Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

319
It is also assumed that the learning organisation is the direct opposite of a traditional hierarchical organisation
(Lampel, 1998), and thus in direct contrast to what Charles Handy described as the Role culture organisation.
Despite the apparent advantages of working within a learning organisation (see Chapter IV, Section 1b), it is
clear that the presented organisation cannot be called a learning organisation in the traditional sense. It is a
hierarchical organisation consisting of the 'Role' culture as described by Handy. According to Lampel (1998) an
organisation with a hierarchical structure could never be assumed to be a learning organisation and therefore
unable to be categorised as a learning organisation. However, the PAO does have some features of learning
organisations. This can be emphasised by the simple fact that external researchers were invited in to work with
employees to find solutions and design interventions using a bottom-up, participatory approach. Similarly having
these interventions implemented without tempering the result shows willingness to work as a learning organisation
in some ways.
To summarise, the conceptual framework as originally depicted in Figure 6 and critically discussed in
Chapter V Section 1 provided a strong rationale for the use of a mixed methodology. The stimulus approach
(and consequently the Job Demands-Control-Support model) to stress, for example, advocate the use of a
quantitative methodology to assess stress and stress-related outcomes. Differentially however the subjective
nature of the transactional approach (and the assessment of daily hassles) advocates the use of qualitative
methodology. Finally within soft systems approaches to organisational change mixed methods approaches are
useful to assess the human factor component of change. It can therefore be seen that the majority of the
conceptual framework as originally conceptualised in Chapter V (Figure 6) have been influencing factors on the