MIL practitioner guide: chapter 3

Chapter 3: The process framework on managerial intellectual learning

The managerial intellectual learning (MIL) process, as an idealized reference framework comprises a set of four inter-related activities, as embedded in an array of mindset and external environmental factors (re: Figure 1):

Phase 1 (Data Management) comprises securing and searching for study materials, notably academic readings, for leisure reading as well as problem-driven study purposes. Storing, indexing, coding, browsing and making study notes of the readings and ideas from them are the main activities for this phase. Also, learners need to make the e-learning infrastructure, notably, e-library, available to them for this kind of activities.

Phase 2 (Absorbed reading) involves more serious comprehension of the ideas from the academic domain so as to gain a more broader, deeper and, sometimes, focused understanding of management themes, both to develop more sophisticated managerial intellectual competence as well as to obtain a more complicated understanding of management topics. Such activities very often are prompted by on-hand research works and managerial problem-solving tasks. Often, it is carried out as literature review, though a light-weight and agile one for this.  Chiefly, it feeds on the input from Phase 1(Data Management). The review very often involves explicit reflection on the study materials, as facilitated with the construction of conceptual diagrams. These diagrams are also called theoretical framework.

Phase 3 (The multi-perspective, systems-based (MPSB) knowledge compilation is a specialized form of literature review that makes use of critical systems thinking to critically reflect on the discussion in the academic literature on a specific management topic. This literature review exercise consider the values of the purpose-serving tools, the range of possible subjective perceptions on the management topic and, finally, the hidden, marginalized and suppressed assumptions underlying the mainstream views on the chosen management topics under examination. The review is encouraged to be done with the construction of conceptual diagrams, called the MPSB frameworks, both to facilitate critical reflection on the academic literature on the selected management topic under investigation and to convey the resultant findings to other people.

Phase* (Practice-based intellectual learning) is learning that takes place in the practice environment, e.g., a specific work setting. This kind of learning involves both tacit and explicit reflection on observation and management concerns, primarily out of real-world managerial problem-solving or planning activities. This kind of intellectual learning is particularly interested in generating insights with actionable value to address management concerns that exist in the real-world problem-situation.

By linking up these four types of learning activities as a web of managerial intellectual learning activities, one obtains an evolutionary MIL process framework. The MIL process framework is embedded in a learning context with various influencing mindset and external environmental factors.

Further readings

Ho, J.K.K. 1995. “An Example on the Operation of the MPSB Filter” Systems Research Vol. 12, No. 4. Chichester: Wiley: 297-308.

Ho, J.K.K. 1995. “MPSB Frameworks Explained” in Ellis, K., A. Gregory, B. Mears-Young and G. Ragsdell. (editors). Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice. Plenum Press: 487-492.

Ho, J.K.K. 2013. “A Research Note: An exploration on the intellectual learning process of systems thinking by managers in the digital social media ecosystem” European Academic Research 1(5) August: 636-649.

Ho, J.K.K. 2014. “An empirical study on managerial intellectual learning and managerial intellectual learning capabilities-Building Mechanism (MILCBM)” European Academic Research 2(8) November: 10564-10577.

Ho, J.K.K. 2015. "An updated research note on the key multi-perspective, systems-based (MPSB) concepts in the multi-perspective, systems-based research" American Research Thoughts 1(11) September: 2693-2704.