طراحی مدل مفهومی یکپارچه ی سازمان یادگیرنده

محورهای موضوعی : آموزش و پرورش

آرش رسته مقدم ¹ (کارشناس ارشد مدیریت دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی)
عباس عباس پور ² (استاد دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی)

تاریخ دریافت : 1394/09/10 تاریخ پذیرش : 1394/09/10 تاریخ انتشار : 1390/10/01

کلید واژه: سازمان یادگیرنده, مدیریت دانش, یادگیری سازمانی, الگوی مفهومی, تحول سازمانی,

چکیده مقاله :

سرعت تغییرات محیط در ابعاد درونی و بیرونی، منجر به اتخاذ راهبردهای نوینی از جمله یادگیری، کیفیت و خلق دانش توسط سازمان‌ها شده است. به‌طوری‌که بین وجود چنین ویژگی‌هایی و قابلیت ادامه حیات و رقابت‌پذیری آنها رابطه‌ی مثبت و معناداری وجود دارد. مفاهیم یادگیری سازمانی و سازمان یادگیرنده سابقه‌ای بیش از سه دهه دارند و با وجود الگوها و مدل‌های مختلف، همچنان نیاز به الگویی که بتواند ارتباط این دو مفهوم را به‌صورت شفاف تبیین کند، محسوس است. در مقاله‌ی حاضر که از جمله مقالات مفهومی می‌باشد، سعی شده با استفاده از روش پژوهش تحلیلی، این نقیصه با ارائه‌ی الگویی یکپارچه که برگرفته از نظریات تعدادی از صاحب‌نظران برجسته در حوزه مربوطه می‌باشد، برطرف گردد. الگوی مذکور شامل سه بخش می‌باشد؛ در بخش اول توانمندسازهای یادگیری به‌عنوان زیربنای ایجاد سازمان یادگیرنده با رویکردی منبع‌محور مطرح شده است که شامل دو سطح سازمانی(ساختار) و غیرسازمانی(افراد) می‌باشد و برگرفته از نظریه واتکینز و مارسیک است. در بخش فرآیند، نظریه‌ی یادگیری سازمانی هابر به‌عنوان پیونددهنده‌ی توانمندسازها و عملکرد تشریح شده است و بخش عملکرد به ترسیم ویژگی‌های سازمان یادگیرنده تحت عنوان مفهوم "هرم سازمان یادگیرنده" با توجه به نظریات افرادی همچون سنگه و نانوکا اختصاص یافته است. باتوجه به رویکرد نظام‌گرای حاکم بر طراحی مدل و لحاظ نمودن توانمندسازها، فرآیند و عملکرد به‌عنوان ابعاد اصلی آن، به نظر می‌رسد به‌عنوان اولین مطالعه‌ی صورت گرفته در این زمینه، بتواند در درک بیشتر مفاهیم مذکور راهگشا باشد. این مقاله با ارائه‌ی پیشنهادهایی کاربردی و پژوهشی خاتمه می‌یابد

چکیده انگلیسی:

Rapid environmental changes in both internal and external dimensions have forced organizations to adopt modern strategies such as learning, quality and knowledge creation. These strategies, hence, are essential for organizations to survive and to maintain their competitiveness. The organizational learning and learning organization concepts have been around for more than three decades now. Even though many studies have been addressing these two concepts, there is no consensus on a model to fully clarify the relationship between them. Using an analytical research method, this paper seeks to eliminate this deficiency by presenting an integrated conceptual model on the basis of authorities’ views in the related field. The model is composed of three sections. In the first section, which is based on a modified theory of Watkin and Marsik, learning empowerments have been introduced with a resource-based view at two levels, namely structural and non-structural (people) levels. In the process section, Haber’s theory of organizational learning has been described as the connector between learning enablers and performance outcomes. The last section, considering the viewpoints of Senge and Nonaka, characterizes learning organization under the title of “Learning Organization Pyramid” (LOP). As a systematic approach was adopted in the design of the model and as the enablers, process and performance were taken into account as the main dimensions of the model, this study can serves as the first guide in a better understanding of the above-mentioned concepts. The paper closes with suggestions for model application and research

منابع و مأخذ:

Amit, R.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), Strategic assets and organizational

rent. Strategic Management Journal; 14, (1), pp. 33–46.

Bennet A and Bennet D (2003), The Partnership Between Organizational

Learning and Knowledge Management Handbook on Knowledge

Management, Vol. 1, Springer,New York.

Bauman G (2005), “Promoting Organizational Learning in Higher

Education to Achieve Equity in Educational Outcome”, New

Directions for Higher Education, Vol. 131, Fall, pp. 23-25.

Bontis,N.,Crossan,M.,&Hulland,J.(2002).Managing an organizational

learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of

ManagementStudies,39(4), 437– 469.

C. Jyothibabu .Ayesha Farooq.Bibhuti Bhusan Pradhan An integrated

scale for measuring an organizational learning system .The Learning

OrganizationVol. 17 No. 4, 2010 pp. 303-327

Guadamillas, F., Donate, M. J., & Sلnchez de Pablo, J. D. (2008).

Knowledge management for corporate entrepreneurship and growth: A

case study. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(1), 32–44.

Johnson, C. David S. James W.(2011). An Empirical Model Of The

Learning Organization. www2.hull.ac.uk

Jashapara, A. (2003), “Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical

test of the learning organization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10

No. 1, pp. 31-50.

Jamali, D. and Sidani, Y. (2008), “Learning organizations: diagnosis and

measurement in a developing country context”, The Learning

Organization, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 58-74.

Jamali, D. (2005), “Changing management paradigms: implications for

educational institutions”, The Journal of Management Development,

Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 104-15.

Jennex M E and Olfman L (2003), Organizational Memory, Handbook

on Knowledge Management, Vol. 1, Springer, New York.

Jamalzade, M. Rahgozar,H. Alavi,F.(2011)" Investigation of Islamic

Azad University as a learning organization from Faculty members’

view points", New Approach in Educational Administration, Vol(5),71-

94.

James G. March. (1991),: Organizational Learning: Organization

Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, Special Issue pp. 88-115.

Jimenez,D.(2008).Are companies that implement TQM better learning

organizations? An empirical study. Total Quality Management, 19(11),

1101–1115.

Hernandez, M. and Watkins, K.E. (2003), “Translation, validation and

adaptation of the Spanish version of the modified dimensions of the

learning organization questionnaire”, Human Resource Development

International, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 187-96.

Hung,R.Y.Y.,etal.Impact of TQM and organizational learning

oninnovation performance in the high-tech industry. International

BusinessReview (2010), doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.07.001

Karash, R. (2002), “Learning-org dialog on learning organizations”,

available at: http://world.std.com/ , lo/ (accessed 19 November 2003).

Koc, T., & Ceylan, C. (2007). Factors impacting the innovative capacity

in large-scale companies. Technovation, 27(3), 105–114.

Liao, S. H., Fei, W. C., & Liu, C. T. (2008). Relationships between

knowledge inertia, organizational learning and organizational

innovation. Technovation, 28(4), 183–195.

Mansury, M. A., & Love, J. H. (2008). Innovation, productivity and

growth in US business services: A firm-level analysis. Technovation,

28(1–2), 52–62.

Moilanen, R. (2005), “Diagnosing and measuring learning organization”,

The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 71-89.

Moilanen, R. (2001), “Diagnostic tools for learning organizations”, The

Learning Organization, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 6-20.

Marah F. Abu Khadra and Ibrahim A(2006) Assessment of development

of the learning organization concept in Jordanian industrial companies.

Rawabdeh Industrial Engineering Department, University of Jordan,

Amman, Jordan The Learning OrganizationVol. 13 No. 5, pp. 455-474

Makadok, R. (2001), Toward a Synthesis of the Resource-Based View

and Dynamic-Capability Views of Rent Creation. Strategic

Management Journal; 22, (5), pp. 387–401

Miha Škerlavaj a, Ji Hoon Song b,1, Youngmin Lee c, (2010)

Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and innovations in

South orean firms2 Expert Systems with Applications 37 6390–6403

McElroy, Mark (2000) ‘Second-Generation KM: A White Paper’

Knowledge Management 4(3).

MartinezCosta,M.,&JimenezRahman,S.(2004).The future of TQM is

past. Can TQM be resurrected? Total Quality Management,15(4), 411–

422.

Nazem,F,Motalebi,A.(2011)" An structural model of intellectual capital

based on organizational learning in Shahid Beheshti University", New

Approach in Educational Administration, Vol(5),29-50.

Newbert, S. L. (2007) Empirical Research on the Resource Based Theory

of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 121-146

Pearn, M., Roderick, C. and Mulrooney, C. (1995), Learning

Organizations in Practice, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

Pareek U (2004), Understanding Organizational Behaviour, Oxford

University Press, New Delhi.

Pedler, M., Boydell, T. and Burgoyne, J. (1989), “Towards the learning

company”, Management Education and Development, Vol. 20 No. 1,

pp. 1-8.

Porter, Michael E. (1980), Competitive Advantage: Techniques for

Analyzing Industrial and Competitors, New York: Free Press.

Prajogo,D.I.,&Sohal,A.S.(2003).The relationship between TQM

practices, quality performance, and innovation performance.The

International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement,20(8), 901–

918.

Rastehmoghaddam, A. Abbaspour, A.(2011). An exploration of

organizational learning theoretical development barriers: A critical

approach. Under press in Management And Development Quarterly.

Rastehmoghaddam, A. (2004). An Study of Learning Organization

Characteristics In a Teaching Organization.No. 69, pp. 73-101

Shu-Hsien Liao a, Wen-Jung Chang b,*, Chi-Chuan An integrated model

for learning organization with strategic view: Benchmarking in the

knowledge-intensive industry. Wub Expert Systems with Applications

37 (2010) 3792–3798

Scharmer C O (2002), “Presencing: Illuminating the Blind Spot of

Leadership: Foundations for a Social Technology of Freedom”,

available at

http://www.generoconsulting.com/Publications/PresencingIntro.pdf

Savage, Charles (2000) ‘The development of knowledge management

and why it is important,’ in Knowledge Management for Development

Organisations, Report of the Knowledge Management Brighton 

Workshop 26–28 June 2000, University of Sussex. Canada: Bellanet

International Secretariat. (available at www.bellanet.org/km/km2)

Tannenbaum, S. (1997), “Enhancing continuous learning: diagnostic

findings from multiple companies”, Human Resource Management,

Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 437-52.

Templeton , Lewis, Snyder: Development of a measure for the Learning

Organizational Learning construct, Journal of Management Information

Systems, Fall 2002, Vol.19, No.2, pp.175-218.