015-0013

An Integrative Thinking Approach to Organizational Learning

Dr Pauline Found, Cardiff University, Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff, CF24 4AY, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)29 2064 7022. Email: FoundPA1@cardiff.ac.uk

Robert Kearney, GKN Aerospace, PO Box 500, Golf Course Lane, Filton BS34 9AU, United Kingdom Tel: +44(0) 117 317 5000. Email: robert.kearney@gknaerospace.com

POMS 21st Annual Conference

Vancouver, Canada

May 7 to May 10, 2010

AbstractThis paper investigates the problem of what affects the learning process. The nature of

learning is defined as a “Mess”, where many factors interrelate. Integrative thinking is chosen

as the method to investigate this Mess. The literature of organizational learning and the

learning organization is reviewed, as well as the differing definitions of what constitutes

learning. The concepts of system thinking and system dynamics are then used to determine

causality between factors that affect learning. The paper reports the findings of recent

research which concludes that the senior managers have the most effect on employee

learning, until peer pressure outweighs this. This is governed by a formula that can be applied

to determine the relationship.

IntroductionThere is a desire to create a workforce that improves itself of its own free will; one that does

not need projects imposed on them, and audits of previously imposed solutions to maintain

them. The question is how do we achieve this? Some of the problems with conventional

management thinking such as poor system, and poor behavior of both managers and workers

exacerbate the problem. This paper will attempt to investigate the main issues, and propose

some way forward for the future to achieve an engaged and truly ‘Lean’ environment. A

principle that comes to mind is that people are not responsible for their behavior; the system

is (Deming, 1986). How then, can a system be designed so that people want to improve? Is

this even possible? Is the system the correct thing to focus on?

This paper attempts to unravel the problem of achieving Continuous Improvement (CI). We

begin first by looking at Lean and CI’s role within it. We then move on to look at what sort of

problem achieving CI is, and how we might best think about this. System dynamics and the

learning processes are then covered, which lead to a literature survey on factors that may

prevent learning. These factors are investigated as the part of the research and the results are

analyzed and presented. Finally conclusions and suggestions for further work are proposed.

Relationship to Existing LiteratureContinuous Improvement (CI) is being investigated within the context of a Lean

manufacturing environment. Lean is the formal label created in the 1980s by Krafcik

(Krafcik, 1988) and popularized by Womack and Jones to describe their findings of how

Japanese manufactures were significantly outperforming western companies. Lean was

defined as having five principles (Womack & Jones, 1991):

1. Specify Value from the customer’s perspective

2. Identify the Value Stream

3. Make the value Flow

4. At the Pull of the customer

5. Strive for Perfection

The Lean Enterprise Institute (LEI) defines the core idea of Lean as being:

“..to maximize value whilst minimizing waste. A Lean organization

understands customer value and focuses their key processes to continually

meet those needs.”

The use of the word continually and the fifth principle of Lean, striving for perfection;

indicates that Continuous Improvement (CI) is central to this definition of Lean as companies

change and adapt to changing customer requirements and market needs.

A law of ecology states that for an organism to survive, its learning must be equal to or

greater than the rate of change of its environment (Revans, 1982):

L ≥ C

The rate of change of the business environment is governed by incremental changes, as

existing products are developed; and more drastic shifts, as entirely new products enter the

market. It would appear then, that it would be beneficial to look at how to create learning as a

whole, and not specify incremental or breakthrough activities (or Continuous Improvement

and Continuous Innovation).

This changing market is a result of a more knowledge driven economy:

“Productivity and competitiveness are, by and large, a function of knowledge

generation and information processing: firms and territories are organized in

networks of production, management and distribution; the core economic

activities are global – that is they have the capacity to work as a unit in real

time, or chosen time, on a planetary scale.” (Castells, 2001:52)

Learning is key to maintaining a competitive advantage within this changing knowledge

based economy. It is worth pointing out that a recent book from the LEI is entitled

“Managing to Learn” (Shook, 2008). The key point of this is that the A3 report drives a

method of thinking that ‘reframes all activities as learning activities at every level of the

organization’. This highlights the role of learning within a Lean organization.

Achieving learning within an organization can be considered a problem that needs to be

solved. All problems are not of the same type. This section looks at different problems types

and a thinking method that can be applied to them. Learning is defined as one of these

problems types and a method of thought to investigate the problem is selected.

Before designing a solution to a problem, the problem itself must be framed and specified

(Lockard, 2000).

Problems have been separated out into two types (Rittel & Webber, 1973):

Tame problems

Wicked problems

The concept of a wicked problem was originally developed in the social planning sphere

(Ritchety, 2008). But the concept has been applied to strategic planning (Camillus, 2008).

Tame problems possess the following characteristics (Conklin, 2001):

1. They have a well-defined and stable problem statement.

2. They have a definite stopping point.

3. They have a solution that can be objectively evaluated as being right or

wrong.

4. They belong to a class of similar problems that can be solved in a similar

manner.

5. They have solutions that can be tried and abandoned.

Wicked problems, on the other hand, have the following characteristics (Rittel & Webber,

1973):

1. There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem.

2. Wicked problems have no stopping rules.

3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but better or worse.

4. There is no immediate and ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.

5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one shot operation”; because

there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts

significantly.

6. Wicked problems do not have an exhaustively describable set of potential

solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that

may be incorporated into the plan.

7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.

8. Every wicked problem can be a considered to be a symptom of another

wicked problem.

9. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The

choice of explanation determines the nature of the problems resolution.

10. The planner has no right to be wrong.

A wicked problem may possess some, or all, of these ten characteristics (Camillus, 2008).

Wicked problems are also defined as being divergent (Hancock, 2004). A tame problem is

convergent, in that the more it is studied; the more solutions eventually converge. Divergent

problems do not promise solutions – the more they are studied, the more differing solutions

are presented.

An alternative definition of a problem is a Mess (Ackoff, 1974, Horn, 2001). A Mess is a set

of interdependent problems that are identifiable only by their interaction. The solution needs

to be designed to be able to respond to the Mess. The solution cannot be the aggregation of

independently obtained solutions to the parts. It needs to be dealt with as a whole

systematically. (Ackoff, 1981).

These competing definitions can be drawn together to give the following problem types:

Figure 1 Matrix of problems types

This can be compared to the Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007)

This gives us to four problem types:

Tame – convergent problem. - simple

Mess – convergent ‘Wicked’ problem. - complicated

Wicked – divergent problem. - complex

Black Holes – a divergent tame problem. – Chaotic. A black hole exists if the

same actions are applied repeatedly eventhough there is evidence that they are

not giving the desired effect.

The nature of the problem will determine how the problem can be solved. Tame problems can

be solved by a linear process of data collection, analysis, formulation of a solution and

implementation (Hancock, 2005). Messes and Wicked Problems, on the other hand, need to

be understood by modeling. The problem cannot be broken down into distinct components

that are then solved and the component bolted together to create a solution (Ackoff, 1981).

So what sort of problem is creating organizational learning? The problem must be convergent

as others have achieved it, the most obvious example being Toyota, in that employees work

to improve their process (Spear & Bowen, 1999, Liker, 2004). However, there are many

relationships between different factors that make it complex, or a Mess. A method is required

to help build understanding of this complexity and how to untangle it.

Since Taylor and the scientific method (Taylor, 1947), attempts have been made to see

problems in different lights and therefore reach different and better solutions than previously

thought achievable. It is now possible to design a way of thinking based on how the mind

actually works which will help to avoid a mindset of judgment, which although useful, is not

enough to deal with complex problems (de Bono, 2009). How a problem is thought about

provides the highest leverage for developing a better solution within both manufacturing

(Shook, 2008) and services (Seddon, 2005).

Integrative thinking (Martin, 2007) is emerging as a framework for combining together a

number of different tools, techniques and ideas into a whole thought process, which lends

itself to looking at Messes and Wicked Probelms. This framework is based on the four-stage

model shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2 The Integrative thinking model (Martin, 2008)

Each stage is described in more detail.

1. Salience

Salience is the first step. Information that is deemed to be relevant to the problem is

determined. Perception is responsible for over 90% of errors in thinking (de Bono, 2000). It is

this step which attempts to negate this by taking into consideration more salient information

than would normally be the case. The concept of mental models is used to achieve this.

Humans do not perceive reality, but a mental model of reality that is composed of the

information that the individual finds relevant (Sterman, 2003). Each individual will create a

different mental model. This difference in models creates conflict. It is normal to advocate

one’s own model to prove the other incorrect. Integrative thinking recognises that all models

are wrong, and the conflict of models merely shows more salient information from other

models that need to be considered. This is supported by Mitroff, who states:

“A single view or perspective of any problem is automatically wrong. It cannot hope

to capture all of the subtleties and the complexities that are characteristics of real

problems.” (Mitroff, 2004, citied in Martin, 2008)

2. Causality

Using tools such as Casual Loop Diagrams (CLD) (Senge, 1990) and System Dynamics

(Forrester, 1961), causal links between salient information are constructed. This helps to deal

with the complexity of the model and also helps ensures a lasting solution is developed.

3. Architecture

With causality between salient information determined, a solution is designed. The concept of

design is becoming an increasingly common theme among business thinking (Martin, 2007)

(Seddon, 2003) (de Bono, 2000) (Neumeier, 2008) and is set against the traditional

judgmental method of architecture (de Bono, 2009). The design process is key to this stage of

working (Brown, 2008). The design process can be loosely described as a three-stage

process:

1. Inspiration

2. Ideasation

3. Implementation

The process often feels chaotic to those used to linear, milestone based processes which are

typical in most modern organizations (Brown, 2008). A project may loop back to previous

stages as prototyping and learning occur.

4. Resolution

Once the designed solution is implemented further salient and causal information may

become evident and these problems are feed back into the solution to refine its design.

It is interesting to point out the similarities to the methodology used in Managing to Learn

(Shook, 2008), which used a three-step process of understanding causality, seeking

predictability and reflection to ensure learning.

Based on the literature, we assume that continuous improvement (CI) is a Mess, and not a

Wicked problem as CI has been achieved in other areas, Toyota being the obvious example.

As the problem is a Mess, some method of understanding it is required. Integrative thinking

has been selected as this method. The study reviewed the literature to identify salient points

that may affect learning. In a second step, causality is examined using the concept of system

dynamics. A dynamic model of learning is found with two feedback loops, one for learning a

new skill and one for forgetting this new skill. The salient points were added to each of these

feedback loops. The model shows there is a tipping point in the learning process.

Figure 4. The learning process

A number of factors may affect the learning process. Organizational defensive routines which

protect individuals, groups and organizations from embarrassment or threat (Arygris, 1990),

(Argyris, 2002). This prevents learning. It tends to be the case that the recommendations

made to negate these routines reinforce the causes of them. Companies tend to make two

mistakes in their efforts to become a learning organization:

1) Learning is defined too narrowly as problem solving. This focuses the learning

experience on the external environment. It is argued that if learning is to be

successful, people must look inwards; to reflect critically on their own behavior and

identify ways they inadvertently affect the organizations problems.

2) Assuming getting people to learn is largely a matter of motivation.

This means organizations tend to focus on:

New organization structures

Compensation programs

Performance reviews

Corporate cultures

Double loop learning however, is not a reflection of how people feel (i.e. are they motivated

or not), it is a function of how they think, and how they think is made up of the cognitive

rules people use to design and implement their behavior. To avoid these problems companies

must make the ways managers, and employees, reason about their behavior a focus of

organizational learning and CI programs. Therefore a key factor in preventing learning is not

employees’ attitudes about change or commitment to CI, but the way they reason their

behavior and that of others. A theory of action that controls behavior is created which is

designed to consistently modify behavior according to four basic values:

1. To remain in unilateral control

2. To maximize winning and minimize losing

3. Suppress negative feelings

4. To be as rational as possible.

The purpose of these is to avoid embarrassment or threat, and causes people to keep private

the premises, inferences and conclusions that shape their behavior and avoid testing them in

an objective fashion. By not sharing their theory of actions, people’s behavior is not affected,

and this causes them to revert to type when moved into a new role, further preventing

learning (Garratt, 1990).

Focusing on an individual’s attitudes or commitment is never enough to produce real change.

Even when people are genuinely committed to improving their performance and management

has changed its structure in order to encourage the right behavior, people still remain locked

in defensive reasoning.

To prevent this, the first step is for managers to examine their own behaviors critically and

change their own theories of action. Unless this occurs any change activity will be short

lived. Change has to begin at the top otherwise defensive senior managers are likely to

disown any transformation in reasoning patterns coming from below. This indicates that a

perceived lack of learning at the bottom of an organization may be due to a lack of learning at

the top.

The role of managers is further developed by Lawrence & Losh (1967), where it is stated that

their behavior is heavily influenced by their cognitive emotional orientation. This is

comprised of time, interpersonal and the quality and degree of the organizations structure’s

formality.

Further investigating the cognitive aspects of learning, it is argued that the mindset that

promotes efficient execution inhibits employee’s ability to learn and innovate by preventing

experimentation and reflection on mistakes (Edmondson, 2008). This work identifies four

practices, which will form the basis of a learning infrastructure:

1. Using best knowledge to design specific process guidelines.

2. Enabling employees to collaborate in real time.

3. Routinely capturing process data to discover how things are done.

4. Reflecting in an effort to find ways to improve.

The work goes on to state four points that negatively affect learning:

1. Critical information and ideas fail to rise to the top – people become reluctant to take

up managers’ time with anything other than certain and positive information. They do

not offer concerns, ideas, or question what they are being told. This links to employee

performance reviews, as no one wants to admit mistakes – the environment becomes

one of survival, rather than one of learning (Seddon, 2005).

2. People don’t have enough time to learn – switching to a new approach can lower

performance in the short run. Managers that overemphasize efficiency discourage

employees from adopting new approaches.

3. Unhealthy internal competition arises - high performing individuals or plants are often

rewarded. This can make people reluctant to share ideas or best practices. An idea is

to develop absolute rather than relative performance incentives.

4. Companies think they can do no wrong - if a company is successful whilst inhibiting

learning, then the management team will associate efficiency with high performance

and therefore drive more of the same behaviors.

To institutionalize learning, the environment must be made safe. Organizations must foster

psychological safety. Toyota is given as a company that has enabled this by constantly

encouraging employees to find problems. Psychological safety is crucial if employees are to

collaborate and make decisions without management supervision, which are classic

components of a Lean method of management. (Edmondson, 2008)

The most important influence in psychological safety is the nearest manager. People in power

are critical to employees’ ability and willingness to offer ideas and observations. To prevent

this, middle managers can acknowledge the lack of answers to the tough problems groups

face, ask questions, show their knowledge is fallible and encourage questions to be asked.

Continuing with the cognitive aspect Dweck (2007) has shown that the way a task is viewed

will affect persistence and performance at a task. A task can be seen as opportunity to prove

your intelligence, or as an opportunity to learn. People with the former view pick easier tasks,

which tend not to involve the requirement for new learning. This same mindset causes

managers to promote decisiveness, efficiency and action rather than reflective inquiry and

collaboration.

This links learning to decision-making - a poor decision may be due a lack of learning. Two

key factors exists which might affect the decision making process (Campbell & Whitehead,

2009):

1. Pattern Recognition –faced with a new situation the brain makes an assumption based

on previous experiences. Managers tend to use approaches that were successful in

previous organizations, to find they will not work.

2. Emotional Tagging – a method by which managers determine what information to pay

attention to, or not, based on previous experience.

Organizations tend to learn from experience, but in some cases history does not provide

enough experience. As a result what small experience there may be, or is similar is amplified

and new factors added to it (Campbell, 1979).

A gap exists between knowing and doing (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Five points which causes

this gap are outlined:

Talk being used as a substitute for action.

Memory being used as a substitute for thinking.

Fear prevents acting on knowledge.

Measurement system obscure good judgment.

Internal competition prevents collaboration.

Other fields such as intervention theory (Argyris, 1971), employee engagement (Kahn, 1990),

social capital (Cohen & Prusak, 2001) and innovation (Martins & Terblanche, 2003) will

have some similarities with learning, but for space reasons they are not shown here.

Research MethodsCritical Realists believe that both quantitative and qualitative approaches are valuable and

defend multiple methods in the search for causal relationships (Ackroyd, 2004). This

approach allows for rich and deep information to be gathered using a wide range of

techniques. There are criticisms of each method used that must be individually

acknowledged. There are also difficulties in drawing comparisons between quantitative and

qualitative approaches. However, by doing this each method helps validate the other so that

misinterpretation is minimized (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This study takes a critical realist

perspective to answer the following questions:

Does the system have the greatest impact on a persons’ ability to learn?

Does the individual themselves have the greatest impact on their ability to lean?

What factor is responsible for the tipping point in learning?

How can a system be designed to promote learning?

How does modern management affect learning?

A case study based approach using multiple research methods was selected for this research.

The research tools included a questionnaire of all the Production Team Leaders and

Production Unit Managers in a single site of a major aerospace company based in the UK.

This was followed by semi-structured interviews and a review of the secondary data.

Case based research is an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon

with real life context when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly

understood (Brannick, 1977). A case study methodology is appropriate for organizational and

management studies in answering both the why, what and how of the research subject (Yin,

1994)

It is not intended that the case study be used to create a general theory of behavior for an

entire industry, but to shed light on some of the potential factors which may be affecting the

case study organization at the time the research is carried out.

FindingsBased on the research, a model for learning at the case-study site can be created (Fig 5).

Figure 5 Model of Learning at Case Study Site

Research has shown that the individuals are often motivated to learn, but there are a number

of factors that would allow them to make more improvements. These should be addressed to

promote learning. This can be thought of as single loop learning, where we attempt to get

better at what we already do.

There appears to opportunity for double loop learning to find a higher order level of

improvement to the learning process. Though the original research may have been flawed,

this study does appear to support the theory of action put forward by Argyris and

Edmondson’s work on psychological safety, and it is worth investigating this further. The

work is based on the assumption that a person’s theory of action, and creating psychological

safety, will affect their ability to learn. A casual link can be created between the two; a

person’s theory of action may or may not create psychological safety.

Therefore the theory of action is the root cause of these two factors. A simple equation can be

used to describe this.

A person’s theory of action α person’s ability to learn

(Equation 1)

Further, Argyris also states that the theory of action of an individual’s manager will affect

their subordinate’s ability to learn and their theory of action. Statements from team leaders

support this. This can be shown as:

A person’s theory of action α Superior’s observable theory of action

(Equation 2)

Some of the statements made during the interviews indicate that more details should be added

to equation 2.

Comments made during the interviews suggested that individuals do not follow the theory of

action of the senior manager. This allows some of their own theory of action to promote

learning. This leads to equation 3

(Equation 3)

Equation 3 states that a person’s theory of action is the sum of their own values and what they

observe their manager doing. Comments made during interviews suggest that there is a

culture where employees, especially on the shop floor, can bond together to prevent

improvements being made. Therefore, we can add a factor of peer pressure to equation 3.

By plotting a simple hierarchy, it can be shown that the “Superior’s observable theory of

action” is composed of the all of the superiors’ in the hierarchy theories of action. The peer’s

observable theory of action is the sum of all the peers of that person in the hierarchy. This is

based on the assumption that peer pressure grows with the number of people acting a similar

way. It is assumed that peer pressure at one level does not affect it at another. This has links

to conformity theory that is affected by different factors (Latane, 1981). Using this, equation

3 can be modified to:

(Equation 4)

This can be re-written as:

X n=In+∑x=n

x=1

(n−x ) I x+Pn(Equation 5)

Where Xn = A persons theory of action in level n of the hierarchy

In = A persons internal theory of action in level n of the hierarchy

Pn = Sum of peer pressure at level n of the hierarchy

n = A persons level in the hierarchy

This suggests that a person’s ability to learn is affected by all of these factors. Therefore:

A person’s ability to learn = In+∑

x=n

x=1

(n−x )I x+Pn(Equation 6)

Figure 6 Graphical Representation of Equation 6

Within a hierarchy, the most senior person in a hierarchy has the largest effect on any other

person’s ability to learn. This is because their internal theory of action will always be

modified by the highest factor (n-x) when compared to others.

If we accept Deming’s philosophy for responsibility we can assume that the system has a

significantly higher impact on the performance than the individual. To illustrate this we can

take a Pareto approach considering that the individual is responsible for only 20% of their

performance (i.e. their theory of action) and the system is responsible for the remaining 80%.

Therefore:

A person’s ability to learn = 20% due to individuals theory of action + 80% due to the

system

The system part of the equation, if we follow the logic set out above in Figure 6, is defined

by:

Systems affect of an individual’s learning = μ∑

x=n

x=1

(n−x ) I x

(Equation 7)

Where μ denotes some function of a person’s internal theory of action which creates

system design.

Combining equations 5, 6 and 7 gives the final equations as being:

X x=0 .2(I n+∑x=n

x=1

(n−x ) I x+Pn)+0 .8(μ∑x=n

x=1

(n−x )I x)(Equation 8)

Figure 7. Graphical Representation of Equation 8

This clearly shows that the highest point of leverage on a person’s ability to learn is the

senior manager’s theory of action, until the point when peer pressure outweighs. This is

because senior managers drive system design in a linear fashion, whereas the peer pressure is

non-linear. This assumes the population of each level in the hierarchy grows non-linearly as

you move down the hierarchy. Until this point is reached the effect of the system is much

greater, and as the senior manager’s role in this amplified the most, this is by far the greatest

lever to improve learning. Once peer pressure takes over, the theory of action of the senior

manager becomes irrelevant. If we consider what happens if the values 0.8 and 0.2 are

changed the point of intersection will change, but there will always be a point of intersection.

This poses 4 questions:

1. What makes up a senior managers theory of action?

To answer this it would be useful to be able to describe a theory of action in

some method. It could be described as a fundamental view of human nature. It

could be described as their “ethic” which must be considered when taking a

systems view of something (Flood, 1999) A person’s theory of action could be

affected by how they see their career progression, which may call on such

things as Parkinson’s Law (Parkinson, 1955). This work could be valuable

further study for future research.

2. How can this be affected? The manager’s theory of action could be affected

using the Argyris five step plan of reflective practice.

3. How can the intersection point between system and peer pressure be found? If

the assumption that the highest person’s theory of action is the highest point of

leverage is not correct and instead it is peer pressure, this needs to be

identified. This could be done by further research into the subject, possibly by

developing a systems dynamics model.

4. What could happen once this point has been found? Two options have been

identified for the situation where peer pressure is found to be the leverage

point. Firstly, research shows that people do not behave rationally (Ariely,

2008). This could be exploited by forcing market norms to push out the social

norms created by peer pressure. Secondly, the peer pressure itself could be

leveraged. This could be done by finding the “Salesmen” and “Connectors”

(Gladwell, 2000) who create this peer pressure and using them to promote

learning. This is a management decision, which is based in the nature of

control used by the organization on its employees.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the findings of this research would indicate that, in a change program such as

Lean, the focus should be chiefly concerned with changing thinking and the base assumptions

by which things are governed; and not the application of tools. This is tied inherently to

learning. Leaders must become aware of this and make strides to improve. It may be possible

to attempt to determine Taiichi Ohno’s, Kiichiro Toyoda’s or Sōichirō Honda’s theory of

action, to see what values they have instilled in Toyota and Honda. The work also indicates

why some cultures are hard to change, as the peer pressure factor is outweighing the system.

This could be changed by focusing system design or by leveraging it. For a pragmatic

conclusion, senior managers need to do two things; reflect on their own behaviour and how

this affects learning, and reflect on the system they have created and learn from this. In

addition the intersection between peer pressure and system affects must either be moved via

system design using social and market norms, or leveraged by engaging employees. This is a

management decision on the nature of control they want to use.

ReferencesAckoff, R. 1974. Re-defining the Future. Wiley: London.

Ackroyd S, 2004, 'Methodology for management and organization studies: some implications of

critical realism ', in Critical Realist Applications in Organization and Management Studies,

(eds) Fleetwood S and Ackroyd S, Routledge, London and New York, pp 137-163.

Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for Action. A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational

Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. Schön, D. 1978. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Argyris, C. Schön, D. 1971. Intervention theory and method. New York: Addison Wesley

Longman Publishing

Ariely, D. 2008. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New

York: Harper Collins Ltd

Brannick, T. 1977. A Study of Return Emigrants in a Rural Parish. M.A. Thesis. Ireland:

University College, Dublin, Ireland.

Brehmer, B. 1980. In one word: not from experience.. Acta Psychologica 45 (1980) 223-241

Brown, T. 2008. Design thinking. Harvard Business Review. June 2008 pp. 85 92.

Camillus, J. 2008. Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review. May. Pp 98-101.

Campbell, A. Whitehead, J. Finkelstein, S. 2009. Why good leaders make bad decisions.

Harvard Business Review. February. pp 60-60.

Campbell D. 1979. Degrees of freedom and the case study. In: Cook TD, Reichardt CS,eds.

Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluations research. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979.

Castells, M. Hutton, W. 2001. On The Edge. Living with global capitalism. London: Vintage. 

Conklin, J. 2001. Wicked Problems and Social Complexity. Cog Nexus Institute. [Online].

http://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf.

Cohen, D. Prusak, L. 2001 In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work.

Harvard Business School Press: Boston

De Bono, E. 2000. New thinking for the new millennium. London: Penguin Books.

De Bono, E. 2009. Think! Before it’s too late. London: Penguin Books.

Deming, W.E. 1986 Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Denrell, J. March, J. 2001. Adaptation as Information Restriction: The Hot Stove Effect.

Organization Science. Vol. 12, No. 5, September-October, pp. 523-538.

Dweck, C. 2007. Mindset: The new Psychology of Success. London: Random House.

Flood, R. (1999). Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. Oxford:

Routledge.

Forrester, J. 1994. System Dynamics, System Thinking, and Soft OR. System Dynamics Review.

Summer 1994, Vol. 10, No. 2

Forrester, J. 1958. Industrial Dynamics Harvard Business Review. July August pp. 37-66.

Garratt, B. 1990. Creating a learning organization. Cambridge: Director Books.

Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point. Boothbay: Abacus.

Hancock, D 2004. Tame problems and Wicked messes. The RMA Journal. July – August.

Horn, R. 2001. Knowledge mapping for complex social messes. Presentation to the

“Foundations in the Knowledge Economy” at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, July

16, 2001 http://www.stanford.edu/~rhorn/SpchPackard.html

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

Krafcik J.F., (1988) Triumph of the Lean Production System. Sloan Management Review, Fall

88, Vol. 30 Issue 1

Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-365.

Lawrence, P. R. Losh, J, W. 1967. Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and

integration. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Liker, J. 2003. The Toyota Way. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Lockard, W. 2000. Design Drawing. London: WW Norton & Company.

Martin, R. 2008. The Opposable Mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Martins, E.C. Terblanche, T. 2003. Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and

innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management. 6:1. pp 64-74

Melnyk, S. Calantone, R. Montabon, F. Smith, R. 1998 Short-Term Action in Pursuit of Long-

Term Improvements: Introducing Kaizen Events. Production and Inventory Management

Journal, 39:4 (Fourth Quarter 1998), pp. 69-76.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

London & Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Mitroff, R. Mason (1982), "Business policy and metaphysics: Some philosophical

considerations", Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7 pp.361 - 371.

Mitroff, 2004. Interview with Roger Martin. Rotman School of Business, University of Toronto

Neumeier, M. 2008. The Designful Company. Berkeley: Peach Pit Press.

Ohno, T. 1988. Toyota Production System. New York: Productivity Press.

Pfeffer, J. Sutton, R. 2000. The knowing - Doing Gap. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Revans, R. 1982. The Origins and Growth of Action Learning. London: Chartwell-Bratt.

Rittel, H. Webber, M. 1973, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science 4 pp.

144-169.

Seddon, 2005. Freedom from command & control. Second Edition, Buckingham: Vanguard

Education limited.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Disciple. London: Random House

Shook, H. 2008. Managing to Learn. Cambridge: The Lean Enterprise Institute.

Skinner, B, F. 1953. Science and Human Behaviour. London: Macmillan.

Snowden, D. Boone, M. (2007) A Leaders Framework for Decision making. Harvard Business

Review. November pp. 69 - 76

Spear, S. Bowen, K.1999. Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System. Harvard

Business Review September - October pp. 96 –106.

Sterman, J. 2003 discussion at Rotman management school Toronto in Martin, R. 2008. The

Opposable Mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Takeuchi, H. Osono, E. Shimizu, N. 2008. The Contradictions That Drive Toyota’s Success.

Harvard Business Review. June 2008 pp. 96-104.

Taylor, F.E. 1947. Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Row.

Womack, J. Jones, D. 1999. Lean Thinking. New York: Free Press.

Womack, J. Jones, D. 1999. The machine that changed the world. 1991. New York: Harper

paperbacks.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London & Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage Publishing.