Journal of European Industrial TrainingDetermining the relationship among organizational learning dimensions of a small-sizebusiness enterpriseFredrick M. Nafukho Carroll M. Graham Machuma H. Muyia

Article information:To cite this document:Fredrick M. Nafukho Carroll M. Graham Machuma H. Muyia, (2009),"Determining the relationship amongorganizational learning dimensions of a small-size business enterprise", Journal of European IndustrialTraining, Vol. 33 Iss 1 pp. 32 - 51Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090590910924360

Downloaded on: 03 February 2015, At: 11:30 (PT)References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1432 times since 2009*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 464943 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Determining the relationshipamong organizational learningdimensions of a small-size

business enterpriseFredrick M. Nafukho

Department of Ed. Adm. and Human Resource Development,Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Carroll M. GrahamDepartment of Rehabilitation,

Human Resources and Communication Disorders, University of Arkansas,Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA, and

Machuma H. MuyiaDepartment of RHRC, College of Education and Health Professions,

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The primary purpose of the study was to determine the type of relationships that existedamong organizational learning dimensions studied. In addition, the study sought to establish whetherthe correlations were statistically significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels.

Design/methodology/approach – This study adopted a correlational quantitative research design.It has been established that quantitative methods enable researchers to conduct comparisons acrossindividuals. The correlational research design was found appropriate since it enabled the researchersto determine if statistically significant correlations existed among the learning dimensions studied.

Findings – The results of the correlation analysis showed that the learning organization dimensionsleadership and culture had the highest level of association, followed by correlations between rewardsand recognition and culture. The correlations were statistically significant at 0.01. Meaning that for thesmall business unit studied to be successful in promoting organizational learning practices, leadershipmust assume the primary responsibility.

Research limitations/implications – Further research should include comparisons oforganizational learning dimensions within small, medium and large business firms. Generality ofthis study’s results will be limited due to the investigation of a single small-size manufacturingenterprise. Qualitative research techniques could have been used to supplement the findings.

Originality/value – There are limited studies that focus on the issue of organizational learningwithin small-size business enterprises.

Keywords Learning organizations, Leadership, Small enterprises, United States of America

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIn the US, small-size business enterprises, those with 500 or less employees, faceseveral challenges including technological advancements, disasters, legislation,globalization, terrorism, competition, and instantaneous changes in customer

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT33,1

32

Received 12 June 2008Revised 16 July 2008Accepted 25 August 2008

Journal of European IndustrialTrainingVol. 33 No. 1, 2009pp. 32-51q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0590DOI 10.1108/03090590910924360

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

demands (Belardo and Belardo, 2002; Bontis et al., 2002; Marquardt, 2002; Piotrowski,2006). All too often these changes are pathways to peril for many small-size businesses(Blackford, 2003). De Geus (1988) indicated that change is often the result of crisismanagement. Marsick and Watkins (2003) noted that organizational learning isessential due to employees’ frequently relocating to new jobs and hoarding knowledgefor self-preservation. Consequently, human resource development (HRD) practitionersfrequently deal with deficiencies in performance areas with “a learning solution as away of addressing the issue” (Gilley et al., 2001, p. 7). Learning should be considered asa decisive method for addressing most organizational problems and practitionersshould utilize learning as a catalyst in designing, developing, and implementinglearning interventions aimed at promoting organizational performance (Knowles, 1970;Nafukho et al., 2007).

In this information and ideas age, the amount of knowledge is estimated to doubleevery three years or less (Bontis, 1999) and many entrepreneurs consider the rate atwhich their organizations learn as one competitive strategy (De Geus, 1988; Stata,1989). To function effectively in the knowledge economy, workers must embracelearning as a component of work and view it as an infinite process:

Learning has indeed become the new form of labor in the twenty-first century (Marquardt,2002, p. 14).

Thus, organization development practitioners have become increasingly aware of theneed to increase corporate capacities to learn in order to function successfully (Garvin,2000). One measure of gauging learning capacities is to determine the dimensions ormechanisms employed by organizations to promote learning (Graham and Nafukho,2007; Russ-Eft and Preskill, 2001; Yeung et al., 1999, p. 5).

Importance of the small-size business enterpriseSince this study was conducted in a small business enterprise, it is important thatwe understand how small business enterprises are defined in the US and theircontribution to the economy. The US Small Business Administration (SBA) defines“size standard” in numerical terms; a business is considered small if it meets or isbelow an established size standard. Two of the most popular small-size standardsestablished by the SBA are number of employees, commonly 500 or less, andrevenues, which may range from $0.75 million to $28.5 million dollars (US SmallBusiness Administration, 2006). Further, the number of firms and establishments inthe US with less than 500 workers employed more than 58.6 million individuals andpaid their employees over 1.9 trillion dollars during 2004. In comparison, firms andestablishments in the US with more than 500 workers employed 56.5 millionindividuals and paid their employees 2.3 trillion dollars in the year 2004. In effect,small-size business enterprises with less than 500 employees account for 49 percentof those employed in the US and paid out 45 percent of the total payroll in the year2004 (US Census Bureau, 2004). Small-size business enterprises have also generated60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade, produced 13 to 14times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and are employers of41 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computerworkers (Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, 2006a).

Organizationallearning

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

In addition, entrepreneurial small firms are credited with numerous innovativebreakthroughs and make a significant contribution to the innovative process. As noted,“the innovative process is a David-and-Goliath partnership: market forces dividebetween the small and large firms, each specializing in different tasks” (Small BusinessAdministration Office of Advocacy, 2006b, p. 8). Examples of important contributionsby US small firms in the twentieth century are the airplane, air conditioning,defibrillator, DNA fingerprinting, heart valve, hydraulic brakes, microprocessor,pacemaker, soft contact lens, supercomputer, and zippers (Small BusinessAdministration Office of Advocacy, 2005).

Garvin (2000) and Senge (1990) observed that most organizations face learningdisabilities, disorders (Snyder and Cummings, 1998), and dysfunctions. Manysmall-size business enterprises are unaware of the organizational learning deficienciesthat ultimately impact performance and results within their operations. As a result,mediocrity and the status quo go unchallenged until the enterprise is faced with seriousproblems. All too often employees would rather continue using familiar techniques asopposed to learning, assimilating, and institutionalizing knowledge on anorganizational-wide basis. Research focusing on learning as it pertains to smallbusiness enterprises is critical.

Statement of the problemSeveral studies have confirmed positive relationships between organizationallearning and strategic human resource management, employee satisfaction,sustainable competitive advantage, and improved performance especially in largecompanies (Bates and Khasawneh, 2004; Ellinger et al., 2003; Khandekar andSharma, 2005; Zhang et al., 2006). Most of the recent studies involved medium-sizedenterprises and organizations (Armstrong and Foley, 2003). However, limitedempirical evidence exists that explains what kinds of relationships exist among thedimensions that make up the complex structure of organizational learning. Thus,there is a need to establish whether statistically significant relationships existamong the seven organization learning dimensions, namely: culture, leadership,systems and structure, rewards and recognition, communication, team work, andevaluation (Russ-Eft and Preskill, 2001). In addition, organizational learning studiesfocusing on small-sized enterprises are needed (Chaston et al., 2000, 2001; Murray,2003; Rowden, 2002; Yang, 2003).

Purpose of the study and research questionsThe primary purpose of the study was to determine the type of relationships thatexisted among seven organizational learning dimensions studied. In addition, thestudy sought to establish whether the correlations were statistically significant at 0.05and 0.01 levels. To achieve the main purpose of the study, the following researchquestions guided the study:

(1) What are the strongest and weakest organizational learning dimensionvariables within the small-size business enterprise studied.

(2) What is the estimated relationship among the seven learning organizationdimensions investigated in the study and was the relationship statisticallysignificant?

JEIT33,1

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Literature reviewOrganizational learning and the learning organizationBefore examining the literature pertaining to small business enterprises and thelearning organization dimensions, it is important that we understand the meaning oftwo important terms – organizational learning and learning organization. Numerousdefinitions of organizational learning have been presented in the literature over the lastseveral years. In the early stages of defining organizational learning researchersreferred to adaptive behavior (Cyert and March, 1963), a series of interactions(Cangelosi and Dill, 1965), the detection and correction of error by restructuringpractices (Argyris and Schon, 1978), improvement of actions through better knowledge(Fiol and Lyles, 1985), and learning processes at the systems level (Dixon, 1994; Senge,1990). Currently “there is no universal agreement on the phenomenon” oforganizational learning (Curado, 2006, p. 26). However, there are themes that involvelevels of learning, transformation of the organization, improvement across theorganization, and a need to exploit opportunity for the benefit of stakeholders (Dixon,1994; Marquardt, 2002).

Organizational learning can be defined as a dynamic process of creation, acquisition andintegration of knowledge aimed at the development of resources and capabilities thatcontribute to better organizational performance (Lopez et al., 2005, p. 228).

Lipshitz et al. (2007) defined organizational learning as “a conscious and criticalprocess of reflection intended to produce new perceptions, goals, and/or behavioralstrategies” (p. 16). Organizational learning should create a relationship “between theorganization and the environment that encourages proactive rather than reactivebehavior” (Lopez et al., 2005, p. 230). While organizational learning focuses on creatingthe infrastructure that supports and promotes learning among people in theorganization, learning organization focuses on the individuals in the organizationengaged in the learning process.Gephardt et al. (1996, pp. 34-46) defined a learning organization as “. . . one that is ableto learn, to adjust and change in response to new realities. It can alter functions anddepartments when demanded by changes in the work environment or by poorperformance.” Though obviously related, organizational learning is different from“learning organization” and should not be referred to in a manner that implies theseterms are interchangeable (Marquardt, 1996; Swanson and Holton, 2001).

Yeo (2005) is credited with helping clarify the difference in the two concepts bystating “organizational learning is used to refer to the process of learning while the ideaof ‘learning organization’ refers to a type of organization” (p. 369). Further, the learningorganization is often considered the domain of the practitioner and focuses on how anorganization’s behavior should be changed to effect organizational learning. Whereas,organizational learning, considered the domain of the academic, refers to the study ofthe learning processes (Ortenblad, 2001; Sun and Scott, 2003; Tsang, 1997).

Theoretical perspectives. The theoretical underpinnings for this study are primarilyrelated to the organizational learning and learning organization paradigms.Organizational learning theory has been established from multiple researchdisciplines. Some believe different perspectives impede theoretical establishment(Huber, 1991; Nicolini and Meznar, 1995) and others see the numerous perspectives asadvantageous to the cause (Easterby-Smith, 1997; Easterby-Smith et al., 1999). To

Organizationallearning

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

introduce the main theoretical ideas that support this study we draw on Senge’s (1990)learning organization paradigm and Deming’s (1987) work in total qualitymanagement and its relationship to organizational learning. We believe thefollowing theories provide strong theoretical connections between the use of theorganization learning dimensions and our study’s purpose, and research questions.

The theories supporting this study begin with Deming’s (1987) notion of a system ofprofound knowledge necessary for the transformation of organizations. Deming (1987)espoused principle-driven changes in leadership, culture, rewards, evaluation, andcommunication in order to continuously improve quality, productivity, and competitiveposition. Leadership, culture, evaluation, rewards and recognition and communicationare dimensions that directly or indirectly facilitate organizational learning outcomes inbusiness enterprises (Preskill and Torres, 1999; Russ-Eft and Preskill, 2001).

Closely tied to Deming’s contributions and the development of total qualitymanagement systems is Senge’s (1990) work on learning organization paradigm. Senge(1992) confirmed Deming’s views and the total quality management movement asintegral to organizational learning and fundamental to improvement and businesssuccess. Senge’s contribution to a framework of theoretical support for learningorganizational paradigm includes the organization’s need to develop five coredisciplines:

(1) Personal mastery.

(2) Mental models.

(3) Shared vision.

(4) Team learning.

(5) Systems thinking.

According to Senge, the disciplines of team learning and systems thinking are vital toorganizational learning theory and were two of the seven dimensions we investigated.Senge stated:

Unless teams can learn, the organization cannot learn (Senge, 1990, p. 10).

Senge believed team learning was crucial because teams are considered the learningunit in today’s organizations. Further, Senge (1990) observed that the five coredisciplines worked in an orchestrated manner and required a systems thinking, orsystemic orientation, similar to the systems and structures component in this study.Also, Senge’s theory on the learning organization paradigm served as a compellingforce for others interested in exploring organizational learning theory.

Definitions of the organizational learning dimension variablesTo achieve the primary purpose of this study, the researchers found Preskill andTorres’ (1999) and Russ-Eft and Preskill’s (2001) studies relevant for assessingessential organizational learning dimensions. The constructs discussed below wereidentified by the Preskill and Torres (1999) study and guided the data collection andthe development of scales for data analysis.

Culture. Culture is often defined as the way things are done in an enterprise andrefers to the patterns of behavior and thinking that stakeholders in organizations learn,create, and share. It involves an environment, framework, and set of circumstances in

JEIT33,1

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

which the members are motivated to learn based on certain policies or cultural lawsand directions. Hence, a culture based on misaligned values and assumptions begins todominate how employees work together, adapt to changes, and fail to grow as alearning organization (Lucas, 2006; Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Szulanski, 1996).

The construct of culture in this study was measured by using a culture scale fromitems that were identified in the survey instrument that related to processimprovement, cooperation versus competition, risk taking, decision-making,dissenting opinions, taking initiative, conflict, mistakes, and management’sconsideration of employees’ input.

Leadership. In the small-size business context leaders must be models of newlearning behaviors and norms. They must develop and communicate a consistentlearning vision and promote learning initiatives in a manner that helps organizationmembers focus, allocate resources, and choose or reject different opportunities (Preskilland Torres, 1999). This construct was measured by a leadership scale from items thatwere identified in the survey instrument related to managers’ humility, managers’perception of different learning styles, managers’ support of learning with coaching,mentoring, and management’s sharing of knowledge and skills among employees.

Systems and structures. Learning organizations characteristically exhibit systemsand structures that interact, emphasize teamwork, promote strong lateral relations,collaborate internally and externally to the firm, and ultimately ensure evaluativeinquiry success. Learning organizations with these dimensions work at reducing orremoving hierarchical barriers, implement self-managed teams, encouragecollaborative structures, and promote a natural environment of information seekingand dissemination of knowledge.

Marquardt (2002) indicated structure was one of four key components of theorganization’s subsystem. Marquardt asserted that learning organizations reflectflattened structures that “maximize contact, information flow, local responsibility, andcollaboration within and outside the organization” (p. 28). This construct wasmeasured by using a systems and structures scale from items identified in the surveyinstrument related to workspaces, departmental boundaries, experimentation,bureaucratic red tape, and employee participation in meetings.

Communication. Learning organizations tend to focus on horizontal communicationand the integration of supportive dimensions in a manner that facilitates permeableboundaries. Learning organizations often use share-ware products to enhance andaccelerate stakeholder relations. This construct was measured by a communicationscale from items identified in the survey instrument related to information availability,record keeping, dissemination, generalization of new information, and the use oftechnology to communicate with one another.

Rewards and recognition. Employees need to feel valued and appreciated not onlyfor visible output or production but also for learning on the job, and generating, andgeneralizing knowledge that improves the learning curve of the organization.Motivation is the key and is triggered by employees’ self-fulfillment. Employeesfrequently sense empowerment and ownership in the enterprise when recognized andrewarded for learning. Wilkinson and Kleiner (1993) cited organizational benefits suchas reduced turnover and absenteeism, heightened employee involvement and interest,and a greater focus on organizational goals when recognition and rewards for learning

Organizationallearning

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

are utilized. This construct was determined by using a rewards and recognition scalefrom items identified in the survey instrument related to:

. team-based evaluation and reward systems utilized to link practices andperformance to the mission and vision of the organization;

. employees being recognized or rewarded for experimenting with new ideas, forhelping each other learn, and for learning new knowledge and skills, and

. systems that some way recognize team learning and performance (Preskill andTorres, 1999; Russ-Eft and Preskill, 2001).

Teams. The use of teamwork in developing the learning organization and evaluativeinquiry “parallels many of the teamwork initiatives already going on in organizationsas they attempt to capitalize on employees’ intellectual capital” (Preskill and Torres,1999, p. 175). Teams provide a natural setting for sharing and disseminatinginformation and are essential to the support of evaluative inquiry processes, what somerefer to as questioning the status quo. Teams, when properly structured and supported,offer creativity, innovation, and generalization of new knowledge to other teams in amanner that produces a synergistic effect for the organization (Yeung et al., 1999). Thisconstruct was determined by using a team’s scale from items identified in the surveyinstrument that related to openness, honesty, sharing, conflict resolution, facilitation ofmeetings, inclusion of everyone’s opinions, accomplishments, team processes and workcontent, and perceived effectiveness of the teams ability to meet organizational goals.

Evaluation or evaluative inquiry. Changes in organizations require the utilization ofevaluative inquiry, a concept that includes the coordination of multidisciplinary teams,permeable boundaries, mental focus, and innovation, commitment to orientation andresults, and cultivating honorable relationships among peers (Preskill and Torres,1999; Russ-Eft and Preskill, 2001). Further, evaluative inquiry helps reduceuncertainty, provides needed data and information for critical judgments andaccurate decision-making, contributes to stability in unpredictable environments, andsignificantly contributes to operational intelligence (Schwandt, 1997). This constructwas measured by using an evaluation scale from the survey items related to theintegration of evaluation in day-to-day learning-oriented activities, management’s useof evaluation for learning, employee endorsement of evaluation activities, renewal orintensification of evaluation.

Research methodThis study adopted a correlational quantitative research design using anorganizational learning survey developed by Preskill and Torres (1999) andRuss-Eft and Preskill (2001). This was a replicate study with different purpose anddifferent set of data, from a different population. It has been established thatquantitative methods enable researchers to conduct comparisons across individuals(Cooke and Rousseau, 1988). This design was found appropriate since it enabled theresearchers to determine if statistically significant correlations existed among thelearning dimension variables studied.

Population. The target population for the study consisted of 150 workers,supervisors, managers, and administrators of a single plant that manufactures cartons,and located in the Midwestern US. Due to the small number of employees at this plant

JEIT33,1

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

location, the entire population was studied. The objective was to gather datarepresenting a normally distributed population. Therefore no sampling was required.

Data collection. Prior to data collection, the researchers sought permission from theinstitutional review board of their organization. Permission to acquire the data fromthe plant’s 150 employees was granted by the human resource manager and approvedby the upper level administrative staff. With the assistance of the organization’shuman resource manager data collection took place at the monthly safety meetings foreach shift while all the employees were in attendance. Each employee, uponconfirmation of voluntary willingness to participate, was presented with the surveyand subsequently asked to return the completed (anonymous) survey to a designatedlocation within the meeting room. Two surveys were discarded due to excessiveomission of data, with a final net count of 148 (98.7 percent) useable instruments usedin the data analysis.

InstrumentationA research questionnaire measuring organizational learning dimensions was usedwith the permission of previous researchers (Preskill and Torres, 1999; Russ-Eft andPreskill, 2001). Previous application of this instrument insured its construct validityregarding similar questions we sought to answer in this study. The surveyquestionnaire included information on culture, leadership, rewards and recognitionsystems, communication, systems and structures, teams, evaluative inquiry, andselected demographic information (Russ-Eft and Preskill, 2001). In its modified versionfor this study, the instrument contained seventy-eight questions that addressedorganizational learning issues (Preskill and Torres, 1999; Russ-Eft and Preskill, 2001).Demographic information was adjusted to suit the present study.

The study used a Likert type questionnaire to measure the dimensions oforganizational learning. Responses were provided on a five-point Likert scale, in which1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ undecided, 4 ¼ agree, and 5 ¼ stronglyagree.

Data analysisFour kinds of data analyses were completed:

(1) Descriptive statistical summaries for instrument items and subscales andcharacteristics of the total sample.

(2) A series of exploratory principal components analyses with orthogonalrotations (Varimax procedure) to identify latent constructs measured by theresearch instrument.

(3) Cronbach alpha reliabilities of the factored learning organization dimensionvariables to explore internal consistency of the data.

(4) Correlations between identified learning organization dimension variables.

Factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis with principal components extraction wasused to reduce the learning organization dimensions items to seven dimensions ofuncorrelated factors. Thus, factor analysis was essential in identifying and thereforemeasuring organization learning dimensions. Factor analysis was used with varimaxrotation on the 78 learning organization statements. Regarding the importance of factor

Organizationallearning

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

analysis in establishing the construct validity of instruments, Kerlinger (1986, p. 427),noted, “. . . it is a powerful and indispensable method of construct validation.” Theexploratory factor analysis approach employed was the principal component analysissince it is the most appropriate technique for prediction studies (McCarthy andGaravan, 2006; Nully and Berstein, 1994). Data in Table I show the results of factoranalysis. Items retained are with factor loading greater than 0.35. This action is basedon similar empirical studies (see McCarthy and Garavan, 2006; Yamnill and McLean,2005).

The factor analysis identified seven dimensions of organizational learning. Allfactors were internally consistent and well defined by the variables withCronbach-alpha scores. Reliability testing of the instrument revealed a Cronbach’salpha coefficient of 0.94, which suggests that the questionnaire items were consistentwith its prior use by the original developers who obtained an alpha of 0.97 (Preskill andTorres, 1999; Russ-Eft and Preskill, 2001). The Cronbach reliability alpha coefficientsare presented in Table II.

Besides the seven organizational learning dimensions, Table II further shows theCronbach alpha coefficient for the entire instrument. Among the seven dimensions oforganizational learning, culture had 27 items with a Cronbach alpha of 0.78, leadershiphad 12 items with a Cronbach alpha of 0.77 while Communication had eleven itemswith a Cronbach of 0.72.

ResultsRespondents were categorized into management 5.4 percent, production, 83.8 percent,technical 2.7 percent, and customer service 3.4 percent. Five percent (n ¼ 7) markedtheir job category as other. Of the 148 respondents, 77.7 percent were male and 16.9percent were female while one respondent 0.7 percent did not indicate his/her gender.Regarding tenure, 28.4 percent had worked for a period of 1-3 years, 20.3 percent 4-6years, and 14.9 percent less than six months, 13.5 percent 7-10 years, and 6.1 percentsix months to one year. Another 16.9 percent did not complete this item. The majorityof the respondents were white, 84.5 percent, 5.4 percent American Indian or AlaskanNative, 4.1 percent Black or African American, 2.7 percent not Hispanic or Latino, 1.4percent other, and 0.7 percent Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.

The section that follows presents the results of the study according to the studyresearch questions.

(1) As perceived by the participants, what are the strongest and weakest organizationallearning dimensions?As shown in Table III, the dimension evaluation (M ¼ 3:46, SD ¼ 0:625) reflected thehighest mean score. This was followed by team (M ¼ 3:35, SD ¼ 0:730), andcommunication (M ¼ 3:22, SD ¼ 0:654) dimensions. The rewards and recognition(M ¼ 2:98, SD ¼ 0:67) dimension reflected the weakest mean scores.

(2) What is the estimated relationship among the seven learning organization variablesinvestigated the study and was the relationship statistically significant?To answer research question 2 bivariate Pearson correlations were established. Thus,in addition to the exploratory and descriptive pattern of the various parameters, afurther statistical analysis of the Pearson correlations among the seven dimensions of

JEIT33,1

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

FactorItems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Employees respect each other’s perspectivesand opinions 0.662

2. Employees ask each other for information aboutwork issues and activities 0.410

4. Employees are provided opportunities to thinkabout and reflect on their work 0.429

5. Employees often stop to talk about the pressingwork issues they are facing 0.332

7. There is little competition among employees forrecognition or rewards 0.323

8. Employees operate from a spirit of cooperation,rather than competition 0.477

9. Employees tend to work collaboratively witheach other 0.569

10. Employees are more concerned about how theirwork contributes to the success of theorganization than they are about theirindividual success 0.474

12. Employees generally view problems or issuesas opportunities to learn 0.619

13. Mistakes made by employees are viewed asopportunities for learning 0.616

14. Employees continuously ask themselves howthey are doing, what they can do better, andwhat is working 0.592

15. Employees are willing to take risks in thecourse of their work 0.425

16. Employees are committed to being innovativeand forward looking 0.511

17. Employees are confident that mistakes orfailures will not affect them negatively 0.346

18. Employees generally trust their managers orsupervisors 0.562

19. Managers and supervisors view individuals’capacity to learn as the organization’s greatestresource 0.610

20. Employees use data/information to inform theirdecision-making 0.496

21. Asking questions and raising issues about workis encouraged 0.595

22. Employees are not afraid to share their opinionseven if those opinions are different from themajority 0.591

23. I feel safe explaining to others why I think orfeel the way I do about an issue 0.582

24. Employees are encouraged to take the lead ininitiating change or in trying to do somethingdifferent 0.587

(continued )Table I.

Factor analysis

Organizationallearning

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

FactorItems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. Managers and supervisors make decisions afterconsidering the input of those affected 0.566

26. In meetings employees are encouraged todiscuss the values and beliefs that underlie theiropinions 0.655

27. Employees are encouraged to offer dissentingopinions and alternatives 0.617

28. Managers or supervisors admit when they donot know the answer to a question 0.561

29. Managers take on the role of coaching,mentoring and facilitating employees’ learning 0.645

30. Managers or supervisors help employeesunderstand the value of experimentation andthe learning that can result from suchendeavors 0.638

31. Managers or supervisors make realisticcommitments for employees (e.g. time,resources, and workload) 0.658

32. Managers or supervisors understand thatemployees have different learning styles andlearning needs 0.616

33. Managers or supervisors are more concernedwith serving the organization than with seekingpersonal power or gain 0.465

34. Managers or supervisors are open to negativefeedback from employees 0.617

35. Managers or supervisors model the importanceof learning through their own efforts to learn 0.655

36. Managers or supervisors believe that oursuccess depends upon learning from dailypractices 0.659

37. Managers or supervisors support the sharing ofknowledge and skills among employees 0.588

38. Managers or supervisors provide the necessarytime and support for systemic, long-termchange 0.626

39. Managers or supervisors use data/informationto inform their decision-making 0.475

40. There is little bureaucratic red tape when tryingto do something different 0.376

41. Workspaces are designed to allow for easy andfrequent communication with each other 0.437

42. There are few boundaries betweendepartments/units that keep employees fromworking together 0.461

43. Employers are available (i.e. not out of the officeor otherwise too busy) to participate in meetings 0.388

(continued )Table I.

JEIT33,1

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

FactorItems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44. Employees are recognized or rewarded forlearning new knowledge and skills 0.598

45. Employees are recognized or rewarded forhelping solve business/organizational problems 0.660

46. The current reward or appraisal systemrecognizes, in some way, team learning andperformance 0.642

47. Employees are recognized or rewarded forhelping each other learn 0.700

48. Employees are recognized or rewarded forexperimenting with new ideas 0.669

49. Employees understand how their work relatesto the goals or mission of the organization 0.553

50. Employees’ performance goals are clearlyaligned with the organization’s strategic goals 0.578

51. Employees meet work deadlines 0.42652. Information is gathered from clients, customers,

suppliers or other stakeholders 0.60553. Currently available information tells us what

we need to know about the effectiveness of ourprograms, processes, products, and services 0.600

54. There are adequate records of past changeefforts and what happened as a result 0.560

55. There are existing systems to manage anddisseminate information for those who need andcan use it 0.536

56. Employees are cross-trained to perform variousjob functions 0.475

57. Employees have access to the information theyneed to make decisions regarding their work 0.476

58. Employees use technologies to communicatewith one another 0.508

59. When new information that would be helpful toothers is learned or discovered, it getsdisseminated to those individuals 0.464

63. When conflict arises among team members, it isresolved effectively 0.556

64. Team members are open and honest with oneanother 0.637

65. Team meetings are well facilitated 0.60166. Team meetings address both team processes

and work content 0.56467. Team meetings strive to include everyone’s

opinion 0.60168. Teams are encouraged to learn from each other

and to share their learning with others 0.62469. Teams accomplish work that they are charged

to do 0.470

(continued ) Table I.

Organizationallearning

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

FactorItems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

70. Teams are an effective way to meetorganization’s goals 0.566

71. The integration of evaluation activities into ourwork has enhanced (or would enhance) thequality of decision-making 0.459

72. It has been (or would be) worthwhile tointegrate evaluation activities into our dailywork practices 0.651

73. Managers and supervisors like (or would like)us to evaluate our efforts 0.428

74. Evaluation helps (or would help) us providebetter programs, processes, products andservices 0.658

75. There would be support among employees if wetried to do more (or any) evaluation work 0.719

76. Doing (more) evaluation would make it easier toconvince managers of needed changes 0.643

77. This would be a good time to begin (or renew orintensify) efforts to conduct evaluation 0.659

78. There are evaluation processes in place thatenable employees to review how well changeswe make are working 0.426

Eigenvalue (factor) (% of variance) 68.004 8.798 6.466 5.522 4.892 3.962 2.356Table I.

Instrument/variable Number of cases Number of items Alpha coefficient

Questionnaire 148 8 0.94Culture 148 27 0.78Leadership 148 12 0.77Systems and structure 148 4 0.61Rewards and recognition 148 5 0.74Communication 148 11 0.72Team 148 8 0.66Evaluation 148 8 0.49

Table II.Reliability of instrumentand the subscales

Dimension n Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Evaluation 147 1.75 5.00 3.46 0.63Team 144 1.86 5.00 3.35 0.73Communication 145 1.25 5.00 3.22 0.65Culture 145 1.11 4.81 3.12 0.61Leadership 145 1.08 5.00 3.05 0.80Systems/structure 147 1.00 5.00 3.00 0.67Rewards/recognition 148 1.38 4.88 2.98 0.67

Table III.Means and standarddeviations for the sevenorganizational learningdimensions

JEIT33,1

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

learning was undertaken. Table IV presents the correlations among the sevendimensions of organizational learning. As the bivariate correlation coefficients inTable IV show, the learning dimension variables leadership and culture had thehighest correlations which were statistically significant (r ¼ 0:78, p , 0.01). This wasfollowed by the correlations between variables rewards and recognition and culture(r ¼ 0:73, p , 0.01); rewards and recognition and communication (r ¼ 0:73, p , 0.01).Table IV shows further that the variables evaluation and systems and structures hadthe lowest correlation coefficient, although it was statistically significant (r ¼ 0:45,p , 0.01).

DiscussionToday’s leaders of small business enterprises just like those in medium and largebusiness enterprises face numerous challenges. For instance, they may be required toaccomplish more, with limited financial resources, and are constantly adapting to theunrelenting pressures of changing technology and consumer demands. There issignificant pressure to manage quality, innovate, and survive in a very competitivebusiness environment. This pressure often serves to elevate leadership’s respect fororganizational learning and the learning organization as a strategy to manage change(Marquardt, 2002). In some small-size business enterprises, learning may be a lesserpriority given the many challenges that such firms face. Leadership, spurred by totalquality management benchmarks and a systems thinking approach to competing inthe global economy, is compelled to adopt continuous learning and improvementstrategies (Deming, 1987).

Leaders, especially those working in scenarios with less than optimum resources inthe small-size business enterprise, are obliged to remain flexible and to createperformance guidelines for their workers. Yet, they often neglect to promote practicesthat nurture learning. Traditionally, the focus is on performance improvement andleaders need to emphasize employees’ responsibility to capture, generate, andgeneralize learning and knowledge on a daily basis. Many small-size businessenterprises have not embraced formalized organizational learning and may not beaware of deficiencies within the enterprise’s learning infrastructure.

As shown by the results of this study the leadership dimension of learning washighly correlated with the learning culture dimension. This is an important findingwith implications for this firm. “Leadership takes on important new meanings inlearning organizations” (Kofman and Senge, 1993, p. 17). Thus, leaders (managers,

Variable n Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Culture 145 3.12 0.61 1.00Leadership 145 3.05 0.80 0.78 * 1.00Systems and structures 147 3.00 0.75 0.64 * 0.63 * 1.00Rewards and recognition 148 2.98 0.67 0.73 * 0.69 * 0.63 * 1.00Communication 145 3.22 0.65 0.66 * 0.70 * 0.64 * 0.73 * 1.00Team 144 3.35 0.73 0.66 * 0.65 * 0.52 * 0.66 * 0.62 * 1.00Evaluation 147 3.46 0.63 0.57 * 0.52 * 0.45 * 0.51 * 0.51 * 0.56 * 1.00

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

Table IV.Descriptive statistics and

correlations for thedimensions of learning in

the study

Organizationallearning

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

administrators, supervisors, team captains, project managers, and others) need to putin place practices that promote organizational learning. They shoulder initiate andsustain organization learning practices and emphasize the importance of the learningculture especially in this knowledge era.

Russ-Eft and Preskill (2001) found that leadership and evaluative inquiry(evaluation) was integral to the success of organizational learning efforts. This findingis in agreement with the findings of this study that show the importance of leadershipin promoting learning. Thus, our findings, within the context of the small-size businessenterprise, corroborated those of Russ-Eft and Preskill (2001) regarding the strength ofleadership as a learning organization dimension. Thus, leaders of this small-sizeenterprise need to embrace need to be proactive regarding learning. The fact that thelearning dimension variable leadership had the highest mean rating by the participantsin the study places a great deal of emphasis on the need to develop who value learningas a strategy to manage change and do not consistently do certain things because oftradition. Thus Argyris (1990) argued for flatter hierarchies, and organizationallearning practices. Using learning as a change intervention, leaders would evolve andcreate cultures conducive to systems interface. Silos could be abandoned, and learningbarriers permeated. By gaining a clearer picture of the practical significance found inthis study and high degree of influence on fellow employees, leaders and managerscould place a greater value on the importance their leadership roles play when creatingand sustaining organization learning environments. In organizations highly attuned tosystems thinking theory, leaders are well aware that it is misguided to focus only on asingle system or specific components within a single system. The focus should berelated to the development of capacities that enhance learning and trying of new waysof doing things, new markets, new products and implementation of new ideas. Thegoal of leadership in learning organizations should be to focus on wholes and toinfluence employees to create systems and structures that interface and promoteorganization-wide learning. In this study, the relationship among the seven dimensionsof organizational learning was positively correlated and statistically significant at 0.05and 0.01 levels.

Research implications and limitationsThe findings of this study have important implications for organizationaldevelopment and change. Thus, organizational learning and learning organizationparadigm should be initiated as change interventions by enterprises faced withintense competition and change. As correctly noted by Senge (1990), the learningorganization paradigm is a major intervention strategy for organizations to addressthe increased and uncertain change that they may be facing especially in thisknowledge revolution era.

To promote the application of learning in organizations and to promote learningpractices, additional research should include comparisons of organizational learningdimensions within small, medium and large organizations. Researchers may determinethat organizational learning dimensions of either size enterprise are beneficial invarious contexts. It may also be useful to research individual business sectors, such asconstruction, agriculture, healthcare or retail to determine if certain dimensions have agreater likelihood of enhancing organizational learning within a specific type ofbusiness.

JEIT33,1

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Further, research related to successful learning culture, leadership and evaluationpractices for small-size business could provide management with a template fortraining, education, and development of leaders needed to promote a learning culture.This template may vary from medium- and large-size businesses. Generality of thisstudy’s results will be limited due to the investigation of a single small-sizemanufacturing enterprise. Thus, studies of additional small-size businesses should beinitiated to reinforce these findings. While the quantitative methods employed in thisstudy are important, more information would have been provided if qualitativeresearch techniques had been used to supplement the findings.

References

Argyris, C. (1990), Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning,Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Armstrong, A. and Foley, P. (2003), “Foundations for a learning organization: organizationlearning dimensions”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 74-82.

Bates, R. and Khasawneh, S. (2004), “Organizational learning culture, transfer climate andperceived innovation in Jordan”, in Egan, T.M. and Morris, M.L. (Eds), 2003 Academy ofHuman Resource Development Proceedings, Academy of Human Resource Development,Bowling Green, OH, pp. 513-20.

Belardo, S. and Belardo, A.W. (2002), Innovation Through Learning: What Leaders Need to Knowin The 21st Century, Whitston Publishing Company, Albany, NY.

Blackford, M.G. (2003), A History of Small Business in America, 2nd ed., The University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

Bontis, N. (1999), “Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows ofknowledge: an empirical examination of intellectual capital, knowledge management, andbusiness performance”, doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Ontario, London,Dissertations Abstracts International, Vol. 60 No. 8, p. 3010.

Bontis, N., Crossan, M.M. and Hulland, J. (2002), “Managing an organizational learning systemby aligning stocks and flows”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 437-69.

Cangelosi, V.E. and Dill, W.R. (1965), “Organizational learning: observations toward a theory”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 175-203.

Chaston, I., Badger, B. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2001), “Organizational learning: an empiricalassessment of process in small UK manufacturing firms”, Journal of Small BusinessManagement, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 139-51.

Chaston, I., Badger, B. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2000), “Organizational learning style andcompetences: a comparative investigation of relationship and transactionally orientatedsmall UK manufacturing firms”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 5/6,pp. 625-40.

Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning andinnovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-52.

Cooke, R. and Rousseau, D. (1988), “Behavioral norms and expectations: a quantitative approachto the assessment of organizational culture”, Group and Organizations Studies, Vol. 13,pp. 245-73.

Curado, C. (2006), “Organizational learning and organizational design”, The LearningOrganization, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 25-48.

Organizationallearning

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

De Geus, A.P. (1988), “Planning as learning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 70-4.

Deming, W.E. (1987), A System of Profound Knowledge, British Deming Association, London.

Dixon, N.M. (1994), The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively,McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe, Maidenhead.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1997), “Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques”,Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 1085-113.

Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J.G. and Araujo, L. (1999), Organizational Learning and theLearning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, London.

Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Yang, B. and Howton, S.W. (2003), “Making the business for thelearning organization concept”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2,pp. 163-72.

Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), “Organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 803-13.

Garvin, D.A. (2000), Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work,Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Gephart, M., Marsick, V., Van Buren, M. and Spiro, M. (1996), “Learning organizations comealive”, Training and Development, Vol. 50 No. 12, pp. 35-45.

Gilley, J.W., Dean, P. and Bierema, L. (2001), Philosophy and Practice of Organizational Learning,Performance, and Change: New Perspectives in Organizational Learning, Performance,and Change, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Goddard, R.W. (1990), “The rise of the new organization”, MW, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 3-5.

Graham, C. and Nafukho, F.M. (2007), “Culture, organizational learning and selected independentvariables in small-size business enterprises”, Journal of European Industrial Training,Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 127-44.

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.

Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”,Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.

Kerlinger, F. (1986), Foundations of Behavioral Research, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston,New York, NY.

Khandekar, A. and Sharma, A. (2005), “Organizational learning in Indian organizations:a strategic HRM perspective”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 211-26.

King, W.R. (2001), “Strategies for creating a learning organization”, Information SystemsManagement, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 12-20.

Knowles, M.S. (1970), The Modern Practice of Education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy,Association Press, New York, NY.

Kofman, F. and Senge, P.M. (1993), “Communities of commitment: the heart of learningorganizations”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 5-22.

Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V. and Popper, M. (2007), Demystifying Organizational Learning,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

JEIT33,1

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Lucas, L.M. (2006), “Things are not always what they seem: how reputations, culture, andincentives influence knowledge transfer”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 1,pp. 7-24.

Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2005), “Organizational learning as a determiningfactor in business performance”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 227-45.

McCarthy, A. and Garavan, T. (2006), “Post feedback development perceptions: applying thetheory of planned behavior”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 3,pp. 245-78.

Marquardt, M.J. (1996), Building the Learning Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Marquardt, M.J. (2002), Building the Learning Organization: Mastering the 5 elements forCorporate Learning, 2nd ed., Davies-Black Publishing, Palo Alto, CA.

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

Murray, P. (2003), “Organizational learning, competencies and firm performance: empiricalobservations”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 305-16.

Nafukho, F.M., Hinton, B.E. and Graham, C.M. (2007), “A study of truck drivers and their jobperformance regarding highway safety”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 20No. 1, pp. 61-74.

Nelson, B. (1996), “Dump the cash, load the praise”, Personnel Journal, Vol. 75 No. 7, pp. 65-9.

Nicolini, D. and Meznar, M.B. (1995), “The social construction of organizational learning:concepts and practical issues in the field”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 727-46.

Ortenblad, A. (2001), “On differences between organizational learning and learningorganization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 125-33.

Piotrowski, C. (2006), “Hurricane Katrina and organization development: part 1. Implications ofchaos theory”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 10-19.

Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2000), “Installing dimensions and instilling values: the role ofleadership in organizational learning”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 135-44.

Preskill, H. and Torres, R.T. (1999), Evaluative Inquiry for Learning Organizations,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Preskill, H., Martinez-Papponi, B. and Torres, R.T. (2001), “Organizational readiness for learningand evaluation”, in Aliaga, O.A. (Ed.), 2001 Academy of Human Resource DevelopmentProceedings, Academy of Human Resource Development, Bowling Green, OH, pp. 704-12.

Rowden, R. (2002), “The relationship between workplace learning and job satisfaction in USsmall to midsize businesses”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4,pp. 407-25.

Russ-Eft, D. and Preskill, H. (2001), Evaluation in Organizations: A Systematic Approach toEnhancing Learning, Performance, and Change, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Schwandt, T.A. (1997), “Evaluation as practical hermeneutics”, Evaluation, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 69-83.

Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,Doubleday, New York, NY.

Senge, P.M. (1992), “Building learning organizations”, The Journal for Quality and Participation,March, pp. 30-8.

Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (2005), “The small business economy: a reportto the president”, available at: www.sba.gov/advo/research/sb_econ2005.pdf (accessed28 May 2008).

Organizationallearning

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (2006a), “Frequently asked questions”,available at: www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf (accessed 29 May 2008).

Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (2006b), “The David-Goliath partnership”,The Small Business Advocate, Vol. 25 No. 1, p. 8, available at: http://sba.gov/ADVO/decjan06.pdf (accessed 28 May 2008).

Snyder, W.M. and Cummings, T.G. (1998), “Organization learning disorders: conceptual modeland intervention hypotheses”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 873-95.

Stata, R. (1989), “Organizational learning: the key to management innovation”,Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 63-74.

Sun, P.Y.T. and Scott, J.L. (2003), “Exploring the divide – organizational learning and learningorganization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 202-15.

Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27-43.

Tsang, E.W.K. (1997), “Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomybetween descriptive and prescriptive research”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 73-89.

US Census Bureau (2004), “Statistics about business size (including small business) from the USCensus Bureau”, available at: www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb04.htm (accessed 28 May2008).

US Small Business Administration (2006), “FAQs: frequently asked questions”, available at:http://app1.sba.gov/faqs/ (accessed 28 May 2008).

Wilkinson, B. and Kleiner, B.H. (1993), “New developments in improving learning inorganizations”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 17-21.

Yamnill, S. and McLean, G. (2005), “Factors affecting transfer of training in Thailand”, HumanResource Development Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 323-44.

Yang, B. (2003), “Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture”,Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 152-62.

Yeo, R.K. (2005), “Revisiting the roots of learning organization: a synthesis of the learningorganization literature”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 368-82.

Yeung, A.K., Ulrich, D.O., Nason, S.W. and Glinow, M.A.V. (1999), Organizational LearningCapability: Generating and Generalizing Ideas with Impact, Oxford University Press,New York, NY.

Zhang, M., Macpherson, A. and Jones, O. (2006), “Conceptualizing the learning process in SMEs:improving innovation through external orientation”, International Small Business Journal,Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 299-323.

About the authorsFredrick M. Nafukho is associate professor and Chair, HRD Program of the Department ofEducational Administration and Human Resource Development, College of Education andHuman Development, Texas A&M, University. He holds a PhD in Human ResourceDevelopment, Louisiana State University, where he was a Fulbright Scholar, an M.Ed(Economics of Education), and B.Ed Business Education and Economics from KenyattaUniversity. His primary area of research has been aligned with investment in human capitaldevelopment, enrollment modeling and prediction in higher education, international andcross-cultural HRD, e-learning, organization learning, and performance improvement. He isboard member of the AHRD Executive Board, and serves as Editorial Board Member ofnumerous scholarly journals in the field of HRD. He teaches Educational Statistics, Evaluation in

JEIT33,1

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

HRD, and Foundations of Human Resource Development. Fredrick M. Nafukho is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at fnafukho@tamu.edu

Carroll M. Graham is an assistant professor in the Department of Technology Management,College of Technology, Indiana State University. He also serves as Associate Editor for the 2009Academy of Human Resource Development International Research Conference in the Americas.Dr Graham has extensive experience in former career tracks in the Petroleum and Agriculturalbusiness sectors. His current research and publication agenda includes organizational learning,learning organization, work conditions and performance issues, organizational commitment, andevaluation.

Machuma Hellen Muyia is a doctoral candidate in Adult Education and Human ResourceDevelopment, University of Arkansas. She holds an M.Ed in Adult Education (University ofArkansas), an M.Phil in Educational Planning (Moi University), and bachelors degree inEconomics and Geography (Kenyatta University). She has over 14 years of teaching experienceat High School and College levels. Her primary areas of research include: leadership andemotional intelligence, gender and equity in education, needs of adult learners, and internationaladult learning issues.

Organizationallearning

51

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Nurazree Mahmud, Mohd Faiz Hilmi. 2014. TQM and Malaysian SMEs Performance: The MediatingRoles of Organization Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 130, 216-225. [CrossRef]

2. Abd Rahman Said, Haslinda Abdullah, Jegak Uli, Zainal Abidin Mohamed. 2014. Relationship betweenOrganizational Characteristics and Information Security Knowledge Management Implementation.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123, 433-443. [CrossRef]

3. Bunjongjit Rompho, Sununta Siengthai. 2012. Integrated performance measurement system for firm'shuman capital building. Journal of Intellectual Capital 13:4, 482-514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Raid Moh'd Al‐adaileh, Khadra Dahou, Ishaq Hacini. 2012. The impact of knowledge conversionprocesses on implementing a learning organization strategy. The Learning Organization 19:6, 482-496.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

At 1

1:30

03

Febr

uary

201

5 (P

T)