Purpose The purpose of this paper and the contribution to this special issue is to build on Kim and Watkins’ (2018) recent finding that ‘leaders mentor and coach those they lead’ is the item in the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) that is most highly-correlated with performance. Given the criticality of providing strategic leadership for learning and, more specifically, the consistent associations between leaders who mentor and coach and work-related performance outcomes, a better understanding of the associations between the learning organization concept and managerial coaching is warranted. Watkins and Kim (2018, p. 22) contend that ‘future directions for learning organization research include a search for the elusive interventions that would create a learning organization’. In response to this call for research, a research agenda for assessing managerial coaching as a learning organization (LO) intervention is proposed. Design/methodology/approach This conceptual paper briefly reviews literature on the learning organization and the DLOQ instrument, followed by a more in-depth review of the managerial coaching literature and suggestions for how future research could be conducted that more closely integrates these two concepts. Findings Existing literature suggests that to ‘provide strategic leadership for learning’, a dimension in the DLOQ, is one of the most pivotal dimensions for creating learning cultures that build learning organizations. Specifically, an item within this dimension, ‘leaders who mentor and coach’ has been recently identified as one of the most critical aspects associated with strategic leadership for learning. Originality/value The extant managerial coaching literature offers a solid foundation for more closely integrating and mainstreaming the developmental intervention of managerial coaching into learning organizations. Directions for future research that identifies fine-grained perspectives of the discrete facets of managerial coaching in learning organization contexts are suggested.

Purpose The purpose of this two-part paper is to provide a summary of current research opportunities in organizational forgetting literature and a future research agenda. Design/methodology/approach The summary of current research opportunities and future research agenda is drawn from the systematic literature review and synthesis reported in Part I. Findings Two broad areas for future research are proposed: A first area that highlights a need to address integrative theoretical challenges that include issues of temporality, history, power dynamics, and organizational context. A second area that highlights a need to reconcile contradicting explanations – such as whether technological sophistication and codification practices versus social networks prevent knowledge depreciation and loss – through a multilevel perspective. Research limitations/implications Limitations relate to time span coverage and journal article accessibility. Originality/value This Part II paper provides a summary of current research opportunities and offers directions for future research on organizational forgetting.

Purpose Different studies have analyzed the relationship between organizational learning and value creation. However, the question of how crowdsourcing affects the relationships between organizational learning and value creation remains unexplored. This paper aims to explore the mediating role of crowdsourcing in the relationship between organizational learning and value creation in local governance. Design/methodology/approach The hypotheses were tested based on data collected from 205 local governance units in Poland using crowdsourcing. Data collection was carried out by using a set of standardized questionnaires. Correlation analyses were used to specify the strength of the relationships between the variables. To test the hypotheses, multiple regression analysis was used. Findings The results have shown that in the local governance organizational learning is related to crowdsourcing, while organizational learning is not related to value creation. Crowdsourcing does not play a mediating role in explaining the relationship between organizational learning and value creation. Research limitations/implications A research model was developed based on the relevant literature in the field of organizational learning, value creation and crowdsourcing. This study urges researchers to explore the relationship between organizational learning and value creation in other public organizations using crowdsourcing. Originality/value This is the first study on the intermediate role of crowdsourcing in the relationship between organizational learning and value creation in local governance. The proposed model enriches the existing literature and allows better understanding of how crowdsourcing acts as an intermediary in the organizational learning-value creation relationship.

PurposeThe study aims to provide suggestions for project-based firms (PBFs) to create value through the development of social capital, collaborative environment and organisational learning (exploratory & exploitative learning). In this regard, a conceptual model is proposed that examines the interrelations between social capital, collaborative environment and exploratory & exploitative learning in the context of PBFs.Design/methodology/approachA semi-systematic literature review focussed on interrelations between social capital, exploratory & exploitative learning and collaborative environment was undertaken. Top ranked journals and highly relevant journal articles in the management domain were considered for the review. To analyse literature, the content analysis technique incorporating NVIVO 12 software was adopted.FindingsConceptual model suggests that social capital positively affects exploratory & exploitative learning through collaborative environment in PBFs. Three dimensions of social capital (network ties, trust and shared goals) create collaborative environment and collaborative environment enhances organisational learning in PBFs across different levels. Ultimately, social capital, collaborative environment and exploratory & exploitative learning contribute to value creation in PBFs.Originality/valueAlthough the relationship between social capital and exploratory & exploitative learning has been researched previously, findings remain inconsistent. This study provides an alternative perspective to discuss this relationship with the proposed mediating construct: collaborative environment. Considering the context of PBFs, a conceptual model was developed to explain the interrelations between social capital, collaborative environment and learning. This study especially discusses collaborative environment as a value creation factor.

PurposeThis paper aims to offer a contextualized and multi-stakeholder perspective for creating a learning organization (LO) 2.0.Design/methodology/approachBased on a systematic review of the critiques of LO in the past three decades, this paper suggests some possible directions for the development of next-generation of LO (e.g. LO 2.0).FindingsIt is suggested that LO 2.0 should adopt a contextualized perspective by considering the social, organizational, cultural and industrial contexts to enhance the success of LO implementation and help fine-tune the universal LO model. Accordingly, LO 2.0 should adopt a multi-stakeholder perspective by incorporating multiple stakeholders during the process of design and implementation under the rationales of counteracting managerial dominance of low-power marginalized employees and mitigating the impacts of increased competition and technology advancement.Practical implicationsThis paper provides some practical advice to business practitioners regarding how the practices of LO 2.0 can be adopted.Originality/valueThe study adds to the existing LO literature by further supporting and developing a contextualized and multi-stakeholder perspective to create the next generation of LO.

Purpose Considering personality as changeable through a bottom-up process of altering states, habits and traits, constitutes a shift in the predominant paradigm within personality psychology. The purpose of this paper is to reconsider Bateson’s theory of learning and organizational triple-loop learning in light of this recent empirical evidence. Design/methodology/approach This paper uses a multi-disciplinary conceptual approach. Based on an integrative analysis of literature from recent work in personality psychology, four dimensions (process, content, time and context) are identified that allow linking personality change and triple-loop learning. Findings Identifying a bottom-up process of changing states, habits and traits as being central to change personality, allows for reconsidering Bateson’s theory of learning as a theory of personality development (Learning II) and personality change (Learning III). Functionally equivalent, organizational triple-loop learning is conceptualized as a change in an organization’s identity over time that may be facilitated through a change in responding to events and a change in the organization’s routines. Practical implications Interventions that change how organizations respond to events and that change the routines within an organization may be suitable to facilitate triple-loop learning in terms of changing organizational identity over time. Originality/value This paper contributes to the discussion on Bateson’s theory of learning and organizational triple-loop learning. As interest in personality change grows in organization studies, this paper aims to transfer these findings to organizational learning.

Purpose This paper aims to clarify the term “tacit knowledge” and suggests the “onion model” as a way to explore conceptually linked layers of tacit knowledge. The model allows the application of different methodologies to elicit tacit knowledge in each layer, the ability to infer tacit knowledge in other layers from tacit knowledge gained in another layer and the exploration of the dynamics of tacit knowledge among the various layers presented in the model. Conceptual and practical advantages compared to prior works on tacit knowledge are discussed. Design/methodology/approach The main theoretical and methodological dilemmas discussed in the literature regarding tacit knowledge are reviewed. The “onion model” presented in this paper suggests an approach and methodologies that address the issues raised in the literature. The different layers of the model are demonstrated by prior research studies. Findings The “onion model” discussed in this study points to various layers of tacit knowledge and the links among them, allowing a research-based approach, as well as various practices. Research limitations/implications This paper discusses different layers of tacit knowledge relying on previous works that have dealt with these layers independently. The model as a whole and the dynamics among the layers are yet to be empirically investigated. Practical implications The “onion model” provides a conceptual framework that can be used for research and diagnosis aimed at exploring tacit knowledge that can serve individual and organizational development. Originality/value The approach discussed in this paper addresses some major problems discussed in the literature on tacit knowledge.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to highlight the challenges regarding learning in stakeholder relations in profit and nonprofit organizations.Design/methodology/approachConclusions and models presented in the paper have been designed based on the systems perspective, critical thinking and critical review of previous contributions.FindingsOrganizational learning has been examined in profit and nonprofit organizations, and factors which stimulate this process have been identified. More precisely, factors contributing to organizational learning in board of directors have been critically examined, accreditation as a factor contributing to organizational learning in higher education institutions (HEIs) has been suggested, learning dynamics in university–industry collaborations and inter-professional learning have been examined, as well as organizational learning as a bottom-up approach supported by transformational leaderships.Research limitations/implicationsConclusions and models provided in the paper need further empirical testing and validation.Practical implicationsUseful implications for practitioners in profit and nonprofit sector have been suggested based on the critical analysis of previous contributions regarding stimulation of organizational learning in stakeholder relations.Originality/valueContributions from previous authors have been systemically and critically reviewed, adapted models have been provided and suggestions for practitioners in this regard have been offered.