Creating a learning organization in law enforcement: Maturity levels for police oversight agencies

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to conceptualize a stage model for maturity levels for police oversight agencies.Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a literature review covering police oversight organizations and stages of growth models.Findings – As a conceptual paper, the main findings are related to the appropriateness of the stage model, each identified stage, and the characteristics of each stage.Research limitations/implications – An empirical study of police oversight agencies all over the world would be necessary to verify the proposed stage model.Practical implications – The managers of police oversight agencies can apply the model in three ways: identify the current status; identify future direction; and evaluate the past progression.Originality/value – Hitherto, knowledge transfer from police misconduct cases has not been conceptualized as a learning process in police districts and general law enforcement.

[1]  เถลิงศก โสมทิพย์.  THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization , 2012 .

[2]  Petter Gottschalk.  Policing the Police: Knowledge Management in Law Enforcement , 2009 .

[3]  S. Newell,et al.  Managing Knowledge Work and Innovation , 2009 .

[4]  Petter Gottschalk,et al.  Maturity in IT outsourcing relationships: an exploratory study of client companies , 2008, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[5]  J. Colquitt,et al.  TRENDS IN THEORY BUILDING AND THEORY TESTING: A FIVE-DECADE STUDY OF THE ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL , 2007 .

[6]  R. Kark,et al.  Motivation to Lead, Motivation to Follow: The Role of the Self-Regulatory Focus in Leadership Processes , 2007 .

[7]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning , 2007 .

[8]  R. Burke,et al.  Work and health outcomes among police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement. , 2006 .

[9]  H. Greve,et al.  Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge Combination and Experience in Innovative Teams , 2006 .

[10]  Davide Nicolini,et al.  Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning , 2006 .

[11]  Mona V. Makhija,et al.  The Role Of Organizational Controls In Managing Knowledge , 2006 .

[12]  T. Prenzler,et al.  Performance Indicators for Police Oversight Agencies , 2005 .

[13]  Stephen Tong,et al.  Training the effective detective: report of recommendations , 2005 .

[14]  Sanjaya Mishra,et al.  Research methods in the social sciences , 2005 .

[15]  Chung-Chu Liu,et al.  Determinants of knowledge sharing of e-learners , 2005 .

[16]  Joaquín Alegre,et al.  Organizational Learning and Organizational Knowledge , 2005 .

[17]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Vicious and Virtuous Circles in the Management of Knowledge: The Case of Infosys Technologies , 2005, MIS Q..

[18]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Factors, and Organizational Climate , 2005, MIS Q..

[19]  Domenico Laise,et al.  Knowledge Organization design: A diagnostic tool , 2005 .

[20]  S. Høyrup,et al.  Learning, working and living: Mapping the terrain of working life learning , 2005 .

[21]  H. Tsoukas.  Complex Knowledge: Studies in Organizational Epistemology , 2004 .

[22]  James J. Chrisman,et al.  Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise , 2004 .

[23]  Jay Liebowitz,et al.  Will knowledge management work in the government? , 2004, Electron. Gov. an Int. J..

[24]  A. Bennet,et al.  The Rise of the Knowledge Organization , 2004 .

[25]  Alex Bennet,et al.  Designing the Knowledge Organization of the Future: The Intelligent Complex Adaptive System , 2003 .

[26]  S. Newell,et al.  Managing Knowledge Work , 2002 .

[27]  Gunnar Thomassen.  Investigating Complaints against the Police in Norway: An Empirical Evaluation , 2002 .

[28]  Natasa Rupcic,et al.  The fifth discipline-the art and practice of the learning organisation , 2002 .

[29]  Preparing for the Real Knowledge Organization , 2001 .

[30]  N. Ashkanasy,et al.  Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations , 2001 .

[31]  J. Brown,et al.  Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective , 2001 .

[32]  Robert M. Grant,et al.  Knowledge and Organization , 2001 .

[33]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[34]  Davide Nicolini,et al.  The Organizational Learning of Safety in Communities of Practice , 2000 .

[35]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[36]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The assimilation of software process innovations: an organizational learning perspective , 1997 .

[37]  William R. King,et al.  Integration Between Business Planning and Information Systems Planning: Validating a Stage Hypothesis , 1997 .

[38]  F. Blackler.  Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation , 1995 .

[39]  K. Weick.  What Theory Is Not, Theorizing Is , 1995 .

[40]  Mike Pedler,et al.  Towards the Learning Company: Concepts and Practices , 1995 .

[41]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[42]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[43]  Robert K. Kazanjian,et al.  An empirical test of a stage of growth progression model , 1989 .

[44]  J. Burgoyne,et al.  Towards the Learning Company , 1989 .

[45]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  A critque of the stage hypothesis: theory and empirical evidence , 1984, CACM.

[46]  Chava Nachmias,et al.  Research Methods in the Social Sciences , 1976 .