Learning and Development online support
CHAPTER 13
Developing L&D business partnerships
THE PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER
The purpose of this four-part chapter is to clarify the principles and practices involved
in achieving effective L&D business and learner partnerships (SLIDES 1 and 2). The
introduction makes clear the recognition that now exists of the importance of the
partnership principle in and between organisations, and the widespread but often
indiscriminate use of the term ‘business partner’ in the HR profession.
Tutors should remind students that Chapter 11 of my book contains much material of
direct relevance to the subject of business partnering both in a general HR context and
related to the L&D field specifically. Goodge’s (2008) factsheet on HR business
partnering, regularly updated on the CIPD’s website, is essential reading for this
chapter and the CIPD’s Research Insight on Supporting, Accelerating and Directing
Learning (November 2008) contains several relevant self-check questionnaires.
PARTNERSHIP: MEANINGS AND METAPHORS
HR ‘PARTNERSHIPS’: A CRITICAL VIEW
I open the chapter with a critical view of the ‘partnership’ concept when applied to the
HR area because it is so important to dispel the naivety and incompetence that too often
surrounds it. The Reflection that comes at the end of this subsection could be used to
stimulate class discussion or left as an aid to private study.
Reflection
Reflecting on doubts just described about the relevance of the concept of
strategic business partnerships for those in HR roles, how far, if at all, do
you share them – and why?
Feedback comments
The three concerns at issue here are:


the reliance of many new organisational forms on effective collaborative activity,
which HR functions often find problematic – something that was discussed in
Chapter 11, particularly in the section on the HR three-legged stool
the possibility that too much stress on the HR function’s partnership rather than
proactive value-adding role may lead to the function being seen and treated as
peripheral to the mainstream of the business

a concern that many HR professionals may be pursuing a ‘strategic business
partner’ role at the expense of defending their ethical agenda and their role as
employee champion.
In relation to that third concern, as already noted in my comments related to the
discussion in Chapter 11 on the HR three-legged stool model, Harris (2006) in her
research raised the concern that the more that HR staff are distanced from the
workforce, the fewer are the opportunities for them to build up the relationships with
line managers and other employees that are key to securing employee commitment.
PLAYING THE GAME: STRATEGIC BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
The Reflection that appears at the end of this subsection – and that concludes the whole
of the first section of the chapter – could provide a useful prompt for class discussion
following some private reflection by students.
Reflection
Reflecting on any L&D business partnership with which you are familiar, to
what extent and for what reasons do you judge it to be successful or
unsuccessful in achieving its stated purpose?
Feedback comments
One way of evaluating business partnerships is to assess them in the light of the CIPD’s
‘Business partnership model’ (2006) for L&D shown in the text (Figure 16) and on
SLIDE 3. Relevant criteria are indicated in the columns under ‘Objectives and
outcomes’ and ‘Processes and interventions’.
Alternatively, assessment could be guided by a set of questions like the following,
which are designed to probe two key dimensions of partnership working: shared
perceptions and an evidence-based approach (SLIDE 4):





How far are your L&D staff knowledgeable about new HR research, theories and
constructs relating to HR business partnerships?
Which of the L&D processes and initiatives in your organisation rest on a sound
research base, or have been strongly influenced in their design by well-established
and relevant L&D theoretical concepts and frameworks?
How often do L&D staff review their partnerships and their partnership processes
in the light of new research findings or of practical tools (such as those the CIPD
and other relevant institutions publish regularly on their websites) that have been
developed in response to those findings?
How far does L&D decision-making in your organisation draw on rigorous factfinding, conducted on a collaborative basis, rather than on repeating what has been
done in the past, on what the L&D staff are good at doing, or on indiscriminate
‘best practice’, gut feel or ideology?
How far are your L&D staff respected for their regular search across the
organisation for evidence about what is really happening about training, learning
and development and about key stakeholders’ perceptions of L&D’s role, value and
relevance in the business?


How far do those staff show willingness in their decision-making and in the
conduct of their work to confront and respond to uncomfortable truths or
perceptions about the L&D function rather than dismissing these and continuing
along their predetermined L&D path?
What does the L&D function do to ensure that it is innovative, and that it
experiments with a variety of learning approaches that could be stimulating and
valuable for different kinds of learners rather than restricting itself to a small set
with which it has become comfortable over time?
COMPANIONS IN DANCING
ISSUES OF WORKPLACE CULTURE
Reflection
Consider two different workplaces in an organisation with which you are
familiar. How would you describe the culture of each, and to what extent do
these workplace cultures support or conflict with the primary organisation
culture that top management is trying to develop?
Feedback comments
For students who have no previous knowledge of culture theory the framework
produced initially by Roger Harrison and developed by Charles Handy is a useful one.
Roger Harrison’s 1972 article on the conflicts that can arise when the ideology of
individuals does not match the ideology of the organisation in which they work
stimulated Charles Handy to develop his own thinking on what he preferred to call the
‘culture’ of organisations and their relationship to structure. His ‘culture-structure’
questionnaire (1985: 214–20) is well worth students’ completing today. In his
explanation of its basis, Handy argues that although every organisation has its own
distinctive culture and associated structure, there can be a number of different cultures
and structures especially in larger organisations (see also Handy, 1989). His views on
this point contrast with those of commentators like Buckingham (2001: 40), who
roundly asserts that ‘most large organisations actually look very similar to one another:
they are all equally varied and equally incoherent’. Yet Harrison’s and Handy’s
concepts continue to influence practitioners, who find that they make otherwise
clouded notions of culture accessible. They can yield valuable insights into ‘how we do
things here’ – whether the ‘here’ is the organisation at large or a particular local
workplace within it. I have drawn particularly on them in the following culturestructure summary, outlined in simplistic form on SLIDE 5:

The power culture and web structure
This is the culture of centralised power. It is most often found in small
entrepreneurial firms, and at the top of large organisations. Control is exercised by
one person, or by a small set of people, from whom rays of power and influence
spread out, connected by functional or specialist strings. The structure to which
such a culture gives rise is therefore web-like.
Organisations dominated by centralised power move fast and react quickly to
threats: they ‘think on their feet’. People who succeed tend to be the politically
skilled risk-takers. Success is a matter of achieving the ends desired by the point of
central power; means tend to count for relatively little. Organisational life is
competitive, and those with L&D responsibilities have to relate their activity to
ends that are valued by the central power source.
This kind of ‘business partnership’ requires of the L&D practitioner political skills
of a high order and a strong sense of what ‘professionalism’ really means. Power
can be – and often is – used in benign ways that seek to ensure that all rather than
just the powerful few share the gains achieved from shared endeavour. On the other
hand, power can also be abused in such organisations. That is where ethics
becomes an issue.

The role culture and pyramid structure
This is the culture of bureaucracy, sustained by the belief that an organisation
should have its purpose and overall plan defined at the top, and then rest for its
strength on a clearly defined hierarchy of functions or specialisms. Rules and
procedures govern this pyramid, as they also govern communications and the
conduct of disputes. Precedents dominate decision-making and the whole
organisation tends toward rigidity rather than innovation. Change is difficult when
job descriptions, rules, established working practices and routines all pull people
back.
The formal position allocated to whoever carries special responsibility for L&D in
such a system will be a key determinant of their influence over their business
partners. The higher the position, the more formal power they possess. However,
even if formal position is fairly low, knowing ways around and through the rules
can often aid the achievement of desired ends. The greatest danger is that in this
inward-looking world professional vision can become ‘departmentalised’. How
many HR managers have you met who have become absorbed in the goals and
interests of their little empire, bending the rules to their advantage rather than
striving for a common benefit?

The person culture and galaxy structure
This is not so much a type of organisation (although some professional partnerships
operate on this basis) but more a way of describing clusters of individuals who
have unique contributions to make on the basis of specialist skills or knowledge.
These are the ‘stars’ who dominate the organisational galaxy.
Those with L&D responsibilities can find it difficult to forge any ‘business
partnerships’ with ‘stars’. Many need development but do not acknowledge it (may
indeed be unaware of it). They refuse to play the game because they cannot
acknowledge any expertise as greater or more compelling than their own. Stars can
also be disinterested in aiding the development of others. Sometimes they actively
block it.
On the other hand some stars shine a bright light on L&D processes. They
demonstrate their belief in the development of people’s potential by opening doors
that others would keep closed, by giving considerable autonomy to individuals and
teams, and by acting as coaches, mentors and positive role models in the
developmental process. Creativity and innovation thrive in such cultures.

The human investment culture and network structure
In 1995 two strategic management writers, Miles and Snow, drew attention to a
spherical or network structure that has subsequently come to typify many
businesses. Such systems focus on ‘core competences’ – those things that the
business can do uniquely well and that will bring it competitive advantage. L&D
practitioners in such organisations must have high-level professional expertise and
be particularly skilled in relationship management. They must continuously
develop themselves, and focus on developing in others the capability to produce the
organisation’s core competences. They must be able to do all this outside the
protective walls of a specialist function.
Here is a suggested group task to put culture-structure theory to practical use. I have
not added any feedback comments because findings will vary from one group to the
next. Plenary discussion should clarify how far the kind of rather simplistic culturestructure theory outlined above is a useful aid to understanding a specific organisational
context and its impact on people’s behaviour and progress in the organisation, and on
their perceptions and expectations of the L&D function.
Group work:
UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURE OF MY ORGANISATION
Purpose:
To apply simple culture-structure theory to the analysis of specific organisations
in order to gain useful insights concerning behaviour and perceptions within
them.
Task:
In the time available, take some or all of the organisations to which the group’s
members currently belong and explore seven issues in relation to each. Then
prepare a presentation for plenary session reporting on the group’s most
significant findings concerning organisational culture and structure, the
relationship between them, and their influence on various aspects of
organisational life and performance. The seven issues are these:
1 What kind of culture and structure do you think top management of each
organisation intends and believes to exist, and what kind of culture and
structure seem to exist in reality?
2 Where people come from the same organisation but work in different units of
it, how far do they have the same or differing perceptions of their
organisation’s culture and structure? Why might perceptions differ?
3 What kind of people ‘get on’ in each of the organisations, and what seem to
be the reasons for their success?
4 What kind of people are unsuccessful in each, and what seem to be the main
reasons for their failure?
5 What are the the main kinds of pressures and opportunities facing L&D
practitioners in each organisation that stem from the organisation’s culture
and/or structure?
6 What kind of perceptions and expectations exist in each organisation
concerning the role and effectiveness of the L&D function? How far and in
what ways do these appear to relate to organisational culture and structure?
7 How far (if at all) are L&D practitioners in each organisation promoting and
helping to build a learning culture, and how does organisational culture and
structure aid or hinder their task?
POWER, POLITICS AND ETHICS
I conclude this section with the following statement:
Reflecting on the concepts of practical judgement, emotional, social and
spiritual intelligence is not sentimentalism or wacky thinking. It is a way of
exploring the nature of some essential but hard to express dimensions of
partnership.
The information sources I have cited in the text that relate to emotional, social and
spiritual intelligence are relatively easy to access. However, to my knowledge the
concept of practical judgement has only been discussed in depth by Harrison and Smith
(1996, 2001) yet it both incorporates the other three and goes some way beyond them.
Practical judgement embodies values to do with citizenship and community of interest.
It is therefore essential to the successful conduct of collaboration and is itself enhanced
and continuously developed through such conduct. As we explain, the exercise of
practical judgement can stimulate the insights, the focus on and the understanding of
the organisation’s vision, purpose and strategic intent that promote strategic awareness
and learning across the organisation and a climate of supportiveness and trust needed to
achieve commitment from stakeholders (SLIDES 6 and 7).
Practical judgement is of clear relevance for the business partnering process. It also
takes us back to important ethical issues first discussed in Chapter 9 as well as
connecting to concerns expressed in Chapter 12 regarding the implications of bounded
rationality for the strategy process. In making these connections the concept of practical
judgement thus highlights the complexity of the business partnering process. It is
particularly for that reason that I provide below extracts from our original conference
paper. I apologise for their length, but my intention is to clarify the meaning of our
concept of practical judgement and its roots in an ancient but still powerful wisdom
(Harrison and Smith, 1996).
THE CONCEPT OF PRACTICAL JUDGEMENT
. . . The prevailing conception of reason in our time ... is one of instrumental
rationality, or technical reason. Technical reason ... produces rules and
procedures to codify the ways that our desired ends may be reached, increasing
our power to make universal rather than particular statements, to teach others
appropriate ways and means, to achieve a high degree of precision and to
construct explanations that help us further to refine our procedures (Nussbaum,
1986: 95–6). ... One of its most characteristic signs is the prevalence of ‘skillsspeak’ – the tendency to talk of all the capacities, abilities, qualities and virtues
that people possess as ‘skills’ (or ‘competencies’).
...
Critics ... argue that the power of technical reason to predict and control, so far
from improving people’s lives and leading to ‘progress’, has rather brought about
sophisticated forms of manipulation and enslavement. Technical reason cannot
meet our interest in understanding and communicating with each other. It cannot
do justice to the ethical dimension of our lives, our ability to reflect on ends and
purposes as well as on means. ... Worse, it brings about the relegation of the
ethical to the status of personal preference, ‘values and attitudes’ ... [It also]
threatens to eliminate the idea of judgement ... by the widespread assumption
that there is only knowledge (‘objective’ or ‘scientific’) on the one hand and
inclination on the other.
Although technical reason enters significantly into organisational behaviour, it
would be widely accepted that the work of managers and of senior professionals
in many fields consists to a significant degree (indeed, sometimes seems to
consist of a constant series) of acts of practical judgement. The manager may
consciously refer to rules, procedures or generalisations in day-to-day work, but
at least as often he or she relies on what is sometimes described as ‘native wit’ or
‘common sense’: but not so native that it did not need to be acquired, nor so
common that we expect the person in the street to display it readily. .... How ...
are we to develop an appropriate model in order ... to ... understand how the
capacity for judgement may be enhanced?
...
Aristotle's account of phronēsis (in the Nicomachean Ethics) is a fruitful source
for this purpose. Phronēsis is variously translated as ‘practical reasoning’,
‘practical judgement’ or ‘practical wisdom’: we prefer ‘practical judgement’ for
reasons that will become clear. Aristotle distinguishes phronēsis from technē,
which is, roughly, instrumental reason with a ‘scientific’ flavour. ... Phronēsis by
contrast is characterised by flexibility and attentiveness to the details of the
particular, and perhaps unique, case. Aristotle’s word for this alertness ... is
aesthesis [aisthēsis]. There is sensitivity, a kind of attunement, to whatever is the
subject of judgement, rather than the attempt to exercise mastery or domination
over it. ... Phronēsis, or practical judgement as we shall from now on refer to it,
has an ethical side to it which technical rationality lacks. Questions of character,
of what kind of person the manager is, are at issue here: it does not simply come
down to what ‘skills’ he or she is exercising.
...
Aristotle's own prime example of this is politics, which cannot be indifferent to
means. Political ends can never justify corruption and chicanery, for the wellfounded nation-state is characterised by honest, open and just dealings amongst
its citizens as much as by the attainment of any particular ends such as security
and low inflation. In the world of the organisation, similarly ... good
management by its very nature ... goes about its business in a manner respectful
of certain values and as much concerned to maintain that respect as to achieve
those more external ends such as increasing profits and securing competitive
advantage.
...
In practical judgement knowledge, wisdom and feeling hold together and inform
each other ....
The four key features of practical judgement
Experience is a necessary condition of practical judgement. Experience on its
own is, however, no panacea because unless we are helped, and sometimes even
directly shown, how to interpret what we see and to formulate the right response
to it, we import ways of understanding and coping that are inappropriate to the
new context ...
By character we mean that practical judgement is not only a matter of learning
skills and acquiring competencies but is also bound up with the kind of person
one is ...
Alertness in practical judgement is by its nature such that what we now tend to
distinguish as knowledge and feeling must draw on each other. Our feelings help
us to pick out what is salient in a given situation. We have a sympathetic
understanding of things in their own terms, of what they mean to the agents
involved, instead of supposing we are grasping them as ‘objective phenomena’.
The alert manager responds to the myriad complex pressures of the workplace by
experiencing them accurately, distinguishing what is meant as a threat, what is a
clumsy overture of co-operation, what a response to stress, and so on.
Flexibility ... Good practical judgement ... does not impose rigid categories or
principles on its subject-matter but is always responsive to it. Flexibility is
closely connected with alertness. Both involve ‘sensitivity or attunement rather
than mastery or domination’ (Dunne, 1993: 256). Both acknowledge the
chanciness of human affairs ...
This operationalisation of the concept of practical judgement makes clear its
ethical nature and explicit place for the affective, its roots in learning from
experience but also its openness to further experience, and the continual
problematising of one’s frames of reference that it involves. The concept
therefore connects strongly with recent strategic management literature focusing
on qualities such as trust ... judgement ... heedful interrelating to one another ...
and friendship and family networks.
Practical judgement as conceived in this paper is also, by the nature of its
features, likely to achieve those sociocognitive advantages of comprehension,
consensus and creativity (Ginsberg, 1994: 159), and of trust, commitment and
effort (Hosmer, 1994: 29) that are uniquely able to resolve conflict in strategymaking processes and so enhance strategic capability.
The tradition in which ideas about practical judgement are rooted embodies
values to do with citizenship and community of interest and insists on the
significance of collaboration and inter-personal relationships in the development
and deployment of that judgement. ... Such values are ... essential in order to
develop the trust in the direction of the firm that is necessary if its stakeholders
are to continue to show commitment to its future (Hosmer, 1994: 32).
...
Practical judgement can produce a climate that nurtures individual and
organisational learning. Through its exercise, advantages of comprehension,
consensus and creativity can be achieved in strategy-making situations, and trust,
commitment and effort can be developed in the firm’s key stakeholders.
Source: extracts from R. Harrison and R. Smith (1996)
As we pointed out in a later publication (Harrison and Smith, 2001), practical
judgement is a concept which can be operationalised, for example, through the familiar
organisational practice of mentoring – a process in which one employee, usually older
and more experienced, acts as ‘a trusted counsellor and guide’ to another, who takes
responsibility for pursuing his or her objectives.
THE PARTNERSHIP DANCE
As a concluding note to the chapter it is interesting to read some of the observations
contained on the last page (22) of the November 2008 CIPD Research Insight on
Supporting, Accelerating and Directing Learning. They also reflect the ways in which
L&D practitioners can prepare the ground for building strong and durable partnerships
with business and learner stakeholders. They are shown on SLIDE 8.
CHAPTER REVIEW QUESTIONS
Review Question 1
Draw on contemporary research and/or current practice to suggest the crucial
skills L&D practitioners need in order to perform well as business partners, and
how these might be acquired.
Feedback comments
Although the term ‘business partner’ has received an enthusiastic take-up in the HR
profession, it is often used in some ignorance of the responsibilities, tasks and tensions
that it involves.
Looking at the most senior level of partnership, Goodge (2008) sees the role as one that
involves senior HR professionals working closely with business leaders to influence
and steer strategy and strategy implementation. The factsheet emphasises that the role
can vary enormously depending on organisational size and business priorities, but
identifies the following as activities in which strategic partners are typically involved
and in which, therefore, they should possess relevant skills:




organisational and people capability-building
longer-term resource and talent management planning
using business insights to drive change in people management practices
intelligence-gathering of good people management practices internally and
externally, so they can raise issues that executives may not be aware of.
The factsheet points out that is is rare to find clear boundaries between these different
functional areas and there is often a degree of overlap. If HR business partnerships are
to flourish, there must therefore be good working relationships between HR
practitioners in different functional teams – something that research regularly shows to
be a weakness particularly in the L&D field.
Dalziel et al (2006) identified the top five HR business partnership skills gaps as:





influencing and political skills
strategic thinking
the ability to deliver results to achieve a target
leadership ability
business knowledge.
They observed that the real challenge is less to acquire the skills than to practise them,
and certainly for L&D practitioners operating at the middle levels of an organisation
the practical demands that stem from working in partnership are considerable.
There is also a danger that a preoccupation with identifying specific partnership skills
and how to train people to acquire them may lead to overlooking one of the most
crucial determinants of success in the partnership process: the exercise of what may be
described as practical judgement in shaping any partnership to specific context and in
developing the kind of relationships between partners that, grounded in reciprocal trust
and respect, will be strong and durable. Practical judgement is not a specific ‘skill’ that
can be trained. It concerns how people go about their work, and the ethical values and
affective qualities that they bring to it.
Assessment centres and 360-degree feedback are two methods in increasing use now to
identify the partnership capability of existing or potential HR practitioners (including
those in the L&D field). Information from these processes can inform individual
appraisal discussions and personal development plans. Various methods may be
considered to help the practitioner acquire the necessary experience and expertise,
including coaching, shadowing, action learning, guided reading, involvement in or
observation of business planning processes or observing same, gathering information
about best practice in other organisations, and so on.
Review Question 2
Why is it that many L&D practitioners have problems in forming and sustaining
effective business partnerships at middle-management level, and what suggestions
would you make to improve such a situation?
Feedback comments
This is a straightforward question that can be answered by reference to material in the
chapter, but candidates would gain higher marks in an exam for supplementing such
knowledge with reference to relevant research or organisational experience. Here is an
example of such an answer.
The L&D role of line managers is rapidly expanding but we know from recent
CIPD annual L&D surveys and other reported evidence that in the UK the bulk
of responsibility for determining L&D needs still rests with L&D specialists.
One challenge for those specialists in the local borough council where I work as
an HR officer is to forge a relationship with the line that produces a shared and
accurate perception of needs and priorities for action. The intent behind L&D
corporate strategy often fails to translate into effective action for a variety of
reasons including:
 line managers who are not committed to that strategy, or do not understand
it, or lack the competence to carry it out


line managers who have inadequate incentive or support to implement that
strategy effectively
HR practices and policies that conflict with L&D strategy and plans.
Such problems create further challenges for the L&D business partnership,
which requires from L&D practitioners a high level of relational and negotiating
skills and a rigorous evidence-based approach to their work. In my organisation
many of the L&D practitioners (there are 10) lack those skills and the leadership
needed to develop them.
In any organisation, improving L&D business partnerships at the middle levels
must start with an accurate identification of causes of problems. Unless the staff
concerned are prepared to face up to some uncomfortable findings and be willing
to tackle them in appropriate ways, no progress can be made. Some problems
may prove to be caused by an inappropriate structure for the L&D function. That
will require top-level leadership and action and as such may not have any quick
or easy solution. However, other problems can be caused by lack of team or
individual skills and poor L&D leadership. This is the case in my organisation.
The most appropriate route to identify and tackle individual needs is through the
performance management process, with jointly negotiated personal development
plans to remedy weaknesses and capitalise on strengths. Where skills and
understanding of the whole L&D team are weak, team-based learning processes
should be introduced to develop a shared knowledge of what the business partner
role involves, and of how to change mindsets, processes and practices in the
L&D function in order to adapt better to that role and to work more effectively
with partners across the organisation. As the L&D manager has recently left my
organisation, the HR director to whom that post-holder reports is now putting a
lot of effort into recruiting someone with the experience, expertise and
determination to introduce strong leadership into the L&D unit and to find ways
of greatly improving the staff’s morale, capability and commitment.
REFERENCES
(including those cited on the slides)
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT (2006) The Changing Role
of the Trainer: Building a learning culture in your organisation. Online interactive
tool, available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/lrnanddev/general/_chngrltrnr
[accessed 12 July 2008].
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT (2008) Supporting,
Accelerating and Directing Learning: Implications for trainers. Research insight.
London: CIPD. Online version also available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/research/
rsrchplcypubs/researchinsights.htm [accessed 1 December 2008].
DALZIEL, S., STRANGE, J. and WALTERS, M. (2006) HR Business Partnering: CIPD
Toolkit. London: CIPD.
GINSBERG, A. (1994) ‘Minding the competition: from mapping to mastery’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol.15 (Winter Special Issue): 153–74.
GOODGE, P. (2008) HR Business Partnering. Factsheet. London: CIPD. Online version
also available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/corpstrtgy/general/hrbusprtnr.htm
[October update accessed 1 December 2008].
HANDY, C. B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 3rd edition. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
HANDY, C. B. (1989) The Age of Unreason. London: Business Books.
HARRIS, L. (2006) ‘Have council changes eroded HR’s role as employee champion?’,
People Management, Vol.12, No.21, 26 October: 72.
HARRISON, Roger (1972) ‘Understanding your organization’s character’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol.50, No.3: 119–28.
HARRISON, Rosemary and SMITH, R. (1996) ‘Practical judgement: its implications for
knowledge development and strategic capability’, in Proc. European Institute for
Advanced Studies in Management, 4th International Workshop on Managerial and
Organisational Cognition: Management in the thought-full enterprise. Stockholm
School of Economics and Linköping University, Stockholm, 29–30 August: Part 1.
HARRISON, Rosemary and SMITH, R. (2001) ‘Practical judgement: its implications for
knowledge development and strategic capability’, in B. Hellgren and J. Löwstedt (eds)
Management in the Thought-Full Enterprise: European Ideas on Organizing. Bergen,
Norway: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS, pp195–213.
HOSMER, L. T. (1994) ‘Strategic planning as if ethics mattered’, Strategic Management
Journal, Summer Special Issue, Vol.15: 17–34.
MILES, R. and SNOW C. (1995) ‘The new network firm: a spherical structure built on a
human investment philosophy’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.23, No.4: 5–18.
NUSSBAUM, M. (1986) The Fragility of Goodness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.