Creating Effective Management Support Systems for the Learning Organisation

8/12/2019 Creating Effective Management Support Systems for the Learning Organisation

1/24

142

ISSN 2029-4581. ORGAN IZAIONS AND MAR KES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES, 2010, VOL. 1, No. 1(1)

AN ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION ANDORGANIZATION CULTUREIN INDIAN BUSINESS ORGANIZATION

Kavita SinghFaculty o Management Studies, University o Delhi, India*

Abstract. o keep pace with the rapid changes in the environment, organizations must keep pace,otherwise they are likely to perish. Tey have to remain flexible and continually improve to gain com-petitive advantage and must be able to adapt and strive to take the lead, otherwise their survivalwill be at stake. o meet the challenges posed by this rapidly changing environment, an organizationmust create and assimilate new knowledge at an increasing pace, encourage innovation and learn tocompete in new ways. Te culture o the organization plays a very significant role in keeping the pro-cess o learning vibrant in the organization leading it to become a learning organization. Te presentpaper identifies the relationship between the organization culture and the learning organization inIndian business organizations and concludes that the organization culture plays a vital role in the de-

velopment o a learning organization. It urther contends that three major constructs o organizationculture, i.e., openness, proaction and experimentation tend to provide the members o an organizationwith a sense o direction and creative thinking which in turn enhance organizational learning in tur-bulent environment.

Key words:learning organization, organization culture, openness, proaction, experimentation.

Introduction

Organizaions are operaing in an environmen o complexiy and uncerainy where

he only consan is change. Te environmen is characerized by changes in workorcecompeency, high cusomer expecaion, greaer compeiive pressures, echnologicaladvancemens and globalizaion. Tis has alered he world o work so dramaicallyha old dinosaur-like organizaions are no longer able o respond o hese changes.o handle hese new challenges organizaions mus keep pace wih his rapid changeoherwise hey are bound o die (Marquard, 1996). Tey have o remain flexible andconinually improve o gain compeiive advanage and mus be able o adap and sriveo ake he lead oherwise heir survival will be a sake. As coined by Peer Drucker we

* Mailing address: Faculy o Managemen Sudies, Universiy o Delhi, Delhi 110007, India;E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]


2/24

143

are in Te Knowledge Sociey which places emphasis on knowledge, and organiza-ions compee or knowledge workers. In his knowledge era, only hose organizaionswhich undersand how o adap hemselves o change, how o srive o ake he leadand who willingly learn and implemen new ideas will riumph (Sun, 2003). Te ca-paciy or change and improvemen is linked wih learning. Te word learning was

coined in he 1980s o describe organizaions ha experimened wih new ways oconducing business in order o survive in urbulen, highly compeiive markes. oobain and susain compeiive advanage, organizaions mus enhance heir learningcapabiliy and mus be able o learn beter and aser rom heir successes and ailures,rom wihin and rom ouside (Marquard, 1996). Hence only i organizaions increaseheir capaciy o learn would hey be able o avoid he ae o he dinosaur, which couldno adap o he changing environmen. Tereore o mee he challenges posed byhis rapidly changing environmen, he organizaion mus become more flexible, moreresponsive and more willing o change and adap. Tey mus creae and assimilae newknowledge a an increasing pace, encourage innovaion and learn o compee in newways (Dess & Picken, 2000).

Harvey and Denon (1999) have idenified cerain riggers, which hey have ermedas anecedens, which have lead o he imporance o learning in presen imes. Teseanecedens are: shif in imporance o acors o producion rom land and capial olabor, especially inellecual labor; he acceleraing pace o change in he business en-vironmen which calls or a change in he organizaions sraegic direcion; knowledgeas a source o compeiive advanage; more demanding consumers; dissaisacion wih

he exising managemen paradigm and is inabiliy o cope wih he changes ha havealready aken place as well as he changes expeced in he uure and he increasing in-ensiy o compeiion. Tese six anecedens have necessiaed he need o shif he o-cus on learning as a source o compeiive advanage. Tereore i is necessary ha herae o learning should be greaer or equal o he rae o change ouside he organizaion(Garrat, 1988) in order or he organizaion o be able o survive he urbulence.

Organizaions mus have he poenial o learn and he commimen o learning(Garvin, 1993) as an organizaion can ransorm isel only by learning somehing new.I is no sufficien or an organizaion in presen imes o coninue doing wha i did in

he pas as he knowledge, sraegies, leadership, and he echnologies o he pas willno lead o success in he uure. o gain compeiive advanage, organizaions shouldhave he capaciy o collec new inormaion and ranser i ino acion aser han acompeior. A he same ime i is no jus sufficien or an organizaion o developnew producs or improve exising ones bu here has o be managemen innovaionoo (Saa, 1989). Managemen innovaion, jus like produc and process innovaion,depends on echnology. echnology or managemen innovaion comes in he orm oknowledge, ools, mehods and he abiliy o learn. Te rae a which individuals andorganizaions learn may become he only susainable compeiive advanage, especially

in knowledge-inensive indusries. Hence he abiliy o adap comes rom he abiliyo learn (Ulrich e al., 1995). Tis has led o he populariy o Learning Organizaions


3/24

144

in organizaional lieraure. As per Jones and Hendry (2001) he erm he LearningOrganizaion seems o have been coined around 1988 by Hayes e al. in he USA andPedlar e al. in he UK bu he origin o he word in he lieraure can be raced back ohe 1920s. Te concep atraced much atenion in he 1990s when Peer Senge (1994)popularized his concep in his landmark book Te Fifh Discipline. Hedescribes learn-ing organizaions as places where people coninually expand heir capaciies o creaehe resuls hey ruly desire, where new and expansive paterns o hinking are nurured,where collecive aspiraion is se ree and where people are coninually learning how olearn ogeher. Tereore he Learning Organizaion serves as a guiding vision whichpicures an organizaion as a living organism wih an open, powerul learning environmenwhich inspires, aciliaes and empowers he learning o is members so as o enhanceis capaciy or change, adapabiliy, improvemen and compeiion (Sun, 2003). In hisera knowledge has become a valuable asse and organizaions place emphasis on people

who have he desire o seek knowledge and he willingness o learn. Tus organizaionsencourage employees a all levels o he organizaion o express hemselves, recognizinghe ac ha knowledge could be creaed a any level in an organizaion. Knowledge shar-ing becomes he primary ocus so ha he organizaion as a whole can ake advanageand benefi rom his knowledge. Organizaions would hen value people who are willingo explore and experimen wih new ideas, encourage risk aking and suppor hem inheir pursui o knowledge. As knowledge becomes more cenral o compeiiveness, heabiliy o individuals and organizaions o learn becomes a primary means or winning(Ulrich e al., 1995).

India as a developing economy

As he worlds larges democraic republic and he home o a subsanial English-speak-ing populaion, India has posiioned isel as a powerul ool or global economic growh.Currenly i is believed o be perorming below is poenial bu here are riggers in heenvironmen which indicae he prospecive growh o he naion in he uure. Teseriggers include: a compeiive business environmen, a privaizaion agenda, a hrivingservices secor, and an increase in oreign direc invesmen.

As a resul o Indias global expansion here are many advanages which are likely oollow in he orm o more diverse services, cheaper manuacures, increased compei-ion wihin Asia, and a new marke or ourism, o name a ew. Tere are likely o beboh srucural and poliical challenges in he uure bu i is believed ha a srongerIndia will grealy influence he economies and poliical processes o such regions asEurope, Eas Asia, and Norh America.

One o he advanages wih he Indian economy is he presence o low-cos, bu rela-ively educaed, workorce ha could be uilized o achieve he uure arges. Wih headdiion o over 100 million new labourers in he workorce here would be an increase

in workers savings and invesmens which would evenually add o a rise in produciviyand efficiency in Indias manuacuring secor and perhaps mos clearly in he services


4/24

145

secor. In ha case, an increase in Indias labor orce over he nex several decades couldbe he main driver or atracing oreign invesmen. Tose wo variables combined couldhen have derivaive effecs on he world economy by enhancing Indias produciviy,long-run macro-economic sabiliy and inernaional rade relaions.

Bu here are a ew issues ha need o be addressed oo. Indias economic srucure

has o be guided effecively. Te Indian governmen as well as business enerprises willhave o play a significan role in his regard. Te ocus will have o shif owards privaeenerprise, personal savings, a healhy business environmen, and robus invesmeno achieving economic prosperiy. In such a siuaion a major role will be enaced byhe organizaions which can creae a learning environmen ha believes in knowledgecreaion and knowledge sharing and hereore become a learning organizaion.

Literature review

Learning organizations

Learning Organizaions have been defined in lieraure rom several viewpoins. Someauhors define i rom he perspecive o a living organism, which is coninuously learn-ing and ransorming isel. Pedler e al. (1991) have defined i as an organizaion,which is in a coninuous process o ransormaion hrough he learning o all memberswihin and ouside he organizaion. Kim (1992) considers he learning organizaionas an organizaion ha manages he learning o all is members hrough a process oknowledge acquisiion and an inquiry orienaion. Marquard (1996) defines i as an

organizaion, which by empowering people wihin and ouside he organizaion, col-lecively learns and ransorms isel o beter collec, manage and use knowledge orcorporae success.

Some auhors define i rom he perspecive o building a culure and climae hasuppors learning. Baker and Camaraa (1998) define i as an organizaion ha has aclimae ha suppors and encourages new knowledge acquisiion and hrough i learn-ing. From his perspecive a learning organizaion is one ha has a simulaing climaeha suppors learning and ransormaion.

Nonaka (1991) defines he learning organizaion rom he perspecive o knowledge

creaion. According o him knowledge creaion akes place when aci-knowledge is con-vered ino explici-knowledge, disseminaed hroughou he organizaion and resulsin innovaion in he orm o new producs, services or sysems. He suggess he use omeaphor, analogy, and model or he creaion o new knowledge. Garvin (1993)defines i as an organizaion, which is no only skilled a creaing, acquiring and ranser-ring knowledge bu modifies is behaviour o reflec his new knowledge and insigh. Newideas are essenial bu hey represen learning only when behaviour is modified o reflechese new ideas. Tere has o be a change in perormance or learning o ake place.

Organizaional learning occurs only when people who have he power o ac learn.

(De Gues, 1988). Organizaions are made up o individuals and i is hrough individuallearning ha organizaional learning occurs, bu i would be a misake o conclude ha


5/24

146

organizaional learning is he sum oal o individual learning (Hedberg, 1981 as ciedin Fiol and Lyles, 1985). Individual learning is a necessary bu no a sufficien condiionor organizaional learning.

An organizaion learns hrough is members bu is independen o any specific in-dividual, hough no independen o a group. Organizaional learning occurs hrough

he shared insighs, knowledge and menal models o he members o he organiza-ion; and builds on pas knowledge and experiences (Marquard, 1996) and is greaerhan he sum oal o he pars o individual learning. Organizaional learning has beensudied in he lieraure rom hree levels (Crossan e al., 1995). Many researchers usehe erm organizaional learning o describe individual level learning as he appropri-ae level o analysis. Simon considers organizaional learning rom an individual per-specive as in his view he mechanism or learning resides wihin he individual. Senge(1990) and Garvin (1993) also are more inclined owards an individual perspecive.Several heoriss have recognized group learning assering ha knowledge generaedby he individual does no come o bear on he organizaion independenly and organi-zaional learning would be incomplee i inormaion were no shared and a commonmeaning developed. Huber (1991) considers organizaional learning rom an inor-maion processing perspecive and involves knowledge acquisiion, disribuion, iner-preaion and organizaional memory. Brown and Duguid (1991) consider learning ascommuniy based where learning occurs in communiies-o-pracice. From he organi-zaional perspecive heoriss asser ha organizaional learning is no jus a collecivelearning o individuals bu a broader, more complex and dynamic concep o include

sysems, srucures and procedures o he organizaion ha affec learning (Fiol andLyles, 1985).

Organizational culture

Te concep o culure in organizaions has been borrowed mosly rom anhropol-ogy, alhough some sociologiss have also been influenial (Meek, 1988). In anhro-pology culure has been defined in many ways bu i broadly reers o he behaviouralpaterns ha differeniae one group or caegory o people rom anoher (Hosede,1993). Tough he concep had been developed earlier, organizaional culure gained

populariy wih he aricle o Petigrew (1979) and he 1980s saw a resurgence o in-eres in organizaional culure. In organizaions, culure reers o he mix o symbol,language, ideology, belie, riual and myh, which is unique o every organizaion (Pe-igrew, 1979). Similarly, Meek (1988) idenified ha culure is made up o or includessymbols, myh, ideaional sysem (ideology), and riual. rice and Beyer (1984) rec-ognized ha many auhors have used differen erminologies o concepualize organi-zaional culure, which has led o overlap and conusion. Each organizaion has is owndisinc ries and ceremonials and hence a unique culure which drives he organizaion

and is acion and guides how he members hink, ac and eel. Organizaional culurehas also been expressed as a groups operaive communicaion rules (Schall, 1983). She


6/24

147

idenifies ha a groups operaive communicaion rules is a more accurae represena-ion o culure han he ormally sancioned rules espoused by op managemen.

Te culure o an organizaion influences every aspec o organizaional lie and be-haviour as i affecs he five basic processes o an organizaion: communicaion, coop-eraion, commimen, decision making, and implemenaion, bu he members o he

organizaion may no be aware o hese shared assumpions ha guide hough andacion as hey are aken or graned (Sahe, 1983, 1985). Te pervasiveness o culurecan be undersood rom wo o is major elemens: he strengtho he culure ha de-ermines he efficiency o an organizaion and he contento culure ha deermineseffeciveness because conen deermines he direcion in which culure influences be-haviour.

Considering hese differing views, organizaional culure has been defined in vari-ous ways in he lieraure. Deal and Kennedy (1982) have defined organizaional cul-ure as he way hings are done in an organizaion and reer o boh he ormal and in-ormal ways o geting hings done. Schall (1983) has defined i as a symbolic sysem ovalues, belies and assumpions ha are inerdependen and relaively enduring, whichevolve as members inerac wih one anoher and are imperecly shared by organi-zaional members. Tese values, belies and assumpions allow members o explain,coordinae, and evaluae behaviour and enable hem o respond o simuli encouneredin he organizaional conex. Marin and Siehl (1983) consider organizaional culureas he glue ha holds ogeher an organizaion hrough shared paterns o meaning.Tey idenified hree componen sysems: conex or core values, orms or process o

communicaion and sraegies o reinorce conen ha is he rewards or raining pro-grams. Arogyaswamy and Byles (1987) have defined i as he se o implici, sharedand ransmitable undersandings regarding he values and he ideologies, a a poin inime, o any organizaion. Denison (1990) has defined i as underlying values, beliesand principles ha serve as a oundaion or organizaions managemen sysem as wellas he se o managemen pracices and behaviours ha boh exempliy and reinorcehese basic principles. Schein (1992) defines organizaional culure as a patern obasic assumpions- invened, discovered or developed by a given group as i learns ocope wih is problems o exernal adapaion and inernal inegraion. According o

Hosede (1998) organizaional culure reers o collecive programming o he mindwhich disinguishes he members o one organizaion rom anoher. Tis definiionassumes ha culure resides in he minds o all he organizaions members, no onlyin he minds o is managers or chie execuives. Pareek (2004) defines culure as cu-mulaive preerences or some sae o lie over ohers (values), predisposiion owardsseveral significan issues and phenomena (atiudes), organizaions ways o filling ime(riuals), and ways o promoing desired behaviours and prevening undesirable ones(sancions).

Organizaional culure has an impac on he perormance o an organizaion bu here

are differing views in he lieraure regarding he relaionship beween organizaional cul-ure and he perormance o he organizaion. Tere are some auhors (Kilmann, 1985,


7/24

148

Deal & Kenedy, 1982) who are o he view ha here is a direc correlaion beween heorganizaional culure and perormance. Culure o he organizaion can be manipulaedby managemen so ha a sysem o srongly-held, shared values and belies prevails inhe organizaion and hese values and norms are inernalized by he members so hahey ideniy wih he organizaion and see heir own ineres as congruen wih i. Schein

(1985) akes a coningency view o organizaional culure and sugges ha culure is con-ingen upon he siuaion indicaing ha or a paricular ype o siuaion a paricularkind o culure is appropriae and would conribue o efficiency. Tere is sill anoherview, which suggess good organizaional perormance is dependen on culures ha areable o respond o changes in he environmen. An organizaion operaing in a relaivelysable environmen need no ake risks and innovae bu or an organizaion operaing ina dynamic environmen risk-aking and innovaion is a mus (Brown, 1995) Tereorehe organizaional culure in such organizaions should be supporive o risk-aking andinnovaion.

Link between the learning organization and organizational culture

A presen imes when he environmen is highly compeiive, where markes and prod-ucs prolierae rapidly, a srong culure which does no encourage innovaion proveso be a disadvanage o a firm. Te culure should be closely relaed o he environmenso as o enable he organizaion o benefi rom he changes and remain compeiive.o make he ransiion o a learning organizaion, organizaions require a culure hasuppors and aciliaes his ransormaion. Learning organizaions require a culure

ha suppors and aciliaes learning. Schien, (1996) considers hree culures o bepresen in every organizaion: he operaor culure, he engineering culure and he ex-ecuive culure. Each o hese culures share heir own assumpions wihin hemselves,have heir own goals and speak a differen language, which makes communicaionacross hese culures difficul. I an organizaion atemps o reinven isel and learnin a generaive way hen here has o be proper alignmen among hese hree culuresoherwise he learning iniiaives will be shor lived. Organizaions will no learn e-ecively unil hey recognize and conron he implicaions o he hree occupaionalculures. Trough dialogue organizaions can achieve muual undersanding among

he hree culures and promoe he value o rus, openness and communicaion o en-hance learning. Learning hrives in a culure where open communicaion is valued andencouraged.

Te dimensions of the organization culture

For he purpose o presen sudy, ollowing dimension o culure (Pareek, 2004) havebeen proposed and diagnosed in relaion o he learning organizaion.

Openness:Te exen o which organizaion remains open o he ideas and sugges-ions o he members and incorporaes i as a par o organizaional growh has beenidenified as he dimensions o openness. Paon and McCalman (2000) consider open


8/24

149

dialogue as a prerequisie o a learning culure. Besides, hey consider openness o ex-perimens and risk-aking as values ha oser innovaion and learning. Organizaionsneed o creae places where people can come ogeher o hold a dialogue, convene wihone anoher and share heir ideas (Bechold, 2000). Tis requires an environmen oopenness where people eel sae o express hemselves. Garvin (1993) defines a culure

ha is open o criicisms as an environmen ha is recepive and where employees havehe ime o reflec and ake in new ideas, are proacive and work ogeher o ideniyproblems and opporuniies, encourage learning. Marquard (1996) is also o he opin-ion ha a culure ha promoes open discussion and eedback, where misakes are ol-eraed and people are encouraged o learn hrough misakes is conducive o learning.Members should eel ree o learn rom one anoher and learners should be recognizedand rewarded. Te culure o he organizaion is hen geared owards coninuous im-provemen in qualiy and services and developmen o he human poenial. Tus heollowing hypohesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Organizaion culures dimension o openness will have a significanand posiive relaionship wih he learning organizaion.

Conrontation:Conronaion is defined as he exen o which he organizaionpermis is employees o have ace o ace ineracion wihou he ear o being repri-manded or humiliaed. I consiss o acing raher han shying away rom he problems.Mos o he auhors sugges ha a srong culure, which is refleced by he widelyshared and srongly held se o values and belies, is a predicor o organizaional per-ormance. A srong cohesive culure leads o reducion o inernal ambiguiy and hencemanagers can concenrae on geting he job done and ocus on exernal hings likecompeiion and cusomer (Pascale, 1985). He considers organizaional culure as asep by sep socializaion process and consisency across all he elemens o he processresuls in a srong cohesive culure ha osers cooperaion, inegriy and communica-ion. Tereore a srong culure is desirable as i empowers new employees o learn heropes and he way hings are done in he organizaion. Denison (1984) sudied heimpac o a srong culure ha encourages he employees o conron he problemsand makes hem paricipae in he decision making process on organizaional perorm-ance hereby resuling in he creaion o a learning organizaion. Tus he ollowinghypohesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Organizaion culures dimension o conronaion will have a signifi-can and posiive relaionship wih he learning organizaion.

rust:rus is refleced in mainaining he confidenialiy o inormaion sharedby ohers and no in misusing i. I is also refleced in an assurance ha muual com-mimens and obligaions will be honoured. Philip and McKeown (2004) examinedhe relaionship beween organizaions culure and business ransormaion hrougha case sudy research o an engineering/aerospace company in he UK. Tey oundha rus plays an imporan role in he culure change process and can be emphasized


9/24

150

hrough effecive communicaion. Te CEO sressed on keeping he communiy wellinormed and ransorming he workers belies hrough raining and developmen pro-grammes so as o inculcae he value o rus in he culure. Inormaion echnologywas also inroduced so as o enable he organizaion o become compeiive. Tis radi-cal ransormaion o he organizaional culure enabled he organizaion o ransorm

isel rom a bureaucraic loss making organizaion o a world class perormer. Tus,he auhor highlighs he imporan role an organizaional culure which is based onreflecive rus and innovaive enrepreneurship plays in he ransormaion o he or-ganizaion and making i a learning organizaion. Gupa (2007) proposes ha he levelo rus among members o he organizaion is a significan predicor o knowledgesharing which is he oundaion o any learning organizaion. Tereore he ollowinghypohesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Te dimension o rus o organizaion culure will have a significan

and posiive relaionship wih he learning organizaion.Authenticity: Auheniciy is he congruence beween wha one eels, says, and

does. I is refleced in owning up ones misakes and in an unreserved sharing o eeling.Schall (1983) recognizes ha a srong culure is no necessarily an effecive or healhyculure as i requires inernal consisency beween ask, relaional and personal values,belies, and rules, as well as he abiliy o adap o he demands o he exernal environ-men which includes groups wihin he organizaion and he lack o his consisencywould lower he perormance. Arogyaswamy and Byles (1987) examined he culureperormance link rom a coningency perspecive. Teir sudy suggess ha he cul-ure o he organizaion should be inernally fi such ha he values and ideology arecohesive and consisen and ha he culure is unified or cohesive whole. A he sameime he culure should also be aligned o he exernal environmen. Bu wheher anorganizaion should have a igh inernal bonding and close exernal linkage is conin-gen upon a number o acors like: sraegy adoped, produc/service offered, naureo environmen, organizaions compeiive advanage, he size o he organizaion orsub-uni, degree o inerdependence. In case he bonding is srong, i gives impeus ohe members o innovae and learn hrough ransorming heir organizaion ino learn-ing organizaion. Tus he ollowing hypohesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Organizaion culures dimension o auheniciy will have a significanand posiive relaionship wih he learning organizaion

Proactivity: Proaciviy means aking iniiaives, pre-planning, aking preveniveacions, and calculaing he pay-offs o an alernaive course beore aking acion. Hur-ley and Hul (1998) ocus heir atenion on organizaional innovaiveness as a way oenhance organizaional learning and he firms abiliy o adap o he exernal environ-men and gain compeiive advanage as hey define innovaion as he implemenaiono new ideas, produc or process. Al-ameez (2004) explores and analyses he role oinormaion sysems/inormaion echnology in organizaional learning in he conex


10/24

151

o organizaional culure and exernal environmen in which he organizaion exiss.Organizaions can also enhance heir learning hrough cusomers, suppliers, sakehold-ers ec. Tis requires a culure o openness and rus where exernal sakeholders areencouraged o share inormaion abou he markes, cusomers ec., so ha he organi-zaion can benefi rom his knowledge and say compeiive. op managemen should

suppor an environmen where members are encouraged o discuss problems and is-sues openly and culivae a culure o proacive paricipaion in communicaion. Tushaving an asse in isel does no ensure success bu knowing how o use i sraegicallymakes i a valuable resource which enhances organizaional learning. Tus he ollow-ing hypohesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Te learning organizaion will be significanly and posiively relaed o

he proaciviy dimension o he organizaion culure.

Autonomy:Auonomy is using and giving reedom o plan and ac in ones own

sphere. I means respecing and encouraging individual and role auonomy. A sudyby Philip and McKeown (2004) examined ha by giving auonomy o he memberso he organizaion i could be ransormed rom being a governmen-owned bureau-craic and loss-making one o a world class perormer. Te company in he sudy wascharacerized by a culure which relied on rules and regulaions and here was litleincenive o perorm well. Te labor union dominaed he organizaion and here wasa clash beween he union and he managemen. Te culure was a dysuncional onewhich was hindering he progress o he company and i was perorming poorly andwas making losses. Ten he company was privaized and a new CEO was appoinedwho ransormed he company o a world class perormer wih a culure ha promoedeamwork, encouraged innovaion and enrepreneurship by giving significan auono-my o individual managers and ransorming i ino a learning organizaion. Tus heollowing hypohesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Te learning organizaion will be significanly and posiively relaed o

he auonomy dimension o he organizaion culure.

Collaboration: Collaboraion is giving help o, and asking or help rom ohers. Imeans working ogeher o solve problems and develop a eam spiri. Trough a casesudy research o he Inernal Medicine and Cardiac Surgery ward o a universiy affili-aed hospial, he auhors Lipshiz and Popper (2000) demonsraed how he culureo he respecive wards had an impac on organizaional learning. Te inernal medicineward had a democraic amosphere characerized by dedicaion, openness and caring,and organizaional commimen. People el ree o inquire and ask quesions. Despiehe work load people were dedicaed o heir work. Even hough he ward didn haveany kind o physical arrangemen o deec and correc members misakes, hey sillachieved high levels o organizaional learning due o he collaboraive culure o heward. People were highly enhusiasic and eager o learn. Hurley and Hul (1998) de-veloped a model o sugges ha cerain srucural and process characerisics affec he


11/24

152

organizaions innovaiveness. Among he culural characerisics hey emphasized onmarke ocus, learning and developmen, paricipaive decision making, suppor andcollaboraion, and power sharing. Tus he ollowing hypohesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Te organizaion culures dimension o collaboraion will have

a significan and posiive relaionship wih he learning organizaionExperimentation: I means using and encouraging innovaive approaches o solve

problems, using eedback or improvemen, aking a resh look a hings. Te challengeor organizaions in his presen environmen is o creae conexs in which membersconinually learn and experimen, are innovaive and srive or he creaion o new ide-as and new producs, as i is no sufficien or organizaions o respond, adap and copewih he pressures o change (Barret, 1995). Tis calls or a differen kind o learn-ing, one ha goes beyond adaping o challenges and solving problems and inseadocuses on imagining possibiliies, on generaing new ways o looking a he world. Tis

is appreciaive learning and an appreciaive learning culure nurures innovaive hink-ing by osering an affirmaive ocus, expansive hinking, a generaive sense o mean-ing and creaing collaboraive sysems. In his era when knowledge is highly valued,compeiive advanage comes rom creaing new knowledge and using i effecively oadap o change (Haten & Rosenhal, 2002). Experimens are caalys or creaing newknowledge and learning and organizaional members should be encouraged o conducexperimens no mater wha he oucome. McGill e al. (1992) agree wih he viewha experimens hold an imporan place in learning organizaions. Tus he ollowinghypohesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 8 (H8): Te organizaion culures dimension o experimenaion will have

a significan and posiive relaionship wih he learning organizaion

Conceptual framework

Te objecive o he sudy is o ideniy he relaionship beween he learning organiza-ion and he organizaion culure in Indian Business Organizaions. Te expeced linkagebeween he dimensions o organizaional culure and learning organizaion are presen-

ed in Figure 1. In his heoreical ramework he dimensions o organizaional culure arehe independen variables and he learning organizaion is he dependen variable. Temodel proposes o sugges ha or a learning organizaion o evolve and prosper, an effec-ive organizaion culure needs o be promoed in business organizaions.

Research methodology

Afer laying down he heoreical ramework, he nex phase o sudy is o ideniy herelaionship empirically. o mee his objecive, an empirical sudy o various business

organizaions in India was underaken. Te presen sudy proposes o undersand herelaionship beween he learning organizaion and he dimensions o organizaional


12/24

153

culure and urher invesigae is impac on learning organizaions. Te learning or-ganizaion was sudied as he oucome variable, which is influenced by dimensions oorganizaional culure.

Tis secion discusses he research design, research populaion and sample, ech-niques o daa collecion, ools used and saisical echniques used or daa analysis.

Methods

Research design

A correlaional design was used o seek inormaion relaed o he sudy research hy-pohesis and quesion, uilizing a survey insrumen. A survey is an appropriae meh-od o collecing daa or descripive or exploraory sudies. I can be used in sudiesin which individuals are he uni o analysis, and i is also considered bes suied ormeasuring atiudes and obaining personal and social acs, as well as belies (Rossie& Freeman, 1993, Kerlinger, 1986).Tis ype o sudy, which yields a snap-sho odaa rom a populaion a a specific poin in ime, was used in an atemp o validae a

se o predicor variables and offer clues owards inerences regarding presumed causaloucomes o he learning organizaion consruc.

Research population and sample

A populaion is considered o be any group o people, evens, or hings ha are o iner-es o he researchers and ha hey wish o invesigae (Sekaran, 2000). A sample is asubse o he populaion in quesion and consiss o a selecion o members rom heparicular populaion (Sekaran, 2000). Sampling is described as he selecion o a pro-porion o he oal number o unis o ineres or he ulimae reason o being able o

draw general conclusions abou he oal number o unis (Parasuraman, 1986).

FIGURE 1.Relationship between Organization culture and Learning Organization

Openness Conron-aion

rus Auhen-iciy

Proacion Auonomy Collabo-raion

Experi-menaion

Dimension oOrganizaion Culure

LearningOrganizaion

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8


13/24

154

According o Leedy (1993), convenience sampling is where he sample is chosenaccording o is availabiliy o he researcher. For he purposes o his research con-venience sampling was uilized. Tis ype o sampling echnique can, however, presenvarious problems in research as i makes no preence a being represenaive o hepopulaion as a whole. Hussey and Hussey (1997) sress ha bias may occur i samples

are chosen deliberaely by an individual as his may lead o avouriism. In erms o pos-sible problems or consrains experienced during he sampling process o his research,he main consrain was ha he sampling process was subjec o being chosen by heorganizaion and availabiliy.

Te sample o his sudy is employees who were seleced o paricipae based onheir managerial posiion. Te sample consised o managers rom differen depar-mens o he differen business organizaions rom in and around Delhi. Te samplingechnique employed in he sudy is convenience based non-probabiliy sampling. Ac-cording o Churchill (1979), his ype o sampling can be adoped when he emphasisis on exploraory research.

echnique of data collection

A oal o 400 quesionnaires were disribued o managers working in differen or-ganizaions. Te kind o organizaions chosen or he sudy included privae banks, Icompanies and elecommunicaion firms rom in and around naional capial o India,Delhi. A oal o 283 correcly compleed quesionnaires were reurned by he argerespondens giving a response rae o 70.75%.

o ensure a high response rae, care was aken o personally adminiser as many ques-ionnaires as possible, urher consan ollow-up was done and paience was mainainedall hroughou o ensure ha he respondens filled in he quesionnaires. Daa was col-leced hrough sel-adminisered quesionnaires and in order o ensure highes possibleresponse rae. However, in some cases he quesionnaires were sen hrough mail or email.Te concerned person was conaced beore sending he quesionnaires hrough email orpos. As he quesionnaire was sel explanaory, he respondens were asked o fill ou hequesionnaire as per he insrucion in he quesionnaire. Several atemps were made oencourage paricipaion among he sample populaion. o reduce he bias and ge rank

responses rom he respondens, he ollowing precauions were aken: Te respondents were apprised about the purpose of the study; An aempt was made to include people from all departments in the managerial

level; Te respondents were also assured about the condentiality of the information

and were asked no o menion heir names.In case o any doubs hey were asked o conac he researcher.

ools used

Tere were wo secions in he quesionnaire. Te firs secion ocused on he learningorganizaion (dependen variable) and consised o 25 iems. Te Learning Organizaion


14/24

155

Profile developed by Marquad (1996) was used or he purpose o measuring he vari-able o he learning Organizaion. Te original scale consised o 50 iems and assessed 5dimensions. A pilo survey was conduced and he final sandardized scale or he presensudy consised o 25 iems assessing 5 dimensions. Te five dimensions were:

1) Learning Dynamics: he iems ocused on wheher he organizaion encouraged

learning a he individual, group/eam or organizaional level.2) Organizaion ransormaion: he iems in his caegory relaed o he vision,

culure, sraegy and srucure o he organizaion subsysem.3) People Empowermen: he iems ocused on creaing a workorce qualified and

proficien or organizaional learning.4) Knowledge Managemen: he iems relaed o how knowledge is acquired, creaed,

sored and ranserred so ha i can be uilized and applied o enhance learning.5) echnology Applicaion: he iems in his caegory include he supporing, in-

egraed echnological neworks and inormaion ools ha allow access o and

exchange o inormaion and learning.Te scales used in he quesionnaire included he Liker Scale. Te Liker scale

used a raing o 1 o 4, where 1 indicaes Does no apply and 4 indicaes Applies oa Grea Exen. Te reliabiliy saisics Cronbach Alpha was calculaed o be 0.73 orhe iems.

Te second secion ocused on organizaional culure and was measured usingOCAPACE developed by Pareek (1973). Udai Pareekh suggess seven organizaionalvalues, openness, conronaion, rus, auheniciy, proacion, auonomy and collabo-raion as he core values or organizaion developmen. Te iniial insrumen was usedexensively in OD and HRD and anoher value was added, ha o experimenaion. Inaddiion o being an acronym or he values, OCAPACE is a meaningul erm indica-ing eigh (oca) seps (pace) o creae uncional ehos. Te scale consised o 40 iems.Te Cronbach Alpha or he iems was ound o be 0.79. Te iems 1 o 24 were scoredon a our-poin scale according o he ollowing response caegory: 1 No valued in heorganizaion; 2 Given raher low value in he organizaion; 3 Valued in he organiza-ion and 4 Very highly valued in he organizaion. Iems 25 o 40 were scored on a our-poin scale according o he ollowing response caegory: 1 Few or no people in hisorganizaion share his belie; 2 Only some people in his organizaion share his belie;3 Tis belie is airly well shared in he organizaion and 4 Tis belie is well shared inhis organizaion.

Analysis of the data

Te daa was subjeced o saisical analysis or he purpose o inerpreaion. Descrip-ive saisics such as mean, sandard deviaion and inercorrelaions were compuedo undersand he inerdependence beween he variables. Muliple regression analysiswas used o es he hypoheses.

During he process o daa collecion, i was observed ha here was relucance onhe par o respondens in giving he responses or he ear o being quoed and ideni-


15/24

156

fied. Since he sudy was based on sel repored daa and so he findings may be biasedby common mehod variance and spurious cause/effec inerences. Te generalizaionsoccurring rom his sudy are more conducive and limied o paricular group o em-ployees who have been included in he sudy. In oher words, limiaions come romhe sampling echnique used, which is non probabiliy based convenience sampling.

Results

Profile of the respondents

Te oal sample size was 283. Te group comprised 94 (33 percen) emales and 189(67 percen) males. In he group here were 28% o respondens in he age group o2125 years. 36% o he respondens were in he 2630 years age caegory and 31%were in 3135 years o age. Te res o he respondens were more han 36 years o

age. 51% o he respondens were married. While drawing he experience profile o herespondens i was seen ha 78% o hem had an experience o 515 years, ollowed by17% wih an experience o less han 5 years. 5% were ound o have an experience o1525 years.

Relationship between the variables

The correlation matrix in Table 1 shows the correlation coefcient between the inde-

pendent variables as identied for the research.

ABLE 1:Correlations of the dimensions of organizational cultureand the learning organization

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

OpennessConronaion 0.746**rus 0.531** 0.528**

Auheniciy 0.388** 0.453** 0.422**Proacion 0.645** 0.676** 0.520** 0.494**

Auonomy 0.135* 0.130* 0.120* 0.134* 0.114*Collaboraion 0.622** 0.555** 0.501** 0.351** 0.553** 0.267**Experimenaion 0.668** 0.620** 0.521** 0.270** 0.612** 0.216** 0.562**Learning Organizaion 0.655** 0.604** 0.453** 0.346** 0.671** 0.118 0.473** 0.571**

** Significan a 0.01 level, * Significan a 0.05 level

A correlaion coefficien indicaes he srengh o he associaion beween he vari-ables. A correlaion coefficien is considered significan i hep-value is less han 0.05.As shown in able 1, in he business organizaion in India all he dimensions o organi-zaional culure like openness, conronaion, rus, auheniciy, proacion, auonomy,collaboraion and experimenaion have a significan posiive correlaion wih learning


16/24

157

organizaion. From he able i is observed ha proacion has he highes correlaionollowed by openness indicaing ha boh have srong associaion wih he learningorganizaion. Te nex highes is conronaion ollowed by experimenaion. Te vari-ables o collaboraion and rus have posiive correlaion bu slighly on he lower side.Auonomy has he leas correlaion wih he learning organizaion, hough i is posiive.

Te above findings help us o conclude ha he employees in Indian organizaions per-ceived ha he exisence o an effecive and suiable organizaion culure in he organi-zaion will be avourable or he exisence o learning organizaions.

Multiple regression analysis

o gain an insigh ino he relaionships urher beween he independen and depend-en variables and o ideniy he predicive relaionships beween he wo ses o vari-ables, i any, muliple regression analysis was done.

From he correlaion ables i can be seen ha here are many significan linear cor-relaions beween he learning organizaion and he consrucs o organizaion culure.Muliple regression analysis was used o diagnose he relaionship beween a single de-penden variable (crierion) and a number o independen variables (predicors). Ase o independen variables is weighed o develop he regression equaion or modelo explain is relaive conribuion owards one dependen variable. Te dimensionso organizaion culure were enered in he model as independen variables, while helearning organizaion was he dependen variable. Te resuls are depiced in able 2.

ABLE 2:Results of the regression analysis

Independent variablesDependent variable

Beta t Significance

Openness 1.173 5.501 0.000**

Conronaion 0.077 0.986 0.325

rus -0.093 -1.510 0.132Auheniciy -0.118 -2.200 0.029*

Proacion 1.829 6.956 0.000**

Auonomy -0.118 -2.621 0.009**Collaboraion -0.143 -2.157 0.032*

Experimenaion 0.640 1.988 0.048*

R Square = 0.541, Adjused R = 0.536, F Change = 50.936 (.000), Durbin Wason 1.660Significan correlaion = *p


17/24

158

p


18/24

159

hey demonsraed he imporance o openness in he culure o he organizaion oenhance learning. Te inernal medicine ward o he hospial ha hey sudied showedhigh levels o organizaional learning as a resul o an environmen o openness wherehe docors and nurses el ree o inquire and ask quesions. Furher, his is also simi-lar o he findings o Maria and Wakins (2003) who sugges ha an undersanding o

and suppor or change can be achieved hrough a culure which values openness andwhere members eel sae and encouraged o engage in coninuous learning. Furheri has been proposed by Moraga (2006) ha in learning organizaion leaders muspromoe an open environmen o build a common undersanding o wha is expecedo be learn. Te finding also ges a suppor rom a sudy by Gupa (2007) in whichopenness was ound o be a significan predicor o knowledge sharing leading o hedevelopmen o he learning organizaion.

Te sudy also indicaes he imporance o proacion or predicing he learning or-ganizaion. Proaciviy means aking iniiaives, pre-planning, aking prevenive acions,and calculaing he pay-offs o an alernaive course beore aking acion. Learning is aconinuous aciviy and a culure which emphasizes on proacion encourages coninu-ous learning among organizaional members as hey are consanly seeking learning op-poruniies. An organizaion benefis rom individual learning only when his learningges ranslaed o organizaional learning. Proaciveness enhances coninuous learningas employees are innovaive no due o a rigger in he environmen bu because o hewillingness o ake he lead and say ahead o compeiors. Companies like 3M, Sonyand Misubishi remain compeiive and ake he lead as hey emphasize on being proac-

ive. When a produc has been inroduced hey simulaneously se he sunse dae awhich hey will deliberaely abandon he same produc. Tis immediaely riggers workon developing a replacemen offering (Kiernan, 1993) and is an indicaor o a coninu-ous learning model ollowed by he organizaion. Garvin (1993) also suggess ha aculure ha is open o criicisms and where employees have he ime o reflec and akein new ideas, are proacive and work ogeher o ideniy problems and opporuniies,encourages learning hereby leading o he creaion o a learning organizaion.

Besides hese, experimenaion also conribues in predicing learning organiza-ions. Te challenge or organizaions in his presen environmen is o creae con-

exs in which members coninually learn and experimen, are innovaive and sriveor he creaion o new ideas and new producs, as i is no sufficien or organizaionso respond, adap and cope wih he pressures o change (Barret, 1995). Haten andRosenhal (2002) have proposed ha in his era when knowledge is highly valued,compeiive advanage comes rom creaing new knowledge and using i effecively oadap o change. Experimens are caalys or creaing new knowledge and learning andorganizaional members should be encouraged o conduc experimens no mater whahe oucome. I has been urher suppored by McGill e al. (1992), who agree wih heview ha experimens hold an imporan place in learning organizaions. Hurly and

Hul (1998) also sugges ha he culure o an organizaion which encourages experi-menaion influences organizaions abiliy o respond/adap o he environmen and


19/24

160

hence organizaional learning capabiliies as i influences he organizaions innovaive-ness and he capaciy o innovae.

Moraga (2006) proposes ha organizaional inquiry or experimenaion is essenialfirs, o correc a misake by modiying acion and second, o quesion and challengehe values, acion sraegies and assumpions embedded in individuals and organiza-

ions. Te members mus be allowed o propose new iniiaives and soluion in everywork process sage and organizaion echelon, and puting hem ino pracice, allowingexperimenaion (Nyhan, e al., 2004). Gupa (2007) ound experimenaion o be asignifican predicor o knowledge acquisiion hereby leading he organizaion o be-come a learning organizaion.

However, i was observed in he sudy ha auonomy, collaboraion and auhenic-iy have a negaive relaionship wih he learning organizaion. Tis is quie conrary ohe findings o sudies which have saed he imporance o auonomy as culural rai

ha enhances learning (Delong & Fahey, 2000; Harper & Uley, 2001). However, inhigh collecivis and power disance culures, such as India, leaders use more direciveorms o influence hence obaining he compliance o he ollowers. Since leaders usehe direcive orms o influence, he organizaional members were rejecing auonomyas hey were accusomed o ollowing insrucions. Tereore, even when auonomywas provided o hem, hey preerred being ordered and given direcion. Hence au-onomy conribued negaively o predic learning organizaions. Unless he organi-zaional members eel sae o honesly discuss heir misakes, and wha hey hink andhow hey eel, hey will no be willing o learn. As a resul auheniciy has a negaiverelaionship wih he learning organizaion. Members are willing o share heir learningand knowledge when hey perceive an environmen o rus. A culure which encour-ages open inquiry aciliaes learning as organizaional members eel ree o ask ques-ions and make misakes and learn rom hem. As he relaionship beween rus andhe learning organizaion is also weak in he presen sudy, ha can be accouned or bynegaive relaionship wih auheniciy. Te consruc o collaboraion also has a nega-ive relaionship wih he learning organizaion which is quie conrary o he findingso Lipshiz and Popper (2000) who demonsraed how he culure o he respecivewards had an impac on organizaional learning. Te inernal medicine ward had ademocraic and collaboraive amosphere characerized by dedicaion, openness andcaring, and organizaional commimen. Even hough he ward didn have any kind ophysical arrangemen o deec and correc members misakes, hey sill achieved highlevels o organizaional learning due o he collaboraive culure o he ward.

Te presence o negaive relaionship beween collaboraion and he learning or-ganizaion can be undersood wih he help o findings o Moraga (2006) where i issuggesed ha collaboraion should be genuine in he learning organizaion. Te simu-

laion o collaboraion is a barrier o learning as i creaes rusraion and relucance inpeople, blocking he wish o be an acive par in he organizaion. In anoher sudy by


20/24

161

Gupa (2007) collaboraion was ound o be a significan predicor o knowledge shar-ing leading o he evoluion o he learning organizaion. For auhenic collaboraionhere has o be coninuous access and exchange o inormaion amongs he memberso he organizaion. Te sysems in he organizaion mus assis he flow o boh aciand explici knowledge inside he organizaion (Jenson, 2005). In he absence o hese

condiions organizaions cease o be learning organizaions.Besides, hese wo dimensions o he organizaion culure, namely conronaion

and rus, were no ound o be relaed o he dimension o he learning organizaion.Wih respec o conronaion he finding is quie conrary o he findings o Dixon(2002) in which i is proposed ha learning organizaions make new inellecual de-mands on managers. Managers are required o conron he problems and use heirskills o analysis, inerpreaion and synhesis o help he organizaion learn is way ouo he problem ha i is acing in his ime o rapid change. Te absence o his rela-ionship is a sympom o inabiliy o Indian managers o conron he siuaion andfind relevan and appropriae soluions. rus has been idenified as a key value or helearning organizaion, ocusing on promoing reedom o acion and process designs awork as well as he conrol o oucomes (Handy, 1993; Argyris & Schon, 1996). Teabsence o significan ineracive relaionship beween rus and he learning organiza-ion may be an indicaor o lower degree o inerpersonal rus amongs employeeswhich may resul in reduced inormaion and knowledge sharing causing a block o hedevelopmen o he learning organizaion. Gupa (2007) indicaed in her findings harus is a very imporan elemen in conribuing owards knowledge sharing, which is

quie conrary o he findings o he presen sudy.Wih respec o he model proposed he resul o he presen sudy can be depicedas ollows (Figure 2):

FIGURE 2. Results of relationship identified between Organization culture

and Learning Organization

Openness Conron-aion

rus Auhen-iciy

Proacion Auonomy Collabo-raion

Experi-menaion

Dimension oOrganizaion Culure

LearningOrganizaion

H1: (+) H2: (-) H3: (-) H4: (-) H5: (+) H6: (-) H7: (-) H8: (+)


21/24

162

Overall, he sudy provides enough evidence o prove ha he deparure rom ra-diional organizaions which relied on rules and regulaions o learning organizaionswhich encourages is employees o hink ou o he box requires an open, proacive andexperimenal culure which brings ou he bes in he individuals.

Concluding comments

Tis sudy repors an invesigaion o he relaionship beween dimensions o organiza-ional culure and learning organizaion in Indian business organizaions. In he presensudy organizaional culure was idenified and sudied as he imporan variable hainfluences he developmen o he learning organizaion. o ransorm o he learningorganizaion requires an open culure along wih a ocus on proacion and experimen-aion.

Learning organizaions have gained imporance and have been idenified as he sra-

egy or survival and growh in his global economy. India as a developing economy is ac-ing ough global compeiion, hence he need or ransorming o learning organizaion.From he sudy i can be inerpreed ha only hree dimensions o organizaion culure,namely openness, proacion and experimenaion, emerged as significan in erms o heirrelaionship wih he learning organizaion. Building and mainaining a learning organi-zaion requires a generaive and adapive organizaion culure which promoes learning.Here i can be observed ha organizaion culure in he seleced organizaions was noaciliaing enough or he developmen o he learning organizaion. Leaders in he or-ganizaions have o promoe a ransormaional culure which is flexible and adapiveand conducive o ongoing change. Given he environmenal condiions in organizaionsoday in a developing economy like India, i is criical ha he leaders and heir employ-ees coninuously seek learning experiences and share he inormaion in an amospherewhere employees work ogeher o atain improved perormance.

Te curren sudy would enable he uure researchers and praciioners o: gain an understanding of learning organizations; identify whether the culture in their organization is conducive to learning and

promoes a culure where employees eel ree o learn and experimen wih newideas;

will also help the leaders and members of an organization to identify and pro-moe a learning environmen, and develop he skills necessary o promoe hedevelopmen o learning organizaion.

Research on learning organizaion has been going on in he las ew years and hisconcep has atraced considerable atenion in he organizaional lieraure. Te sudywould add o he exising lieraure on he learning organizaion as:

it develops an understanding and appreciation of the learning organization it helps to identify the cultural environment that facilitates learning

Tereore, in his direcion his sudy would make a significan conribuion o heheory o he learning organizaion.


22/24

163

References

Al-ameez, A.A. (2004). An inhibiing conex hampering role o inormaion echnology as anenabler in organizaional learning.Journal o Computer Inormation Systems, 3440.

Argyris, C., &Schn, D. (1996) Organizational learning II: Teory, method and practice. Reading,Mass: Addison Wesley.

Arogyaswamy, B., & Byles, C.M. (1987). Organizaional culure: inernal and exernal fis.Jour-nal o Management, 13(4), 647659.

Baker, R. ., & Camaraa, M. R. (1998). Te role o communicaion in creaing and mainaininga learning organizaion: precondiions, indicaors, and disciplines. Journal o Business Communica-tion, 35(4), 443467.

Barret, F. J. (1995). Creaing appreciaive learning culures. Organizational Dynamics, 24(1),3649.

Bechold, B. L. (2000). Evolving o organizaional learning. Hospital Material Management Quar-terly,21(3), 1125.

Brown, A. (1995). Organizational culture. London: Piman Publishing.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizaional learning and communiies-o-pracice: owarda unified view o working, learning and innovaion. Organization Science, 2(1), 4056.

Churchill G. A., & Lacobucci, D. (2002).Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. 8hed.U.S.A.: Souh-Wesern Tomson Learning.

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., Whie, R. E., & Djureld, L. (1995). Organizaional learning: di-mensions or a heory. Te International Journal o Organizational Analysis, 3(4), 337360.

De Geus, A. P. (1988). Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review, 66(2), 7074.Deal, . E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate culture: Te rites and rituals o corporate lie.Read-

ing Mass: Addision-Wesley.Delong, D.W. & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing culural barriers o knowledge managemen.Acad-

emy o Management Executive, 14(4), 113127.Denison, D. (1984). Bringing corporae culure o he botom line. Organizational Dynamics,

13(2), 522.Denison, D. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley.Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. (2000). Changing roles: leadership in he 21 scenury. Organizational

Dynamics, 28(3), 1833.Dixon, N.M. (1993). Developing Managers or Learning Organizaions. Human Resource Man-

agement Review,3(3), 243254.Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizaional learning. Academy o Management Review,

10(4), 803813.

Garrat, B. (1988). Learning is he core o organizaional survival: acion learning is he key ine-graing process.Journal o Management Development, 6(2), 3844.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organizaion. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 7891.Gupa, B. (2007). Role o Individual values and Organizaional Culural Values in Knowledge.

Review o Business Research, Vol. VII, No. 5Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations.4h edn. London: Penguin.Harper, G.R. & Uley, (2001). Organizaion culure and successul echnology implemenaion.

Engineering Management Journal, 13(2), 1115.Harvey, C, & Denon, J. (1999). o come o age: he anecedens o organizaional learning.

Journal o Management Studies. 36(7), 897918.

Haten, K. J., & Rosenhal, S. R. (2002). Knowledge Managemen.Ivey Business Journal,66(6),15.


23/24

164

Hosede, G. (1993). Culural consrains in managemen heories.Academy o Management Ex-ecutive, 7(1), 8194.

Hosede, G. (1998). Ideniying organizaional subculures: An empirical approach. Journal oManagement Studies, 35(1), 112.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizaional learning: he conribuing processes and he lieraures. Or-ganization Science, 2(1), 88106.

Hurley, R.F. & Hul, .M. (1998). Innovaion, marke orienaion and organizaional learning:An inegraion and empirical examinaion.Journal o Marketing, 62(3), 4254.

Hussey, J., & Hussey, R. (1997).Business Research. London: Macmillan Press Ld.Jones, A. M., & Hendry, C. (2001). Te learning organizaion: adul learning and organizaional

ransormaion.British Journal o Management, 5(2), 153162.Kerlinger, F.N (1986). Foundation o Behavioral Research(3rded.). New York, NY: CBS College.Kiernan, M.J. (1993). Te new sraegic archiecure: Learning o compee in 21 scenury. Acad-

emy o Management Executives,7(1), 721.Kilmann, R. H. (1985). Five seps or closing culure gaps. In R. H. Kilmann, M. J. Saxon, &

R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining Control o the Corporate Culture(pp. 351369). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Kim, D. (1992). Sysemaic qualiy managemen: improving he qualiy o doing and hinking.

System Tinker, 2(7), 14.Leedy, P.D. (1993). Practical Research Planning and Design, 5h ediion. New York: Macmillan

Publishing Company.Lipshiz, R., & Popper, M. (2000). Organizaional learning in a hospial. Te Journal o Applied

Behavioral Science, 36(3), 345361.Maria, R.F. & Wakins, K.E. (2003). Percepion o learning culure and concerns abou he in-

novaion on is use: A quesion o level o analysis. Human Resource Development International,6(4),491508.

Marquard, M. J. (1996).Building the learning organization: A systems approach to quantum im-provement and global success. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Marin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizaional culure and counerculure: an uneasy symbiosis.Organizational Dynamics, 12(2), 5264.

McGill, M.E., Slocum, J.W. & Lei, D. (1992). Managemen pracices in learning organizaions.Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 517.

Meek, V. L. (1988). Organizaional culure: Origins and weaknesses. Organization Studies,94(4), 453473.

Moraga, E. (2006). Culural Learning Organizaion: A Model. Madrid. htp://www.culural-learningorganizaions.ne/index_files/Overview%20o%20lieraure%20and%20debaes.pd

Nonaka, I. (1991). A dynamic heory o organizaional knowledge creaion. Organization

Science, 5(1), 1437.Nyhan, B., Cressey, P., omassini, M., Kelleher, M., Poell, R. (2004). European perspecives on

he learning organisaion.Journal o European Industrial raining, Vol. 28,No.1, 6792.Pareek, U. (1973). raining instruments or human resource development. New Delhi: McGraw

Hill.Pareek, U. (2004). Understanding Organizational Behaviour, 1s ediion. Oxord Publishing

House.Parasuraman, A. (1986).Marketing research. Reading,MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Co.Pascale, R. (1985). Te paradox o corporae culure: reconciling ourselves o socializaion.

Caliornia Management Review, 27(2), 2641.

Paon, R. A., & McCalman, J. (2000). Chance management: A guide to effective implementation.New Delhi: Sage Publicaions.


24/24

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, . (1991). Te learning company. New York: McGraw-Hill.Petigrew, A. M. (1979). On sudying organizaional culures. Administrative Science Quarterly,

24(4), 570581.Philip, G., & McKeown, I. (2004). Business ransormaion and organizaional culure: he role

o compeency, IS and QM.European Management Journal, 22(6), 624636.

Rossie, P.H., & Freeman, H.E., (1993).Evaluation; A systematic Approach

(5

h

ed,), NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publicaions, Inc.Sahe, V. (1983). Implicaions o corporae culure: a managers guide o acion. Organizational

Dynamics, 12(2), 523.Sahe, V. (1985). Culture and related corporate realities. Homewood: Irwin.Schall, M. S. (1983). A communicaion-rules approach o organizaional culure.Administrative

Science Quarterly, 28(4), 557581.Schein, E. H. (1985). Te role o ounder in creaing organizaional culure. Organizational Dy-

namics, 12(1), 1328.Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Schien, E. H. (1996). Tree culures o managemen: he key o organizaional learning. Sloan

Management Review, 38(1), 920.Sekaran, U. (2000). Research Methods or Business, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Wiley Publicaions.Senge, P. (1994). Te fifh discipline: Te art and practice o the learning organization. New York:

Currency Doubleday.Saa, R. (1989). Organizaional learning Te key o managemen innovaion. Sloan Manage-

ment Review, 30(3), 6373.Sun, He-Chuan. (2003). Concepual clarificaions or organizaional learning, learning organi-

zaion and a learning organizaion. Human Resource Development International,6(2), 153166.rice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Sudying organizaional culures hrough ries and ceremo-

nials.Academy o Management Review, 9(4), 653669.Ulrich, D., Jick, ., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1995). High-impac learning: building and diffusing

learning capabiliy. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5266.

Documents

Creating Effective Management Support Systems for the Learning Organisation