This article provides an overview of current debates in the field of organizational learning through the device of examining key `divergencies' within the literature. Clear divergencies are noted in two areas: first, between the practitioner literature which is primarily engaged in creating learning organizations and the academic literature which is engaged in the study of learning processes in organizations; and, second, in the views of both academics and practitioners about the nature and essence of organizational learning. In addition, but with somewhat less significance, divergencies are noted in the preferred ways of investigating and researching into organizational learning, and ways of improving the ability of organizations to learn. The article then identifies power as an issue that has received limited attention in the literature, but which appears to underlie many of the above divergencies.

In this article we develop a framework to assess organizational learning and the depth, breadth and spread of members' involvement. The framework incorporates the Morgan (1986) metaphors and the `learning company' characteristics of Pedler et al. (1991), along with the notions of single-, double-, and triple-loop learning. We draw up competing hypotheses setting Coopey's (1995a, 1995b) constitutionalist argument that a `learning organization' will enhance only the power of the `ruling court' unless democratic arrangements are explicitly laid down, against ideas of developmental leadership. Using case studies of two blue-chip companies-both cited as learning organizations, one claiming to have a democratically-oriented constitution-we illustrate how the framework may be used to assemble data for use in testing hypotheses in more empirically-grounded studies of empowerment in learning organizations. Our study compared the perspectives of top management, reflected in popular and professional publications, with grass-roots accounts from Hong Kong subsidiaries. While the data is inconclusive because it was collected opportunistically and from very few sources, it lends support to the constitutionalist position.

Qualitative interviews and observations were conducted to study the cross-border transfer of organizational learning systems to the subsidiaries of five Japanese manufacturing companies operating in South China. This paper develops a holistic model of the overall process, by integrating knowledge-oriented, routine-oriented, and social/contextual perspectives, each of which plays a necessary role in explaining essential aspects. One feature of the transfer of organizational learning systems entailed arranging local access to, and opportunity to replicate, various types of knowledge repository that contained corporate values as well as technical expertise. A second feature involved the development of collective learning routines through dynamic interplay with evolving, locally based, knowledge repositories. A third feature, in two companies, entailed the creation of enterprise contexts that reproduced the socialization and corporate culture maintenance rituals, and the open plan factory and office designs, that were hallmarks of the respective parent companies, and which appeared highly conducive to the transfer of collective learning routines to the local sites. Findings indicate that successful cross-border transfer of organizational learning systems entails the development and implementation of an overall heuristic design for cultivating collective learning routines through the engineering of enterprise contexts and the responsive management of knowledge repositories.

This conceptual paper analyses the role of collaborativebased HRM practices in supporting open innovation. There is already an extensive literature that investigates the impact of HRM practices on organizations' innovation performance. As organizational boundaries become increasingly permeable and knowledge flows more freely, open innovation continues to receive close attention in management studies. However, relationships between HRM practices and open innovation have still not been examined. From a knowledge management perspective, we identify three kinds of barrier that may deter or impede open innovation. These relate to cognitive biases, concerns about transaction costs, and shortfalls in terms of organization capability. We also discuss the role of four types of collaboration-oriented HRM practices (i.e., teamwork-based recruitment, training in teamwork skills, team-based appraisals and rewards, and rotational job design) in reducing barriers to open innovation. Based on our analyses, we envisage future research directions about the role of collaborative-based HRM practices in supporting open innovation.

In a qualitative interview study, 20 Hong Kong Chinese informants were asked to report stories about colleagues who were either 'good soldiers' or 'good actors'. In stories about good soldiers, informants attributed their colleagues' organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) primarily to prosocial or pro-organizational motives. Informants' stories about good actors broke down into three major subcategories of citizenship-related impression management: OCB attributed primarily to impression management motives; alleged pseudo-OCB concomitant with minimal compliance; and alleged pseudo-OCB concomitant with counterproductive behaviour. When distinguishing good soldiers from good actors, informants adopted two criteria for attribution: wilful behavioural inconsistency, i.e. low generality of behaviour across contexts; and alleged false pretence, i.e. discrepancy between claims or allusions and actual deeds. Our findings partially supported a prior hypothesis from attribution theory, that consistency was a criterion for attribution, but indicated that consensus, i.e. correspondence between the focal colleague's behaviour and other employees' behaviour, failed to differentiate good soldiers from good actors. Informants generally regarded OCB as socially desirable only when it was attributed primarily to prosocial/pro-organizational motives. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2007.

Characteristics of learning organizations (LOs) include free exchange across communities of practice, networked knowledge and experience, continual improvement, learning leadership, open dialogue, continual transformation and protean psychological contracts. I identify I 0 moral foundations of LOs. They would house communal business cultures, accountable to Aristotelian and Kantian ethics. Power blocs would allow space for quieter, less obtrusive contributions to be valued, rather than imposing exploitative or mercenary discourses of appropriation. LOs would strive to improve their records of meeting stakeholders' moral claims. They would respond humbly to stakeholder criticism. Leadership would be humble and virtue seeking. There would be civil liberties. LOs would build, debug and update their own moral traditions. They would treat employees with compassion. They would also give special help and support to those challenged by obsolescence. There would be transparent operations and decision-making, engendering critical trust. I suggest how aspiring LOs may try to overcome problems of human defensiveness, limited moral reasoning capacity and fragmented moral terrain, and build these 10 moral foundations.

Management competences significant for large and medium‐size companies in the West may not be universally applicable. Describes which qualitative, inductive approaches were used to identify competences important in expanding smaller businesses in a particular locality (Hong Kong). Identifies competences generally salient for growth as: global‐oriented outlook for the business; analytical market approach; readiness to seize relevant opportunities; and systematic financial management. Considers an additional set of competences salient for growing companies with less than 50 employees, namely: vivid vision/purpose/ mission; ability to conceptualize or formulate company strategy; strategic approach to human resource development; and promoting a learning culture. Also identifies several competences relevant to all small businesses in Hong Kong, whether growing or non‐growing.

No abstract