investigating)organisational) learning ...usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/42808/1/complete new...

i

INVESTIGATING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING MECHANISMS (OLMs)

AND ELEMENTS SHAPING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING IN SELECTED

UNIVERSITIES IN NIGERIA

CHRISTABEL C DAKYEN

Ph.D. Thesis 2017

ii

INVESTIGATING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING MECHANISMS (OLMs)

AND ELEMENTS SHAPING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING IN SELECTED

UNIVERSITIES IN NIGERIA

CHRISTABEL C DAKYEN

Salford Business School and Law

University of Salford

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement of the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy, March 2017

iii

TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgement viii

Declaration ix

Acknowledgement xi

List of Figures and Tables x

List of Appendices xii

List of Abbreviations xiii

Abstract xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background to the Study 2

1.1.1 The Need for Research and Theoretical Perspective 2

1.2 Research Aim, Objectives and Questions 7

1.3 Contributions of the study 9

1.4 Structure of Research 9

CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH CONTEXT

2.0 Introduction 11

2.1 Higher Education 12

2.2 Country context: Nigeria 13

2.2.1 Evolution of higher education in Nigeria 14

Pre-‐colonial Era 14

iv

Colonial Era 17

2.2.2 Higher Education Institutions in Nigeria 19

2.2.2.1 The establishment of universities in Nigeria 19

Colonial Era 19

Independence Era 20

Selection of Case Universities 24

2.2.2.2 Higher Education Institutions Structures in Nigeria 26

2.2.2.2.1 University and Further Education 26

2.2.2.2.2 The structure and management of universities in Nigeria 27

2.3 Higher Education Policy in Nigeria 31

Colonial Era 31

Independence/ post-‐independence Era 32

2.3.1 Federal Ministry of Education (FME) 36

2.3.1.1 National Universities Commission (NUC) 37

2.3.1.2 Joint Admission Matriculation Board (JAMB) 38

2.3.2 University Unions in Nigeria 38

2.4 Challenges for Universities in Nigeria 40

2.5 Chapter summary 44

CHAPTER THREE: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

3.0 Introduction 46

3.1 The Development of Organisational Learning 47

3.1.1 Theoretical approaches to the study of organisational learning 51

v

3.1.1.1 Behaviourist approach 51

3.1.1.2 Cognitive approach 52

3.1.1.3 Humanistic approach 53

3.1.1.4 Social and contextual approach 53

3.2 The Concept of Organisational Learning 54

3.3 The process of Organisational Learning – How learning occurs organizationally 63

3.3.1 Individual learning to Organisational Learning Cycles/ Processes 65

3.4 Organisational Learning Mechanisms (OLMs) 84

3.5 Elements shaping Organisational Learning 89

3.5.1 Environmental Elements 90

3.5.1.1 Regulative Pillar 91

3.5.1.1.1 Government policies, regulations and development 93

3.5.1.2 Normative Pillar 94

3.5.1.2.1 Cooperation or Competition 96

3.5.1.2.2 Institutional Autonomy 97

3.5.1.3 Cognitive-‐cultural pillar 98

3.5.1.3.1 Culture 99

3.5.2 Organisational Elements 101

3.5.2.1 Organisational culture 101

3.5.2.2 Learning strategy 106

3.5.2.3 Organisational structure 109

3.5.2.4 Organisational Resources 113

vi

3.5.2.5 Organisational politics and power 115

3.6 Organisational Learning in HEIs so far 119

3.7 Organisational Learning in Nigeria 125

3.8 Establishing the gap in literature on OL 131

3.8.1 Narrative Discussion of the Literature 134

3.9 Frame of Reference 136


CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.0 Introduction 143

4.1 Research Paradigm 145

4.1.1 Research within the qualitative domain 151

4.2 Research Approach 153

4.3 Research Strategy 155

4.4 Data Collection Methods 161

4.4.1 Literature Review and Synthesis 163

4.4.2 Interviews 163

4.4.3 Direct Observation 170

4.4.4 Documentation 171

4.4.5 Archival Records 172

4.4.6 Electronic Data 173

4.5 Data Analysis 174

4.6 Research Trustworthiness 177

vii

4.7 Pilot study 179

4.8 Ethical Approval 180

4.9 The Hitches and Smiles of the Journey 181


CHAPTER FIVE: CROSS-‐CASES DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF

RESEARCH FINDINGS I


5.1 Participants representation 183

5.2 Organisational Learning Mechanisms in Selected Universities 184

5.2.1 Integrated OLMs 186

5.2.2 Non-‐integrated OLMs 195

5.2.3 Designated OLMs 203

5.2.4 Dual-‐ purpose OLMs 205

5.2.5 Mediation and Support OLMs 206

5.3 Discussion on OLMs 212

5.3.1 Integrated OLMs 212

5.3.2 Non-‐integrated OLMs 213

5.3.3 Designated OLMs 215

5.3.4 Dual-‐ purpose OLMs 216

5.3.5 Support OLMs 217

CHAPTER SIX: CROSS-‐CASES DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF

RESEARCH FINDINGS II


viii

6.1 Environmental Elements 222

6.1.1 Regulative Pillar 222

6.1.2 Normative Pillar 228

6.1.3 Cognitive-‐cultural Pillar 234

6. 2 Organisational Elements 240

6.2.1 Organisational culture 240

6.2.2 Organisational structure 248

6.2.3 Learning strategy 252

6.2.4 Organisational resources 255

6.2.5 Organisational politics and power 261

6.3 Other Elements 264

6.4 Discussion on elements shaping OL 267

6.4.1 Environmental elements 267

6.4.1.1 Regulative elements 267

6.4.1.2 Normative elements 269

6.4.1.3 Cultural-‐cognitive elements 273

6.4.2 Organisational elements 276

6.4.2.1 Organisational culture 276

6.4.2.2 Organisational structure 278

6.4.2.3 Learning strategy 279

6.4.2.4 Organisational resources 281

6.4.2.5 Organisational politics 282

ix

6.4.3 Other elements 283

6.5 Concluding discussion and summaries 291

6.5.1 OLMs as institutionalised learning structures, procedures or more? 294

6.5.2 The role of organisational and environmental elements in OL 296

6.5.3 Universities as unit of analysis for OL 297

6.6 Theoretical Lenses for OL research 297

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION


7.1 Organisational Learning in Universities 299

7.2 Achieving the aim and objectives of this research 302

7.3 Research implication 303

7.3.1 Implication for theory 303

7.3.2 Implication for practice 305

7.4 Limitation of the study 306

7.5 Future research agenda 307

7.6 Conclusion 308

REFERENCES 310

APPENDICES 359

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my profound gratitude and appreciation to God almighty the seat

of wisdom and Mother of Perpetual help for her unending love towards me. I would like

to thank my supervisor Dr Sudi Sharifi, for believing in me, for her warm support,

patience, tolerance and encouragement during the whole research. I particularly

appreciate her for the critical review, suggestions and contributions to the thesis. This

thesis would have not been completed without her help and insight, thank you!

My appreciation also goes to my humble and loving family for their indescribable

support, encouragement, faith, sacrifice and love. I love you all and thank you for being

there for me, I wouldn’t be where I am if not for you all; thank God we made it. My

thanks and appreciation extends to University of Salford, it has been worthwhile

working in this environment. Also my appreciation goes to my Case Universities and

their representatives in Nigeria who provided support to my research and permitted

the visits and interviews.

Last but not the least I would like to acknowledge the love and support of Asa Gwani my

Love, you have been wonderful. And also my appreciation to Kizzy, Naanshep, Lango,

Bob, Mary, Shitnaan, Abayomi, Domnan, Nanzip, Femi, Jechi, George, Uncle Tee, Yvonne,

Jerry, Fabi, Nenyen, Petralyn, Ayoo, Naz, Asheazi, Claire, Iloaria, Punkyes, Schola,

Emmanuel, Anty Janet, Anty Uwa, Shelosky, Kat, Betzoom, Ray, Tope, Naomi, Bola,

Nimota, Trevor, Oga Bisi, Saima, Happy, Bomwa, Biba, Maria, Shem, Amina, Dabo, Chito,

Naza, Kate, Oreh, Rita, Hassan, Hussein, Shelong, Isaac, John Bawa, Maama, Mummy

Abiri, Sr Mary Patrick, Fr Dennis, Fr Hilary, Fr Sanke, Mummy Daduut, Daddy Herman,

Daddy Charles, Musa Danboyi, Mr Peter, Queen, Peace, Evelyn and all my loved ones. I

love and appreciate you all.

xi

DECLARATION

I certify that this thesis has been written by me and is my own work except where

stated otherwise. I further declare that it has not been submitted for any other degree

or professional qualification.

Name: Christabel C Dakyen Date: ……………………………

xii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

List of Figures Page

Number

Figure 2.1 Organogram of universities in Nigeria 30

Figure 2.2 Machinery for the design and implementation of HE policy

36

Figure 3.1 Levels of Organisational Learning 56

Figure 3.2 Elements of Organisational Learning 59

Figure 3.3 Kolb’s Learning cycle 65

Figure 3.4 Open Collective cycle 69

Figure 3.5 Learning in Organisations-‐Hayes and Allison 70

Figure 3.6 Dynamic process of Organisational Learning 72

Figure 3.7 Crossan et al Organisational learning process 73

Figure 3.8 Huber and DiBella’s Organisational learning process 76

Figure 3.9 Environmental and organizational elements shaping

organizational Learning

118

Figure 3.10 Frame of reference 139

Figure 4.1 Methodology towards the study of OL in selected Universities in

Nigeria

144

Figure 4.2 Deductive and Inductive Approach of Research 153

Figure 6.1 Theoretical Lens for OL investigation 292

Figure 6.2 Theoretical lenses for OL investigation 298

xiii

List of Tables

Table 2.1 The impact of HEIs evolution on Learning in Nigeria 19

Table 2.2 Summary of universities generations in Nigeria 23

Table 3.1 Definition and ideas on Organisational Learning 60

Table 3.2 Forms of meaning structures 67

Table 3.3 Crossan et al Process of Organisational Learning 74

Table 3.4 Organizational Learning Mechanisms 87

Table 3.5 Summary of research on Organisational Learning in HEIs and

Nigeria

127

Table 3.6 Summary of research questions and interview questions from the

literature

140

Table 4.1 Contrasting characteristics of four main research paradigms 146

Table 4.2 Major emphases of deductive and inductive approaches to

research

154

Table 4.3 Characteristics of different research strategies 156

Table 4.4 Strengths and weaknesses of six sources of evidence 161

Table 4.5 Composition of interviewees from case studies 166

Table 4.6 Interview concerns and addressing measures 168

Table 4.7 Observation activities 171

Table 4.8 Steps taken by researcher to overcome the weaknesses of data

collection methods

172

Table 4.9 Summary of sources of complementary data 174

xiv

Table 5.1 Selected universities respondents composition 184

Table 5.2 Comparison of empirical study and literature on OLMs 219

Table 6.1 Comparison of empirical study and literature on elements shaping

OL

285

Table 6.2 Comparison between Case universities 291

Table 6.3 Information processing revisited 293

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1-‐ Invitation letter 359

Appendix 2-‐ Information sheet 361

Appendix 3-‐ Consent form 362

Appendix 4-‐ Interview questions 363

Appendix 5-‐ Data coding and representation 365

Appendix 6-‐ Interview transcription sample 369

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

OL Organisational Learning

OLMs Organisational Learning Mechanisms

LO Learning Organisation

NERC Nigerian Educational Research Council

VC Vice-‐Chancellor

NCE National Certificate of Education

ND National Diploma

UME University Matriculation Examination

JAMB Joint Admission Matriculation Board

SSCE Senior Secondary Certificate Examination

ODL Open and Distance Learning

UCI University College Ibadan

HE Higher Education

HEIs Higher Education Institutions

FME Federal Ministry of Education

ASUU Academic Staff Union of Universities

NASU Non-‐Academic Staff Union

SSANU Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities

SUG Student Union Government

NUC National Universities Commission

xvii

SOPs Specific Operating Procedures

R&D Research and Development

xviii

ABSTRACT

This study explores the process of organisational learning in selected universities in

Nigeria. OL is essential in an organisation’s ability to survive, grow, adapt and respond

to environmental dynamics and changes. Universities as institutions of learning play

significant roles in shaping societies. They develop minds and human capital, create and

disseminate knowledge relevant for use by other organisations. In consideration of their

contributions and relevance, researchers suggest the need to develop an understanding

of how universities learn as organisations, especially in a complex environment. To this

end, three research objectives have been raised to investigate organisational learning in

three universities in Nigeria. The first objective examines the levels of learning in

organisations in attempt to establish what makes learning “organisational”. The second

objective is to identify organisational mechanisms facilitating the OL in selected

universities in Nigeria. And, finally, to investigate the environmental and organisational

elements shaping OL in selected universities in Nigeria.

The study employs Huber’s cognitive and behavioural theory as the lens for

investigating OLMs and elements shaping OL in case universities. Research participants

from case universities have been categorized into four arms (key players, academics,

non-‐academics and students), which serves as a form of triangulation, in addition to

method triangulation based on interviews, direct observation and documents. Data

analysis has been centered on the identification and examination of organisational

learning mechanisms (OLMs) and elements shaping organisational learning (OL).

The results show that organisational learning mechanisms are defined beyond

structures and procedures to include “resources” in case universities; and the

implementation of these OLMs facilitate learning. Findings further reveal that although

these mechanisms are natural and established, they are never systematic in

implementation due to surrounding elements within and outside the universities, which

shapes the process and the learning in universities. These elements stem from

regulative, normative, cultural, organisational and contextual facets of the universities.

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, organisational learning has been considered more of a need than a

want. This is because the ability of organisations to learn in the continuous dynamic and

complex environment enables organisations adapt, improve, survive and offer

organisational advantages. Smith (2001) argues that organisations learn quite naturally

whether they choose to or not, with the learning being viewed as a process ingrained in

the organisation. However, the mechanisms and elements that facilitate and define this

process have received relatively little attention. Rather much emphasis in the field has

been placed on the individual, group and organisational levels as units of analysis with

little development towards understanding how individual learning becomes

organisational and also what elements are capable of fostering or impeding the process.

Popper and Lipshitz (1998); Lipshitz et al (2007); Schechter and Feldman (2011)

proposed that organisational learning require ways to facilitate information acquisition,

dissemination, interpretation and use within organisations. To this end, they advocated

the use of OLMs as the structural and procedural arrangements enabling organisations

process information relevant for their functioning. And it is also through the use of

OLMs that individual learning becomes the property of the organisation and the issue of

anthropomorphism becomes minimised. Though studies acknowledge this contribution,

authors like (Barette et al 2012; Prugsamatz 2010) recommend the need for elements,

which are found within and outside the organisation that either foster or inhibit

(shaping) the operations of OLMs and the learning in organisations; as this aims to

provide a comprehensive view towards understanding OL. Despite these contributions

and recommendations, little empirical studies have been established with regards OLMs

and elements shaping OL, especially in universities. Therefore, it is especially important

to understand how learning in organizations occurs by looking at these limitations.

This study explores the process of organisational learning by investigating mechanisms

facilitating OL and the elements that either foster or inhibit the process of learning in

selected universities in Nigeria. The chapter begins by discussing the shortcoming found

in the current OL literature, with the intention of demonstrating the need for empirical

2

studies in OL in universities in Nigeria. Next the chapter establishes the research

questions and objectives, primarily focusing on bridging the gaps identified within the

literature. Furthermore, the research contributions are presented and the chapter

concludes by highlighting the structure of the thesis.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

1.1.1 The Need for Research and Theoretical Perspective

Organisational learning can be understood as the acquisition and use of information, as

a powerful means of achieving competitive edge, as the detection and correction of

error, as a means of adaptation and as the improvement of organisational performance

(Arshad et al 2016; Breda-‐Verduijn and Heijboer 2016; Buheji et al 2014; Mahler 2009;

Oliver 2009; Skerlavaj and Dimovski 2009). Academics and organisational practitioners

acknowledge the relevance of organisational learning, and consider it a necessary

requirement for organisational growth and survival in the ever-‐changing environment.

According to Smith (2012), the more complex, dynamic and threatening an

organisation’s environment, the more organisational learning is considered necessary

for organisational sustainability. While to Raduan et al (2009: 55), the relevance of

organisational learning in the twenty first century cannot be over emphasised because

“organisational learning is more of a need than a choice at the present time. It is almost

impossible to notice organisations that will admit to ignoring learning, since this would be

akin to be accepting the start of its demise”. The ability of organisations to learn and keep

abreast with their environment not only enables them adapt to and manage external

forces and tackle strategic issues, but it also provides them an edge over other

organisations (Nzuve and Omolo, 2012). Considering the increasing pressures from

stakeholders, private and public organisations, universities like other organisations are

expected to learn in order to adapt and survive in the competitive environment (Lynch

2014; Meyer 2002). Universities according to Goddard (2000) and Ross (1973) can

become key assets and powerhouse for economic development through their enormous

contributions in knowledge creation, dissemination and the understanding of the world;

therefore, universities are in need of constant learning and updating than any other

organisation. Similarly, Akhtar et al (2011) argued that universities contribute to the

development and ratings of a lot of countries; and their ability to learn as organisations

is a boost to the organisation and the economy as well. Furthermore, Hodgkinson

3

(2010) commends that organisational learning is considered a key strategy and as the

strategic direction for universities. In this light, the former UN Secretary General Kofi

Annan in a speech explained that organisational learning in universities in Africa could

be used as institutional edge and responsiveness to demands, bringing about

institutional and human development, alongside quality in output:

“The university must become a primary tool for Africa’s development in the new century.

Universities can help develop African expertise; they can enhance the analysis of African

problems; strengthen domestic institutions; serve as a model environment for the practice

of good governance, conflict resolution and respect for human rights, and enable African

academics to play an active part in the global community of scholars” (Bloom et al,

2006:2).

Considering the relevance of learning in organisations, majority of studies on

organisational learning have concentrated on developed countries. It is true that studies

on organisational learning have been conducted in the developing country context (e.g

Jamali and Sidani 2008; Kamya et al 2011; Vargas 2011), but still more needs to be

explored in developing countries in Africa (Baoteng 2011; Ejim-‐Eze 2013; Oisamoje and

Idubor 2013) and a considerable gap in terms of knowledge about learning at

organisational level in developing countries exist. Consequently, there is need for efforts

to focus on organisational learning in developing countries to obtain deeper

understanding of the subject matter. Further research into organisational learning in

developing countries has been urged by scholars on the grounds that studies on

developed nations do not provide intellectual foundations for understanding

organisational learning in developing countries. According to Easterby-‐Smith (1997;

2009), most of the research on organisational learning has had limited focus on

developing countries. Irrespective of disciplinary interest, Easterby-‐Smith proposed

that international perspective of organisational learning should be a priority for the

future. In support of Hawkins (1994) recommendation for further research on

organisational learning, Easterby-‐Smith (1997:1109) and Easterby-‐Smith et al

(2009:s7) also pleaded for more attempts to investigating organisational learning in

developing nations not as “another managerial lever that can be pulled by senior

executives at their behest, but as a normal, if problematic, process in every organisation

involving reciprocal exchanges between individuals, groups, and other organisational

4

entities”. Additionally, the need for research on organisational learning in developing

countries is justified by Kim (1999) as essential because investigating organisational

learning in such contexts will aid in understanding the dynamic process of capability

building in developing countries and also to extend existing theories from developed

countries. While with reference to organisational learning in universities, Rusch (2005:

115) stresses the need for better understanding of how universities learn, as “collective

learning is not just the sum of individual learning”.

Research on organisational learning in universities is scanty compared to those of

business and industrial organisations. Universities are today’s central engine for social

and economic growth through their roles in education, business research and the

forming of minds able to participate in the creation and discovery of knowledge in all

aspects of the society (Meyer, 2002:539), and if learning is to flourish in universities, it

is critical that the concept, the mechanisms that seek to encourage learning be better

understood (Patnaik et al 2013: 159). Similarly, Singh and Little (2011) posit that the

idea of organisational learning should be of great interest to universities as agents of

societal change and institutions that are responsible for the production and transfer of

innovative and applicable knowledge to industries and businesses; therefore it is

relevant to enhance the knowledge base and appreciate the experience of universities

practicing OL.

In addition to the lack of empirical studies in developing countries and universities, the

existence of limited studies on OLMs also justifies the need for further studies as

presented by Kar-‐ Unluoglu and Easterby-‐Smith (2011: 4) that, while the contribution

of Popper and Lipshitz has aroused significant interest in organisational research, only

few publications on OLMs are attained, proposing that the concept of OLM calls for the

design and implementation of more specific OLMs because “the concept of OLM is

instrumental for exploring learning strategies developed and adopted by organisations

since it allows the study of organisational learning as an actual phenomenon by focusing

on existing mechanisms”. Similarly, Lines (2005: 171) proposed for more studies on

learning mechanisms which could shed more light on the process to learning in

organisations. Additionally, Cirella et al (2016:8) propose future studies should focus on

other types of organisations in terms of size or countries in investigating OLMs and the

roles in learning. Popper and Lipshitz (1998; 2000; 2005) contribution of OLMs as an

5

attempt to address the issue of anthropomorphism in organisational learning, explain

how individual learning becomes organisational. They present that individuals learn

through their nervous systems but for organisations to learn, they must use observable

systems and structures known as “organisational learning mechanisms” that relate

individual learning to what becomes organisational learning. In agreement, Oliver

(2009:548) argues “it is due to the existence of such mechanisms that organisational

learning can be studied as an actual phenomenon”, and OLMs enable the sharing and

analysis of individual learning and experiences with and by other organisational

members, thereby making the learning and experience the property of the organisation

through distribution of lessons learnt to organisational units for use (Oliver, 2009).

Similarly, Carroll et al (2004) identified that mechanisms enable organisations move

from a low-‐level capacity to that of a higher-‐level during learning by understanding

major, systemic causes and providing a range of action possibilities to address such

causes. The use of learning mechanisms enables inquiry, facilitates great insights and

challenges assumptions. These mechanisms are unique to organisations and their

learning process. Arguing on this point, Boyce (2003) states that universities like other

organisations have unique mechanisms they employ in learning as organisations; thus

the emphases on the need to investigate these learning mechanisms.

Researchers argue that as much as studies on organisational learning mechanisms

provide insight and understanding on how individual learning becomes organisational

learning (the process), how organisations improve and perform through learning

(outcomes), more studies are recommended on the dynamics/elements shaping

(inhibitors and enablers) organisational learning (Popper and Lipshitz, 2000). To this

end, Coggshall (2004:13) asserts, although organisational theories provide a great deal

of insight into how organisation may or may not improve through learning; the theories

fail to address the environmental and organisational forces (elements) on the process.

Prugsamatz (2010:263) recommends further research into elements shaping

organisational learning. While, Rashman et al (2009:486) argue that sector-‐specific

features within service organisations are likely to influence organisational learning

process, and further research is required to understand these contingencies which

shape the nature of organisational learning in such organisations. Additionally, Lines

6

(2005:172) encourages more studies on the dynamics of learning in the workplace, and

how organisational structures and processes enhance or limit organisational learning.

However, whilst various aspects influencing organisational learning have been

identified by different scholars, Nathai-‐Balkissoon and Pun (2010) argue that a

considerable gap in the OL literature persists. Particularly, there is a need for a theory

that provides a holistic approach to OL as existing theories only consider the effect of

one or two factors

investigating)organisational) learning ...usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/42808/1/complete new...

Documents