If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.Abstract This article examines the alignment and fit between knowledge management and organizational learning to determine the potential feasibility of integrating the two approaches. The philosophical roots of both disciplines are traced to common ground in a philosophy known as "pragmatism". Early generation forms of knowledge management are critiqued and a new more pragmatic version is proposed -one that is compatible with organizational learning. A new form of alignment between organizational learning and knowledge management is proposed.

The use of system dynamics and systems thinking in organizations is increasing dramatically. However, little is known about the efficacy of these interventions in enhancing organizational effectiveness or productivity. With few exceptions, the relationship between the use of systems thinking and organizational performance remains the province of anecdote rather than rigorous follow‐up research. Evaluation helps identify the tools and techniques that can be used successfully, the situations in which they work, and their limitations. This article reports a follow‐up evaluation of a well known systems thinking intervention designed to improve quality and performance in the claims adjusting unit of a U.S. insurance firm. Through a questionnaire, interviews, and extensive review of company records, it has been established that the intervention succeeded in changing the mental models and behavior of key managers. New policies consistent with model recommendations were implemented. Evidence of performance improvement is mixed, however. A number of confounding variables limit the possibility of assessing the business impact of the intervention. These limitations could have been lessened if the original intervention had been designed with rigorous evaluation as a goal. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide both theorists and practitioners with a conceptual framework that links sustainability strategies more closely with Porter’s generic strategies. The intent of this approach is to establish sustainability, fundamentally, as a strategic process. The proposed models set a strategic context to tie sustainability, to mediating variables, such as innovation and technology, while also linking them to generic strategies (low cost leader, differentiation, and focus) and firm financial performance in a causal chain. The proposed model gives rise to conclusions about the effectiveness of sustainability strategies that are consistent with emerging research about the role of radical innovation in sustainability. Design/methodology/approach The paper proposes two conceptual frameworks designed to link sustainability with business strategy. These models are rooted in evolving understandings of business strategy arising from Porter’s original explanations of generic strategies and sources of competitive advantage. The first model is a causal model that links drivers, such as type of competitive strategy and mode of innovation, to competitive outcomes and firm financial performance. The second model describes how different modes of technology development, in sustainability initiatives, cause changes in firm competitive and financial outcomes. Findings The conclusions arising from the model-based insights suggest that conventional continuous and incremental improvement sustainability practices hold the potential to pose strategic risks to some firms – depending on their core business strategy. By contrast, the model provides a logical, yet, less known, rationale that suggests radical innovation in sustainability practices may pose fewer strategic risks. It may also offer relatively more competitive and financial advantages than well-established programs relying on incremental innovation. Research limitations/implications Although the proposed conceptual frameworks are rooted in strategic management theories, the proposed models and expected outcomes have not yet been empirically tested or validated. However, initially, these models appear to have more face validity in explaining breakthrough sustainability success stories, such as Nike, than do competing explanations. Most importantly, the counter-intuitive finding that radical innovation is likely to be more effective in driving both sustainability and financial outcomes is a topic for future investigation. Practical implications The proposed models and accompanying rationale have direct implications for practitioners. They provide practitioners with a road map to logically and deductively frame sustainability strategies based on their current business strategy. Practitioners are often hindered by the lack of high-level guidance for making the transition from operationally focused sustainability tactics to strategies than are congruent with current business strategies. The current paradigm of using incremental sustainability strategies on an ad hoc basis does not always provide neutral outcomes regarding financial effects and competitive advantage – they may yield negative effects. Social implications The importance of sustainability strategies and management practices cannot be overstated. On a global scale, evidence indicates that most corporate sustainability programs are ineffective at slowing the rate of global forces offsetting sustainability. The proposed models and strategic management approach are intended to dramatically increase the effectiveness of sustainability improvement by closely aligning them with corporate strategies. Historically, companies have struggled to make the leap from randomly using eco-efficiency tools to making sustainability a key component of their business strategy. Originality/value This paper integrates a number of diverse lines of inquiry from the strategic management literature into a counter-intuitive approach for integrating sustainability into a firm’s core business strategy. The proposed conceptual frameworks can be used, prospectively, to design new sustainability strategies, or it can be used, analytically (retrospectively), to understand reasons for failure or under-performance in sustainability initiatives.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the future prospects of the popular concept known as the learning organization; to trace the influence of philosophical pragmatism on the learning organization and to consider its potential impact on the future; and to emphasize how pragmatic theories have shaped the development of Deming's total quality management approach and Toyota's lean manufacturing system. Design/methodology/approach -The concepts presented are mainly built on a historical analysis of various theories of philosophical pragmatism and organizational management. These theories are contrasted with state-of-the-art practices used in business. Findings -Many organizational learning theories are rooted in philosophical pragmatism, yet these models often only borrow small pieces from a larger, more systemic framework. It is argued here that this truncated use of such principles causes unintended consequences and general ineffectiveness. Originality/value -The value is to see the evolution of theories of learning organizations in terms of many of the unstated assumptions that serve as a foundation.

Purpose-The paper seeks to establish a critical role for leaders in guiding projects to higher levels of effectiveness. This role centers on using the thinking capacities associated with systems thinking, knowledge processing, action learning, and pragmatism. It is also to design systems to imbue these capacities into the operation of project teams. Design/methodology/approach-This paper presents a case study, action-research observations, and conceptual models. Actual case studies including a medium-sized US manufacturer and a large shipyard. Findings-This paper includes a section that presents research findings that suggest efforts by managers to improve profits actually reduced profit in the longer term due to erroneous learning and low-quality knowledge. Research limitations/implications-The research presented does not focus specifically on project teams, but rather on the interplay between project teams and the larger organizations of which they are part. Practical implications-In certain industries, the performance track record of project teams for operating according to schedule and within budget is dismal. Such failures have been wrongly attributed to bad staffing, poor decision making, internal politics, or external forces. This paper proposes that the more common reasons for such failures are erroneous learning caused by misperceptions of dynamic feedback, low-quality knowledge, imbalances among system elements, and failure to account for dynamics and time delays. An approach called project management system pragmatics is proposed for use by leaders as a way to improve the effectiveness of project teams. Originality/value-This is the first approach to project management/leadership that offers practical ways for leaders to conceive of how to deal with the ambiguities posed by the dynamics of the complex systems many project teams operate within.