Demonstrating the Value of an Organization's Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire

doi:10.1177/1523422303005002002

Home
/
Papers
/
Demonstrating the Value of an Organization's Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire

Journal Article•DOI•

Demonstrating the Value of an Organization's Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire

Victoria J. Marsick¹, Karen E. Watkins²•Institutions (2)

Columbia University¹, University of Georgia²

01 May 2003-Advances in Developing Human Resources (SAGE Publications)-Vol. 5, Iss: 2, pp 132-151

TL;DR: In this paper, a model of a learning organization was developed that draws on both the literature and organizational case studies to diagnose their current status and guide change, and scholars wanted better measures of learning to compare organizations and to explore links between organizational learning and the performance of the firm.

read less

Abstract: The problem and the solution. Some organizations seek to become learning organizations. Yet, implementation is elusive and is not often based on research about what constitutes a learning culture. Over the past 16 years, a model of a learning organization was developed that draws on both the literature and organizational case studies. However, organizations wanted a way to diagnose their current status and guide change, and scholars wanted better measures of learning to compare organizations and to explore links between organizational learning and the performance of the firm. The solution was to develop and validate an instrument that addresses these needs.

...read moreread less

Citations

PDF

Open Access

More filters

Book•

经验与教育 = Experience and education

[...]

John Dewey, 玉珏王, 春来朱

01 Jan 2012

Abstract: Experience and Educationis the best concise statement on education ever published by John Dewey, the man acknowledged to be the pre-eminent educational theorist of the twentieth century. Written more than two decades after Democracy and Education(Dewey's most comprehensive statement of his position in educational philosophy), this book demonstrates how Dewey reformulated his ideas as a result of his intervening experience with the progressive schools and in the light of the criticisms his theories had received. Analysing both "traditional" and "progressive" education, Dr. Dewey here insists that neither the old nor the new education is adequate and that each is miseducative because neither of them applies the principles of a carefully developed philosophy of experience. Many pages of this volume illustrate Dr. Dewey's ideas for a philosophy of experience and its relation to education. He particularly urges that all teachers and educators looking for a new movement in education should think in terms of the deeped and larger issues of education rather than in terms of some divisive "ism" about education, even such an "ism" as "progressivism." His philosophy, here expressed in its most essential, most readable form, predicates an American educational system that respects all sources of experience, on that offers a true learning situation that is both historical and social, both orderly and dynamic.

...read moreread less

10,294 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors.

[...]

Gregory A. Aarons¹, Gregory A. Aarons², Michael S. Hurlburt³, Michael S. Hurlburt², Sarah McCue Horwitz⁴, Sarah McCue Horwitz² - Show less +2 more•Institutions (4)

University of California, Los Angeles¹, Boston Children's Hospital², University of Southern California³, Stanford University⁴

01 Jan 2011-Administration and Policy in Mental Health

TL;DR: A multi-level, four phase model of the implementation process, derived from extant literature, is proposed and applied to public sector services and highlights features of the model likely to be particularly important in each phase, while considering the outer and inner contexts of public sector service systems.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Implementation science is a quickly growing discipline. Lessons learned from business and medical settings are being applied but it is unclear how well they translate to settings with different historical origins and customs (e.g., public mental health, social service, alcohol/drug sectors). The purpose of this paper is to propose a multi-level, four phase model of the implementation process (i.e., Exploration, Adoption/Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment), derived from extant literature, and apply it to public sector services. We highlight features of the model likely to be particularly important in each phase, while considering the outer and inner contexts (i.e., levels) of public sector service systems.

...read moreread less

2,004 citations

Cites background from "Demonstrating the Value of an Organ..."

...Readiness for change Conceptualizations, definitions, and measures of organizational readiness to change vary widely and range from organizations that are poised to change and innovate (Marsick and Watkins 2003) to organizations with high levels of inertia that may stifle innovation....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation

[...]

Baiyin Yang¹, Karen E. Watkins², Victoria J. Marsick³•Institutions (3)

University of Minnesota¹, University of Georgia², Columbia University³

01 Mar 2004-Human Resource Development Quarterly

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe efforts to develop and validate a multidimensional measure of the learning organization, which is based on a critical review of both the conceptualization and practice of this construct.

...read moreread less

Abstract: This research describes efforts to develop and validate a multidimensional measure of the learning organization. An instrument was developed based on a critical review of both the conceptualization and practice of this construct. Supporting validity evidence for the instrument was obtained from several sources, including best model-data fit among alternative measurement models, nomological network among dimensions of the learning organization, and organizational performance outcomes. Acceptable reliability estimates were obtained for the seven proposed dimensions. Consequently, the instrument, Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire, was recommended for use in organizational studies.

...read moreread less

711 citations

Cites methods from "Demonstrating the Value of an Organ..."

...Half of the original items were deleted from the scale using the MG process and the remaining half constituted the academic version of the DLOQ (Marsick & Watkins, 2003)....
[...]
...The DLOQ will provide a useful tool for researchers to assess dimensions of the learning organization....
[...]
...Reliability Estimates for the Measures in the DLOQ Initial Measurement Refined Measurement Coefficient Reliability Coefficient Reliability Scale Alpha Under CFA Alpha Under CFA Continuous learning .81 .90 .71 .84 Dialogue and inquiry .87 .91 .78 .87 Team learning .86 .93 .79 .87 Embedded system .81 .89 .75 .85 System connection .84 .90 .75 .84 Empowerment .80 .88 .68 .83 Provide leadership .87 .94 .83 .93 Financial performance .74 .84 .70 .79 Knowledge performance .77 .86 .64 .78 more than 90 percent of the joint amount of variance and covariance of the data could be accounted for by the model being tested....
[...]
...Phase 3 was used to assess the nomological validity of the DLOQ with SEM technique....
[...]
...Finally, an important use of an instrument such as the DLOQ is to measure change over time in order to determine whether and how an active intervention to create a learning organization affects responses....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures

[...]

Stephenie R. Chaudoir¹, Stephenie R. Chaudoir², Alicia G. Dugan², Colin H I Barr²•Institutions (2)

College of the Holy Cross¹, University of Connecticut²

17 Feb 2013-Implementation Science

TL;DR: A multi-level framework that captures the predominant factors that impact implementation outcomes is identified, a systematic review of available measures assessing constructs subsumed within these primary factors are conducted, and the criterion validity of these measures in the search articles is determined.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Two of the current methodological barriers to implementation science efforts are the lack of agreement regarding constructs hypothesized to affect implementation success and identifiable measures of these constructs. In order to address these gaps, the main goals of this paper were to identify a multi-level framework that captures the predominant factors that impact implementation outcomes, conduct a systematic review of available measures assessing constructs subsumed within these primary factors, and determine the criterion validity of these measures in the search articles. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify articles reporting the use or development of measures designed to assess constructs that predict the implementation of evidence-based health innovations. Articles published through 12 August 2012 were identified through MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the journal Implementation Science. We then utilized a modified five-factor framework in order to code whether each measure contained items that assess constructs representing structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level factors. Further, we coded the criterion validity of each measure within the search articles obtained. Our review identified 62 measures. Results indicate that organization, provider, and innovation-level constructs have the greatest number of measures available for use, whereas structural and patient-level constructs have the least. Additionally, relatively few measures demonstrated criterion validity, or reliable association with an implementation outcome (e.g., fidelity). In light of these findings, our discussion centers on strategies that researchers can utilize in order to identify, adapt, and improve extant measures for use in their own implementation research. In total, our literature review and resulting measures compendium increases the capacity of researchers to conceptualize and measure implementation-related constructs in their ongoing and future research.

...read moreread less

633 citations

Cites background from "Demonstrating the Value of an Organ..."

...Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire [115] X O: Continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue collaboration and team learning, systems to c ture learning, empower people, connect the orga ation, provide strategic leadership for learning, finan al performance, knowledge performance [115] None Healthcare...
[...]
...%) of the measures located in our search neither assessed criterion validity in Table 1 Coded measures (N = 62) Scale name and original source Structural (S) Organizational (O) Individual: Provider (PR) Individual: Patient (PA) Innovation (I) Construct information Search article/s Criterion validity Implementation context Alberta Context Tool (ACT) [86] X O: culture, leadership, evaluation, social capital, informal interactions, formal interactions, structural and electronic resources, organizational slack [86] Adoption* Healthcare [87] Adoption* [88] None [89] None [90] None Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) scale [91] X I: Scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, editorial independence [91] None EBP government support organizations[92] None Attitudes, Perceived Demand, and Perceived Support (ARTAS) [93] X X X X S: Funding and policy support [93] Adoption* Healthcare O: Management support PA: Patient benefit I: Adaptability and feasibility Barriers and Facilitators Assessment Instrument [47] X X X X X S: Social, political, societal context [47] Adoption* Healthcare [94] NoneO: Organizational context PR: Care provider characteristics PA: Patient characteristics I: Innovation characteristics Barriers to Implementation of Behavioral Therapy (BIBT) [95] X X X O: Institutional constraints, insufficient collegial support [95] None Mental Health/ Substance Abuse [96] None PR: Philosophical opposition to evidence-based practice [97] None PA: Client dissatisfaction Barriers to Research Utilization Scale (BARRIERS) [56] X X X O: Setting barriers and limitations [56] None Healthcare PR: Research skills, values, and awareness of EBP [77] Adoption* I: Quality and presentation of research [98] None [99] None [100] None [101] None [102] None [103] None [78] Adoption [79] None C haudoir et al.Im plem entation Science 2013,8:22 Page 8 of 20 http://w w w .im plem entationscience.com /content/8/1/22 Table 1 Coded measures (N = 62) (Continued) [80] Adoption* [104] None [105] None Big 5 Personality (e.g., NEOFFI) [46] X PR: Personality attributes (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeablenes neuroticism) [46] None Education [66] Fidelity* California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory [106] X PR: Inquisitiveness, systematicity, analyticity, tr hseeking, open-mindedness, self-confidence, m urity [106] None Healthcare [107] Adoption* [108] None Clinical Practice Guidelines Implementation Instrument [64] X X O: Context features [64] None Healthcare I: Evidence Community-Level Predictors [109] X S: Poverty and population [109] Adoption* Healthcare Competing Values Framework [62] Adapted from [110,111] X O: Organizational culture (hierarchical, entrep eurial, team, and rational) [62] None Healthcare Context Assessment Index [112] X O: Collaborative practice, evidence-informed ctice, respect for persons, practice boundaries, eval tion [112] None Healthcare Coping Style: Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory [113] X PR: Coping style [113] None Education [66] Fidelity* Decision-Maker Information Needs and Preferences Survey [114] X X X X S: Financial resources, impact of regulations a legislation [114] None Healthcare O: Support for EBP PR: Preferences for EBP information I: Quality, relevance of EBP Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire [115] X O: Continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue collaboration and team learning, systems to c ture learning, empower people, connect the orga ation, provide strategic leadership for learning, finan al performance, knowledge performance [115] None Healthcare [116] Adoption* Edmonton Research Orientation Survey (EROS) [58] X PR: Valuing research, research involvement, b g at the leading edge [58] None Healthcare [79] None [104] None Electronic Health Record Nurse Satisfaction Survey (EHRNS) [117] X I: Satisfaction with innovation [117] None Healthcare C haudoir et al.Im plem entation Science 2013,8:22 Page 9 of 20 http://w w w .im plem entationscience.com /content/8/1/22 s, ut at ren pra ua nd , ap niz ci ein Table 1 Coded measures (N = 62) (Continued) EPC [52,118] X PR: Cognitive response style [52] None Healthcare [118] Adoption* [119] None Evidence Based Practice Attitude Scale [24] X PR: Intuitive appeal of EBP, openness to new practices [24] None Mental Health/ Substance Abuse [120] Adoption* [121] None [122] Adoption [123] None ‡ Evidence-Based Practice Beliefs Scale [57] X PR: Attitudes about EBP [57] Adoption* Healthcare [124] None [122] None [125] None Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire [126] X PR: EBP attitudes, knowledge, and skills [126] Adoption* Healthcare [80] Adoption* [77] Adoption* Facilitators Scale [105] X X X O: Support for research [105] None Healthcare PR: Education [98] None I: Improving utility of research [101] None Four As Research Utilization Survey [127] X O: Organizational barriers to access, assess, adapt, and apply EBP [127] Adoption Mental Health/ Substance Abuse General Practitioners’ Perceptions of the Route of Evidence-Based Medicine [128] X X X O: Organization support for EBP [128] None Healthcare PR: Attitudes toward EBP [129] None I: Quality of evidence Group Cohesion Scale [130] X O: Perceived group attractiveness and cohesiveness [130] None Healthcare [131] None GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) [132] X I: Implementability [132] None Healthcare [133] None Healthy Heart Kit Questionnaire [26] X X X O: Type of practice [26] Adoption* Healthcare PR: Perceived confidence and control I: Relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability Information System Evaluation Tool [134] X I: Usability and usefulness of innovation [134] None Healthcare Intention to Leave Scale [135] X X O: Work rewards, people at work, work load [135] None Healthcare C haudoir et al.Im plem entation Science 2013,8:22 Page 10 of 20 http://w w w .im plem entationscience.com /content/8/1/22 Table 1 Coded measures (N = 62) (Continued) PR: Intention to leave nursing profession [131] None Job Satisfaction [136] X X O: Communication and decision-making [136] None Healthcare PR: Pay, fringe benefits, and promotion, close friends at work [131] None Knowledge, Attitudes, and Expectations of WebAssisted Tobacco Interventions [137] X I: Knowledge, expectations, actions, networking, information seeking related to innovation [137] None Healthcare Knowledge Transfer Inventory (Personal Knowledge Transfer subscale) [138] X PR: Knowledge acquisition and sharing [138] None Healthcare [139] None Knowledge Transfer and Exchange Correlates [140] X X X S: Policymakers use of EBP, and funding support [140] Adoption Healthcare O: Communication and decision-making PR: Research skills, and research activities Leader Member Exchange Scale [141] X O: Leadership style, work environment [141] None Healthcare [139] None Nurses Retention Index [142] X PR: Intention to stay in nursing profession [142] None Healthcare [131] None Nursing Research Utilization Survey [143] X PR: Attitudes towards nursing research [143] Adoption* Healthcare Nursing Work Index [144] X O: hospital characteristics [144] None Healthcare [83] None [145] None Organization Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) [27] X X X O: culture, leadership, measurement, readiness for change, resources, characteristics, role [27] None Healthcare PA: Evidence: Patient preferences [146] Adoption* I: Evidence: Disagreement, evidence, clinical experience Organizational Culture and Readiness for System-Wide Implementation of EBP (OCRSIEP) [147] X O: organizational culture, readiness for system-wide integration of EBP [147] None Healthcare [148] Adoption* [131] None Organizational Culture Survey [60,149] X O: Constructive Culture (motivation, individualism, support), Passive Defensive Culture (consensus, conformity, subservience) [149] None Education [60] None [66] Fidelity* Healthcare Organizational Learning Survey (OLS) [150] X O: Clarity of purpose, leadership, experimentation and rewards, transfer of knowledge, teamwork [150] None Workplace [145] None C haudoir et al.Im plem entation Science 2013,8:22 Page 11 of 20 http://w w w .im plem entationscience.com /content/8/1/22 Table 1 Coded measures (N = 62) (Continued) Organizational Readiness for Change [45] X X O: Institutional resources, Organizational climate, motivational readiness [45] None Mental Health/ Substance Abuse [78] Adoption PR: Staff personality attributes [151] Adoption* Organizational Social Context† [152] X X O: Climate, culture [152] None Mental Health/ Substance Abuse PR: Work attitudes [121] None Organizational/Psychological Climate [60,153] X PR: Job satisfaction, depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, role conflict [60] None Education [153] None [66] Fidelity* Mental Health/ Substance Abuse [151] Adoption* Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI) [154] X I: Acceptability of clinical practice guidelines [154] Adoption* Healthcare Perceived Importance of Dissemination Activities [155] X PR: Perceived importance of dissemination activities [155] None University Health Researchers Pre-Implementation Expectancies [59] X X X O: Teacher morale, leadership encouragement [59] Adoption* Education Fidelity* PR: Enthusiasm for Implementation, preparedness to implement, implementation self-efficacy [66] Fidelity* I: Compatibility, beliefs about the program Quality Improvement Implementation Survey [156] X O: Culture, leadership, information and analysis, strategic planning quality, human resource utilization, quality management, quality results, customer satisfaction [156] None Healthcare [157] None Rational Experiential Inventory [158] X PR: Rational and experiential thinking styles [158] None Healthcare [159] Adoption* Research Conduct and Research Utilization by Nurses Questionnaire [160] X PR: Knowledge base for research, attitude towards research utilization [160] None Healthcare Research Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Research Survey [161] X PR: Research knowledge, attitudes, practice [161] None Healthcare [79] None [104] Adoption* Research Utilization Questionnaire (RUQ) [162] X PR: perceived difficulty of research utilization activities, attitudes regarding utilization [162] None Healthcare Research Utilization Questionnaire (RUQ) [65] X X O: availability and support [65] None Healthcare PR: attitude [163] None [108] Adoption* C haudoir et al.Im plem entation Science 2013,8:22 Page 12 of 20 http://w w w .im plem entationscience.com /content/8/1/22 Table 1 Coded measures (N = 62) (Continued) [164] None San Francisco Treatment Research Center Course Evaluation [165] X X O: Organizational barriers to adopting EBP, agency [165] None Mental Health/ Substance Abuse [166] NoneManagement, strategies to support EBP PR: Stage of change for using EBPs, attitudes regarding EBP, past experience with EBP Team Check-Up Tool [167] X O: Leadership, shared decision-making, shared vision [167] None Healthcare [83] Adoption* ‡ Team Climate Inventory [168] X O: Shared vision, shared decision-making, support, information sharing [168] Adoption* Healthcare [123] None ‡ Team Functioning Survey [169] X O: Team skill, support, and work environment [169] Adoption* Healthcare [83] None Team Organization and Support Conditions Questionnaire [61] X O: organizational support, team organization, external change agent support [61] None Healthcare Theoretical-Domains Framework [170] X X X O: Management support, organizational support and resources [170] None Healthcare PR: Perceived knowledge, skills, and abilities, motivation PA: patient interest in treatment Theory of Planned Behavior Constructs (i.e., attitudes, norms, perceived behavioral control) [25] X PR: Attitudes, norms, perceived behavioral control [25] None Healthcare [171] Adoption* [38] Adoption* [172] Adoption [173] Adoption* Therapist Characteristics and Barriers to Implementation [174] X X O: clinic type, location, organizational support [174] None Mental Health/ Substance Abuse PR: Perceived skills and ability, counseling discipline, level of education, workload, motivation Worksite Health Promotion Capacity Instrument (WHPCI) - Health Promotion Willingness subscale [67] X O: Health promotion willingness [67] Adoption* Workplace Notes....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework

[...]

Lisa M. Pfadenhauer¹, Ansgar Gerhardus², Kati Mozygemba², Kristin Bakke Lysdahl³, Andrew Booth⁴, Bjørn Hofmann³, Philip Wahlster², Stephanie Polus¹, Jacob Burns¹, Louise Brereton⁴, Eva Rehfuess¹ - Show less +7 more•Institutions (4)

Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich¹, University of Bremen², University of Oslo³, University of Sheffield⁴

15 Feb 2017-Implementation Science

TL;DR: The CICI framework addresses and graphically presents context, implementation and setting in an integrated way and aims at simplifying and structuring complexity in order to advance the understanding of whether and how interventions work.

...read moreread less

Abstract: The effectiveness of complex interventions, as well as their success in reaching relevant populations, is critically influenced by their implementation in a given context. Current conceptual frameworks often fail to address context and implementation in an integrated way and, where addressed, they tend to focus on organisational context and are mostly concerned with specific health fields. Our objective was to develop a framework to facilitate the structured and comprehensive conceptualisation and assessment of context and implementation of complex interventions. The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework was developed in an iterative manner and underwent extensive application. An initial framework based on a scoping review was tested in rapid assessments, revealing inconsistencies with respect to the underlying concepts. Thus, pragmatic utility concept analysis was undertaken to advance the concepts of context and implementation. Based on these findings, the framework was revised and applied in several systematic reviews, one health technology assessment (HTA) and one applicability assessment of very different complex interventions. Lessons learnt from these applications and from peer review were incorporated, resulting in the CICI framework. The CICI framework comprises three dimensions—context, implementation and setting—which interact with one another and with the intervention dimension. Context comprises seven domains (i.e., geographical, epidemiological, socio-cultural, socio-economic, ethical, legal, political); implementation consists of five domains (i.e., implementation theory, process, strategies, agents and outcomes); setting refers to the specific physical location, in which the intervention is put into practise. The intervention and the way it is implemented in a given setting and context can occur on a micro, meso and macro level. Tools to operationalise the framework comprise a checklist, data extraction tools for qualitative and quantitative reviews and a consultation guide for applicability assessments. The CICI framework addresses and graphically presents context, implementation and setting in an integrated way. It aims at simplifying and structuring complexity in order to advance our understanding of whether and how interventions work. The framework can be applied in systematic reviews and HTA as well as primary research and facilitate communication among teams of researchers and with various stakeholders.

...read moreread less

520 citations

1
2
3
4
…
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200

Collapse

References

PDF

Open Access

More filters

Journal Article•DOI•

The fifth discipline - the art and practice of the learning organization

[...]

Peter M. Senge

01 May 1991-Performance & Instruction

TL;DR: Senge's Fifth Discipline is a set of principles for building a "learning organization" as discussed by the authors, where people expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nutured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are contually learning together.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Peter Senge, founder and director of the Society for Organisational Learning and senior lecturer at MIT, has found the means of creating a 'learning organisation'. In The Fifth Discipline, he draws the blueprints for an organisation where people expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nutured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are contually learning together. The Fifth Discipline fuses these features together into a coherent body of theory and practice, making the whole of an organisation more effective than the sum of its parts. Mastering the disciplines will: *Reignite the spark of learning, driven by people focused on what truly matters to them. *Bridge teamwork into macro-creativity. *Free you from confining assumptions and mind-sets. *Teach you to see the forest and the trees. *End the struggle between work and family time. The Fifth Discipline is a remarkable book that draws on science, spiritual values, psychology, the cutting edge of management thought and Senge's work with leading companies which employ Fifth Discipline methods. Reading it provides a searching personal experience and a dramatic professional shift of mind. This edition contains more than 100 pages of new material about how companies are actually using and benefiting from Fifth Discipline practices, as well as a new foreword from Peter Senge about his work with the Fifth Discipline over the last 15 years.

...read moreread less

16,386 citations

Book•

Experience and Education

[...]

John Dewey¹•Institutions (1)

Columbia University¹

01 Jan 1938

TL;DR: The best concise statement on education ever published by John Dewey, the man acknowledged to be the pre-eminent educational theorist of the twentieth century, is Experience and Education as discussed by the authors.

...read moreread less

12,403 citations

Book•

经验与教育 = Experience and education

[...]

John Dewey, 玉珏王, 春来朱

01 Jan 2012

...read moreread less

10,294 citations

Journal Article•DOI•

Action Research and Minority Problems

[...]