The Gales of Creative Destruction - Assignment Example

of Leicester, School of Management MBA Programme Module 3: Implementing Strategies Assignment Questions Schumpeter coined the phrase‘the gales of creative destruction’ to describe the consequences of innovation (ULSM Module pg 113). Critically evaluate this as the premise for organisations doing business in the 21st century. 2. With reference to relevant academic theories and concepts describe and discuss the notion of the learning organisation. What conclusions do you draw? Rudi Coulter (ID No. 079012110, Reg No. 2115377TOUR216) Distance Learning MBA, Oct 2007 Cohort, 07966 000946 / rudicoulter@btopenworld.com Question 1 Introduction Schumpeter’s coined the phrase “the gales of creative destruction” which is commonly recognised as referring to the process in which he believes that old ways of doing things are internally destroyed and replaced by new ways. Schumpeter refers to a never ending restructuring that takes place in a free market economy as new technologies replace old ones and new companies out compete their more established rivals. Some examples of creative destruction include conventional (i.e., non-digital) cameras and photographic film, cassette tapes, tube display monitors and televisions, facsimile machines, and certain types of commercial computer software being replaced by digital cameras, CDs and DVDs, LCD Screens etc. This paper will analyse whether this way of thinking has any relevance for organisations doing business today within capitalised market places, focusing on whether there is a one-size-fits-all or whether there needs to be accommodation for more than one process. Creative destruction can operate at different speeds in different countries and will vary considerably due to the political climate (e.g. operating in a communist environment will differ greatly from operating in a capitalist environment). This paper will be focused on creative destructive within a capitalist free market, typical of Western Europe and the USA. It is important to acknowledge Schumpeter’s progressive thinking on creative destruction and entrepreneurship. Schumpeter is accredited with having two theories on this subject, Mark I being his first where he argues that innovation and technological change comes from entrepreneurs, which in turn pushes the economy of a country, and in his second theory, Mark II where he argues that innovation and technological change is driven by large companies which have the capital and resources to invest in research and development. Whether the main driver is entrepreneurship or large companies, the relevance of creative destruction for today’s organisation will still be considered in the same context. Creative destruction today Creative destruction through innovation continually evolves and improves the way things are done in a capitalist free market environment, such as new technology replacing old and new methods and processes replacing old. An example of creative destruction in recent years is the Internet, which has impacted heavily on the entertainment world involving music, movie and publishing areas. Innovations incepted by ways of creative destruction have no doubt lead to greater advancements and efficiencies within the global marketplace and their global success has been achieved through innovation within the capitalist environment. However internet has also brought about companies going under, people losing their jobs and customers having to re-align their behaviours. Schumpeter believes that the creative destruction process happens naturally and that capitalism just gives it the environment to thrive. Alan Gibb (2002, p235) supports the view that creative destruction is imperative to achieve progression. In his paper looking at studies of entrepreneurship and the way forward, “It is argued that there is a need to apply the Schumpeterian notion (Schumpeter 1934) of creative destruction to the higher education sector itself, in order to find innovation (new ways of doing things) and new combinations of knowledge….” It is necessary to consider creative destruction in the context of Clayton Christenson, a Harvard Business Professor, who discusses disruptive innovation and sustained innovation in operation. Disruptive innovation According to Clayton Christenson, a Harvard Business Professor and author of The Innovator’s Dilemma and The Innovator’s Solution, a disruptive innovation is a process, technology or business model that brings a much more affordable product or service to the market that is much simpler to use. This enables more consumers in a market to afford and/or have the ability to use the product or service. The change that this innovation causes can be so big that it eventually replaces, or disrupts, the established approach to providing that product or service. Such innovations will appear as simpler, cheaper and perhaps inferior quality if compared to existing products, but some marginal or new segment will value it. From the example looked at earlier, digital photography would be perceived as a disruptive innovation, or wireless handheld devices like Blackberry Phones and Palm Pilots are disruptive relative to notebook and laptop computers. These examples though do not go as far as to be a revolutionary innovation, such as the Internet or before it the Television. Disruptive innovation is aligned with creative destruction, in that the old way of doing things comes under considerable pressure from new innovation and disrupts the status quo, however doesn’t necessarily go as far as Schumpeter’s creative destruction by making redundant or destroying all that had been before. Sustained innovation A sustaining innovation differs somewhat from the theories of disruptive innovation and creative destruction by targeting demanding high-end customers with better performance and innovation than was available previously. Established competitors invariably win the battles of sustaining technology, because this strategy entails making a better product that they can sell for higher profit margins to their best customers. Established organisations have a strong motivation to fight sustaining battles and the capital and resources to win. Some sustaining innovations are incremental, simple and show year-to-year improvements. Others are dramatic breakthrough technologies, for example in telecommunications, from analogue to digital, and from digital to optical. Their affect on the service was to bring a better product into the existing market place that could be sold for higher margins to the best customers of the leaders. The odds overwhelmingly favour the incumbent leaders of battles in industry of sustaining innovation, whether they are simple, incremental innovations or breakthroughs. Abbring and Campbell comment, “Dominant firms might discourage the entry of new rivals by building excess capacity to commit to fierce price competition or by introducing otherwise unprofitable brands to fill product niches. If dominant firms routinely deter entry, then the economy loses the benefits of creative destruction.” (Abbring and Campbell, 2004, p50) Adrian Mello goes further by saying, “Large companies tend to enshrine their past success and institutionalize it, assuming that what worked well in the past will lead to future success, says Foster. But devotion to past success only ossifies the organization, robbing it of the flexibility it needs to adapt to an increasingly turbulent business environment.” (Mello, 2003, p3-4) A sustaining innovation has little impact on the downfall of established companies because it improves the performance of existing products along the dimensions that mainstream customers’ value. Many companies in our competitive industry today tend to favour maintaining the status quo; this is because they have major investments in production techniques and already existing products. Monopolists are in a very strong position to protect their status quo, as it is relatively easy for a manufacturer (in a product category) to introduce a new or improved product that incorporates some innovation, such as enhanced performance, new features, or a lower cost of production (and hence lower price) into a competitive market. However, it can be much more difficult to introduce such a product in an industry that is dominated by a monopoly. There are contrasting processes of innovation in action today, and they do not all destroy what has gone before as Schumpeter’s gales of creative destruction, however in order to embark on new innovation some form of destruction or disruption will have to take place. Losers in creative destruction Creative destruction can often be a very painful process, especially on the microeconomic level, as people lose their jobs and investors lose their capital. Today there still remains a certain amount of ambivalence towards creative destruction as it is perceived as producing outcomes that are not uniformly positive. Creative destruction has disrupted lives and destroyed livelihoods, especially in older industries cities and towns, where people have experienced large amounts of destruction and very little creation. An example of this is in Detroit, USA where automobile workers who once worked in the great American automobile factories, saw their jobs destroyed and recreated elsewhere in the world, thus having no choice but to live with that change and its negative consequences. George Ritzer, a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, USA and sociologist comments “It is more difficult to be sanguine about creative destruction in the global age, especially if one lives and works in an area that is witnessing far more destruction than creation.” (George Ritzer, 2008) There are also costs to creative destruction, which will often be small relative to the economy as a whole, but such costs are often on the higher end to those who have to bear them directly, such as the entrepreneurs whose businesses and savings can be wiped out, skilled craftsmen who can lose their lifetime investment in their craft, and the ordinary workers who may find themselves to be too old to find new jobs at a similar wage level. False creative destruction It is also important to acknowledge the existence of false creative destruction. These are situations that appear superficially to be creative destructive but are not. Such instances are likely to be where companies use non-market means to destroy their competition or a destruction that has no benefits to the economy or society as a whole but merely increases a company’s profit margin. Conclusion Empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that creative destruction is relevant for organisations doing business in the 21st century, however it does not necessarily work as a one-size-fits-all. Creative destruction has historically been and still is a very intrinsic part of the working of Capitalism and without it, markets and innovation and progression would become stagnant. David Wyss, a well published financial economist, supports this view, in an article on Business Week On-Line when looking at the changes in the US Economy from 1959 – 2006, “One of the major strengths of the U.S. economy is its willingness to accept change. While it is not always comfortable, change is a necessity for progress. The pain inflicted on those who are on the receiving end of economist Joseph Schumpeters "creative destruction" can be great, but without it, the U.S. would not have progressed as quickly as it has, especially in moving away from an industrial economy.” (Wyss, 2006, p1) It is also evident that costs have to be bourn through creative destruction, however these are necessary for the long term progress of the economy, even though these shorter-term costs may seem unfair; nonetheless they must be absorbed. Abbring and Campbell second this thought saying, “Because a firm’s failure frees the labor and capital it employed for use at a more profitable entrant, this process may be described as creative destruction. (Abbring and Campbell, 2004, p50) Creative destruction is not a mass-market process. There are undesirable consequences as described earlier including redundancy, job losses and companies folding. It will be that incremental rather than sudden change to absorb the shock, prepare the people and to make this change desirable after all. Regardless of the degree of competition or lack of it, efforts to preserve the status quo and hold back creative destruction will almost invariably eventually fail within a growing and vigorous economy. This is because the pressures that lead to creative destruction will continue to build until the opposing interests are no longer able to restrain them. If our economy does not adapt to the change, other economies that do, would start competing with ours, thus forcing our economy to inevitably take the decision. Interestingly, those who most vociferously claim that they are advocates of a free market economy are actually often those who most oppose creative destruction. Technological progress and the destruction of existing products, production techniques, professions, industries, businesses and professions are inextricably intertwined. The relationship between them is as inevitable as the boom and bust cycles found inherent in any industrial economy and as inevitable as economic growth itself. Creative destruction is not only natural it is also logical. This truth is not only valid for the 21st century, but for humanity in eternity. Question 2 Introduction The learning organisation is the perceived organisation that develops the people within it. The ability for staff to learn and be responsive at all levels is fundamental. This paper will describe within various contexts how the Learning Organisation exists, distinguish between the different theories and ideas and look at whether there are organisations today that are true Learning Organisations. The term learning organisation has become a popular phrase in modern day management and may be used for describing a variety of approaches to organisational development. Some useful definitions include: “A learning organisation is an organisation which facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself.” (Pedler et al, 1991) “A learning organisation has managers who create an environment where the behaviours and practices involved in continuous development are actively encouraged.” (Honey & Mumford, 1996) “…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.” (Senge, 1990) Theories of the learning organisation There is a basic understanding of the Learning Organisation, with its people centred orientation, however there are important distinctions in relevant theories, some of the major contributors and their differences and distinctions are as follows Peter Senge and his Five Disciplines Peter Senge is probably the most renowned for his theories surrounding the learning organisation and his work on his Five Disciplines. Senge’s five disciplines are: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Senge proposes that people need to put aside their old ways of thinking (mental models), learn to be open with other people (personal mastery), understand how their company really works (systems thinking), form a plan that everyone can agree on (shared vision) and then work together to achieve that vision (team learning). Like the approach of Pedler (see below), Peter Senge offers another large scale approach to developing a learning organisation, however his approach has been criticised by some writers as being too academic and theoretical. Mike Pedler, John Burgoyne and Tom Boydell According to Mike Pedler et al (1991) in their renowned book The Learning Company, the learning organisation is defined as an organisation that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself. Further it creates a climate in which individuals are encouraged to learn, to develop their full potential, learning is extended to customers, suppliers and other stakeholders, human resource development strategy is central to business policy, and there is a continuous process of organisational transformation. Chris Argyris and Donald Schon Chris Argyris is best known for learning that challenges the status quo, called double-loop learning, and learning that is routine, called single-loop learning. Donald A Schon is best know for his work with Chris Argyris on single and double loop learning and his work where he categorises a organisation into four themes: his concept of inquiry as reflection-in-action, constructing a learning dialect in organisations, the practice of learning how to learn and his commitment to a new educational paradigm that teaches practitioners how to reflect-in-action. Double-loop learning is about solving difficult problems, the discovery and establishing of the truth when subjecting people’s claims to rigorous tests. Argyris and Schon (1978), distinguish between single-loop learning and double-loop learning. In a single-loop learning situation, individuals adjust their behaviour relative to norms, fixed goals and assumptions. Single-loop learning systems detect errors or deviations from the operating norms with the objective of keeping performance and action in line with norms, an example within an organisation would be financial budgets, which often maintains single-loop learning by monitoring expenditures, sales, profits and other indicators of performance to ensure that the organisational activities remain within the limits established through the budgeting process. The argued problem with single-loop learning is that the learning abilities are limited as the system can only maintain a course of action determined by operating norms and can serve to maintain an inappropriate course of action and will therefore reinforce errors. Double-loop learning refers to a situation in which goals, norms, assumptions and behaviours are open to change. It involves looking at things in different ways. Double-loop learning involves questioning the appropriateness of existing objectives and norms and a double-loop learning system therefore has the ability to question itself. It is often argued that most organisations become proficient at single-loop learning, as they develop an ability to scan the environment, to set objectives, and to monitor the general performance of the system with relation to objectives., however, the ability to achieve proficiency in double-loop learning often proves more elusive. David Garvin Harvard Business School Professor David Garvin (1993) defines a learning organisation as “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights.” The key is that change occurs in the way work gets done. Garvin includes in the activities of a Learning Organization: Systematic problem solving - thinking with systems theory, insisting on data rather than assumptions and using statistical tools Experimentation with new approaches - ensures steady flow of new ideas, incentives for risk taking and demonstration projects Learning from their own experiences and past history - recognition of the value of productive failure instead of unproductive success Learning from the experiences and best practices of others - enthusiastic borrowing Transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organization - tours, reports, personnel rotation programs and training programs (all cited from Garvin, 1993) The common theme which unites all the theories and work on learning organisations is learning. Development activities which encourage learning at different levels throughout an organisation, e.g. individual, team and whole organisation, are a key factor in the development of an organisation which continually strives to be a learning organisation. Systems thinking ‘Systems thinking’ is perhaps the most important concept when looking at the concept of the learning organisation as highlighted by Peter Senge. It is a unique approach problem solving by viewing a problem as part of a greater system, rather than focusing the individual problem. De Wit (1990, p511) cited from Peter Senge, “In my experience, successful leaders often are ‘systems thinkers’ to a considerable extent. They focus less on day-to-day events and underlying trends and forces of change.” “The consequences of leaders who lack systems thinking skills can be devastating. Many charismatic leaders manage almost exclusively at the level of events. They deal in visions and crises, and little in-between. Under their leadership, an organization hurtles from crisis to crisis.” Criticisms of the learning organisation The learning organisation concept has been criticised in many quarters, it is argued that proponents of the learning organisation like Senge, are unwilling to concede that there are potential pitfalls and potential for abuse for organisations looking at adopting his philosophy. Workers can feel obliged to go along with a company ideology which contradicts their own or is not in their best interest, such as the sharing of knowledge and information because it is for the best of the learning organisation. “….proponents of the learning organization – with rare exceptions, admit neither that the learning organization can be construed as an ideology nor that this ideology can have a potentially dark side for organizational members.” (Driver, 2002, p40-41) Coopey who construes the learning organisation as an ideology, believe it can lead to highly negative consequences for organisational members ranging from coercive control to outright exploitation. (Coopey, 1995) “The ‘learning organization’ is naught but a Hawthorne light bulb with a dimmer switch, intended to stimulate productivity regardless of its chameleonic brilliance. It is a Machiavellian subterfuge. It is a pimp, and the employees, the hapless prostitutes.” (cited from Armstrong, 2000, p359, taken from Driver, 2002 p44). Tangible benefits of the Learning Organisation Empirical evidence suggests that the tangible benefits of the learning organisation include saving money through various sources of wastage such as duplication of effort, making the same mistakes more than once, causing problems due to lack of expertise. Productivity will thus improve as less time is wasted and better solutions come faster. Customers should therefore experience increased sensitivity to their needs and innovative services and products. Employees will feel they are constantly growing as people will almost certainly react positively to trusting and open environment. Employees will leave the organisation due to lack of development and training or an unsupportive culture. Measures and targets can be assigned to all these benefits. In support of the tangible benefits of the learning organisation, Peter Honey, writing in 1996 (Honey and Mumford, 1996), considers the benefits of making learning a priority in organisations as: to ensure the long-term success of the organisation; to make continuous improvement a reality; to ensure successes and best practice are transferred and emulated; to increase creativity, innovation and adaptability; to attract better people and retain the best people; to ensure people are able and willing to meet the current and future needs of the organisation. The benefits of becoming a learning organisation are mostly long term as the processes involved have to transgress the whole organisation and its culture. Less Tangible Benefits A range of less tangible benefits are also frequently referred to by developing learning organisations: integrated culture; goal congruence; whole organisation empowerment; organisational self-renewal, optimisation of ‘core business’, effective re-positioning in the market place. Evans believes that learning organisations are more productive and more profitable, they have more satisfied employees, are more flexible and they are better able to cope with change. Because learning organisations learn, they retain and constantly improve these advantages. If learning organisations are to really and radically transform business performance, they must be absorbed into the mainstream, to the extent that they are no longer spoken about and just exist. (Evans, 1998, p203) Learning organisational checklist The proposed checklist below is a comprehensive compilation of requirements to be satisfied to truly claim to be a learning organisation. Taking these into account, it seems that the ability to achieve this and then maintain it may be somewhat utopian. 1. Learning Strategy 2. Participative Policy-making 3. Empowering use of IT 4. Control Systems assist learning 5. Internal exchange 6. Reward Flexibility 7. Enabling Structures 8. Front-line environmental scanning 9. Inter-company learning 10. Learning “climate” 11. Self-development for everyone Real life examples of learning organisations Empirical evidence suggests that there are few actual examples of true learning organisations perhaps this is due to the difficulty in understanding the concept or the long term view that has to be taken with it. Many companies are held up as supposedly examples of learning organisations in operation, however these are unluckily to satisfy all of the requirements of the checklist described above. Those organisations held up as leading examples include Motorola, Wal-Mart, BA, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, GE (General Electric), Microsoft, Pfizer, Hewlitt Packard, Sun Microsystems, Shell Group, Apple Mackintosh, M&S, Starbucks, Ford, and Xerox. By way of supporting these claims, if Apple Macintosh is observed, it can be seen that over the years they have been able to adopt themselves to the incredibly fast changing environment of information systems. Apple Macintosh is structured in such way that it can innovate at a very high speed for example in comparison to their biggest competitor Microsoft, Apple Macintosh produces products that are far more innovative than Microsoft. It is argued that Apple Macintosh is a good example of a learning organisation because as they are competing with Microsoft, who have an enormous market share in their sector, they are forced to deliver more innovative and higher quality products because that is the only opportunity they have to compete. Another acclaimed example of a learning organization is Hewlett Packard. It is claimed that its capacity over the last few decades to adapt to innovative and new processes that have arisen in the chemical industry such as designing high innovative control systems for the biological industry, demonstrates that they have the ability to focus on new trends and adapt their company to those trends in a quick way. One shortcoming of the model exists in the fact that how to differentiate a changing organisation from a learning organisation. An organisation can be a changing organisation which goes for radical or incremental change, initiates a business process reengineering but still cannot achieve success. On the other hand another organisation does essentially the same and finally does achieve success. The difference here is that the first example is only a changing organisation that adopts change management but does not learn from its past mistakes. The second example is of a learning organisation that essentially also is a changing organisation but it has the capability to learn from its past mistakes and become successful. The point here is that change is inevitable. The only difference between successful and non-successful organisations exists in the fact whether they become learning organisations as a result of change or remain changing organisations. Conclusion The benefits of becoming a learning organisation are also long term. The need for a long term commitment may prevent all but the most far sighted organisations from commencing the journey. There appears to be no single definition of a learning organisation that satisfies the variation in practices within organisations. At the present time, there would appear to be few organisations that can be said to be operating a learning organisation, particularly if focusing on the checklist looked at earlier. The ideas put forward by proponents of the learning organisation certainly resonate with contemporary ideas which see change as a permanent condition of organisations and their environments. However, it is important to be aware of the criticisms that have been laid to the concept, citing that the ideas tend to give the organisation ‘a life of its own’. As cited by Hughes 2001, (Anon, 2007, p173) by thinking of ‘the organisation’ as engaged in ‘learning’ and as having intelligence, the learning organisation is given an existence of itself, that somehow an ‘organisation’ has an existence beyond the level of human beings. The argument extends further, because if the ‘organisation’ learns, then what is the role of individuals? Thus the major concern is how can an organisation learn? Some have suggested that Peter Senge has been ahead of his time and that his theories are insightful and revolutionary, however empirical evidence suggest that his theory is too idealistic and too unrealistic to be achieved in the real world. It could be argued that the notion of the learning organisation provides an idea of how operations could be done, including interesting dimensions provided by the likes of Senge, Garvin, Argyris and Schon that could increase organisational effectiveness. There are a number of criticisms and shortcomings to the model, as there is some question as to whether the vision can be realized within the sorts of dynamics that exist within and between organisations in a globalized capitalist economy. There does still seem to be some life in the model for organisations looking to grow. Organisations should focus on the learning part more rather than just on the changing part. Learning organisations become ‘learning’ only with the help of its employees who are self motivated to encourage flow of knowledge in the workplace. Thus there is a need to create such an organisational culture that supports learning, knowledge sharing and support of peers at the work place. Only then can the concept of ‘learning organisations’ be instilled such that these organisations will no longer spoken about and just exist. Bibliography Anon. (2007). Master of Business Administration, Implementing Strategies, 20th ed. University of Leicester. Anon. (2008). Creative Destruction. Forbes Invest Guide, Vol. 181, Issue 8, p170-170. Argyris, C.. & Schon, D.  (1978) Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective.  Reading, Mass: Addison Wesle. Armidon, S. R. (2005). Writing the Learning Organization. Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 4, p406-429. Armstrong, A. and Foley P. (2003). Foundations for a learning organization: organizational learning mechanisms. The Learning Organization, Vol. 10, No. 2, p74-82. Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41, No. 6, p977-1002. Chinowsky, C. and Carillo, P. (2007). Knowledge Management to Learning Organization Connection. Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. July 2007. Coopey, J. (1995) The learning organization: Power, politics and ideology. Management Learning, Vol. 26, No. 2, p193–214. Cox, W.M. (unknown publication date). Schumpeter, In His Own Words. Economic Insights, Vol. 6, No. 3. Cullen, J. (1999). Socially constructed learning: a commentary on the concept of the learning organisation. The Learning Organization, Vol. 6, No. 1, p45-52. Daft, R. (2005). New Era of Management, 2nd ed. Mason, USA: Thomson South Western. De Witt B and Meyer R, 2004. Strategy – Process, Content, Context, An International Perspective. 3rd ed. Thomson Learning, London. Dettmer, H. W. (2006). The Learning Organization: Adapt or Die. Goal Systems International, Part 5. Driver, M. (2002). The learning organization: Foucauldian gloom or Utopian sunshine? Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 1, p. 33-53. Du Plessis, D. Du Plessis, M. and Millett B. (unknown year). Developing a Learning Organisation: A Case Study. Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 2, No. 4, p71-94. Evans, S. (1998). Revisiting the learning organisation. Work Study, Vol. 47, No. 6, p201 – 203. Fielding, M. (2001). Learning Organisation or Learning Community? A Critique of Senge, Reason in Practice, Vol. 1, No.2. Gans, J.S, Hsu, D.H, and Stern, S. (2002). When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 33, No. 4, 571-586. Garavan, T. (1997). The Learning Organization: Review and Evaluation. The Learning Organization, Vol. 4, No. 1, p18-29. Garvin, D.A. (1993) Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review, July-August 1993. Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new`enterprise and ‘entrepreneurship paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4, No. 3, p233-269. Gorelick, C. (2005). Organizational learning vs the learning organization: a conversation with a practitioner. The Learning Organization, Vol. 12, No. 4, p383-388. Hind, P. (2001/2002). Tracking the learning trail. The Ashridge Journal, Winter 2001/2002. p26-31. Ho, S.K.M. (1999). Total learning organization. The Learning Oragnization, Vol. 6, No. 3, p116-120. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1996), How to Manage Your Learning Environment. Peter Honey Publications, Maidenhead, UK. Howell, J,M. and Shamir, B. (2005). The Role of Followers in the Charismatic Leadership Process: Relationships and their Consequences. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, p96-112. Javery, M. (2004). Evolving Technologies and Market Structures: Schumpeterian Gales of creative destruction and the United Kingdom Internet Service Providers’ Market. Journal if Economic Issues (JEI), Vol. 38, No. 3, p629-657. Kurz, H,D. (2008). innovations and profits, Schumpeter and the classical heritage. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, Vol. 67, p263-278. Lewis, D. (1996). The organizational culture saga - from OD to TQM: a critical review of the literature. Part 1 - concepts and early trends. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No.1. Long, R. (2007). When Opposites Attract: Building A Learning Organisation. Management, September 2007. Mayo, A. (2007). What are the characteristics or a true learning organization? Strategic HR Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, p4. Mello, A. (2003). Creative Destruction or Concentrating on the Core: Which Is the Right Path to Growth? Harvard Management Update 2003. Pedlar, M. Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1991). The Learning Company, McGraw Hill, London. Richtner, A. and Alhstrom P. (2006). creative destruction. EBF, Issue 27. Ritzer, G. (2008). Creative Destruction. URL: http://www.georgeritzer.com/work.html (12th September 2008) Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. Random House, London. Sturdy, A. and Grey, C. (2003). Beneath and Beyond Organizational Change Management: Exploring Alternatives. Organization, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 651-662. Wyss, D. (2006). creative destruction by numbers. Business Week Online, 3/13/2006 p1 URL:http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.le.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=20277950&site=ehost-live">creative destruction by the Numbers. word count c. 3,500 Appendix Read More