DSpace at VNU: Learning organizations in higher education: An empirical evaluation within an international context

Management Learning http://mlq.sagepub.com/ Learning organizations in higher education: An empirical evaluation within an international context Hong T M Bui and Yehuda Baruch Management Learning published online 28 December 2011 DOI: 10.1177/1350507611431212 The online version of this article can be found at: http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/12/27/1350507611431212 A more recent version of this article was published on - Oct 18, 2012 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Management Learning can be found at: Email Alerts: http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Version of Record - Oct 18, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jan 31, 2012 >> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 28, 2011 What is This? Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 431212 2011 MLQ0010.1177/1350507611431212Bui and BaruchManagement Learning Article Learning organizations in higher education:  An empirical evaluation within an international context Management Learning 0(0) 1­–30 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1350507611431212 mlq.sagepub.com Hong T.M Bui Bournemouth University, UK and Vietnam National University, Vietnam Yehuda Baruch Rouen Business School, France Abstract We proposed and examined a learning organization framework in higher education within an international context Using a sample of 687 employees in the UK and Vietnam, we tested the relationships between personal mastery, mental models, team learning, shared visions and systems thinking with their antecedents and outcomes Our findings support the suggested learning organization model As predicted, these five variables partially mediate the relationship between the antecedents and outcomes We also found that employees in a collectivist culture were more likely to be committed to the process of becoming learning organizations compared with those from an individualistic culture Keywords Collectivism, individualism, leadership, organizational culture, Senge’s learning organization Introduction Organizational learning is a well-established and growing area within the wider area of management and organizational research (Argyris and Schön, 1996) However, there is an ongoing debate about units/levels of analysis of learning organization While some argue that organizational learning is the sum of what individuals learn within organizations, others assert that organizational learning is more than the learning of its individual members (Easterby-Smith et al., 2000) We take organizational learning to be the sum of individual and collective learning In order to remain viable in an uncertain and changing environment, organizations and individuals alike rely on an ability to learn (Edmondson and Moingeon, 1998; Senge, 1990) Thus, a learning organization (LO) must constantly strive to develop and implement policies and strategies, which encourage and make use of learning at all levels within the organization (following Church, 2002; Hitt, Corresponding author: Yehuda Baruch, Rouen Business School, Boulevard André Siegfried - BP 215, Mont-Saint-Aignan 76825, France Email: yehuda.baruch@rouenbs.fr Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Management Learning 0(0) 1995; Hodgkinson, 2000; Rowley, 1998; Sackmann et al., 2009) In so doing, they are likely to create and deliver innovative products and services (Church, 2002; Corbett, 2005) LOs align people’s learning and development continuously to corporate vision, mission and strategy (Harrison, 1993) A LO works to create values, practices and procedures, in which learning and working are synonymous throughout the organization (Rowley, 1998) Learning is a core part of all operations The LO process challenges employees and communities to use their collective intelligence, ability to learn, and creativity to transform the existing system (Bierema, 1999) It helps people to connect with each other, their work, and their community It is not a programme, but rather a new process for understanding and learning together In our study, we adopt Senge’s definition for LOs: organizations 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: 3) LOs are expected to build the capability to adapt and confront change-related issues in order to prevail and excel, and to meet the challenges inherent in an unstable environment (Bokeno and Gantt, 2000; Senge et al., 1999) In the knowledge economy, institutions of higher education (HE) constantly need innovation Business schools with a strong professional learning base are better able to offer valid pedagogy and be more effective in promoting student achievement (Sackney and Walker, 2006) Though Senge (2000) posits that changes in institutions of public education are harder to deliver than in business, Resnick and Hall (1998) argue that LOs bring about sustainable educational reforms True learning communities encourage educators to acquire the knowledge and skills that they need from many sources, inside and outside the LOs They openly share their own knowledge and skills with others because they realize that they are all working toward achieving personal and professional goals (Sackney and Walker, 2006) While the literature provides ample support for the concept of the LO, both theoretical (Sackmann et al., 2009) and managerial (Garvin et al., 2008), there are clear gaps that call for investigation First, related studies have been conducted mostly in western work environments (Birdthistle, 2008; Blackman and Henderson, 2005; Nyhan et al., 2004) Second, the educational sector, which is growing in scope and importance, is rarely represented in LO studies (White and Weathersby, 2005) Third, most of the studies which focus on LOs have employed qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, research methods (Eijnatten and Putnik, 2004; Harvey and Denton, 1999; McGill et al., 1992; Slater and Narver, 1995) Fourth, while Senge’s contribution has attracted vast scholarly and practical attention, there remains an acute shortage of empirical investigation of his work (Nair, 2001) Specifically, Ellinger and Bostrom (2002) call for further studies to explore the relationships between characteristics of the LO and organizational performance To bridge these gaps, we developed a conceptual framework that included a wide set of antecedents and outcomes of Senge’s five disciplines (the components of a LO), comprising personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking We tested the framework within an international context of HE Employing a multi-level analysis (Klein and Kozlowski, 2000), we started at the individual level (personal mastery) through the collective level (team learning, mental models), and up to the organizational level (shared vision, systems thinking) Our study answers these deficiencies by addressing the issue in the HE sector, and comparing universities from two distinct cultures We benefited from a unique opportunity to examine and compare the LO model in two different cultures, namely East and West, to recommend theoretical and managerial implications Further, we employ quantitative research methods to complement earlier investigations which have tended to be based on qualitative methodology Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Bui and Baruch Theoretical background The context of higher education in a global environment Like any other sector, the HE is under increasing pressure to improve its competitiveness The competition in HE is getting more severe within and across national borders (Marginson, 2007), with indications of an emerging global phenomenon described as ‘brain drain’ This phenomenon can be observed in the movement of highly educated people from developing countries to developed countries (Baruch et al., 2007; Carrington and Detragiache, 1999) However, there is also evidence to suggest that this phenomenon may turn into a ‘brain circulation’ (Carr et al., 2005; Saxenian, 2006; Tung and Lazarova, 2006), particularly within a global open labour market Management should cope with fast-paced social, economic, and political transitions that place extensive demands on the system and its employees The western HE sector is still operating in a lucrative market, but the situation is changing, as many developing countries are catching up and establishing their own high quality HE systems (for example, see Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989; Marginson, 2007) In such context, LOs bring about sustainable educational reform (Resnick and Hall, 1998), and as a result, a wide range of organizations across the globe adopt the LO framework (Davies, 1998; Franklin et al., 1998; Patterson, 1999; Rowley, 1998; Willcoxson, 2001; Yeo, 2006; Yeo and Marquardt, 2010) The learning organization and higher education Senge’s (1990) LO is depicted as pragmatic, normative, and inspirational (Easterby-Smith, 1997; Roper and Pettit, 2002) Easterby-Smith (1997) adds that LOs encourage organizations to go beyond single-loop learning (actions as learning repeating in a routine) to double-loop learning (attempts to change normal practice, i.e single-loop learning), and even triple-loop learning (learning about learning, about redesigning the current systems for better learning and operations) (Argyris, 1999; Argyris and Schön, 1996) Amidon (2005) argues that Senge designs a set of practices in a robust way that might lead to a knowledge-worker utopia Senge attempts to build organizations that ‘serve humans rather than enslave them’ (Amidon, 2005: 408) Senge’s LO is considered inspirational, as it possesses a power to nurture practical creativity Though there is no specific prototype for developing universities as LOs, Senge’s (1990) model is highly regarded as an essential framework for their construction (Gudz, 2004; Jackson, 2000; Patterson, 1999; White and Weathersby, 2005) Like business, HE is facing challenges of changes and innovation Many HE institutions have adapted LO models to facilitate progress and advancement in line with economic changes and technological development (Duke, 1992; Patterson, 1999) Based on the extant literature we posit a model which comprises several antecedents and outcomes of the five disciplines These are depicted in Figure and explicated in the hypothesis development section Research hypotheses Personal mastery Personal mastery refers to a personal commitment to continuously clarify and deepen a personal vision, focus energy, develop patience, and endeavour to see reality as objectively as possible (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) It is ‘the learning organization’s spiritual foundation’ (Senge, 1990: 7) It goes beyond competence, skills, and spiritual unfolding though it is grounded on those Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Management Learning 0(0) Figure 1. The LO model bases (Senge, 1990) As discussed by Senge (1990), personal mastery is influenced by personal values, personal vision, motivation, and individual learning through training and development First, personal values are rooted in an individual’s own set of values, beliefs, and aspiration (Homer and Kahle, 1988; Kahle, 1983; Senge, 1990) Since employees are believed to bring their values into the work setting (Robertson, 1991), the impact of personal values is of special relevance in educational systems (Blackmore and Castley, 2005) Second, personal vision is the ‘groundwork’ for continually expanding personal mastery (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; Nightingale, 1990; Senge, 2006) There is an increased confidence in employees’ personal vision when universities develop as LOs (Smith, 2003; Wheeler, 2002) Third, motivation has long been studied to explain why humans are inspired to certain things (Deci, 1975; Kanfer and Ackerman, 2000; Maslow, 1970; Rueda and Moll, 1994; Siebold, 1994) An individual with high personal mastery would be self-motivated (Ng, 2004) Fourth, individual learning is the primary learning-enabling element in LOs (Antonacopoulou, 2000b; Dodgson, 1993; Senge, 1990; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) Individual learning can promote personal mastery (Gong et al., 2009) Life-long learning is a part of commitment to personal mastery (Barker et al., 1998; Davies, 1998), and to LOs (Davies, 1998) Academic scholars are highly qualified in terms of formal education and rich in informal learning (Baruch and Hall, 2004; Knight et al., 2006) Fifth, development and training is essential for employees’ personal mastery (Senge et al., 1994) This process plays a significant role in making employees aware of Senge’s LO concepts, including personal mastery (Kiedrowski, 2006) Research also shows the effect of development and training on personal mastery (Antonacopoulou, 2000a; Blackman and Henderson, 2005) Many countries’ HE makes development and training a top priority (Blackmore and Castley, 2005; Dalin, 1998; Maslen, 1992) Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Bui and Baruch Hypothesis Personal values, personal vision, motivation, individual learning, and development and training are positively associated with personal mastery Mental models Mental models refer to deeply-held assumptions or metaphors through which people interpret and understand the world, and take action (O’Connor and McDermott, 1997; Senge, 1990) Mental models are powerful in influencing human behavior (Senge, 1990) Mental models are assumed to be composed of a number of factors First, organizational commitment is defined as ‘the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization’ (Mowday et al., 1979: 226) Despite Gallie et al.’s (2001) finding that British employees had a relatively weak commitment to their organizations, organizational commitment is considered to be at the heart of mental models (Kofman and Senge, 1993) It is essential for the development and sharing of mental models (Bui and Baruch, 2010b) Second, leaders are responsible for learning and creating a learning environment for people to continually expand their ability to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models (Fullan, 1993; Horner, 1997; Marquardt, 1996; Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Mazutis and Slawinski, 2008; Mintzberg, 1998) For our study, we consider leadership to be relevant to identifying mental models that challenge organizational members with the question: ‘What values you really want to stand for?’ (Senge et al., 2000: 67) Third, organizational culture is a key factor of organizational management (Pettigrew, 1979) It is about fundamental assumptions that people share about an organization’s values, beliefs, norms, and symbols that give meaning to organizational membership and are considered guides to behaviours (Bloisi et al., 2007; Tyler and Gnyawali, 2009) Organizational culture is highly influenced by the societal culture in which it is embedded (Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Hofstede, 2001) Thus, organizations with a low power distance culture are more likely to succeed in mastering mental models than those in cultures with high power distance (Alavi and McCormick, 2004) because a culture of trust and openness that encourages inquiry and dialogue is needed to challenge assumptions (Gephart et al., 1996; Jones et al., 2005; Senge, 1990; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) Hypothesis Organizational commitment, leadership, and organizational culture are positively associated with mental models Team learning Team learning is a ‘process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its member truly desire’ (Senge, 1990: 236) It is regarded as a fundamental unit of LOs (Hitt, 1995; Senge, 1990) Despite its importance, team learning among academics remains poorly understood (Nissala, 2005: 211) However, a study on team learning have found that some universities have succeeded in creating team learning through the process of becoming LOs (Bender, 1997) The literature shows that team learning is composed of a number of factors First, team commitment is the essence of team learning (Katzenbach and Smith, 2004; Park et al., 2005) Talented individuals not necessarily form talented teams if they lack team commitment (Senge, 2006) When people are committed to team learning, they tend to set clear goals for the team and themselves (Kofman and Senge, 1993) Second, leadership inspires innovation and the creation of knowledge within team members (Kozlowski et al., 1996; Lee et al., 2010; Wageman, 2001) The most successful teams have leaders who proactively manage team learning efforts (Choi, 2009; Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Management Learning 0(0) Edmondson, 2003; Edmondson et al., 2004; Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Morgeson et al., 2010) Leaders are expected to create a learning environment in their organization (Mazutis and Slawinski, 2008) Leadership is of significance in education because it motivates educators, students, and parents to learn together (Sackney and Walker, 2006) Third, goal setting is important for evaluating the result of team learning and team performance (Mehta et al., 2009) The more educated staff are, the more participative and effective their goal setting is likely to be (Ivancevich and McMahon, 1977) Fourth, development and training related to team skills is important for successful learning (Bowen, 1998; Druskat and Kayes, 2000), and enhances team learning (Morgeson et al., 2010; Prichard et al., 2006) Development and training is a priority in HE in many countries (Brancato, 2003; Dalin, 1998; Maslen, 1992) Fifth, organizational culture determines the effectiveness of team learning and team working (Elfenbein and O’Reilly III, 2007) A LO’s culture should support and reward learning and innovation; promote inquiry, dialogue, risk-taking, and experimentation; allow mistakes to be shared and viewed as opportunities for learning; and value the well-being of all employees (Gephart et al., 1996: 39) Sixth, individual learning is at the core layer of organizational learning (Antonacopoulou, 2006; Pedler et al., 1991) In other words, organizational learning is the product of individual learning (Antonacopoulou, 2006; Argyris and Schön, 1978; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Senge, 1990; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) As a result, we hypothesized: Hypothesis Team commitment, leadership, goal setting, development and training, organizational culture, and individual learning are positively associated with team learning Shared vision Shared vision is a vision to which people throughout an organization are truly committed (Senge, 1990) It is important for bringing people together and fostering a commitment to a shared future (Dufour and Eaker, 1998; Griego et al., 2000) Shared vision should begin with a personal vision to which one is committed (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) Employees’ personal vision is a crucial ingredient in the pursuit of LOs (Senge, 1996) Personal vision relies not only on individuals but also requires the support of their organizations (Senge et al., 1994) Second, personal values also contribute a certain degree of commitment to shared visions (Eigeles, 2003; Gudz, 2004; Senge, 2006) Within any society, educators are expected be have high levels of personal values (Haydon, 1997) Third, leadership is vital in ensuring that organizational vision is shared across the organization, as leaders act as designers, stewards, and teachers (Fullan, 1993; Senge, 1990) Leaders often possess extraordinary vision and commitment to high ideals (Fullop and Linstead, 1999; Senge et al., 2000) They constantly look for new information and opportunities that can help them and others to realize their vision (Mintzberg, 1998; Schrage, 1990) In reality, however, many leaders tend to be good designers and teachers, but not good stewards (Gudz, 2004; Tsai and Beverton, 2007) Fourth, motivation is a key factor that leads employees to sharing their vision with the organization (Senge, 1990) Fifth, organizational culture is regarded as a catalyst for creating a shared vision (Reeves and Boreham, 2006) Sharing vision seems to be more effective in organizations that are embedded in a high societal collectivism and future orientation culture (Alavi and McCormick, 2004), i.e in an open, dynamic and group-oriented cultures Hypothesis Personal vision, personal values, leadership, and organizational culture are positively associated with shared vision Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Bui and Baruch Systems thinking Any attempt at creating a LO must start from systems thinking (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; Senge, 1990) This is the capacity to see deeper patterns lying beneath events and details, in the full setting of interconnecting elements (Hosley et al., 1994; Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1994) Bui and Baruch (2010b) propose some antecedents for systems thinking First, individual competence includes systems thinking which actively contributes to personal and professional success (Anderson et al., 2006; Antonacopoulou, 1996; Marquardt, 1996) People from all parts of the organization who are competent and genuinely committed to deep changes in themselves and in their organizations are considered as leaders (Senge, 1996; Spreitzer, 1995) Second, leaders need systems thinking to recognize those people who will be influenced by their decisions (Dixon et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2010) Furthermore, leaders in LOs should be ‘philosopher kings, who are willing to inquire into their own competence for kingship (Coopey, 1995) In HE, the way that universities are organized into disciplines may create the false impression that the real world is divided into fragmented parts (Vo et al., 2006) To overcome such possible pitfalls, leaders in HE benefit from the concept of systems thinking Third, organizational culture can affect systems thinking Alavi and McCormick (2004) found that organizations high in societal collectivism tend to be successful when working collectively, as their staff tend to be more inclined to effectively take part in teams for systems thinking Systems thinking was found to be applied successfully in HE (Austin, 2000; Wright, 1999) Hypothesis Competence, leadership, and organizational culture are positively associated with systems thinking Outcomes Personal mastery is believed to lead to self-efficacy and better individual performance (Bloisi et al., 2007; Senge, 1990) In addition, personal mastery can create a balanced work and home life (Baruch, 2004; Doherty and Manfredi, 2006; Johnson, 2006) When mental models and team learning are developed and learnt throughout the organization, one of the outcomes is a higher level of knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (An and Reigeluth, 2005; Argyris, 1999; Senge, 2006; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) Developing appropriate mental models and team learning generates more knowledge and can consequently lead to improving job performance (Chan et al., 2003; Davenport et al., 1998; Inkpen, 2000; Pedler et al., 1991) Fullan (2004) also stresses the importance of systems thinking in organizational strategic planning To generate impact, strategy should be backed by passion and vision from the people who create and implement it (Domm, 2001: 46) Without systems thinking, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to develop a strategy that fits the organization As a result, we hypothesize: Hypothesis The five disciplines are positively associated with individual performance, knowledge sharing, self-efficacy, work-life balance, and strategic planning We combine hypotheses through to test the following hypothesis: Hypothesis The five disciplines mediate the relationship between the antecedents and outcomes Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Management Learning 0(0) Cultural differences Cultural differences may have a dramatic impact on management (Fadil et al., 2005; Hofstede, 1980, 1984; Schwarz, 1992; Sun et al., 2004) Because our study was conducted within an international context, cultural differences were considered to be a major factor Based on Hofstede’s study (1984, 1993, 2001), the UK scored very highly in individualism and masculinity Individuals realize their potential in what they do, i.e they often have intrinsic motivation for their work People put priority on the task (Hofstede, 1993, 2001) In the UK, a low power distance culture, educators encourage independence in students, encouraging them to challenge themselves, each other, and even their teachers (Hofstede, 1984) In contrast, Vietnam is a collectivist culture (Grinter, 2006; Smith and Pham, 1996) In collectivist cultures, people place greater emphasis on relationships (Hofstede, 1984; Smith and Pham, 1996) This is particularly true in education where students try to avoid arguments or expressing different viewpoints to their teachers’ In addition to these cultural differences, the two countries are also different in infrastructure One country is a developed nation whilst the other is developing This may affect the process of becoming learning organizations in the two countries Therefore we hypothesize: Hypothesis The components of the learning organization model in the UK are expected to have higher values/scores than in Vietnam Methods Sample and data collection The two selected organizations were established universities in Vietnam and the UK Pilot tests were conducted before the main data collection to ensure that the questionnaires would function similarly in two different countries An initial pilot study was conducted with a sample of 40 participants (25 in the UK and 15 in Vietnam) The pilot study confirmed the clarity and relevance of the questionnaire, and preliminary analysis conducted in both countries to assess internal reliability generated positive outcomes These and the respondents’ feedback suggested there was no need for significant changes to the final questionnaires, except for some re-wordings The questionnaires were presented in English and Vietnamese In order to prevent any methodological problems that may stem from the translation of the questionnaires (Sperber et al., 1994) a combination of three questionnaire translation techniques was employed including back-translation, committee approach, and pre-test procedure (Brislin, 1976; Hofstede, 1980; Sperber et al., 1994) Stratified sampling was used to ensure representativeness (Wiersma and Jurs, 2005), and to decrease bias in the data, as it eliminated subjectivity in choosing a sample (Fink, 1995) The population was divided into subgroups of academics (i.e those who were employed for teaching, research, or both) and non-academics A number of schools/departments were selected at random within the UK university, including the School of Environment and Earth Science, the School of Computing and Technology, the School of Mathematics, the School of Business, the School of Education, the School of Language and Literature, the School of History, and the Registry Office (including its managing board, administrators and assisted staff) After that, questionnaires were sent to academic and non-academic staff of all levels in those schools The equivalent process was conducted in the Vietnamese university, after identifying schools that matched those sampled in the UK university Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Bui and Baruch The staff population in each university was approximately 3200 people A total of 1391 questionnaires were distributed in person, 711 in Vietnam and 680 in the UK based on strata that we determined above Participation was anonymous and voluntary Respondents could either return the completed questionnaires via the stamped envelope or make appointments for the researchers to collect them later As 96 employees in both universities (61 in Vietnam and 35 in the UK) were away on study, maternity, or sabbatical leave; 1285 employees (640 in Vietnam and 645 in the UK) actually received the questionnaires After systematically screening for missing data, 687 completed questionnaires (341 in Vietnam and 346 in the UK) were used for analyses This represents an effective response rate of 53.5%, which is above the norm in social sciences (Baruch and Holtom, 2008; Neuman, 2000; Roth and BeVier, 1998) Most of the respondents were highly educated with 308 (44.8%) PhD holders, 141 (20.5) Masters degree holders, and 146 (21.3%) Bachelor degree holders A total of 315 (45.9%) respondents had worked in their organizations for five years or less, and 362 (52.7%) respondents had worked there for more than five years 446 respondents (64.9%) were academics, while 241 respondents (35.1%) were non-academics Measures Participants responded to the items listed below using an ordinal scale ranging from to 7, with represents ‘disagree strongly’ to represents ‘agree strongly’, or ‘not at all important’ to ‘extremely important’ The choice of the measures employed was based on academic criteria, namely the relevance and suitability of items to our literature review and model development We opted for existing and already validated scales which had been frequently utilized in earlier studies Personal values Five out of nine items were taken from Kahle (1983) They were self-respect, security, warm relationships with others, and sense of accomplishment The Cronbach alpha was 72 Competence A three-item scale of competence was employed from Spreitzer (1995) A sample item is ‘I am confident in my ability to my job’ The Cronbach alpha was 85 Development and training Though development and training has been studied in a number of research studies (Forssen and Haho, 2001; Noe, 2002), no suitable construct of development and training was found Therefore, a four-item scale was created to measure development and training in organizations These items comprised ‘This University encourages staff to develop team-working skills’, ‘This University encourages staff to identify skills they need to adapt to changes’, ‘I was mentored when I first took up the job here’, and ‘I receive the training I need to perform my current job effectively’ The Cronbach alpha was 78 Team commitment Four items of team commitment were adopted from West (2004) ‘In my work, I lead myself by the goals of my team’ is a sample item The Cronbach alpha was 85 Goal setting Three items of goal setting for teams were adopted from Ivancevich and McMahon (1977) ‘The goals assigned to our team members are equitable and can be accepted’ is a sample item The Cronbach alpha was 89 Motivation A four-item scale from Siebold (1994) was employed to measure motivation A sample item of motivation is ‘I am very personally involved in my work’ The Cronbach alpha was 76 Individual learning This is a four-item measure Two items were taken from Baruch and Peiperl (2000) One of them was ‘My own learning and development at work are essential to me’ Another item was borrowed from Kanfer and Ackerman (2000) ‘I prefer activities that Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Teaching performance Research performance Knowledge sharing Self-efficacy Work-life balance Strategic planning Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Note: n = 687; *p < 05; **p < 01 .021 113 -.062 -.014 3.008 105 024 1.095 2.051 -.002 324** -.054 128 3.029* 030 -.001 116* 034 -.080 130* 100 -.091 3.501** 088 058 3.701* 1.861 -.011 099* 021 070 33.502** 205 -.408** 630** 160* -.226** 092 123 074 14.284** 1.867 229 008 024 2.395* 1.966 -.429** -.041 563** 016 162* -.009 128 -.073 021 015 -.170** 164** 405** 106* 38.196** 4.577* 327 020 310 59.495** 1.855 -.023 -.033 -.002 050 -.057 049 -.010 -.117* 249** 130** 074 20.082** 3.786 197 017 177 28.805** 1.878 -.058 003 012 049 172** 096* 124* 082 34.394** 2.941* 290 023 273 50.309** 1.926 -.040 004 047 -.222 -.011 002 166** 462** -.029 206** 058 40.267** 471 447 61.215** 1.612 017 -.148 -.011 236** Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Qualifications -.021 Tenure 334** Job roles -.059 Personal mastery Mental models Team learning Shared vision Systems thinking Model F 6.181 R2 081 R2change Fchange Durbin-Watson   Administration performance Table 4.  Prediction of the outcomes 16 Management Learning 0(0) Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 Strategic planning Work-life balance Strategic planning Work-life balance 1.641 008 -.040 023 -.006 166** 051 001 1.738 277** 11.239** 20.823** 3.113* 080 185 025 073 105 25.449** 41.271** 210** 083* 005 -.227* 006 028 -.057 -.271** 052 001 -.011 128* 021 624** -.008 046 -.009 018 011 535** 199** 094* -.013 003 011 -.216 -.008 003 1.658 1.944 8.897** 24.745** 4.048* 52.617** 49.889** 2.721* 129 335 018 326 380 022 104 227 308 054 14.338** 63.105** 99.364** 28.438** 282* 002 -.026 -.105 345** 069 429** 360** 027 -.225* 000 62.365** 465 443 148.494** 1.667 241** -.029 183* 47.584** 3.596* 517 016 052 12.747** 033 019 -.053 -.077 -.058 049 -.013 -.012 -.012 664** 497** 202** 101* 1.891 -.039 -.034 105* 106* -.018 -.024 378** 280** 160** 090*           123* 140*   45.152** 36.321** 259 283 243 024 105.738** 10.811** Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Note: n = 687; *p < 05; **p < 01 Durbin-Watson Qualifications Tenure Job role Org culture Leadership Personal vision Personal values Motivation Personal mastery Shared vision Mental models Team learning Systems thinking Model F R2 R2change Fchange   Knowledge sharing Table 5.  Prediction of the mediating relationships of the five disciplines Bui and Baruch 17 18 Management Learning 0(0) For the third mediating relationship, personal vision (β = 018) became non-significant and the β values of personal values and motivation reduced from 021 to 0.11 and from 624 to 535 respectively when personal mastery and shared vision were included in the equation This indicated that personal mastery and shared vision partially mediated the relationship between the antecedents (personal vision, personal values, motivation) and work-life balance For the fourth mediating relationship, the β values of organizational culture and leadership remained significant, but decreased from 664 to 497, and from 202 to 101 correspondingly, while mental models and systems thinking were significant in the equation This indicated that mental models and systems thinking partially mediated the relationship between the antecedents (organizational culture, leadership) and strategic planning For the final mediating relationship, the β values of organizational culture and leadership decreased from 378 to 280, and from 160 to 090 correspondingly yet remained significant while team learning and systems thinking were significant in the equation This indicated that team learning and systems thinking partially mediated the relationship between the antecedents (organizational culture, leadership) and work-life balance The results showed that the five disciplines either fully or partially mediated the relationships between the antecedents and the outcomes Thus, Hypothesis was partially supported Comparative analysis Table presents the independent sample t-test results of the comparison between the two universities The UK university had lower scores in most of the components, as compared to the Vietnamese university The only exception to this was individual performance, which included administration performance (mean difference = -.372, p = 049), and research performance (mean difference = -.594, p = 003) These results not lend support to Hypothesis 8, in which we posited that UK values would be higher than Vietnam values Discussion and conclusions The current study provides a conceptual framework and an exploratory analysis for Senge’s (1990) LO model within the two organizations (universities), one in the UK and the other in Vietnam An intriguing finding of our study was that most of the components of the LO model in the Vietnam university had higher score evaluations compared with the UK university We believe that the source of these differences is based on culture As discussed in the literature review, the British are generally more individualistic, while the Vietnamese tend to be collectivistic In Vietnamese organizations, people try to encourage harmony among members and protect the image of their organizations/communities (Thêm, 1999; Vượng, 2001), whereas the university in the UK is located in an individualistic culture, in which people tend to have strong individual autonomy (Hofstede, 1993, 2001), especially in academia (Dearlove, 2002; Woodfield and Kennie, 2008) This behavior may lead to the findings in this study Another possible explanation can be based on the results of an annual global research called ‘Planet Happy Index’, Vietnam ranks number while the UK ranks 74 out of 143 countries on the list (Abdallah et al., 2009) This indicator suggests that Vietnamese people are more likely to feel satisfied than their British counterparts Second, all the suggested antecedents were significantly positively associated with mental models and systems thinking Specifically, organizational commitment, an open and dynamic organizational culture, and positive leadership are positively associated with mental models; and competence, leadership, and organizational culture are positively associated with systems thinking Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 19 Bui and Baruch Table 6.  Comparison between the two universities Variables Uni n Mean T-test for equality of means   Admin performance   Teaching performance   Research performance   Development and training   Leadership   Personal vision   Goal setting   Team commitment   Self-efficacy   Competence   Knowledge sharing   Individual learning   Organizational commitment   Work-life balance   Motivation   Organizational culture   Personal values   Personal mastery   Team learning   Shared vision   Mental models   t VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK VN UK 80 137 177 128 210 197 341 346 341 344 339 346 334 340 335 342 339 346 339 346 339 346 340 345 340 345 340 345 340 345 337 340 339 346 340 346 338 346 338 346 337 346 4.56 4.93 5.41 5.45 3.39 3.98 5.315 4.145 5.134 4.773 5.931 5.410 5.334 4.748 6.060 5.485 5.556 5.515 5.850 5.792 5.904 4.972 6.297 5.659 5.632 4.454 5.467 4.838 5.915 5.601 4.885 4.101 6.139 6.083 5.216 4.254 4.709 4.707 5.381 3.965 4.907 4.394 df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Std error difference difference -1.983 137.976 049 -.354 -.372 303 724 -.033 -2.989 405 003 -.594 12.291 685 000 1.169 3.638 668.424 000 362 6.573 674.179 000 520 5.621 672 000 586 7.339 675 000 576 547 683 584 041 799 683 424 058 10.961 683 000 932 000 638 12.314 668.329 000 1.178 9.292 683 7.071 683 000 628 4.467 683 000 314 8.698 637.158 000 785 976 672.882 329 056 000 963 023 667.584 982 002 15.758 673.816 000 1.416 5.391 664.171 000 513 11.594 684 188   093   199   095   099   079   104   078   075   073   085   069   096   089   071   090   057   083   084   090   095   (Continued) Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 20 Management Learning 0(0) Table 6. (Continued) Variables Uni n Mean T-test for equality of means   t Systems thinking   Strategic planning VN UK VN 336 346 266 4.315 3.655 5.033   UK 119 3.681 df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Std error difference difference 7.068 680 000 660 9.278 383 000 1.351 093   146   These findings confirm conceptual models that have been offered in the literature (Bui and Baruch, 2010a, 2010b; Kofman and Senge, 1993) Third, personal vision, motivation, and personal values were positively associated with personal mastery Team commitment, goal setting, organizational culture, and leadership were positively associated with team learning Personal vision, personal values, motivation, and organizational culture were positively associated with shared vision Fourth, development and training was positively associated with personal mastery, but not with team learning, while individual learning was positively associated with team learning, but not with personal mastery These findings contrast with Prichard et al.’s (2006) argument that development and training enhance team learning, at least in HE There are a number of reasons for this, including stressful, top-down evaluated, and/or insufficiently taught skill and knowledge training programmes (Elkjaer, 2001) As Dodgson (1993), Senge (1990) and Watkins and Marsick (1993) suggest, individual learning is the primary learning enabling learning organizations Fifth, leadership was not positively associated with shared vision This finding suggests that shared vision in HE must not only be created from the top down, but it should come also from the bottom up and lateral directions This fits with the findings of Gudz (2004) and Tsai and Beverton (2007), who argue that leaders not tend to be good stewards in supporting shared vision Sixth, team learning, shared vision, systems thinking, and personal mastery tend to have positive impacts on self-efficacy, work-life balance, knowledge sharing, and strategic planning (Bui and Baruch, 2010b) Team learning was positively associated with teaching performance, which is in line with research in HE (Pil and Leana, 2009) This finding seems to be in line with the current increasingly demanding requirements for high quality teaching in HE (Antonacopoulou, 2010) Seventh, and surprisingly, mental models were negatively associated with research performance, knowledge sharing, and self-efficacy Given the fact that knowledge sharing has been under-researched, especially at the micro level (Foss et al., 2010), our research provides an insight into this area It highlights a matter in HE policy, which is particularly relevant to countries that are aiming to improve research performance and knowledge sharing, and which use national evaluation projects for this purpose For example, the UK Research Exercise Assessment (REA) discourages collaboration in research and knowledge sharing among colleagues within the same institution, by employing a policy whereby co-authors can claim credit for the same paper as long as they represent different institutions This means that academics may seek information and knowledge outside but may not be willing to seek or share from inside their institution This may partly explain why mental models are not often shared within universities, and why changing mental models is a real challenge in the education sector (Bell and Harrison, 1998; O’Neil, 1995) There must be a revolution in HE to change the current mental models This finding also implies that there is a long journey ahead for HE institutions, as they strive to become LOs Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 21 Bui and Baruch Finally, on one hand, teaching and research performance were obviously the strengths of the UK university, as compared to its counterpart in Vietnam That explains why the UK is one of the largest providers of HE to Vietnam On the other hand, the employees in the Vietnam university tend to have a better work-life balance than their British counterparts This is not unexpected, given previous study that finds that collectivist employees have a better work-life balance than their individualist counterparts (Powell et al., 2009) Theoretical implications This study has shed light on the empirical exploration possibilities of Senge’s LO theory We anticipate that this study will draw more academic attention to the critical theory of LO Below are some key theoretical implications for this research area First, our study has contributed to the development of LO theory by providing a strong validation to Senge’s framework of LO, with sets of antecedents and outcomes in a HE context This study has met the challenge presented by jeopardized wide-scale LO development (Smith and Tosey, 1999) and answered the shortage of empirical investigations of LO interventions (Nair, 2001) We identified three antecedents for mental models and systems thinking; four for personal mastery and shared vision; and five for team learning These findings once more illustrate the critical role of human resource management in the process of organizational learning (Lopez et al., 2006) Second, systems thinking has a positive impact on the process of knowledge sharing, while personal mastery and mental models appear to improve the process of strategic planning of organizations and the pursuance of work-life balance Team learning and shared vision can promote organizational knowledge sharing, as well as an individual’s selfefficacy and a better work-life balance Shared vision also advances organizational strategic planning, while team learning can help academics to teach better Third, mental models tend to have a negative impact on research performance, self-efficacy, and knowledge sharing in HE This finding challenges previous studies (see An and Reigeluth, 2005; Davenport et al., 1998; Inkpen, 2000) Therefore, this framework needs testing in other sectors in order to confirm or re-examine the role of mental models in LOs Fourth, this research has contributed to the under-researched area of knowledge sharing by examining the micro level of knowledge sharing amongst individuals within organizations (Foss et al., 2010) The findings show that team learning, shared vision, and systems thinking have positive impacts on knowledge sharing, whilst mental models have negative impacts on it Fifth, a dynamic, interactive, proactive, group-oriented, and accommodating culture is an important factor affecting the process of becoming a LO This shows a fitness of organizational culture with the contemporary labour markets (Baruch and Peiperl, 2000) In contrast, a stable, bureaucratic, reactive, individual oriented, and aggressive culture is more likely to hinder this process Finally, employees in the Vietnam university being embedded in a collectivist culture appear to be more committed to their organizations than their counterparts in the UK, in an individualist culture The societal cultures reflect in organizational culture (House et al., 2004) Managerial implications Apart from the theoretical implications mentioned above, this research has a number of relevant findings for HE managers First, HE recruiters should be aware that employees who come from collectivistic cultures often have a more positive attitude towards their organizations, as well as toward the process of creating LOs in comparison to those who come from individualistic cultures Conversely, those coming from individualistic cultures tend to perform better, in teaching and research in our study This is one of the benefits of diversity The findings related to leadership Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 22 Management Learning 0(0) differences between the two cultures in this study also confirms the importance of top management teams with international diversification (Tihanyi et al., 2000) Second, team learning is not likely to gain as much benefit from development and training as individual learning This contradicts the major tenet of literature about team learning and development and training (Morgeson et al., 2010; Prichard et al., 2006) However, development and training tend to promote personal mastery Therefore, HE managers should revisit the aims and targets of development and training if they are committed to becoming LOs Third, as mentioned clearly in Senge (1990), organizational vision does not only come from the top; it must come from individuals at all levels across the organization The role of employees in forming a shared vision should be as important as the leader’s role in that task Creating an open, accommodating, and dynamic organizational culture is likely to promote a shared vision for the organization Finally, becoming a LO tends to benefit the employees of academic institutions in terms of improving their wellbeing through a better balance between work and life This can be considered as an additional bonus for institutions striving to become LOs Limitations and future research Like any study, there are limitations to our findings First, team performance can be one of the outcomes of team learning (Chan et al., 2003; Senge, 1990) However, team performance is not merely an outcome of the internal functioning of teams (Ancona, 1990; Joshi and Roh, 2009) Employees in HE institutions may belong to an internal team(s), an external team(s), both internal and external teams, mixed teams, or to no team at all This may partially explain why team performance was not a significant outcome of the LO model Second, organizational performance can be another outcome of systems thinking (Fullan, 2004; Senge, 1990; Wright, 1999) As our study was based on only two universities, it is difficult to generalize organizational performance as one of the outcomes of the LO model In order to measure organizational performance, more cases are needed Third, though a large dataset was drawn from large and well-established institutions in the UK and Vietnam, covering only two institutions limits the generalizability of the findings beyond this specific research context Thus, the findings have to be interpreted with caution To improve the generalizability of this study, further studies should be conducted in more countries and across more industry sectors These limitations can be addressed in future research The newly developed LO model we offer can be applied and tested in other universities and in other sectors This may lend further support to the validity of our model Acknowledgement We would like to thank Professor Eugene Sadler-Smith, Mark Ridolfo, and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback and comments Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors References Abdallah S, Thompson S, Michaelson J et al (2009) The Unhappy Planet Index 2.0 London: New Economics Foundation Alavi SB and McCormick J (2004) A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of the learning organization model in school contexts International Journal of Educational Management 18(7): 408–416 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 23 Bui and Baruch Altbach PG and Selvaratnam V (1989) From Dependence to Autonomy: The Development of Asian Universities Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Amidon SR (2005) Writing the learning organization Business Communication Quarterly 68(4): 406–428 An Y-Y and Reigeluth CM (2005) A study of organizational learning at Smalltown hospital Performance Improvement 44(10): 34–39 Ancona DG (1990) Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization Academy of Management Journal 33(2): 334–365 Anderson DF, Bryson JM, Richardson GP et al (2006) Integrating modes of systems thinking into strategic planning and practice: Thinking persons institute approach Journal of Public Affairs Education 12(3): 265–294 Antonacopoulou E (1996) Reframing competency in management development Human Resource Management Journal 6(1): 27–48 Antonacopoulou E (2000a) Employee development through self-development in three retail banks Personnel Review 29(4): 491–508 Antonacopoulou E (2000b) Reconnecting education, development and training through learning: A holographic perspective Education + Training 42(4/5): 255–263 Antonacopoulou E (2006) The relationship between individual and organizational learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices Management Learning 4(37): 455–473 Antonacopoulou E (2010) Making the business school more ‘critical’: Reflexive critique based on phronesis as a foundation for impact British Journal of Management 21(S1): s6–s25 Appelbaum SH and Goransson L (1997) Transformational and adaptive learning within the learning organization: A framework for research and application Learning Organization 4(3): 115–128 Argyris C (1999) On Organizational Learning Oxford: Blackwell Argyris C and Schön DA (1978) Organizational Learning London: Addison-Wesley Argyris C and Schön DA (1996) Organizational Learning II Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Austin WJ (2000) A Hierarchical Systems Thinking Approach to the Development of Individual Planning and Evaluation to Synergize Strategic Planning in Higher Education Practice Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southeastern University Barker P, van Schaik P and Hudson S (1998) Mental models and lifelong learning Innovations in Education and Training International 35(4): 310–318 Baron KE and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182 Baruch Y (1996) Self-performance appraisal vs direct manager appraisal: A case of congruency Journal of Managerial Psychology 11(6): 50–65 Baruch Y (2004) Managing Careers Essex: Prentice Hall Baruch Y and Hall DT (2004) The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors? Journal of Vocational Behavior 64(4): 241–262 Baruch Y and Holtom B (2008) Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research Human Relations 61(8): 1139–1160 Baruch Y and Peiperl MA (2000) Career management practices: An empirical survey and theoretical implications Human Resource Management 39(4): 347–366 Baruch Y, Budhwar P and Khatri N (2007) Brain drain: Inclination to stay abroad after studies Journal of World Business 42(1): 99–112 Bell J and Harrison BT (1998) Leading People: Learning from People Buckingham: Open University Press Bender LJ (1997) Team organization–learning organization: The University of Arizona four years into it Information Outlook 1(9): 19–22 Bierema LL (1999) The process of the learning organization: Making sense of change National Association of Secondary School Principals 83(406): 46–57 Birdthistle N (2008) Family SMEs in Ireland as learning organizations Learning Organization 15(5): 421–436 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 24 Management Learning 0(0) Blackman D and Henderson S (2005) Why learning organizations not transform Learning Organization 12(1): 42–56 Blackmore P and Castley A (2005) Developing Capability in the University Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, ILRT Available at: http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/networks/theme1executivebriefing.pdf (accessed 15 November 2011) Bloisi W, Cook CW and Hunsaker PL (2007) Management and Organizational Behavior Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education Bock G-W, Zmud RW, Kim Y-G et al (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate MIS Quarterly 29(1): 87–111 Bokeno RM and Gantt VW (2000) Dialogic mentoring Management Communication Quarterly 14(2): 237–260 Bowen DD (1998) Team frames: The multiple realities of the team Journal of Management Education 22(1): 95–103 Brancato VC (2003) Professional development in higher education New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 98(Summer): 59–65 Brislin RW (1976) Translation Applications and Research New York: Gouldner Press Bryan L and Joyce CI (2007) Better strategy through organizational design McKinsey Quarterly 2: 20–29 Bui HTM and Baruch Y (2010a) Creating learning organizations in higher education: Applying a systems perspective Learning Organization 17(3): 228–242 Bui HTM and Baruch Y (2010b) Creating learning organizations: A systems perspective Learning Organization 17(3): 208–227 Byrne B (2001) Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Campbell DT and Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix Psychological Bulletin 56(2): 81–105 Carr SC, Inkson K and Thorn K (2005) From global careers to talent flow: Reinterpreting ‘brain drain’ Journal of World Business 40(4): 386–398 Carrington WJ and Detragiache E (1999) International migration and the ‘brain drain’ Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies 24(2): 163–171 Chan CCA, Lim L and Keasberry SK (2003) Examining the linkage between team learning behavior and team performance Learning Organization 10(4/5): 228–236 Choi JN (2009) Collective dynamics of citizenship behaviour: What group characteristics promote grouplevel helping? Journal of Management Studies 46(8): 1396–1420 Church AH (2002) From both sides now: Organizational learning city Available at: http://www.siop.org/tip/ backissues/tipoct97/CHURCH~1.aspx (accessed 15 November 2011) Cole DA (1987) Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in testing validation research Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55(4): 584–594 Coopey J (1995) The learning organization, power, politics and ideology Management Learning 26(2): 193–213 Corbett AC (2005) Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploitation Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 29(4): 473–491 Dalin P (1998) School Development Theories and Strategies London: Cassell Davenport D, Long D and Beers M (1998) Successful knowledge management projects Sloan Management Review 39(2): 43–57 Davies D (1998) The virtual university: A learning university Journal of Workplace Learning 10(4): 175–213 Dearlove J (2002) A continuing role for academics: The governance of UK universities in the post-Dearing era Higher Education Quarterly 56(3): 257–275 Deci AL (1975) Intrinsic Motivation New York: Plenum Press Dimmock C and Walker A (2000) Developing comparative school leadership and management: A crosscultural approach School Leadership and Management 20(2): 143–160 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 25 Bui and Baruch Dixon SEA, Meyer KE and Day M (2010) Stages of organizational transformation in transition economies: A dynamic capabilities approach Journal of Management Studies 47(3): 417–436 Dodgson M (1993) Organizational learning: A review of some literatures Organization Studies 14(3): 375–394 Doherty L and Manfredi S (2006) Action research to develop work–life balance in a UK university Women in Management Review 21(3): 241–259 Domm DR (2001) Strategic vision: Sustaining employee commitment Business Strategy Review 12(4): 39–48 Druskat VU and Kayes DC (2000) Learning versus performance in short-term project teams Small Group Research 31(3): 328–353 Dufour R and Eaker R (1998) Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service Duke C (1992) The Learning University: Towards a New Paradigm? Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press Dye R and Sibony O (2007) How to improve strategic planning McKinsey Quarterly 3: 40–49 Easterby-Smith M (1997) Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and critiques Human Relations 50(9): 1085–2013 Easterby-Smith M, Crossan M and Nicolini D (2000) Organizational learning: Debates past, present and future Journal of Management Studies 37(6): 783–796 Edmondson A (2003) Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams Journal of Management Studies 40(6): 1419–1452 Edmondson A and Moingeon B (1998) From organizational learning to the learning organization Management Learning 29(1): 5–20 Edmondson A, Bohmer R and Pisano G (2004) Speeding up team learning In: Harvard Business Review in Teams that Succeed Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 77–98 Eigeles D (2003) Facilitating shared vision in the organization Journal of European Industrial Training 27(5): 208–219 Eijnatten FM and Putnik GD (2004) Chaos, complexity, learning, and the learning organization toward a chaordic enterprise Learning Organization 11(6): 418–429 Elfenbein HA and O’Reilly III CA (2007) Fitting in: The effects of relational demography and person-culture fit on group process and performance Group & Organization Management 32(1): 109–142 Elkjaer B (2001) The learning organization: An undelivered promise Management Learning 32(4): 437–452 Ellinger AD and Bostrom RP (2002) An examination of managers’ beliefs about their roles as facilitators of learning Management Learning 33(2): 147–179 Fadil PA, Williams RJ, Limpaphayom W et al (2005) Equity or equality? Conceptual examination of the influence of individualism/collectivism on the cross-cultural application of equity theory Cross Cultural Management 12(4): 17–35 Field A (2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS London: Sage Fink A (1995) How to Sample in Surveys London: Sage Fiol AM and Lyles MA (1985) Organizational learning Academy of Management Review 10(4): 803–813 Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Forssen M and Haho P (2001) Participative development and training for business processes in industry: Review of 88 simulation games International Journal of Technology Management 22(1–3): 233–262 Foss NJ, Husted K and Michailova S (2010) Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanism, and research directions Journal of Management Studies 47(3): 456–482 Franklin P, Hodgkinson M and Stewart J (1998) Towards universities as learning organizations Learning Organization 5(5): 228–238 Fullan M (1993) Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform London: Falmer Fullan M (2004) Systems Thinkers in Action: Moving Beyond the Standards Plateau Nottingham: DfES Fullop L and Linstead S (1999) Management: A Critical Text London: Macmillan Gallie D, Felstead A and Green F (2001) Employer policy and organizational commitment in Britain 1992–97 Journal of Management Studies 38(8): 1081–1101 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 26 Management Learning 0(0) Garvin DA, Edmonson AC and Gino F (2008) Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review 86(3): 109–116 Gephart MA, Marsick VJ, Van Buren ME et al (1996) Learning organizations come alive Training & Development 50(12): 34–45 Gong Y, Huang J-C and Farh J-L (2009) Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy Academy of Management Journal 52(4): 765–778 Griego OV, Geroy GD and Wright PC (2000) Predictors of learning organizations: A human resource development practitioner’s perspective Learning Organization 7(1): 5–12 Grinter LE (2006) Vietnam’s thrust into globalization: Doimoi’s long road Asian Affairs: An American Review 33(3): 151–165 Gudz NA (2004) Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of British Columbia International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 5(2): 156–168 Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ et al (2006) Multivariate Dada Analysis Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Harrison R (1993) Human Resource Management: Issues & Strategies Wokingham: Addison-Wesley Harvey C and Denton J (1999) To come of age: The antecedents of organizational learning Journal of Management Studies 36(7): 897–918 Haydon G (1997) Teaching About Values: A New Approach London: Cassell Hayman J (2005) Psychometric assessment of an instrument designed to measure work life balance Research and Practice in Human Resource Management 13(1): 85–91 Hitt WD (1995) The learning organization: Some reflections on organizational renewal Leadership & Organization Development Journal 16(8): 17–25 Hodgkinson M (2000) Managerial perceptions of barriers to becoming a ‘learning organization’ Learning Organization 7(3): 156–166 Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s Consequences Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Hofstede G (1984) Cultural dimensions in management and planning Asian Pacific Journal of Management 1(January): 81–99 Hofstede G (1993) Cultural constraints in management theories Executive 7(1): 81–93 Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s Consequences Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Homer P and Kahle LR (1988) A structural equation analysis of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(April): 638–646 Horner M (1997) Leadership theory: Past, present and future Team Performance Management 3(4): 270–287 Hosley SM, Lau ATW, Levy FK et al (1994) The quest for the competitive learning organization Management Division 32(6): 5–15 House RJ, Hanges PJ, Javidan M et al (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies London: Sage Hu L and Bentler P (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives Structural Equation Modelling 6: 1–55 Inkpen A (2000) Learning through joint ventures: A framework of knowledge acquisition Journal of Management Studies 37(7): 1019–1043 Ivancevich JM and McMahon JT (1977) Education as a moderator of goal setting effectiveness Journal of Vocational Behavior 11(1): 83–94 Iverson RD and Buttigieg DM (1999) Affective, normative, and continuance commitment: Can the right kind of commitment be managed Journal of Management Studies 36(3): 306–333 Jackson B (2000) A fantasy theme analysis of Peter Senge’s learning organization Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(2): 193–209 Johnson V (2006) A journey to personal mastery Dissertation, Royal Roads University, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Jones RA, Jimmieson NL and Griffiths A (2005) The impact of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for change Journal of Management Studies 42(2): 361–386 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 27 Bui and Baruch Joshi A and Roh H (2009) The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review Academy of Management Journal 52(3): 599–627 Kahle LR (1983) Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America New York: Praeger Kanfer R and Ackerman P (2000) Individual differences in work motivation: Further explorations of a trait framework Applied Psychology: An International Review 49(3): 470–482 Katzenbach JR and Smith DK (2004) The discipline of team In: Harvard Business Review on Teams that Succeed Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 1–26 Kiedrowski F (2006) Quantitative assessment of a Senge learning organization intervention Learning Organization 13(4): 369–383 Klein KJ and Kozlowski SWJ (2000) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions New York: John Wiley Knight P, Tait J and Yorke M (2006) The professional learning of teachers in higher education Studies in Higher Education 31(3): 319–339 Kofman F and Senge PM (1993) Communities of commitment: The heart of the learning organization Organizational Dynamics 22(2): 4–23 Kozlowski SWJ, Gully SM, MacHugh PP et al (1996) A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles In: Ferris GR (ed.) Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 253–305 Kumar S, Ressler T and Ahrens M (2005) Systems thinking, a consilience of values and logic Human Systems Management 24(4): 259–274 Lee P, Gillespie N, Mann L et al (2010) Leadership and trust: Their effect on knowledge sharing and team performance Management Learning 41(4): 473–491 Lopez SP, Peon JMM and Ordas CJV (2006) Human resource management as a determining factor in organizational learning Management Learning 37(2): 215–239 McGill ME, Slocum JW and Lei D (1992) Management practices in learning organizations Organizational Dynamics 21(1): 5–17 Marginson S (2007) Globalization, the ‘idea of a university’ and its ethical regimes Higher Education Management and Policy 19(1): 1–15 Marquardt MJ (1996) Building the Learning Organization New York: McGraw-Hill Marsick VJ and Watkins KE (2003) Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire Developing Human Resources 5(2): 132–151 Maslen G (1992) Renewed focus on job training expected as Australia battles recession Chronicle of Higher Education 38(22): A41–A42 Maslow AH (1970) Motivation and Personality New York: Harper & Row Mazutis D and Slawinski N (2008) Leading organizational learning through authentic dialogue Management Learning 39(4): 437–456 Mehta A, Feild H, Armenakis A et al (2009) Team goal orientation and team performance: The mediating role of team planning Journal of Management 35(4): 1026–1046 Meyer JP and Allen NJ (1991) A three components conceptualization of organizational commitment Human Resource Management Review 1(1): 61–89 Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Herscovitch L et al (2002) Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences Journal of Vocational Behavior 61(1): 20–52 Mintzberg H (1998) Covert leadership: View on managing professionals Harvard Business Review 76(6): 140–147 Miron E, Erez M and Naveh E (2004) Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency complete or complement each other Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(2): 174–199 Morgeson FP, DeRue DS and Karam E (2010) Leadership in team: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes Journal of Management 36(1): 5–39 Mowday RT, Steers RM and Porter LW (1979) The measurement of organizational commitment Journal of Vocational Behavior 14(2): 224–247 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 28 Management Learning 0(0) Nair KU (2001) Adaptation to creation: Progress of organizational learning and increasing complexity of learning systems Systems Research and Behavioral Science 18(6): 505–521 Neuman WL (2000) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Ng PT (2004) The learning organization and the innovative organization Human Systems Management 23(2): 93–100 Nightingale E (1990) Lead the Field Niles, IL: Nightingale-Conant Corporation Nissala S-P (2005) Individual and collective reflection: How to meet the needs of development in teaching European Journal of Teacher Education 28(2): 209–219 Noe RA (2002) Employee Training and Development Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Nyhan B, Cressey P, Tomassini M et al (2004) European perspectives on the learning organization Journal of European Industrial Training 28(1): 67–92 O’Connor J and McDermott I (1997) The Art of Systems Thinking London: Thorsons O’Neil J (1995) On schools as learning organizations: A conversation with Peter Senge Educational Leadership 52(7): 20–27 Park S, Henkin AB and Egley R (2005) Teacher team commitment, teamwork and trust: Exploring associations Journal of Educational Administration 43(5): 462–479 Patterson G (1999) The learning university Learning Organization 6(1): 9–17 Pedler M, Burgoyne J and Boydell T (1991) The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development London: McGraw-Hill Pettigrew AM (1979) On studying organizational culture Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 570–581 Pil FK and Leana C (2009) Applying organizational research to public school reform: The effects of teacher human and social capital on student performance Academy of Management Journal 52(6): 1101–1124 Podsakoff PM and Organ DW (1986) Self-report in organizational research: Problems and prospects Journal of Management 12(4): 531–544 Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Lee J-Y et al (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommendation remedies Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903 Powell GN, Francesco AM and Ling Y (2009) Toward culture-sensitive theories of the work-family interface Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(5): 597–616 Prichard JS, Stratford RJ and Bizo LA (2006) Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning Learning and Instruction 16(3): 256–265 Reed HA (2001) Ukrop’s as a learning organization: Senge’s five disciplines realized in a medium-sized company Thesis, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA Reeves J and Boreham N (2006) What’s in a vision? Introducing an organizational learning strategy in a local authority’s education service Oxford Review of Education 32(4): 467–486 Resnick LB and Hall MW (1998) Learning organizations as sustainable education reform Daedalus 127: 89–118 Riketta M (2002) Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: Metal analysis Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(3): 257–266 Rindova VP, Williamson IO, Petkova AP et al (2005) Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents and consequences of organizational reputation Academy of Management Journal 48(6): 1033–1049 Robertson DC (1991) Corporate ethics programs: The impact of firm size In: Harvey B, van Luijk H and Corbetta G (eds) Market Morality and Company Size Dordrecht: Kluwer, 119–136 Roper L and Pettit J (2002) Development and the learning organization: An introduction Development in Practice 12(3&4): 258–271 Roth PL and BeVier CA (1998) Response rate in HRM/OB survey research: Norms and correlates, 1990–1994 Journal of Management 24(1): 97–117 Rowley J (1998) Creating a learning organization in higher education Industrial and Commercial Training 30(1): 16–19 Rueda R and Moll LC (1994) A sociocultural perspective on motivation In: O’Neil HF and Drillings JM (eds) Motivation: Theory and Research Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 117–140 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 29 Bui and Baruch Sackmann SA, Eggenhofer-Rehart PM and Friesl M (2009) Sustainable change: Long-term efforts toward developing a learning organization Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 45(4): 521–549 Sackney L and Walker K (2006) Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: Their role in building capacity for learning communities Journal of Educational Administration 44(4): 341–358 Saxenian A (2006) The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy Boston, MA: Harvard University Press Schrage M (1990) Shared Minds New York: Random House Schwarz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 1–65 Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization New South Wales, Australia: Random House Australia Senge PM (1996) Leading learning organizations Training & Development 50(12): 36–37 Senge PM (2000) Systems change in education Reflections 1(3): 52–59 Senge PM (2006) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization London: Random House Senge PM, Heifetz RA and Torbert B (2000) A conversation on leadership Reflections 2(1): 57–68 Senge PM, Kleiner A, Robert C et al (1999) The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations New York: Doubleday Senge PM, Ross R, Smith B et al (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization New York: Doubleday Currency Shalley CE and Gilson LL (2004) What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity Leadership Quarterly 15(1): 33–53 Siebold GL (1994) The relation between soldier motivation, leadership, and small unit performance In: O’Neil HF and Drillings JM (eds) Motivation Theory and Research Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 171–190 Slater SF and Narver JC (1995) Market orientation and the learning organization Journal of Marketing 59(3): 63–74 Smith BH (2003) The University as a Learning Organization: Developing a Conceptual Model Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Smith ED and Pham C (1996) Doing business in Vietnam: A cultural guide Business Horizon 39(3): 47–52 Smith PAC and Tosey P (1999) Assessing the learning organization: Part 1-theoretical foundation Learning Organization 6(2): 70–75 Sperber AD, Devellis RR and Boehlecke B (1994) Cross-cultural translation: Methodology and validation Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 25(4): 501–524 Spreitzer G (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation Academy of Management Journal 38(5): 1442–1465 Sun T, Horn M and Merritt D (2004) Values and lifestyles if individualists and collectivists: A study on Chinese, Japanese, British and US consumers Journal of Consumer Marketing 21(5): 318–331 Tabachnick BG and Fidell LS (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon Thêm TN (1999) Fundamental Vietnamese Culture Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Education Publishing Tierney P and Farmer S (2002) Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance Academy of Management Journal 45(6): 1137–1148 Tihanyi L, Ellstrand AE, Daily CM et al (2000) Composition of the top management team and firm international diversification Journal of Management 26(6): 1157–1177 Tsai Y and Beverton S (2007) Top-down management: An effective tool in higher education? International Journal of Education Management 21(1): 6–16 Tung RL and Lazarova M (2006) Brain drain versus brain gain: An exploratory study of ex-host country nationals in central and east Europe International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(11): 1853–1872 Tyler BB and Gnyawali DR (2009) Managerial collection cognitions: An examination of similarities and differences of cultural orientations Journal of Management Studies 46(1): 94–126 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 30 Management Learning 0(0) Vo HV, Chae B and Olson DL (2006) Integrating systems thinking into IS education Systems Research and Behavioral Science 23(1): 107–121 Vượng TQ (2001) Vietnamese Culture: Exploring and Understanding Hanoi, Vietnam: Literature Publishing Wageman R (2001) How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hand-on coaching Organization Science 12(5): 559–577 Watkins KE and Marsick VJ (1993) Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art of Systemic Change San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass West MA (2004) Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research Oxford: BPS Blackwell Wheeler LL (2002) Building a Learning Organization: A Native American Experience Santa Barbara, CA: Fielding Graduate Institute White J and Weathersby R (2005) Can universities become true learning organizations? Learning Organization 12(3): 292–298 Wiersma W and Jurs SG (2005) Research Methods in Education New York: Allyn & Bacon Willcoxson L (2001) Strategies for changing a university into a ‘learning organization’ In: Richardson L and Lidstine J (eds) Flexible Learning for a Flexible Society Australia: ASET-HERDSA, 720–731 Woodfield S and Kennie T (2008) ‘Teamwork’ or ‘working as a team’? The theory and practice of top team working in UK higher education Higher Education Quarterly 62(4): 397–415 Wright T (1999) Systems thinking and systems practice: Working in the fifth dimension Systems Practice and Action Research 12(6): 607–631 Yang B (2003) Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture Advances in Developing Human Resources 5(2): 152–162 Yang J, Zhang ZX and Tsui AS (2010) Middle manager leadership and front line employee performance: Bypass, cascading, and moderating effects Journal of Management Studies 47(4): 655–678 Yeo RK (2006) Learning institution to learning organization Journal of European Industrial Training 30(5): 396–419 Yeo RK and Marquardt MJ (2010) Problems as building blocks for organizational learning: A roadmap for experiential inquiry Group & Organization Management 35(3): 243–275 Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on November 14, 2012 ... MLQ0010.1177/1350507611431212Bui and BaruchManagement Learning Article Learning organizations in higher education:? ?? An empirical evaluation within an international context Management Learning 0(0) 1­–30 © The... organizational learning to be the sum of individual and collective learning In order to remain viable in an uncertain and changing environment, organizations and individuals alike rely on an. .. While some argue that organizational learning is the sum of what individuals learn within organizations, others assert that organizational learning is more than the learning of its individual members