Akceptacja złożoności w uczeniu się organizacyjnym

• Autorzy: Alicja Balcerak

Warianty tytułu

Accepting Complexity in Organizational Learning

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

Koncepcja uczenia się organizacyjnego (OL), mimo że ma już za sobą okres wzmożonego wzrostu popularności, nie straciła na aktualności i wadze. Mimo dość długiej historii badań nie istnieje spójna teoria uczenia się organizacyjnego. W pracy dokonano przeglądu czterech podejść do OL: behawiorystycznego, kognitywnego, konstruktywistycznego i społeczno-poznawczego. Ich porównanie z perspektywą nazwaną tu "złożonościową" (czyli związaną z traktowaniem organizacji jako systemu złożonego w rozumieniu teorii złożoności) wspiera tezę o rosnącej akceptacji złożoności w rozwoju teorii uczenia się organizacyjnego. (abstrakt oryginalny)

EN

The organizational learning concept, although no longer in its hype phase, is still considered important and up-to-date. Despite a relatively long history, there is no common theory of Organizational Learning. This paper reviews four approaches to Organizational Learning: behaviourist, cognitive, constructivist, and social-cognitive. Their comparison with the complex (inspired by complexity science) perspective maintains the thesis that there is a growing acceptance of complexity in the evolution of the Organizational Learning theory. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Uczenie się; Proces uczenia się; Złożoność organizacji

EN

Studying; Learning process; Complexity of the organization

• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Poznańskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie
• Rocznik: 2020
• Numer: nr 81
• Strony: 5-20

Twórcy

autor

Alicja Balcerak

• Politechnika Wrocławska

Bibliografia

• Antonacopoulou, E., Chiva, R. (2007). The social complexity of organizational learning: the dynamics of learning and organizing. Management Learning, 38(3), 277-295.
• Argyris, C., Schön, D.A. (1974). Theory in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Balcerak, A. (2017). Reflective learning facilitators. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Humanitas. Zarządzanie, 18(3), 199-212.
• Balcerak, A. (2018). Oblicza nowości w zarządzaniu. In: Z. Malara, J. Skonieczny (Eds.). Innowacje w gospodarce, przedsiębiorstwie i społeczeństwie, 261-277. Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej.
• Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
• Benders, J., Van Veen, K. (2001). What's in a fashion? Interpretative viability and management fashions. Organization, 8(1), 33-53.
• Brandi, U., Elkjaer, B. (2011). Organizational learning viewed from a social learning perspective. In: M. Easterby-Smith, M.A. Lyles (Eds.). Handbook of organizational learn-ing & knowledge management, 23-41. Chichester: Wiley.
• Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 73-90.
• Cangelosi, V.E., Dill, W.R. (1965). Organizational learning: Observations toward a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 175-203.
• Chiva, R., Alegre, J. (2005). Organizational learning and organizational knowledge: towards the integration of two approaches. Management Learning, 36(1), 49-68.
• Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., White, R.E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537.
• Crossan, M.M., Maurer, C.C., White, R.E. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 446-460.
• Cyert, R.M., March, J. (1963). A behavioural theory of the firm. Englewood Clifs: Prentice Hall.
• Desai, D.A. (2010). Co-creating learning: insights from complexity theory. The Learning Organization, 17(5), 388-403.
• Elkjaer, B. (2004). Organizational learning: the 'third way'. Management Learning, 35(4), 419-434.
• Groot, N., Homan, T.H. (2012). Strategising as a complex responsive leadership process. International Journal of Learning and Change, 6(3-4), 156-170.
• Hazy, J.K. (2011). More than a metaphor: complexity and the new rules of management. In: P. Allen, S. Maguire, B. McKelvey (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of complexity and management, 524-539. Sage Publications.
• Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn? In: P.C. Nystrom, W.H. Starbuck (Eds.). Handbook of organizational design, 8-27. London: Oxford University Press.
• Heusinkveld, S., Benders, J. (2012). On sedimentation in management fashion: an institutional perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(1), 121-142.
• Holland, J.H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York: Helix Books.
• Karataş-Özkan, M., Murphy, W.D. (2010). Critical theorist, postmodernist and social con-structionist paradigms in organizational analysis: A paradigmatic review of organizational learning literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 453-465.
• Lichtenstein, B.B., Plowman, D.A. (2009). The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(20), 617-630.
• MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R. (2015). Planning reconsidered: Paradox, poetry and people at the edge of strategy. European Management Journal, 33(2), 72-78.
• Madsen, D.Ø., Stenheim, T. (2014). The impact of management concepts: a typology. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 12/4, 103-108.
• Maguire, S. (2011). Constructing and appreciating complexity. In: P. Allen, S. Maguire, B. McKelvey (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of complexity and management, 79-92. Sage Publications.
• Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala.
• Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Miner, A.S., Mezias, S.J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organizational learning research. Organization Science, 7(1), 88-99.
• Mitleton-Kelly, E., Ramalingam, B. (2011). Organisational Learning and Complexity Science: Exploring the joint potential. In: P. Allen, S. Maguire, B. McKelvey (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of complexity and management, 349-365. Sage Publications.
• Morin, E. (2014). Complex thinking for a complex world - about reductionism, disjunction and systemism. Systema, 2(1), 14-22.
• Popova-Nowak, I.V., Cseh, M. (2015). The meaning of organizational learning: A metaparadigm perspective. Human Resource Development Review, 14(3), 299-331.
• Prange, C. (1999). Organizational learning - desperately seeking theory? In: M. Easterby- -Smith, L. Araujo, J. Burgoyne (Eds.). Organizational learning and the learning organization. Developments in theory and practice, 23-43. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Prigogine, I., Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: man's new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.
• Revans, R.W. (1982). The origin and growth of action learning. Brickley: Chartwell-Bratt.
• Richardson, K.A. (2011). Complexity and management: a pluralistic view. In: P. Allen, S. Maguire, B. McKelvey (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of complexity and management, 366-381. Sage Publications.
• Romme, G., Dillen, R. (1997). Mapping the landscape of organizational learning. European Management Journal, 15(1), 68-78.
• Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D. (2009). Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184-196.
• Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
• Shipton, H., De Fillippi, R. (2011). Psychological perspectives in organizational learning: A four quadrant approach. In: M. Easterby-Smith, M.A. Lyles (Eds.). Handbook of organizational learning & knowledge management, 67-81. Chichester: Wiley.
• Shotter, J., Tsoukas, H. (2011). Complex thought, simple talk: an ecological approach to language-based change in organizations. In: P. Allen, S. Maguire, B. McKelvey (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of complexity and management, 333-348. Sage Publications.
• Skyttner, L. (2001). General Systems Theory: Ideas and Applications. World Scientific Publishing.
• Stacey, R.D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 477-495.
• Stacey, R.D. (2006). Learning as an activity of interdependent people. In: R. MacIntosh, D. MacLean, R. Stacey, D. Griffin (Eds.). Complexity and organization. Readings and converstion, 237-246. London-New York: Routelege.
• Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D., Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and Management. Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking. London: Routledge.
• Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. (2009). Complexity leadership in bureaucratic forms of organizing: a meso model. Leadership Quarterly, 20/4, 631-650.
• Vera, D., Crossan, M., Apaydin, M. (2011). A framework for integrating organizational learning, knowledge, capabilities, and absorptive capacity. In: M. Easterby-Smith, M. Lyles (Eds.). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management, 2nd ed., 153-180. Chichester: Wiley.
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.21008/j.0239-9415.2020.081.01