An assessment of the impact of organization design on the development of learning organizations in Zimbabwe’s retail industry.A case study of Bindura’s major retail shops.
Author(s)
Chazuza Tendai , Tembo Jealous , Negwaiya Edward , Mapira Nyasha ,
Download Full PDF Pages: 23-31 | Views: 415 | Downloads: 115 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3408101
Abstract
This research sought to assess the impact of organization design on the development of learning organizations in Zimbabwe with particular focus on the retail sector. The major objectives of the research were: to identify the major variables of organization design that affect retail businesses, to evaluate the structure being adopted by the retailers, and to establish the key characteristics of a learning organization. The researchers took a descriptive approach to a case study to explore this area. Zimbabwe’s major retailers, that is OK Zimbabwe Limited, TM supermarkets, Spar and Afro Foods were used as they were convenient to the researchers.The case was studied in the mining town of Bindura because the retail set up fairly resembles the retail set up found anywhere in Zimbabwe. Questionnaires were used to solicit information from 34 employees that included management, supervisors, shop floor employees. Interviews were also used to complement the questionnaires and a total of 4 interviews were successfully conducted with the representatives from the head offices in Harare, who were purposively selected. Findings from this research confirm-that organization design has an impact on the development of learning organizations. It was established that the environment, level of controls and incentives played a crucial role in making organization design decisions. The study established that the retailers were far from the learning organization tag as they highly formalize their systems and procedures, exercise strict performance controls and there was no integration of processes and structures. It was established that organic design approach facilitated the development of the organization and its members through low formalization of procedures, low centralization of authority and high integration of processes and structures. From the study, it could be concluded that integration and combination of knowledge facilitated the development of both the organization and individuals. Abandonment of formal structures and reaching coordination through social reward and internal normative systems facilitated development of organizations and individuals. The recommendations made included a dynamic approach to social change which allows for development of new ideas and diversification for a better organization and individual and recognizing that employees are able to learn from past experience motivates them to take risks and look for new ways of developing themselves and the organization.
Keywords
Organization design, learning organization, organizational learning, retail and impact.
References
i. Argyris, C. (1999), On organizational learning, 2nd edition, Oxford: Blackwell Business.
ii. Best, W., and Kahn, V., 2006. Research in Education 3 rd Edition, Person Education, Essex.
iii. Blerly, P.E. and Hamalainen, T. (1995), Organizational learning and strategy, Scandinavian journal of management 11 (3):209-24.
iv. Burton, R. and Obel, B. (2004), Strategic organization diagnosis and design: The dynamics of fit, 3rd edition, Klumer academic publishers.
v. Dixon, N, (1992), Organization learning: A review of literature: Organizational implications for Human resource development professionals, Vol 3 No.1: 29-49
vi. Easterby- Smith, M. (1997), Disciplines of organization learning: Contribution and critics, Human relations, Vol 50 No. 9: 108-113
vii. Hodgkinson, M. (2000), Managerial perceptions of barriers to becoming a learning organization: The learning organization, Vol 7 No. 3
viii. Jackson, N. and Carter, P. (2000), Financial Times, Prentice Hall
ix. Luthans, F. (2008), Organizational behavior, 11th edition, McGraw- Hill.
x. Macher, R, (1992), Organizations that learn, Journal of quality and participation, pp 8-11.
xi. Marquardt, M. J. (1996), Building the learning organizations: A systems approach to quantum improvement and global success, New York: McGraw- Hill.
xii. Miller, D. and Droge, C. (1996), Psychological and traditional determinants of structure, Administrative Science Quartely, Vol 31, No. 4 pp. 539-60
xiii. Mills, D. Q. and Friesen, B. (1992), The learning organization, European management journal, Vol 10 No. 2: 146-56
xiv. Mullins, L. (1996), Management and Organiztional Behaviour, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, London.
xv. Mumford, A. (1994), Individual and organization learning: The pursuit of change, London, New York
xvi. Ortenblad, A. (2001), On differences between organizational learning and learning organizations: Learning organization, Vol 8 No.3: 125-133.
xvii. Pedler, M.,Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1992), The learning company, McGraw- Hill, London.
xviii. Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1999), Managing change for competitive success, Blackwell, Oxford.
xix. Salaman, G. and Butler, J. (1994), Why managers won’t learn, London.
xx. Senge, P.M (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization, Doubleday, New York, NY.
xxi. Senge, P. M. (1994), Learning to alter mental models, Executive Exellence, Vol 11 No. 3: 16-17.
xxii. Slocum, J. W. and Hellriegel, D. (2009), Principles of organizational behavior, 12th edition, South Western: Cengage learning.
xxiii. Tsang, E (1997), Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotonomy between descriptive and prescriptive research, Human relations.
xxiv. Ulrich, D. (1993), M.A. Von, G. and Jick, T. (1993), High impact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organization dynamics.
Cite this Article: