1 / 12

Organisational Learning Culture in Hungarian Higher Education Institution s

Organisational Learning Culture in Hungarian Higher Education Institution s. Laszlo Horvath junior research fellow horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.hu.

Download Presentation

Organisational Learning Culture in Hungarian Higher Education Institution s

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Organisational Learning Culture in Hungarian Higher Education Institutions LaszloHorvath junior researchfellow horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.hu This presentation is based on the outcomes of the research projects entitled „The emergence and diffusion of local innovations and their systemic impact in the education sector” (No. 115857)

  2. Introduction • Aim: toexploretherelevance and state of organisationallearning in HungarianHigher Education context • Outline • Rationale and theoreticalbackground (organisationallearning / learningorganisation) • Method: validation of the DLOQ • Results: CFA, differences • Conclusions: practicalconsiderations

  3. Rationale • Diverse and complexchallenges(Sporn 2001) • Restructuring of nationaleconomies, changingrole of state increasedpressureonpublicfunding and autonomy • Shifting demographics and newtechnologies  new and diversetargetgroups • Increasingglobalisation, labour market needs  programme harmonisation, mobility • Organisationsthathavelongerthanaveragelongevity: learningability (de Geus 1997) • HEIs: resistanttochangeorabletoadapttonewrealities?(Evans & Henrichsen2008; Halasz 2010) • Expandinggoals, professionalisation of leadership, globalorientation and internationalisation(Wissema2009) • Examinetheimplications of learningfororganisationalfunctioning(Kezar 2005) • Learningorganisation(Senge 2000)

  4. HEIsaslearningorganisations? • Management fad(Kezar 2005): some kernel of wisdom • Organisationallearningconsiders whether, how and under what conditions do organisationslearn? (Focus: internal; limitations) • Learning organisation (LO)is an environment that fosters a learning culture (Focus: external; overcomingthreats) • Örtenblad’s (2015) typology of thelearningorganisation: • learning at work • organisational learning • the climate for learning • learning structure • Örtenblad and Koris(2014) literaturereviewonHEIsasLOs: • Research is neitherconclusivenorintegrative, less focusonemployeewell-being and societaleffectiveness • Alternativemodel of LO forHEIs: more interdisciplinaritywithbalancedbureaucracy(learningbureaucracy) and a more emphaticorganisation (listeningorganisation)

  5. Method • Aim: to test the applicability of the DLOQ (Marsick& Watkins2003) in the Hungarian Higher Education context • DLOQ: consistentlydealswithallaspects of thetypologydevelopedbyÖrtenblad (2015) • Short 7-item scaleeachitemrepresentsonedimensionsfromthe DLOQ  provenvalidity and reliability in Korean context • Sample • Random sample of HEIs, representativesample of full-timeacademics (regarding: region, type, disciplinary context) • N=1066 (from 37 HEIs)

  6. ConfirmativeFactorAnalysis Model fit indices: χ2(10) = 21.843 RMR = .017 RMSEA = .033 GFI = .99 AGFI = .98 CFI = .98 NFI = .97

  7. Differences in theperception of OLC • No significantdifferencesregarding: • Disciplinaryfield (exceptfornaturalsciences: t(991)=1.982; p<.001; g=.165) • Gender • Innovativeness of HEI • Region, type • Age of respondent • Significantdifferencesregarding: • Organisationalleadershipposition (t(985) = -3.082; p = .002; g = .241) • Organisationalclassification (F(4) = 5.601; p = .001; η2 = .018) • Academicrank (F(5) = 3.115; p = .009; η2 = .017) • Job tenureat HEI (F(4) = 5.926; p < .001; η2 = .024)

  8. Innovative and not-innovativeHEIs (byComplexInnovation Index (CII) developedbyHorvath 2017) • HEIs that are below average onthe CII have no difference between state and non-state organisations(t(467) = -.216; p = .829) • HEIs that are above average onthe CII show a significant differencein OLCby their type: non-state HEIs performing well above the average in Organisational Learning Culture than state HEIs (t(18.094) = 4.467; p < .001). This slideis based on the outcomes of the research projects entitled „The emergence and diffusion of local innovations and their systemic impact in the education sector” (No. 115857)

  9. Conclusions • 7-item OLC scalefrom DLOQ is a reliablemeasurementtool in HungarianHEIs furtherexploration of thefull DLOQ • Fewdifferencesbetweenhard, contextualvariablesregarding OLC  exploration of other, softer, intra- and inter-personalfactors • Interrelatedness of innovation and OLC – non-stateHEIsasconduciveenvironments • State of Hungarian HE

  10. References • De Geus, A. P. (1997). The LivingCompany. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. • Evans, N. & Henrichsen, L. (2008). Long-termstrategicincrementalism. An Approach and a ModelforBringingaboutChange in Higher Education. InnovativeHigher Education 33, 111-124. • Halasz, G. (2010). OrganizationalChange and Development in Higher Education. In J. Huisman & A. Pausits (eds.), Higher Education Management and Development. Münster: Waxmann, 51-65. • Horvath, L. (2017): A szervezeti tanulás és az innováció összefüggései a magyar oktatási rendszer alrendszereiben. [Interconnection of organizationallearning and innovation in thesubsystems of theHungarianeducationalsystem]. Neveléstudomány 2017, 44-66. • Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning organization. New Directions for Higher Education 2005, 7-22. • Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources 5, 132-151. • Örtenblad, A. & Koris, R. (2014). Is the learning organization idea relevant to higher educational institutions? A literature review and a “multi-stakeholder contingency approach”. International Journal of Educational Management 28, 173-214. • Örtenblad, A. (2015). Towards increased relevance: context-adapted models of the learning organization. The Learning Organization 22, 163-181. • Senge, P. (2000). The Academy as Learning Community. In A. F. Lucas et al. (eds.), Leading Academic Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 275-300. • Sporn, B. (2001). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of European and US universities. Tertiary Education & Management 7, 121-134. • Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the Third Generation University: Managing the University in Transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  11. Thankyouforyourattention! LaszloHorvath junior researchfellow horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.hu

More Related