The impact of culture on the use of performance measurement information in the university setting

Vakkuri, Jarmo; Meklin, Pentti

doi:10.1108/00251740310496260

Cited by 49 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…relationships which compose and surround [the] organization'' (Meyer and Rowan, 1977, p. 341) may foster an environment more conducive to radical than incremental innovation (Powell, 1991). Presently, newspaper organizations are susceptible to change and uncertainty in knowledge domains, in new technologies, and in shifting markets, despite the newspaper's need for institutional legitimacy and stability (Vakkuri and Meklin, 2003). In uncertain times, organizations may seek ''weak ties.''…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalism, News Organizations and Innovation

Lowrey¹

2011

Journalism Studies

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalism, News Organizations and Innovation

Lowrey¹

2011

Journalism Studies

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Traditional measures such as profits may actually be undesirable because LOs should not focus on short-term solutions (Senge 1990). The impact of culture on the performance measurement within organizations is also emphasized (Vakkuri and Meklin 2003). The process of measuring learning is highly subjective because it involves tapping into people's perceptions and personal judgments.…”

Section: Measuring Organizational Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contemporary performance measurement apparatus does not meet all the requirements of knowledge-intensive organizational environment (Vakkuri and Meklin 2003). Traditional measures such as profits may actually be undesirable because LOs should not focus on short-term solutions (Senge 1990).…”

Section: Measuring Organizational Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Learning as a Continuous Process, DELO

Law

Chuah

2015

PAL Driven Organizational Learning: Theory and Practices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current literature on OL has different focuses, e.g. learning motivation; collective or team learning; learning process or system; learning culture; knowledge management; organizational development; and continuous improvement. Different perspectives are used to study OL by researchers from different disciplines. It can be said that there is no single framework for the study of OL. To have a better understanding of OL, it is thus critical to explore how an organization may be transitioned into an LO and how its OL process is initiated, driven, enabled, facilitated and measured. This chapter introduces OL as a continuous process called DELO (driving, enabling, learning and outcome). Each of the core components along the DELO process is discussed in detail. Organizational LearningCurrent literature on OL has different focuses, e.g. learning motivation; collective or team learning; learning process or system; learning culture; knowledge management; organizational development; and continuous improvement (Wang and Ahmed 2003). In this section, different focuses and perspectives of OL in the existing literature are presented, and OL is described as a continuous evolutionary process (as shown in Fig. 2.1).OL can be defined from both knowledge-level or learning-level perspectives, some questions to be answered. Perspectives of Organizational LearningDuring the last two decades, much about OL has been studied and written, on subjects such as system dynamics (Senge 1990), action-based learning (Argyris and Schon 1996;Smith and O'Neil 2003), group process, personal creative process, and collective decision and action (Issac 1993).Some researchers believed that OL is a natural tendency of an organization fighting to survive (Levitt and March 1988;Kim 1993; Miller 1996). Other thought that it is not only a form of learning or just a prescribed set of processes in the theory of levels of learning in organizations, but also rather a philosophy of organizational development (Watkins and Golembieski 1995;Argyris and Schon 1996). Over the years, some theories of OL became conceptually more complex and others more specialized. Like Senge, who considers OL from a system perspective, Nonaka (1994) focuses on the interchange of knowledge in organizations. On the other hand, some authors prescribe OL as existing processes involving activities and means that organizations use to organize knowledge with the expectation of a higher level of its usage that lead to greater competitiveness (Fulmer et al. 1998; Pemberton et al. 2001). For these authors, OL is a process by which individuals accumulate and extend knowledge based on their past experiences and their perceptions, and share and propagate it in ways that help an organization to develop Kleiner 1995, 1998;Lynn et al. 1998;Garratt 1999;Atul and Glen 2001;Ortenblad 2001).There is a wide range of beliefs of thinking about what OL is, how it occurs, and how it is applied and how it influences organization development. There is no Learning at Different LevelsSome OL theories...

show abstract

“…Accordingly, the boundaries of this visible college are the boundaries of the university. Owing to universities' organizational design, identifi cation with the employing university is particularly complex, since universities are professional and knowledgeintensive organizations (Czarniavska and Genell 2002 ;Vakkuri and Meklin 2003 ). Scholars employed in professional and knowledge-intensive organizations have distinct professional values, which they have internalized during their disciplinary scientifi c education and academic socialization.…”

Section: If I Played the Game Of Science At My University (Eg Supementioning

confidence: 99%