IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijhrdm/v2y2002i1-2p97-112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The discourse of success and failure in organisational learning

Author

Listed:
  • J. Betts, P. Clarke, S. Clegg, UK

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that there are two dominant paradigms or ideal types in organisational learning cultures, each constituted by different discourses. The first paradigm characterises a discourse of "failure", exemplified by conformity and prescription. The second, competing paradigm is one that is characterised by the discourse of "success". This is a transformational paradigm. It is loosely organised around what can be done to grow, improve and change the situation. We use case study material created using a generative methodology to exemplify our arguments. The case study material is drawn specifically from the public sector in the UK and the changes we describe have features unique to the Anglophone world. However, we would suggest that the broader ramifications of our model reflect real processes that have international significance.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Betts, P. Clarke, S. Clegg, UK, 2002. "The discourse of success and failure in organisational learning," International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(1/2), pages 97-112.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijhrdm:v:2:y:2002:i:1/2:p:97-112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=1019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dev K. Dutta & Mary M. Crossan, 2005. "The Nature of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: Understanding the Process Using the 4I Organizational Learning Framework," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 425-449, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijhrdm:v:2:y:2002:i:1/2:p:97-112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=15 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.