16th international Conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe

1 A CONTINGENCY FRAMEWORK MODEL FOR

ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING

Name of Authors: John Koukoutsas, MSc HRDMembership Development Executive, IITD

Contact:John Koukoutsas73a Patrick StreetDun LaoghaireDublin, Ireland

Email: Facilitate@outlook.com

Stream Heading: Organisational Development and Organisational Learning

Submission Type: Fully referenced paper

Word count: 9736

Contents1 A contingency framework model for Organisational Learning...............1

1.1 The issue..........................................................................................41.2 Purpose............................................................................................41.3 Methodology....................................................................................41.4 Hypothesis.......................................................................................51.5 Introduction.....................................................................................51.6 Approach and Limitations................................................................61.7 Scope...............................................................................................71.8 Conclusion.......................................................................................7

2 The Model..............................................................................................82.1.1 External culture............................................................................82.1.2 Organisational Culture..................................................................82.1.3 Organisational Learning................................................................82.1.4 Organisational Setting..................................................................9

3 National and Organisational Culture......................................................93.1 Measuring National Culture - Layers of culture - Schein................103.2 Measuring National Culture - Cultural Dimensions - Hofstede.......123.3 Measuring Organisational culture..................................................13

3.3.1 Competing Values Framework....................................................143.4 Summary.......................................................................................15

4 Learning Organisations and Organisational Learning..........................164.1 Introduction...................................................................................164.2 Theories in organisational learning and learning organisations....18

4.2.1 Learning Organisations typology................................................184.2.2 Organisational Learning typology...............................................19

4.3 The Fifth Discipline........................................................................204.3.1 Conclusions and a critique of the Fifth Discipline.......................20

4.4 Recent developments....................................................................214.5 Conclusion.....................................................................................224.6 Measuring Organisational Learning...............................................23

4.6.1 Dimensions of Learning Organisation Query (DLOQ)..................235 Organisational Setting.........................................................................24

5.1 Introduction...................................................................................245.2 Variable..........................................................................................24

6 Overall Conclusions, Implications and Dialogue..................................256.1 Measuring complexity....................................................................266.2 Analysis..........................................................................................276.3 The Learning Domain.....................................................................28

7 References...........................................................................................30

1.1 THE ISSUE

The field of organisational learning and learning organisations has been researched, developed and mystified, demystified, validated and invalidated since its inception. It has increasingly become diversified and fractured, and there is an almost identical situation with Organisational culture. It is my conviction that in change management projects of learning organisations, the context, including cultural and other similar organisational aspects are often grossly underestimated. Either we focus on a vision based on one of the dominant Learning Organisational models, underestimating the difficulties in implementing such models, or we give too much focus on procedures, knowledge management systems, organisational restructuring, and the day to day project management of such a fundamental and transformational change management endeavour. In other words, we aim too high or too low, with little understanding of the unique context in each case.

1.2 PURPOSE

This paper proposes a model to clarify the critical factors and forces involved when benchmarking and developing a Learning Organisation. We will attempt to establish a framework that helps to contextualise the concept of organisational learning, using three organisational factors. This contingency approach will enable us to create a map, against which every aspect of any organisational learning feature can be compared, and help us gain an understanding of which ones should and should not be implemented.

1.3 METHODOLOGY

An extensive literature review, as well as an initial testing of the model in our business research project was previously made. Using what Schein (2010) calls a Scholar/Practitioner method, academic knowledge is interacted with personal experience, allowing knowledge to be created

and validated in a practical circumstance, and then refined, tested and refined, in an experiential loop.

In essence, this has constituted a work of deductive theory, using a narrative review of the literature, in which a pattern could be cognitively (and subjectively) discerned and lead to the proposed model. It has been used in one circumstance, and needs much further testing and validation, but has so far held up to scrutiny.

1.4 HYPOTHESIS

That the Organisational culture will have a critical impact on both the success of any organisational learning and its continuous implementation. That the existing features and assumptions of the concept of organisational learning will have a critical impact on both the success of any organisational learning and its continuous implementation. That the Setting, consisting of a third, distinguishing and unique factor will have a critical impact on both the success of any organisational learning and its continuous implementation.

That the existing external culture will have a critical impact on both the success of any organisational learning and its continuous implementation.

1.5 INTRODUCTION

In a previous business research project with a public health organisation, we attempted to identify the critical success factors for the implementation of a learning organisation. It quickly became apparent that the field of Organisational Learning and more specifically, Learning Organisations, has become increasingly complex and differentiated since the seminal works from before the millennium. Thus the field of study has its inception roughly 40 years ago, with origins earlier than that, and reached some level of maturity 20 years ago.

Take a moment and consider what our world looked like at that time, and compare it to our current world. Culturally, socially, politically,

structurally, in almost every instance we can imagine there are huge differences. Internet was in its infancy and social media didn’t exist. Email was becoming established, and starting to replace faxing. Smartphones weren’t invented for another decade. Can we contend that any organisational behavioural model truly would be valid today? On an individual level, yes, and to some extent team-levels. Learning and development theories and models that deal with the individual and their immediate surrounding will to a large extent still be valid. But from a sociological perspective? Organisations have changed in innumerable ways since then.

It is clear from a review of the literature on Learning Organisations, and case studies, that the field has gained considerable complexity since the seminal work of Peter Senge in the Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1990). It seems that the monumental shift to a learning organisation is a unique and inadvertently customised experience in most cases. Methods, models and theories has been introduced and exist as final objectives or elusive visions of a future state, and measurement tools on how to diagnose a learning organisation has started to mature. Implementation methods are scarce, and insufficiently substantiated from an academic perspective. In examining the bewildering array of literature, it becomes clear that agreement on one dominant model is probably impossible.

Likewise the study of organisational cultures and climates are incredibly differentiated, and have many specific sub-fields of research.

So we will investigate Organisational Learning, as well as Organisational Culture. Thirdly, we will look at the Organisational Setting. This we have defined as any unique aspects of the organisation (as sector, region, type, structure, current life cycle, etc). It can consist of one variable, for instance “the public sector”, or several.

With this contingency framework, we then have three primary areas of investigation, the organisational culture, the organisational learning environment and the organisational setting, against a backdrop of national culture(s).

1.6 APPROACH AND LIMITATIONSAs previously mentioned, my research in this paper based on a Scholar/Practitioner approach, thus creating a learning loop. Academic knowledge must illuminate and construct a framework of confirmed understanding, while allowing the researcher to draw conclusions and develop new models and theories as needed where current academia is insufficient. In the field of organisational culture and learning, we are still significantly evolving our understanding, somewhat like culture itself, it is continually evolving and restructuring itself, elusive but omnipresent.

We have completed a series of interviews with leading HRD practitioners in an effort to validate and trial of the contingency model.

1.7 SCOPE

Outside of the scope of this research paper remains learning processes on the individual level. I have excluded experiential learning models, psychological factors concerning motivation, learning abilities, cognitive models, and any other theories based on individual internal processes. They form the individual foundation without which learning and organisational learning will not occur, but consists of a complementary and self-contained academic discipline.

Likewise, we will not cover the motivation and justification of a learning organisation or organisational learning. Some will say they are a mandatory part of our future without which, any organisation will become obsolete. Others will state that it offers a huge competitive edge, in terms of performance, innovation or other similar areas. Nor will we look at the actual implementation of any learning organisations, which comes with its own set of considerations, methods and other areas for study, i.e. how to affect change within the culture, structures and learning in the organisation, nor the related field of change management.

We are only looking at the model, which is an attempt at defining the critical factors needed in figuring out what organisational learning features to implement in any organisation.

1.8 CONCLUSIONSo I propose a model that utilises existing benchmarking tools that are selected on the basis of how well they would suit the context of the organisation being

investigated. It is my intention to explore various models and theories in the literature, question, and dispute or validate them, from a cognitive standpoint, using deductive reasoning and internal dialogue, tempered by collected data and trials.

To discover and clarify dissonances and issues within the field of Organisational Learning, as it relates to cultural and organisational context, without which, the undertakings of learning in an organisation will remain hampered and sub-optimised. With the framework, we would be free from the existing conceptualised models of Learning Organisations, and have a sounding board against which we would evaluate all organisational learning features, whether it is an implementation project or current state analysis. There are three main areas of analysis, with the addition of external culture and climate and we will investigate the feasibility of such a model.

In organisational learning, less is more. Implementing a multitude of organisational learning features would be counterproductive, if the context has not been considered carefully. Organisational learning is in my view a strategic consideration. Similar to Porter’s five forces model (Porter, 2008), commonly used when considering market strategies, this would be a tool to envision and clarify the context, so that a truly strategic best fit implementation of organisational learning can be achieved in any organisation.

2 THE MODEL

The proposed model consist of three areas of study, which can be approached either from an academic standpoint, or a business standpoint. In addition we look at the external factor consisting of the External Culture and Climate.

2.1.1External culture

In investigating the external (national) culture, we look at two well-known models, Hofstede’s (2010) dimensions, and Schein’s three layers of culture (Schein, 2010). Using those we can identify the variables of the external culture, and how it is embedded in the organisation, via its members. According to Schein, affecting organisational culture is feasible, but national culture is embedded in our basic assumptions, and therefore incredibly difficult to influence within an organisational scope. This analysis gives us dimensions and

most importantly, basic assumptions, against which any learning organisational features has to be considered. An important consideration is also when national culture coincides with the organisational culture, we need to recognise that it is similarly very hard to shift.

2.1.2Organisational Culture

There are a multitude of organisational culture measuring tools and models. For our purpose it remains important to gain a sufficient understanding of the cultural artefacts, values and assumptions of the organisation, and where these align with any learning organisational features, and where they do not. This in order to better choose our battles, and avoid those that will deplete our ability to manifest change. It allows us to strategize and choose tactics that best suit our context.

2.1.3Organisational Learning

Organisational learning consists of organisational memory and development of skills and knowledge. It’s the cyclical creation process of individuals’ acquisition of knowledge, storing it in the organisation, and the retrieval and application of it on a daily basis. Even with turnover of employees, the knowledge remains, and is easily transformed into skills and action. This exists in all organisations, whether we they would meet the definition of a Learning Organisation, or not. Thus we need to investigate in detail what learning exists, and how it is functioning, its processes and forces, and whether they are informal or formal. Only after such a detailed benchmarking of the organisation can we truly understand enough about the context to properly analyse what organisational learning features are desirable and/or possible.

2.1.4Organisational Setting

The organisational setting is the third variable that we need to investigate. This setting consists of any further predominant feature of the organisation, which needs to be taken into account. It could be a public sector organisation, or a multi-national corporation, a service organisation, or a manufacturing company. It could be the organisations life stage, or its structure. It could be a combination of these, but it remains crucial that the setting considered is paramount in its influence on the organisation, and its learning.

3 NATIONAL AND ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

It is hard to gain an understanding or overview of organisational culture, let alone establish a conclusive definition (Schein, 2010). The literature is inundated by various definitions, theories and models, which seems to fail to give clarity and reliable measurements (Bratton and Gold, 2012; Morley et al., 1998; Vecchio, 2006). In many cases they are even incompatible both ontologically and epistemologically. This makes the transfer from fundamental academic reasoning to practical and engaged research hard. (Bogolyubov and Easterby-Smith, 2013)

Even though Organisational Culture increasingly defies definition, as more research and development is made in the matter, it is still widely used in management (Vecchio, 2006). To some extent it seems to me that “organisational culture” has become a catch-all phrase that is used to describe not only culture, but any behaviour, procedure or activity that is not clearly part of any other academic paradigm. According to Cameron (2008), in a book by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), they identified over 150 definitions, over 60 years ago.

Schein, coming from a structural approach, defines the culture of a group as “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well

enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.” (Schein, 2012)

It is important to consider that culture could be considered a autopoietic system, meaning that it self-organises, and creates itself from its own context, autonomous, self-referring and self-constructing system (Maturana and Varela, 1980; Pheysey, 1993). As such, it continuously creates and re-creates its own meaning, whether it was intended and directed or completely left to its own devices. Culture will take shape, and likewise, learning will transpire, whether we have had any active influence on the process or not. The culture’s interaction with its environment is considered as part of the system itself, and not an external resource.

There are some fundamental and useful models and theories that will help us with the contextual understanding of organisational culture in relation to organisational learning.

3.1 MEASURING NATIONAL CULTURE - LAYERS OF CULTURE - SCHEIN

One of the instrumental researchers into organisational culture, Edgar H Schein has done a lot of work in the field, both academic and experiential (Schein, in Kolb et al., 2006).

He defines three layers of organisational culture (Schein, 2010):

The surface layer, Artefacts, is easy to observe and identify, but very hard to decode. It includes the visible, tangible and audible behavioural expressions of the organisation, for example, the environment, style of language, mannerisms, stories, published values, established rituals, and so on. It is easy enough to identify “what”, it is much harder to identify “why”, and fraught with the risk of misinterpretation. One of those risks is of bias when trying to analyse at this level, as the interpretation will often be skewed by the individual’s feelings and reactions to the artefacts. Artefacts are symbols, and like any semiotic context they have multiple interpretations. They are coded by the context, and that leads to the catch twenty-two, that you can really only understand the artefacts, if you

already are part of the culture. In which case, it introduces the bias of subjective perspective.

The middle layer consist of Espoused Values. They are the values the organisation is committed to, but haven’t achieved, nor necessarily expressed. They are established through social validation, where actions and perceivable beliefs are assessed by members, and either rejected or transformed into a shared belief. So successful behaviour will transform and embed themselves into espoused values. In some cases the espoused values will be aligned with basic assumptions. These values endow more definition to the culture. In some cases, there will be misalignment, and it remains a challenge to identify what espoused values are not embedded with a corresponding basic assumption.When there is a disparity, we can often see that the expressed (and espoused) value do not match the behaviour. In HR there is a common rhetoric gap, where many identifiable values are not actually adhered to. An example is where the organisation is committing to training and developing their staff, but in reality a miniscule amount of training is actually performed. They simply do not walk the talk. This mismatch remains one of the most common breaches of the psychological contract in an organisation.In some cases, we can observe artefacts that seem to have no connection to any identifiable espoused values, which leaves us with a limited understanding of the culture at hand.

The lowest layer consists of basic assumptions. It is at this level culture grows and matures. Artefacts and values that work are reinforced, and others are set aside, both by process of social validation. At this point, the reinforced assumptions will start to be taken for granted, and will usually allow for little, if any, variation.

It is important to remember that these layers are interconnected and influence each other in both directions continuously, and also that visibility decreases from artefacts down to basic assumptions. The model provides an insight in how to cognitively apply a cultural analysis, with awareness of the complications and interdependencies. In addition, one needs to take into consideration if there are any sub-groups in the organisation, as gaps and other significant differences may exist between geographic locations, or departments. An analysis must take all three layers in consideration, to gain an understanding of the culture. The essence of culture certainly lies at the level of basic assumptions, but they are

expressed via the values and artefacts. They are easy to detect, but difficult to decipher. And culture can be incredibly hard to change.

Leadership is originally the source of the beliefs and values that get a group moving in dealing with its internal and external problems. If (it) continues to work, what once was only the leader’s assumption gradually comes to be a shared assumption...individuals seek stability and meaning. Once these are achieved, it is easier to distort new data by denial, projection, rationalization or various other defence mechanisms, than to change the basic assumption.(Schein, in Kolb et al., 2006)

3.2 MEASURING NATIONAL CULTURE - CULTURAL DIMENSIONS - HOFSTEDE

Another seminal theory, and a complement to these layers, and their inherent possible contradictions, is Hofstede’s (2010) dimensions. The study aimed to identify national cultural traits across a multinational organisation, and examine the impact they might have on management. In that study, he eventually identified five cultural dimensions, which is defined as the following (Hofstede, 2014a; Hofstede and de Mooij, 2011, pp. 182–183)

Power Distance (PDI): “the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.”

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI): “the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity and try to avoid these situations.”

Individualism/Collectivism (IDV): “people looking after themselves and their immediate family only versus people belonging to in-groups that look after them in exchange for loyalty”

Masculinity/Femininity (MAS): “The dominant values in a masculine society are achievement and success; the dominant values in a feminine society are caring for others and quality of life.”

Pragmatic/Normative (PRA): “How every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future.” The

change of the dimension name is due to inclusion of wider data sets from the World Value Survey, and is considered a better construct.

Indulgence/Restraint (IND): “The extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses”

The sixth dimension has been recently added to the previous five, called Indulgence/Restraint. The dimension indicates a society that either allows and enjoys basic human drives, or suppresses such “indulgence” by strict social rules and norms.

As an example, when considering Power Distance, we can easily picture an organisation that have embraced power inequality. An employee who has a very low acceptance of power distance, would meet considerable resistance or simple disbelief from others, when trying to introduce changes to the inequality. This resistance and disbelief would emanate and manifest across all layers, from the basic assumption that the power distance is the correct status, to the (incorrect) awareness that equality exists in the organisation, and the expression of that awareness at the most visible layer of artefacts. Stories, interactions, procedures and other behaviours would be representative of the underlying basic assumptions.

Hofstede’s Dimensions are a pivotal contribution to the field of culture, but is not altogether relevant when we look at organisational culture, as it primarily concerns macro level cultures. The dimensions have been validated against other similar data-sets, other studies, and by mining contextually different datasets, to ensure that the dimensions hold up. In looking at other researchers, some dimensions have been subdivided, and some are contextually similar, but not the same. Nevertheless the validity for the existing use of the dimensions is clearly established.

Having stated that, his own research indicates that the power distance and uncertainty avoidance dimensions have the strongest impact on organisations (Morley et al., 1998). It is important to note that his initial research was conducted within the same organisation, and consequently illustrated the large variations that can co-exist within one multi-national corporation. If we consider that, we realise that corporation-wide initiatives face significant challenges. Trying to culturally homogenize such an organisation is fruitless (Schermerhorn, 2010; Vecchio, 2006). All organisation wide activities should take

any variations into consideration, and be tailored accordingly, not view and treat every department and individual as the same.

This also implies that in any organisational culture investigation, we need to identify what commonalities exist, along with variations in sub-cultures, if any.

According to Hofstede, it is important to remember that National and Organisational culture tends to anchor in different layers in culture. “Hofstede’s research shows that organisational cultures differ mainly at the level of practices. These are more superficial and more easily learned and unlearned than values forming the core of national cultures.” (Hofstede, 2014b)

3.3 MEASURING ORGANISATIONAL CULTUREThere are a plethora of ways to define and measure organisational culture. As previously mentioned it is a field that has grown increasingly disparate and has multiple conflicting definitions

Both Hofstede (Hofstede et al., 1990) and Schein (Schein, 2010) has created models that follow on their research of national and social cultures.

We can find many instruments, some generic, some contextualised.

In a review of available instruments, Scott et al (2003) identified thirteen that matched their criteria, of which nine where specific for health care organisations. Among them, in the Survey of Organisational Culture (Tucker et al., 1990), thirteen dimensions where identified to define culture. It has been used across several organisations, and is a reliable validated tool.

Another tool would be the Organisational Culture Survey (Glaser et al., 1987), which has six empirical factors, and includes qualitative aspects as well as quantitative.

In each variable we are investigating using our model, we can find a similar situation, with many generic instruments, as well as contextualised ones, for specific purposes. One of the most frequently used and studied one is the Competing Values Framework.

3.3.1Competing Values Framework The competing Values Framework is well known as one of the fifty most important models in the history of business. It emerged in the 1980, as a tool

used for measuring effectiveness in organisations. It consists of a matrix with several dimensions, and has been extended considerably in the last 20 years. (Cameron and Quinn, 2011). The first dimension in the matrix is related to organisational focus, from internal to eternal, and the second dimension is related to organisational flexibility to stability.

The four quadrants created correspond to Collaborate, Create, Compete and Control. It is usually performed with a focus on “now” and “future, giving the tool a temporal dynamic, allowing one to investigate the gaps between where the organisation is, and where it perceived it should be.

The tool has been validated and developed in large amount of studies, and debates are still ongoing on how to measure organisational culture. As stated before, Schein believes it should not be done using quantitative methods.

One of the strengths of the model is that the resulting diagram shows us the dimensional strength of all variables at the same time. Culture is never one or the other, which is why the values are competing along the axis.

3.4 SUMMARYIt is my opinion that the difficulty of cultural change is oftentimes underestimated in the implementation of Learning Organisations. If it is imperative, as Schein recommends, that culture is investigated by a minimum of focus groups, as surveys, interviews and other methods would be useful but ultimately insufficient, then it stands to reason that influencing culture can only be accomplished by similar means, in a similar context (Schein, 2010). Using focus groups, or dialogue, and similar, highly social and collaborative initiatives, empowers a change in the participant’s values, behaviours and norms, and eventually enable a change in the basic assumptions (Schein, 1993). Any transformations at this level will then manifest into values, and ultimately artefacts and creations.

In comparison to national culture, organisational culture is anchored in artefacts and to some extent values, rather than basic assumptions. This would have the effect that when trying to shift organisational culture, one primarily focuses on behaviour (Van den Berg and Wilderom, 2004).

I strongly believe that starting at the level of artefacts, or targeting them and to some extent, their underlying values will have little to no impact. Affecting organisational culture by trying to influence artefacts could be feasible. However when an organisational cultural trait is aligned with the overall national or social culture, it would mean that the trait is anchored all the way down to basic assumptions. Such a trait is almost impossible to shift, and this needs to be taken into account in any change management. Any implementations that introduces dissonance at the levels of values will meet much stronger cultural resistance.

Furthermore, there is an overemphasis on leadership in organisational culture. I believe that in organisational culture, even though that culture is significantly affected by leadership, and national culture, it is more accurately and prominently created and defined by social validation at the individual and group levels, rather than from the top (Garvin et al., 2008). However, in a study of the Learning Organisation, four first order variables were identified, Leadership, Learning, Strategy and Change, where Leadership was identified as the most important element. Although it is the most important, it remains immensely dependent on other factors.

4 LEARNING ORGANISATIONS AND ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING

4.1 INTRODUCTIONThe learning organisation is a concept that originated in the sixties, but didn’t gain wider recognition and implementation until the mid-nineties, with several prominent works published in the field. In essence this means that the combined research, experience and conclusions made in the field at that point was formed in the two decades before that, the seventies and eighties.

I would contend that any research into something as temporal as learning behaviours in organisations, teams and individuals, made 20 years ago would be largely obsolete by now, at least in the field of organisational learning.

Admittedly, on an individual level, many findings and theories would still be valid as well as some of the tools. Teams would also to some extent be similar to what they were then. Organisations and many societies have changed utterly, except from a cultural perspective, where I believe any findings would still be well-founded, but at a minimum, in need of validation.

So what is the definition of a learning organisation? Two quotes from the early literature:

“Organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (Senge, 1990, p. 3)

“The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply by training individuals; it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole organisation level…. A Learning Company is an organisation that facilitates the learning of all its members and consciously transforms itself and its context.” (Pedler et al., 1996, p. 3)

With few exceptions, all the literature since the millennium has been meta-research, in the sense that they examine, critique, or attempts to refine the original theories. (Andersson and Wen, 2011; Bokeno, 2009; Brown, 1996, 1996; Caldwell, 2012; Crossan et al., 1999; Driver, 2002; Easterby-Smith et al., 2000; Grieves, 2008; Kerka, 1995; Lu, 2004; Marshall et al., 2009; Milway and Saxton, 2011; Owenby, 2002; Tosey et al., 2012; Zietsma et al., 2002). Some literature has shifted focus from the vision of what a learning organisation should look like, to implementation models of those same theories, in addition to how to measure and analyse them. (Bokeno, 2009; Brown, 1996; Caldwell, 2012; Cameron and Quinn, 2011; de Villiers, 2008; Helfrich et al., 2007; Marsick, 2013; Marsick and Watkins, 2001; Phillips, 2003; Senge et al., 1999; Song et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2004)

With such proliferation, there is today an array of diverse theories and methods, with few efforts at converging them or empirical testing and validation. Most remain visions and few implementations have succeeded. It is my belief that to a large extent, success cases are organisations which have already achieved a high level of organisational learning, or are in the middle of implementing a learning organisation, and proponents of the field have attempted, sometimes successfully, to analyse and contextualise how and why, rather than advance and refine the theories themselves, or come up with new ones.

“Despite the explosive growth in publications on organisational learning and learning organisations (Crossan and Guatto, 1996), this literature has yet to add up to a coherent body of knowledge (Crossan et al., 1997); (Gherardi, 1999); (Miller, 1996). Huber’s (1991) earlier critique of the organisational learning literature was echoed by Prange’s (1998) more recent observations that the concept is used in a metaphorical and/or analogous sense, that it lacks theoretical integration, that research is being done in a noncumulative way, and that the literature does not provide “useful” knowledge for practitioners. Considering the diversity of disciplines and perspectives from which organisational learning is being studied (Easterby-Smith, 1997), the

construction of an overarching theory probably is impossible.” (Lipshitz et al., 2002)

This quote was written over ten years ago, and unfortunately the situation seems to persist. In a paper, Easterby-Smith et al. (1997) argued that a single framework for organisational learning should not be attempted. They examined the existing literature from six academic research perspectives, which came to illustrate how disparate the resulting descriptions and theories can become. They were, psychology & OD, management science, strategy, production management, sociology, and cultural anthropology. They identified “a distinctive set of contributions and problems in each case, to the extent that there is often minimal overlap between perspectives” (Easterby-Smith, 1997, p. 1086)

In the structure of the Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge, (Dierkes et al., 2001) there are separate chapters for psychology, management science, economics, anthropology, political science and history, extending the list from the paper mentioned above.

“These observers point to three main features of the field: (a) the lack of a clear, agreed-on definition, (b) a persistent problem of conceptual divergence, and (c) and difficulty in translating the concept into a researchable construct. In other words, the more organizational learning is studied, the more obscure it seems to become.”(Friedman et al., 2005)

However many theories we look at, this seems to be the case.

4.2 THEORIES IN ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING AND LEARNING ORGANISATIONS

Organisational learning concerns the study of how learning occurs in an organisation, whereas a learning organisation consist of a vision of an idealised situation, and the study of such an entity. But even there opinions and debate exists.

In creating an empirical model of the learning organisation (Johnson et al., 2011) derived a taxonomy that clearly defines the field, divided into the different schools of “Learning Organisations” and “Organisational Learning”. It gives a

useful representation of many publications, and how they are proponents of different viewpoints.

4.2.1 Learning Organisations typologyCynical: believes that a learning organisation is not possible

Threshold: believes that there is a distinct difference between non-learning and learning organisations

Universal: believes that all organisations can be learning organisations

Collectivist: believes that a learning organisation provides appropriate training and development to its staff.

Cynical(Tosey, 2005; Tosey et al., 2012) (Cavaleri, 2008)(Grieves, 2008)

Threshold(DiBella, 1995); (Gardiner and Whiting, 1997); (Argyris, 1999)Beck 1989; (Garvin, 2000); (Mahoney, 2000) (West and Burnes, 2000); (Jones, 2001); (Goh, 2001); (Lennon and Wollin, 2001)

UniversalThis is the default position (Burgoyne et al., 1994; Garvin, 2000; Pedler et al., 1996; Senge, 1990)

Collectivist(Keep, 2000); (Keep and Rainbird, 2001)

Taxonomy of Learning Organisations Manifestations Table 1. Adapted from (Johnson et al., 2011)

4.2.2Organisational Learning typologyCynical: doubts that organisational learning is possible

Threshold: considers when/if organisational learning has occurred

Universal: believes that all organisations learn

Ideal: believes that both organisational learning and learning organisations are useful ideals that can be benchmarked against.

Cynical Threshold

(Weick & Quinn, 1999; )(Argyris and Schön, 1996); (Baumard and Starbuck, 2006)

(Levitt and March, 1988); (Cook and Yanow, 1993); (Dodgson, 1993); (Lähteenmäki et al., 2001) Questioning: (Popper and Lipshitz, 1998)

Universal(Klimecki and Lassleben, 1998); (Levitt and March, 1988); (Lähteenmäki et al., 2001); (Williams, 2001)

Ideal(Easterby-Smith et al., 1998; Senge, 1990);

Taxonomy of Organisational Learning Manifestations Table 2. Adapted from (Johnson et al., 2011)

Obviously several of these works are interrelated, and sometimes span more than one type. Again we note that most of the identified literature is between 1990 and 2001, except for some in the cynical quadrant.

4.3 THE FIFTH DISCIPLINEOne of the most famous works on the learning organisation is Peter Senge’s Fifth Discipline. It was published in 1990 and has been followed up continuously with works by Senge, and other authors. It has become one of the strongest Ideal visions of a learning organisation, and re-examined and critiqued continuously since then.

In it, Senge describes the learning organisation as being constituted of five separate disciplines, without which the organisational learning will be limited. Each discipline are also subdivided into three distinct layers that consist of: Practices - what you do; Principles – guiding ideas and insight; Essences – the state of being of those with high level of mastery in the discipline. (Senge, 1990) The disciplines are; Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Building Shared Vision, Team Learning and Systems Thinking.

The fifth discipline (Systems thinking) help us to better understand the intricate connections between all forces and activities in a macro-level system, and what consequences arise out of every action. It has grown from a larger field of research which looks at the behaviour of feedback systems, loops and their

complexity in connection to each other part of the system. (Brown, 1996; Lu, 2004; Senge, 1994, 1990)

4.3.1Conclusions and a critique of the Fifth DisciplineIt seems to me that Peter Senge’s vision for a learning organisation is mostly about culture and behaviour. It is about affecting change in each individual and facilitating that change by engaging the organisation in a shift of focus, a metanoia of individuals as well as of the organisation. It is an engaging vision of how a learning organisation might come to be. Senge himself states that his disciplines are the conditions and methods by which a learning organisation might be fulfilled, and not what the actual learning organisation is. (Senge, 1990, p. 363) From that perspective “The Fifth Discipline” is decontextualized, as you might very well have almost any Learning Organisation model implemented while still be devoted to the five disciplines.

The Fifth Discipline mainly focuses on individual and collective learning, and how to maximise them, but there is very little alignment and correlation between the disciplines and organisational strategy or purpose. Practical considerations of how to implement the disciplines, or how to tie them into the framework of the existing organisation are lacking.

However, the level of personal and personnel development is hard to accomplish and support under any circumstance. In parts of the book, Senge describes his vision in almost utopian imaginings.

"They [the disciplines] provide a framework for focusing the effort to develop the capacity to lead. Systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, building shared vision, and team learning—these might just as well be called the leadership disciplines as the learning disciplines. Those who excel in these areas will be the natural leaders of learning organisations." (Senge, 1990, p. 334)

"Learning organisations can be built only by individuals who put their life spirit into the task. It is our choices that focus that spirit." (Senge, 1990, p. 335)

With the turnover we have in modern western societies, it seems unlikely to achieve the levels of self-fulfilment and master, which Senge himself states is essential for the Fifth Discipline.

The American Bureau of Labour has two National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth, NLSY79 and NLSY97. In the latest update they share findings on how often we change jobs.

Among jobs started by 40 to 46 year olds, 33 percent ended in less than a year, and 69 percent ended in less than 5 years. … On average, men held 11.5 jobs, and women held 11.1 jobs from age 18 to age 46…. (BLS, 2012)

Individuals born from 1980 to 1984 held an average of 6.2 jobs from ages 18 to 26….(BLS, 2014)

If we assume that achieving satisfactory Fifth Discipline competence would take three years, with an annual turnover of 30% among persons 40-46 years of age, how would we fulfil Senge’s Vision in any organisation, without incurring extreme costs? I believe it remains a seminal vision, and the Disciplines are very useful on an individual basis, or as a specific leadership skill, but not for implementation across an organisation.

4.4 RECENT DEVELOPMENTSThe recent research in the field of learning organisations seems to have two directions, and both involve contextualising.

One involves research into learning organisations in non-western societies, and looks at whether they should be implemented, and if so, how they should be modified to fit a different cultural context. I have found a significant amount of research made in the last 4-5 years in Arabic countries as well as China and South-East Asia. Some examples are (Abu-Tineh, 2011; Al-jawazneh and Al -Awawdeh, 2011; Al-Qutop et al., 2011; Khasawneh, 2011)

The other direction is looking into contextualising the learning organisation in a different direction. They attempt to specify subsets and variants for existing theories and advocating how they should be modified to suit a specific context, whether they be non-profits, public sector, small/medium businesses, health care sector, higher education, etc.

A Handbook of Research on the Learning Organisation (Örtenblad, 2013) is a collection of essays, and proposes a typology of the Learning Organisation, The book looks at the history of the field, presents some current research using the presented typology, and defines a useful framework for further research. The typology has four types, which between them represents all the possible areas of Organisational Learning; Learning at work, Organisational learning, Climate for learning, and Learning Structure.

These four inclusive typologies are interrelated, and when considering certain aspects of organisational learning, they can be overlapping.

The only organisation that does not have organisational learning would be one that does not have a single learning feature from any of the four typologies. I propose that organisational learning will happen regardless of if it is intentional or not, and aligned with the organisational needs and vision or not. Whether the organisation is a fully functional, or non-learning organisation, basic assumptions, values, norms and artefacts, will take shape, and readjust themselves to the circumstances.

In the same spirit, there is always an L&D structure, whether implicit or explicit, working as a positive or negative force, and is proactive or reactive. These two mechanisms will advance by their own momentum, irrespective if the organisation is handling them or remain in ignorance. It is seen as a common occurrence that organisational change fails because it relies too heavily on action, activities and project structures (Prochaska et al., 2001). Therefore we need to ensure that the organisation is well prepared and aligned for learning and change. They also explore a contingency model, but leaves it for further development.

In a recent review of the publications made regarding contextualising learning organisations, Örtenblad (2013) identified a total of 332 works between 1988 and 2012. It shows that there are still significant work done in the field.

1988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 0 0 02 2

5 6

11

17 16

23 23

11

14

17

23 24 24

1719

22 21

25

9

Number of works

4.5 MEASURING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNINGPedler composed a diagnostic tool, called The Learning Company Questionnaire. (Pedler et al., 1996). It consist of 11 characteristics, each described by five statements, and graded on a 1-10 scale. This is done both on “current state” and desired “future state” (Kotter, 1996). In paper, the tool was validated as being uni-dimensional, and “The results indicate that the instrument can adequately distinguish between respondents from different economic sectors and organisations as well as differentiate respondents in terms of some other variables.” (de Villiers, 2008, p. 2). It does have predictive ability as regards to differences in organisations, economic sectors, respondents with different understanding of the subject, but still need validation regarding whether it actually predicts the contents, i.e. does it properly measure a learning organisation? This survey is simple to complete, but lacks full validation.

Mayo and Lank (1994) created one which is comprehensive, with 187 questions and 9 dimensions. “The emphasis is on diagnosing the actions which should be taken to achieve maximum impact on the development process of a learning organisation. The emphasis is also on organisational factors, as well as on individual and team-based learning and managing and leading.” (Moilanen, 2001, p. 6). Obviously, a huge drawback would be the size of the survey, which would be unfeasible in most organisations, especially as it is intended for the whole workforce.

Tannenbaum (1997) created a tool using scientific methods and research, mainly investigating the Climate for Learning and the Learning Structure.

Pearn et al (1995) developed a comprehensive tool, “The Learning Audit”, whose emphasis is on Learning Climate but to some extent lacks consideration for the other types, and especially on the Learning Organisation on a macro level. No validation of the tool could be found.

There are numerous other tools that we have not reviewed for the purpose of this paper. Additionally, it has become clear that most of the works use their own constructed survey methods, without specifying exactly what it looked like, or in other cases, not specifying which tool it used. (Milway and Saxton, 2011)

4.5.1Dimensions of Learning Organisation Query (DLOQ)The DLOQ (Marsick, 2013; Watkins and O’Neil, 2013; Yang et al., 2004) was created in the 1990’s, and has since then become one of the most used and researched diagnostic tools for learning organisations. It has been translated into numerous languages, and spawned many variants; one 21-item short form, one 7-item single-construct measure, and one 16-item 2-dimensional OLCS, as well as versions for government organisations, public health, churches, educational institutes, and others. (Marsick, 2013). It is a good example of tool with a more operational characteristic regarding how it measures a learning organisation.

It measures seven dimensions, using 6-point Likert scale. They are:

Continuous learning Inquiry and dialogue Team learning Embedded systems Empowerment System connection Provide leadership

Multiple validations in various contexts has been performed, and the instrument has been refined in its usage across many areas, of which some are; Organisational performance, Organisational impact, Innovation, Employee impact, and Career development. (Watkins and O’Neil, 2013; Yang et al., 2004). Similarly, the DLOQ has been studies of the validation in numerous cultural context. United States, Colombia, China, and Taiwan (Ellinger et al., 2002; Lien et al., 2006; Ugurluoglu et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2004)

It has in my view two disadvantages. One is the size and complexity of the instrument itself, as it consist of 43 questions, which can be vulnerable to perception bias. Secondly, it has a focus which reveals more about the organisation itself, rather than organisational learning.

4.6 CONCLUSIONThe only organisation that does not have organisational learning would be one that does not have a single learning feature from any of Örtenblads typologies. I propose that organisational learning will happen regardless of if it is intentional or not, and aligned with the organisational needs and vision or not. Whether the organisation is a fully functional, or non-learning organisation, basic assumptions, values, norms and artefacts, will take shape, and readjust themselves to the circumstances.

In the same spirit, there is always an L&D structure, whether implicit or explicit, working as a positive or negative force, and is proactive or reactive. These two mechanisms will advance by their own momentum, irrespective if the organisation is handling them or remain in ignorance. It is seen as a common occurrence that organisational change fails because it relies too heavily on action, activities and project structures. (Prochaska et al., 2001). Therefore we need to ensure that the organisation is well prepared and aligned for learning and change.

5 ORGANISATIONAL SETTING

5.1 INTRODUCTIONThe organisational setting is the third variable factor that we will deal with. I have named it organisational setting, as it can encapsulate any aspect within any context. As stated before, it can be almost any variable that is important enough, integral enough, and in such a position that it should not be modified lightly.

This setting consists of any further predominant feature of the organisation, that is important enough, integral enough, and in such a position that it should or could not be revised lightly.

5.2 VARIABLE

The important factor here is that the setting has to be constituted of dominant trait(s), which significantly adds to the contextual analysis. The variable has to be directly relevant for our understanding of which organisational learning aspects would be the best fit in the specific situation. Some examples of an organisational setting would be a multi-national corporation, a public sector organisation, a health services organisation, or a retail corporation. The Organisational Setting could consist of the maturity level of the company, or the structure. The famous organisational configurations created by Mintzberg (2003) could constitute a valuable Organisational Setting. For instance, in certain organisational structures, like a machine organisation, there would be significant resistance to the flat, open, flexible and transparent learning organisation feature that some advocate. In other cases the organisational structure would already be optimal for the same feature, and require little change and virtually no resistance.

Life cycles are another possibility. There are several lifecycle models, and in a comparative paper (Withane, 1991) investigates how the strategy in public sector organisations can be shaped and influenced by the four stages, infant, adolescent, adult, and old/revival stage. The framework proposes in a clear manner how the strategy should shift, and be dynamic, based on the lifecycle.

It could be a combination of these, but it remains crucial that the setting considered is paramount in its influence on the organisation, and its learning.

6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND DIALOGUE

The learning organisation theories and models were instituted and gained significant recognition in the 1990s. Since then, the field has developed and

matured somewhat, but we are still debating the pros and cons of models that quintessentially were created about 25 years ago. The more I have delved into the subject, the more variations, mystifications and debate I have found, as the field has gained complexity and heterogeneity. Most of the different models are fundamentally different. In one book (Argyris, 1992) the chapters are divided by separate academic disciplines: organisational strategy, production, economic development, systems dynamics, human resources, organisational culture, and socio-technical systems. With such diversity, how can we ever hope to develop an informed and consolidated view of what constitutes the learning organisation? With debates on learning organisations versus organisational learning, differential arguments on what is “a” learning organisation vs “the” learning organisation, metaphors comparing a learning organisation to humans, to machines and to networks, most are struggling to make sense of the whole, and are busy studying the pieces.

The visionary origins of the past, has gone through a circle of trying to confirm, validate, justify, explain, simplify and implement the concept into practical terms and circumstances. Oftentimes the manifestations and implementations have failed, or the outcome has been significantly different from the intended goal. Not necessarily worse, but different from the expected outcome.

The developments the last ten years seem to be contextualising the Learning Organisation, whether we include culture (organisational or national), sector (non-profit, public sector, health services, law enforcement, military, or organisational types (Small-Medium Businesses, International Corporations, Networks). And that could mean even more diversity, as each context spawns its own models and theories, multiple measuring tools or subset of tools for each and every context. Something good has come out of the last decades though. We no longer try to implement the idea of a learning organisation without taking the context into consideration, whichever theory or method we are adhering to.

“What we need is clarity, not consensus” (Örtenblad, 2002, p. 214)

In some cases, specific parts of some of the Learning Organisation models can be quite detrimental to the organisation if implemented at all. Experimentation does not suit everywhere, nor does continuous introspection and evaluation of all individuals in the organisation. The flat adhocracy would be harmful in some organisations. And the list goes on.

Corporate culture and corporate learning culture are very similar in its situation, with an abundance of variations and differing definitions and studies.

So we are full circle, in one direction we are learning how to contextualise and customise the concept even more. In the other, researchers are trying to enable measurement and implementations that are more generic, as to suit any context. And in trying to achieve both lies the challenge.

6.1 MEASURING COMPLEXITYThere are some instruments that measure factors that overlap our own variables. A very good example of this would be the assessment tool from (Garvin et al., 2008), which has three building blocks of the learning organisation; a Supportive Learning Environment, Concrete Learning Processes and Practices, and Leadership that Reinforces Learning. When looking at the queries, and the benchmark scores we can easily identify that some relate to Culture, some to Learning and some to the Setting. In another tool by Bersin (2008), they identified 18 high-impact learning dimensions. When we look at them, again we can identify several that are in the areas of Culture, Learning or Setting.

These are purposeful tools, but in my opinion, they are overly focused. Their strength and weakness are that they measure aspects that are directly related and correlated to the performance and agility of organisational learning, and to some extent trying to establish a Learning Organisation. It is my belief, confirmed by my interviews, that we need to measure a larger target area than specifically and exactly what is related to Organisational Learning. We measure all learning we can identify in the organisation, we measure all of the culture, not just culture relating to learning. We examine the setting, as to better understand the context in which the culture, learning and external culture exerts their forces.

In addition to this, we can investigate the overlapping areas of Organisational Culture, Learning and the Setting. As an example, in the chapter on public service culture, Edwards (Rose and Lawton, 1999) investigates the organisational cultures in the context of the public sector. In another empirical study, Fard, et al. (2009) investigates how organisational cultures contribute in shaping learning organisations in the public sector. In it he combined Senge’s Fifth Disciplines with a cultural matrix specifying a Bureaucratic, Participative, Learning and Competitive Culture. They are a fair match to the Competitive Values model

mentioned above. He found that most public sector organisations were of the bureaucratic type, but significantly, that there is a very strong relationship between organisational culture and the shaping of a learning organisation in the public sector.

Finger and Brand (1999) investigated “the concept of the learning organisation applied to the transformation of the public sector”. In it they found that a pragmatic approach was best suited to the public sector, but that attention must be given to multiple strategic objectives and considerations.

Ford et al (2009) looks at how different organisational cultures directly contributes to shaping learning organisations. In a business environment we can do the same, and examine how culture affects learning, or our setting affects our culture, and so on.

6.2 RESEARCH AND ANALYSISIn our semi-structured interviews, we have tried to assess and validate the model, and its practicality in a business context. The model can be used both for academic research, and business research and application. Our findings from our interviews and academic review, is that the model is solid, however the findings are not solid, so we need to perform further research. The External Culture variable could be extended to include Climate, or even any external factors. However the usefulness of this change would have to be further examined. The allegory of the Learning Domain is useful to explain the holistic approach and our intent to reflect the organic and highly contextual nature of Organisational Learning. There is still some work to be done to properly explain the variables, and how they are applied in each contingency, as well as further research on why we need to scope the variables to a larger extent than what is directly applicable and has an impact on organisational learning. All models I have been able to find are basically creating strongly related KPI’s to organisational learning, and then implement measuring tools to track them. I believe that it to some extent misses the point. Organisational learning is a hugely complex multi-dimensional system, and I am convinced that expanding the measurement to include factors that are not directly correlated to a concept has great merit. An intimate and well-founded understanding of the company culture, its setting, and what learning exists will enable management to fully understand both the

current state as well as the desirable and possible future state of the organisations learning.

It remains to further investigate how the model would work in different circumstances, both academic and business

6.3 THE LEARNING DOMAIN Imagine a domain, a nature reserve of an unspecified size. It could be a meticulously cared and catered for garden, where every plant, every tree, every animal and lawn, every square inch is documented, planned, supervised and ordered, in rows and areas. Herb garden over there, and a rose garden over there. Where perennials are cared for in one area and seasonal plants are grown in another. A vegetable patch, maybe for educational purposes or for self-sufficiency.

Or it could be a forested country estate, with brooks and a dammed lake, glades, hills and meadows, with plenty of flowers, and stately trees grown for centuries. Foxes and wild birds, boars and deer. Hidden pathways and fallen trees, overgrown with climbing vines and moss.

Let your imagination run wild with the idea that we have one domain, with specific boundaries, a purpose and a vision. Take a moment, and then ask yourself these questions. Who are the people involved in the keeping of this domain? The owner, the gamekeeper, the farmer, the forest warden, the grounds keeper, the gardener, the stable master, etc. They are all responsible for their part.

There are more and different roles you can imagine, overlapping ones and separate ones. And there are things you can and need to do to have a well-kept domain. Measuring the soil for ph-levels and humidity, adding fertiliser or not. Adding bee-hives, not because you want bees, but because they pollinate the flowers you keep. You could harvest herbs or flowers, for various purposes. To make food or oils, to make perfumes, to sell as decoration, for medicinal purposes. Each purpose demands specific choices in your policies, processes and procedures. Who does what, how often, and when do we start.

Some of the learning organisation seems to advocate that we all develop the skills and knowledge to do most jobs in an organisation. That all of us develop insights and the capability to develop ourselves, design and innovate

improvements, and test them. Senge speaks of the discipline Personal Mastery, but even within each discipline he speaks of reaching the level of “essences”. A point where all details and specificity melts into a coherent whole.

Mastery is not achieved when you have learned everything you need to know and understand, mastery is achieved when you have consciously forgotten those same skills and knowledge, and act from a place of being in the now. That is a life-long pursuit and practice that we cannot and should not quantify nor embrace in any structural model or expectation of organisational learning.

The biologist does take the zoologist into account when changing or improving something within their sphere of influence and responsibility, and vice versa. But they are not interchangeable, and not all areas within a domain are of equal importance. When introducing changes in the domain, there are factors outside of your control, or factors that are too expensive to change. Consider acid rain, permanent changes in humidity or heat, longer summers, changes in soil quality, change in the wildlife, PH values in the manmade lake or the streams. When you redesign your domain, you don’t move the largest trees, an undertaking possible but immensely costly. You can’t affect the acid rain itself, unless you successfully influence your own and surrounding countries to change its laws. You wouldn’t plant seeds in the middle of winter, but would wait until spring.

You figure out and implement the best possible solutions that suit your organisation. If you introduce a new feature in your domain, you need new employees from that field, whether they are agriculturists or horticulturists. Sometimes the changes we want or need to implement are monumental, sometimes they are incremental, but they are made within the context and the current state taken into careful consideration.

So consider the context, carefully. Examine your purpose, and your internal and external stakeholders. Examine your organisational shape and structure and maturity. Examine the organisational culture and its factors. Examine your sector and its factors. Examine your external as well as internal environment using different perspectives. Consider which phase your company is in. If you ask the farmer or the environmentalist to report on your vegetable garden, you will get completely different reports. Consider those reports carefully.

Where and how, should and could they fit in your Domain? If the need is there for a specific feature, and it doesn’t fit the current state of the context? Is it feasible

to change the current state, or should you abandon that feature, and move on to the next consideration? Examine each part framed against your current state.

This would mean that you are focused on enabling organisational learning uniquely fit for purpose for your organisation. You are not trying to build a pre-defined learning organisation, based on an ideal of one of the many models that proliferate the marketplace, nor are you measuring your learning based on a specific model, all specifically related to organisational learning.

7 REFERENCES

Abu-Tineh, A.M., 2011. Exploring the relationship between organizational learning and career resilience among faculty members at Qatar University. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 25, 635–650. doi:10.1108/09513541111159095

Al-jawazneh Bahjat Eid, Al -Awawdeh, W.M., 2011. Measuring the Degree of the Presence of Learning Organization Dimensions at the Branches of Commercial Banks in the Governorate of Almafraq - Jordan. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n11p27

Al-Qutop, M.-A.Y., Futa, S.M., Ma’ani, A.I., 2011. The Relationship between Learning Facilitators and Transforming into a Learning Organization: An Empirical Study of the Insurance Sector in Jordan. Int. Bus. Res. 4. doi:10.5539/ibr.v4n3p211

Andersson, L., Wen, P., 2011. Barriers to organizational learning: a case study of a change project.

Argyris, C., 1999. Flawed Advice and the Management Trap: How Managers Can Know When They’re Getting Good Advice and When They’re Not. Oxford University Press.

Argyris, C., 1992. On organizational learning, 2nd ed. ed. Blackwell Business, Oxford ; Malden, Mass.

Argyris, C., Schön, D.A., 1996. Organizational learning II: theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley.

Baumard, P., Starbuck, W.H., 2006. Is Organisational Learning a Myth? AIM Research.

Bersin, J., 2008. Today’s High-Impact Learning Organization. Chief Learn. Off. 7, 54–57.

BLS, 2014. The NLSY97. Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA.BLS, 2012. The NLSY79. Bureau of Labor Statistics, USA.Bogolyubov, P., Easterby-Smith, M., 2013. National Culture and the learning

organization: an integrative framework, in: Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context.

Bokeno, R.M., 2009. Marcuse on Senge: personal mastery, the child’s mind, and individual transformation. J. Organ. Change Manag. 22, 307–320. doi:10.1108/09534810910951087

Bratton, J., Gold, J., 2012. Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, Fifth Edition, New Edition, 5th Edition. ed. Palgrave Macmillan.

Brown, D., 1996. The “essences” of the fifth discipline: Or where does senge stand to view the world? Syst. Res. 13, 91–107. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1735(199606)13:2<91::AID-SRES72>3.0.CO;2-N

Burgoyne, J., Pedler, M., Boydell, T., 1994. Towards the learning company: concepts and practices. McGraw-Hill, London.

Caldwell, R., 2012. Systems Thinking, Organizational Change and Agency: A Practice Theory Critique of Senge’s Learning Organization. J. Change Manag. 12, 145–164. doi:10.1080/14697017.2011.647923

Cameron, K., 2008. A process for changing organization culture. Handb. Organ. Dev. 14, 2–18.

Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., 2011. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Wiley.

Cavaleri, S.A., 2008. Are learning organizations pragmatic? Learn. Organ. 15, 474–485. doi:10.1108/09696470810907383

Cook, S.D.N., Yanow, D., 1993. Culture and Organizational Learning. J. Manag. Inq. 2, 373–390. doi:10.1177/105649269324010

Crossan, M., Guatto, T., 1996. Organizational learning research profile. J. Organ. Change Manag. 9, 107–112.

Crossan, M., Lane, H., White, R.E., 1997. Organizational learning: Toward a theory, in: Working Paper No. 98-05. Presented at the The Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., White, R.E., 1999. An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24, 522–537. doi:10.2307/259140

De Villiers, W.A., 2008. The Learning Organisation: Validating A Measuring Instrument. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 24, 11–22.

DiBella, A.J., 1995. Developing Learning Organizations: A Matter of Perspective, in: Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings. Presented at the Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, Academy of Management, pp. 287–290. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1995.17536560

Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J., Nonaka, I. (Eds.), 2001. Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Also available as: Paperback.

Dodgson, M., 1993. Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures. Organ. Stud. Walter Gruyter GmbH Co KG 14, 375–394.

Driver, M., 2002. The learning organization: Foucauldian gloom or Utopian sunshine? Hum. Relat. 55, 33–53.

Easterby-Smith, M., 1997. Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and Critiques. Hum. Relat. 50, 1085–1113.

Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L., Burgoyne, J., 1998. Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, 1st ed. SAGE, London.

Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M., Nicolini, D., 2000. Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present And Future. J. Manag. Stud. 37, 783–796. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00203

Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Yang, B., Howton, S.W., 2002. The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 13, 5–22. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1010

Fard, H.D., Rostamy, A.A.A., Taghiloo, H., 2009. How Types of Organisational Cultures Contribute in Shaping Learning Organisations. Singap. Manag. Rev. 31, 49–61.

Finger, M., Brand, S., 1999. The Concept of the Learning Organization Applied to the Transformation of the Public Sector: Conceptual Contributions for Theory Development, in: Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications Ltd. (UK), London.

Friedman, V.J., Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., 2005. The Mystification of Organizational Learning. J. Manag. Inq. 14, 19–30. doi:10.1177/1056492604273758

Gardiner, P., Whiting, P., 1997. Success factors in learning organizations: an empirical study. Ind. Commer. Train. 29, 41–48.

Garvin, D.A., 2000. Learning in action: a guide to putting the learning organization to work. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C., Gino, F., 2008. Is Yours a Learning Organization? Harv. Bus. Rev. 86, 109–116.

Gherardi, S., 1999. Learning as Problem-Driven or Learning in the Face of Mystery? Organ. Stud. 20, 101–123. doi:10.1177/0170840699201005

Glaser, S.R., Zamanou, S., Hacker, K., 1987. Measuring and Interpreting Organizational Culture. Manag. Commun. Q. 1, 173–198. doi:10.1177/0893318987001002003

Goh, S.C., 2001. THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION: AN EMPIRICAL TEST OF A NORMATIVE PERSPECTIVE. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav. 4. Nos. 3&amp;4, 329–355. doi:10.1081/OTB-100105408

Grieves, J., 2008. Why we should abandon the idea of the learning organization. Learn. Organ. 15, 463–473. doi:10.1108/09696470810907374

Helfrich, C.D., Li, Y.-F., Mohr, D.C., Meterko, M., Sales, A.E., 2007. Assessing an organizational culture instrument based on the Competing Values Framework: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Implement. Sci. 2, 13. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-2-13

Hofstede, G., 2014a. Dimensions - Geert Hofstede [WWW Document]. URL http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html (accessed 7.29.14).

Hofstede, G., 2014b. Organisational Culture - Geert Hofstede [WWW Document]. URL http://geert-hofstede.com/organisational-culture.html (accessed 7.29.14).

Hofstede, G., de Mooij, M., 2011. Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior: A Review of Research Findings. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 23, 181–192.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition. McGraw Hill Professional.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., 1990. Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 286–316. doi:10.2307/2393392

Huber, G.P., 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organ. Sci. 2, 88–115. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88

Johnson, C., Spicer, D., Wallace, J., 2011. An empirical model of the learning organisation.

Jones, M.L., 2001. Sustainable organizational capacity building: is organizational learning a key? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 12, 91–98. doi:10.1080/713769590

Keep, E., 2000. Learning Organisations, Lifelong Learning and the Mystery of the Vanishing Employers. Econ. Outlook 24, 18–26. doi:10.1111/1468-0319.00246

Keep, E., Rainbird, H., 2001. Towards the learning organization?, in: Supporting Lifelong Learning: Volume II: Organising Learning. Routledge.

Kerka, S., 1995. The Learning Organization. Myths and Realities.Khasawneh, S., 2011. Learning Organization Disciplines in Higher Education

Institutions: An Approach to Human Resource Development in Jordan. Innov. High. Educ. 36, 273–285. doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9170-8

Klimecki, R., Lassleben, H., 1998. Modes of Organizational Learning Indications from an Empirical Study. Manag. Learn. 29, 405–430. doi:10.1177/1350507698294002

Kolb, D.A., Osland, J.S., Rubin, I.M., Turner, M.E., 2006. Organizational Behavior: An Experiential Approach, 8th ed. Prentice Hall.

Kotter, J.P., 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.Kroeber, A.L., Kluckhohn, C., 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and

Definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Mass.

Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J., Mattila, M., 2001. Critical Aspects of Organizational Learning Research and Proposals for Its Measurement. Br. J. Manag. 12, 113.

Lennon, A., Wollin, A., 2001. Learning organisations: empirically investigating metaphors. J. Intellect. Cap. 2, 410–422. doi:10.1108/14691930110409697

Levitt, B., March, J.G., 1988. Organizational learning. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 319–340.Lien, B.Y.-H., Hung, R.Y.-Y., Yang, B., Li, M., 2006. Is the learning organization a

valid concept in the Taiwanese context? Int. J. Manpow. 27, 189–203. doi:10.1108/01437720610666209

Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., Friedman, V.J., 2002. A Multifacet Model of Organizational Learning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 38, 78–98. doi:10.1177/0021886302381005

Lu, X.-A., 2004. Surveying the Concept of the Learning Organization-weleadinlearning.org. E-J. Organ. Learn. Leadersh. 3.

Mahoney, R., 2000. Leadership and learning organisations. Learn. Organ. 7, 241–244. doi:10.1108/09696470010378325

Marshall, J., Smith, S., Buxton, S., 2009. Learning organisations and organisational learning: What have we learned? Part 1. Manag. Serv. 53, 36–44.

Marsick, V.J., 2013. The Dimensions of a Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) Introduction to the Special Issue Examining DLOQ Use Over a Decade. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 15, 127–132. doi:10.1177/1523422313475984

Marsick, V.J., Watkins, K.E., 2001. Informal and incidental learning. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2001, 25–34.

Maturana, H.R., Varela, F.J., 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, 1st edition. ed. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland ; Boston.

Miller, D., 1996. A Preliminary Typology of Organizational Learning: Synthesizing the Literature. J. Manag. 22, 485.

Milway, K.S., Saxton, A., 2011. The Challenge of Organizational Learning. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 9, 44–49.

Mintzberg, H., 2003. The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases. Pearson Education.

Moilanen, R., 2001. Diagnostic tools for learning organizations. Learn. Organ. 8, 6–20. doi:10.1108/09696470110366507

Morley, M., Moore, S., Heraty, N., Gunnigle, P., 1998. Principles of organisational behaviour: an Irish text. Gill & Macmillan, Dublin.

Örtenblad, A., 2013. Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization: Adaptation and Context, 1st ed. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, UK ; Northamption, MA.

Örtenblad, A., 2002. A Typology of the Idea of Learning Organization. Manag. Learn. 33, 213–230. doi:10.1177/1350507602332004

Owenby, P.H., 2002. Organizational learning communities and the dark side of the learning organization. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2002, 51–60.

Pearn, M., Roderick, C., Mulrooney, C., 1995. Learning Organizations in Practice. McGraw-Hill.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., Boydell, T., 1996. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Pheysey, D.C., 1993. Organizational Cultures: Types and Transformations. Routledge.

Phillips, B.T., 2003. A four-level learning organisation benchmark implementation model. Learn. Organ. 10, 98–105.

Popper, M., Lipshitz, R., 1998. Organizational Learning Mechanisms A Structural and Cultural Approach to Organizational Learning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 34, 161–179. doi:10.1177/0021886398342003

Porter, M.E., 2008. The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86, 78–93.

Prange, C., 1998. Organizational Learning - Desperately Seeking Theory?, in: Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., Araujo, L. (Eds.), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice. SAGE, London, p. 23.

Prochaska, J.M., Prochaska, J.O., Levesque, D.A., 2001. A Transtheoretical Approach to Changing Organizations. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Ment. Health Serv. Res. 28, 247–261. doi:10.1023/A:1011155212811

Rose, A., Lawton, A., 1999. Public Services Management, 1 edition. ed. Financial Times/ Prentice Hall, Harlow, England ; New York.

Schein, E.H., 2012. Uncovering the Levels of Culture, in: Organizational Behavior: An Experiential Approach. Pearson Education, Limited, London, p. 738.

Schein, E.H., 2010. Organizational culture and leadership, fourth edition, 4th ed. Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E.H., 1993. On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organ. Dyn. 22, 40–51. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(93)90052-3

Schermerhorn, J.R., 2010. Organizational behavior, 11th ed. ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., Marshall, M., 2003. The Quantitative Measurement of Organizational Culture in Health Care: A Review of the

Available Instruments. Health Serv. Res. 38, 923–945. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.00154

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., Smith, B., Guman, E.C., 1999. The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. Perform. Improv. 38, 55–58. doi:10.1002/pfi.4140380511

Senge, P.M., 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Crown Publishing Group.Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning

Organization. Crown Publishing Group.Song, J.H., Joo, B.-K., Chermack, T.J., 2009. The Dimensions of Learning

Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ): A Validation Study in a Korean Context. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 20, 43–64. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20007

Tannenbaum, S.I., 1997. Enhancing continuous learning: Diagnostic findings from multiple companies. Hum. Resour. Manage. 36, 437–452. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199724)36:4<437::AID-HRM7>3.0.CO;2-W

Tosey, P., 2005. The Hunting of the Learning Organization A Paradoxical Journey. Manag. Learn. 36, 335–352. doi:10.1177/1350507605055350

Tosey, P., Visser, M., Saunders, M.N., 2012. The origins and conceptualizations of “triple-loop” learning: A critical review. Manag. Learn. 43, 291–307. doi:10.1177/1350507611426239

Tucker, R.W., McCoy, W.J., Evans, L.C., 1990. Can Questionnaires Objectively Assess Organisational Culture? J. Manag. Psychol. 5, 4–11. doi:10.1108/02683949010000602

Ugurluoglu, O., Ugurluoglu Aldogan, E., Dilmac, E., 2013. The impact of managers’ perceptions of learning organizations on innovation in healthcare: sample of Turkey. Int. J. Health Plann. Manage. 28, e158–e168. doi:10.1002/hpm.2143

Van den Berg, P.T., Wilderom, C.P., 2004. Defining, measuring, and comparing organisational cultures. Appl. Psychol. 53, 570–582.

Vecchio, R.P., 2006. Organizational behavior: core concepts. Thomson/South Western, Australia, United Kingdom.

Watkins, K.E., O’Neil, J., 2013. The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (the DLOQ) A Nontechnical Manual. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 15, 133–147. doi:10.1177/1523422313475854

Weick, K.E., Quinn, R.E., 1999. Organizational Change and Development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50, 361–386. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361

West, P., Burnes, B., 2000. Applying organizational learning: lessons from the automotive industry. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 20, 1236–1252. doi:10.1108/01443570010343762

Williams, A.P.O., 2001. A Belief-focused Process Model of Organizational Learning*. J. Manag. Stud. 38, 67–85. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00228

Withane, S., 1991. Life Cycle Stages and Process of Strategy Making in Public Sector Organizations: An Exploratory Study. Can. J. Adm. Sci. Rev. Can. Sci. Adm. 8, 209–219. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.1991.tb00562.x

Yang, B., Watkins, K.E., Marsick, V.J., 2004. The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 15, 31–55.

Zhang, D., Zhang, Z., Yang, B., 2004. Learning Organization in Mainland China: Empirical Research on its Application to Chinese State-owned Enterprises (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 614147). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.

Zietsma, C., Winn, M., Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I., 2002. The War of the Woods: Facilitators and Impediments of Organizational Learning Processes. Br. J. Manag. 13, S61.