investigating)organisational) learning ...usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/42808/1/complete new...
TRANSCRIPT
-
i
INVESTIGATING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING MECHANISMS (OLMs)
AND ELEMENTS SHAPING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING IN SELECTED
UNIVERSITIES IN NIGERIA
CHRISTABEL C DAKYEN
Ph.D. Thesis 2017
-
ii
INVESTIGATING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING MECHANISMS (OLMs)
AND ELEMENTS SHAPING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING IN SELECTED
UNIVERSITIES IN NIGERIA
CHRISTABEL C DAKYEN
Salford Business School and Law
University of Salford
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement of the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, March 2017
-
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgement viii
Declaration ix
Acknowledgement xi
List of Figures and Tables x
List of Appendices xii
List of Abbreviations xiii
Abstract xiv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background to the Study 2
1.1.1 The Need for Research and Theoretical Perspective 2
1.2 Research Aim, Objectives and Questions 7
1.3 Contributions of the study 9
1.4 Structure of Research 9
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH CONTEXT
2.0 Introduction 11
2.1 Higher Education 12
2.2 Country context: Nigeria 13
2.2.1 Evolution of higher education in Nigeria 14
Pre-‐colonial Era 14
-
iv
Colonial Era 17
2.2.2 Higher Education Institutions in Nigeria 19
2.2.2.1 The establishment of universities in Nigeria 19
Colonial Era 19
Independence Era 20
Selection of Case Universities 24
2.2.2.2 Higher Education Institutions Structures in Nigeria 26
2.2.2.2.1 University and Further Education 26
2.2.2.2.2 The structure and management of universities in Nigeria 27
2.3 Higher Education Policy in Nigeria 31
Colonial Era 31
Independence/ post-‐independence Era 32
2.3.1 Federal Ministry of Education (FME) 36
2.3.1.1 National Universities Commission (NUC) 37
2.3.1.2 Joint Admission Matriculation Board (JAMB) 38
2.3.2 University Unions in Nigeria 38
2.4 Challenges for Universities in Nigeria 40
2.5 Chapter summary 44
CHAPTER THREE: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
3.0 Introduction 46
3.1 The Development of Organisational Learning 47
3.1.1 Theoretical approaches to the study of organisational learning 51
-
v
3.1.1.1 Behaviourist approach 51
3.1.1.2 Cognitive approach 52
3.1.1.3 Humanistic approach 53
3.1.1.4 Social and contextual approach 53
3.2 The Concept of Organisational Learning 54
3.3 The process of Organisational Learning – How learning occurs organizationally 63
3.3.1 Individual learning to Organisational Learning Cycles/ Processes 65
3.4 Organisational Learning Mechanisms (OLMs) 84
3.5 Elements shaping Organisational Learning 89
3.5.1 Environmental Elements 90
3.5.1.1 Regulative Pillar 91
3.5.1.1.1 Government policies, regulations and development 93
3.5.1.2 Normative Pillar 94
3.5.1.2.1 Cooperation or Competition 96
3.5.1.2.2 Institutional Autonomy 97
3.5.1.3 Cognitive-‐cultural pillar 98
3.5.1.3.1 Culture 99
3.5.2 Organisational Elements 101
3.5.2.1 Organisational culture 101
3.5.2.2 Learning strategy 106
3.5.2.3 Organisational structure 109
3.5.2.4 Organisational Resources 113
-
vi
3.5.2.5 Organisational politics and power 115
3.6 Organisational Learning in HEIs so far 119
3.7 Organisational Learning in Nigeria 125
3.8 Establishing the gap in literature on OL 131
3.8.1 Narrative Discussion of the Literature 134
3.9 Frame of Reference 136
3.10 Chapter summary 141
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.0 Introduction 143
4.1 Research Paradigm 145
4.1.1 Research within the qualitative domain 151
4.2 Research Approach 153
4.3 Research Strategy 155
4.4 Data Collection Methods 161
4.4.1 Literature Review and Synthesis 163
4.4.2 Interviews 163
4.4.3 Direct Observation 170
4.4.4 Documentation 171
4.4.5 Archival Records 172
4.4.6 Electronic Data 173
4.5 Data Analysis 174
4.6 Research Trustworthiness 177
-
vii
4.7 Pilot study 179
4.8 Ethical Approval 180
4.9 The Hitches and Smiles of the Journey 181
4.10 Chapter summary 181
CHAPTER FIVE: CROSS-‐CASES DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF
RESEARCH FINDINGS I
5.0 Introduction 183
5.1 Participants representation 183
5.2 Organisational Learning Mechanisms in Selected Universities 184
5.2.1 Integrated OLMs 186
5.2.2 Non-‐integrated OLMs 195
5.2.3 Designated OLMs 203
5.2.4 Dual-‐ purpose OLMs 205
5.2.5 Mediation and Support OLMs 206
5.3 Discussion on OLMs 212
5.3.1 Integrated OLMs 212
5.3.2 Non-‐integrated OLMs 213
5.3.3 Designated OLMs 215
5.3.4 Dual-‐ purpose OLMs 216
5.3.5 Support OLMs 217
CHAPTER SIX: CROSS-‐CASES DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF
RESEARCH FINDINGS II
6.0 Introduction 222
-
viii
6.1 Environmental Elements 222
6.1.1 Regulative Pillar 222
6.1.2 Normative Pillar 228
6.1.3 Cognitive-‐cultural Pillar 234
6. 2 Organisational Elements 240
6.2.1 Organisational culture 240
6.2.2 Organisational structure 248
6.2.3 Learning strategy 252
6.2.4 Organisational resources 255
6.2.5 Organisational politics and power 261
6.3 Other Elements 264
6.4 Discussion on elements shaping OL 267
6.4.1 Environmental elements 267
6.4.1.1 Regulative elements 267
6.4.1.2 Normative elements 269
6.4.1.3 Cultural-‐cognitive elements 273
6.4.2 Organisational elements 276
6.4.2.1 Organisational culture 276
6.4.2.2 Organisational structure 278
6.4.2.3 Learning strategy 279
6.4.2.4 Organisational resources 281
6.4.2.5 Organisational politics 282
-
ix
6.4.3 Other elements 283
6.5 Concluding discussion and summaries 291
6.5.1 OLMs as institutionalised learning structures, procedures or more? 294
6.5.2 The role of organisational and environmental elements in OL 296
6.5.3 Universities as unit of analysis for OL 297
6.6 Theoretical Lenses for OL research 297
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.0 Introduction 299
7.1 Organisational Learning in Universities 299
7.2 Achieving the aim and objectives of this research 302
7.3 Research implication 303
7.3.1 Implication for theory 303
7.3.2 Implication for practice 305
7.4 Limitation of the study 306
7.5 Future research agenda 307
7.6 Conclusion 308
REFERENCES 310
APPENDICES 359
-
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my profound gratitude and appreciation to God almighty the seat
of wisdom and Mother of Perpetual help for her unending love towards me. I would like
to thank my supervisor Dr Sudi Sharifi, for believing in me, for her warm support,
patience, tolerance and encouragement during the whole research. I particularly
appreciate her for the critical review, suggestions and contributions to the thesis. This
thesis would have not been completed without her help and insight, thank you!
My appreciation also goes to my humble and loving family for their indescribable
support, encouragement, faith, sacrifice and love. I love you all and thank you for being
there for me, I wouldn’t be where I am if not for you all; thank God we made it. My
thanks and appreciation extends to University of Salford, it has been worthwhile
working in this environment. Also my appreciation goes to my Case Universities and
their representatives in Nigeria who provided support to my research and permitted
the visits and interviews.
Last but not the least I would like to acknowledge the love and support of Asa Gwani my
Love, you have been wonderful. And also my appreciation to Kizzy, Naanshep, Lango,
Bob, Mary, Shitnaan, Abayomi, Domnan, Nanzip, Femi, Jechi, George, Uncle Tee, Yvonne,
Jerry, Fabi, Nenyen, Petralyn, Ayoo, Naz, Asheazi, Claire, Iloaria, Punkyes, Schola,
Emmanuel, Anty Janet, Anty Uwa, Shelosky, Kat, Betzoom, Ray, Tope, Naomi, Bola,
Nimota, Trevor, Oga Bisi, Saima, Happy, Bomwa, Biba, Maria, Shem, Amina, Dabo, Chito,
Naza, Kate, Oreh, Rita, Hassan, Hussein, Shelong, Isaac, John Bawa, Maama, Mummy
Abiri, Sr Mary Patrick, Fr Dennis, Fr Hilary, Fr Sanke, Mummy Daduut, Daddy Herman,
Daddy Charles, Musa Danboyi, Mr Peter, Queen, Peace, Evelyn and all my loved ones. I
love and appreciate you all.
-
xi
DECLARATION
I certify that this thesis has been written by me and is my own work except where
stated otherwise. I further declare that it has not been submitted for any other degree
or professional qualification.
Name: Christabel C Dakyen Date: ……………………………
-
xii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
List of Figures Page
Number
Figure 2.1 Organogram of universities in Nigeria 30
Figure 2.2 Machinery for the design and implementation of HE policy
36
Figure 3.1 Levels of Organisational Learning 56
Figure 3.2 Elements of Organisational Learning 59
Figure 3.3 Kolb’s Learning cycle 65
Figure 3.4 Open Collective cycle 69
Figure 3.5 Learning in Organisations-‐Hayes and Allison 70
Figure 3.6 Dynamic process of Organisational Learning 72
Figure 3.7 Crossan et al Organisational learning process 73
Figure 3.8 Huber and DiBella’s Organisational learning process 76
Figure 3.9 Environmental and organizational elements shaping
organizational Learning
118
Figure 3.10 Frame of reference 139
Figure 4.1 Methodology towards the study of OL in selected Universities in
Nigeria
144
Figure 4.2 Deductive and Inductive Approach of Research 153
Figure 6.1 Theoretical Lens for OL investigation 292
Figure 6.2 Theoretical lenses for OL investigation 298
-
xiii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 The impact of HEIs evolution on Learning in Nigeria 19
Table 2.2 Summary of universities generations in Nigeria 23
Table 3.1 Definition and ideas on Organisational Learning 60
Table 3.2 Forms of meaning structures 67
Table 3.3 Crossan et al Process of Organisational Learning 74
Table 3.4 Organizational Learning Mechanisms 87
Table 3.5 Summary of research on Organisational Learning in HEIs and
Nigeria
127
Table 3.6 Summary of research questions and interview questions from the
literature
140
Table 4.1 Contrasting characteristics of four main research paradigms 146
Table 4.2 Major emphases of deductive and inductive approaches to
research
154
Table 4.3 Characteristics of different research strategies 156
Table 4.4 Strengths and weaknesses of six sources of evidence 161
Table 4.5 Composition of interviewees from case studies 166
Table 4.6 Interview concerns and addressing measures 168
Table 4.7 Observation activities 171
Table 4.8 Steps taken by researcher to overcome the weaknesses of data
collection methods
172
Table 4.9 Summary of sources of complementary data 174
-
xiv
Table 5.1 Selected universities respondents composition 184
Table 5.2 Comparison of empirical study and literature on OLMs 219
Table 6.1 Comparison of empirical study and literature on elements shaping
OL
285
Table 6.2 Comparison between Case universities 291
Table 6.3 Information processing revisited 293
-
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1-‐ Invitation letter 359
Appendix 2-‐ Information sheet 361
Appendix 3-‐ Consent form 362
Appendix 4-‐ Interview questions 363
Appendix 5-‐ Data coding and representation 365
Appendix 6-‐ Interview transcription sample 369
-
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
OL Organisational Learning
OLMs Organisational Learning Mechanisms
LO Learning Organisation
NERC Nigerian Educational Research Council
VC Vice-‐Chancellor
NCE National Certificate of Education
ND National Diploma
UME University Matriculation Examination
JAMB Joint Admission Matriculation Board
SSCE Senior Secondary Certificate Examination
ODL Open and Distance Learning
UCI University College Ibadan
HE Higher Education
HEIs Higher Education Institutions
FME Federal Ministry of Education
ASUU Academic Staff Union of Universities
NASU Non-‐Academic Staff Union
SSANU Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities
SUG Student Union Government
NUC National Universities Commission
-
xvii
SOPs Specific Operating Procedures
R&D Research and Development
-
xviii
ABSTRACT
This study explores the process of organisational learning in selected universities in
Nigeria. OL is essential in an organisation’s ability to survive, grow, adapt and respond
to environmental dynamics and changes. Universities as institutions of learning play
significant roles in shaping societies. They develop minds and human capital, create and
disseminate knowledge relevant for use by other organisations. In consideration of their
contributions and relevance, researchers suggest the need to develop an understanding
of how universities learn as organisations, especially in a complex environment. To this
end, three research objectives have been raised to investigate organisational learning in
three universities in Nigeria. The first objective examines the levels of learning in
organisations in attempt to establish what makes learning “organisational”. The second
objective is to identify organisational mechanisms facilitating the OL in selected
universities in Nigeria. And, finally, to investigate the environmental and organisational
elements shaping OL in selected universities in Nigeria.
The study employs Huber’s cognitive and behavioural theory as the lens for
investigating OLMs and elements shaping OL in case universities. Research participants
from case universities have been categorized into four arms (key players, academics,
non-‐academics and students), which serves as a form of triangulation, in addition to
method triangulation based on interviews, direct observation and documents. Data
analysis has been centered on the identification and examination of organisational
learning mechanisms (OLMs) and elements shaping organisational learning (OL).
The results show that organisational learning mechanisms are defined beyond
structures and procedures to include “resources” in case universities; and the
implementation of these OLMs facilitate learning. Findings further reveal that although
these mechanisms are natural and established, they are never systematic in
implementation due to surrounding elements within and outside the universities, which
shapes the process and the learning in universities. These elements stem from
regulative, normative, cultural, organisational and contextual facets of the universities.
-
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
In recent years, organisational learning has been considered more of a need than a
want. This is because the ability of organisations to learn in the continuous dynamic and
complex environment enables organisations adapt, improve, survive and offer
organisational advantages. Smith (2001) argues that organisations learn quite naturally
whether they choose to or not, with the learning being viewed as a process ingrained in
the organisation. However, the mechanisms and elements that facilitate and define this
process have received relatively little attention. Rather much emphasis in the field has
been placed on the individual, group and organisational levels as units of analysis with
little development towards understanding how individual learning becomes
organisational and also what elements are capable of fostering or impeding the process.
Popper and Lipshitz (1998); Lipshitz et al (2007); Schechter and Feldman (2011)
proposed that organisational learning require ways to facilitate information acquisition,
dissemination, interpretation and use within organisations. To this end, they advocated
the use of OLMs as the structural and procedural arrangements enabling organisations
process information relevant for their functioning. And it is also through the use of
OLMs that individual learning becomes the property of the organisation and the issue of
anthropomorphism becomes minimised. Though studies acknowledge this contribution,
authors like (Barette et al 2012; Prugsamatz 2010) recommend the need for elements,
which are found within and outside the organisation that either foster or inhibit
(shaping) the operations of OLMs and the learning in organisations; as this aims to
provide a comprehensive view towards understanding OL. Despite these contributions
and recommendations, little empirical studies have been established with regards OLMs
and elements shaping OL, especially in universities. Therefore, it is especially important
to understand how learning in organizations occurs by looking at these limitations.
This study explores the process of organisational learning by investigating mechanisms
facilitating OL and the elements that either foster or inhibit the process of learning in
selected universities in Nigeria. The chapter begins by discussing the shortcoming found
in the current OL literature, with the intention of demonstrating the need for empirical
-
2
studies in OL in universities in Nigeria. Next the chapter establishes the research
questions and objectives, primarily focusing on bridging the gaps identified within the
literature. Furthermore, the research contributions are presented and the chapter
concludes by highlighting the structure of the thesis.
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
1.1.1 The Need for Research and Theoretical Perspective
Organisational learning can be understood as the acquisition and use of information, as
a powerful means of achieving competitive edge, as the detection and correction of
error, as a means of adaptation and as the improvement of organisational performance
(Arshad et al 2016; Breda-‐Verduijn and Heijboer 2016; Buheji et al 2014; Mahler 2009;
Oliver 2009; Skerlavaj and Dimovski 2009). Academics and organisational practitioners
acknowledge the relevance of organisational learning, and consider it a necessary
requirement for organisational growth and survival in the ever-‐changing environment.
According to Smith (2012), the more complex, dynamic and threatening an
organisation’s environment, the more organisational learning is considered necessary
for organisational sustainability. While to Raduan et al (2009: 55), the relevance of
organisational learning in the twenty first century cannot be over emphasised because
“organisational learning is more of a need than a choice at the present time. It is almost
impossible to notice organisations that will admit to ignoring learning, since this would be
akin to be accepting the start of its demise”. The ability of organisations to learn and keep
abreast with their environment not only enables them adapt to and manage external
forces and tackle strategic issues, but it also provides them an edge over other
organisations (Nzuve and Omolo, 2012). Considering the increasing pressures from
stakeholders, private and public organisations, universities like other organisations are
expected to learn in order to adapt and survive in the competitive environment (Lynch
2014; Meyer 2002). Universities according to Goddard (2000) and Ross (1973) can
become key assets and powerhouse for economic development through their enormous
contributions in knowledge creation, dissemination and the understanding of the world;
therefore, universities are in need of constant learning and updating than any other
organisation. Similarly, Akhtar et al (2011) argued that universities contribute to the
development and ratings of a lot of countries; and their ability to learn as organisations
is a boost to the organisation and the economy as well. Furthermore, Hodgkinson
-
3
(2010) commends that organisational learning is considered a key strategy and as the
strategic direction for universities. In this light, the former UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan in a speech explained that organisational learning in universities in Africa could
be used as institutional edge and responsiveness to demands, bringing about
institutional and human development, alongside quality in output:
“The university must become a primary tool for Africa’s development in the new century.
Universities can help develop African expertise; they can enhance the analysis of African
problems; strengthen domestic institutions; serve as a model environment for the practice
of good governance, conflict resolution and respect for human rights, and enable African
academics to play an active part in the global community of scholars” (Bloom et al,
2006:2).
Considering the relevance of learning in organisations, majority of studies on
organisational learning have concentrated on developed countries. It is true that studies
on organisational learning have been conducted in the developing country context (e.g
Jamali and Sidani 2008; Kamya et al 2011; Vargas 2011), but still more needs to be
explored in developing countries in Africa (Baoteng 2011; Ejim-‐Eze 2013; Oisamoje and
Idubor 2013) and a considerable gap in terms of knowledge about learning at
organisational level in developing countries exist. Consequently, there is need for efforts
to focus on organisational learning in developing countries to obtain deeper
understanding of the subject matter. Further research into organisational learning in
developing countries has been urged by scholars on the grounds that studies on
developed nations do not provide intellectual foundations for understanding
organisational learning in developing countries. According to Easterby-‐Smith (1997;
2009), most of the research on organisational learning has had limited focus on
developing countries. Irrespective of disciplinary interest, Easterby-‐Smith proposed
that international perspective of organisational learning should be a priority for the
future. In support of Hawkins (1994) recommendation for further research on
organisational learning, Easterby-‐Smith (1997:1109) and Easterby-‐Smith et al
(2009:s7) also pleaded for more attempts to investigating organisational learning in
developing nations not as “another managerial lever that can be pulled by senior
executives at their behest, but as a normal, if problematic, process in every organisation
involving reciprocal exchanges between individuals, groups, and other organisational
-
4
entities”. Additionally, the need for research on organisational learning in developing
countries is justified by Kim (1999) as essential because investigating organisational
learning in such contexts will aid in understanding the dynamic process of capability
building in developing countries and also to extend existing theories from developed
countries. While with reference to organisational learning in universities, Rusch (2005:
115) stresses the need for better understanding of how universities learn, as “collective
learning is not just the sum of individual learning”.
Research on organisational learning in universities is scanty compared to those of
business and industrial organisations. Universities are today’s central engine for social
and economic growth through their roles in education, business research and the
forming of minds able to participate in the creation and discovery of knowledge in all
aspects of the society (Meyer, 2002:539), and if learning is to flourish in universities, it
is critical that the concept, the mechanisms that seek to encourage learning be better
understood (Patnaik et al 2013: 159). Similarly, Singh and Little (2011) posit that the
idea of organisational learning should be of great interest to universities as agents of
societal change and institutions that are responsible for the production and transfer of
innovative and applicable knowledge to industries and businesses; therefore it is
relevant to enhance the knowledge base and appreciate the experience of universities
practicing OL.
In addition to the lack of empirical studies in developing countries and universities, the
existence of limited studies on OLMs also justifies the need for further studies as
presented by Kar-‐ Unluoglu and Easterby-‐Smith (2011: 4) that, while the contribution
of Popper and Lipshitz has aroused significant interest in organisational research, only
few publications on OLMs are attained, proposing that the concept of OLM calls for the
design and implementation of more specific OLMs because “the concept of OLM is
instrumental for exploring learning strategies developed and adopted by organisations
since it allows the study of organisational learning as an actual phenomenon by focusing
on existing mechanisms”. Similarly, Lines (2005: 171) proposed for more studies on
learning mechanisms which could shed more light on the process to learning in
organisations. Additionally, Cirella et al (2016:8) propose future studies should focus on
other types of organisations in terms of size or countries in investigating OLMs and the
roles in learning. Popper and Lipshitz (1998; 2000; 2005) contribution of OLMs as an
-
5
attempt to address the issue of anthropomorphism in organisational learning, explain
how individual learning becomes organisational. They present that individuals learn
through their nervous systems but for organisations to learn, they must use observable
systems and structures known as “organisational learning mechanisms” that relate
individual learning to what becomes organisational learning. In agreement, Oliver
(2009:548) argues “it is due to the existence of such mechanisms that organisational
learning can be studied as an actual phenomenon”, and OLMs enable the sharing and
analysis of individual learning and experiences with and by other organisational
members, thereby making the learning and experience the property of the organisation
through distribution of lessons learnt to organisational units for use (Oliver, 2009).
Similarly, Carroll et al (2004) identified that mechanisms enable organisations move
from a low-‐level capacity to that of a higher-‐level during learning by understanding
major, systemic causes and providing a range of action possibilities to address such
causes. The use of learning mechanisms enables inquiry, facilitates great insights and
challenges assumptions. These mechanisms are unique to organisations and their
learning process. Arguing on this point, Boyce (2003) states that universities like other
organisations have unique mechanisms they employ in learning as organisations; thus
the emphases on the need to investigate these learning mechanisms.
Researchers argue that as much as studies on organisational learning mechanisms
provide insight and understanding on how individual learning becomes organisational
learning (the process), how organisations improve and perform through learning
(outcomes), more studies are recommended on the dynamics/elements shaping
(inhibitors and enablers) organisational learning (Popper and Lipshitz, 2000). To this
end, Coggshall (2004:13) asserts, although organisational theories provide a great deal
of insight into how organisation may or may not improve through learning; the theories
fail to address the environmental and organisational forces (elements) on the process.
Prugsamatz (2010:263) recommends further research into elements shaping
organisational learning. While, Rashman et al (2009:486) argue that sector-‐specific
features within service organisations are likely to influence organisational learning
process, and further research is required to understand these contingencies which
shape the nature of organisational learning in such organisations. Additionally, Lines
-
6
(2005:172) encourages more studies on the dynamics of learning in the workplace, and
how organisational structures and processes enhance or limit organisational learning.
However, whilst various aspects influencing organisational learning have been
identified by different scholars, Nathai-‐Balkissoon and Pun (2010) argue that a
considerable gap in the OL literature persists. Particularly, there is a need for a theory
that provides a holistic approach to OL as existing theories only consider the effect of
one or two factors