DSpace at VNU: Creating learning organizations: A systems perspective

DSpace at VNU: Creating learning organizations: A systems perspective tài liệu, giáo án, bài giảng , luận văn, luận án,...

The Learning Organization Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective Hong Bui Yehuda Baruch Article information: Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) To cite this document: Hong Bui Yehuda Baruch, (2010),"Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective", The Learning Organization, Vol 17 Iss pp 208 - 227 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471011034919 Downloaded on: 27 July 2016, At: 11:36 (PT) References: this document contains references to 141 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5514 times since 2010* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2013),"Influences on leadership behaviour: a binomial logit model", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol 40 Iss pp 102-115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03068291311283580 (2010),"Creating learning organizations in higher education: applying a systems perspective", The Learning Organization, Vol 17 Iss pp 228-242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471011034928 (2001),"On differences between organizational learning and learning organization", The Learning Organization, Vol Iss pp 125-133 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470110391211 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:333301 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services Emerald is both COUNTER and TRANSFER compliant The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation *Related content and download information correct at time of download The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm TLO 17,3 Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective 208 Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Hanoi, Vietnam, and Hong Bui Yehuda Baruch Norwich Business School, UEA, Norwich, UK Abstract Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer a theoretical contribution to explicate the various factors and aspects that influence Senge’s five disciplines and their outcomes Design/methodology/approach – The paper develops a conceptual framework for the analysis of antecedents and outcomes of Senge’s five disciplines, and offers moderators to explain the prospect associations, employing a multi-level analysis to explore issues, from the individual level (personal mastery) through the collective level (team learning, mental model) up to the organizational level (shared vision, systems thinking) Based on this theoretical framework, the paper offers a set of propositions in the shape of a causal model that links the constructs of the model together Findings – The development of the model manifests wide areas of relevance to the learning organization and points out significant interdependences and interactions among the various constructs associated with Senge’s five disciplines of the learning organization Practical implications – The paper proposes a causal model that links variables in the learning organization that would be instrumental for organizations to achieve competitive advantage For academia, it offers a further avenue for research, introducing a number of opportunities to test this model Originality/value – The paper provides significant added value both for academics and executives interested in the analysis of the complexity of Senge’s five disciplines Keywords Learning organizations, Systems theory Paper type Conceptual paper The Learning Organization Vol 17 No 3, 2010 pp 208-227 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/09696471011034919 Introduction The concept of learning organization (LO) has attracted significant attention from both scholars and practitioners Senge’s (1990) seminal work, Pedler et al (1991), Garratt (1991), Watkins and Marsick (1993), and Marquardt (1996) have each provided distinct contributions to the study of LO Senge’s (1990) and Pedler et al (1991) present LO through a reflection of the actual understanding and/or achievement by practitioners within organizations In contrast, Marquardt’s (1996) approach is more applied, taking the form of how-to guide than a new contribution to the theory, which is in line with Watkins and Marsick (1993), who are concerned with the specifics of actions and behaviours than with concepts The concept of LO focuses on learning as a tool, a lever, and a philosophy for sustainable change and renovation in organizations in a fast-changing world The authors thank the Editor, Professor Deborah Blackman and the four reviewers for their great contribution and support in revising the manuscript Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) A significant number of scholars within the LO area consider Senge’s model to be the most suitable framework for organizational development, incorporating it into their work (An and Reigeluth, 2005; Boyle, 2002; Garcia-Morales et al., 2006; Jamali et al., 2006; Kiedrowski, 2006; Reed, 2001; Rifkin and Fulop, 1997; Wheeler, 2002) His “fifth discipline” philosophy is inspirational, yet difficult to translate into a model that would enable systematic evaluation of the process of creating LO The lack of conceptual frameworks which build on a set of identified antecedents and outcomes does not make it easy to test the concept via quantitative methodology Following a thorough literature review we constructed a model that translates Senge’s LO theory to such an explicit, testable model, comprising a set of hypotheses We followed a long tradition of inputs-process-outputs of an open system (Miernyk, 1965; Nadler and Tushman, 1980) We elaborate on each of Senge’s single disciplines: personal mastery, mental model, team learning, shared vision and systems thinking, and explicate the relation between a variety of factors First, for each of the disciplines we offer a set of antecedents We then examine a variety of possible outcomes for each of the disciplines, and examine what factors may moderate these relationships Overall, we posit a systematic LO model of a complete five disciplines with antecedents, moderators, and outcomes This way our paper offers work that is innovative and distinct from other studies The work is primarily intended to develop Senge’s LO model into a more applicable model that would fit for quantitative analysis, and would enable testing across different sectors, though certain adjustment may be needed when covering different type of organizations (see an application for the higher education sector – Authors, this/next issue) Senge’s model lends itself to qualitative research (Flood, 1999; Hong et al., 2006; Mazutis and Slawinski, 2008) whereas its quantitative applications are far less frequent Yet, knowledge development and progress in understanding phenomenon may be gained from both qualitative and quantitative methods Both streams of research methodology have strong merit It would be important to open the study of Senge’s major contribution to management studies to both methodologies, adding value to future knowledge development We believe that scholars inspired by Senge’s LO idea will be able to utilize our model for further academic studies, whereas practitioners interested in creating LO will be able to employ it in their organizations The aim of this paper is to offer a conceptual framework that includes a wide set of antecedents and outcomes of Senge’s five disciplines, as well as possible moderators for these associations We explore these issues via a multi-level analysis (following Klein and Kozlowski, 2000), starting at the individual level (personal mastery) through the collective level (team learning, mental models), and up to the organizational level (shared vision, systems thinking) Theoretical development of the model In this section we follow the five disciplines as depicted in Senge’s framework of the LO We employ a systems model approach to explore Senge’s model For each discipline we offer a set of possible antecedents and anticipated outcomes, and certain factors that may serve as moderators We present the various constructs independently, pointing out the connection between them to represent the umbrella concept of individual disciplines The interaction of these aspects includes the relationship between those suggested as antecedents and outcomes, as well as the way Creating learning organizations 209 TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 210 they interact with each other The model as presented lends itself to fairly straightforward method of quantitative approach by using specific constructs, for which measures can be developed and tested for reliability and validity Personal mastery Personal mastery refers to the personal commitment of continuously clarifying and deepening a personal vision, of focusing energies, of developing patience, and the ability to see reality as objectively as possible (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) “It goes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and skills It goes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, although it requires spiritual growth It means approaching one’s life as a creative work, living a life from a creative as opposed to reactive viewpoint” (Senge, 1990, p 141) Senge regards it as “the learning organization’s spiritual foundation” (Senge, 1990, p 7) Studying the literature related to personal mastery, we identified five antecedents, three outcomes, and one possible moderator to explicate the model applicable for this discipline The first antecedent to personal mastery is personal values Personal values are the relatively permanent perceptual frameworks which shape and influence the general nature of an individual’s behaviour (England, 1976) Personal values direct personal commitment to development Personal values have been explored over time and found to be quite stable (Feather, 1975; Kahle, 1983; Rokeach, 1973; Schwarz, 1992) Employees bring their values into the work setting (Robertson, 1991) The second antecedent is motivation Motivation has been extensively studied to identify the meaning behind human actions and learn why humans are inspired to take certain actions (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) In addition, with sufficient motivation from organizations through policies and culture, employees may be willing to commit themselves to personal and professional development, which would result in better individual performance and higher individual satisfaction (Mumford, 1991) The third antecedent to personal mastery discipline is individual learning A learning organization cannot exist without individual learning (Senge, 1990; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) Individuals are the primary learning entities enabling organization transformation (Dodgson, 1993, p 377) Blackman and Henderson argue that personal mastery implies an “individual taking ownership” of individual learning (Blackman and Henderson, 2005, p 50) Lifelong learning, an important form of individual learning, is a part of commitment to personal mastery (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; Barker et al., 1998; Davies, 1998; Senge, 2006) The fourth antecedent is personal vision Personal mastery cannot be built without personal goals and vision (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; Covey, 1989; Nightingale, 1990; Senge, 2006) Personal vision is the “groundwork” for continually expanding personal mastery (Senge, 2006) For those with a high level of personal mastery, a vision is a calling, not just a good idea, and behind their goals is a sense of purpose (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) The difficulty, according to Senge (1990), is that people are often confused between goals and vision Vision is developed on the basis of goals (Senge et al., 1994) Personal vision relies not only on individuals, but also on the support of their employing organizations Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) The last antecedent to personal mastery is development and training Development and training are believed important for employees’ personal mastery (Senge et al., 1994) This process plays a significant role in making employees aware of Senge’s concepts, including personal mastery (Kiedrowski, 2006) Research also shows the effect of development and training on personal mastery (Blackman and Henderson, 2005) Professional development will benefit from development and training when these are carried out effectively (Blackmore and Castley, 2005) The positive outcomes of personal mastery can easily be recognised in management Self-confidence and self-efficacy are crucial factors in progressing individuals’ performance and subsequent career (Baruch et al., 2005) Employees with high level of personal mastery often have better performance (Bloisi et al., 2007) Further, personal mastery can create a balanced work and home life (Baruch, 2004; Doherty and Manfredi, 2006; Johnson, 2006) The relationships suggested above, of impact from a set of antecedents to outcomes are not anticipated to be simplistic Certain factors may moderate such associations The literature reveals that HR policies may work as a moderator for the impact of personal mastery ( Jones and Fear, 1994) Organizations’ policies, in particular HRM policies, play an important role in promoting personal and professional development Organizations, however, normally pay more attention to professional development than to personal development as professional schemes are likely to contribute directly to the performance of organizations (Huselid, 1995) In the long term, organizations would get benefits from personal mastery if they invested in personal development The sector of operation may serve as a moderator Relationships between work-related constructs may be moderated by the specific sector wherein the analysis takes place (Cohen and Gattiker, 1994) For example, the added value of the human resource management varies across different sectors (Laursen, 2002; Pare´ and Tremblay, 2007) The higher the relevance of human capital the higher the impact of personal mastery is anticipated (compared for example, with the relevant importance of finance or other types of capital) Mental models Mental models are cognitive representations of external systems that specify the cause-effect relationships governing the system (Gentner and Stevens, 1983b) Mental models refer to “the ideas and beliefs we use to guide our actions We use them to explain cause and effect, and to give meaning to our experience” (O’Connor and McDermott, 1997, p 114) They refer to deeply held assumptions or metaphors through which we interpret and understand the world, and take actions (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; Senge, 1990) Mental models have the power to influence human behaviours and mindsets Thus, mental models are important in the process of organizational learning They form the underlying basis of tasks which involve non-current skills and problem solving (Barker et al., 1998) Mental models are influenced by a set of antecedents, such as organizational commitment, leadership, and organizational culture Mental models are believed to lead to outcomes such as knowledge sharing and better performance (Gentner and Stevens, 1983a), with two moderators, including communication systems and learning environment The following part covers these points Creating learning organizations 211 TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 212 First, organizational commitment is a crucial antecedent to mental models Commitment is at the heart of a LO (Kofman and Senge, 1993) By sharing best practices, mental models strengthen people’s commitment to learning (Gephart et al., 1996, p 39) Sharing mental models, both positive and negative ones, forms the foundation of on-site learning, and contributes to saving time and money Organizations as LOs encourage people to take risks, as they can be the precursors to innovation and creation People might fail, but failing generates strong learning experiences, is sometimes worth the loss Further, committed and loyal employees make up the core of a successful organization (Goulet and Singh, 2002; Larsen, 2003; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002; Porter et al., 1974) When committed and knowledgeable staff are willing to acquire new skills and implement institutional innovation, an organization’s capacity to work with mental models will improve (Senge, 1990) Leadership is the second antecedent to mental models that we propose Leadership is the process “in which an individual influences other group members towards the attainment of group or organizational goals” (Shackleton, 1995, p 2) When the organization obtains employee commitment, leaders should play roles as “designers, stewards and teachers” (Fullan, 1993; Senge, 1990) selecting mental models and spreading them throughout the organization Leaders are responsible for learning and creating a learning environment for the employees to continually expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models (Fullan, 1993; Horner, 1997; Marquardt, 1996; Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Mintzberg, 1998) Taking the role of designers, stewards and teachers, leadership gives a new meaning to LOs Leaders are “walking ahead, regardless of their management position or hierarchical authority” (Kofman and Senge, 1993, p 12) Leadership is about identifying mental models that challenge all organizational members with the question: “What values you really want to stand for?” (Senge et al., 2000, p 67) In other words, transactional leadership is associated with Los (Bass, 2000; Senge et al., 1999) Organizational culture is another proposed antecedent to mental models Organizational culture describes the fundamental assumptions people share about an organization’s values, beliefs, norms, symbols, language, rituals and myths that give meaning to organizational membership and are expected as guides to behaviour (Bloisi et al., 2007, p 751) The culture of an organizational environment can be highly influenced by the societal culture in which it is embedded (Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Hofstede, 2001) Thus, organizational culture is influenced by the societal culture, where a framework of values has been established Different cultures tend to generate different mental models (Alavi and McCormick, 2004) Specifically, Alavi and McCormick (2004, p 413) add: “A high level of power distance may be problematic for improving reflection skills as a key component of team learning and modifying mental models” According to Alavi and McCormick (2004), organizations with low power distance culture are more likely to succeed in mastering mental models than in cultures with high power distance, because “a culture of trust and openness encourages the inquiry and dialogue is needed to challenge assumptions” (Gephart et al., 1996, p 39) When mental models are developed and learnt throughout the organization, one of the outcomes is a higher level of knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (Argyris, 1999; Senge, 2006; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) Such is the case, for example, when organizational members acquire strong team-work skills and behaviours, like mutual help, and knowledge sharing improves (Siemsen et al., 2007) Developing appropriate Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) mental models would generate more knowledge and can consequently lead to improving job performance (Pedler et al., 1991), the second outcome of mental models The acquisition and utilization of knowledge, particularly in an age of fast-changing business environments, is of high relevance, as indicated by recent scholarly work (Davenport et al., 1998) We will now discuss two possible moderators: communication and learning environment Communication influences fundamental beliefs, values, and attitudes necessary for employee empowerment and commitment to quality and service (Kapp and Barnett, 1983; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Quirke, 1992; Snyder and Morris, 1984) Jamali et al.’s (2006) show that mental models can be supported by effective communication There is, however, little theoretical innovation in organization theory grounded in communication, though communication has been emphasized as a significant constituent of organizational life (Dixon, 1998) Poor communication at the workplace costs national economies major financial loss and contributes to a significant number of employee injuries and deaths (Shannon et al., 1997) In any organization, particularly learning organizations, effective communication systems are indispensable, instrumental in uncovering perceptual gaps and incongruence in mental models and play a key role in facilitating collaborative learning and transforming mental models within a group (Holton, 2001 cited in Jamali et al., 2006 p, 344) In contrast, ineffective communication systems jeopardize mental models and prevent sharing vision throughout the organizations Ridder (2004) posits that internal communication can generate a sense of commitment within the organization and establish trust in management, and this can be applied to various modes of communication Computer-mediated communication changes communication practices in organizations (Cecez-Kecmanovic et al., 2000; Durham, 2000; Galvin, 2002; Scott and Timmerman, 2005) With the aid of technology, organizations can create effective and efficient communication systems, producing a new mental model of e-communication, via which they can share their mental models, i.e share their ideas, experience, and their vision The reason we argue that communication is a moderator rather than an antecedent in this case is because the association between the mental models and performance will work only if there is clear and strong communication Conversely, under poor communication conditions, we believe that the association will not be significant Learning environment is the second moderator to this discipline The learning environment supports the development of mental models (Pedler et al., 1991) and improves performance as well as knowledge sharing (Barker et al., 1998) Supportive learning environments are necessary for LOs (Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Pedler et al., 1991; Smith and Sadler-Smith, 2006; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) If the organizational environment is not set up properly, it may destroy organizational learning (Doherty and Manfredi, 2006) A learning environment cannot be created without the support of leaders and managers: “The role of the center is to set up the conditions for cultivating and sorting the wisdom of the system” (Fullan, 2004, p 6) Employing the same logic as in the case of “communication”, the learning environment is suggested as a mediator rather than an antecedent because the association between the mental models and performance will work only if there is clear and strong learning environment, whereas with an undeveloped learning environment the association will not exist Creating learning organizations 213 TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 214 Team learning Team learning is “the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire” (Senge, 1990, p 236) This emphasizes the significance of team learning as the fundamental learning units Synergistic teams are the “flywheel of the LO”, and thus are essential for the LO (Hitt, 1995, p 20) If an organization consists of talented individuals that cannot collaborate within a team, their contribution towards reaching the organizational goals will be severely limited Nevertheless, “despite its importance, team learning remains poorly understood” (Nissala, 2005, p 211) Thus, one of our purposes in this paper is to bridge this gap Building on extant literature, we argue that team learning is influenced by five main antecedents We further discuss a number of anticipated outcomes Communication systems and learning environment are proposed as two moderators that affect the relationship between team learning and knowledge sharing The first antecedent to team learning is team commitment Team learning appears as “a concerted effort” to get all people participating in innovation (Molnar and Mulvihill, 2003, p 172) All the members learn together and manifest a level of collective intelligence greater than the sum of the intelligence of the individual members (Hitt, 1995; Senge, 2006) In line with the previous part (mental model), team learning cannot happen without individual engagement and team commitment (Ellemers et al., 1998) According to Senge (2006), talented individuals not ensure the creation of talented teams if they not have shared vision Katzenbach and Smith (2004) stress that the essence of team learning is a shared commitment Leadership is another antecedent to team learning The most successful teams have leaders who proactively manage the team learning efforts (Edmondson et al., 2004; Marsick and Watkins, 2003) “Leadership is about culture building that allows people to be a part of a team that learn together” (Sackney and Walker, 2006, p 355) Leadership serves as the soul of the team, inspiring the innovation and creation of knowledge in team members “Empowering is the fundamental component in quality leadership: in essence it involves releasing the potential of individuals – allowing them to flourish and grow, to release their capacity for infinite improvement” (Bell and Harrison, 1998, p 60) For team learning, it is not necessary to have a leader, but leadership should lie in each team member The third antecedent to team learning is goal setting Goal setting is typically associated with management by objectives, as suggested by Drucker (1954) While no longer a novel idea, it is important in order to measure the result of team learning Earlier, Ivancevich and McMahon (1977) found that the more educated people are, the more participative and effective their goal setting is Once people are committed to team learning, they set clear goals for the team and themselves Development and training is the fourth antecedent to this discipline Team skills are important for successful team learning (Bowen, 1998; Druskat and Kayes, 2000) To be effective, team members must posses both genetic and specific team competencies (Prichard et al., 2006) Team skills training enhances collaborative learning (Prichard et al., 2006) On the other hand, Garavan (1997) states that team learning and performance is a team skill which needs to be practised if it is to result in improved individual and organizational effectiveness Strong emphasis on-job training may generate competitive advantage (Dalin, 1998; Maslen, 1992), and team skill training can be one of these forms of training Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) The fifth antecedent proposed for team learning is organizational culture In a similar way to that described and analyzed in the above section about mental models, organizational culture is an antecedent determining the effectiveness of team learning Albeit there is a scarcity of studies exploring this relationship, the impact of culture on learning is inevitable in the knowledge economy (Tyran and Gibson, 2008) “A LO’s culture should support and reward learning and innovation; promote inquiry, dialogue, risk-taking and experimentation; allow mistakes to be shared and viewed as opportunities for learning; and value the well-being of all employees” (Gephart et al., 1996, p 39) We posit that both “improved team performance” and “knowledge sharing” are the anticipated outcomes of team learning Considerable research suggests that organizational benefits of team learning include increased workplace productivity, improvements to service quality, a reduced management structure, low level of absenteeism, and reduced employee turnover (Park et al., 2005, p 464) Further, team learning positively relates to team performance (Chan et al., 2003) Team learning plays a critical role in a knowledge-creating organization as team members generate new ideas through dialogue and discussion (Nonaka, 1991; Senge, 1990) This process, therefore, helps the sharing of knowledge among members (An and Reigeluth, 2005) Similar to the analysis in the section about mental models, we propose the same possible moderators for this discipline We suggest that team learning needs communication to promote dialogue within the team Communication boosts the exchange of knowledge, information, and sometimes consolation Communication is assumed to be a moderator rather than an antecedent because the association between the team learning and its outcomes will work positively if there is clear and strong communication, whereas under poor communication conditions, the outcomes might lead to the opposite direction In addition, appropriate working/learning environment would moderate the association between the discipline of team learning and its outcomes People in the organization will aspire to conduct a good job if they are provided with the right support (Jackson, 2003, p 126) Such an environment generates time and resources for people to learn at work It is where people value the learning among team members (Marsick and Watkins, 2003) Shared vision Shared vision is a vision that people throughout an organization are truly committed to (Senge, 2006, p 192) Building shared vision is important for bringing people together and to foster a commitment to a shared future (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) because shared vision provides members of an organization with a direction by which they can navigate (Griego et al., 2000), and a focus for learning for its employees (Senge, 1990) Below we explicate the set of anticipated antecedents, outcomes and moderators of this discipline We first suggest personal vision as an antecedent to shared vision During the pursuance of personal mastery, people bring along their personal visions Personal visions are pictures or images that people carry in their minds In an organization it will remain as isolated individuals’ visions unless they are shared to build up a picture of the future the organization seeks to create Building a shared vision should begin with a personal vision to which one is committed (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) Creating learning organizations 215 TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 216 “Personal visions derive their power from an individual’s deep caring for the vision Shared visions derive their power from a common caring” (Senge, 2006, p 192) “When there is a genuine vision, people excel and learn, not because they are told to, but because they want to” (Senge, 1990, p 9) There is evidence that organizations can succeed in aligning personal vision into organizational vision (Adair, 2005) The second proposed antecedent to shared vision is personal values Personal values are rooted in an individual’s own set of values, beliefs, and aspirations (Ford et al., 1996; Homer and Kahle, 1988; Kahle, 1983; Schwarz et al., 2006; Senge, 2006) Senge (1990, p 211) emphasizes that “personal mastery is the bedrock for developing shared vision” As analyzed above, similar to the antecedent of personal values in forming the discipline of personal mastery, personal values also contribute a certain degree of commitment to the shared visions (Eigeles, 2003; Gudz, 2004; Senge, 2006) Next we offer leadership as the third antecedent to shared vision Leaders who inspire others usually possess extraordinary visions and commitments to high ideals (Fullop and Linstead, 1999; Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Senge et al., 2000), and constantly look for new information and opportunities that can help fulfil their visions (Mintzberg, 1998; Schrage, 1990) Mastering the discipline of shared vision means that people have to give up the idea that visions come from top management or from an institutionalized planning process; it will grow as people interact with their own visions – as they express their ideas and learn how to listen to the ideas of others (Appelbaum et al., 1997; Tsai and Beverton, 2007) This does not mean the role of leadership and management is neglected The leaders’ new task for the future is building the LOs, sharing vision (Fullan, 1993; Senge, 1990) They are designers, stewards, and teachers (Fullan, 1993; Senge, 1990) “They are responsible for building organizations where people continually expand their capabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models – that is, they are responsible for learning” (Fullan, 1993, p 71) These issues have been widely discussed but scarcely implemented The reasons can be explained by understanding that leaders tend to be good designers and teachers, but less competent as stewards (Gudz, 2004; Tsai and Beverton, 2007) The fourth antecedent to shared vision is organizational culture Organizational culture is a major construct in management sciences (Pettigrew, 1979), and can be measured in a valid and reliable manner (O’Reilly et al., 1991) Organizational culture can be regarded as a catalyst for creating a shared vision “Sharing and building a vision for organizational learning in the public sector is far more complex than an initial reading of the literature would lead one to suppose” (Reeves and Boreham, 2006, p 483) According to Senge (2006, p 194) a shared vision is the primary step in allowing people to begin working together even if they might distrust each other 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) Shared vision brings benefits for both individuals and organizations In terms of individuals, when people develop personal visions they are aware of what they are heading towards for their personal and professional success Second, it creates a good public image of a healthy and wealthy education Put together, at the aggregate level, shared vision would be a key to organizational sustainability and growth (Schwarz et al., 2006, p 358) Two moderators are suggested for shared vision, along the same line as with the model development for the disciplines discussed earlier These are organizational size Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) and communication systems It is difficult for organizations to gain shared vision if they are large and highly complex, with a sizeable number of operations and divisions It is easier for small organizations to share and reach common agreements (Smith and Saint-Onge, 1996) In relation to team learning and mental models, communication systems play an important role in progressing and developing shared vision Personal vision and insights cannot be shared effectively without effective communication systems among members of the organization (Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Senge, 2006) Systems thinking Systems thinking can be understood as “people’s capacity to examine a problem in the full setting of the interconnecting elements” (Hosley et al., 1994, p 12) It is a discipline for seeing the “structures” that underlie complex situations, and for discerning high from low leverage change Ultimately, it simplifies life by helping us to see the deeper patterns lying beneath the events and the details (Senge, 1990) It also enables understanding of system behaviour, which is not a function of parts but of how different parts interact (Kofman and Senge, 1993) Appelbaum and Goransson (1997, p 121) state that: “any attempt at creating an LO must start from the premises of the organization as a system” Senge (1990) sees systems’ thinking as the foundation on which an LO must be founded Senge (1990) argues that overall, the four disciplines – personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and shared vision – are antecedents of the fifth one, systems thinking Apart from that, follows are a set of antecedents, outcomes and moderator of this discipline Individual competence and leadership are one of the antecedents to systems thinking McClelland (1993) describes competences as “basic personal characteristics that are determining factors for acting successfully in a job or a situation” (cited in Bergenhenegouwen et al., 1997, p 57) Individual competences include emotional intelligence, interpersonal skills, and particularly systems thinking which actively contribute to personal and professional success (Anderson et al., 2006; Marquardt, 1996) Individual competences and leadership are linked together in this section, because according to Senge (1996) and Spreitzer (1995), people from all parts of the organization, who are competent and genuinely committed to deep changes in themselves and in their organizations, are leaders Once they can visualize profound changes they can become systems thinkers Leadership becomes the quality of a competent individual Concerning individual competences, leaders need systems thinking to recognize those who will be influenced by their decisions (Kumar et al., 2005, p 267) This thinking system must be built as “creative holism” ( Jackson, 2003) In addition, systems thinking can be taught, and as such, it should become a requirement for all employees to acquire for better coping with constant changes (Cooper, 2005) Organizational culture is another antecedent to systems thinking Systems thinking can be taught and learned, and organizations can promote a culture that encourages sharing mental models of systems thinking among members (Martin, 2005; Seligman, 2005) Alavi and McCormick (2004, p 412) find that an organization embedded in cultures with high societal collectivism are more likely to be successful when working collectively as their staff tend to be more inclined to effectively take part in teams for systems thinking Practitioners and scholars come to a conclusion that becoming an Creating learning organizations 217 TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 218 LO requires a change in organizational culture throughout long-term commitment (Garvin, 2000; Lei et al., 1999) Systems thinking provides “the integrating force throughout the organization” (Hosley et al., 1994, p 12) that can shape the organization as an entire system of various patterns of intercorrelated actions (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997) Systems thinking can help people to understand more the dynamic relationships among various components of the organizational systems Systems thinking produces major impacts on organizational learning and change (Fullan, 2004; Senge, 2000) That can be the reason why Kumar et al (2005, p 267) emphasize that an individual must utilize systems thinking to become a decision-maker Fullan (2004) stresses the importance of systems thinking in organizational strategic planning Strategy is nothing without passion and vision from the people who create and implement it (Domm, 2001, p 46) Without system thinking it would be difficult if not impossible to develop strategy that would fit the organization and its business environment Personal and professional development is suggested to moderate the relationships of these antecedents with systems thinking Personal and professional development schemes related to systems thinking show their effectiveness in a number of organizations (Checkland, 1999; Senge et al., 1994) Many organizations provide systems thinking training for their staff to improve the quality of their performance (Martin, 2005; Seligman, 2005) We accumulated the overall contribution stemming from the five disciplines into a single model depicted in Figure The propositions presented above for the development of LO framework is presented in the figure The model presented in captures the process of LO in light of Senge’s five disciplines The model manifests the cumulative role of the disciplines and their antecedents to successful application of LO The earlier part of this paper provided the rationality for the model and the set of propositions that comprises the model Discussion and conclusions In this paper, we have built up a detailed system based model for Senge’s LO theory To identify the proposed antecedents, outcomes and moderators we have covered a wide range of the literature related to the five LO disciplines and beyond The development of the propositions stems from the existing literature as well as from logical argumentation and sense-making of knowledge already acquired within the management and organizational studies Based on knowledge and understanding of the management and organizational studies we drafted a model following Senge’s LO model; then we investigated the relevance of every single component of the model through literature We believe there is a fair flow of the suggested framework, well rooted in the extant literature The contribution of this paper is the development of the system model for the five disciplines, and the applicability of Senge’s LO model which inspired a large number of scholars and practitioners Senge’s core model plays an important role in developing a framework of LO Its disciplines, personal mastery, mental model, team learning, shared vision, and systems thinking, have been identified with a set of antecedents, moderators and outcomes, which attempt to makes Senge’s theory more applicable Creating learning organizations Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 219 Figure Learning organization model TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 220 There is certain overlap among these antecedents and moderators, yet they all comply with the fifth discipline: systems thinking – seeing things in interconnected relationships within the whole system and the link with outside organizations Further, there is interdependence between the disciplines When certain disciplines are mastered, it is easier to attain others, such as the need for establishing strong team learning in order to generate shared vision Senge (1990) and Appelbaum and Goransson (1997) posit that team learning builds on the disciplines of shared vision and personal mastery, as talented teams are made up of talented individuals In a complementary manner, Amidon (2005) states that team learning is a process of practicing shared vision Indeed, team learning should be the means for shared vision though it is difficult to establish causal relationships between team learning and shared vision One of the purposes of this paper is to provide an approach that would hopefully enable testing Senge’s LO quantitatively We believe that a major theory in management and organizational studies should be studied utilising both qualitative and quantitative research methods The manner by which the LO theory was presented by Senge and his colleagues makes the theory more easily articulated and examined via qualitative methods (see Hong et al., 2006) Our model opens an easier route to explore the theory via quantitative analysis, which would be complementary to the many studies already conducted to examine Senge’s LO model A different challenge would be to identify ways to measure the different variables For most of the variables we employed, there is a choice of already developed measures which were tested for their validity and reliability (e.g organizational commitment, culture) Other measures are yet to be developed, in particular the actual existence and level for each of the five disciplines An example of how to approach measurement of such constructs was demonstrated by Jerez-Gomez et al (2005) Implications We see our contribution in terms of implications within two separate realms: Theoretical, academic contribution, and managerial, for practitioners The theoretical implication put forward is the provision of an in-depth review on literature on LO, management, and organizational psychology As Senge’s theory emphasizes, we explore the LO as a system, seeing parts in relation to the whole Subsequently, we consider the model at three equally important levels: personal, team and organizational Overall, the model offers direction for future research in developing and quantifying the suggested set of variables Among the managerial implications that emerge from the suggested framework is the clarification of what is required to effectively develop a LO With the provided framework, managers can even test the degree to which their organizations can be LOs; or what else should be done to become LOs The model offers issues for managers to focus on in order to create and maintain LO Strengths and weaknesses No academic contribution is free from limitations, and our contribution is no exception First, as is the case for any theoretical framework, the number of constructs included is limited We not have the presumption of covering the entire possibilities of optional variables that may serve as antecedents influencing the five disciplines; there are possible other outcomes for the five disciplines; the mediation relationships we Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) postulate may not represent full mediation; and lastly, other moderators may exist Yet we believe that we have covered the major ones, and supported our arguments with vast existing literature With limited space and aiming to focus on the major relevant constructs, we surveyed the literature and believe we cover the most prominent constructs that are relevant for the five disciplines A more significant limitation is that it is a theoretical paper, offering a conceptual framework that needs to be examined empirically We suggest that future studies will test the model empirically We hope and believe that empirical research will validate this theory in practice References Adair, J (2005), How to Grow Leaders the Seven Key Principles of Effective Leadership Development, Kogan Page, London Alavi, S.B and McCormick, J (2004), “A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of the learning organization model in school contexts”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol 18 Nos 6/7, pp 408-16 Amidon, S.R (2005), “Writing the learning organization”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol 68 No 4, pp 406-28 An, Y.-Y and Reigeluth, C.M (2005), “A study of organizational learning at Smalltown hospital”, Performance Improvement, Vol 44 No 10, pp 34-9 Anderson, D.F., Bryson, J.M., Richardson, G.P., Ackermann, F., Eden, C and Finn, C.B (2006), “Integrating modes of systems thinking into strategic planning and practice: thinking persons’ institute approach”, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol 12 No 3, pp 265-94 Appelbaum, S.H and Goransson, L (1997), “Transformational and adaptive learning within the learning organization: a framework for research and application”, The Learning Organization, Vol No 3, pp 115-28 Argyris, C (1999), On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed., Blackwell Publishers, Oxford Barker, P., Schaik, P.V and Hudson, S (1998), “Mental models and lifelong learning”, Innovations in Education and Training International, Vol 35 No 4, pp 310-8 Baruch, Y (2004), Managing Careers, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead Baruch, Y., Bell, M.P and Gray, D (2005), “Generalist and specialist graduate business degrees: tangible and intangible value”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 67, pp 51-68 Bass, B.M (2000), “The future of leadership in learning organizations”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol No 3, pp 18-40 Bell, J and Harrison, B.T (1998), Leading People: Learning from People, Open University Press, Buckingham Bergenhenegouwen, G.J., ten Horn, H.F.K and Mooijman, E.A.M (1997), “Competence development – a challenge for human resource professionals: core competences of organizations as guidelines for the development of employees”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol 29 No 2, pp 55-62 Blackman, D and Henderson, S (2005), “Why learning organizations not transform”, The Learning Organization, Vol 12 No 1, pp 42-56 Blackmore, P and Castley, A (2005), “Developing capability in the university”, Staff Development Forum, ILRT: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London Bloisi, W., Cook, C.W and Hunsaker, P.L (2007), Management and Organizational Behavior, 2nd European ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead Creating learning organizations 221 TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 222 Bowen, D.D (1998), “Team frames: the multiple realities of the team”, Journal of Management Education, Vol 22, pp 95-103 Boyle, E (2002), “A critical appraisal of the performance of Royal Dutch Shell as a learning organization in the 1990s”, The Learning Organization, Vol No 1, pp 6-19 Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Treleaven, L and Moodie, D (2000), “Computer-mediated communication: challenges of knowledge sharing”, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol 27 No 1, pp 51-66 Chan, C.C.A., Lim, L and Keasberry, S.K (2003), “Examining the linkage between team learning behavior and team performance”, The Learning Organization, Vol 10 Nos 4/5, pp 228-36 Checkland, P (1999), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Cohen, A and Gattiker, U.E (1994), “Rewards and organizational commitment across structural characteristics: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol No 2, pp 137-57 Cooper, B (2005), “Systems thinking: a requirement for all employees”, available at: www workteam.unt.edu/literature/paper-bcooper2.html (accessed 30 March 2007) Covey, S (1989), The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY Dalin, P (1998), School Development Theories and Strategies, Cassell, London Davenport, D., Long, D and Beers, M (1998), “Successful knowledge management projects”, Sloan Management Review, Vol 39 No 2, pp 43-57 Davies, D (1998), “The virtual university: a learning university”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol 10 No 4, pp 175-213 de Ridder, J.A (2004), “Organizational communication and supportive employees”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 14 No 3, pp 20-31 Deci, A.L (1975), Intrinsic Motivation, 3rd ed., Plenum Press, New York, NY Dimmock, C and Walker, A (2000), “Developing comparative school leadership and management: a cross-cultural approach”, School Leadership and Management, Vol 20 No 2, pp 143-60 Dixon, T (1998), “Communication: an elemental constituent of organizing”, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol 25, pp 41-68 Dodgson, M (1993), “Organizational learning: a review of some literatures”, Organization Studies, Vol 14 No 3, pp 375-94 Doherty, L and Manfredi, S (2006), “Action research to develop work-life balance in a UK university”, Women in Management Review, Vol 21 No 3, pp 241-59 Domm, D.R (2001), “Strategic vision: sustaining employee commitment”, Business Strategy Review, Vol 12 No 4, pp 39-48 Drucker, P (1954), The Practice of Management, Harper, New York, NY Druskat, V.U and Kayes, D.C (2000), “Learning versus performance in short-term project teams”, Small Group Research, Vol 31, pp 328-53 Durham, M (2000), “Organizational web sites: How and how well they communicate?”, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol 27 No 3, pp 1-14 Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R and Pisano, G (2004), “Speeding up team learning”, Harvard Business Review in Teams that Succeed, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Boston, MA, pp 77-98 Eigeles, D (2003), “Facilitating shared vision in the organization”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol 27 No 5, pp 208-19 Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D and can den Heuvel, H (1998), “Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 29, pp 371-89 England, G.W (1976), The Manager and His Values: An International Perspective, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA Creating learning organizations Feather, N (1975), Values in Education and Society, Free Press, New York, NY Flood, R.L (1999), Rethinking The Fifth Discipline Learning with the Unknowable, Routledge, London Ford, P., Goodyear, P., Heseltine, R., Lewis, R., Darby, J., Graves, J., Satorious, P., Harwood, D and King, T (1996), Managing Change in Higher Education, SRHE & Open University Press, Buckingham Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) Fullan, M (1993), Change Forces Probing the Depths of Educational Reform, The Falmer Press, Bristol, PA Fullan, M (2004), Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA Fullop, L and Linstead, S (1999), Management – A Critical Text, Macmillan, London Galvin, M (2002), “Communication futures and the future of communication”, Australian Journal of Communication, Vol 29 No 2, pp 15-32 Garavan, T (1997), “The learning organization: a review and evaluation”, The Learning Organization, Vol No 1, pp 18-29 Garcia-Morales, V.J., Llorens-Montes, F.J and Verdu-Jover, A.J (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol 106 No 1, pp 21-42 Garratt, B (2001), The Learning Organization, Harper Collins Publishers, London Garvin, D.A (2000), Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA Gentner, D and Stevens, A (Eds) (1983a), Mental Models, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ Gentner, D and Stevens, A (Eds) (1983b), Mental Models, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NY Gephart, M.A., Marsick, V.J., VanBuren, M.E and Spiro, M.S (1996), “Learning organizations come alive”, Training & Development, Vol 50 No 12, pp 34-45 Goulet, L.R and Singh, P (2002), “Career commitment re-examination and an extension”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 61 No 1, pp 73-91 Griego, O.V., Geroy, G.D and Wright, P.C (2000), “Predictors of learning organizations: a human resource development practitioner’s perspective”, The Learning Organization, Vol No 1, pp 5-12 Gudz, N.A (2004), “Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of British Columbia”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol No 2, pp 156-68 Hitt, W.D (1995), “The learning organization: some reflections on organizational renewal”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol 16 No 8, pp 17-25 Hofstede, G (2001), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Homer, P and Kahle, L.R (1988), “A structural equation analysis of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 54, April, pp 638-46 223 TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 224 Hong, J.F.L., Easterby-Smith, M and Snell, R.S (2006), “Transferring organizational learning systems to Japanese subsidiaries in China”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 43 No 5, pp 1027-58 Horner, M (1997), “Leadership theory: past, present and future”, Team Performance Management, Vol No 4, pp 270-87 Hosley, S.M., Lau, A.T.W., Levy, F.K and Tan, D.S.K (1994), “The quest for the competitive learning organization”, Management Division, Vol 32 No 6, pp 5-15 Huselid, M.A (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 38 No 3, pp 635-872 Ivancevich, J.M and McMahon, J.T (1977), “Education as a moderator of goal setting effectiveness”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 11, pp 83-94 Jackson, M.C (2003), Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester Jamali, D., Khoury, G and Sahyoun, H (2006), “From bureaucratic organizations to learning organizations: an evolutionary roadmap”, The Learning Organization, Vol 13 No 4, pp 337-52 Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J and Valle-Cabrera, R (2005), “Organizational learning capability: a proposal of measurement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol 58 No 6, pp 715-25 Johnson, V (2006), A Journey to Personal Mastery, Royal Roads University, Victoria Jones, N and Fear, N (1994), “Continuing professional development: perspectives from human resource professionals”, Personnel Review, Vol 23 No 8, pp 49-60 Kahle, L.R (1983), Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America, Praeger Publishers, New York, NY Kanfer, R and Ackerman, P (2000), “Individual differences in work motivation: further explorations of a trait framework”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol 49 No 3, pp 470-82 Kapp, J and Barnett, G (1983), “Predicting organizational effectiveness from communication activities: a multiple indicator model”, Human Communication Research, Vol 9, pp 239-54 Katzenbach, J.R and Smith, D.K (2004), “The discipline of teams”, Harvard Business Review on Teams That Succeed, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA, pp 1-26 Kiedrowski, F (2006), “Quantitative assessment of a Senge learning organization intervention”, The Learning Organization, Vol 13 No 4, pp 369-83 Klein, K.J and Kozlowski, S.W.J (2000), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY Kofman, F and Senge, P.M (1993), “Communities of commitment: the heart of the learning organization”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol 22 No 2, pp 4-23 Kumar, S., Ressler, T and Ahrens, M (2005), “Systems thinking, a consilience of values and logic”, Human Systems Management, Vol 24, pp 259-74 Larsen, L (2003), “Employee loyalty survey”, Journal of People Dynamics, November and December, pp 10-12 Laursen, K (2002), “The importance of sectoral differences in the application of complementary HRM practices for innovation performance”, International Journal of the Economics of Business, Vol No 1, pp 139-56 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) Lei, D., Slocum, J.W and Pitts, R.A (1999), “Designing organizations for competitive advantage: the power of unlearning and learning”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol 37 No 3, pp 24-38 McClelland, D.C (1993), “The concept of competence”, in Spencer, L.M and Spencer, S.M (Eds), Competence at Work, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY Marquardt, M.J (1996), Building the Learning Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY Creating learning organizations Marsick, V.J and Watkins, K.E (2003), “Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire”, Developing Human Resources, Vol No 2, pp 132-51 Martin, S (2005), “Sustainability, systems thinking and professional practice”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol 18 No 2, pp 163-71 Maslen, G (1992), “Renewed focus on job training expected as Australia battles recession”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol 38 No 22, pp A41-2 Maslow, A.H (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY 225 Mazutis, D and Slawinski, N (2008), “Leading organizational learning through authentic dialogue”, Management Learning, Vol 39 No 4, pp 437-56 Meyer, J.P and Allen, N.J (1991), “A three components conceptualization of organizational commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol 1, pp 61-89 Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L and Topolnytsky, L (2002), “Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol 61 No 1, pp 20-52 Miernyk, W.H (1965), The Elements of Input-Output Analysis, Random House, New York, NY Mintzberg, H (1998), “Covert leadership: view on managing professionals”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 76 No 6, pp 140-7 Mohr, J and Spekman, R (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 15 No 2, pp 135-52 Molnar, E and Mulvihill, P.R (2003), “Sustainability-focused organizational learning: recent experiences and new challenges”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol 46 No 2, pp 167-76 Mumford, E (1991), “Job satisfaction: a method of analysis”, Personnel Review, Vol 20 No 3, pp 11-19 Nadler, D.A and Tushman, M.L (1980), “A model for diagnosing organizational behavior”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol No 2, pp 35-51 Ng, P.T (2004), “The learning organization and the innovative organization”, Human Systems Management, Vol 23, pp 93-100 Nightingale, E (1990), Lead the Field, Nightingale-Conant Corporation, Niles, IL Nissala, S.-P (2005), “Individual and collective reflection: how to meet the needs of development in teaching”, European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 28 No 2, pp 209-19 Nonaka, I (1991), “The knowledge-creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 69 No 6, pp 96-104 O’Connor, J and McDermott, I (1997), The Art of Systems Thinking, Thorsons, London O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J and Cardwell, D.F (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol 34 No 3, pp 487-516 TLO 17,3 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 226 Pare´, G and Tremblay, M (2007), “The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors in information technology professionals’ turnover intentions”, Group & Organization Management, Vol 32 No 2, pp 326-57 Park, S., Henkin, A.B and Egley, R (2005), “Teacher team commitment, teamwork and trust: exploring associations”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol 43 No 5, pp 462-79 Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J and Boydell, T (1991), The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, McGraw-Hill, London Pettigrew, A.M (1979), “On studying organizational culture”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 24 No 4, pp 570-81 Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T and Boulian, P.V (1974), “Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 59, pp 603-9 Prichard, J.S., Stratford, R.J and Bizo, L.A (2006), “Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning”, Learning and Instruction, Vol 16, pp 256-65 Quirke, B (1992), Communication Quality, Quality Management Handbook, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Reed, H.A (2001), Ukrop’s as a Learning Organization: Senge’s Five Disciplines Realized in a Medium-sized Company, 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, Vol 32 No 4, pp 467-86 Rifkin, W and Fulop, L (1997), “A review and case study on learning organizations”, The Learning Organization, Vol No 4, pp 135-48 Robertson, D.C (1991), “Corporate ethics programs: the impact of firm size”, in Harvey, B., Van Luijk, H and Corbetta, G (Eds), Market Morality and Company Size, Kluwer, Dordrecht Rokeach, M (1973), The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York, NY Rueda, R and Moll, L.C (1994), “A sociocultural perspective on motivation”, in O’Neil, H.F and Drillings, J.M (Eds), Motivation: Theory and Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove Sackney, L and Walker, K (2006), “Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: their role in building capacity for learning communities”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol 44 No 4, pp 341-58 Schrage, M (1990), Shared Minds, Random House, New York, NY Schwarz, G.M., Kerr, S., Mowday, R.T., Starbuck, W.H., Tung, R.L and Von Glinow, M.A (2006), “Astute foresight or wishful thinking? Learning from visions”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol 15 No 4, pp 347-61 Schwarz, S.H (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 25, pp 1-65 Scott, C.R and Timmerman, C.E (2005), “Relating computer, communication, and computer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technology use in the workplace”, Communication Research, Vol 32 No 6, pp 683-725 Seligman, J (2005), “Building a systems thinking culture at Ford Motor company”, Reflection, Vol Nos 4/5, pp 1-9 Senge, P.M (1990), The Fifth Discipline the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random House Australia, Sydney Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) Senge, P.M (1996), “Leading learning organizations”, Training and Development, Vol 50 No 12, pp 36-7 Senge, P.M (2000), “Systems change in education”, Reflections, Vol No 3, pp 52-9 Senge, P.M (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, 2nd ed., Random House, London Senge, P.M., Heifetz, R.A and Torbert, B (2000), “A conversation on leadership”, Reflections, Vol No 1, pp 57-68 Senge, P.M., Ross, R., Smith, B., Robert, C and Kleiner, A (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Doubleday Currency, New York, NY Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Robert, C., Ross, R., Roth, G and Smith, B (1999), The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, Doubleday, New York, NY Shackleton, V (1995), Business Leadership, Routledge, London Shannon, H.S., Mayr, J and Haines, T (1997), “Overview of the relationship between organizational and workplace factors and injury rates”, Safety Science, Vol 26 No 3, pp 201-17 Siebold, G.L (1994), “The relation between soldier motivation, leadership, and small unit performance”, in O’Neil, H.F and Drillings, J.M (Eds), Motivation Theory and Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove, pp 171-90 Siemsen, E., Balasubramanian, S and Roth, A.V (2007), “Incentives that induce task-related effort, helping, and knowledge sharing in workgroups”, Management Science, Vol 53 No 10, pp 1533-50 Smith, P.A.C and Saint-Onge, H (1996), “The evolutionary organization: avoiding a Titanic fate”, The Learning Organization, Vol No 4, pp 4-21 Smith, P.J and Sadler-Smith, E (2006), Learning in Organizations, Routledge, Oxon Snyder, R and Morris, J (1984), “Organizational communication and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 69, pp 461-5 Spreitzer, G (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 38 No 5, pp 1442-65 Tsai, Y and Beverton, S (2007), “Top-down management: an effective tool in higher education?”, International Journal of Education Management, Vol 21 No 1, pp 6-16 Tyran, K.L and Gibson, C.B (2008), “Is what you see, what you get”, Group & Organization Management, Vol 33 No 1, pp 46-76 Watkins, K.E and Marsick, V.J (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art of Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Wheeler, L.L (2002), Building a Learning Organization: A Native American Experience, Fielding Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA Corresponding author Yehuda Baruch can be contacted at: y.baruch@uea.ac.uk To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints Creating learning organizations 227 Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) This article has been cited by: Joseph Klein 2016 Teacher empowerment, horizontal and vertical organisational learning, and positional mobility in schools European Journal of Teacher Education 39:2, 238-252 [CrossRef] Heiko Haase Department of Business Administration, Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, University of Applied Sciences Jena, Jena, Germany Mário Franco NECE – Research Center in Business Sciences, Management and Economics Department, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal Marta Félix Department of Management and Economics, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal 2015 Organisational learning and intrapreneurship: evidence of interrelated concepts Leadership & Organization Development Journal 36:8, 906-926 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] Francesco Galati Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Parma, Parma, Italy 2015 At what level is your organization managing knowledge? Measuring Business Excellence 19:2, 57-70 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] Shu Hui Wee Faculty of Accountancy and Accounting Research Institute, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia Soon Yau Foong Graduate School of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia Michael S.C Tse School of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia 2014 Management control systems and organisational learning: the effects of design and use Accounting Research Journal 27:2, 169-187 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] Learn over theory 219-244 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] Jennifer Lenhart, Sofie Bouteligier, Arthur PJ Mol, Kristine Kern 2014 Cities as learning organisations in climate policy: the case of Malmö International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 6:1, 89-106 [CrossRef] Brantley R Choate Sr Anthony H Normore Leadership’s role in reducing jail violence and recidivism 163-180 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] Police Value Shop Configuration 219-240 [CrossRef] Hong T.M Bui, Afam Ituma, Elena Antonacopoulou 2013 Antecedents and outcomes of personal mastery: cross-country evidence in Higher Education The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24:1, 167-194 [CrossRef] 10 Yvonne LagrosenDepartment of Engineering Sciences, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden Stefan LagrosenDepartment of Economics and Informatics, University West, Trollhättan, Sweden 2012 Organisational learning for school quality and health International Journal of Educational Management 26:7, 664-677 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 11 María Dolores Vidal-Salazar, Nuria Esther Hurtado-Torres, Fernando Matías-Reche 2012 Training as a generator of employee capabilities The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23:13, 2680-2697 [CrossRef] 12 Yehuda Baruch, Chieh-Peng Lin 2012 All for one, one for all: Coopetition and virtual team performance Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79:6, 1155-1168 [CrossRef] 13 Raymond Caldwell 2012 Systems Thinking, Organizational Change and Agency: A Practice Theory Critique of Senge's Learning Organization Journal of Change Management 12:2, 145-164 [CrossRef] 14 Raymond Caldwell 2012 Leadership and Learning: A Critical Reexamination of Senge’s Learning Organization Systemic Practice and Action Research 25:1, 39-55 [CrossRef] 15 Kala S Retna 2011 The relevance of ‘personal mastery’ to leadership: the case of school principals in Singapore School Leadership & Management 31:5, 451-470 [CrossRef] 16 Cathrine FilstadBI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway Petter GottschalkBI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway 2011 Becoming a learning organization The Learning Organization 18:6, 486-500 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 17 Daniel Cochece Davis, Viviane S LopuchLearning Organizations: 267-297 [CrossRef] 18 Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization 286-312 [CrossRef] Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:36 27 July 2016 (PT) 19 Viviane S Lopuch, Daniel Cochece DavisThe Role and Value of Diversity to Learning Organizations and Innovation 213-236 [CrossRef] ... implications – The paper proposes a causal model that links variables in the learning organization that would be instrumental for organizations to achieve competitive advantage For academia, it... 1979), and can be measured in a valid and reliable manner (O’Reilly et al., 1991) Organizational culture can be regarded as a catalyst for creating a shared vision “Sharing and building a vision... individual learning A learning organization cannot exist without individual learning (Senge, 1990; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) Individuals are the primary learning entities enabling organization transformation