Learning Agility: Spanning the Rigor–Relevance Divide

Abstract

Having struggled for several years with not only trying to define learning agility but attempting to measure this construct as well (Mitchinson, Gerard, Roloff, & Burke, 2012;Mitchinson & Morris, 2012)-a far more daunting task-it is our desire to state at the outset that we are grateful to DeRue, Ashford, and Myers ( 2012) for (a) their work on ''conceptual clarity '' and (b) helping us feel that we are no longer alone in our pursuit of definition and relevant theory. With these points in mind, we have three comments to contribute to the focal article. First, although the article provides academic rigor to the construct of learning agility that, to date, has been lacking, it potentially comes at a cost to the practical use of the construct's origins. Second, although the authors place much needed effort on clarifying exactly what is meant by the term ''agility,'' we argue that the term ''learning'' requires equal-perhaps greater-scrutiny. Finally, we close with an exploration of some of the benefits and challenges of constructing a measure of learning agility based on this new model.

Role of e-learning technology and culture on learning agility: An empirical evidence

“…Learning agility is an ability of learners to gain knowledge from their past experiences and implement that learning in different circumstances [15]. From the behavioural and theoretical perspective, Mitchinson et al [27] described learning agility as 'flexibility and speed' for acquiring a skill set through self-awareness, feedback seeking, collaborating and reflecting. More distinctively, Burke et al [16] commented that 'learning' refers seven behaviour-based dimensions; feedback seeking, information seeking, collaborating, interpersonal risk taking, performance risk taking, reflecting, experimenting; and 'agility' refers speed and flexibility.…”

Leading Change With Intelligence: The Power of Diagnosis in Creating Organizational Renewal

“…Of greatest challenge is the historical tension between the design (union workforce) and engineering (nonunion workforce) functions and their subcultures. Two critical elements of boat building require these talents to come together seamlessly and engage in the process of “design to build.” As one EBer states, “It would be nice to see some change in the old ways, in easing the tension that exists between some groups.” One final increasingly important value is learning agility (Mitchinson, Gerard, Roloff & Burke, 2012). EB suffers from a reputation of being too rigid and too slow to change, due to its traditional, hierarchical, and militaristic approach to how the corporation should be run from a people standpoint (Harshman, 2007).…”

Learning Agility: Many Questions, a Few Answers, and a Path Forward

“…Several commentaries make explicit or implicit reference to a classic contention that theoretical and conceptual rigor come at the expense of practical relevance. For example, De Meuse, Dai, Swisher, Eichinger, and Lombardo (2012) stated, “A narrow definition of learning agility such as the one provided by DeRue et al may have the advantage of conceptual clarity but provides limited practical value.” Similarly, Mitchinson et al (2012) noted, “what is gained in clarity and rigor may come at the cost of practicality.” We contend that the rigor–relevance divide is a false dilemma that undermines the ultimate, shared goal of understanding why and how some people are more effective than others at learning from experience. We agree with Gulati (2007, p. 775) who states, “I firmly believe that the either/or debate is moot: our goal should be to seek rigor and relevance through boundary‐spanning research focused squarely on phenomena of interest to managers.”…”

“…Clearly articulating the conceptual boundaries of the learning agility construct is also crucial for the practical utility of the concept, something of great importance to many of our responders. As Mitchinson et al (2012) note, “it is important that we continue to measure learning agility in a way that is accessible and adds value to selection and development efforts in organizations.” Although these authors and others (particularly De Meuse et al, 2012) use this claim as a basis for refuting our conceptualization of learning agility, we argue that a narrower, more precise definition can in fact add more value to organizational selection and development efforts. Specifically, a precise conceptualization and focused measure of learning agility will allow organizations to identify the incremental value‐add of learning agility relative to other facets of overall learning ability (and compare their relative validity with other nonability predictors of learning from experience).…”

“…Some of the commentaries offer provocative extensions to our conceptualization of learning agility. For example, Mitchinson, Gerard, Roloff, and Burke (2012) emphasize a need to clarify “learning” as much as the need to clarify “agility.”Carette and Anseel (2012) situate epistemic motivation as an underlying psychological mechanism of agile learning. Johnson and Scott (2012) introduce action identification as an additional cognitive mechanism that underlies and facilitates learning agility.…”