d.).
Values are the personification of what an organization stands for, and should be the foundation for the behavior of its members. A disconnect between individual and organizational values often leads to dysfunction. "Additionally, an organization may publish one set of values, perhaps in an effort to push forward a positive image, while the values that really guide organizational behavior are very different. When there is a disconnect between stated and operating values, it may be difficult to determine what is acceptable" (Strategic Leadership and Decision Making, n.d.).
Structural Contingency Theory (SCT) says that contingency plans are a necessary part of making sure that a business continues to function efficiently when it is faced with challenges and difficulties. When put into motion, contingency plans can change the scenery of the business provisionally or permanently. Structural contingency theory suggests that companies have a plan in place to guide organizational change when needed. Structural contingency theory points out that organizational structure must be flexible to each business and that each business must make moves to make sure they are operating within the most competent structure to support the business (Long, 2012). This theory supports the idea of organizational learning in that it fosters the idea of a continuous process that enhances the organization. This theory is inapplicable to organizational learning in that it does not really involve any risk taking.
Social network analysis (SNA) is the mapping and assessing of relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers, URLs, and other connected information entities. "The nodes in the network are the people and groups while...
SNA provides both a visual and a mathematical analysis of human relationships" (Social Network Analysis, a Brief Introduction, 2011). This theory supports the idea of organizational learning in that it includes all the aspects of the organization and not just the things that people know. This theory is inapplicable to organizational learning because it does not deal with any external factors, as it only looks at internal relationships.
These two theories could be adapted to accommodate organizational learning by including both internal and external relationships and incorporate the idea of risk taking so that all things and risks that influence a company can be dealt with and planned for.
References
Chatterjee, S. (2010). Behavioral Aspects of Organizational Learning and Adaptation.
Retrieved from http://opendepot.org/392/
Chiva, R., Grandio, a., & Alegre, J. (2010). Adaptive and Generative Learning: Implications
from Complexity Theories. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(2),
114-129. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00255.x
External and Internal Factors. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.streetdirectory.com/etoday/external-and-internal-factors-aellc.html
Long, N. (2012). Definition of Structural Contingency Theory. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/definition-structural-contingency-theory-35218.html
Social Network Analysis, a Brief Introduction. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html
Strategic Leadership and Decision Making.(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/strat-ldr-dm/pt4ch15.html
