 Background

Learning Lab Denmark, which came out in 1998 by a group of Danish people and
government official, was intended to bridge the gap between theory and the practice. LLD’s
stakeholders were the government, corporations and educational institutions. As the bridge
between these groups, LLD was expected to thrive from the tensions among them and create
knowledge that was relevant to all stakeholders. LLD was to practice multidisciplinary work that
brought together researchers with different background and cultural theory as well as educational
research. LLD got initial support from Danish government but they were financially supported
by private sector. Benefiting from both the public and private support, LLD was encouraged to
satisfy its stakeholders and to inquire about the new processes of achieving various goals to
enrich itself as a multi-purpose organization.

LLD’s target was to develop a new research and development unit in different areas like
learning, knowledge creation and competence development with fresh concepts of theory and
practical tools. Another working notion was that creating something new and groundbreaking
involves the willingness to take risks without the competence of other organizations and achieve
a prosperous success in both national and international context.

LLD was an independent organization, but it was associated with the Danish Pedagogical
University (DPU). LLD’s finance was administered by DPU. DPU was a conventional university
than LLD and was specialized in research on education with traditional academic departments,
conferred masters and established procedures for conferring authority and responsibility to
university administrators, board of governors and academic councils.

LLD adopted an action-oriented scholarship quite different from the typical academic
process in which the researcher served as a communicator to bridge among LLD’s constitutions
because communication was the core to LLD’s identity. The purpose was to create an
environment were the research and conveying process would be achieved simultaneously. This
would give birth to a dynamic way of research method were translators are not necessary to
convey the message to the interest group and the details can be readily provided first hand.

 Learning lab Denmark model

Although Learning Lab Denmark was supposed to be a promising organization, it was

showered with problems especially regarding the Human Resource Management sector. The
problems that the organization faced were as follows:

 Strategic and intra-department conflict:

The main crisis that the organization was facing regarding the Human Resource
Management was the intrapersonal conflict between the secretariat and the consortia. The
organization has primarily wished to introduce a new system in which the personnel will have a
high autonomy but at the same time the corporate culture and base rules were implied in
harmony. But the consortia conducting the different researches were not keen to abide by the
rules implemented by the secretariat. They believed that some of the rules were just constraining
their work and were unnecessary for the consortia. On the other hand, the secretariat was striving
to implement the rules and ensure a unified code of conduct for the entire organization.

 Employee position:

One of the main problems was in LLD’s HR department. LLD was meant to start with
one senior manager. But later the board selected two young, energetic persons who are enough
strong with fresh concepts and ideas about design and leadership for both managing director and
research director. But the problem was to identify which person should take the responsibility of
what and whether one has a superior power over the other. Later on, the two managers seem to
have lost their authoritarian power over the employees and had great difficulties to implement
the corporate culture and rules.

In the mean time, the introduction of the brokers as communication agents between the
consortia and the secretariat aroused new problems, as their role was not entirely and clearly
defined. The conflict between the CDs and the broker team was about “alternative” research and
development in the organization. CDs measurement about broker was like service unit or techno
structure. The confusion was on whether they have the right to introduce and implement rules or
are they just supposed to convey the rules from the secretariat to the consortia. Service unit
---executes orders/requests issued by the CDs. Techno structure—issue orders/ requests to the
CDs and expects these requests to be implemented. The battle between standardization and
variability made the conflict badly. The broker team emphasized the stability and standardization
whereas; the CDs fostered variability because they resisted the brokers’ initiatives.

 Employee recruitment:

Vaaland and Jensen, the consortium directors did not want to bring many traditional
researchers into consortia because they believed these individuals would be unwilling to pursue
cross-disciplinary, action-oriented research. To find out something new and interesting the
consortium directors chose many young energetic employees who had been educated in the top
of Danish universities and had worked as interns in other countries with a great deal. The CDs
belief was that these young energetic individuals with high ambitions will be able to find out new
identity that will run the organization ahead with adequate success. LLD encountered numerous
internal challenges which created a big gap between LLD’s experience and results of its
production. A reason behind the gap of expectation and outcome was the employee’s inefficient
learning. They were trained to learn new methods on the job. But they did not get proper
opportunity in the job sector to apply their newfound insights.

Again, the total employees working in LLD were facing confusions about the position
that they are working at. Some of the researchers were just full time research personnel and had
no skill or intention to adapt to a communication process with the stakeholders. They were just
satisfied with continuing their research and find results. Others were part-time employees in
other organizations and the concept of a full time job with vast autonomy was a difficult situation
as they were not used to take the lead.
  Personnel attribution:

There were number of employees in LLD from the starting time of span. It included 23
administrative staff, 18 research supporting staff and 40 full-time and half-time researchers.
Researchers used to work as thinker, conducting research and communicating results in
academic language. They used to send it to the communication team. They used to translate the
results for the audience. The audiences are also seen learning through a one way interaction
system with the translators of researches. Researchers also use to work closely with the
communication team to assist them in making the dialogue with the audiences. Most of the
employees in LLD are highly energetic. LLD expected quality differentiation from the
employees as most of them were educated from the top Danish universities and had their intern
from the foreign countries. But still there were some gaps between the expected and actual
outcomes; the reason was researchers used to face an experience curve though LLD which was
their first full time job. They were assigned to hard work ad had to learn the work on the job
directly. As a result they took much time to grab the experience curve.

 Operational problems:

Most of the researchers were only keen to accomplish their researches and the process of
communicating it clearly and simultaneously to the audience was a nuisance to them. On the
other hand, the assistants of the researchers were sometimes not insightful enough to understand
the deep research procedures in subjects like neuroscience and were thus lagging behind their
researchers. The whole situation would thus slow down the research process.

Among the other aspects, a major one was the payment procedures. Sometimes, the
employees were found not receiving their wages in time. The reason for this problem was that
sometimes the administrator did not fill out the papers properly which were essential for the
employees to get paid on time. Another problem was that there was a tension behind an
important issue, whether the broker team will work as a service unit or as a techno structure. If
work as a service unit team they will be eligible to execute order issued by Consortia Directors
and if work as techno structure they will be eligible to issue order to the Consortia Directors. The
main reasons of this tension were power, authority and hierarchical status. The senior
management team could solve the problem easily but they were reluctant to solve this conflict.

 Organizational clash:

There were many strains in the relationship between LLD and DPU. All the managers
and employees knew that LLD is not a part of DPU. They just knew that LLD is just inside the
work area of DPU. They knew that LLD is an “innovative young organization” in comparison to
the “old DPU”. They didn’t want DPU’s infrastructure. LLD people knew that most of the fund
which they received was from the private sector. So, they did not want to follow the rules and
regulations as per the DPU administration. Though the entire budget, salaries was paid through
DPU’s administration, LLD often faced operational problems and personal attribute conflict.
They often face problems with the payment as they were not always paid on time. (The reason
for the missed paycheck might have been that an LLD administration employee did not fill out
the paperwork that DPU required to pay the employee, but that part was ignored). At the same
time, two chief financial officers (CFOs) at LLD had resigned in 18 months. One of the several
reasons each cited for leaving was the perceived difficulty of serving as the interface between the
two organizations.

 Fundraising:

The majority of the funds that LLD used to receive were from both the private sector and
the government. Because of the perception of earning a competitive edge through the
development of the IT and knowledge, the LLD was born with great support from the
stakeholders. But after the economic recession of 2001, most of the corporations in the private
sector had to cut their cost and stop funding LLD. The government was also thinking of cutting
down the fund provided to the LLD. This situation gave rise to a crisis where the organization
had difficulties to budget funds for projects as well as paying the employees salaries. The
corporation had no other source of funding and had not made any agreement to stabilize the input
of money that the organization needed.

 Job concept and context:

The job concept and context was not clear to many of the employees. The researchers
were very confused on the process of researching and communicating the results to the
stakeholders. Again, some of the employees were confused about the concept of experimenting
for practical implementation. They were told that the projects that they would develop would be
totally experimental and different from something that other corporations would have researched
for their need. But at the same time, the results had to be applicable for practical use. This was a
complete paradox for the employees which made them uncertain about what they were actually
doing. Some of the employees even came to conclusion that they were probably exploring paths
with dead ends and were wasting their time.

 Payment problem:

The problem in the organization that entirely frustrated the employees was the payment
process. Although perceived as a separate organization, the payment process of the LLD was
accomplished through the administration of DPU. Sometimes, the employees were not getting
their salary on time because of procedural complications. The blame would often go to the DPU
administration and create greater frustration among the employees. Again, later in their course,
the LLD had problems with their funding and could not pay their employees properly and on
time. Beside the fact that the organization was running in chaos regarding their financial
situation, two financial officers (CFO) of LLD resigned in a time span of 18 months. The cause
that they showed was the perceived difficulty of serving as the interface between the two
organizations.

The numerous challenges damages employees’ morale and made difficulties for the
secretariat to deliver ideas related to Hilton experience. There was a large gap between
employee’s daily work lives and expectation of prosperity. The organization could have got rid
of their problems through proper HR management process, but they virtually failed.
  Recommendations

Regarding the failure of the top management to perceive and ensure organizational
stability, we have come up with several recommendations which we believe could have removed
the problems that the organization faced. In the implementation of the following
recommendations, the organization could reach a more stable and focused form through which
they could ensure overall success.

 Corporate culture:

The organization has long suffered from a conflict for the implementation of the
corporate culture. The organization should elaborate a definite set of rules to be implemented
through out the organization. For this, the secretariat should sit with the consortia members and
sort out the set of rules. These rules will be considered as the base of the organizational culture.
They should be just a minimal regulation to be followed by all members in the organization. The
remaining procedures or set of rules necessary to run a consortium should be given to the
different consortia to implement for themselves. The directors of the consortia can seat sit with
their respective employees and researchers to determine which set of rules they can follow as
their managerial and corporate culture. In this manner, they can implement a fair set of flexibility
and at the same time abide by the rules of the organization as a whole.

 Proper HR management:

LLD’s mission was to achieve a target, jointly internal and external organizational
challenges. In spite of this targeted demand LLD could not achieve the external organizational
challenges by facing internal mismanagement administrations. Conflicts between Brokers and
the CDs have influenced the mismanagement of LLD administration. The collaboration of
brokers and CDs need to be active in management which will identify the procedures which act
effectively and mandatory to meet both internal and external challenges. The secretariat should
clearly identify the position and the duties of the employees according to their recruitment and
also explain the level of freedom and autonomy they can enjoy in the specific sectors. Leaving
the responsibility and the freedom altogether to the employees would just slow down the
organization as most of the employees are not used to such situations and need proper guidance
in the first place.

 Budgeting of the projects:

The budgeting process should be implemented through a meeting with the consortia
heads to determine how much to spend for which project and the organization should prohibit the
culture of demising other consortium’s project and budgeting. In the current process, the projects
undertaken by one consortium is referred as useless and fantasy by other consortia. As a result,
the bargain to acquire funding for own projects and denying that of the other consortia has
become a common trend. This is a major problem as the results of a project are sometimes
regarded as a total failure by the personnel of the other consortia and that automatically
demoralizes the researchers of the project. The organization should set a meeting with the
consortia heads and the stakeholders and discuss about the projects to be undertaken. In a
positive manner, they can then determine the budgeting for the projects and get rid of the nasty
habit of demising others.

 Strengthening financial base:

The financial base of the organization has not been so stable and the budget had to be
stabilized for both projects and salary payments. For this reason, the organization should
establish a pact with the government and other stakeholders implementing long term agreements
to ensure proper funding. After the economic shock, the funding from the private sector almost
stopped and same fear aroused from the government sector as well. This put the company in a
delicate situation where work could terminate due to lack of funding. The organization was not at
all prepared for such situation and had a difficult time coping with it. For this reason, the
organization should enter into long time contract with both the government and private sector
stakeholders. For example, they could have a five-year funding agreement against which they
would conduct research on a topic of specific interest for the stakeholder.

 Organization positioning:

The top management of LLD has not been able to define the actual position of LLD and
the DPU. The LLD was regarded as a separate organization free from the traditional research
methods and bureaucratic lobbying. Instead of the dusty slow procedures, the organization was
supposed to have the fast and professional ways of dealing with their competencies. But the
infrastructure of the LLD was still placed inside the building of the DPU and the autonomy was
not clear to the employees. Some of the employees think that they are a sub-organization while
others are unhappy about being in the same building area while being an autonomous
organization. Again, the payment procedures for the LLD employees were conducted by the
DPU. The organization should determine the actual situation of the LLD and separate the
infrastructure and administrative procedures accordingly.

 Training process development:

Employees training and development processes need to be changed. LLD may follow
some potential steps like general and specific training, new employee orientation etc. Both
general and specific training criteria are applicable for one organization’s entire development.
The benefit of new employee orientation is a process of introducing new employees to the
organization so that they can become effective contributors more quickly. The organization must
design the training process with adoption of on-the-job training. The employees will get
opportunity to apply their knowledge through on-the-job training process directly to find out the
new insights. The training must be on employees’ performances, work-based programs
(vestibule training and systematic job rotation and transfer) and instruction-based programs with
proper apprenticeship. The organization can start In-house and Outsourced programs to
development the training process which will impact directly as on the job based activities. In-
House training includes the promises of employees to work within organization effectively with
flexible schedule. On the other hand, Outsourced training programs involve peoples from outside
the organization to perform the training with comparatively lower cost and professional quality
trainer’s assurance.

 Rewards, motivation and compensation systems

LLD only emphasized on discussing with its employees about selective articles. It has no
significant reward and motivational activities to stimulate the employees to perform effectively.
LLD should follow a system of motivation and performance in the organization to improve
employee moral and performance. One of the main problems that LLD’s employees had faced
was regular compensation or regular salary payment. The employees did not get payment
regularly because of the absence of financial managers. Additional managers or managers from
other departments had to fulfill the need. To know about employees demand according to market
and performance upgrade, the organization can arrange pay surveys where the organization
would be able to achieve a real idea about the employees’ salary demands and how an
organization can retain its employees with better performance by allocating rewards added with
the salary. The compensation systems or rewards can be included in salary as extra payment for
the employees. LLD is a research organization where team and group work is always presented.
The team and group incentive reward systems can be followed for the motivation perspective.

 Conclusion

The concept with which LLD started was a promising one. But the organization had
difficulties to perceive their ultimate goal because of weak human resource management and
strategic setting. The correction of the failing aspects could bring the organization back on track
and ensure their stability. What the organization really needs is a strong management to mould
the primary stage of the organization providing the specific corporate culture and role of the
employees. Later on, the organization could use its organizational flexibility to set the pace for
the different departments.