Review group workplace case: compare similarities and differences and develop a table evidencing this.
I have developed the 12 items into three parts according to the questionnaire, and put the different item scores into one bar of each person. At last, I have put 12 items scores together, making two kinds of charts to analysis the similarities and differences of our group workplace.(I think personal factors has greatly affected the final score.)
1. Learning organization scores summary
From the bar chart, we can seem that Tony’s school gets the lowest score, while Chris and me in school level get high score, the different between Tony and Chris (me) may be the macro environment. The macro environment decides the way of being a learning organization, it includes culture, teaching idea, leadership style etc. Senge (1990) defines the Learning Organization as the organization "in which you cannot not learn because learning is so insinuated into the fabric of life." Tony’s organization pay more attention to individual development (I guess), while Chris, Jeff and me, our organization do as Senge defines learning organization "a group of people continually enhancing their capacity to create what they want to create."
For this bar chart, I want to say that Chris’s organization does will in this part, not only in library level but also in university level. The difference between our three and Chris, I have thought for a long time, maybe the reason is the organization where Chris work at is a famous international university, it have many resource than other college, and mainland university. More money support the organization operation, so in such five aspect, Chris’s organization is far ahead. Another thing I want to mention is that “Concrete learning processes and practices” totally depends on the scale of the organization. This part just like recourse supporting, university has its unique advantages than lower education school, such as primary school.
This part, I think most about the leadership. Senge (1990) argues that the leader's role in the Learning Organization is that of a designer, teacher, and steward who can build shared vision and challenge prevailing mental models. He/she is responsible for building organizations where people are continually expanding their capabilities to shape their future -- that is, leaders are responsible for learning. Chris saied he had a good leader who willing to accpet the reflection from his staffs and will plan a lots of useful activities to enhance the his group. It just like a bottom-top leadership. In mainland university, leader willing to enhance the learning organizaition but many factors influence the process and result of to be a learning organization. Seeing Jeff’s score I do not know the reason.
.png)
Hi Andy,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting comments. While HKBU may not be among the top tier of world-class universities (although I'm sure our senior managers are working on a plan to get us there) it is very true when you say that we have relatively more resources to spend on training and development than perhaps a local primary school has.
Although resources are important, leadership is needed too. Today we just had a training session on a new discovery service the Library will launch soon. Our University Librarian made it very clear that professional staff were expected to attend (although he did not explicitly make it mandatory). The senior leaders also set an example by attending the session themselves.
Hi Chris,
DeleteBesides resources, I agree with you that training is very important. Just like, you have a good performance vehicle, but you do not have a skilled driver.
Andy:
ReplyDeleteI think the cumulative table you use is particularly effective in showing each of our overall positive perceptions of the workplace.
You make a perceptive comment about the macro environment and the effect it has. At a school-wide level, that environment is far more dynamic and impacted by external forces. It is more resistant to ideas as it needs to absorb these then disseminate them to a range of differing faculties with different needs. One faculty may benefit from one idea, but another may not. So it is far more hit and miss in terms of lower level acceptance of change. My results for the department level are far more positive as the group is smaller and more inclined to be aligned to my needs.