MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Organizational learning among senior public‐service executives: An empirical investigation of culture, decisional latitude and supportive communication

2007· article· en· W2136038015 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacques Barrette, Louise Lemyre, Wayne Cornei, Nancy Beauregard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational learningOrganizational culturePsychologyPublic serviceOrganizational commitmentPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceManagementSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: For several years, organizational learning has been a concept of interest in the search for efficiency, innovation, and knowledge management in both the private and public sectors. In general, three determinants of organizational learning are identified in the literature: the organizational learning culture as a major determinant, the control or decisional latitude that individual employees have over their work, and the impact of supportive supervisor communication. However, little empirical research has been offered to substantiate the relationship between these variables. As part of the national Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (apex) study on work and health, a representative sample of 1,822 public‐service executives were surveyed. Results showed that organizational learning culture and decisional latitude played an important role in the acquisition of organizational learner attitudes and behaviour. Supportive supervisor communication was not significantly related to individual organizational learning. This article offers unique empirical evidence concerning the relationship between organizational learning culture, decisional latitude and individual learning attitudes and behaviour. The discussion emphasizes the contribution of theoretical models of organizational learning and suggests future avenues of research. Sommaire: Depuis plusieurs années, l'apprentissage organisationnel est un concept interessant pour la recherche de l'efficience, de l'innovation et pour la gestion des connaissances, a la fois ans dans les secteurs privé et public. On retrouve generalement trois determinants de l'apprentissage organisationnel dans la documentation: la culture de I'apprentissage organisationnel comme determinant principal, le con‐trôle ou la latitude de décision que les employés individuels ont sur leur travail, et l'impact de la communication des superviseurs attentionnés. Cependant, peu de recherche empirique a été entreprise pour corroborer les relations entre ces variables. Dans le cadre de I'étude nationale de Aapex (Association professionnelle des cadres de la fonction publique du Canada) sur le travail et la santé, un échantillon représentatif de 1 822 cadres supérieurs de la fonction publique ont participéà un sondage.* Les résultats ont indiqué que la culture d'apprentissage organisationnel et la latitude de décision jouaient un rôle important dans l'acquisition d'attitudes et de comportements de l'apprenant organisationnel. La communication des superviseurs attentionnés n'était pas liée de manière significative à l'apprentissage organisationnel individuel. Le présent article offre une évidence empirique unique en ce qui concerne les relations entre la culture d'apprentissage organisationnel, la latitude de décision et l'attitude et les comportements lies à l'apprentissage individuel. Le débat met l'accent sur la contribution des modèles théoriques de l'apprentissage organisationnel et offre des pistes de recherche pour l'avenir.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207