Niklas Luhmann, we propose taking this exploration a step further and the potential of systems theory more seriously. Organizational analysis would then be able to retain a distinctive notion of formal organization on the one hand while benefiting from an encompassing theory of modern society on the other. With this extended conceptual framework, we would expect to gain a deeper understanding of how organizations implement and shape different societal realms as well as mediate between their particular logics, and, not least, how they are related to non-organizational social forms (e.g. families).     

Programmed, Autonomous-Formal and Spontaneous Organizational Learning

Organizational learning (OL) has been represented either as the systematic governance of collective expertise or as a relatively anarchic process of implicit transaction within and across fluid, dispersed communities of practice. Qualitative case‐study research open to both perspectives was conducted in a not‐for‐profit service organization, a franchisee company and a vertically integrated company, all based in Hong Kong. Two forms of OL as systematic governance were found: ‘programmed’ OL (POL) and ‘autonomous‐formal’ OL (AFOL), respectively. The relative emphasis on POL and AFOL appeared to vary from organization to organization, and to be influenced by management philosophy and by institutional frameworks such as professionalization and franchisee status. A ‘spontaneous’ and dispersed form of implicitly transacted OL (SOL) was also found. SOL appeared to reflect natural exuberance but was attenuated when colleagues regarded knowledge as a commodity. There appeared to be synergy between AFOL and SOL.     

Corporate Ideology – Meanings and Contradictions for Middle Managers

This paper describes an investigation into corporate ideology and control and the responses of the ‘middle managers’ in a large engineering corporation. The paper explores the creation of meaning and values in the organization through a large‐scale ‘corporate values’ programme aimed at 1500 middle managers, and asks to what extent the priorities of these managers match those of the organization, and whether the creation of meaning through an ideological values programme carries risks that have not been considered by the organization adopting this approach. The findings suggest six individual response types amongst the delegates on the programme: ‘evangelists’, ‘actors’, ‘sceptics’, ‘open cynics’, ‘critical thinkers’ and ‘untouched professionals’. The influences upon these responses are considered, and a number of key factors identified as important in affecting perceptions of and response to the programme. The paper concludes that today more than ever, corporate ideologies are becoming an increasingly dominant influence on our organizations, causing mixed and confused responses amongst the middle managers who are required to disseminate these messages.     

Power,authority and legitimacy

Management, human resources, organization, control, leadership, etc., all seem to be just so many euphemisms for power, and this suggests a discourse of management and organization that calls things by their proper name. This paper on the contrary stresses the need to resolve the concept of ‘power’ itself into more differentiated notions, and proposes that clarification may be derived from distinctions once explicit in the vocabulary of Classical antiquity, but lost in modern European languages. It argues that nothing but confusion in thinking about organizations, management and legitimation can result from the failure to recognize that the phenomena this vocabulary identifies and distinguishes are irreducibly different.     

Organizational Learning under Organizational Impermanence: Collaborative Ties in Film Project Firms

In the last two decades a lot of research has been devoted to unveiling the processes through which organizations learn and store knowledge. This research is typically concerned with organizations lastingly engaged in the provision of goods or services. Permanency is usually presumed in order for the encoding of inferences from history to take place. But what if organizational permanency cannot be assumed ex-ante? Project firms represent an interesting case in point. A project firm is a transient form of organization that ceases to exist as soon as its single target is achieved, as such it does not exhibit stable structures nor does it exhibit ostensible history-based paths upon which to build its choices and nurture its organizational knowledge. This apparent paradox can be resolved, in part, by extending the view from the isolated project to the relational context in which project firms operate. Using longitudinal data from the U.S. feature film industry, we show that the process of organizational formation and dissolution that characterizes this context is underpinned by patterns of enduring collaborations among interdependent industry participants. We build on these findings to speculate on processes of learning and remembering that interpenetrate project firms’ boundaries, by being embedded within a texture of stable interpersonal ties.     

Introduction: Knowledge Construction and Creation in Organizations*

While adopting a knowledge‐based perspective on organizations has been valuable, since, among other things, it enables us to see links between organizational learning and a firm's competitive advantage through the development of idiosyncratic capabilities, it has nonetheless tended to treat organizational knowledge as ‘given’, exploring how it is related to other ‘given’ variables. The focus of this special issue is to unpack the notion of organizational knowledge by exploring the processes and practices through which knowledge is constructed and created in organizations. A constructivist perspective assumes that ‘knowledge’ presupposes work and seeks to explore how what comes to be considered as organizational knowledge is established and validated (or fails to do so). By seeing organizational knowledge as work we can further probe into how knowledge is shaped by organizational strategies and incentives and, more radically, how power and politics influence the struggle between competing bodies of knowledge in organizations.     

Personal development plans supporting employee learning and perceived performance: the moderating role of self-directedness

Due to developments in the current dynamic business environment which is more global and competitive than ever, employees’ lifelong learning and the way organizations support their continuous development are pivotal. Many organizations introduce personal development plans (PDPs) to support employees’ learning, however, not always taking into account their personal characteristics. This study had a twofold purpose as it was designed to explore on the one hand the relationship between PDPs in the workplace with employee’s undertaking of learning activities and perceived performance, and on the other hand the possible moderating role of employee self-directedness on this relationship. For this study, data collected by means of a questionnaire at two different organizations were used, one organization foregoing profit and one non-profit activity. The results indicated significant positive relations between the individual supporting factor ‘employee learning and reflection’ and the undertaking of learning activities and perceived performance and between employee self-directedness and the undertaking of learning activities and perceived performance. The same accounted for the moderating effect of employee self-directedness on the interaction between learning and reflection and perceived performance. Some findings were surprising, nevertheless resulted in valuable insights and implications for practice.     

Learning in and from projects: the learning modes and a learning capability model

Abstract

The notion of ‘project delivery’ is well embedded in and across the management and organizational sciences literature – generating a narrative that reflects and recognizes the instrumental nature of projects and programmes in strategy execution. Project management, as a distinct and well-established body of research enquiry, has increasingly sought to focus our attention on the impacts of complexity, risk and uncertainty in projects; the corollary being a desideratum to strengthen our theoretical understanding of how insight and learning from projects may influence improvements to organizational efficiency. The wider literature suggests that organizational learning remains a challenging proposition, particularly in the context of organizations operating in environments of high complexity. In this paper, we enhance the conversation on organizational learning through a series of case studies, generating evidence of thirteen ‘learning modes’. The paper proposes that mature organizations tend to exhibit a greater number of learning modes and that there is a tendency to capture and socialize knowledge with a greater emphasis on the context of the learning situation rather than the learning artefact in isolation. The empirical evidence gathered in this paper forms the basis of a capability model, characterized by the thirteen modes of learning. The model intimates that learning occurs, and is more effective, when knowledge and information are enacted in practice through the learning modes which form a nucleus of the organizational learning capability. The research concludes with a 'call to action' that emphasizes the strategic importance of learning practices and routines in project oriented-organizations.     

The nature of action learning

Action Learning has developed to such an extent that there is now a demand to ‘know’ what it is. There is one way, and one way alone, of getting to ‘know’ what action learning is, and that is by doing it. For those who most clamour to ‘know’ what something might be are usually the victims of an educational system that leaves the vast majority who pass through it ignorant of the meaning of the verb to ‘know’ .... If, for example, I am asked “Do you know that woman?”, it is most probable that the questioner does not ‘know’ what he is asking me. Does he mean “Do I know her name? Or where she lives? Or am I able to introduce him to her? Or what she does for a living? Or do I recognise her by sight? Or have I been to bed with her? And, if so, what progress did I make?...” Thus, with action learning: “Have I read a book about it? Or attended a seminar at which somebody was trying to sell places on an action learning programme? Or visited a set of participants meeting as part of such a programme? Or tried to organise real persons tackling real problems in real time, and trying thereby to learn with and from each other? Or been an active participant myself in such a programme?...” To ‘know’ what action learning is, one must have been responsibly involved in it; since this cannot have been done merely by reading about action learning, it is impossible in this, or any other, note to convey more than the vaguest impression of what this educational approach may be. The day action learning becomes explicable in words alone will be the day to abandon the practice of it.     

Transforming Public Organizations into Learning Organizations: A Conceptual Model

The concepts of organizational learning and learning organizations have gained popularity in recent organization theory literature as complementary subjects. So far majority of studies on these issues focused on the relationship between organizational learning and its ultimate consequences such as increased innovative capacity, increased productivity, and higher competitive advantage of organizations. Nevertheless, many researchers examined the processes of organizational learning from the standpoint of private enterprises, paying little attention to the dynamics of organizational learning in public sector. This paper is aimed to fill this gap by introducing and discussing the basic constituents of a novel conceptual model which demonstrates the relevant steps in transforming of public organizations into learning organizations.     

‘Bureaucracy‐lite’ and Continuities in Managerial Work

This paper questions three frequently asserted, interrelated claims about developments in management: that centralized, regulated bureaucratic organizations characterized by hierarchy and rules are inevitably giving way to decentralized and empowered post‐bureaucratic organizations characterized by internal networks and an internal market; that, as a consequence, the traditional managerial role of command and control is being superseded by one of facilitation and coordination; and that, in turn, managerial work as routine administration of work processes is being supplanted by the ‘new managerial work’ of non‐routine leadership and entrepreneurship. It is argued that these claims often rest on caricatures of bureaucracy and network organization and are neither new nor well supported by evidence. Against these claims, the paper adduces case‐study evidence which shows that, despite claims about ‘decentralization’ and ‘empowerment’, organizational change may entail not a radical shift to network organization, but more limited change to a different form of bureaucracy in which hierarchy and rules have been retained but in an attenuated and sharper form –‘bureaucracy‐lite’. Consequently, managerial roles continue to be defined in terms of individual responsibility and vertical accountability for an organizational sub‐unit, and managerial work continues to be preoccupied with monitoring and maintaining work processes, routine direction and control of staff and processing information in order to deal with the ambiguities inherent in the dimensions of managerial ‘responsibility’.