Creating learning organizations:a systems perspective

Hong BuiVietnam National University, Hanoi, Hanoi, Vietnam, and

Yehuda BaruchNorwich Business School, UEA, Norwich, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer a theoretical contribution to explicate the variousfactors and aspects that influence Senge’s five disciplines and their outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper develops a conceptual framework for the analysis ofantecedents and outcomes of Senge’s five disciplines, and offers moderators to explain the prospectassociations, employing a multi-level analysis to explore issues, from the individual level (personalmastery) 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 ofpropositions 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 learningorganization and points out significant interdependences and interactions among the variousconstructs associated with Senge’s five disciplines of the learning organization.

Practical implications – The paper proposes a causal model that links variables in the learningorganization that would be instrumental for organizations to achieve competitive advantage. Foracademia, it offers a further avenue for research, introducing a number of opportunities to test thismodel.

Originality/value – The paper provides significant added value both for academics and executivesinterested in the analysis of the complexity of Senge’s five disciplines.

Keywords Learning organizations, Systems theory

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionThe concept of learning organization (LO) has attracted significant attention from bothscholars and practitioners. Senge’s (1990) seminal work, Pedler et al. (1991), Garratt(1991), Watkins and Marsick (1993), and Marquardt (1996) have each provided distinctcontributions to the study of LO. Senge’s (1990) and Pedler et al. (1991) present LOthrough a reflection of the actual understanding and/or achievement by practitionerswithin organizations. In contrast, Marquardt’s (1996) approach is more applied, takingthe form of how-to guide than a new contribution to the theory, which is in line withWatkins and Marsick (1993), who are concerned with the specifics of actions andbehaviours 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 afast-changing world.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

The authors thank the Editor, Professor Deborah Blackman and the four reviewers for theirgreat contribution and support in revising the manuscript.

TLO17,3

208

The Learning OrganizationVol. 17 No. 3, 2010pp. 208-227q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0969-6474DOI 10.1108/09696471011034919

A significant number of scholars within the LO area consider Senge’s model to bethe most suitable framework for organizational development, incorporating it into theirwork (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 “fifthdiscipline” philosophy is inspirational, yet difficult to translate into a model that wouldenable systematic evaluation of the process of creating LO. The lack of conceptualframeworks which build on a set of identified antecedents and outcomes does not makeit easy to test the concept via quantitative methodology.

Following a thorough literature review we constructed a model that translatesSenge’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 disciplineswe offer a set of antecedents. We then examine a variety of possible outcomes for eachof 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 anddistinct from other studies.

The work is primarily intended to develop Senge’s LO model into a more applicablemodel that would fit for quantitative analysis, and would enable testing acrossdifferent sectors, though certain adjustment may be needed when covering differenttype of organizations (see an application for the higher education sector – Authors,this/next issue). Senge’s model lends itself to qualitative research (Flood, 1999; Honget al., 2006; Mazutis and Slawinski, 2008) whereas its quantitative applications are farless frequent. Yet, knowledge development and progress in understandingphenomenon may be gained from both qualitative and quantitative methods. Bothstreams of research methodology have strong merit. It would be important to open thestudy of Senge’s major contribution to management studies to both methodologies,adding value to future knowledge development. We believe that scholars inspired bySenge’s LO idea will be able to utilize our model for further academic studies, whereaspractitioners 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 ofantecedents and outcomes of Senge’s five disciplines, as well as possible moderatorsfor these associations. We explore these issues via a multi-level analysis (followingKlein and Kozlowski, 2000), starting at the individual level (personal mastery) throughthe collective level (team learning, mental models), and up to the organizational level(shared vision, systems thinking).

Theoretical development of the modelIn this section we follow the five disciplines as depicted in Senge’s framework of theLO. We employ a systems model approach to explore Senge’s model. For eachdiscipline we offer a set of possible antecedents and anticipated outcomes, and certainfactors that may serve as moderators. We present the various constructsindependently, pointing out the connection between them to represent the umbrellaconcept of individual disciplines. The interaction of these aspects includes therelationship between those suggested as antecedents and outcomes, as well as the way

Creating learningorganizations

209

they interact with each other. The model as presented lends itself to fairlystraightforward method of quantitative approach by using specific constructs, forwhich measures can be developed and tested for reliability and validity.

Personal masteryPersonal mastery refers to the personal commitment of continuously clarifying anddeepening a personal vision, of focusing energies, of developing patience, and theability to see reality as objectively as possible (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997). “Itgoes beyond competence and skills, though it is grounded in competence and skills. Itgoes beyond spiritual unfolding or opening, although it requires spiritual growth. Itmeans approaching one’s life as a creative work, living a life from a creative as opposedto reactive viewpoint” (Senge, 1990, p. 141). Senge regards it as “the learningorganization’s spiritual foundation” (Senge, 1990, p. 7). Studying the literature relatedto personal mastery, we identified five antecedents, three outcomes, and one possiblemoderator to explicate the model applicable for this discipline.

The first antecedent to personal mastery is personal values. Personal values are therelatively permanent perceptual frameworks which shape and influence the generalnature of an individual’s behaviour (England, 1976). Personal values direct personalcommitment to development. Personal values have been explored over time and foundto 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 toidentify the meaning behind human actions and learn why humans are inspired to takecertain actions (Deci, 1975; Kanfer and Ackerman, 2000; Maslow, 1970; Rueda andMoll, 1994; Siebold, 1994). An individual with high personal mastery would beself-motivated (Ng, 2004). In addition, with sufficient motivation from organizationsthrough policies and culture, employees may be willing to commit themselves topersonal and professional development, which would result in better individualperformance and higher individual satisfaction (Mumford, 1991).

The third antecedent to personal mastery discipline is individual learning. Alearning organization cannot exist without individual learning (Senge, 1990; Watkinsand Marsick, 1993). Individuals are the primary learning entities enabling organizationtransformation (Dodgson, 1993, p. 377). Blackman and Henderson argue that personalmastery implies an “individual taking ownership” of individual learning (Blackmanand Henderson, 2005, p. 50). Lifelong learning, an important form of individuallearning, 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 withoutpersonal goals and vision (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997; Covey, 1989; Nightingale,1990; Senge, 2006). Personal vision is the “groundwork” for continually expandingpersonal mastery (Senge, 2006). For those with a high level of personal mastery, avision 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 thatpeople are often confused between goals and vision. Vision is developed on the basis ofgoals (Senge et al., 1994). Personal vision relies not only on individuals, but also on thesupport of their employing organizations.

TLO17,3

210

The last antecedent to personal mastery is development and training. Developmentand training are believed important for employees’ personal mastery (Senge et al.,1994). This process plays a significant role in making employees aware of Senge’sconcepts, including personal mastery (Kiedrowski, 2006). Research also shows theeffect of development and training on personal mastery (Blackman and Henderson,2005). Professional development will benefit from development and training whenthese are carried out effectively (Blackmore and Castley, 2005).

The positive outcomes of personal mastery can easily be recognised inmanagement. Self-confidence and self-efficacy are crucial factors in progressingindividuals’ performance and subsequent career (Baruch et al., 2005). Employees withhigh 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 outcomesare 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 ofpersonal mastery ( Jones and Fear, 1994). Organizations’ policies, in particular HRMpolicies, play an important role in promoting personal and professional development.Organizations, however, normally pay more attention to professional developmentthan to personal development as professional schemes are likely to contribute directlyto the performance of organizations (Huselid, 1995). In the long term, organizationswould get benefits from personal mastery if they invested in personal development

The sector of operation may serve as a moderator. Relationships betweenwork-related constructs may be moderated by the specific sector wherein the analysistakes place (Cohen and Gattiker, 1994). For example, the added value of the humanresource management varies across different sectors (Laursen, 2002; Pare andTremblay, 2007). The higher the relevance of human capital the higher the impact ofpersonal mastery is anticipated (compared for example, with the relevant importanceof finance or other types of capital).

Mental modelsMental models are cognitive representations of external systems that specify thecause-effect relationships governing the system (Gentner and Stevens, 1983b). Mentalmodels refer to “the ideas and beliefs we use to guide our actions. We use them toexplain cause and effect, and to give meaning to our experience” (O’Connor andMcDermott, 1997, p. 114). They refer to deeply held assumptions or metaphors throughwhich we interpret and understand the world, and take actions (Appelbaum andGoransson, 1997; Senge, 1990). Mental models have the power to influence humanbehaviours and mindsets. Thus, mental models are important in the process oforganizational learning. They form the underlying basis of tasks which involvenon-current skills and problem solving (Barker et al., 1998).

Mental models are influenced by a set of antecedents, such as organizationalcommitment, leadership, and organizational culture. Mental models are believed tolead to outcomes such as knowledge sharing and better performance (Gentner andStevens, 1983a), with two moderators, including communication systems and learningenvironment. The following part covers these points.

Creating learningorganizations

211

First, organizational commitment is a crucial antecedent to mental models.Commitment is at the heart of a LO (Kofman and Senge, 1993). By sharing bestpractices, mental models strengthen people’s commitment to learning (Gephart et al.,1996, p. 39). Sharing mental models, both positive and negative ones, forms thefoundation of on-site learning, and contributes to saving time and money. Organizationsas LOs encourage people to take risks, as they can be the precursors to innovation andcreation. People might fail, but failing generates strong learning experiences, issometimes worth the loss. Further, committed and loyal employees make up the core of asuccessful organization (Goulet and Singh, 2002; Larsen, 2003; Meyer and Allen, 1991;Meyer et al., 2002; Porter et al., 1974). When committed and knowledgeable staff arewilling to acquire new skills and implement institutional innovation, an organization’scapacity to work with mental models will improve (Senge, 1990).

Leadership is the second antecedent to mental models that we propose. Leadership isthe process “in which an individual influences other group members towards theattainment of group or organizational goals” (Shackleton, 1995, p. 2). When theorganization obtains employee commitment, leaders should play roles as “designers,stewards and teachers” (Fullan, 1993; Senge, 1990) selecting mental models andspreading them throughout the organization. Leaders are responsible for learning andcreating a learning environment for the employees to continually expand theircapabilities 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 newmeaning to LOs. Leaders are “walking ahead, regardless of their management position orhierarchical authority” (Kofman and Senge, 1993, p. 12). Leadership is about identifyingmental models that challenge all organizational members with the question: “Whatvalues do 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 aboutan organization’s values, beliefs, norms, symbols, language, rituals and myths thatgive 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 highlyinfluenced 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 generatedifferent mental models (Alavi and McCormick, 2004). Specifically, Alavi andMcCormick (2004, p. 413) add: “A high level of power distance may be problematic forimproving reflection skills as a key component of team learning and modifying mentalmodels”. According to Alavi and McCormick (2004), organizations with low powerdistance culture are more likely to succeed in mastering mental models than in cultureswith high power distance, because “a culture of trust and openness encourages theinquiry and dialogue is needed to challenge assumptions” (Gephart et al., 1996, p. 39).

When mental models are developed and learnt throughout the organization, one ofthe 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, whenorganizational members acquire strong team-work skills and behaviours, like mutualhelp, and knowledge sharing improves (Siemsen et al., 2007). Developing appropriate

TLO17,3

212

mental models would generate more knowledge and can consequently lead toimproving job performance (Pedler et al., 1991), the second outcome of mental models.The acquisition and utilization of knowledge, particularly in an age of fast-changingbusiness environments, is of high relevance, as indicated by recent scholarly work(Davenport et al., 1998).

We will now discuss two possible moderators: communication and learningenvironment. Communication influences fundamental beliefs, values, and attitudesnecessary for employee empowerment and commitment to quality and service (Kappand 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 effectivecommunication. There is, however, little theoretical innovation in organization theorygrounded in communication, though communication has been emphasized as asignificant constituent of organizational life (Dixon, 1998). Poor communication at theworkplace costs national economies major financial loss and contributes to asignificant number of employee injuries and deaths (Shannon et al., 1997). In anyorganization, particularly learning organizations, effective communication systems areindispensable, instrumental in uncovering perceptual gaps and incongruence in mentalmodels and play a key role in facilitating collaborative learning and transformingmental models within a group (Holton, 2001 cited in Jamali et al., 2006 p, 344). Incontrast, ineffective communication systems jeopardize mental models and preventsharing vision throughout the organizations.

Ridder (2004) posits that internal communication can generate a sense ofcommitment within the organization and establish trust in management, and this canbe applied to various modes of communication. Computer-mediated communicationchanges 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 anew 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 antecedentin this case is because the association between the mental models and performance willwork only if there is clear and strong communication. Conversely, under poorcommunication conditions, we believe that the association will not be significant.

Learning environment is the second moderator to this discipline. The learningenvironment supports the development of mental models (Pedler et al., 1991) andimproves performance as well as knowledge sharing (Barker et al., 1998). Supportivelearning environments are necessary for LOs (Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Pedler et al.,1991; Smith and Sadler-Smith, 2006; Watkins and Marsick, 1993). If the organizationalenvironment is not set up properly, it may destroy organizational learning (Dohertyand Manfredi, 2006). A learning environment cannot be created without the support ofleaders and managers: “The role of the center is to set up the conditions for cultivatingand sorting the wisdom of the system” (Fullan, 2004, p. 6). Employing the same logic asin the case of “communication”, the learning environment is suggested as a mediatorrather than an antecedent because the association between the mental models andperformance will work only if there is clear and strong learning environment, whereaswith an undeveloped learning environment the association will not exist.

Creating learningorganizations

213

Team learningTeam learning is “the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team tocreate the results its members truly desire” (Senge, 1990, p. 236). This emphasizes thesignificance of team learning as the fundamental learning units. Synergistic teams arethe “flywheel of the LO”, and thus are essential for the LO (Hitt, 1995, p. 20). If anorganization 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 mainantecedents. We further discuss a number of anticipated outcomes. Communicationsystems and learning environment are proposed as two moderators that affect therelationship between team learning and knowledge sharing.

The first antecedent to team learning is team commitment. Team learning appearsas “a concerted effort” to get all people participating in innovation (Molnar andMulvihill, 2003, p. 172). All the members learn together and manifest a level ofcollective intelligence greater than the sum of the intelligence of the individualmembers (Hitt, 1995; Senge, 2006). In line with the previous part (mental model), teamlearning cannot happen without individual engagement and team commitment(Ellemers et al., 1998). According to Senge (2006), talented individuals do not ensure thecreation of talented teams if they do 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 haveleaders who proactively manage the team learning efforts (Edmondson et al., 2004;Marsick and Watkins, 2003). “Leadership is about culture building that allows peopleto 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 ofknowledge in team members. “Empowering is the fundamental component in qualityleadership: in essence it involves releasing the potential of individuals – allowing themto flourish and grow, to release their capacity for infinite improvement” (Bell andHarrison, 1998, p. 60). For team learning, it is not necessary to have a leader, butleadership should lie in each team member.

The third antecedent to team learning is goal setting. Goal setting is typicallyassociated with management by objectives, as suggested by Drucker (1954). While nolonger 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, themore participative and effective their goal setting is. Once people are committed toteam learning, they set clear goals for the team and themselves.

Development and training is the fourth antecedent to this discipline. Team skills areimportant for successful team learning (Bowen, 1998; Druskat and Kayes, 2000). To beeffective, team members must posses both genetic and specific team competencies(Prichard et al., 2006). Team skills training enhances collaborative learning (Prichardet al., 2006). On the other hand, Garavan (1997) states that team learning andperformance is a team skill which needs to be practised if it is to result in improvedindividual and organizational effectiveness. Strong emphasis on-job training maygenerate competitive advantage (Dalin, 1998; Maslen, 1992), and team skill training canbe one of these forms of training.

TLO17,3

214

The fifth antecedent proposed for team learning is organizational culture. In asimilar 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 onlearning is inevitable in the knowledge economy (Tyran and Gibson, 2008). “A LO’sculture should support and reward learning and innovation; promote inquiry, dialogue,risk-taking and experimentation; allow mistakes to be shared and viewed asopportunities 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 theanticipated outcomes of team learning. Considerable research suggests thatorganizational benefits of team learning include increased workplace productivity,improvements to service quality, a reduced management structure, low level ofabsenteeism, and reduced employee turnover (Park et al., 2005, p. 464). Further, teamlearning positively relates to team performance (Chan et al., 2003). Team learning playsa critical role in a knowledge-creating organization as team members generate newideas 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 samepossible moderators for this discipline. We suggest that team learning needscommunication to promote dialogue within the team. Communication boosts theexchange of knowledge, information, and sometimes consolation. Communication isassumed to be a moderator rather than an antecedent because the association betweenthe team learning and its outcomes will work positively if there is clear and strongcommunication, whereas under poor communication conditions, the outcomes mightlead to the opposite direction.

In addition, appropriate working/learning environment would moderate theassociation between the discipline of team learning and its outcomes. People in theorganization will aspire to conduct a good job if they are provided with the rightsupport ( Jackson, 2003, p. 126). Such an environment generates time and resources forpeople to learn at work. It is where people value the learning among team members(Marsick and Watkins, 2003)

Shared visionShared 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 togetherand to foster a commitment to a shared future (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997)because shared vision provides members of an organization with a direction by whichthey 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 moderatorsof this discipline.

We first suggest personal vision as an antecedent to shared vision. During thepursuance of personal mastery, people bring along their personal visions. Personalvisions are pictures or images that people carry in their minds. In an organization itwill remain as isolated individuals’ visions unless they are shared to build up a pictureof the future the organization seeks to create. Building a shared vision should beginwith a personal vision to which one is committed (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997).

Creating learningorganizations

215

“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). “Whenthere is a genuine vision, people excel and learn, not because they are told to, butbecause they want to” (Senge, 1990, p. 9). There is evidence that organizations cansucceed in aligning personal vision into organizational vision (Adair, 2005).

The second proposed antecedent to shared vision is personal values. Personalvalues are rooted in an individual’s own set of values, beliefs, and aspirations (Fordet 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 developingshared vision”. As analyzed above, similar to the antecedent of personal values informing the discipline of personal mastery, personal values also contribute a certaindegree 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 inspireothers usually possess extraordinary visions and commitments to high ideals (Fullopand Linstead, 1999; Marsick and Watkins, 2003; Senge et al., 2000), and constantly lookfor 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 giveup the idea that visions come from top management or from an institutionalizedplanning process; it will grow as people interact with their own visions – as they expresstheir ideas and learn how to listen to the ideas of others (Appelbaum et al., 1997; Tsai andBeverton, 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 theircapabilities to understand complexity, clarify vision, and improve shared mental models– that is, they are responsible for learning” (Fullan, 1993, p. 71). These issues have beenwidely discussed but scarcely implemented. The reasons can be explained byunderstanding that leaders tend to be good designers and teachers, but less competent asstewards (Gudz, 2004; Tsai and Beverton, 2007).

The fourth antecedent to shared vision is organizational culture. Organizationalculture is a major construct in management sciences (Pettigrew, 1979), and can bemeasured in a valid and reliable manner (O’Reilly et al., 1991). Organizational culturecan be regarded as a catalyst for creating a shared vision. “Sharing and building avision for organizational learning in the public sector is far more complex than aninitial 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 inallowing 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 highsocietal collectivism and future orientation culture (Alavi and McCormick, 2004).

Shared vision brings benefits for both individuals and organizations. In terms ofindividuals, when people develop personal visions they are aware of what they areheading towards for their personal and professional success. Second, it creates a goodpublic image of a healthy and wealthy education. Put together, at the aggregate level,shared vision would be a key to organizational sustainability and growth (Schwarzet al., 2006, p. 358).

Two moderators are suggested for shared vision, along the same line as with themodel development for the disciplines discussed earlier. These are organizational size

TLO17,3

216

and communication systems. It is difficult for organizations to gain shared vision ifthey 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 andSaint-Onge, 1996).

In relation to team learning and mental models, communication systems play animportant role in progressing and developing shared vision. Personal vision andinsights cannot be shared effectively without effective communication systems amongmembers of the organization (Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Senge, 2006).

Systems thinkingSystems thinking can be understood as “people’s capacity to examine a problem in thefull setting of the interconnecting elements” (Hosley et al., 1994, p. 12). It is a disciplinefor seeing the “structures” that underlie complex situations, and for discerning highfrom low leverage change. Ultimately, it simplifies life by helping us to see the deeperpatterns lying beneath the events and the details (Senge, 1990). It also enablesunderstanding of system behaviour, which is not a function of parts but of howdifferent 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 theorganization as a system”. Senge (1990) sees systems’ thinking as the foundation onwhich an LO must be founded. Senge (1990) argues that overall, the four disciplines –personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and shared vision – are antecedentsof 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 systemsthinking. McClelland (1993) describes competences as “basic personal characteristicsthat are determining factors for acting successfully in a job or a situation” (cited inBergenhenegouwen et al., 1997, p. 57). Individual competences include emotionalintelligence, interpersonal skills, and particularly systems thinking which activelycontribute 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 theorganization, who are competent and genuinely committed to deep changes inthemselves and in their organizations, are leaders. Once they can visualize profoundchanges they can become systems thinkers. Leadership becomes the quality of acompetent individual.

Concerning individual competences, leaders need systems thinking to recognizethose who will be influenced by their decisions (Kumar et al., 2005, p. 267). Thisthinking 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 allemployees to acquire for better coping with constant changes (Cooper, 2005).

Organizational culture is another antecedent to systems thinking. Systems thinkingcan be taught and learned, and organizations can promote a culture that encouragessharing mental models of systems thinking among members (Martin, 2005; Seligman,2005). Alavi and McCormick (2004, p. 412) find that an organization embedded incultures with high societal collectivism are more likely to be successful when workingcollectively as their staff tend to be more inclined to effectively take part in teams forsystems thinking. Practitioners and scholars come to a conclusion that becoming an

Creating learningorganizations

217

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 variouspatterns of intercorrelated actions (Appelbaum and Goransson, 1997). Systemsthinking can help people to understand more the dynamic relationships among variouscomponents of the organizational systems. Systems thinking produces major impactson organizational learning and change (Fullan, 2004; Senge, 2000). That can be thereason why Kumar et al. (2005, p. 267) emphasize that an individual must utilizesystems thinking to become a decision-maker.

Fullan (2004) stresses the importance of systems thinking in organizationalstrategic planning. Strategy is nothing without passion and vision from the people whocreate and implement it (Domm, 2001, p. 46). Without system thinking it would bedifficult if not impossible to develop strategy that would fit the organization and itsbusiness environment.

Personal and professional development is suggested to moderate the relationshipsof these antecedents with systems thinking. Personal and professional developmentschemes related to systems thinking show their effectiveness in a number oforganizations (Checkland, 1999; Senge et al., 1994). Many organizations providesystems 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 asingle model depicted in Figure 1. The propositions presented above for thedevelopment of LO framework is presented in the figure. The model presented incaptures the process of LO in light of Senge’s five disciplines. The model manifests thecumulative 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 ofpropositions that comprises the model.

Discussion and conclusionsIn 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 awide range of the literature related to the five LO disciplines and beyond. Thedevelopment of the propositions stems from the existing literature as well as fromlogical argumentation and sense-making of knowledge already acquired within themanagement and organizational studies. Based on knowledge and understanding ofthe management and organizational studies we drafted a model following Senge’s LOmodel; then we investigated the relevance of every single component of the modelthrough literature. We believe there is a fair flow of the suggested framework, wellrooted in the extant literature.

The contribution of this paper is the development of the system model for the fivedisciplines, and the applicability of Senge’s LO model which inspired a large number ofscholars and practitioners. Senge’s core model plays an important role in developing aframework 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.

TLO17,3

218

Figure 1.Learning organization

model

Creating learningorganizations

219

There is certain overlap among these antecedents and moderators, yet they all complywith the fifth discipline: systems thinking – seeing things in interconnectedrelationships within the whole system and the link with outside organizations.Further, there is interdependence between the disciplines. When certain disciplines aremastered, it is easier to attain others, such as the need for establishing strong teamlearning 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 personalmastery, as talented teams are made up of talented individuals. In a complementarymanner, 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 toestablish causal relationships between team learning and shared vision.

One of the purposes of this paper is to provide an approach that would hopefullyenable testing Senge’s LO quantitatively. We believe that a major theory inmanagement and organizational studies should be studied utilising both qualitativeand quantitative research methods. The manner by which the LO theory was presentedby Senge and his colleagues makes the theory more easily articulated and examinedvia qualitative methods (see Hong et al., 2006). Our model opens an easier route toexplore the theory via quantitative analysis, which would be complementary to themany 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 measureswhich were tested for their validity and reliability (e.g. organizational commitment,culture). Other measures are yet to be developed, in particular the actual existence andlevel for each of the five disciplines. An example of how to approach measurement ofsuch constructs was demonstrated by Jerez-Gomez et al. (2005).

ImplicationsWe 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 onliterature on LO, management, and organizational psychology. As Senge’s theoryemphasizes, 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, teamand organizational. Overall, the model offers direction for future research in developingand quantifying the suggested set of variables.

Among the managerial implications that emerge from the suggested framework isthe clarification of what is required to effectively develop a LO. With the providedframework, 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 tofocus on in order to create and maintain LO.

Strengths and weaknessesNo 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 islimited. We do not have the presumption of covering the entire possibilities of optionalvariables that may serve as antecedents influencing the five disciplines; there arepossible other outcomes for the five disciplines; the mediation relationships we

TLO17,3

220

postulate may not represent full mediation; and lastly, other moderators may exist. Yetwe believe that we have covered the major ones, and supported our arguments withvast existing literature. With limited space and aiming to focus on the major relevantconstructs, we surveyed the literature and believe we cover the most prominentconstructs that are relevant for the five disciplines. A more significant limitation is thatit is a theoretical paper, offering a conceptual framework that needs to be examinedempirically. We suggest that future studies will test the model empirically. We hopeand believe that empirical research will validate this theory in practice.

References

Adair, J. (2005), How to Grow Leaders the Seven Key Principles of Effective LeadershipDevelopment, Kogan Page, London.

Alavi, S.B. and McCormick, J. (2004), “A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of thelearning organization model in school contexts”, The International Journal of EducationalManagement, 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: thinkingpersons’ 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 thelearning organization: a framework for research and application”, The LearningOrganization, Vol. 4 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”, Innovationsin 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. 7 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), “Competencedevelopment – a challenge for human resource professionals: core competences oforganizations as guidelines for the development of employees”, Industrial and CommercialTraining, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 55-62.

Blackman, D. and Henderson, S. (2005), “Why learning organizations do not transform”, TheLearning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 42-56.

Blackmore, P. and Castley, A. (2005), “Developing capability in the university”, StaffDevelopment 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 learningorganizations

221

Bowen, D.D. (1998), “Team frames: the multiple realities of the team”, Journal of ManagementEducation, Vol. 22, pp. 95-103.

Boyle, E. (2002), “A critical appraisal of the performance of Royal Dutch Shell as a learningorganization in the 1990s”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 9 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 learningbehavior 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 structuralcharacteristics: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 9 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”, HumanResource 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 andmanagement: a cross-cultural approach”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 20No. 2, pp. 143-60.

Dixon, T. (1998), “Communication: an elemental constituent of organizing”, Australian Journal ofCommunication, Vol. 25, pp. 41-68.

Dodgson, M. (1993), “Organizational learning: a review of some literatures”, OrganizationStudies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 375-94.

Doherty, L. and Manfredi, S. (2006), “Action research to develop work-life balance in a UKuniversity”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-59.

Domm, D.R. (2001), “Strategic vision: sustaining employee commitment”, Business StrategyReview, 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 projectteams”, Small Group Research, Vol. 31, pp. 328-53.

Durham, M. (2000), “Organizational web sites: How and how well do 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”, HarvardBusiness 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 IndustrialTraining, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 208-19.

TLO17,3

222

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D. and can den Heuvel, H. (1998), “Career-oriented versus team-orientedcommitment 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.

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 UniversityPress, Buckingham.

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 Journalof Communication, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 15-32.

Garavan, T. (1997), “The learning organization: a review and evaluation”, The LearningOrganization, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 18-29.

Garcia-Morales, V.J., Llorens-Montes, F.J. and Verdu-Jover, A.J. (2006), “Antecedents andconsequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning inentrepreneurship”, 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 organizationscome alive”, Training & Development, Vol. 50 No. 12, pp. 34-45.

Goulet, L.R. and Singh, P. (2002), “Career commitment re-examination and an extension”, Journalof 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 humanresource development practitioner’s perspective”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 1,pp. 5-12.

Gudz, N.A. (2004), “Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of BritishColumbia”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5 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-behaviorhierarchy”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, April, pp. 638-46.

Creating learningorganizations

223

Hong, J.F.L., Easterby-Smith, M. and Snell, R.S. (2006), “Transferring organizational learningsystems 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 PerformanceManagement, Vol. 3 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 competitivelearning 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 settingeffectiveness”, 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 learningorganizations: 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 learningcapability: 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 humanresource professionals”, Personnel Review, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 49-60.

Kahle, L.R. (1983), Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America, PraegerPublishers, New York, NY.

Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P. (2000), “Individual differences in work motivation: furtherexplorations of a trait framework”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49No. 3, pp. 470-82.

Kapp, J. and Barnett, G. (1983), “Predicting organizational effectiveness from communicationactivities: 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 onTeams 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 inOrganizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, John Wiley & Sons, NewYork, NY.

Kofman, F. and Senge, P.M. (1993), “Communities of commitment: the heart of the learningorganization”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 4-23.

Kumar, S., Ressler, T. and Ahrens, M. (2005), “Systems thinking, a consilience of values andlogic”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 24, pp. 259-74.

Larsen, L. (2003), “Employee loyalty survey”, Journal of People Dynamics, November andDecember, pp. 10-12.

Laursen, K. (2002), “The importance of sectoral differences in the application of complementaryHRM practices for innovation performance”, International Journal of the Economics ofBusiness, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 139-56.

TLO17,3

224

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.

Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2003), “Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learningculture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire”, Developing HumanResources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 132-51.

Martin, S. (2005), “Sustainability, systems thinking and professional practice”, Systemic Practiceand Action Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 163-71.

Maslen, G. (1992), “Renewed focus on job training expected as Australia battles recession”, TheChronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 22, pp. A41-2.

Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Mazutis, D. and Slawinski, N. (2008), “Leading organizational learning through authenticdialogue”, Management Learning, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 437-56.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three components conceptualization of organizationalcommitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance andnormative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, andconsequences”, 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 BusinessReview, 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 ManagementJournal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-52.

Molnar, E. and Mulvihill, P.R. (2003), “Sustainability-focused organizational learning: recentexperiences 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. 9 No. 2, pp. 35-51.

Ng, P.T. (2004), “The learning organization and the innovative organization”, Human SystemsManagement, 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 developmentin 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 profilecomparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, The Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516.

Creating learningorganizations

225

Pare, G. and Tremblay, M. (2007), “The influence of high-involvement human resourcespractices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors ininformation technology professionals’ turnover intentions”, Group & OrganizationManagement, 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 forSustainable 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 AppliedPsychology, Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.

Prichard, J.S., Stratford, R.J. and Bizo, L.A. (2006), “Team-skills training enhances collaborativelearning”, 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 aMedium-sized Company, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

Reeves, J. and Boreham, N. (2006), “What’s in a vision? Introducing an organizational learningstrategy 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”, TheLearning Organization, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 135-48.

Robertson, D.C. (1991), “Corporate ethics programs: the impact of firm size”, in Harvey, B., VanLuijk, 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. andDrillings, J.M (Eds), Motivation: Theory and Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove.

Sackney, L. and Walker, K. (2006), “Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: their role inbuilding 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 ManagementInquiry, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 347-61.

Schwarz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances andempirical 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, andcomputer-mediated communication apprehensions to new communication technologyuse 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. 6 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.

TLO17,3

226

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. 1 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. 2 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, NewYork, 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, NewYork, NY.

Shackleton, V. (1995), Business Leadership, Routledge, London.

Shannon, H.S., Mayr, J. and Haines, T. (1997), “Overview of the relationship betweenorganizational 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 unitperformance”, 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-relatedeffort, helping, and knowledge sharing in workgroups”, Management Science, Vol. 53No. 10, pp. 1533-50.

Smith, P.A.C. and Saint-Onge, H. (1996), “The evolutionary organization: avoiding a Titanicfate”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 3 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 ofApplied 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 & OrganizationManagement, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 46-76.

Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Artof Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Wheeler, L.L. (2002), Building a Learning Organization: A Native American Experience, FieldingGraduate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.

Corresponding authorYehuda Baruch can be contacted at: y.baruch@uea.ac.uk

Creating learningorganizations

227

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints