No abstract

Purpose During the past decades, numerous contributions to organizational learning have emerged. However, these theories are plagued by the same paradoxical core that prevents organizational learning from being unambiguously determined or stably located throughout the entire organization and its individuals. The purpose of this paper is to understand how researchers approach this issue. Design/methodology/approach Through a meta-lens, this conceptual study observes how researchers are taming the paradox of organizational learning, referring exclusively to the theories that deal with its inherent paradox. Findings The author distinguishes fundamentally different theorizing strategies. Therefore, the paper aims not to sharpen the elusive and fuzzy nature of organizational learning but to sharpen the elusive understanding that its nature is fuzzy. As a consequence, the study further emphasizes how challenging an instrumental use of the academic construct of organizational learning for practicing managers outside research laboratories is. Originality/value The paper contributes (first) to the core understanding of the inherently conflicting construct of organizational learning by (second) uncovering the dialectics of the theories concerning it – the former only becomes feasible as a result of the latter.

PurposeFor nearly three decades, numerous scholars have searched for a robust relationship between firm performance and organizational ambidexterity—so far with questionable results. The aim of this short essay is thus to critically examine the performance of applied performance measurements.Design/methodology/approachAfter discussing methodological issues and revealing a conceptually neglected “level” distinction in organizational ambidexterity studies, we contribute to conceptual clarity as to whether exploration and exploitation ought to be conceived as continuous or orthogonal.FindingsFirst, even if the dichotomy of exploration and exploitation is orthogonally conceptualized, at least one trade-off, either on the level of the explanans or the level of the explanandum, can be bypassed but cannot conceptually be denied. Second, we conclude that explaining overall firm performance with the relation of just two variables (exploration and exploitation)—referring to the inherently conflicting title of this paper, “Reduced to the Max”—is a hazardous endeavor.Research limitations/implicationsBased on these insights, future research may benefit from studying organizational ambidexterity and firm performance more qualitatively and paying more attention to the declared level distinction.Originality/valueThe paper reveals a crucial neglect of level and provides an answer to one of the core questions of organizational ambidexterity research: that of continuity vs orthogonality.

When Lisanne Bainbridge wrote about counterintuitive consequences of the increasing human–machine interaction, she concentrated on the resulting issues for system performance, stability, and safety. Now, decades later, however, the automized work environment is substantially more pervasive, sophisticated, and interactive. Current advances in machine learning technologies reshape the value, meaning, and future of the human workforce. While the ‘human factor’ still challenges automation system architects, inconspicuously new ironic settings have evolved that only become distinctly evident from a human-centered perspective. This brief essay discusses the role of the human workforce in human–machine interaction as machine learning continues to improve, and it points to the counterintuitive insight that although the demand for blue-collar workers may decrease, exactly this labor class increasingly enters more privileged working domains and establishes itself henceforth as ‘blue collar with tie.’

ZusammenfassungLängst überlassen Unternehmen ihre Modernisierung nicht mehr dem Zufall. Verankert in der Organisationsarchitektur sollen Lernroutinen (hier konzipiert als institutionalisierte Reflexivität) die Veränderungs- und damit Überlebensfähigkeit, vor allem von größeren Unternehmen in dynamischen Settings, langfristig sichern. Diese reflexiven Qualitäten zum Zwecke der Verstetigung ertragreichen Wirtschaftens bedürfen nun selbst einer Transformation, um fortan (auch) Lernprozesse vernünftigen Wirtschaftens zu stimulieren. Eine systematische Transformation zur unternehmerischen Inwertsetzung von Natur und Mensch wird in diesem Beitrag als Metareflexivität in die Debatte eingeführt. Denn wenn ertragreiches und vernünftiges Wirtschaften in einer kontradiktorischen Beziehung zueinander stehen, dürfen auch Spannungen in ihren Modernisierungsroutinen vermutet werden, die sich erst auf übergeordneter Ebene angemessen verarbeiten lassen.