For this discussion, consider meetings that you have attended or led in your organization. How can the concepts from the article ‘Creating Learning Organizations: A Sy

Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective Bui, H., & Baruch, Y. (2010). Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective. The Learning Organization, 17(3), 208-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471011034919 Abstract TranslateLearn more about Translate   The purpose of this paper is to offer a theoretical contribution to explicate the various factors and aspects that influence Senge's five disciplines and their outcomes. The paper develops a conceptual framework for the analysis of antecedents and outcomes of Senge's five disciplines, and offers moderators to explain the prospect associations, employing a multi-level analysis to explore issues, from the individual level (personal mastery) through the collective level (team learning, mental model) up to the organizational level (shared vision, systems thinking). Based on this theoretical framework, the paper offers a set of propositions in the shape of a causal model that links the constructs of the model together. The development of the model manifests wide areas of relevance to the learning organization and points out significant interdependences and interactions among the various constructs associated with Senge's five disciplines of the learning organization. The paper proposes a causal model that links variables in the learning organization that would be instrumental for organizations to achieve competitive advantage. For academia, it offers a further avenue for research, introducing a number of opportunities to test this model. The paper provides significant added value both for academics and executives interested in the analysis of the complexity of Senge's five disciplines. Introduction The concept of learning organization (LO) has attracted significant attention from both scholars and practitioners. [114] Senge's (1990) seminal work, [97] Pedler et al. (1991), [143] Garratt (1991), [129] Watkins and Marsick (1993), and [75] Marquardt (1996) have each provided distinct contributions to the study of LO. [114] Senge's (1990) and [97] Pedler et al. (1991) present LO through a reflection of the actual understanding and/or achievement by practitioners within organizations. In contrast, [75] Marquardt's (1996) approach is more applied, taking the form of how-to guide than a new contribution to the theory, which is in line with [129] Watkins and Marsick (1993), who are concerned with the specifics of actions and behaviours than with concepts. The concept of LO focuses on learning as a tool, a lever, and a philosophy for sustainable change and renovation in organizations in a fast-changing world. A significant number of scholars within the LO area consider Senge's model to be the most suitable framework for organizational development, incorporating it into their work ([3] An and Reigeluth, 2005; [17] Boyle, 2002; [46] Garcia-Morales et al. , 2006; [62] Jamali et al. , 2006; [69] Kiedrowski, 2006; [102] Reed, 2001; [104] Rifkin and Fulop, 1997; [130] Wheeler, 2002). His "fifth discipline" philosophy is inspirational, yet difficult to translate into a model that would enable systematic evaluation of the process of creating LO. The lack of conceptual frameworks which build on a set of identified antecedents and outcomes does not make it easy to test the concept via quantitative methodology. Following a thorough literature review we constructed a model that translates Senge's LO theory to such an explicit, testable model, comprising a set of hypotheses. We followed a long tradition of inputs-process-outputs of an open system ([83] Miernyk, 1965; [88] Nadler and Tushman, 1980). We elaborate on each of Senge's single disciplines: personal mastery, mental model, team learning, shared vision and systems thinking, and explicate the relation between a variety of factors. First, for each of the disciplines we offer a set of antecedents. We then examine a variety of possible outcomes for each of the disciplines, and examine what factors may moderate these relationships. Overall, we posit a systematic LO model of a complete five disciplines with antecedents, moderators, and outcomes. This way our paper offers work that is innovative and distinct from other studies. The work is primarily intended to develop Senge's LO model into a more applicable model that would fit for quantitative analysis, and would enable testing across different sectors, though certain adjustment may be needed when covering different type of organizations (see an application for the higher education sector – Authors, this/next issue). Senge's model lends itself to qualitative research ([40] Flood, 1999; [57] Hong et al. , 2006; [80] Mazutis and Slawinski, 2008) whereas its quantitative applications are far less frequent. Yet, knowledge development and progress in understanding phenomenon may be gained from both qualitative and quantitative methods. Both streams of research methodology have strong merit. It would be important to open the study of Senge's major contribution to management studies to both methodologies, adding value to future knowledge development. We believe that scholars inspired by Senge's LO idea will be able to utilize our model for further academic studies, whereas practitioners interested in creating LO will be able to employ it in their organizations. The aim of this paper is to offer a conceptual framework that includes a wide set of antecedents and outcomes of Senge's five disciplines, as well as possible moderators for these associations. We explore these issues via a multi-level analysis (following [146] Klein and Kozlowski, 2000), starting at the individual level (personal mastery) through the collective level (team learning, mental models), and up to the organizational level (shared vision, systems thinking). Theoretical development of the model In this section we follow the five disciplines as depicted in Senge's framework of the LO. We employ a systems model approach to explore Senge's model. For each discipline we offer a set of possible antecedents and anticipated outcomes, and certain factors that may serve as moderators. We present the various constructs independently, pointing out the connection between them to represent the umbrella concept of individual disciplines. The interaction of these aspects includes the relationship between those suggested as antecedents and outcomes, as well as the way they interact with each other. The model as presented lends itself to fairly straightforward method of quantitative approach by using specific constructs, for which measures can be developed and tested for reliability and validity. Personal mastery Personal mastery refers to the personal commitment of continuously clarifying and deepening a personal vision, of focusing energies, of developing patience, and the ability to see reality as objectively as possible ([5] Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997). "It goes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and skills. It goes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, although it requires spiritual growth. It means approaching one's life as a creative work, living a life from a creative as opposed to reactive viewpoint" ([114] Senge, 1990, p. 141). Senge regards it as "the learning organization's spiritual foundation" ([114] Senge, 1990, p. 7). Studying the literature related to personal mastery, we identified five antecedents, three outcomes, and one possible moderator to explicate the model applicable for this discipline. The first antecedent to personal mastery is personal values. Personal values are the relatively permanent perceptual frameworks which shape and influence the general nature of an individual's behaviour ([38] England, 1976). Personal values direct personal commitment to development. Personal values have been explored over time and found to be quite stable ([39] Feather, 1975; [66] Kahle, 1983; [106] Rokeach, 1973; [111] Schwarz, 1992). Employees bring their values into the work setting ([105] Robertson, 1991). The second antecedent is motivation. Motivation has been extensively studied to identify the meaning behind human actions and learn why humans are inspired to take certain actions ([27] Deci, 1975; [67] Kanfer and Ackerman, 2000; [79] Maslow, 1970; [107] Rueda and Moll, 1994; [122] Siebold, 1994). An individual with high personal mastery would be self-motivated ([89] Ng, 2004). In addition, with sufficient motivation from organizations through policies and culture, employees may be willing to commit themselves to personal and professional development, which would result in better individual performance and higher individual satisfaction ([87] Mumford, 1991). The third antecedent to personal mastery discipline is individual learning. A learning organization cannot exist without individual learning ([114] Senge, 1990; [129] Watkins and Marsick, 1993). Individuals are the primary learning entities enabling organization transformation ([30] Dodgson, 1993, p. 377). Blackman and Henderson argue that personal mastery implies an "individual taking ownership" of individual learning ([13] Blackman and Henderson, 2005, p. 50). Lifelong learning, an important form of individual learning, is a part of commitment to personal mastery ([5] Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; [7] Barker et al. , 1998; [26] Davies, 1998; [116] Senge, 2006). The fourth antecedent is personal vision. Personal mastery cannot be built without personal goals and vision ([5] Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; [23] Covey, 1989; [90] Nightingale, 1990; [116] Senge, 2006). Personal vision is the "groundwork" for continually expanding personal mastery ([116] Senge, 2006). For those with a high level of personal mastery, a vision is a calling, not just a good idea, and behind their goals is a sense of purpose ([5] Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997). The difficulty, according to [114] Senge (1990), is that people are often confused between goals and vision. Vision is developed on the basis of goals ([119] Senge et al. , 1994). Personal vision relies not only on individuals, but also on the support of their employing organizations. The last antecedent to personal mastery is development and training. Development and training are believed important for employees' personal mastery ([119] Senge et al. , 1994). This process plays a significant role in making employees aware of Senge's concepts, including personal mastery ([69] Kiedrowski, 2006). Research also shows the effect of development and training on personal mastery ([13] Blackman and Henderson, 2005). Professional development will benefit from development and training when these are carried out effectively ([14] Blackmore and Castley, 2005). The positive outcomes of personal mastery can easily be recognised in management. Self-confidence and self-efficacy are crucial factors in progressing individuals' performance and subsequent career ([9] Baruch et al. , 2005). Employees with high level of personal mastery often have better performance ([15] Bloisi et al. , 2007). Further, personal mastery can create a balanced work and home life ([8] Baruch, 2004; [31] Doherty and Manfredi, 2006; [64] Johnson, 2006). The relationships suggested above, of impact from a set of antecedents to outcomes are not anticipated to be simplistic. Certain factors may moderate such associations. The literature reveals that HR policies may work as a moderator for the impact of personal mastery ([65] Jones and Fear, 1994). Organizations' policies, in particular HRM policies, play an important role in promoting personal and professional development. Organizations, however, normally pay more attention to professional development than to personal development as professional schemes are likely to contribute directly to the performance of organizations ([60] Huselid, 1995). In the long term, organizations would get benefits from personal mastery if they invested in personal development The sector of operation may serve as a moderator. Relationships between work-related constructs may be moderated by the specific sector wherein the analysis takes place ([21] Cohen and Gattiker, 1994). For example, the added value of the human resource management varies across different sectors ([73] Laursen, 2002; [95] Paré and Tremblay, 2007). The higher the relevance of human capital the higher the impact of personal mastery is anticipated (compared for example, with the relevant importance of finance or other types of capital). Mental models Mental models are cognitive representations of external systems that specify the cause-effect relationships governing the system ([49] Gentner and Stevens, 1983b). Mental models refer to "the ideas and beliefs we use to guide our actions. We use them to explain cause and effect, and to give meaning to our experience" ([93] O'Connor and McDermott, 1997, p. 114). They refer to deeply held assumptions or metaphors through which we interpret and understand the world, and take actions ([5] Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; [114] Senge, 1990). Mental models have the power to influence human behaviours and mindsets. Thus, mental models are important in the process of organizational learning. They form the underlying basis of tasks which involve non-current skills and problem solving ([7] Barker et al. , 1998). Mental models are influenced by a set of antecedents, such as organizational commitment, leadership, and organizational culture. Mental models are believed to lead to outcomes such as knowledge sharing and better performance ([48] Gentner and Stevens, 1983a), with two moderators, including communication systems and learning environment. The following part covers these points. First, organizational commitment is a crucial antecedent to mental models. Commitment is at the heart of a LO ([70] Kofman and Senge, 1993). By sharing best practices, mental models strengthen people's commitment to learning ([50] Gephart et al. , 1996, p. 39). Sharing mental models, both positive and negative ones, forms the foundation of on-site learning, and contributes to saving time and money. Organizations as LOs encourage people to take risks, as they can be the precursors to innovation and creation. People might fail, but failing generates strong learning experiences, is sometimes worth the loss. Further, committed and loyal employees make up the core of a successful organization ([51] Goulet and Singh, 2002; [72] Larsen, 2003; [81] Meyer and Allen, 1991; [82] Meyer et al. , 2002; [99] Porter et al. , 1974). When committed and knowledgeable staff are willing to acquire new skills and implement institutional innovation, an organization's capacity to work with mental models will improve ([114] Senge, 1990). Leadership is the second antecedent to mental models that we propose. Leadership is the process "in which an individual influences other group members towards the attainment of group or organizational goals" ([120] Shackleton, 1995, p. 2). When the organization obtains employee commitment, leaders should play roles as "designers, stewards and teachers" ([42] Fullan, 1993; [114] Senge, 1990) selecting mental models and spreading them throughout the organization. Leaders are responsible for learning and creating a learning environment for the employees to continually expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models ([42] Fullan, 1993; [58] Horner, 1997; [75] Marquardt, 1996; [76] Marsick and Watkins, 2003; [84] Mintzberg, 1998). Taking the role of designers, stewards and teachers, leadership gives a new meaning to LOs. Leaders are "walking ahead, regardless of their management position or hierarchical authority" ([70] Kofman and Senge, 1993, p. 12). Leadership is about identifying mental models that challenge all organizational members with the question: "What values do you really want to stand for?" ([117] Senge et al. , 2000, p. 67). In other words, transactional leadership is associated with Los ([10] Bass, 2000; [118] Senge et al. , 1999). Organizational culture is another proposed antecedent to mental models. Organizational culture describes the fundamental assumptions people share about an organization's values, beliefs, norms, symbols, language, rituals and myths that give meaning to organizational membership and are expected as guides to behaviour ([15] Bloisi et al. , 2007, p. 751). The culture of an organizational environment can be highly influenced by the societal culture in which it is embedded ([28] Dimmock and Walker, 2000; [55] Hofstede, 2001). Thus, organizational culture is influenced by the societal culture, where a framework of values has been established. Different cultures tend to generate different mental models ([2] Alavi and McCormick, 2004). Specifically, [2] Alavi and McCormick (2004, p. 413) add: "A high level of power distance may be problematic for improving reflection skills as a key component of team learning and modifying mental models". According to [2] Alavi and McCormick (2004), organizations with low power distance culture are more likely to succeed in mastering mental models than in cultures with high power distance, because "a culture of trust and openness encourages the inquiry and dialogue is needed to challenge assumptions" ([50] Gephart et al. , 1996, p. 39). When mental models are developed and learnt throughout the organization, one of the outcomes is a higher level of knowledge sharing and knowledge creation ([6] Argyris, 1999; [116] Senge, 2006; [129] Watkins and Marsick, 1993). Such is the case, for example, when organizational members acquire strong team-work skills and behaviours, like mutual help, and knowledge sharing improves ([123] Siemsen et al. , 2007). Developing appropriate mental models would generate more knowledge and can consequently lead to improving job performance ([97] Pedler et al. , 1991), the second outcome of mental models. The acquisition and utilization of knowledge, particularly in an age of fast-changing business environments, is of high relevance, as indicated by recent scholarly work ([25] Davenport et al. , 1998). We will now discuss two possible moderators: communication and learning environment. Communication influences fundamental beliefs, values, and attitudes necessary for employee empowerment and commitment to quality and service ([68] Kapp and Barnett, 1983; [85] Mohr and Spekman, 1994; [101] Quirke, 1992; [126] Snyder and Morris, 1984). [62] Jamali et al. 's (2006) show that mental models can be supported by effective communication. There is, however, little theoretical innovation in organization theory grounded in communication, though communication has been emphasized as a significant constituent of organizational life ([29] Dixon, 1998). Poor communication at the workplace costs national economies major financial loss and contributes to a significant number of employee injuries and deaths ([121] Shannon et al. , 1997). In any organization, particularly learning organizations, effective communication systems are indispensable, instrumental in uncovering perceptual gaps and incongruence in mental models and play a key role in facilitating collaborative learning and transforming mental models within a group (Holton, 2001 cited in [62] Jamali et al. , 2006 p, 344). In contrast, ineffective communication systems jeopardize mental models and prevent sharing vision throughout the organizations. [148] Ridder (2004) posits that internal communication can generate a sense of commitment within the organization and establish trust in management, and this can be applied to various modes of communication. Computer-mediated communication changes communication practices in organizations ([18] Cecez-Kecmanovic et al. , 2000; [34] Durham, 2000; [45] Galvin, 2002; [112] Scott and Timmerman, 2005). With the aid of technology, organizations can create effective and efficient communication systems, producing a new mental model of e-communication, via which they can share their mental models, i.e. share their ideas, experience, and their vision. The reason we argue that communication is a moderator rather than an antecedent in this case is because the association between the mental models and performance will work only if there is clear and strong communication. Conversely, under poor communication conditions, we believe that the association will not be significant. Learning environment is the second moderator to this discipline. The learning environment supports the development of mental models ([97] Pedler et al. , 1991) and improves performance as well as knowledge sharing ([7] Barker et al. , 1998). Supportive learning environments are necessary for LOs ([76] Marsick and Watkins, 2003; [97] Pedler et al. , 1991; [125] Smith and Sadler-Smith, 2006; [129] Watkins and Marsick, 1993). If the organizational environment is not set up properly, it may destroy organizational learning ([31] Doherty and Manfredi, 2006). A learning environment cannot be created without the support of leaders and managers: "The role of the center is to set up the conditions for cultivating and sorting the wisdom of the system" ([43] Fullan, 2004, p. 6). Employing the same logic as in the case of "communication", the learning environment is suggested as a mediator rather than an antecedent because the association between the mental models and performance will work only if there is clear and strong learning environment, whereas with an undeveloped learning environment the association will not exist. Team learning Team learning is "the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire" ([114] Senge, 1990, p. 236). This emphasizes the significance of team learning as the fundamental learning units. Synergistic teams are the "flywheel of the LO", and thus are essential for the LO ([54] Hitt, 1995, p. 20). If an organization consists of talented individuals that cannot collaborate within a team, their contribution towards reaching the organizational goals will be severely limited. Nevertheless, "despite its importance, team learning remains poorly understood" ([91] Nissala, 2005, p. 211). Thus, one of our purposes in this paper is to bridge this gap. Building on extant literature, we argue that team learning is influenced by five main antecedents. We further discuss a number of anticipated outcomes. Communication systems and learning environment are proposed as two moderators that affect the relationship between team learning and knowledge sharing. The first antecedent to team learning is team commitment. Team learning appears as "a concerted effort" to get all people participating in innovation ([86] Molnar and Mulvihill, 2003, p. 172). All the members learn together and manifest a level of collective intelligence greater than the sum of the intelligence of the individual members ([54] Hitt, 1995; [116] Senge, 2006). In line with the previous part (mental model), team learning cannot happen without individual engagement and team commitment ([37] Ellemers et al. , 1998). According to [116] Senge (2006), talented individuals do not ensure the creation of talented teams if they do not have shared vision. [145] Katzenbach and Smith (2004) stress that the essence of team learning is a shared commitment. Leadership is another antecedent to team learning. The most successful teams have leaders who proactively manage the team learning efforts ([35] Edmondson et al. , 2004; [76] Marsick and Watkins, 2003). "Leadership is about culture building that allows people to be a part of a team that learn together" ([108] Sackney and Walker, 2006, p. 355). Leadership serves as the soul of the team, inspiring the innovation and creation of knowledge in team members. "Empowering is the fundamental component in quality leadership: in essence it involves releasing the potential of individuals – allowing them to flourish and grow, to release their capacity for infinite improvement" ([11] Bell and Harrison, 1998, p. 60). For team learning, it is not necessary to have a leader, but leadership should lie in each team member. The third antecedent to team learning is goal setting. Goal setting is typically associated with management by objectives, as suggested by [141] Drucker (1954). While no longer a novel idea, it is important in order to measure the result of team learning. Earlier, [144] Ivancevich and McMahon (1977) found that the more educated people are, the more participative and effective their goal setting is. Once people are committed to team learning, they set clear goals for the team and themselves. Development and training is the fourth antecedent to this discipline. Team skills are important for successful team learning ([16] Bowen, 1998; [33] Druskat and Kayes, 2000). To be effective, team members must posses both genetic and specific team competencies ([100] Prichard et al. , 2006). Team skills training enhances collaborative learning ([100] Prichard et al. , 2006). On the other hand, [142] Garavan (1997) states that team learning and performance is a team skill which needs to be practised if it is to result in improved individual and organizational effectiveness. Strong emphasis on-job training may generate competitive advantage ([24] Dalin, 1998; [78] Maslen, 1992), and team skill training can be one of these forms of training. The fifth antecedent proposed for team learning is organizational culture. In a similar way to that described and analyzed in the above section about mental models, organizational culture is an antecedent determining the effectiveness of team learning. Albeit there is a scarcity of studies exploring this relationship, the impact of culture on learning is inevitable in the knowledge economy ([128] Tyran and Gibson, 2008). "A LO's culture should support and reward learning and innovation; promote inquiry, dialogue, risk-taking and experimentation; allow mistakes to be shared and viewed as opportunities for learning; and value the well-being of all employees" ([50] Gephart et al. , 1996, p. 39). We posit that both "improved team performance" and "knowledge sharing" are the anticipated outcomes of team learning. Considerable research suggests that organizational benefits of team learning include increased workplace productivity, improvements to service quality, a reduced management structure, low level of absenteeism, and reduced employee turnover ([96] Park et al. , 2005, p. 464). Further, team learning positively relates to team performance ([19] Chan et al. , 2003). Team learning plays a critical role in a knowledge-creating organization as team members generate new ideas through dialogue and discussion ([92] Nonaka, 1991; [114] Senge, 1990). This process, therefore, helps the sharing of knowledge among members ([3] An and Reigeluth, 2005). Similar to the analysis in the section about mental models, we propose the same possible moderators for this discipline. We suggest that team learning needs communication to promote dialogue within the team. Communication boosts the exchange of knowledge, information, and sometimes consolation. Communication is assumed to be a moderator rather than an antecedent because the association between the team learning and its outcomes will work positively if there is clear and strong communication, whereas under poor communication conditions, the outcomes might lead to the opposite direction. In addition, appropriate working/learning environment would moderate the association between the discipline of team learning and its outcomes. People in the organization will aspire to conduct a good job if they are provided with the right support ([61] Jackson, 2003, p. 126). Such an environment generates time and resources for people to learn at work. It is where people value the learning among team members ([76] Marsick and Watkins, 2003) Shared vision Shared vision is a vision that people throughout an organization are truly committed to ([116] Senge, 2006, p. 192). Building shared vision is important for bringing people together and to foster a commitment to a shared future ([5] Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) because shared vision provides members of an organization with a direction by which they can navigate ([52] Griego et al. , 2000), and a focus for learning for its employees ([114] Senge, 1990). Below we explicate the set of anticipated antecedents, outcomes and moderators of this discipline. We first suggest personal vision as an antecedent to shared vision. During the pursuance of personal mastery, people bring along their personal visions. Personal visions are pictures or images that people carry in their minds. In an organization it will remain as isolated individuals' visions unless they are shared to build up a picture of the future the organization seeks to create. Building a shared vision should begin with a personal vision to which one is committed ([5] Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997). "Personal visions derive their power from an individual's deep caring for the vision. Shared visions derive their power from a common caring" ([116] Senge, 2006, p. 192). "When there is a genuine vision, people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to" ([114] Senge, 1990, p. 9). There is evidence that organizations can succeed in aligning personal vision into organizational vision ([1] Adair, 2005). The second proposed antecedent to shared vision is personal values. Personal values are rooted in an individual's own set of values, beliefs, and aspirations ([41] Ford et al. , 1996; [56] Homer and Kahle, 1988; [66] Kahle, 1983; [110] Schwarz et al. , 2006; [116] Senge, 2006). [114] Senge (1990, p. 211) emphasizes that "personal mastery is the bedrock for developing shared vision". As analyzed above, similar to the antecedent of personal values in forming the discipline of personal mastery, personal values also contribute a certain degree of commitment to the shared visions ([36] Eigeles, 2003; [53] Gudz, 2004; [116] Senge, 2006). Next we offer leadership as the third antecedent to shared vision. Leaders who inspire others usually possess extraordinary visions and commitments to high ideals ([44] Fullop and Linstead, 1999; [76] Marsick and Watkins, 2003; [117] Senge et al. , 2000), and constantly look for new information and opportunities that can help fulfil their visions ([84] Mintzberg, 1998; [109] Schrage, 1990). Mastering the discipline of shared vision means that people have to give up the idea that visions come from top management or from an institutionalized planning process; it will grow as people interact with their own visions – as they express their ideas and learn how to listen to the ideas of others ([5] Appelbaum et al. , 1997; [127] Tsai and Beverton, 2007). This does not mean the role of leadership and management is neglected. The leaders' new task for the future is building the LOs, sharing vision ([42] Fullan, 1993; [114] Senge, 1990). They are designers, stewards, and teachers ([42] Fullan, 1993; [114] Senge, 1990). "They are responsible for building organizations where people continually expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models – that is, they are responsible for learning" ([42] Fullan, 1993, p. 71). These issues have been widely discussed but scarcely implemented. The reasons can be explained by understanding that leaders tend to be good designers and teachers, but less competent as stewards ([53] Gudz, 2004; [127] Tsai and Beverton, 2007). The fourth antecedent to shared vision is organizational culture. Organizational culture is a major construct in management sciences ([98] Pettigrew, 1979), and can be measured in a valid and reliable manner ([94] O'Reilly&