Learning about learning in knowledge‐intense organizations

Abstract

PurposeThis paper describes and analyses an attempt to engage in transformational learning, oriented to the development of a culture of innovation, at a medium‐size software development organization in Australia.Design/methodology/approachAn action research methodology was used whereby continuous cycles of strategic social learning were collectively theorized, implemented, evaluated and renewed.FindingsThe most important finding of this study is that of the influence of power relations and communication practices upon learning‐for‐innovation in organizations, and the need for the mediation of this influence through the creation of an organizational role that we have entitled an “external critic”. The case also shows the central importance of the relational dimension of social capital generation to learning and the sensitivity of this dimension to power relations.Research limitations/implicationsThe research provides a rich analysis of one company's attempt to learn how to build and sustain a culture of innovation but, as with all case study research, the findings cannot be reliably generalized to other companies. Similarly, the case generates grounded theory that needs to be tested in other organizational contexts.Practical implicationsThe case raises the issue of power management in organizations and its relationship to social learning practices. In particular, it argues for the establishment of a “negotiated order” in organizations (through a mission, vision and core values that are collectively and meaningfully constituted) and for the role of an “external critic” whereby the power of the executive, especially, can be mediated effectively in the interests of mission‐critical learning within the organization.Originality/valueThe paper offers an original strategy for the mediation of power in organizations in the interests of greater learning, creativity and innovation.

Tacit knowledge sharing, self‐efficacy theory, and application to the Open Source community

“…The importance of Figure 2 Gist and Mitchell's self-efficacy model adapted to individual complex, tacit knowledge sharing social context on knowledge sharing is found in research on networking theory (Hildreth et al, 2000). For example, research has linked power relationships (Dovey and White, 2005), support from other organizational members (Lin and Lee, 2004), and subjective norms (Bock et al, 2005) to complex knowledge sharing.…”

Tension at the interface: Exploring employee deviation

“…The study provides a perspective within which the system can be seen as less rational (Frank & Fahrback 1999: 269) than traditional views on organisation suggest. Implications for practice, then, include: (1) redesigning work so that it maximises opportunities for experimentation and error in the solution of real workplace problems; (2) attempting to align the personal interests of organisational members with organisational goals (Dovey & White 2005); (3) accommodating the coalescing of groups of employees around work issues in order for them to ascertain and validate the usefulness of their innovations and maximise their own performance; (4) providing information on the underlying philosophy of organisational rules and regulations and allowing members to work with these guidelines in meeting customer demand and (5) rewarding innovation where it occurs, thereby removing any sense of deviance in the activity that leads to positive innovation.…”

The Role of Enterprise Logic in the Failure of Organizations to Learn and Transform

“…Mobilization of these resources, however, requires structural/cultural forms characterized by distributed power/authority bases and opportunities for enterprise-wide collaboration and learning (Dovey and White, 2005). Legacy structural forms, embedded in an outmoded form of enterprise logic, are clearly no longer appropriate.…”

“…This began to become evident almost 30 years ago when Mintzberg (1979: xii) made the claim that 'structure seems to be at the root of many questions we raise about organizations'. In the digital era, structure has come under increasing scrutiny (Dell, 1999;Foster and Kaplan, 2001;Miles et al, 1997;Peters, 2003) and its role has been highlighted in specifi c areas of organizational performance, such as the capacity to innovate (Barley, 1986;Dougherty, 1999;Leonard-Barton, 1995), enact strategy (Davies, 1993), become more entrepreneurial (Miles et al, 2000), construct new knowledge (Dovey and White, 2005;Lave and Wenger, 1991;Wenger and Snyder, 2000) and meet customers' needs more effectively (Zuboff and Maxmin, 2002).…”

“…Even with the (cognitive) support of the leader, structural transformation is diffi cult, in that, at the fi rst sign of a crisis, the leader's old mental models about structure, authority and control are likely to be reasserted and the inappropriate power management practices that emanate from them to be re-enacted (Kets de Vries, 1993;Kim, 1993). In this respect, drawing on Sarason's (1972) concept of an 'external critic', Dovey and White (2005) argue the need for an extra-organizational role through which the power of those with formal authority in business organizations can be mediated effectively in the interests of relevant organizational transformation.…”