The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.

htm

Organizational learning in educational settings (technical): an Indian perspective

B. Patnaik and G.S. Beriha
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India

Organizational learning

153

S.S. Mahapatra
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India, and

N. Singh
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India
Abstract
Purpose This paper seeks to present an empirical study on organizational learning in Indian educational organizations. Design/methodology/approach The Learning Organization Prole (LOP) Survey is used as the tool for eliciting responses from the staff regarding the nature and state of organizational learning prevailing in educational settings. The study attempts to highlight the extent of organizational learning in technological institutes of repute in both the public and private sectors in India. Factor ` -vis analysis and descriptive statistics have been used to analyze data and to make comparisons vis-a ownership of organization and employee category. Findings Results indicate that the extent of organizational learning is below the expected level in both public and private sectors. Signicant difference exists between public and private organizations in terms of the extent as well as dimensions of organizational learning. As leadership has emerged as the most valued factor in the private sector institutes and third among eight dimensions in the public ones, the onus lies in leading these institutes with able managers who inspire the employees to learn and adapt. The management has opportunity to enhance the potential of the academic institutes for learning by choosing effective leaders who provide direction and vision for employees. The role of transformational leadership is important in the context of Indian technological institutes. Originality/value Development of learning culture is becoming a dominant theme in the strategic plans of many organizations today. Hence, it is vital to investigate the nature and extent of organizational learning as prevailing in the sector of higher education and learning, specically in the Indian context. The study differentiates organizational learning practices in public and private undertakings. It also examines the dimensions of organizational learning as experienced by different categories of employees constituting the organization. Keywords Organizational learning, Educational institutes, Public sector, Private undertakings, Public sector organizations, Private sector organizations, India, Learning organizations Paper type Research paper
The Learning Organization Vol. 20 No. 2, 2013 pp. 153-172 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/09696471311303782

The authors wish to thank the support of Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), New Delhi, India for funding this research (Grant No. RP02/0127/2008/RP).

TLO 20,2

154

1. Introduction To survive in a competitive economy, todays organizations must develop the capacity to learn, adapt and change. Holding on to the traditional ways of operations and strategies can not only render an organization stagnant, but also make it difcult for its employees to grow and develop. Just as an individual becomes out of sync and incompetent when he/she stops learning, an organization becomes dysfunctional when it stops adapting to changes in the environment. In such conditions, the only way for organizations to remain competitive is to convert them to a permanent learning system for constant renewal. A learning organization is the term given to a company that facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. Learning organizations develop as a result of the pressures facing modern organizations and enables them to remain competitive in the business environment. A learning organization has ve main features; systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. Organizational learning studies models and theories about the way an organization learns and adapts. Organizational learning is the characteristic of an adaptive organization, i.e. an organization that is able to sense change signals from its environment (both internal and external) and adapt accordingly. Although an educational organization is a center for knowledge and learning, it may not be learning organization in the true sense of the term. It may lack the spirit and initiative to create, share and transfer the knowledge for collective learning. It may suffer from inertia or complacency which can act as barrier in terms of growth of the in the direction of new vision and creativity. The concept of the learning organization has received increasing attention in the area of organizational studies; yet little is known about how to measure it. Despite growing attention to the learning organization, the lack of a theoretically derived measure of the construct has deterred substantive research in this eld. Temponi (2005) analyses the main elements of continuous improvement in higher education that address the concerns of academias stakeholders during the process of its implementation. Lomas (2004) emphasizes the selection of a particular quality management model such as European Forum for Quality Management (EFQM) and Total Quality Management (TQM) for promoting continuous improvement of quality in education. Research on organizational learning is directed primarily towards assessment of business and industrial organizations. There are very few studies focused on educational ones. Although schools have gured prominently in these studies, higher education has not received much attention. The socio-economic development of a nation indirectly rests on the centers of higher learning such as University, Institutes of national importance, and Centers of higher research. Institutes of Technology constitute the backbone of the scientic pursuit and applications of any country and are centers on which lies the responsibility of building brainpower and subsequent innovations and breakthroughs in the eld of science and technology. Creating a climate of continual growth and creativity is vital for such organizations for leading the future of a nation. Peck et al. (2009) have examined the pressures for change in the eld of teacher education that are escalating signicantly as part of systemic education reform initiatives in a broad spectrum of economically developed and developing nations. It is a widely held view especially in India that public sector undertakings lack the ability to learn and adapt to circumstances of rapid change. However, both private and public organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of culture as an

essential prerequisite for readiness and willingness to learn (Calantone et al., 2002). Governments tend to experience great difculties in diagnosing problems early, selecting policy directions, designing effective and efcient programmes, rectifying problems and avoiding what is commonly referred to as public sector failure. As a result of these capacity gaps, some countries have not been able to take advantage of the many opportunities offered by rapid advances in the economic and technological spheres. An important quality of organizations capable of learning, on the other hand, is their adeptness in identifying and analyzing salient cues in the broader environment as well as responding to those cues in an effective and timely manner. The well established public sector organizations have to compete with private sector in almost all kinds of products and services in the age of globalization. The extent to which the policies and mechanisms for transformation and change are implemented for staying aoat in the competitive market constitutes an important issue. According to Johnston and Hawke (2002), learning culture can be dened as the existence of a set of attitudes, values and practices within an organization which support and encourage a continuing process of learning for the organization and/or its members. A learning culture is said to exist in an environment where teamwork, collaboration, creativity, and knowledge processes exist that have a collective meaning and value (Joo, 2007). For an organization to improve its performance, it requires a learning culture (Kumar, 2005). Hence, development of learning culture is becoming a dominant theme in the strategic plans of many organizations today (Walsham, 2002). Therefore, it becomes essential to investigate the nature and extent of organizational learning as prevailing in the sector of higher education and learning. It is important to understand the factors responsible for organizational learning in the Indian context. The specic objectives of the present study are as follows: . To examine the nature and extent of organizational learning in the reputed educational organizations in India. . To differentiate organizational learning practices in public and private undertakings. . To examine the dimensions of organizational learning as experienced by different categories of employees constituting the organization. The study has implications for shaping appropriate managerial practices aimed at further growth in terms of organizational learning specically in the educational sector. The strength and weakness evidenced in the prole of organizations will shed light on policy implications at the national level aimed at human resource development. 2. Literature review The most popular denitions of organizational learning could be categorized into the following three perspectives. First, the adaptive learning perspective, which focuses on individuals as agents of learning (Heneman et al., 1989; Argris and Schon, 1978). Second, the development of knowledge base perspective (Duncan and Weiss, 1979) and the institutionalized experience effects perspective, which focuses on organizational change through better knowledge and understanding (Stata, 1989). Third, the assumption sharing perspective, which focuses on the changing of shared mental models related to operational policies, norms and performance criteria (Shrivastava, 1983; Dixon, 2000). The previous three denitions are integrated and organizational

Organizational learning

155

TLO 20,2

156

learning is viewed as change in an organizations potential behavior as a result of acquiring new shared mental models, change in norms, rules, processes, structure, or coordination of behavior. According to Senge (1990), learning organization is an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future. For such an organization, it is not enough merely to survive. Learning organization means the skills and capabilities of the organization to create, achieve and transfer the knowledge and reforming individuals behavior to reect a new knowledge and vision (Garvin, 1993). Centers of higher learning and education represent collective endeavour to generate, transfer and advance knowledge for constructive application in relevant spheres. However, organizational learning may not be warranted in such organizations. In other words, educational organizations do not automatically become learning organizations just because their primary product is all about learning and knowledge. Learning organization is perceived as a place where members continuously develop their capacity to create desired outcomes, develop and nurture new patterns of thinking, transform ways of doing things and liberate the entity aspirations (Pedler et al., 1991; Senge, 1990). However, the adaptive process of organizational learning usually attempts to nd the relation between the exploration of new possibilities and exploitation of old certainties. Exploration includes things captured by terms such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, exibility, discovery, innovation. Exploitation includes such things as renement, choice, production, efciency, selection, implementation, execution. Processes for allocating resources between them, therefore, embody inter-temporal, inter-institutional, and interpersonal comparisons, as well as risk preferences. The difculties involved in making such comparisons lead to complications in specifying appropriate trade-offs, and in achieving them (March, 1991). Technological advancements, dynamic customer demands, increasing globalization, the blurring of organizational boundaries, and increasing competition are all combining to produce organizational environments more turbulent and volatile than ever before. Given the uncertain nature of organizational environments, adoption of some or all of the features of the learning organization enables organizations to develop more exible and adaptable systems that improve long-term performance (Guns, 1996; Senge, 1992; Slater and Narver, 1995). Many of the criticisms leveled at public organizations imply a failure to use information and experience to make better decisions. In other words, public organizations fail to adopt organizational learning. The organizations can improve if organizational actors identify and use information to improve actions and pursue contemporary public management reform, such as total quality management, reengineering, benchmarking, performance management, and performance budgeting. Leaders seeking to foster learning should recognize that most relevant organizational variables combining structural and cultural aspects, which are mutually dependent on one another (Moynihan and Landuyt, 2009). Interaction of learning organization with various variables such as organizational culture, motivation, job satisfaction, performance, personality, employee turnover, individual learning, team learning has been research subjects. Today, leaders have difculties in transforming their organizations into learning organizations despite all its attraction. Spector and Davidsen (2006) identied to measure and modeled the nature of

organizational learning based on a socially-situated, information-processing view of learning along with associated measures of learning. Several approaches for implementing the principles of organizational learning are suggested. Senge (1990) put forward a ve interrelated disciplines consisting personal mastery, mental models, team learning, shared vision and system thinking as a framework for developing a learning organization. Huber (1991) suggested a four step approach involving knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory. Burgoyne (1995) proposed three levels of organizational learning such as single loop learning, double loop learning and triple loop learning. Single loop learning offers individuals the opportunity to identify errors and correct them within the organization while double loop learning views people as learning agents who examine environment, develop appropriate responses suitable for new requirements and provide room for organizations to adapt and manage change. Triple loop level offers possibility to challenge strongly interpretations of existing knowledge and traditional constructs including the understanding of management of people and work and this is where Learning Organization can wholly emerge (Burnes et al. 2003; Burgoyne, 1995). Organizational learning can occur at individual, group and organizational levels and recent developments in the literature also suggest that learning occurs between rms, and within a network or industry. Organizations differ in their capacities to learn from different organizations and learning must be viewed at an inter-organizational level (Lane and Lubatkin, 1998; Zollo et al., 2002). Erturgut and Soysekerci (2009) have studied the phenomenon of sustainable development and examined especially within the context of the successful orientation initiatives of public educational institutions. Dean (2000) concluded that teachers should develop in group relationships by attaching importance to the social structure of the class in order to achieve social communication. Lier (2009) has reviewed labour geography to identify teaching and learning for work. Atak and Erturgut (2010) have determined the relationship between learning organization and organizational commitment, and to determine whether emotional commitment, normative commitment and continuation commitment which are subordinate elements of organizational commitment have effects on learning organization and subordinate elements of learning organization. A case study in Swedish manufacturer of tools indicates that individuals mental models and metaphors are not consistent with managements (Steiner, 1998). When the ideology of organizational learning is not followed by values and norms for behavior supporting the new ideology then barriers to learning occur. Barriers to learning have been traced to dilemmas caused by the individual and the owgroup, the organizational structure and managerial actions. Recently, Schilling and Kluge (2009) have categorized different learning barriers and discussed with regard to factors complicating or impeding organizational learning. Finally, the impact of particular barriers on different kinds of organizational units, the relationship between organizational learning barriers, single-loop and double-loop learning, as well as typical combinations of barriers and their respective impact on organizational performance have been analyzed. The organizations are complex adaptive social systems that collectively learn and the learning process becomes easy if members of the knowledge management and organizational learning disciplines are actively involved in monitoring and evaluating each others promising new theories and practices to the dynamics of knowledge processing and adaptation in human social

Organizational learning

157

TLO 20,2

systems (Firestone and McElroy, 2004). An empirical study (survey of 102 small and medium enterprises operating in the ICT industry in Malaysia) suggests that organizational learning contributes to innovation capability and that innovation is positively related to performance (Salim and Sulaiman, 2011). 3. Organizational learning: enablers and deterrents Learning in an organization can occur in two ways: from the rms own experience and from the experience of other rms. The former is referred to as internal learning while the latter is referred to as external learning (Bierly and Chakrabarti, 1996; Dodgson, 1993). Although cumulative experience leads to learning, research has also suggested that rm-specic factors like procedures and systems, cross-functional communication, leadership and team work affect learning (Pisano et al., 2001). Factors identied as aspects of culture that can facilitate learning, are openness, transformational leadership (Hult et al., 2000), participative decision-making culture, learning orientation (Hurley and Hult, 1998), positive supervisory behavior and organizational support (Ramus and Steger, 2000). Sharma (2005a) assessed the status of various management practices/cultural attributes in local government and to examine their relationship with organizational performance. The outcomes of the study proved that employees empowerment had not received enough support from the management though there was correlation between various performance measures. A study of restaurant chains in the USA found that governance structures inuenced organizational learning. Company-owned units learned from the parents experience and exploited that learning whereas franchisees explored new behavior (Sorenson and Sorensen, 2001). In another study in the hotel industry, franchisee operating experience was positively related to failure rates (Baum and Ingram, 1998; Ingram and Baum, 1997). The composition and management of groups and teams within an organization also inuence learning. Pisano et al. (2001) found that rms that learn better than others differ on a variety of factors: formal procedures for learning, cross-functional communication and stability of team membership. Also, competitive environments have been found to enhance organizational learning because they pose a threat to the existing position of an organization (Barnett and Hansen, 1996). The strategic posture of an organization inuences organizational learning by providing a context for perceiving and interpreting the environment (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). In a study conducted in the pharmaceutical industry, rms that emphasized incremental and radical learning, as well as internal and external learning, were found to be more successful than other rms (Bierly and Chakrabarti, 1996). These ndings reect that the organizational mechanisms can facilitate or hinder Organizational Learning. Since four contextual factors in an organization such as culture, strategy, structure and environment (Fiol and Lyles, 1985) affect learning, it is imperative to examine whether the ownership of the organization, i.e. public or private undertakings has signicant impact on the nature and extent of organizational learning, reecting broad difference in the contextual factors. Corporate restructuring has become an important means for achieving organizational learning in India and elsewhere. According to Khandwalla (2001), in the context of liberalization of globalization of economy, the changes required in the functioning of corporate needs are to be vast. Corporate restructuring is dened as a major, synergistic realignment of the corporate work culture, vision, values, strategy,

158

structure, management systems, management styles, technologies, staff skills, etc. Such realignments can, however, vary greatly, depending on choices made as to what to change, in what way, and how much. A study (Bhatnagar and Sharma, 2005) focused on the empirical analysis of strategic HR roles and organizational learning capability. Line and HR rm performance were analysed with 640 managers in India. Results indicated that strategic HR roles and organizational learning capability predict rm performance. A correlation of organizational learning diagnostics scores with climate variables suggests that climate and ethos are very important in the implementation phase, with trust and the extension motive playing a very positive role and that a climate of dependency is detrimental to organizational learning (Pareek, 2002a). It was suggested that a conducive climate, transformational leadership and empowerment can promote organizational learning. 4. Learning in educational organizations Innovations in educational organizations have not been researched as intensely as business and industrial organizations. If innovations are to ourish in schools, it is critical that the mechanisms which can sustainand encourage them be understood clearly. Findings, in a study, indicated the important role of leadership in adoptinginnovations in schools. Openness in vertical and horizontal communication and establishing a wide network with individuals and institutions outside also appeared to be critical. The innovativeschools tended to develop a well-dened and documentedsystem of review and monitoring, and mobilizingcommunity support. These schools had established procedures for teachers training and growth, and instituted decentralized and participative systems of management (Sharma, 2005b). In a study (Dill, 1999), reviewing the adaptations in organizational structure and governance reported by universities attempting to improve the quality of their teaching and learning processes, found that there was substantial evidence of the new environment leading to the adaptation of the internal structures and governance processes of the universities reviewed. These changes could be understood as a fundamental change in the architecture of academic organizations.A study in Iran, comparing organizational learning rates in public and non-prot schools, indicated in all achieved characteristics, the rate of organizational learning of non-prot schools was more than public schools (ZareiMatin et al., 2007). It has been alsodemonstrated that most universities are far away from being learning organizations, due to some organizational learning barriers (Bratianu, 2007). Critical analysis of the review of literature suggests that organizational learning depends on contextual factors and organizations have to get rid of the barriers to such endeavours. Since higher education organizations have not received attention in the learning aspects, it is imperative to examine the organizational learning mechanisms in this sector in the Indian context. This can shed light on the existing scenario as well as provide insights into reforms that can be introduced in the managerial policies for further improvement. 5. Materials and method The responses from employees were collected by using the questionnaire of Learning Organization Process (LOP) Survey (Pareek, 2002a, b) along with the biographical data.

Organizational learning

159

TLO 20,2

160

The questionnaire contains 48 items (see Table I) covering eight dimensions of organizational learning such as Holistic frame, Strategic thrust, Shared vision, Empowerment, Information ow, Internality, Learning and Synergy. Under each dimension, exactly six items are considered. A respondent needs to rate all the items using 1 to 5 Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagrees and 5 strongly agrees). The responses were collected from employees of different technological institutes of repute (both private and public) across India through e-mail/postal/personal contacts. A total of 320 responses were considered in the study with 160 employees representing each of the sectors-public and private. The organizational variables such as year of establishment, accreditation and afliation, status (Deemed University), infrastructure and facilities, faculty and student strength, industry interface, placement and so on were matched while selecting the institutes for the study. Equal number of teaching and non teaching staff (80 each) constituted the sample in public and private sector organizations. Tenure of service, age range, and minimum qualication were some of the factors matched while selecting the sample for the study. 6. Results and discussions A two way ANOVA (analysis of variance) was conducted to nd out difference between organization types (public and private referred as ORG type), staff type (teaching and non-teaching referred as STAFF type) and their interaction effect. Two-way ANOVA (see Table II) indicates that the public and private sector technological institutes signicantly differed in terms of extent of organizational learning (F 1; 316 27:381; p , 0:01). Mean scores indicated that the extent of organizational learning was higher in private sector institutes compared to the public ones (mean scores 142.74 and 152 respectively for public and private Institutes). However, compared to the norms, the extent of organizational learning can be considered to be low in institutes of both the sectors. Nature of staff, i.e. whether teaching or non-teaching, was not found to be a signicant factor so far as perception of extent of organizational learning was concerned. Mean scores in each dimensions of organizational learning (see Table III) indicate that irrespective of nature of staff, internality as a learning dimension has lowest mean score for the public sector organizations, whereas it is the dimension of Shared vision, which has the lowest mean in the private sector organizations. Holistic frame and Strategic thrust have highest mean scores in the teaching and non teaching category respectively for private sector. The highest mean dimensions are Empowerment and Holistic frame for teaching and non teaching category respectively in the public sector. In order to identify the signicant dimensions of organizational learning in public and private sector Institutes, factor analysis was conducted on 48 variables of 320 responses using the principal component method followed by varimax rotation to ensure that they are important and suitable for the model using SPSS 16.0. Percentage of total variance explained was found to be 72 percent and 75 percent for private and public sector, which are acceptable values for the principal component varimax rotated factor loading procedure. Out of 48 items, 23 items were loaded more than 0.6 in case of private sector Institutes. The 23 items that are classied into nine dimensions (see Table IV) are dened as leadership, supportive learning climate, teamwork, holistic thinking, sense of ownership, morale, empowerment and networked structure.

Sl no. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This organization is alive to changes and is strongly connected with the environment This Organization encourages employees to prioritize their tasks in terms of their strategic thrust The vision of this Organization is developed by its top leaders, without involving most members in its development The organizational structure allows and facilitates most of its parts and people to accomplish their tasks Most of the critical information is shared in an authentic way at most levels in this organization Most people in this organization are optimistic about their personal and organizational future The organization gives importance to and facilitates selfdevelopment of its people People are generally willing to suspend their own assumptions, and think collectively on critical matters People in this organization generally see and deal with things in isolation, they seem to miss their interconnections People here ignore working out consequences or implications of most actions that they plan. The organizational vision is inspiring for most of its people, and seems to be linked with their own personal goals There is enough decentralization and delegation in this organization There is free ow of relevant information in this organization Generally people here believe that they can inuence what happens in this organization, in a very limited way This organization is rather insulated, and does not learn from other organizations People here, who have strong views during discussions, continue to hold them, even after a decision has been taken The organization generally treats each event by itself. These are treated as discrete events rather than seeing them in a pattern The top leaders search for the key variables which make the most impact, prioritizing the various items in terms of their importance Top leaders give highest priority to developing an inspiring vision for this organization Employees in this organization feel that they lack proper direction for the work they are supposed to do People here generally hesitate to communicate negative information to their seniors When people, working here, get together, generally they talk about negative things, and discuss some emotion-laden issues from the past There is no conducive climate in this organization for learning; people are generally critical and not supportive. Not enough time and attention is given to clearing or taking care of hurt feelings; most attention is on completing tasks rather than on improving human processes. People generally are busy with their present concerns and they are not able to see the larger issues beyond the immediate. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Ratings 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Organizational learning

161

(continued )

Table I. Questionnaire of LOP survey

TLO 20,2

Sl no. Items 26 27 The organization is willing to discontinue a business line, or close down a unit, even when it does not seem to be central to its main purpose The vision developed by the top people is generally limited to that level, does not get communicated to most people in the organization People, while working on their tasks, experience a lot of support from the seniors Most communication in this organization is through rumors because of lack of proper communication by the authorities in time People in the organization are more aware of the constraints, and feel helpless in dealing with them The organization does not give importance to critical enquiry and reection by people; there seems to be a rush for completing the assignments. Coordinated action is lacking; people do most of their work by themselves. People are willing to examine their basic assumptions, when they get information conicting with their expectations. Management encourages people to reect on information and data, and reframe them at the strategic level. The top management develops organizational vision, but commitment to it by most people seems to be low People are more interested in getting formal authority, rather than developing their personal power to inuence decisions Generally people come to know about critical decisions and information from sources other than the management of the organization People are more interested in getting immediate benets rather than postponing them for larger gain in future There is enough dialogue amongst various levels in dealing with critical issues Enough attention is given to developing a consensus before taking decisions on key problems. The organization uses boundary workers, like vendors, as environment scanners. Strategic information and decisions are not shared at all levels, nor are comments invited on such critical matters. The vision developed by leaders is not translated into detailed concrete actions to be taken There is lack of recognition and reward for taking difcult decisions and solving critical problems Internal exchange of information for solving problems is encouraged here People hesitate to take calculated risks; generally, there is lack boldness in decision making Openness is valued in the organization; people are encouraged to get ideas from various sources Cross-functional teams are set up in the organization to deal with common issues 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Ratings 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

162

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Table I.

Notes: Strongly disagree 1, Disagree 2, Neither agree nor disagree 3, Agree 4, Strongly agree 5

The internal consistency of the actual survey data were tested by computing the Cronbachs Alpha (a). The value of alpha for all dimensions is 0.802 and 0.813 for private and public sectors respectively (see Table V), which is well above the acceptable value of 0.70 for demonstrating internal consistency of the established scale (Nunnally, 1978). The value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), which is a measure of sampling adequacy, is found to be 0.782 and 0.79 for private and public sectors respectively, indicating that the factor analysis test has proceeded correctly and the sample used is adequate as the minimum acceptable value of KMO is 0.5 (Othman and Owen, 2002). Therefore, it can be concluded that the matrix did not suffer from multicollinearity or singularity. The result of Bartlett test of Sphericity shows that it is highly signicant (sig 0.000) which indicates that the factor analysis processes is correct and suitable for testing multidimensionality (Othman and Owen, 2002). Therefore, the statistical tests has resulted that the proposed items and all dimensions of instruments are sound enough for analysis. Table VI shows the percentage of variation explained by factor analysis with varimax rotation. Leadership happened to be most important factor whereas Networked structure is least important factor. Holistic thinking is considered to be next important factor followed by Sense of ownership, Teamwork and Supportive learning climate. Morale is the sixth ranked factor followed by Empowerment. Out of 48 items, 33 items are loaded more than 0.6 in case of public sector institutes. The 33 items that are classied into eight dimensions (see Table V) are dened as networked structure, leadership, employee participation, system thinking, empowerment, task orientation, transparency and autonomy. Table VII shows the percentage of variation explained by factor analysis with varimax rotation. System thinking happens to be the most important factor whereas Transparency is least important factor. Networked structure is considered to be next important factor
Source ORG type STAFF type ORG STAFF Error Total Sum of squares 6872.778 27.028 163.878 79317.062 86380.747 DF 1 1 1 316 319 Mean square 6872.778 27.028 163.878 251.003 F 27.381 00.108 00.653 Sig. 0.000 0.743 0.420

Organizational learning

163

Table II. Two-way ANOVA showing main effects of type of organizations and type of staff and their interaction effect

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dimensions Holistic frame Strategic thrust Shared vision Empowerment Information inow Internality Learning Synergy

Public teaching Mean SD 27.90 27.57 27.57 32.52 28.41 24.90 30.00 27.60 7.79 9.25 8.27 8.37 8.77 7.54 8.00 8.52

Public nonteaching Mean SD 30.87 27.21 28.98 28.35 27.90 26.91 27.78 30.09 9.21 8.82 7.82 6.99 6.69 6.35 6.88 8.49

Private teaching Mean SD 32.46 32.32 29.55 30.90 31.08 31.29 32.22 32.22 6.83 6.34 10.36 6.01 9.34 6.81 8.50 8.26

Private nonteaching Mean SD 30.87 35.76 26.79 34.44 27.87 27.84 31.15 31.47 7.94 7.32 8.61 7.51 8.23 7.28 7.27 8.64

Table III. Mean and SD of learning dimensions

164

TLO 20,2

Dimension 3 10 20 30 43 44 1 2 7 22 23 16 17 46 37 38 6 33 14 41 42 12 13 0.630 0.808 0.669 0.640 0.719 0.697 0.677 0.825 0.612 0.699 0.758 0.716 0.671 0.753 0.845 0.775 0.625 0.724 0.636 0.746 0.624 0.762 0.696

Leadership

Supportive learning climate

Teamwork

Holistic thinking

Sense of ownership

Morale

Empowerment

Networked structure

Table IV. Factor loading score (private institutes) Item no. F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 Cronbach alpha (overall 0.802) 0.680 0.776 0.698 0.713 0.802 0.665 0.618 0.738

Dimension 0.603 0.692 0.637 0.725 0.665 0.706 0.681 0.787 0.686 0.704 0.658 0.647 0.696 0.651 0.624 0.645 0.669 0.792 0.684 0.659 0.649 0.705 0.745 0.646 0.682 0.808 0.766 0.601 0.613 0.699 0.604 0.710 0.716 0.759 0.891

Item no.

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

F7

F8

Cronbach alpha (overall 0.813)

Networked structure

Leadership

Employee participation

0.641

System thinking

0.701

Empowerment

0.602

Task orientation

0.803 0.615 0.736

Transparency

Autonomy

28 29 30 44 45 48 32 35 36 37 38 20 21 22 41 42 2 10 11 16 17 12 13 34 40 24 25 26 4 5 6 46 47

Organizational learning

Table V. Factor loading score (public institutes)

165

TLO 20,2

166

followed by Leadership, Task orientation and Employee participation. Empowerment is the sixth ranked factor followed by Autonomy. Results indicate that the relative importance of factors contributing to organizational learning, as perceived by employees, is different in private sector institutes compared to public ones. This has implications for planning and policy formulations by the management. Results support earlier study in Indian context (Pareek, 2002a) that a conducive climate, transformational leadership and empowerment can promote organizational learning. Results also corroborate earlier contentions in this regard. Based on a large number of case studies in India, the facilitating factors for organizational learning have been suggested (Ramnarayan and Bhatnagar, 1993) and they are commitment, effective HRD systems, mechanisms of collective thinking and reection, exible and participative leadership styles, collaboration and team work, external orientation for learning and measuring devices for hitherto neglected aspects. In a study of 50 relatively progressive public and private sector organizations in India, the six most widely used learning mechanisms were found to be sending employees to external training programmes, conferences etc., identication and use of employees with needed skills and expertise for implementing changes, modications and innovations in planning, holding of periodic meetings of staff for sharing results of innovations, consulting outside expertise through invitation, and creation of task forces for project implementation (Khandwalla, 1992). Based on the ndings of the present study, it can be said that there is a need to shift the focus from formal learning procedures to a creation of a more reective and creative learning environment in organizations.
Dimensions Leadership Holistic thinking Sense of ownership Teamwork Supportive learning climate Morale Empowerment Networked structure Percentage of commonality variance explained 12.544 10.926 9.797 8.978 8.897 7.975 6.893 6.885 Ranking of factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Table VI. Percent of variation explained by factor analysis (private sector)

Dimensions System thinking Networked and lateral structure Leadership Task orientation Employee participation Empowerment Autonomy Transparency

Percentage of commonality variance explained Ranking of factors 12.864 10.896 10.769 9.962 9.699 7.875 7.847 5.938 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Table VII. Percent of variation explained by factor analysis (public sector)

7. Conclusions The extent of organizational learning is found to be signicantly higher in case of institutes of private sector compared to the public sector institutes. However, in both the sectors, the learning was generally viewed to be at a lower level compared to the expectations of the employees. To sum up, the extent of organizational learning leaves a lot to be desired in the premier Technological Institutes of India. Continuous improvement in all the major mechanisms of organizational learning is the need of the hour as perceived in both public and private sector. This fact indicates that there is potential for stagnation if continuous improvement for providing a learning climate is not undertaken. Therefore, it is evident that a focused dedication towards organizational learning is needed in both the sectors. It can be inferred from the survey that the management of educational institutes has the opportunities to inuence the sense of openness and continued adaptability to enhance a learning climate in these organizations. Nature of staff is not found to be a signicant factor so far as perception of extent of organizational learning was concerned. Mean scores in each dimensions of organizational learning indicate that Internality as a learning dimension has lowest mean score for the public sector organizations whereas Shared vision has the lowest mean score in the private sector organizations irrespective of nature of staff. Holistic frame and Strategic thrust have highest mean score in the teaching and non-teaching category respectively for private sector. The highest mean scores are obtained for dimensions Empowerment and Holistic frame for teaching and non-teaching category respectively in the public sector. The dimensions of organizational learning by public and private sector technological institutes are found to be similar to the ones already proposed in the measuring instrument. Leadership emerged as a new dimension in both the sectors and so also Networked structure. These two factors can be assumed to reect the dimensions of Shared vision and Information inow respectively. The present study validates the mechanisms of the organizational learning proposed in the instrument of the survey (Pareek, 2002a, b). The factors like Morale and Task orientation reect the Internality dimension which includes essence of control over most part of ones destiny, optimism, self-discipline, commitment and moderate risk taking. Transparency and Sense of ownership can be assumed to reect the Synergy dimension which includes coordinated action, consensus-building and commitment to consensual decision. The fact that Leadership emerges as the most valued factor in the private sector institutes and third among eight dimensions in the public ones, the onus lies in leading these institutes with able managers who inspire the employees to learn and adapt. The management has opportunity to enhance the potential of the academic institutes for learning by choosing effective leaders who provide direction and vision for employees. The role of transformational leadership is important in the context of Indian Technological Institutes. The dimension of Internality has the lowest mean score in the public sector and it is true for both categories of employees. Internality represents the tendency to take initiatives and the belief that one can inuence events. This has implications for strategies of reinforcement for bringing about more interest in undertaking individual projects and assignments by employees of public sector. This would further the learning process within the organization. In case of private sector institutes, the dimension Shared vision has the lowest mean score, as perceived by both teaching

Organizational learning

167

TLO 20,2

168

and non-teaching employees. Shared vision implies developing a vision through participation and inspiring members by linking the vision with their personal goals. This indicates that developing and using transformational leadership in private sector institutes is essential for generating long-term commitment towards organizational learning. In this work, a comparison of extent of organizational learning in public and private technical institutes has been made. The views of teaching and non-teaching staff in such institutes towards organization learning have been endorsed and compared with previous models. As a whole, the learning in such institutes is far below than expected. Therefore, change agents with dynamic leadership are required to improve the situation. Frameworks based on existing or new organization learning models need to be evolved to facilitate the adaptability of technical institutes of India. In future, the work can be extended to propose models for change phenomenon and implementation methodology to be evolved. The work can also be extended to manufacturing sectors to identify the dimensions needed to be improved or incorporated in the existing system to facilitate organizational learning. Although the methodology proposed here is quite generic in nature, sample size could be increased in future to explore new direction of the study. The study can also be extended to foreign universities/institutes operating in Indian soil.
References Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Atak, M. and Erturgut, R. (2010), An empirical analysis on the relation between learning organization and organizational commitment, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 3472-6. Barnett, W.P. and Hansen, M.T. (1996), The red queen in organizational evolution, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, S1, pp. 139-57. Baum, J.A.C. and Ingram, P. (1998), Survival-enhancing learning in the Manhattan hotel industry 1898-1980, Management Science, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 996-1016. Bhatnagar, J. and Sharma, A. (2005), The Indian perspective of strategic HR roles and organizational learning capability, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 9, pp. 1711-39. Bierly, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (1996), Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 123-35. Bratianu, C. (2007), The learning paradox and the university, Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 375-86. Burgoyne, J. (1995), Learning from experience: from individual discovery to meta-dialogue via the evolution of transitional myths, Personnel Review, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 61-72. Burnes, B., Cooper, C. and West, P. (2003), Organizational learning: the new management paradigm, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 452-64. Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), Learning orientation rm innovation capability and rm performance, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 515-24. Dean, J. (2000), Improving Childrens Learning: Effective Teaching in the Primary School, 1st ed., Routledge, London.

Dill, D.D. (1999), Academic accountability and university adaptation: the architecture of an academic learning organization, Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 127-54. Dixon, M.M. (2000), Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Dodgson, M. (1993), Organizational learning a review of some literatures, Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 375-94. Duncan, R. and Weiss, A. (1979), Organizational learning: implications for organizational design, in Staw, B. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 75-123. Erturgut, R. and Soysekerci, S. (2009), The problem of sustainability of organizational success in public educational institutions: a research on the education administrators in Turkey, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2092-102. Fiol, M.C. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), Organizational learning, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 803-13. Firestone, J.M. and McElroy, M.W. (2004), Organizational learning and knowledge management: the relationship, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 177-84. Garvin, D. (1993), Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 78-91. Guns, B. (1996), The Learning Organization: Gain and Sustain the Competitive Edge, Pfeiffer, San Diego, CA. Heneman, H.G., Schwab, D.P., Fossum, J.A. and Dyer, L.D. (1989), Personnel/Human Resource Management, Irwin, Homewood, IL. Huber, G.P. (1991), Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115. Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F., Giunipero, L.C. and Nichols, E.L. (2000), Organizational learning in global purchasing: a model and test of internal users and corporate buyers, Decision Sciences, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 293-325. Hurley, R.F. and Hult, G.T.M. (1998), Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 42-54. Ingram, P. and Baum, J.A.C. (1997), Opportunity and constraint: organizations learning from the operating and competitive experience of industries, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, S1, pp. 75-98. Johnston, R. and Hawke, G. (2002), Case Studies of Organizations with Established Learning Cultures, National Centre for Vocational Education Research, Adelaide. Joo, B. (2007), The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity in Korean rms, thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Khandwalla, P.N. (1992), Innovative Corporate Turnaround, Illustrated ed., Sage Publication, New Delhi. Khandwalla, P.N. (2001), Turnaround Excellence: Insight from 120 Cases, 1st ed., Sage Publication, New Delhi. Kumar, N. (2005), Assessing the learning culture and performance of educational institutions, Performance Improvement, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 27-34. Lane, P.J. and Lubatkin, M. (1998), Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 461-77.

Organizational learning

169

TLO 20,2

170

Lier, D.C. (2009), Teaching and learning guide for: places of work, scales of organising: a review of labour geography, Geography Compass Teaching and Learning Guide, Geography Compass, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1602-6. Lomas, L. (2004), Embedding quality: the challenges for higher education, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 157-65. March, J.G. (1991), Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87. Moynihan, D.P. and Landuyt, N. (2009), How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural divides, Public Administrative Review, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 1097-105. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Othman, A. and Owen, L. (2002), The multidimensionality of carter model to measure customer service quality (SQ) in Islamic banking industry: a study in Kuwait nancial house, International Journal of Islamic Financial Service, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1-12. Pareek, U. (2002a), Training Instruments in HRD and OD, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi. Pareek, U. (2002b), Effective Organizations: Beyond Management to Institution Building, revised ed., Oxford and IBH, New Delhi. Peck, C.A., Gallucci, C. and Lippincott, A. (2009), Organizational learning and program renewal in teacher education: a socio-cultural theory of learning, innovation and change, Educational Research Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 16-25. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1991), The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, McGraw-Hill, London. Pisano, G.P., Bohmer, R.M.J. and Edmondson, A.C. (2001), Organizational differences in rates of learning: evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery, Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 752-68. Ramnarayan, S. and Bhatnagar, J. (1993), How do Indian organizations meet learning challenges?, Vikalpa, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-48. Ramus, C.A. and Steger, U. (2000), The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee ecoinitiatives at leading-edge European companies, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 605-26. Salim, I.M. and Sulaiman, M.B. (2011), Organizational learning, innovation and performance: a study of Malaysian small and medium-sized enterprises, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 12, pp. 118-25. Schilling, J. and Kluge, A. (2009), Barriers to organizational learning: an integration of theory and research, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 337-60. Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Learning Organizations, Doubleday, New York, NY. Senge, P. (1992), Building the learning organization, Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 15, March, pp. 30-8. Sharma, B. (2005a), Local government organization on its journey to becoming a learning organization, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 388-402. Sharma, R. (2005b), Identifying a framework for initiating, sustaining and managing innovations in schools, Psychology and Developing Societies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 51-80. Slater, S. and Narver, J. (1995), Market orientation and the learning organization, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, July, pp. 63-74.

Sorenson, O. and Sorensen, J.B. (2001), Finding the right mix: franchising, organizational learning, and chain performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 Nos 6-7, pp. 713-24. Spector, J.M. and Davidsen, P.I. (2006), How can organizational learning be modeled and measured, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 63-9. Stata, R. (1989), Organizational learning: the key to management innovation, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 63-74. Shrivastava, P. (1983), A typology of organizational learning systems, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 7-28. Steiner, L. (1998), Organizational dilemmas as barriers to learning, The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 193-201. Temponi, C. (2005), Continuous improvement framework: implications for academia, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 17-36. Walsham, G. (2002), Knowledge management: the benets and limitations of computer systems, European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 599-608. ZareiMatin, H., Jandaghi, G. and Moini, B. (2007), Comparing organizational learning rates in public and non-prot schools in QOM province of Iran, Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 396-408. Zollo, M., Reuer, J.J. and Singh, H. (2002), Inter-organizational routines and performance in strategic alliances, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 701-13.

Organizational learning

171

Further reading Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. (2002), Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Louis, R., Lundberg, C.C. and Martin, J. (n.d.), Organizational Culture, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 31-53. Pisano, G.P. (1994), Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: an empirical analysis of process-development, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, S1, pp. 85-100. Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S.R. (1985), Cultural organization: fragments of a theory, in Frost, P.J., Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C.C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 31-53.

About the authors Dr B. Patnaik is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, India. She has more than seven years of experience in teaching and research. Her current area of research includes organizational culture and dynamics, emotional intelligence and quality of work life. She has published more than 20 research articles in referred journals. She is currently dealing with several sponsored research projects. G.S. Beriha is a Research Scholar in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, India. He served as a Lecturer in Marketing in the College of Engineering and Technology Bhubaneswar, India. His area of research is service quality management. His area of interest includes total quality management, statistical process control, service quality management, strategic planning and analyzing consumer behavior. He has published more than ten research papers in various international and national conferences and journals.

TLO 20,2

172

Dr S.S. Mahapatra is presently working as Professor at the Department of Mechanical Engineering in National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India. His areas of interest include multi-criteria decision-making, quality engineering, simulation, lean systems and service quality management. He has published 50 research papers in various international and national conferences and journals. He is reviewer of few international journals. In addition, he is a visiting faculty to many business schools in India. S.S. Mahapatra is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mahapatrass2003@gmail.com N. Singh is a Research Associate in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology Rourkela, India. She served as a faculty in Management at Padmanava College of Engineering, Rourkela, India for two years. Her areas of research include marketing and consumer behavior.

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