DSpace at VNU: Creating learning organizations in higher education: Applying a systems perspective

Creating learning organizations in higher education: applying a systems perspective Hong Bui Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Hanoi, Vietnam, and Yehuda Baruch Norwich Business School

Creating learning organizations in higher education: applying a

systems perspective

Hong Bui Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Hanoi, Vietnam, and

Yehuda Baruch Norwich Business School, UEA, Norwich, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer an application of a system model for Senge’s five disciplines in higher education (HE) institutions.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper utilizes a conceptual framework for the analysis of antecedents and outcomes of Senge’s five disciplines, focusing on specific factors unique to the HE sector.

Findings – The explication of the model manifests its relevance and applicability for the HE sector: it represent how universities operate as learning organizations and posits the anticipated interactions among specific constructs associated with Senge’s five disciplines within the HE sector.

Practical implications – The paper manifests a causal model that links variables in the learning organization, a perspective that would be instrumental for HE institutions to achieve competitive advantage.

Originality/value – The paper provides added value both for academics and executives interested

in the analysis of the complexity of Senge’s five disciplines for HE institutions.

Keywords Higher education, Systems theory, Learning organizations Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction

In the previous paper (Bui and Baruch, 2010), we have developed a detailed model of learning organization (LO) based on Senge’s (1990, 2006) theoretical framework The model comprised of a set of antecedents, moderators and outcomes (Bui and Baruch, 2010) Our purpose was to develop a versatile LO model, which will be relevant and applicable for various sectors and industries

In this paper, we critically examine the fit of the general LO model (Hereafter, referred to as Bui and Baruch’s (2010) model) to the HE sector As shown in Bui and Baruch’s (2010) model, the five disciplines can be carefully examined with a set of antecedents, moderators and outcomes In the first part of this paper we highlight the importance and relevance of the model in the HE context The main focus of the second part is to explicate how the model may be tested in actual life settings within the HE sector For each discipline we offer possible tools to test the model in HE or in areas relevant to HE Such an explication opens the ground for further application of the model in various sectors, and is presented as an example

www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

The authors thank the Editor, Professor Deborah Blackman and the four reviewers for their great contribution and support in revising the manuscript

TLO

17,3

228

The Learning Organization

Vol 17 No 3, 2010

pp 228-242

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0969-6474

Like any other sector, the HE is under increasing pressure to improve

competitiveness The competition is getting more severe within and across national

borders (Marginson, 2007) The global phenomenon of a “brain drain” stems from such

competition However, some have pointed out that phenomenon may turn into a “brain

circulation” (Carr et al., 2005) Management needs to cope with fast social, economic

and political transitions that place demands on the system and its employees The

western HE sector is enjoying a lucrative market, but the situation may be on a change

track, as many developing countries are catching up and setting up their own high

quality HE system (for example, see Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989; Marginson, 2007)

Studying HE with regards to Senge’s learning organization (LO) model, Franklin

et al conclude that universities are distinctively privileged to explore, apply and

advance the concept of a learning organization in their own ways (Franklin et al., 1998)

At the same time, academic institutions are encouraged to adopt a systems perspective,

to develop strategies and routines for achieving organizational learning (Askling et al.,

2004) Universities may create cross-sectoral alliances, developing more forms of

cooperation with non-university sectors to cope with an increasingly demand-driven

competitive education market (Patterson, 1999) From Senge’s model it is implied that

in order to succeed, universities must become learning organizations that both learn

and foster learning

White and Weathersby (2005) list a number of obstacles that may prevent universities

from becoming learning organizations These include conundrums of strategy, structure

and culture, as well as academic culture clashes (White and Weathersby, 2005) Dill

emphasizes the need for accountability for universities in order to fulfill their aims (Dill,

1999) These are relevant at different levels, for example, academic leadership ought to be

considered a process of social interaction in guiding individuals and groups towards

particular goals (Middlehurst, 1999) Successful application of Senge’s model was

manifested in changing teacher education and professional development into an institute

for teaching and learning (Reynolds et al., 2006)

Having identified this trend, Bui and Baruch’s (2010) model may be instrumental to

HE institutions The model offers a set of clear antecedents and moderators of the five

disciplines in a systematic approach, from individual level (personal mastery) to team

level (team learning), and organizational level (shared vision) Mental model and

systems thinking cover all these three levels The aim of this paper is to manifest that

the model is feasible for implementation and is applicable to HE Further, we will

indicate how the model may be tested in HE

Testing the LO model in HE

In this section we explain the antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of the five

disciplines that are depicted in Bui and Baruch’s model for the specific context of HE

settings We investigate what we consider to be the main possible antecedents,

moderators, and outcomes of the five disciplines, and for each articulate their relevance

for the HE sector This relevance may be general, similar to many other sectors, or

unique to the HE sector We also point out possible constructs and their measurement,

while bearing in mind the difficulty in identifying quantitative constructs for the five

disciplines themselves

The use of quantitative constructs in testing Senge’s model is relatively rare, in

particular for the HE context We are only aware of such quantitative testing of Senge’s

Creating learning organizations

in HE 229

model in a banking corporation context (Kiedrowski, 2006) and supermarkets (Reed, 2001) Kiedrowski (2006) findings suggest that Senge’s LO intervention does not lead to

an improve employee satisfaction However, evidence provided in that study is rather slim, as the quantitative data rely on merely seven items for the evaluation of the five disciplines Reed (2001) employed quantitative data in his pilot test, yet, covering only four of the five disciplines (excluding mental models) The above manifests the acute need for rigorous quantitative research to study Senge’s LO from a variety of perspectives

In the following section we explore the antecedents, outcomes and moderators we suggested for all the five disciplines, as well as the five disciplines themselves It follows the approach as presented in Bui and Baruch’s (2010) within the context of education in general, and higher education in particular

Antecedents Personal values were suggested as the first antecedent for personal mastery and shared vision in Bui and Baruch’s (2010) newly-developed LO model The impact of values is thought to be of special relevance in educational systems (Haydon, 1997) Educators are regarded as moral guides and exemplars, whose standards are expected

to be “a little above the level of the rest of society” (Haydon, 1997, p 5) People who aspire to reach personal development may play a significant role in an organization striving to become a learning organization

Academics are generally highly individualistic in their work (White and Weathersby, 2005) They may become those whose primary role is to generate and transfer knowledge to learners Universities expect academic staff to develop new knowledge and publish it in order to share it with a wider audience in the academic world (Baruch and Hall, 2004; Caplow and McGee, 1958; Taylor, 1999) This personal attribute of eagerness to widen the boundaries of knowledge is critical for academic scholars

Second, motivation was offered as an antecedent for personal mastery and shared vision Motivation research has long roots in scholarly work (Deci, 1975; Maslow, 1970; Siebold, 1994), as well as in educational settings (Miskel, 1973; Pintrich and Schunk, 2002; Vallerand et al., 1992) Most of the work on motivation in educational settings comprises of studies relating to student motivation rather than to staff motivation Nevertheless, Knight et al (2006) found that personal and professional development is undertaken in HE partly because of high extrinsic and intrinsic motives of academic staff We also recommend looking at this domain outside HE studies, e.g in management, organizational behavior, and psychology (Kanfer and Ackerman, 2000; Osteraker, 1999) to generate a deeper insight of staff motivation, which may be applicable into HE

The third suggested antecedent for personal mastery is individual learning Academic scholars are highly qualified in terms of formal education, however, much of their post-degree learning is informal (Knight et al., 2006), and may occur via conferences, working with PhD students, self learning, learning at work and learning through peers (Baruch and Hall, 2004) Culture may also have an impact, as individual learning is “under-practiced” in Far Eastern academic institutions (Xiaozhou, 2001,

p 313), and inconsistent in implementation in the West (Rolling-Magnusson, 2001) We argue that individual learning within academia needs more research, and developing a

TLO

17,3

230

valid and reliable construct for its measurement would be an important step in this

direction

Fourth, personal vision is another antecedent for personal mastery and shared

vision There is an increased confidence in staff’s personal vision when universities

develop as learning organizations (Smith, 2003; Wheeler, 2002) If people have the right

personal values, are motivated to work in HE and are committed to life-long learning,

they are likely to acquire personal vision (Senge et al., 1994) This construct needs a

measure to be developed as well

Next, development and training is an antecedent for personal mastery and team

learning Universities support staff through various development and training

programs, as training leads to a significant impact on performance at the individual

(Becker, 1965) and the organizational levels (Tharenou et al., 2007) Many countries’ HE

systems make development and training a top priority (Blackmore and Castley, 2005;

Dalin, 1998; Maslen, 1992) Professional development will benefit from development

and training when these are carried out effectively (Blackmore and Castley, 2005)

Team-skills training to enhance team learning is also paid attention to (Clark, 2002;

Prichard et al., 2006)

Organizational commitment is considered a major construct in behavioral and

management studies (Cohen, 2003), and here it is offered as an antecedent for mental

models Universities as LOs encourage people, especially researchers, to take risks and

challenge their mental models, as they can be the precursors to innovation and

creation Research on the commitment of employees in HE has been labeled as

“immature” when compared with related research focusing on commitment in other

occupations (Park et al., 2005, p 463) Nevertheless, despite reported increases in

workloads across time, academic staff remain committed to their chosen career and to

the success of their university (Houston et al., 2006, p 27) There is a danger with

certain kinds of “loyal employment” in HE that once being granted tenure, many staff

are more likely to act independently rather than interdependently and are usually less

mobile (Freed, 2001, p 18)

Connected to organizational commitment is team commitment, and thus also

suggested as an antecedent for team learning Research outside HE shows this relation

(Bui and Baruch, 2010), though we did not find studies on HE team commitment

However, Park et al (2005) found that teamwork makes teachers more committed Once

people are committed to team learning, they will set clear goals for the team and

themselves

Leadership can be considered an antecedent for mental models, team learning,

shared vision and systems thinking If universities desire to create meaningful change,

they must “challenge traditional mental models” (Isaacson and Bamburg, 1992) For a

long time, HE has been regarded as the “privatization of teaching” (Palmer, 1993, p 6),

learning has been viewed as the acquisition of knowledge, and students as passive

receivers of instruction Such mental models prevent universities from learning (Senge

cited in Bell and Harrison, 1998; O’Neil, 1995) Thus, leaders should pioneer challenging

these traditional mental models, replacing the teacher-focused model by the

learner-focused one (Banathy, 1999)

In HE, the way that universities are organized into disciplines may create the false

impression that the real world is divided into fragmented parts (Vo et al., 2006, p 109)

Thus, leaders must realize that education is a thinking system composed of parts with

Creating learning organizations

in HE 231

free will and minds of educators (Waldman and Schargel, 2006, p 127) “Leadership [in education] is about culture building that allows educators, students and parents to be a part of a team that learn together” (Sackney and Walker, 2006, p 355) The reasons can

be explained by understanding that leaders in education (as well as in many other sectors) tend to be good designers and teachers, but less so in being good stewards (Gudz, 2004; Tsai and Beverton, 2007) Most of the literature on effective leadership in

HE has tended to focus on transformational leaders (Breakwell and Tytherleigh, 2008) Like leadership, organizational culture is an antecedent for mental models, team learning, shared vision and systems thinking The culture of universities is distinctively different to other sectors, because academics are generally highly individualistic in their work (White and Weathersby, 2005) Sharing vision and mental models are expected to be more effective in universities that are embedded in a high societal collectivism and future orientation culture (Alavi and McCormmick, 2004) Though universities do not often have a good reputation of team learning and working, there is a rapid change at universities across the world, particularly at research-oriented universities Studies on the association between organizational culture and LO are scarce in the HE, thus more studies will be conducted, especially within the knowledge economy

Four different academic culture archetypes that reflect any higher education institution should also be mentioned They are collegial culture, managerial culture, developmental culture, and negotiating culture (Bergquist, 1992) The theory has been tested to find out that cultural archetypes and unique institutional cultures should be taken into account when analyzing culture-related factors (Kezar and Eckel, 2002) Goal setting is another major managerial tool, well established and validated (Locke and Latham, 1984, 1990) Here we add it as an antecedent for team learning Ivancevich and McMahon found that the more educated the staff are, the more participative and effective their goal setting process is (Ivancevich and McMahon, 1977) This is likely to

be the scenario within the HE, where recruitment aims at having highly qualified and well educated people due to the nature of the role

Finally, competence is an antecedent for systems thinking Competence is an underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective or superior performance

in a job or role (Boyatzis, 1982) Within academia it is important to evaluate not merely the competence of students, but of staff as well (Otter, 1995)

Outcomes

We consider individual performance and success as the first outcome of personal mastery and shared vision Though no research has shown better individual performance and success are direct outcomes of personal mastery and shared vision, competent employees often perform better than those who are incompetent (Bloisi et al., 2007) Measuring performance and defining success in a HE context is often more complex and multi-dimensional than in a conventional business context (Woodfield and Kennie, 2008) In HE there are at least three different types of individual performance that need to be measured: performance for administration staff, and teaching performance and research performance for academic staff Teaching and research are evaluated differently in different types of universities Performance of tenured and non-tenured professionals also differ (Emmerik and Sander, 2004)

TLO

17,3

232

Self-efficacy is suggested as another outcome of personal mastery People with a

high educational background tend to build up individual self-confidence and

self-efficacy (Baruch et al., 2005; Baruch and Peiperl, 2000) This seems obvious as HE

recruit the most highly qualified staff, especially academic staff

Work-life balance is another proposed outcome of personal mastery Personal

mastery can create a balanced work and home life (Baruch, 2004; Doherty and

Manfredi, 2006; Johnson, 2006) With many teachers finding a balance between family

life and personal development is a challenge (Dalin, 1998; Derr, 1986; Ozbilgin and

Healy, 2004)

Knowledge sharing is suggested as an outcome of mental models and team learning

Few research findings show the direct link between mental models, team learning and

knowledge sharing, particularly in HE Studies outside HE indicate the relations between

mental model and team learning’s antecedents and knowledge sharing such as

organizational commitment, leadership, and development and training (Cabrera et al.,

2006; Han and Anantatmula, 2007; Kang et al., 2008) In HE, scholars develop knowledge

via study and research, and by sharing it with the internal and wider scholarly

community Knowledge, then, will spread beyond universities’ boundaries (e.g to

industry) as an inevitable process of sharing mental models and team learning Current

educational inspiration call to challenge the traditional mental models where lecturers

takes on a dominant role and the students remain passive (Barker et al., 1998; Marginson,

2007), and the utilization of advanced technology (Means et al., 1997; Rogers, 2000)

Moving from the individual level to aggregate levels of team and organization, we

propose that a better team performance is an outcome of mental models and team

learning In business, or the military, team performance is improved significantly by

team learning and shared mental models (Chan et al., 2003; Gurtner et al., 2007) Despite

this, team performance in HE has not been studied carefully, except student teamwork

( Johnson, 1998; Millis and Cottell, 1997) Woodfield and Kennie conducted a large scale

study on top management teams in HE (Kennie and Woodfield, 2008; Woodfield and

Kennie, 2007, 2008) They find that team performance gets the benefits from team

commitment, development and training, organizational culture, and leadership, which

are antecedents of mental models and team learning in the model

Organizational success is an outcome of shared vision and systems thinking As

mentioned before, it is complex to measure HE organizational performance and

success In addition, there is a controversial debate on whether universities are

for-profit organizations or non-profit ones (Hansmann, 1987; Morey, 2004) Thus, in

order to measure it properly, it should be made clear that certain universities are for

profit or non-profit because one dimension which may become very important to

indicate success is financial performance Other organizational performance indicators

are efficiency-productivity, growth and/or market share, and quality (Baruch and

Ramalho, 2006)

Strategic planning for and in HE has attracted attention from scholars as well as

from practitioners Some provide a model for strategic planning process (Kotler and

Murphy, 1981) The process starts from environmental and resource analyses to goal

formulation, then to strategy formulation, after that to organization design which

finally lead to systems design (Kotler and Murphy, 1981) Others examined strategic

planning from the perspective of the customers of HE (Conway et al., 1994) Strategic

planning was also considered under specific national contexts (Ogasawara, 2002;

Creating learning organizations

in HE 233

Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis, 2002) A meta-analysis conducted in educational context have identified positive relationship between systems thinking and strategic planning (Anderson et al., 2006)

The five disciplines The first discipline is personal mastery Freidson views scholars and scientists as among those occupations that resemble an ideal model of professionalism (Freidson, 1994) Academics own many qualities of personal mastery (Kolsaker, 2008) The reasons may be that they are often well-qualified and have a clear sense of direction for their career development

The second discipline is mental models “The development of mental models is the underlying ‘driving force’ that forms the basis for all teaching and learning activities” (Barker et al., 1998, p 310) In education in general, HE in particular, there is a significant challenge of changing from “teacher-centered” mental models to

“learner-centered” mental models The models related to teaching that a teacher has must be for and fit with the models that students have about learning (Barker et al., 1998)

The third one is team learning Team learning studies in HE mainly focus on either students (Fiechtner and Davis, 1992; Karp and Yoels, 1987; Rassuli and Manzer, 2005),

or top management (Bensimon and Neumann, 1993; Katzenbach, 1998; Woodfield and Kennie, 2008), not many focus on staff team learning This shows the fact that team learning is a real challenge for HE:

Academics recognize no boss, choosing to see themselves as individual entrepreneurs, albeit

on a steady salary Like rich peasants, they till their own patch but display little desire for collective action and little interest in the large university, to which they are limply attached (Dearlove, 2002, p 267)

The next discipline is shared vision In HE, to obtain their own shared vision, universities should aim to mobilize the hearts and minds of all their staff “Until educators can describe the ideal school they are trying to create, it is impossible to develop policies, procedures, or programs that will help make that ideal a reality” (Dufour and Eaker, 1998, p 64)

The fifth discipline, the overarching one, is systems thinking Despite the findings that systems thinking is a missing component in HE planning (Galbraith, 1999), some other scholars confirm that it has been applied successfully into HE in some countries (Austin, 2000; Wright, 1999) Practitioners and scholars come to a conclusion that becoming a learning organization requires a change in organizational culture throughout long-term commitment (Garvin, 2000; Lei et al., 1999) Systems thinking can help administrative and teaching staff to better understand the dynamic relationships among various components of educational systems (Betts, 1992)

In addition, there is a trend in HE to create interdisciplinary courses to match needs and preferences of prospective students (Gurtner et al., 2007; Petrina, 1998; Stengers et al., 2000) This trend helps those in HE set up teamwork and team learning more easily An and Reigeluth state that interdisciplinary teams have the potential to facilitate organizational learning by fostering team learning, knowledge sharing, and systems thinking and by creating a change-friendly culture (An and Reigeluth, 2005, p 37)

TLO

17,3

234

HR policies are suggested the first moderator for personal mastery and systems

thinking Universities’ policies play an important role in promoting personal

development However, many universities still do not invest sufficiently in staff

development activities (Din and Shanmugam, 1999; Garavan et al., 1999)

Consequently, when the universities wish to restructure they may lack competent

human resources to deal with the proposed changes

Universities have certain control over policies regarding personal development

Universities invest substantially in staff development, for example, in training for new

technologies (Ellis and Phelps, 2000) Staff of research universities have more

opportunities to learn and reflect than in purely teaching universities (Taylor, 1999)

The former are more likely to have the elements available to allow their roles to

develop: singularity of purpose, time, resources, contacts and relationships with others

in similar exploratory fields These elements can be then brought into the practice of

teaching students, whereas in institutions without research facilities, the knowledge is

passed on by staff who seem to have fewer chances to learn and reflect This is

particularly true in countries where mass-graduation prevails (World-Bank, 2000)

Many organizations provide systems thinking training for their staff to improve the

quality of their performance, including within the HE sector (Austin, 2000)

We believe that size (university size on this case) is an important is a moderator for

shared vision The ability to gain shared vision is subjected to size – the larger the

organization, the more complex and difficult it is to reach and maintain a shared vision

(Hage, 1980) while small organizations have more flexibility and ability to adjust and

adapt a shared vision (Nord and Tucker, 1987) In other words, size would mean that

the associations discussed above will be weaker in large institutions and stronger for

small ones

Sector is another moderator for personal mastery and shared vision Universities’

sector affiliation can also produce side effects to the types of associations between the

antecedents, the five disciplines, and the outcomes The private sector is likely to

consider profit as its first priority, whereas universities in the public sector may be

subjected to a higher level of regulations Private universities would probably have

better outcomes in terms of profitability, whereas the public sector might have over

administration and bureaucracy in place (Farnham, 1999) On the other hand, the

literature also suggests that the distinction between private and public universities is

diminishing as public universities model themselves on private enterprise, competing

for students and funds (Pusser and Doane, 2001)

Communication systems are a moderator for mental models, team learning and

shared vision Knowledge sharing requires appropriate communication systems

(Cabrera et al., 2006; Kang et al., 2008) With the aid of technology, universities can

create effective and efficient communication systems, producing a new mental model of

e-communication, via which they can share their mental models, i.e share their ideas,

experience, and their vision

Supportive learning environment is another possible moderator for mental models

and team learning A supportive learning environment encourages professional

learning in HE (Merrienboer and Paas, 2003; Roberts et al., 2007) Other environments

tend not to do so, and people become “stuck” and “professionally obsolescent” (Knight,

1998) Supportive environments are also found to affect knowledge sharing (Cabrera

Creating learning organizations

in HE 235

et al., 2006) Belsheim describes learning environments within HE education settings in terms of culture, politics, economics, technological know-how, and geographical areas served (Belsheim, 1988) Psychosocial environment (Fraser and Treagust, 1986), or attempt to build more effective learning environments (Hiemstra, 1991a, b)

Discussion and conclusions

In this conceptual paper, which follows the general systemic presentation of Senge’s five disciplines (Bui and Baruch, 2010), we offer a methodological approach to interpret, test and evaluate the model of LO within the HE environment We focus on the specific set of antecedents and outcomes of Senge’s five disciplines, as prevail in the

HE sector, manifesting the relevance of the model to this sector

We believe that learning from this model would be instrumental for the leadership

of HE institutions in achieving competitive advantage over other players, at national and global levels The academic sector is one that grows steadily and this growth is set

to continue (Blaxter et al., 1998) There is an increasing demand for education, prompted by both industry and governments, especially due to the current world economic crisis, as they understand that a knowledge economy is a key factor in restoring world markets, and setting a new foundation for growth Improving its competitiveness by making it a fertile ground for the LO concept is plausible Managerial implications for leaders of HE institutions relate to the realization of the requirements of effectively developing their HE organizations as LOs With the provided framework, managers can even test the degree to which their organizations can be LOs; or what else should be done to become LOs

Theoretically, this model can serve as an anchor for scholars interested in conducting research into universities, colleges and other HE institutions as LOs Though LOs in HE has been studied, its theorizing has not been synthesized systematically With appropriate methodologies and wise translation of relevant constructs into measurable variables, further studies can be conducted, utilizing Senge’s systems thinking perspective

References Alavi, S.B and McCormmick, J (2004), “A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of the learning organization model in school contexts”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol 18 Nos 6/7, pp 408-16

Altbach, P.G and Selvaratnam, V (1989), From Dependence to Autonomy The Development of Asian Universities, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA

An, Y.-Y and Reigeluth, C.M (2005), “A study of organizational learning at Smalltown hospital”, Performance Improvement, Vol 44 No 10, pp 34-9

Anderson, D.F., Bryson, J.M., Richardson, G.P., Ackermann, F., Eden, C and Finn, C.B (2006),

“Integrating modes of systems thinking into strategic planning and practice: thinking persons’ institute approach”, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol 12 No 3, pp 265-94 Askling, B., Lycke, K.H and Stave, O (2004), “Institutional leadership and leeway – important elements in a national system of quality assurance and accreditation: experience from a pilot study”, Tertiary Education & Management, Vol 10 No 2, pp 107-20

Austin, W.J (2000), A Heterarchical Systems Thinking Approach to the Development of Individual Planning and Evaluation to Synergize Strategic Planning in Higher Education Practice, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL

TLO

17,3

236

Banathy, B.H (1999), “Systems thinking in higher education: learning comes to focus”, Systems

Research and Behavioral Science, Vol 16 No 2, pp 133-45

Barker, P., Schaik, P.V and Hudson, S (1998), “Mental models and lifelong learning”, Innovations

in Education and Training International, Vol 35 No 4, pp 310-8

Baruch, Y (2004), Managing Careers, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead

Baruch, Y and Hall, D.T (2004), “The academic career: a model for future careers in other

sectors?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 64 No 2004, pp 241-62

Baruch, Y and Peiperl, M.A (2000), “The impact of an MBA on graduates’ career”, Human

Resource Management Journal, Vol 10 No 2, pp 60-90

Baruch, Y and Ramalho, N (2006), “Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of

organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors”,

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol 35 No 1, pp 39-65

Baruch, Y., Bell, M.P and Gray, D (2005), “Generalist and specialist graduate business degrees:

tangible and intangible value”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 67, pp 51-68

Becker, G.S (1965), Human Capital, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, NY

Bell, J and Harrison, B.T (1998), Leading People: Learning from People, Open University Press,

Buckingham

Belsheim, D.J (1988), “Environmental determinants for organizing continuing education

professional education”, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol 38, pp 63-74

Bensimon, E.S and Neumann, A (1993), Redesigning Collegiate Leadership: Teams and

Teamwork in Higher Education, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD

Bergquist, W (1992), The Four Cultures of the Academy, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA

Betts, F (1992), “How systems thinking applies to education”, Educational Leadership, Vol 50

No 3, pp 38-41

Blackmore, P and Castley, A (2005), Developing Capability in the University, Staff Development

Forum/ILRT: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C and Tight, M (1998), The Academic Career Handbook, Open University

Press, Buckingham

Bloisi, W., Cook, C.W and Hunsaker, P.L (2007), Management and Organizational Behavior,

2nd European ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead

Boyatzis, R.E (1982), The Competent Manager, Wiley, New York, NY

Breakwell, G.M and Tytherleigh, M.Y (2008), The Characteristics, Roles, and Selection of Vice

Chancellors: Summary Report, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London

Bui, H and Baruch, Y (2010), “Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective”, The

Learning Organization, Vol 17 No 3

Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C and Salgado, J.F (2006), “Determinants of individual engagement in

knowledge sharing”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol 17 No 2,

pp 245-64

Caplow, T and McGee, R (1958), The Academic Market, Basic Books, New York, NY

Carr, S.C., Inkson, K and Thorn, K (2005), “From global careers to talent flow: reinterpreting

‘brain drain’”, Journal of World Business, Vol 40, pp 386-98

Chan, C.C.A., Lim, L and Keasberry, S.K (2003), “Examining the linkage between team learning

behavior and team performance”, The Learning Organization, Vol 10 Nos 4/5, pp 228-36

Creating learning organizations

in HE 237