Information Technology and Organizational Learning Assignment:Complete the following question in 2 pages (one for each) and adher

Question – 1 Article

Linear Development in Learning Approaches

Focusing only on the role of the individual in the company is an incom- plete approach to formulating an effective learning program. There is another dimension to consider that is based on learning maturation. That is, where in the life cycle of learning are the individuals and the organization? The best explanation of this concept is the learning mat- uration experience at Ravell. During my initial consultation at Ravell, the organization was at a very early stage of organizational learning. This was evidenced by the dependence of the organization on event- driven and individual reflective practice learning. Technology acted as an accelerator of learning—it required IT to design a new network during the relocation of the company. Specifically, the acceleration, operationalized by a physical move, required IT to establish new rela- tionships with line management. The initial case study concluded that there was a cultural change as a result of these new relationships— cultural assimilation started to occur using organizational learning techniques, specifically reflective practices.

After I left Ravell, another phase in the evolution of the company took place. A new IT director was hired in my stead, who attempted to reinstate the old culture: centralized infrastructure, stated opera- tional boundaries, and separations that mandated anti-learning orga- nizational behaviors. After six months, the line managers, faced with having to revert back to a former operating culture, revolted and demanded the removal of the IT director. This outcome, regrettable as it may be, is critical in proving the conclusion of the original study that the culture at Ravell had indeed evolved from its state, at the time of my arrival. The following are two concrete examples that support this notion:

1. The attempt of the new IT director to “roll back” the process to a former cultural state was unsuccessful, showing that a new evolving culture had indeed occurred.

2. Line managers came together from the established learning organization to deliver a concerted message to the execu- tive team. Much of their learning had now shifted to a social organization level that was based less on events and was more holistic with respect to the goals and objectives of the organization.

Thus, we see a shift from an individual-based learning process to one that is based more on the social and organizational issues to stimulate transformation. This transformation in learning method occurred within the same management team, suggesting that changes in learning do occur over time and from experience. Another way of viewing the phenomenon is to see Ravell as reaching the next level of organizational learning or maturation with learning. Consistent with the conclusion of the original study, technology served to accelerate the process of change or accelerate the maturation process of organi- zational learning.

Another phase (Phase II) of Ravell transpired after I returned to the company. I determined at that time that the IT department needed to be integrated with another technology-based part of the business—the unit responsible for media and engineering services (as opposed to IT). While I had suggested this combination eight months earlier, the organization had not reached the learning matu- ration to understand why such a combination was beneficial. Much of the reason it did not occur earlier, can also be attributed to the organization’s inability to manage ROD, which, if implemented, would have made the integration more obvious. The initial Ravell study served to bring forth the challenges of cultural assimilation, to the extent that the organization needed to reorganize itself and change its behavior. In phase II, the learning process matured by accelerating the need for structural change in the actual reporting processes of IT.

A year later, yet another learning maturation phase (phase III) occurred. In Ravell, Phase III, the next stage of learning matura- tion, allowed the firm to better manage ROD. After completing the merger of the two technically related business units discussed (phase II), it became necessary to move a core database depart- ment completely out of the combined technology department, and to integrate it with a business unit. The reason for this change was compelling and brought to light a shortfall in my conclusions from the initial study. It appears that as organizational learning matures within ROD, there is an increasing need to educate the executive management team of the organization. This was not the case during the early stages of the case study. The limitation of my work, then, was that I predominantly interfaced with line management and neglected to include executives in the learning. During that time, results were encouraging, so there was little reason for me to include executives in event-driven issues, as discussed. Unfortunately, lack- ing their participation fostered a disconnection with the strategic integration component of ROD. Not participating in ROD created executive ignorance of the importance that IT had on the strategy of the business. Their lack of knowledge resulted in chronic problems with understanding the relationship and value of IT on the business units of the organization. This shortcoming resulted in continued conflicts over investments in the IT organization. It ultimately left IT with the inability to defend many of its cost requirements. As stated, during times of economic downturns, firms tend to reduce support organizations. In other words, executive management did not understand the driver component of IT.

After the move of the cohort of database developers to a formal business line unit, the driver components of the group provided the dialogue and support necessary to educate executives. However, this education did not occur based on events, but rather, on using the social and group dynamics of organizational learning. We seehere another aspect of how organizational and individual learning methods work together, but evolve in a specific way, as summarized in Table 4.2.

Another way of representing the relationship between individual and organizational learning over time is to chart a “maturity” arc to illustrate the evolutionary life cycle of technology and organiza- tional learning. I call this arc the ROD arc. The arc is designed to assess individual development in four distinct sectors of ROD, each in relation to five developmental stages of organizational learning. Thus, each sector of ROD can be measured in a linear and inte- grated way. Each stage in the course of the learning development

of an organization reflects an underlying principle that guides the process of ROD norms and behaviors; specifically, it guides orga- nizations in how they view and use the ROD components available to them.

The arc is a classificatory scheme that identifies progressive stages in the assimilated uses of ROD. It reflects the perspective— paralleling Knefelkamp’s (1999) research—that individuals in an organization are able to move through complex levels of thinking, and to develop independence of thought and judgment, as their careers progress within the management structures available to them. Indeed, assimilation to learning at specific levels of opera- tions and management are not necessarily an achievable end but one that fits into the psychological perspective of what productive employees can be taught about ROD adaptability. Figure 4.9 illus- trates the two axes of the arc.

The profile of an individual who assimilates the norms of ROD can be characterized in five developmental stages (vertical axis) along four sectors of literacy (horizontal axis). The arc character- izes an individual at a specific level in the organization. At each level, the arc identifies individual maturity with ROD, specifically strategic integration, cultural assimilation, and the type of learning process (i.e., individual vs. organizational). The arc shows how each tier integrates with another, what types of organizational learning theory best apply, and who needs to be the primary driver within the organization. Thus, the arc provides an organizational schema for how each conceptual component of organizational learning applies to each sector of ROD. It also identifies and constructs a path for those individuals who want to advance in organizational rank; that is, it can be used to ascertain an individual’s ability to cope with ROD requirements as a precursor for advancement in management. Each position within a sector, or cell, represents a specific stage of development within ROD. Each cell contains spe- cific definitions that can be used to identify developmental stages of ROD and organizational learning maturation. Figure 4.10 rep- resents the ROD arc with its cell definitions. The five stages of the arc are outlined as follows:

1. Operational knowledge: Represents the capacity to learn, con- ceptualize, and articulate key issues relating to how technology can have an impact on existing processes and organizational structure. Organizational learning is accomplished through individual learning actions, particularly reflective practices. This stage typically is the focus for operations personnel, who are usually focused on their personal perspectives of how technology affects their daily activities.

2. Department/unit view as other: Indicates the ability to inte- grate points of view about using technology from diverse indi- viduals within the department or business unit. Using these new perspectives, the individual is in position to augment his or her understanding of technology and relate it to others within the unit. Operations personnel participate in small- group learning activities, using reflective practices. Lower levels of middle managers participate in organizational learn- ing that is in transition, from purely individual to group-level thinking.

3. Integrated disposition: Recognizes that individual and depart- mental views on using technology need to be integrated to form effective business unit objectives. Understanding that organizational and cultural shifts need to include all mem- ber perspectives, before formulating departmental decisions, organizational learning is integrated with middle managers, using communities of practice at the department level.

4. Stable operations: Develops in relation to competence in sec- tors of ROD appropriate for performing job duties for emerg- ing technologies, not merely adequately, but competitively, with peers and higher-ranking employees in the organization. Organizational learning occurs at the organizational level and uses forms of social discourse to support organizational transformation.

5. Organizational leadership: Ability to apply sectors of ROD to multiple aspects of the organization. Department concepts can be propagated to organizational levels, including strate- gic and cultural shifts, relating to technology opportunities. Organizational learning occurs using methods of knowledge management with executive support. Individuals use their technology knowledge for creative purposes. They are will- ing to take risks using critical discernment and what Heath (1968) calls “freed” decision making.

The ROD arc addresses both individual and organizational learning. There are aspects of Senge’s (1990) “organizational” approach that are important and applicable to this model. I have mentioned its appropriateness in regard to the level of the manager—suggesting that the more senior manager is better posi- tioned to deal with nonevent learning practices. However, there is yet another dimension within each stage of matured learning. This dimension pertains to timing. The timing dimension focuses on a multiple-phase approach to maturing individual and organiza- tional learning approaches. The multiple phasing of this approach suggests a maturing or evolutionary learning cycle that occurs over time, in which individual learning fosters the need and the acceptance of organizational learning methods. This process can be applied within multiple tiers of management and across differ- ent business units.

The ROD arc can also be integrated with the applied individual learning wheel. The combined models show the individual’s cycle of learning along a path of maturation. This can be graphically shown to reflect how the wheel turns and moves along the continuum of the arc (Figure 4.11).

Figure 4.11 shows that an experienced technology learner can maximize learning by utilizing all four quadrants in each of the maturity stages. It should be clear that certain quadrants of indi- vidual learning are more important to specific stages on the arc. However, movement through the arc is usually not symmetrical; that is, individuals do not move equally from stage to stage, within the dimensions of learning (Langer, 2003). This integrated and multiphase method uses the applied individual learning wheel with the arc. At each stage of the arc, an individual will need to draw on the different types of learning that are available in the learning wheel. Figure 4.12 provides an example of this con- cept, which Knefelkamp calls “multiple and simultaneous” (1999), meaningthat learning can take on multiple meanings across dif- ferent sectors simultaneously.

Figure 4.12 shows that the dimension variables are not necessarily parallel in their linear maturation. This phenomenon is not unusual with linear models, and in fact, is quite normal. However, it also reflects the complexity of how variables mature, and the importance of having the capability and infrastructure to determine how to measure such levels of maturation within dimensions. There are both qualitative and quantitative approaches to this analysis. Qualitative approaches typically include interviewing, ethnographic-type experiences over

some predetermined time period, individual journals or diaries, group meetings, and focus groups. Quantitative measures involve the cre- ation of survey-type measures; they are based on statistical results from answering questions that identify the level of maturation of the individual.

The learning models that I elaborate in this chapter are suggestive of the rich complexities surrounding the learning process for indi- viduals, groups, and entire organizations. This chapter establishes a procedure for applying these learning models to technology-specific situations. It demonstrates how to use different phases of the learning process to further mature the ability of an organization to integrate technology strategically and culturally.

Question – 2 Article

The Role of Line Management

In Chapter 1, the results of the Ravell case study demonstrated the importance of the role that line managers have, for the success of imple- menting organizational learning, particularly in the objective of inte- grating the information technology (IT) department. There has been much debate related to the use of event-driven learning. In particular, there is Senge’s (1990) work from his book, The Fifth Discipline. While overall, I agree with his theories, I believe that there is a need to critique some of his core concepts and beliefs. That is, Senge tends to make broad generalizations about the limits of event-driven education and learning in organizations. He believes that there is a limitation of learn- ing from experience because it can create limitations to learning based on actions—as he asks: “What happens when we can no longer observe the consequences of our actions?” (Senge, 1990, p. 23).

My research has found that event-driven learning is essential to most workers who have yet to learn through other means. I agree with Senge that not all learning can be obtained through event-oriented thinking, but I feel that much of what occurs at this horizon pertains more to the senior levels than to what many line managers have to deal with as part of their functions in business. Senge’s concern with learn- ing methods that focus too much on the individual, perhaps, is more powerful, if we see the learning organization as starting at the top and then working its way down. The position, however, particularly with respect to the integration of technology, is that too much dependence on executive-driven programs to establish and sustain organizational learning, is dangerous. Rather, the line management—or middle managers who fundamentally run the business—is best positioned to make the difference. My hypothesis here is that both top-down and bottom-up approaches to organizational learning are riddled with problems, especially in their ability to sustain outcomes. We cannot be naïve—even our senior executives must drive results to maintain their positions. As such, middle managers, as the key business drivers, must operate in an event- and results-driven world—let us not under- estimate the value of producing measurable outcomes, as part of the ongoing growth of the organizational learning practicum.

To explore the role of middle managers further, I draw on the inter- esting research done by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). These research- ers examined how Japanese companies manage knowledge creation, by using an approach that they call “middle-up-down.” Nonaka and Takeuchi found that middle managers “best communicate the contin- uous iterative process by which knowledge is created” (p. 127). These middle managers are often seen as leaders of a team, or task, in which a “spiral conversion process” operates and that requires both executive and operations management personnel. Peters and Waterman (1982), among others, often have attacked middle managers as representing a layer of management that creates communication problems and inef- ficiencies in business processes that resulted in leaving U.S. workers trailing behind their international competitors during the automobile crisis in the 1970s. They advocate a “flattening” of the never-ending levels of bureaucracy responsible for inefficient operations. However, executives often are not aware of details within their operating depart- ments and may not have the ability or time to acquire those details. Operating personnel, on the other hand, do not possess the vision and business aptitudes necessary to establish the kind of knowledge creation that fosters strategic learning.

Middle managers, or what I prefer to identify as line managers (Langer, 2001b), possess an effective combination of skills that can pro- vide positive strategic learning infrastructures. Line managers under- stand the core issues of productivity in relation to competitive operations and return on investment, and they are much closer to the day-to-day activities that bring forth the realities of how, and when, new strategic processes can be effectively implemented. While many researchers, such as Peters and Waterman, find them to be synonymous with backward- ness, stagnation, and resistance to change, middle managers are the core group that can provide the basis for continuous innovation through strategic learning. It is my perspective that the difference of opinion regarding the positive or negative significance middle managers have in relation to organizational learning has to do with the wide-ranging variety of employees who fall into the category of “middle.” It strikes me that Peters and Waterman were somewhat on target with respect to a certain population of middle managers, although I would not char- acterize them as line managers. To justify this position, it is important to clearly establish the differences. Line managers should be defined as pre-executive employees who have reached a position of managing a business unit that contains some degree of return on investment for the business. In effect, I am suggesting that focusing on “middle” manag- ers, as an identifiable group, is too broad. Thus, there is a need to further delineate the different levels of what comprises middle managers, and their roles in the organization.

Line Managers

These individuals usually manage an entire business unit and have “return-on-investment” responsibilities. Line managers should be categorized as those who have middle managers reporting to them; they are, in effect, managers of managers, or, as in some organiza- tions, they serve a “directorial” function. Such individuals are, in many ways, considered future executives and perform many low-end executive tasks. They are, if you will, executives in training. What is significant about this managerial level is the knowledge it carries about operations. However, line managers are still involved in daily operations and maintain their own technical capabilities.

FirstLine Managers

First-line individuals manage nonmanagers but can have supervisory employees who report to them. They do not carry the responsibility for a budget line unit but for a department within the unit. These managers have specific goals that can be tied to their performance and to the department’s productivity.

Supervisor

A supervisor is the lowest-level middle manager. These individu- als manage operational personnel within the department. Their management activities are typically seen as “functions,” as opposed to managing an entire operation. These middle managers do not have other supervisors or management-level personnel reporting to them. We should remember that definitions typically used to character- ize the middle sectors of management, as described by researchers like Peters, Nonaka, and others, do not come from exact science. The point must be made that middle managers cannot be categorized by a single definition. The category requires distinctive definitions within each level of stratification presented. Therefore, being more specific about the level of the middle manager can help us determine the man- ager’s role in the strategic learning process. Given that Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) provide the concept of middle-up-down as it related to knowledge management, I wish to broaden it into a larger sub- ject of strategic learning, as a method of evolving changes in culture and organizational thinking. Furthermore, responsive organizational dynamism (ROD), unlike other organizational studies, represents both situational learning and ongoing evolutionary learning require- ments. Evolutionary learning provides a difficult challenge to organi- zational learning concepts. Evolutionary learning requires significant contribution from middle managers. To understand the complexity of the middle manager, all levels of the organization must be taken into consideration. I call this process management vectors.

Social Networks and Information Technology

The expansion of social networks, through the use of technological innovations, has substantially changed the way information flows in and out of a business community. Some companies, particularly in the financial services communities, have attempted to “lock out” social network capabilities. These attempts are ways for organizations to control, as opposed to change, behavior. Historically, such controls to enforce compliance have not worked. This is particularly relevant because of the emergence of a younger generation of workers who use social networking tools as a regular way to communicate and carry out discourse. Indeed, social networking has become the main vehicle for social discourse both inside and outside organizations. There are those who feel that the end of confidentiality may be on the horizon. This is not to suggest that technology executives give up on security—we all know this would be ludicrous. On the other hand, the increasing pressure to “open” the Web will inevitably become too significant to ignore. Thus, the technology executive of the future must be prepared to provide desired social and professional networks to their employees while figuring out how to minimize risk—certainly not an easy objec- tive. Organizations will need to provide the necessary learning tech- niques to help employees understand the limits of what can be done.

We must remember that organizations, governments, and busi- nesses have never been successful at controlling the flow of information to any population to or from any specific interest group—inevitably, information flows through. As stated by Cross and Thomas (2009), “The network perspective could trigger new approaches to organiza- tion design at a time when environmental and competitive conditions seem to be exhausting conventional wisdom” (p. 186). Most important is the understanding that multinational organizations need to think globally and nationally at the same time. To do this, employees must transform their behavior and how they interact. Controlling access does not address this concern; it only makes communication more difficult and therefore does not provide a solution. Controls typically manifest themselves in the form of new processes and procedures. I often see technology executives proclaiming the need to change pro- cesses in the name of security without really understanding that they are not providing a solution, but rather, fostering new procedures that will allow individuals to evade the new security measures. As Cross and Thomas (2009) point out, “Formal structures often overlook the fact that every formal organization has in its shadow an informal or ‘invis- ible’ organization” (p. 1). Instead, technology executives concerned with security, need to focus on new organizational design to assist businesses to be “social network ready.” ROD must then be extended to allow for the expansion of social network integration, including, but not limited to, such products as Linkedln, Facebook, and Twitter. It may also be necessary to create new internal network infrastruc- tures that specifically cater to social network communication.

Many software application companies have learned that compat- ibility in an open systems environment is a key factor for success- ful deployment of an enterprise-wide application solution. Thus, all applications developed within or for an organization need to have compatibility with the common and popular social network products. This popularity is not static, but rather, a constant process of deter- mining which products will become important social networks that the company may want to leverage. We see social networks having such an impact within the consumer environment—or what we can consider to be the “market.” I explained in my definition of ROD that it is the acceleration of market changes—or the changing relationship between a buyer and seller—that dictates the successes and failures of businesses. That said, technology executives must focus their attention on how such networks will require their organizations to embrace them. Obviously, this change carries risks. Adapting too early could be overreacting to market hype, while lagging could mean late entry.

The challenge, then, for today’s technology leaders is to create dynamic, yet functional, social networks that allow businesses to compete while maintaining the controls they must have to protect themselves. The IT organization must concentrate on how to provide the infrastructure that allows these dynamic connections to be made without overcontrol. The first mission for the technology executive is to negotiate this challenge by working with the senior management of the organization to reach consensus on the risk factors. The issues typically involve the processes, behavior patterns, and risks shown in Figure 5.6.

Ultimately, the technology executive must provide a new road map that promotes interagency and cross-customer collaboration in a way

136 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Figure 5.6 Social network management issues.

that will assist the organization to attain a ROD culture. Social net- works are here to stay and will continue to necessitate 24/7 access for everyone. This inevitably raises salient issues relating to the manage- ment structure within businesses and how best to manage them.

In Chapter 2, I defined the IT dilemma in a number of contexts. During an interview, a chief executive raised an interesting issue that relates to the subject: “My direct reports have been complaining that because of all this technology that they cannot get away from—that their days never seem to end.” I responded to this CEO by asking, “Why are they e-mailing and calling

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.