INT’L. J. OF ORG. THEORY & BEHAV., 4(3&4), 329 –355 (2001)
THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION:
AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF A
NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Swee C. Goh
Faculty of Administration, University of Ottawa,
136, Jean-Jacques Lussier Street, P.O. Box 450, Station A,
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada
ABSTRACT
This paper proposes a framework for understanding the concept
of a learning organization from a normative perspective. A questionnaire was developed to operationally measure the described
management practice attributes of a learning organization. Using
a sample of four organizations and 612 subjects, support was
found for three a priori predictive hypotheses derived from a conceptual framework. Implications of the results and further empirical research are discussed, especially for linking learning organization attributes to performance using larger samples and multiple
measures.
The field of ‘‘organizational learning’’ or ‘‘the learning organization’’ has
captured the attention of both researchers and practicing managers as a management concept that can impact on the performance of an organization in a competitive environment. The increasing number of papers published in this area in-
329
Copyright 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc.
www.dekker.com
330
GOH
dicate the growing interest in the topic. But as Dibella (1) notes, the field seems to
be developing different orientations and theoretical perspectives. This may be
healthy in the early development and understanding of these concepts.(2) Such
debates and differing orientations can offer multiple perspectives on how organizational learning takes place and manifests itself in an organization and also what
a learning organization is.(3)
This paper differentiates between ‘‘organizational learning’’ and ‘‘the learning organization.’’ These are related but separate concepts although the terms are
sometimes used interchangeably in the literature. As the literature on this topic
matures, there is increasing recognition by researchers that the field can be seen
from different perspectives.(4)
One way to differentiate the two terms is to view ‘‘organizational learning’’
from a capability perspective. Organizational learning is therefore seen as something that all organizations possess. Dibella (5) states that all organizations develop
and learn from experience over time or by strategic choice, therefore, they all have
embedded learning processes. The issue becomes one of identifying the learning
processes that are embedded in the organization such as the distinctive learning
styles and the existent mechanisms whereby learning is taking place. A good example would be the notion of single, double or triple-loop learning.(6) Under what
conditions would such learning routines be effective or ineffective for an organization.(7) This capability perspective suggest that there is no prescribed way for
learning to take place, but more to understand the learning processes that already
exist and then to focus on how it can be improved. Organizational learning is seen
as something that takes place in an organization.
The term ‘‘learning organization’’ in contrast is viewed from a normative
perspective. Learning organizations are seen as a particular type or form of organization. The learning organization has certain characteristics that reflect an ideal
form that allows it to adapt and survive in an increasingly competitive environment.(8) Senge (9) states that learning organizations need to have five component
technologies or disciplines like shared visions and team learning. Similarly, Garvin (10) suggests that learning organizations have certain skills and characteristics
such as experimentation and the ability to transfer knowledge. This normative
perspective suggest that learning organizations are ‘‘firms that purposefully adopt
structures and strategies to encourage learning.’’ (11) Following the definition by
Dodgson,(12) Popper and Lipshitz (13) argues that such structures and strategies enable organizations to learn. They call these structures and strategies as organizational learning mechanisms (OLMs). The focus of this paper and research takes
this normative perspective of a learning organization.
More problematic than the conceptual debate is the lack of empirical testing
and validation of the concept in organizational settings. For example, most published studies have used only qualitative selected case studies as evidence of the
concept’s efficacy and positive implications for performance in organizations that
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
331
adopt a learning culture.(14) Frequently, anecdotes from organizational experience
or casual knowledge are used as the basis for evidence that organizational learning
works and has positive effects for innovation and performance.(15) Only more recently, has empirical research using larger samples been carried out on the learning organization. However, these studies are narrowly focused on collaborative
know-how (16) and firm start-ups and acquisitions (17) from a strategic alliances
perspective. Both studies do not provide any testing of what is a learning organization and does not identify the characteristics and practices that differentiate such
organizations.
The purpose of this study is to propose a conceptual framework and the
variables to describe the learning organization. In order to test this conceptual
framework, an instrument was also developed that can empirically assess the organizational characteristics and management practices of a learning organization.
THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION:
A NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE
A predominant emphasis of the literature on the learning organization describes it as a particular organizational form. The contention is that a learning
organization exhibits certain characteristics and unique management practices and
conditions that allow it to function in this manner.(18) More specifically, Senge (19)
describes the five disciplines that learning organizations must establish—personal
mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and systems thinking. Another normative perspective taken by Garvin (20) suggests that learning organizations have to develop skills in systematic problem-solving, experimenting with
new approaches, learning from their own experience and past history, learning
from the experiences and best practices of others, and transferring knowledge
quickly and efficiently throughout the organization.
McGill, Slocum and Lei (21) describe in detail some of the key management
practices of learning organizations. They suggest that what sets a learning organization apart from others is the fact that they emphasize generative learning
which is similar to double-loop learning.(22) That is, the organization encourages
continuous experimentation and feedback and has an on-going examination of the
way it goes about defining and solving problems. In contrast, adaptive learning or
single-loop learning is focused on solving present problems without questioning
and examining the appropriateness of current learning behaviors and approaches
utilized by the organization. They further argue that in order to develop a better
ability to adapt to a changing global environment there is a greater need to design
organizations that can learn.(23)
They suggest that generative learning organizations encourage, recognize
and reward managers whose behaviors reflect five dimensions: openness, systemic
332
GOH
thinking, creativity, a sense of efficacy, and empathy. They also identify the strategic and structural characteristics exhibited by learning organizations, for example, the use of teams as integrating devices, and a strategic focus on change
and market creation. They also describe human resource practices such as elimination of status symbols, flexibility in performance appraisals, mentoring and rewards based on synergy and making a difference in the organization not on level
of position.(24)
Considering six in-depth case studies, Shaw and Perkins (25) describe learning organizations as those with the ability to motivate experimenting and risktaking in the organization. Learning companies structure experiments for learning, and learn from both failures and successes. They also create an environment
that provides for learning to be transferred and disseminated throughout the
organization.
This brief review of the literature suggests a strong normative or universalistic view of the learning organization. This theoretical perspective also provides
a basis for identifying a bundle or set of variables that define the management
practices and characteristics of a learning organization and the related outcomes.
Before developing this conceptual framework further, this paper recognizes
that there are also normative approaches in the literature on ‘‘organizational learning’’. This area of discourse and research on organizational action and inquiry
suggests that an organization needs to understand the process that inhibit its
learning capability, such as theory-in-use or single-loop learning, and then to rectify it. In a process intervention approach these dysfunctions can be uncovered by
understanding the dialogue used, and then changed through specific interventions
to move the organization into using double-loop learning.(26) Because organizational learning is a descriptive, process-oriented intervention approach and is
organization-specific, this body of literature is not included in our normative
framework which focuses on the ‘‘learning organization’’. This is not to suggest
that it does not play any role in understanding the learning organization, but rather
that the focus of this paper is more on the form and type of organization that can
be characterized as a learning organization.
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The approach used in developing this conceptual framework is similar to the
recent theorizing on strategic human resource management and its impact on organizational performance.(27) Since this field is in the early phase of theoretical
development, we approach it from a universalistic perspective rather than a test of
different theoretical predictions.
A universalistic perspective contends that a set of important managerial
practices and organizational characteristics define the attributes of a learning organization. These attributes of a learning organization are also related positively
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
333
to organizational outcomes such as performance improvement and innovation,
and to psychological outcomes such as empowerment and job satisfaction among
the organization’s members.
Attributes of a Learning Organization
Drawing on the works by Senge (28) ; Garvin (29) ; McGill, Slocum and Lei (30) ;
Shaw and Perkins (31) ; Pedler, Boydell and Burgoyne (32) ; Ulrich, Von Glinow and
Jick (33) ; Nevis, DiBella and Gould (34) and Dixon,(35) we propose that five managerial attributes characterize a learning organization. These five attributes are:
clarity of mission and purpose, shared leadership and involvement, experimentation, transfer of knowledge, and teamwork and co-operation.
The first attribute is clarity of mission and purpose; that is, members of a
learning organization fully support and understand the meaning and significance
of the organization’s mission and how it relates to their work and daily action.
This understanding of the mission is critical to the empowerment of employees,
who will feel more capable of taking initiatives that align their actions to this
mission. Senge (36) argues that having a clear vision and an understanding of the
current state creates tension and allows change and learning to occur. This creative
tension is an essential element of generative learning organizations. In a similar
vein, McGill, Slocum and Lei (37) suggest that personal efficacy is an important
managerial attribute of learning organizations. Personal efficacy means that managers in a learning organization have a firm sense of personal values and goals.
This is ‘‘fostered by a clear organizational vision that gives direction to the critical
choices that learning requires, as well as feedback about those choices’’.(38: 13)
The second attribute is shared leadership and involvement. Managers in
learning organizations are seen as coaches and facilitators rather than controllers.
They project a non-hierarchical attitude that creates an environment for employees
to take risks and to try new things without fear of reprisal. Leaders in learning
organizations involve employees in decision making and provide constructive
feedback to identify opportunities for employees. This attribute suggests that the
behaviors of managers and senior leaders are critical to enabling learning to occur
in an organization. Managers reward risk taking, move away from a control orientation and have a strong commitment to education and training.(39) In order to
foster a learning climate, leaders must not be defensive, be open to criticism and
be prepared to hear good and bad news.(40) Leadership role modeling of the behaviors described and the continuous learning culture it promotes is clearly another critical attribute of a learning organization.
A third characteristic of a learning organization is an experimenting culture
and mentality. Learning organizations reward and encourage the testing of new
knowledge and individual initiative to try new methods of work or of problem
solving. This means questioning the status quo and the way things are done. Man-
334
GOH
agers encourage individuals and teams to try new work processes and new ideas
constantly.(41) Mistakes and failures as a result of experimentation are not punished, but are used as lessons learned. There is widely shared consensus that experimentation is one of the most essential attributes of all learning organizations.(42) An experimental mindset with organizational support to try new things,
to innovate and play with new ideas and to use failures as a learning experience is
seen as a facilitating factor in learning.(43) However, experimentation is focused
not on solving problems but on exploring new opportunities and expanding horizons, that is, testing new horizons and existing boundaries and the creation of new
knowledge.(44)
The ability to transfer knowledge is also critical to a learning organization.
Skill and knowledge acquisition is useless unless that knowledge or experience
can be transferred to the immediate job and to other parts of the organization to
generate new and creative ideas. Learning from past failures and from others’
experience is also part of the operating philosophy of a learning organization.(45)
Therefore, systems and mechanisms have to be in place to allow for this transfer
of knowledge to occur. Again, knowledge transfer is widely seen as a very important attribute of a learning organization. As Ulrich, Jick and Von Glinow (46) argue,
experimentation and innovation are not learning unless the ideas and knowledge
are shared across boundaries within the organization. Mechanisms for knowledge
transfer need to be encouraged transfer such as identifying knowledge sources and
documenting knowledge by both formal and informal means.(47) Transferring
knowledge allows learning to be more than a local affair. Spreading knowledge
effectively throughout the organization allows other parts of the organization to
leverage and use this knowledge as well.(48)
Last, teamwork and co-operation is another attribute of the learning organization. Teams allow for innovative problem-solving and for the development
of synergy, whether to bring collective knowledge and skills to bear on problems
or to develop new and innovative ideas. A teamwork environment also breaks
down stovepipe barriers, allowing for cross-functional teams and mobility among
functions and work groups. The literature again suggests that teamwork, group
problem-solving and self-managed teams typify learning organizations.(49) This
attribute is essential if an organization is to encourage knowledge transfer and
sharing as well as worker autonomy. A teamwork environment also encourages
the openness that is required for learning to occur. Practices such as the use of
multi-functional and cross-functional work groups will promote openness to different points of view and a wider variety of ideas.(50)
Organizational Structure
A frequently mentioned structural characteristic of all learning organizations is their non-hierarchical nature. Many writers suggest that to encourage risk
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
335
taking and innovation in applying new knowledge, the organization needs a flat
organizational structure that places work teams very close to ultimate decision
makers. This implies also that the organization is less formalized, with fewer rules
and a management style that promotes freedom for employees to take appropriate
actions.(51) Such an organization does not depend on formal rules for controls, and
power is based on knowledge rather than on hierarchical position. The learning
organization operates on self-control, based on values that are followed by all
employees. Loose networks are the basis for co-ordination and control.(52)
These organizational characteristics suggest that power and authority, decision-making and work coordination procedures are less formalized in a learning
organization. That is, learning organizations are non-bureaucratic, with decentralized decision-making structures, empowered employees and open lines of communication. Policies and work procedures are not fixed and are subject to change,
with the goal of encouraging communication in a climate of openness. Employees
in learning organizations work in an environment where supervisors suspend their
need for control and encourage a participative, self-managing team environment.
Such practices shape the organization structure, which becomes fluid, and has few
barriers between work groups.(53)
This paper uses the term ‘‘low formalization’’ to capture this structure and
co-ordination of work in a learning organization. In an organization with low formalization, employees can make their own decisions without having to check with
anyone, do not have to adhere strictly to formal rules and procedures to get things
done, and have the power to introduce new work activities without requiring approval. Information and decision-making are not closely controlled and centrally
monitored.
Based on this discussion, it is further argued that low formalization is
a necessary antecedent or precondition of the five attributes in a learning organization.
Performance Outcomes
The literature is full of examples of what it describes as organizations with
a strong learning capability. Invariably, these organizations are also cited as highly
effective organizations, achieving status such as the ‘‘premier companies’’ in their
industry. Descriptors such as financial and market success globally, innovative new
products, high customer satisfaction and loyalty, committed and highly trained
employees and involvement of employees through extensive information sharing
are frequently used to describe these companies. The implication is that learning
organizations are high performers and their employees experience positive psychological outcomes at work.(54)
We therefore argue that learning organizations with the attributes we have
described will achieve positive organizational outcomes such as organizational
336
GOH
effectiveness and innovation.(55) Employees in these organizations will experience
positive psychological outcomes such as strong commitment, loyalty, a sense of
empowerment and high job satisfaction.(56)
Organizational Constraints
One issue not explicitly discussed in the literature on the learning organization is the notion that all organizations can easily become learning organizations. If we view organizations from a systems perspective, then the assumption
is that the organization can be constrained by environmental factors both internal
and external to the organization. For example, size, technology, goals and strategy
are internal factors that could either facilitate or constrain the organization’s ability
to operate in a particular way.(57) External factors such as the legal, political and
the economic climate as well as powerful external stakeholders can also place
constraints on an organization.
The examples of learning organizations all come from the private sector,
especially firms in the information technology industry where they are faced with
a highly competitive, rapidly changing environment and have to pursue either an
analyzer or a prospector strategy in order to survive.(58) These organizations, according to contingency organization design theory, are faced with a highly uncertain environment. So they not only have to be adaptive, organic and flexible but
are also pressured to learn quickly to meet competitive demands and to change.(59)
What about public sector organizations? Can they become effective learning
organizations or are they constrained by the political values and operating constraints that are imposed on them? For example, Heffron (60) argues that the Miles
and Snow’s (61) defender strategy is particularly compatible with bureaucratic public sector organizations. Fewer examples of true prospectors or analyzers will be
found in the public sector domain.
This is not to imply a simplistic dichotomy between public and private sector organizations, although differences in their operating environment, internal
structures, personnel attitudes and performance are well documented.(62) For example, it can be argued that the current drive to semi-privatized public sector organizations means that these organizations should have fewer constraints to deal
with and can therefore compete with other private sector organizations and develop more attributes of learning organizations.
It has been argued that all organizations learn but their learning capability
can vary.(63) However, based on the argument that internal and external environmental pressures can act as constraints, we would expect not to find the attributes
of learning organizations in the public sector to the same extent as in the private
sector.
Figure 1 below illustrates the proposed relationships among the variables in
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
337
Figure 1. The learning organization: a conceptual framework.
this conceptual framework. As this is an initial test of the framework and relationships are being hypothesized, bi-directional arrows have been used to link the
variables of the model.
Summary and Hypotheses
Considering the above discussion and the conceptual framework presented,
it is argued that a learning organization has a set of specific attributes. These attributes are more likely present if the organization structure exhibits low formalization. An organization with these attributes of learning organizations will also be
highly effective in performance, its employees will experience positive psychological work outcomes such as empowerment and high job satisfaction. Furthermore, organizational constraints can affect an organization’s ability to become a
learning organization. Based on this discussion, the following hypotheses about
the relationship among the variables in the framework will be tested in this study:
Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between learning organization(LO) attributes and the degree of formalization in organization structure.
338
GOH
Hypothesis 2: Learning organization(LO) attributes will be positively associated
with performance outcomes such as employee job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3: Compared with private sector organizations, public sector organizations will have lower learning organization(LO) attributes.
METHODS
Sample and Procedures
This study was based on four large organizations, two in the private sector
and two in the public sector. The first private sector organization is in the information technology industry and the second is in the telecommunications industry.
The first firm is a research and development division of a larger organization. The
second firm is a joint venture unit of a number of larger firms in the industry. One
of the public sector organizations is a test and research laboratory that is part of a
regular line department in the federal public sector. The other organization is a
semi-privatized public sector service organization. The approximate size of the
organizations ranged from 250 to 600 employees. One of the public sector organizations was cited as high-performing by other reports and independent governmental studies. Similarly, one of the private sector organizations was considered
very successful in financial news reports and also has a dominant product market
share in its particular industry. They were selected because we wanted at least one
of the organizations in each sector to be considered successful or high-performing.
This would also result in a more robust test of the hypothesized differences between the two groups. The other two organizations were selected because we
wanted two comparable research-oriented organizations in each sector, again to
ensure that the organizations selected would not bias the results.
Measures of the variables in this study were developed through a questionnaire that was distributed to all employees in each organization. The surveys were
placed in envelopes with a covering letter indicating that it was a research project,
with a smaller envelope for the completed survey to be returned to the researchers.
In addition, a letter from the senior manager of the organization was included,
indicating approval and support for the study.
Two return methods were used: completed questionnaires were either collected by a central source in the organization and given to the researcher or returned by mail. Response rates varied from a high of about 75 percent to a low of
about 35 percent. As expected the direct-collection method had higher response
rates and the mail-ins had lower response rates. In the two private sector organizations the response rates were: information technology (62%); telecommunica-
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
339
tions (35%). For the public sector: test laboratory in a line department (75%);
semi-privatized department (43%).
Two other public sector organizations and a group of 48 graduate business
students also participated in the development of the questionnaire. That preliminary phase of the study was to select items as a basis for measuring the proposed
five attributes of a learning organization and to establish the scale’s reliability.
Measures
Three sets of measures were developed for this study. Questionnaire items
were constructed to measure each of the underlying variables discussed in the
conceptual framework. All measures were subjected to a preliminary analysis
through a pre-test with a small subject group. For the attributes of a learning organization, this involved developing a large pool of items to capture the five categories described. Through data reduction we selected a smaller pool of items to
reflect this measure.
Learning Organization Attributes
An initial pool of 55 items was developed to measure the five attributes of a
learning organization. In each category, 11 items were developed. ‘‘Clarity of mission and purpose’’ referred to the extent to which there was widespread support
for the organization’s mission and an understanding of how it was to be achieved.
‘‘Shared leadership and involvement’’ were defined as the ability of managers to
accept criticism without being defensive and to involve employees in decision
making. ‘‘Experimentation’’ referred to the fact that employees could bring new
ideas into the organization, were allowed to experiment to improve work processes and were rewarded for innovation. ‘‘Transfer of knowledge’’ was defined
as the sharing of successful new work processes, learning of successful practices
from other organizations and the constructive discussion of failures. Finally,
‘‘teamwork and group problem solving’’ referred to organizational practices that
encourage groups to solve problems themselves and to teamwork that features
employees from a variety of functional areas.
All items had a seven-point Likert scale response. Through the preliminary
analysis, 21 items were selected for the final questionnaire used in this research
study. To prevent bias in the direction of response, five items were worded so that
they had to be reverse-scored (see the Appendix for text of items associated with
each category of attribute). As shown in Table 2, the reliability of the overall LO
scale is .91 (Cronbach’s alpha).
340
GOH
Organizational Structure
This measure was developed in another study and based on earlier work by
Hage and Aiken.(64) It measures the degree of work formalization in an organization. This measure had seven items with a similar seven-point Likert scale response. This measure referred to the degree of work adherence to formal rules and
procedures, the need for approval to introduce new work procedures, monitoring
of work by management, presence of formal decision-making channels and levels
of hierarchy in the organization (see Appendix for text of items). As shown in
Table 2, the reliability of this scale is .66 (Cronbach’s alpha).
Performance Outcomes
Because we had public sector organizations in our sample, performance
measures such as financial performance and product innovation outcome measures could not be used for this study. Therefore, since our questionnaire was
based on individual employee responses (although aggregated for organizational
analysis), we decided to measure only psychological outcomes as felt by employees in the organization. The measure used was the degree of job satisfaction. There
were ten items in this scale with, again, similar seven-point Likert-type scale response categories. Job satisfaction measures are widely used in research on employee attitudes and have been shown to be reasonably powerful in assessing this
construct.(65) The argument here is that organizations that score higher on the attributes of a learning organization should have employees who feel more psychologically empowered and thus more satisfied with their work environment (see
Appendix for text of items). As shown in Table 2, the reliability of this scale is
.84 (Cronbach’s alpha).
RESULTS
This study was carried out in two major phases. In the first phase, initial
reliability and item selection from a pool of 55 items were carried out to measure
the major construct of a learning organization as defined by the set of attributes
discussed earlier. The second phase was administering the questionnaire to four
different organizations to test the proposed hypotheses.
Item Selection and Reliability
The initial questionnaire—with the 55 items measuring the attributes of a
learning organization, seven items measuring organization structure and 10 items
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
341
measuring job satisfaction—was given to two groups of employees working in
public sector organizations. A usable sample of 100 questionnaires was returned.
A principal component factor analysis was carried out for the 55 items. As a rule
of thumb we assigned an item to only a factor with a loading of .50 or more, and
found 21 items loading on one factor that accounted for 33 percent of the variance.
The internal consistency of this scale was alpha ⫽ .94. For the other two measures,
the internal consistency of the scales were: organization structure/formalization,
alpha ⫽ .78; job satisfaction, alpha ⫽ .86.
At this time, we tested the 21-item scale for stability over time as it was our
central measure for this study. The questionnaire was given to a group of graduate
business students at the beginning of the semester and then again about 10 weeks
later. An assigned number at the top of each questionnaire was used to identify
the same subjects over the time period. The participants were asked to remember
it and to jot in their diary. During the second administration of the questionnaire
they were told to write this number down so that we could identify them. Reliability of the scale was alpha ⫽ .91 for time one and alpha ⫽ .90 for time two
(n ⫽ 35). The stability over time as measured by the Pearson correlation coefficient between the two scales was r ⫽ .77, p ⬍ .01. These results indicate that the
21-item measure of the attributes of a learning organization demonstrates a considerably high level of stability over time.
Considering the results above, we concluded our preliminary analysis with
a principal component factor analysis (shown in Table 1) of the 21-item attributes
of a learning organization scale, identified earlier. This analysis was based on the
data from the four sample organizations used for hypothesis testing.
A four-factor solution was obtained, with factor one accounting for 36.7 percent of the variance and each of the remaining factors accounting for less than
10 percent of the variance. The loadings on factor one were all relatively high,
indicating a one factor solution. Although we identified five different attributes
of a learning organization, they are not purely separate dimensions based on our
statistical analysis. However, an examination of the scale by item shows that it has
captured all five attributes that we had identified, although they are obviously correlated and not completely independent.
Hypothesis Testing
We approached four organizations to participate in this study. Data were
obtained by administering a 38-item questionnaire that measured the learning organization attributes as well as formalization and job satisfaction. Table 2 shows
the means, standard deviations and correlation among the three major sets of variables in this study. Based on the overall sample from the four organizations, there
is a moderate degree of correlation among the learning organization attributes.
342
GOH
Table 1. Factor Analysis of the 21-Item Questionnaire on Learning Organization
Attributes a
Factor Loadings
Items
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
CMP1
CMP2
CMP3
CMP4
LSF1
LSF2
LSF3
LSF4
LSF5
EXP1
EXP2
EXP3
EXP4
EXP5
TKL1
TKL2
TKL3
TKL4
TGP1
TGP2
TGP3
Communality
Factor I
Factor II
Factor III
Factor IV
0.60
0.60
0.47
0.50
0.50
0.59
0.48
0.59
0.53
0.47
0.46
0.52
0.51
0.60
0.61
0.57
0.49
0.55
0.58
0.40
0.38
.59
.58
.58
.56
.57
.71
.65
.64
.68
.62
.63
.62
.64
.70
.52
.61
.67
.53
.56
.50
.55
.46
.49
.07
.23
.10
.27
.21
.26
.01
.23
.19
.35
.01
.05
.08
.01
.01
.35
.36
.21
.01
.11
.11
.07
.17
.35
.10
.08
.30
.26
.18
.15
.06
.28
.31
.48
.16
.03
.36
.28
.13
.16
.10
.07
.34
.31
.19
.01
.12
.14
.06
.05
.02
.01
.14
.02
.31
.42
.19
.09
.22
.31
.22
1.25
5.9%
1.16
5.5%
1.05
5.0%
Eigenvalue
% of Variance Explained
a Refer
7.55
36.7%
to Appendix for questionnaire items
This is to be expected, as they are measuring the same underlying overall construct
of a learning organization.
Results of the correlation between the learning organization attributes and
formalization of structure supports Hypothesis 1. All the correlations are negative and significant. The overall score for learning organization attributes was
negatively correlated with formalization ( r ⫽ ⫺.22, p ⬍ .001). Of the individual
attributes, the two with highest negative correlation to formalization were experimentation ( r ⫽ ⫺.28, p ⬍ .001) followed by clarity of mission and vision
( r ⫽ ⫺.26, p ⬍ .001).
To further test Hypothesis 1, all the learning organization attributes were
entered into a hierarchical regression equation to predict formalization. This ad-
4.06
4.11
3.91
4.20
3.72
4.39
4.13
4.66
1. Overall LO
2. Mission/ Vision
3. Leadership
4. Experimentation
5. Knowledge
6. Teamwork
7. Formalization
8. Job satisfaction
0.92
1.12
1.10
1.11
1.06
1.12
1.02
1.13
s.d.
2
3
4
5
6
7
(.91)
.80
(.68)
.90
.62
(.73)
.89
.62
.76
(.76)
.79
.54
.63
.60
(.58)
.75
.43
.59
.63
.49
(.55)
⫺.22 ⫺.26 ⫺.20 ⫺.28 ⫺.10* ⫺.23
(.66)
.66
.52
.57
.62
.54
.48 ⫺.36
1
alphas appear on the diagonal in parentheses
* p ⬍ .05, all other correlations are significant at p ⬍ .001
a Cronbach’s
Mean
Variables
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations Among Variables a
(.84)
8
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
343
344
GOH
Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis for Formalization
and Job Satisfaction a
Formalization Job Satisfaction
B
B
Variables
1. Experimentation
2. Mission/ Vision
3. Teamwork
4. Leadership
5. Knowledge
Overall Multiple R
Adjusted R2
Overall F
df
a Unstandardized
⫺.30***
(.05)
.17***
(.04)
⫺.09*
(.04)
.03
(.00)
.04
(.00)
.30***
(.05)
.19***
(.04)
.18***
(.03)
.10*
(.05)
.05
(.00)
.34
.11
26.29***
4,613
.68
.46
130.51***
4,606
regression coefficients, standard error in pa-
rentheses below.
* p ⬍.05
*** p ⬍.001
ditional regression analysis is shown in Table 3. Results of this regression analysis
are consistent with the individual analysis and provide further support for Hypothesis 1.
For Hypothesis 2, it was expected that there would be a positive relationship
between learning organization attributes and performance outcomes such as job
satisfaction. Results of the correlation analysis in Table 2 show support for the
hypothesis. Job satisfaction is positively correlated with the score on overall learning organization attributes ( r ⫽ .66, p ⬍ .001). The individual learning organization attributes are all positive and significantly correlated with job satisfaction.
Those having the highest correlation with job satisfaction were experimentation
( r ⫽ .62, p ⬍ .001) and shared leadership and involvement ( r ⫽ .57, p ⬍ .001).
To further test Hypothesis 2, all the learning organization attributes were
entered into a hierarchical regression equation to predict job satisfaction. Results
of this regression analysis, shown in Table 3, are consistent with the individual
analysis and provide additional support for Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 states that private sector organizations will score better than
public sector organizations on learning organization attributes. Table 4 shows
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
345
Table 4. Comparison of Means between Public and Private Sector of Learning Organization Attributes a
Public
Private
Org 2
Org 1
Org 4
Org 3
LO Attributes
Mean
s.d.
Mean
s.d.
Mean
s.d.
Mean
s.d.
F
Overall LO
Mission/ Vision
Leadership
Experimentation
Knowledge
Teamwork
3.63
3.67
3.52
3.65
3.48
3.91
0.95
1.11
1.16
1.15
1.11
1.16
3.87
4.16
3.98
3.82
3.60
3.82
1.07
1.32
1.27
1.26
1.13
1.23
4.02
4.05
3.84
4.18
3.63
4.50
0.76
0.98
0.96
0.92
0.90
1.02
4.60
4.18
4.47
4.86
4.03
4.91
0.69
0.92
0.91
0.78
1.03
0.86
133.84***
23.66***
33.25***
41.85***
8.52**
36.42***
Total N
146
196
126
144
a df
for F-test 3,608
** p ⬍.01
*** p ⬍.001
the means and standard deviations of the four organizations in the study sample,
two in the private sector and two in the public sector. A one-way ANOVA test
of the means shows that on overall learning organization attributes, the two private
sector organizations scored much better than the public sector organizations
F (3,608) ⫽ 33.84, p ⬍ .001. Of the individual learning organization attributes,
three were significant and in the right direction; experimentation F (3,643) ⫽
41.85, p ⬍ .001; transfer of knowledge F (3,650) ⫽ 8.52 , p ⬍ .001 and teamwork
and group problem-solving F (3.650) ⫽ 36.42, p ⬍ .001.
In clarity of mission and vision and shared leadership and involvement, one
of the public sector organizations scored higher than a private sector organization
in the sample. Despite this, the overall trend of the results indicates support for
Hypothesis 3.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this research was to articulate a learning organization archetype and to propose some preliminary hypotheses to test its predictive efficacy.
In order to empirically test these hypotheses, a measure of learning organization
attributes was developed. Results of this study provide some initial support for a
universalistic perspective of a learning organization, and identify some of the
dominant attributes of a learning organization.
A preliminary conclusion is that learning organizations generally have an
346
GOH
organization structure that is not hierarchical and highly formalized. That is, employees are not subject to close monitoring and do not have excessive controls in
their job environment. This can be considered a prerequisite if learning practices
such as encouraging experimentation and transfer of knowledge are to be effective
in influencing employees. The results support the conceptual literature that describes learning organizations as relatively organic and flexible.(66)
Job satisfaction was used only as a proxy measure for one plausible outcome
of many from which a learning organization can benefit. Results of this study
clearly show strong support for this finding. Generally, employees in learning organizations are described as energized and highly committed. They are also described as doing extraordinary things for the organization in innovating and generating new ideas to improve organizational performance.(67)
The last set of results indicates that an alternative contingency perspective
should also be considered. Comparing private with public sector organizations,
the results show that private sector organizations tend to score better on learning
organization attributes. This may argue that there are limitations in the universalistic perspective of the efficacy of the learning organization attributes. Certain
constraints may limit the ability of some organizations, such as public sector organizations, to effectively implement such learning organization attributes no
matter how much they may be desired.(68)
Some preliminary observations of the pattern of results indicate that experimentation has emerged as the most significant attribute of a learning organization.
It had the highest correlation in the predicted direction for both dependent measures, formalization ( r ⫽ ⫺.28, p⬍.001) and job satisfaction ( r ⫽ .62, p ⬍.001).
This provides support for the notion of experimentation as a key attribute needed
to support the building of a learning organization.(69) Another observation is that
in the four organizations in our sample, a within-means comparison showed that
transfer of knowledge has the lowest score for all four organizations. This may
indicate that organizations continue to have difficulty breaking down the barriers
among functional or work groups to share information. It may also indicate a lack
of focus on competitors to benchmark their activities and to learn from them. That
is, boundaries within the organization remain rather tight, and there are few
boundary spanners doing external scanning and transferring knowledge back into
the organization. Although these are obviously speculative observations, they provide further support for some of the conceptual literature that argues that knowledge transfer and experimentation are important attributes of learning organizations. This also suggests some potential problems for managers as they try to
develop some of these learning organization attributes.
As stated earlier, there are very few empirical studies that address the
fundamental assertions about learning organizations and some of the outcomes
widely accepted by proponents of this new management paradigm. Development
of a reliable and valid measure of a learning organization archetype, as done in
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
347
this study, can allow for further empirical study using larger samples by other
researchers.
This study contributes to an initial empirical study that measures the management practice attributes of a learning organization from a normative perspective. This conceptual framework synthesizes the large body of theoretical and applied literature, which has not focused clearly on the unique set of characteristics
of a learning organization from the perspective of management practice. Results
of the study show initial support for a nomological network to explain the attributes and outcomes of a learning organization. These results also provide some
support for a universalistic perspective of the effects of a learning organization. At
this time, however, competing contingency and configurational perspectives cannot be ruled out.(70)
Despite the contributions of this study, some factors limit the extent to
which the findings can be generalized. First, the study is based on a small sample
of organizations from two different sectors. The small sample size may not fully
represent the sectors from which it was drawn. It can also be argued that public
and private sector organizations have clearly very different missions. Private sector organizations are focused on financial returns to shareholders and owners, so
being a highly competitive learning organization is critical to achieving success.
In contrast, public sector organizations are more concerned with providing service
to satisfy the public as stakeholders, which is their prime mission. Being a learning organization may not contribute to this objective. This is a plausible alternative
explanation for the observed differences in the data. These factors may limit any
generalization about public and private sector differences in learning organization
attributes as proposed in this study.
Second, data of the measures used in the study were based on a single survey. It could be argued that method variance can be an alternative explanation for
some of the correlation results. Third, the cross-sectional data and research design,
such as the variable response rates, may limit any causality arguments or the overall generalizability of the study conclusions at this time.
Another issue is the fact that only one performance outcome measure is used
in this study. Other outcomes such as financial performance, rate of innovation,
customer satisfaction, employee commitment and loyalty are other possible outcomes that may be more relevant to testing this archetype. However, because
we were testing differences between the public and private sector in this study, we
could not use certain outcome measures such as financial or market performance
to compare across our sample. So the link to performance remains tentative at
this time.
Obviously, a comprehensive empirical study that addressed all these methodological issues would be an enormous task. At this stage of theory development
and empirical testing, a more modest scale of research, as undertaken in this study,
may be more appropriate. With these preliminary cross-sectional data that support
348
GOH
the major relationships of this conceptual framework and the validity of the measure used in this study, further empirical research is now needed to test in a more
refined way some of the predictions of this model.
The methodological issues raised earlier can be addressed with further research using much larger sample sizes and with longitudinal data. A future study
could draw a sample from a single industry sector to control for between-industry
or sector differences. Additional measures could be gathered instead of just perceptual data. For example, the number of hierarchical levels and spans of control
in an organization could be used as additional measures of formalization. Other
performance outcome measures would also need to be evaluated, such as financial
performance indicators and the rate of innovation. This would add more strength
to the argument that building a learning organization can lead to tangible outcomes for the organization. Further studies may also want to identify additional
learning organization attributes that can be linked to organizational performance.
Finally, the current conceptual debate about what constitutes a learning organization remains fragmented and highly diverse. As Dibella (71) puts it, these
multiple perspectives in the literature suggests that the concept of a learning organization remains a chameleon-like target. Even within the literature on ‘‘organizational learning’’ and ‘‘the learning organization’’, there are many different
perspectives and theoretical orientations. However, through this continued theoretical discussion and further rigorous, cumulative empirical research, researchers
and managers should carefully assess and evaluate the appropriate meaning and
value to attach to this concept. The contribution of this paper is to the normative
perspective of the literature on the learning organization and providing some empirical evidence to support the existence of a potential archetype that has applied
managerial implications.
APPENDIX: MEASURES a
Learning Organization (LO) Attributes
Clarity of Purpose and Mission (CMP)
1.
2.
3.
There is widespread support and acceptance of the organization’s mission statement
I do not understand how the mission of the organization is to be
achieved(r).
The organization’s mission statement identifies values to which all employees must conform.
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
4.
349
We have opportunities for self assessment with respect to goal
attainment
Shared Leadership and Involvement (LSF)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Senior managers in this organization resist change and are afraid of
new ideas(r).
Senior managers and employees in this organization share a common
vision of what our work should accomplish
Managers in this organization can accept criticism without becoming
overly defensive.
Managers in this organization often provide useful feedback that helps
to identify potential problems and opportunities.
Managers in this organization frequently involve employees in important decisions.
Experimentation (EXP)
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
I can often bring new ideas into the organization.
From my experience, people who are new in this organization are encouraged to question the way things are done.
Managers in this organization encourage team members to experiment
in order to improve work processes.
Innovative ideas that work are often rewarded by management.
In my experience, new ideas from employees are not treated seriously
by management(r).
Transfer of Knowledge (TKL)
15.
16.
17.
18.
I often have an opportunity to talk to other staff about successful programs or work activities in order to understand why they succeed.
Failures are seldom constructively discussed in our organization(r).
New work processes that may be useful to the organization as a whole
are usually shared with all employees.
We have a system that allows us to learn successful practices from
other organizations
Teamwork and Group Problem-solving (TGP)
19.
20.
21.
Current organizational practice encourages employees to solve problems together before discussing it with a manager.
We cannot usually form informal groups to solve organizational
problems(r).
Most problem solving groups in this organization feature employees
from a variety of functional areas.
350
GOH
Organization Design/Structure
Formalization
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
There is very little overlap in work between different units in the
organization.
Most of our work must adhere to formal rules and procedures.
In my opinion, this organization has too many levels of hierarchy.
We require approval in writing for the introduction of new work
activities.
Our work is usually closely monitored and inspected by management.
Information and decision making must always go through the proper
channels.
Standard operating procedures have been established for almost every
work situation.
Performance Outcomes
Job Satisfaction
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
I feel I am in a dead end job.(r)
I feel isolated at work.(r)
I am satisfied with my supervisor
I do not feel as if I am an integral part of his organization.(r)
I have opportunities to work on challenging assignments
My work makes full use of my skills and abilities
I have opportunities to improve my knowledge, skills and abilities in
order to undertake new assignments.
8. I know that failure will have negative repercussions on my career.(r)
9. My work group is supportive of the work I do
10. Overall, I am satisfied with this job.
a (r)
means item is reverse scored.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting (Aug
1995), 287–290.
Calvert, G.; Mobley, S.; Marshall, L. Grasping the Learning Organization.
Training and Development 1994, 48, 39 – 43; Duncan, Robert; Weiss, Anthony. Organizational Learning: Implications for Organization Design. Re-
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
351
search in Organizational Behaviour 1979, 1, 75 –123; Hedberg, Bo. How
Organizations Learn and Unlearn. In Handbook of Organizational Design,
Nystrom, Paul C., Starbuck, William H., Eds.; Oxford University Press:
New York, 1981, 3 –26; Levitt, Barbara; March, James G. Organizational
Learning. Annual Review of Sociology 1988, 14, 319 – 410.
DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of
Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting
(Aug 1995), 287–290.; Fiol, Marlene C.; Lyles, Marjorie. A. Organizational
Learning. Academy of Management Review 1985, 10, 803 – 813; Garvin,
David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review 1993,
(July-Aug), 78 –91; Huber, George P. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and The Literatures. Organization Science 1991, 2,
88 –115; Inkpen, Andrew. Creating Knowledge Through Collaboration. California Management Review 1996, 39, 123 –140; Senge, Peter. Building
Learning Organizations. Sloan Management Review 1990, (Fall), 7–23.
DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of
Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting
(Aug 1995), 287–290.; Popper, Micha; Lipshitz, Raanan. Organizational
Learning Mechanisms: A Structural and Cultural Approach to Organizational Learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 1998, 34, 161–179.
DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of
Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting
(Aug 1995), 287–290.
Argyris, Chris.; Schon, Donald A. Organizational Learning II: Theory,
Method and Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Reading,
Massachusetts, 1996.
DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of
Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting
(Aug 1995), 287–290.
DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of
Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting
(Aug 1995), 287–290.
Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline; Doubleday: New York, 1992.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.
Dodgson, M. Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures. Organization Studies 1993, 14, 375 –394.
Dodgson, M. Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures. Organization Studies 1993, 14, 375 –394.
Popper, Micha; Lipshitz, Raanan. Organizational Learning Mechanisms: A
Structural and Cultural Approach to Organizational Learning. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 1998, 34, 161–179.
352
GOH
14.
Nevis, Edwin C.; DiBella, Anthony J.; Gould, Janet M. Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review 1995, (Winter), 73 – 85.; Senge, Peter. Building Learning Organizations. Sloan Management Review 1990, (Fall), 7–23.
DeGeus, Arie P. Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review 1988,
(Mar-Apr), 70 –74; Stata, Ray. Organizational Learning— The Key to Management Innovation. Sloan Management Review 1989, (Spring), 63 –74.
Simonin, Bernard L. The Importance of Collaborative Know-how: An Empirical Test of the Learning Organization. Academy of Management Journal
1997, 40, 1150 –1174.
Barkema, Harry G.; Vermeulen, Freek. International Expansion Through
Start-up or Acquisitions: A Learning Perspective. Academy of Management
Journal 1998, 41 (Feb), 7–26.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.; McGill, Michael, Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David.
Management Practices in Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17; Mills, Daniel Q.; Friesen, Bruce. The Learning
Organization. European Management Journal 1992, 10, 146 –156; Pedler,
Mike; Boydell, Tom; Burgoyne, John. Towards the Learning Company.
Management Education and Development 1989, 20, 1– 8.; Senge, Peter.
Building Learning Organizations. Sloan Management Review 1990, (Fall),
7–23.
Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline; Doubleday: New York, 1992.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.
McGill, Michael, Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Argyris, Chris.; Schon, Donald A. Organizational Learning II: Theory,
Method and Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Reading, Massachusetts, 1996.
McGill, Michael, Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Shaw, Robert B.; Perkins, Dennis N. T. Teaching Organizations to Learn.
Organizational Developmental Journal 1991, 9 (Winter), 1–12.
Argyris, Chris.; Schon, Donald A. Organizational Learning II: Theory,
Method and Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Reading,
Massachusetts, 1996.; Marsick, V.; Watkins, K. Informal and Incidental
Learning in the Workplace, Routledge: New York, 1990.
Becker, Brian; Gerhart, Barry. The Impact of Human Resource Management
on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects. Academy of Man-
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
353
agement Journal 1996, 39, 779 – 801; Delery, John; Doty, Harold. Modes of
Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance Predictions. Academy
of Management Journal 1996, 39, 802 – 835; Youndt, Mark, Snell, Scott,
Dean, Jr. James and Lepak, David. Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal
1996, 39, 836 – 866.
Senge, Peter. Building Learning Organizations. Sloan Management Review
1990, (Fall), 7–23.; Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline; Doubleday: New
York, 1992.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Shaw, Robert B.; Perkins, Dennis N. T. Teaching Organizations to Learn.
Organizational Developmental Journal 1991, 9 (Winter), 1–12.
Pedler, Mike; Boydell, Tom; Burgoyne, John. Towards the Learning Company. Management Education and Development 1989, 20, 1– 8.
Ulrich, Dave; Jick, Todd; Von Glinow, Mary Ann. High Impact Learning:
Building and Diffusing Learning Capability. Organizational Dynamics
1993, (Autumn), 52 – 66.
Nevis, Edwin C.; DiBella, Anthony J.; Gould, Janet M. Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review 1995, (Winter), 73 – 85.
Dixon, Nancy M. The Hallways of Learning. Organizational Dynamics
1997, (Spring,), 23 –34.
Senge, Peter. Building Learning Organizations. Sloan Management Review
1990, (Fall), 7–23.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Nevis, Edwin C.; DiBella, Anthony J.; Gould, Janet M. Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review 1995, (Winter), 73 – 85.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Shaw, Robert B.; Perkins, Dennis N. T. Teaching Organizations to Learn.
Organizational Developmental Journal 1991, 9 (Winter), 1–12.
Pedler, Mike; Boydell, Tom; Burgoyne, John. Towards the Learning Company. Management Education and Development 1989, 20, 1– 8.
Nevis, Edwin C.; DiBella, Anthony J.; Gould, Janet M. Understanding Or-
354
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
GOH
ganizations as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review 1995, (Winter), 73 – 85.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.
Shaw, Robert B.; Perkins, Dennis N. T. Teaching Organizations to Learn.
Organizational Developmental Journal 1991, 9 (Winter), 1–12.
Ulrich, Dave; Jick, Todd; Von Glinow, Mary Ann. High Impact Learning:
Building and Diffusing Learning Capability. Organizational Dynamics
1993, (Autumn), 52 – 66.
Dixon, Nancy M. The Hallways of Learning. Organizational Dynamics
1997, (Spring,), 23 –34.; Nevis, Edwin C.; DiBella, Anthony J.; Gould,
Janet M. Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review 1995, (Winter), 73 – 85.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Mohrman, Susan A.; Mohrman, Jr. Allan. M. Organizational Change and
Learning. In Organizing for the Future: The New Logic for Managing Complex Organizations, Galbraith J. R., Lawler (III) E. E. and Associates, Eds.;
Jossey Bass Publishers: San Francisco, 1995; Ulrich, Dave; Jick, Todd; Von
Glinow, Mary Ann. High Impact Learning: Building and Diffusing Learning
Capability. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 52 – 66.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Ulrich, Dave; Jick, Todd; Von Glinow, Mary Ann. High Impact Learning:
Building and Diffusing Learning Capability. Organizational Dynamics
1993, (Autumn), 52 – 66.
Argyris, Chris.; Schon, Donald A. Organizational Learning II: Theory,
Method and Practice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Reading,
Massachusetts, 1996.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Spreitzer, Gretchen M. Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement and Validation. Academy of Management Journal
1995, 38, 1442 –1465.
Daft, Richard. Organization Theory and Design; West Publishing Company,
St. Paul: Minnesota, 1996.
Miles, Robert; Snow, Charles. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process; McGraw Hill: New York, 1978.
LEARNING ORGANIZATION
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
355
Daft, Richard. Organization Theory and Design; West Publishing Company,
St. Paul: Minnesota, 1996.
Heffron, Florence. Organization Theory and Public Organizations; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
Miles, Robert; Snow, Charles. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process; McGraw Hill: New York, 1978.
Heffron, Florence. Organization Theory and Public Organizations; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting (Aug
1995), 287–290.; Nevis, Edwin C.; DiBella, Anthony J.; Gould, Janet M.
Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review 1995, (Winter), 73 – 85.
Hage, Gerald; Aiken, Michael. Routine Technology, Social Structure and
Organizational Goals. Administrative Science Quarterly 1969, 14, 368 –379.
Smith, P.; Kendall, L.; Hulin, C. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work
and Retirement; Rand McNally: Chicago, 1985.
McGill, Michael; Slocum, John, Jr.; Lei, David. Management Practices in
Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics 1993, (Autumn), 5 –17.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.; Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. The Factory as Learning Laboratory. Sloan Management Review 1992, (Fall), 23 –38.
Heffron, Florence. Organization Theory and Public Organizations; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.
Garvin, David. Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review
1993, (July-Aug), 78 –91.; Senge, Peter. Building Learning Organizations.
Sloan Management Review 1990, (Fall), 7–23.; Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline; Doubleday: New York, 1992.
Delery, John; Doty, Harold. Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency and Configurational Performance Predictions. Academy of Management Journal 1996, 39,
802 – 835.; DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting (Aug 1995), 287–290.
DiBella, Anthony J. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective. Proceedings of the 1995 Academy of Management Meeting (Aug
1995), 287–290.