Systemic determinants of learning in public administration. A case study of phytosanitary inspection

• Autorzy: Pasieczny Jacek , Postuła Agnieszka , Rosiak Tomasz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2024.202.28

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The aim of the article is to depict the systemic nature of the conditions for learning processes in public administration organizations. The research problem undertaken by the authors is encapsulated in the question: What are the key conditions for the learning processes of public administration organizations? Design/methodology/approach: The text is based on qualitative research. Researchers based on 31 open interviews. The work was grounded in two principal theoretical frameworks: the action research methodology and the concept of the learning organization. Findings: Research has allowed for the identification of the key determinants of systemic learning within the public administration organization. Specifically, attention should be paid to: employee engagement, employee competencies, staff rotation in the HR area, as well as financial resources, employer branding, technical equipment, IT systems, and incentive systems. Research limitations/implications: Qualitative research faces limitations such as small sample size and lack of representativeness. Conducting a quantitative verification of the impact on the administrative organization of identified categories such as staff rotation, employee engagement, employee competences, and financial resources would be a natural extension of the conducted research. Practical implications: The research has identified areas of change that should be introduced in the analyzed organization to dynamize the learning process. The strong sense of mission among employees only partially balances some weaknesses of the organization. Social implications: The implemented solutions can lead to significant improvement in the learning processes within the analyzed organization. Relatively minor changes, such as in onboarding or motivation, can result in a substantial enhancement of functionality. Originality/value: The particular value of the text lies in depicting the systemic nature of the conditions influencing learning processes within a public organization. However, some of these conditions are of particular significance. Among such conditions are effective HR enabling the utilization of Public Service Motivation, as well as funding and resources.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

public administration; learning organization; paradox; systemic nature

PL

administracja publiczna; organizacja ucząca się; paradoks; charakter systemowy

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: z. 202
• Strony: 461--471
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 29 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Pasieczny Jacek

• University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management

• https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9405-3861

autor

Postuła Agnieszka

• University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9495-0733

autor

Rosiak Tomasz

• University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8599-3862

Bibliografia

• 1. Antunes, H. de J.G., Pinheiro, P.G. (2020). Linking knowledge management, organizational learning and memory. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.04.002 2. Argyris, C., Schon, D. (1978).
• 2. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• 3. Bawden, R. (2021). Towards action research systems. In: Action Research for Change and Development (pp. 10-35). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003248491-3
• 4. Bencsik, A., Juhász, T., Mura, L., Csanádi, Á. (2019). Formal and Informal Knowledge Sharing in Organisations from Slovakia and Hungary. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 7(3), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2019.070302
• 5. Cangelosi, V.E., Dill, W.R. (1965). Organizational Learning: Observations Toward a Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(2), 175. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391412
• 6. Denzin, N.K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
• 7. Dziurski, P., Mierzejewska, W., Sopińska, A., Wachowiak, P. (2021). Case Studies on Innovative Firms. In: Critical Perspectives on Innovation Management (pp. 115-136). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003203841-9
• 8. Dziurski, P., Wachowiak, P. (2021). Dark Sides of Innovation. In: Critical Perspectives on Innovation Management (pp. 101-114). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781003203841-8
• 9. Elias, A.A., Davis, D. (2018). Analysing public sector continuous improvement: a systems approach. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(1), 2-13. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2016-0135
• 10. Frankiewicz, B., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2020), Digital Transformation Is About Talent, Not Technology. Harvard Business Review, May 6.
• 11. Joldersma, C., Winter, V. (2002). Strategic Management in Hybrid Organizations. Public Management Review, 4(1), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670110101708
• 12. Keely, L., Walters, H., Pikkel, R., Quinn, B. (2013). Ten types of innovation. The discipline of building breakthroughs. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
• 13. Kessler, E.H. (ed.) (2013). Encyclopedia of management theory. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
• 14. Kingston, J. (2012). Choosing a Knowledge Dissemination Approach. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(3), 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1391
• 15. Levitt, B., March, J.G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
• 16. March, J.G., Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
• 17. Marsick, V.J., Watkins, K.E. (2003). Demonstrating the Value of an Organization's Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1523422303005002002.
• 18. Moynihan, D.P., Landuyt, N. (2009). How Do Public Organizations Learn? Bridging Cultural and Structural Perspectives. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3492431
• 19. Obloj, K. (2019). Footnotes to organizational competitiveness. Economics and Business Review, 5(3), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2019.3.3
• 20. Pasieczny, J., Rosiak, T. (2023). Barriers to Implementing the Concept of Learning Organization in Public Administration - the Example of PIORiN. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, Sectio H - Oeconomia, 56(5), 171-184. https://doi.org/ 10.17951/h.2022.56.5.171-184
• 21. Popper, M., Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational Learning. Management Learning, 31(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507600312003
• 22. Sabir, B.Y., Othman, B.J., Gardi, B., Ismael, N.B., Hamza, P.A., Sorguli, S., Aziz, H.M., Ahmed, S.A., Ali, B.J., Anwar, G. (2021). Administrative Decentralization: The Transfer of Competency from The Ministry of Education to General Directorates. International Journal of Rural Development, Environment and Health Research, 5(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijreh.5.3.1
• 23. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Age and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Century Business
• 24. Sopińska, A., Gregorczyk, S. (2014). Granice strukturalnej złożoności organizacji. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Szkoła Główna Handlowa.
• 25. Sopińska, A., Wachowiak, P. (2006), Modele zarządzania wiedzą w przedsiębiorstwie. E-mentor, 1(14). https://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul/index/numer/14/id/275
• 26. Stelmaszczyk, M., Karpacz, J. (2016). Związek między dzieleniem się wiedzą a innowacjami mediowany zaufaniem - poziom indywidualny. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 422, 95-105.
• 27. Stroińska, E. (2020). New public management as a tool for changes in public administration. Journal of Intercultural Management, 12(4), 1-28.
• 28. Sveiby, K.E. (2005). Dziesięć sposobów oddziaływania wiedzy na tworzenie wartości. E-mentor, 2(9). https://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul/index/numer/9/id/140
• 29. Żur, A. (2013). Otwarta komunikacja wewnętrzna - imperatyw współczesnych organizacji. Organizacja i Kierowanie, 3(156), 173-184.