The Contribution of Evaluation to Organizational Learning

Exploding the Myth
  • Amanda Gregory

Abstract

The notion of organizational learning is a popular theme in the evaluation literature (Van der Knaap, 1995; Owen and Lambert, 1995). Whilst, traditionally, this work has been based on a rational-objectivist view, Van der Knaap has recently documented a paradigm shift in evaluation to argumentative-subjectivism. In the light of a discussion of self-producing systems, the argument will be advanced that the shift to argumentative-subjectivism will not promote the effectiveness of evaluation practice. Following a summary review of Stacey’s (1992, 1996) work on chaos and creativity, it will be proposed that the roles of ‘evaluator as judge’, as per rational-objectivism, and ‘evaluator as critic’, as per argumentative-subjectivism, are redundant.

Keywords

Arena Metaphor 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Van der Knaap, P., 1995, Policy evaluation and learning: feedback, enlightenment or argumentation?, Evaluation 1(2): 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Owen, J. M., and Lambert, F. C., 1995, Roles for evaluation in learning organizations, Evaluation 1(2): 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dodgson, M., 1993, Organizational learning: a review of some literatures, Organizations Studies 14(3): 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Maturana, H. R., and Varela, F. J., 1980, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Robb, F. F., 1989a, The application of autopoiesis to social organizations — a comment on John Mingers’ “An introduction to autopoiesis: implications and applications”, Systems Practice 2(3): 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Robb, F. F., 1989b, The limits to human organization: the emergence of autopoietic systems. In M. C. Jackson, P. Keys and S. Cropper (eds.), Operational Research and the Social Sciences, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Robb, F. F., 1991, Accounting — a virtual autopoietic system?, Systems Practice 4(3): 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gomez, P., and Probst, G. J. B., 1989, Organizational closure in management: a complementary view to contingency approaches, Cybernetics and Systems 20: 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mingers, J., 1989, An introduction to autopoiesis — implications and applications, Systems Practice 2(2): 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mingers, J., 1984, Subjectivism and soft systems methodology — a critique. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 11: 85–103.Google Scholar
  11. Wilkins, A. L., and Ouchi, W. G., 1983, Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance, Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 468–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stacey, R. D., 1992, Managing the Unknowable: Strategic Boundaries Between Order and Chaos in Organizations, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  13. Stacey, R. D., 1996, Complexity and Creativity in Organizations, Berrett-Koehler Publishers: Inc., San Francisco.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda Gregory
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Systems Research, School of ManagementLincoln University CampusLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations