organisation learning and cultur

7/28/2019 organisation learning and cultur

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/organisation-learning-and-cultur 1/20

Organizational learning ineducational settings (technical):

an Indian perspectiveB. Patnaik and G.S. Beriha

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India

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 Indianeducational organizations.

Design/methodology/approach – The Learning Organization Profile (LOP) Survey is used as thetool for eliciting responses from the staff regarding the nature and state of organizational learningprevailing in educational settings. The study attempts to highlight the extent of organizationallearning in technological institutes of repute in both the public and private sectors in India. Factoranalysis and descriptive statistics have been used to analyze data and to make comparisons vis-a -visownership of organization and employee category.

Findings – Results indicate that the extent of organizational learning is below the expected level inboth public and private sectors. Significant difference exists between public and private organizationsin terms of the extent as well as dimensions of organizational learning. As leadership has emerged asthe most valued factor in the private sector institutes and third among eight dimensions in the publicones, the onus lies in leading these institutes with able managers who inspire the employees to learnand adapt. The management has opportunity to enhance the potential of the academic institutes forlearning 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 strategicplans 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, specifically in theIndian context. The study differentiates organizational learning practices in public and privateundertakings. It also examines the dimensions of organizational learning as experienced by differentcategories 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 current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

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

Organizationallearning

153

The Learning Organization

Vol. 20 No. 2, 2013

pp. 153-172

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0969-6474

DOI 10.1108/09696471311303782



1. IntroductionTo survive in a competitive economy, today’s organizations must develop the capacityto learn, adapt and change. Holding on to the traditional ways of operations andstrategies can not only render an organization stagnant, but also make it difficult for its

employees to grow and develop. Just as an individual becomes out of sync andincompetent when he/she stops learning, an organization becomes dysfunctional whenit stops adapting to changes in the environment. In such conditions, the only way fororganizations to remain competitive is to convert them to a permanent learning systemfor constant renewal. A learning organization is the term given to a company thatfacilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. Learningorganizations develop as a result of the pressures facing modern organizations andenables them to remain competitive in the business environment. A learningorganization has five main features; systems thinking, personal mastery, mentalmodels, shared vision and team learning. Organizational learning studies models andtheories about the way an organization learns and adapts. Organizational learning isthe characteristic of an adaptive organization, i.e. an organization that is able to sensechange signals from its environment (both internal and external) and adaptaccordingly. Although an educational organization is a center for knowledge andlearning, it may not be learning organization in the true sense of the term. It may lackthe spirit and initiative to create, share and transfer the knowledge for collectivelearning. 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 areaof organizational studies; yet little is known about how to measure it. Despite growingattention to the learning organization, the lack of a theoretically derived measure of theconstruct has deterred substantive research in this field. Temponi (2005) analyses themain elements of continuous improvement in higher education that address the concerns

of academia’s stakeholders during the process of its implementation. Lomas (2004)emphasizes the selection of a particular quality management model such as EuropeanForum for Quality Management (EFQM) and Total Quality Management (TQM) forpromoting continuous improvement of quality in education. Research on organizationallearning is directed primarily towards assessment of business and industrialorganizations. There are very few studies focused on educational ones. Althoughschools have figured prominently in these studies, higher education has not receivedmuch attention. The socio-economic development of a nation indirectly rests on thecenters of higher learning such as University, Institutes of national importance, andCenters of higher research. Institutes of Technology constitute the backbone of thescientific pursuit and applications of any country and are centers on which lies theresponsibility of building brainpower and subsequent innovations and breakthroughs in

the field of science and technology. Creating a climate of continual growth and creativityis vital for such organizations for leading the future of a nation. Peck et al. (2009) haveexamined the pressures for change in the field of teacher education that are escalatingsignificantly 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 theability to learn and adapt to circumstances of rapid change. However, both private andpublic organizations are increasingly recognizing the importance of culture as an

TLO20,2

154



essential prerequisite for readiness and willingness to learn (Calantone et al., 2002).Governments tend to experience great difficulties in diagnosing problems early,selecting policy directions, designing effective and efficient programmes, rectifyingproblems 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 technologicalspheres. An important quality of organizations capable of learning, on the other hand,is their adeptness in identifying and analyzing salient cues in the broader environmentas well as responding to those cues in an effective and timely manner. The wellestablished public sector organizations have to compete with private sector in almostall kinds of products and services in the age of globalization. The extent to which thepolicies and mechanisms for transformation and change are implemented for stayingafloat in the competitive market constitutes an important issue.

According to Johnston and Hawke (2002), learning culture can be defined as theexistence of a set of attitudes, values and practices within an organization whichsupport 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 meaningand value (Joo, 2007). For an organization to improve its performance, it requires alearning culture (Kumar, 2005). Hence, development of learning culture is becoming adominant theme in the strategic plans of many organizations today (Walsham, 2002).Therefore, it becomes essential to investigate the nature and extent of organizationallearning as prevailing in the sector of higher education and learning. It is important tounderstand the factors responsible for organizational learning in the Indian context.The specific objectives of the present study are as follows:

. To examine the nature and extent of organizational learning in the reputededucational organizations in India.

.

To differentiate organizational learning practices in public and privateundertakings.

. To examine the dimensions of organizational learning as experienced bydifferent categories of employees constituting the organization.

The study has implications for shaping appropriate managerial practices aimed atfurther growth in terms of organizational learning specifically in the educationalsector. The strength and weakness evidenced in the profile of organizations will shedlight on policy implications at the national level aimed at human resource development.

2. Literature reviewThe most popular definitions of organizational learning could be categorized into thefollowing three perspectives. First, the adaptive learning perspective, which focuses onindividuals as agents of learning (Heneman et al., 1989; Argris and Schon, 1978).Second, the development of knowledge base perspective (Duncan and Weiss, 1979) andthe institutionalized experience effects perspective, which focuses on organizationalchange through better knowledge and understanding (Stata, 1989). Third, theassumption sharing perspective, which focuses on the changing of shared mentalmodels related to operational policies, norms and performance criteria (Shrivastava,1983; Dixon, 2000). The previous three definitions are integrated and organizational


155



learning is viewed as change in an organization’s potential behavior as a result of acquiring new shared mental models, change in norms, rules, processes, structure, orcoordination 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 isnot enough merely to survive. Learning organization means the skills and capabilitiesof the organization to create, achieve and transfer the knowledge and reformingindividuals behavior to reflect a new knowledge and vision (Garvin, 1993). Centers of higher learning and education represent collective endeavour to generate, transfer andadvance 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 justbecause their primary product is all about learning and knowledge. Learningorganization is perceived as a place where members continuously develop theircapacity 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 findthe relation between the exploration of new possibilities and exploitation of oldcertainties. Exploration includes things captured by terms such as search, variation,risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation. Exploitationincludes such things as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection,implementation, execution. Processes for allocating resources between them,therefore, embody inter-temporal, inter-institutional, and interpersonal comparisons,as well as risk preferences. The difficulties involved in making such comparisons leadto 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 competitionare all combining to produce organizational environments ‘more turbulent and volatilethan ever before’. Given the uncertain nature of organizational environments, adoptionof some or all of the features of the learning organization enables organizations todevelop more flexible 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 useinformation and experience to make better decisions. In other words, publicorganizations fail to adopt organizational learning. The organizations can improve if organizational actors identify and use information to improve actions and pursuecontemporary 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 organizationalvariables combining structural and cultural aspects, which are mutually dependent onone another (Moynihan and Landuyt, 2009).

Interaction of learning organization with various variables such as organizationalculture, motivation, job satisfaction, performance, personality, employee turnover,individual learning, team learning has been research subjects. Today, leaders havedifficulties in transforming their organizations into learning organizations despite all itsattraction. Spector and Davidsen (2006) identified to measure and modeled the nature of

TLO20,2

156



organizational learning based on a socially-situated, information-processing view of learning along with associated measures of learning. Several approaches forimplementing the principles of organizational learning are suggested. Senge (1990) putforward a five interrelated disciplines consisting personal mastery, mental models, team

learning, shared vision and system thinking as a framework for developing a learningorganization. Huber (1991) suggested a four step approach involving knowledgeacquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizationalmemory. Burgoyne (1995) proposed three levels of organizational learning such as singleloop learning, double loop learning and triple loop learning. Single loop learning offersindividuals the opportunity to identify errors and correct them within the organizationwhile double loop learning views people as learning agents who examine environment,develop appropriate responses suitable for new requirements and provide room fororganizations to adapt and manage change. Triple loop level offers possibility tochallenge strongly interpretations of existing knowledge and traditional constructsincluding the understanding of management of people and work and this is whereLearning Organization can wholly emerge (Burnes et al. 2003; Burgoyne, 1995).Organizational learning can occur at individual, group and organizational levels andrecent developments in the literature also suggest that learning occurs between firms,and within a network or industry. Organizations differ in their capacities to learn fromdifferent organizations and learning must be viewed at an inter-organizational level(Lane and Lubatkin, 1998; Zollo et al., 2002). Erturgut and Soysekerci (2009) have studiedthe phenomenon of sustainable development and examined especially within the contextof the successful orientation initiatives of public educational institutions. Dean (2000)concluded that teachers should develop in group relationships by attaching importanceto 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 andErturgut (2010) have determined the relationship between learning organization and

organizational commitment, and to determine whether “emotional commitment”,“normative commitment” and “continuation commitment” which are subordinateelements of organizational commitment have effects on learning organization andsubordinate elements of learning organization.

A case study in Swedish manufacturer of tools indicates that individual’s mentalmodels and metaphors are not consistent with management’s (Steiner, 1998). When theideology of organizational learning is not followed by values and norms for behaviorsupporting the new ideology then barriers to learning occur. Barriers to learning havebeen traced to dilemmas caused by the individual and the flowgroup, theorganizational structure and managerial actions. Recently, Schilling and Kluge(2009) have categorized different learning barriers and discussed with regard to factorscomplicating or impeding organizational learning. Finally, the impact of particular

barriers on different kinds of organizational units, the relationship betweenorganizational learning barriers, single-loop and double-loop learning, as well astypical combinations of barriers and their respective impact on organizationalperformance have been analyzed. The organizations are complex adaptive socialsystems that collectively learn and the learning process becomes easy if members of the knowledge management and organizational learning disciplines are activelyinvolved in monitoring and evaluating each other’s promising new theories andpractices to the dynamics of knowledge processing and adaptation in human social


157



systems (Firestone and McElroy, 2004). An empirical study (survey of 102 small andmedium enterprises operating in the ICT industry in Malaysia) suggests thatorganizational learning contributes to innovation capability and that innovation ispositively related to performance (Salim and Sulaiman, 2011).

3. Organizational learning: enablers and deterrentsLearning in an organization can occur in two ways: from the firm’s own experience andfrom the experience of other firms. The former is referred to as internal learning whilethe latter is referred to as external learning (Bierly and Chakrabarti, 1996; Dodgson,1993). Although cumulative experience leads to learning, research has also suggestedthat firm-specific factors like procedures and systems, cross-functionalcommunication, leadership and team work affect learning (Pisano et al., 2001).Factors identified 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 statusof various management practices/cultural attributes in local government and toexamine their relationship with organizational performance. The outcomes of thestudy proved that employees’ empowerment had not received enough support from themanagement though there was correlation between various performance measures. Astudy of restaurant chains in the USA found that governance structures influencedorganizational learning. Company-owned units learned from the parent’s experienceand exploited that learning whereas franchisees explored new behavior (Sorenson andSorensen, 2001). In another study in the hotel industry, franchisee operating experiencewas positively related to failure rates (Baum and Ingram, 1998; Ingram and Baum,1997). The composition and management of groups and teams within an organizationalso influence learning. Pisano et al. (2001) found that firms that learn better than

others differ on a variety of factors: formal procedures for learning, cross-functionalcommunication and stability of team membership. Also, competitive environmentshave been found to enhance organizational learning because they pose a threat to theexisting position of an organization (Barnett and Hansen, 1996).

The strategic posture of an organization influences organizational learning byproviding a context for perceiving and interpreting the environment (Fiol and Lyles,1985). In a study conducted in the pharmaceutical industry, firms that emphasizedincremental and radical learning, as well as internal and external learning, were foundto be more successful than other firms (Bierly and Chakrabarti, 1996). These findingsreflect that the organizational mechanisms can facilitate or hinder OrganizationalLearning. 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 undertakingshas significant impact on the nature and extent of organizational learning, reflectingbroad difference in the contextual factors.

Corporate restructuring has become an important means for achievingorganizational learning in India and elsewhere. According to Khandwalla (2001), inthe context of liberalization of globalization of economy, the changes required in thefunctioning of corporate needs are to be vast. Corporate restructuring is defined as amajor, synergistic realignment of the corporate work culture, vision, values, strategy,

TLO20,2

158



structure, management systems, management styles, technologies, staff skills, etc.Such realignments can, however, vary greatly, depending on choices made as to whatto 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 firmperformance were analysed with 640 managers in India. Results indicated thatstrategic HR roles and organizational learning capability predict firm performance. Acorrelation of organizational learning diagnostics scores with climate variablessuggests that climate and ethos are very important in the implementation phase, withtrust and the extension motive playing a very positive role and that a climate of dependency is detrimental to organizational learning (Pareek, 2002a). It was suggestedthat a conducive climate, transformational leadership and empowerment can promoteorganizational learning.

4. Learning in educational organizations

Innovations in educational organizations have not been researched as intensely asbusiness and industrial organizations. If innovations are to flourish in schools, it iscritical that the mechanisms which can sustainand encourage them be understoodclearly. Findings, in a study, indicated the important role of leadership inadoptinginnovations in schools. Openness in vertical and horizontal communicationand establishing a wide network with individuals and institutions outside alsoappeared to be critical. The innovativeschools tended to develop a well-defined anddocumentedsystem of review and monitoring, and mobilizingcommunity support.These schools had established procedures for teachers’ training and growth, andinstituted decentralized and participative systems of management (Sharma, 2005b). Ina study (Dill, 1999), reviewing the adaptations in organizational structure andgovernance reported by universities attempting to improve the quality of their

teaching and learning processes, found that there was substantial evidence of the newenvironment leading to the adaptation of the internal structures and governanceprocesses of the universities reviewed. These changes could be understood as afundamental change in the architecture of academic organizations.A study in Iran,comparing organizational learning rates in public and non-profit schools, indicated inall achieved characteristics, the rate of organizational learning of non-profit schoolswas more than public schools (ZareiMatin et al., 2007). It has been alsodemonstratedthat most universities are far away from being learning organizations, due to someorganizational learning barriers (Bratianu, 2007).

Critical analysis of the review of literature suggests that organizational learningdepends on contextual factors and organizations have to get rid of the barriers to suchendeavours. Since higher education organizations have not received attention in the

learning aspects, it is imperative to examine the organizational learning mechanisms inthis sector in the Indian context. This can shed light on the existing scenario as well asprovide insights into reforms that can be introduced in the managerial policies forfurther improvement.

5. Materials and methodThe responses from employees were collected by using the questionnaire of LearningOrganization Process (LOP) Survey (Pareek, 2002a, b) along with the biographical data.


159



The questionnaire contains 48 items (see Table I) covering eight dimensions of organizational learning such as Holistic frame, Strategic thrust, Shared vision,Empowerment, Information flow, Internality, Learning and Synergy. Under eachdimension, exactly six items are considered. A respondent needs to rate all the items

using 1 to 5 Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagrees and 5 ¼ 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 representingeach of the sectors-public and private. The organizational variables such as year of establishment, accreditation and affiliation, status (Deemed University), infrastructureand facilities, faculty and student strength, industry interface, placement and so onwere matched while selecting the institutes for the study. Equal number of teachingand non teaching staff (80 each) constituted the sample in public and private sectororganizations. Tenure of service, age range, and minimum qualification were some of the factors matched while selecting the sample for the study.

6. Results and discussionsA two way ANOVA (analysis of variance) was conducted to find out differencebetween 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 sectortechnological institutes significantly differed in terms of extent of organizationallearning ( F ð1; 316Þ ¼ 27:381; p , 0:01). Mean scores indicated that the extent of organizational learning was higher in private sector institutes compared to the publicones (mean scores ¼ 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. whetherteaching or non-teaching, was not found to be a significant factor so far as perceptionof 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 sectororganizations, whereas it is the dimension of “Shared vision”, which has the lowestmean in the private sector organizations. “Holistic frame” and “Strategic thrust” havehighest mean scores in the teaching and non teaching category respectively for privatesector. The highest mean dimensions are “Empowerment” and “Holistic frame” forteaching and non teaching category respectively in the public sector.

In order to identify the significant dimensions of organizational learning in publicand private sector Institutes, factor analysis was conducted on 48 variables of 320

responses using the principal component method followed by varimax rotation toensure that they are important and suitable for the model using SPSS 16.0. Percentageof total variance explained was found to be 72 percent and 75 percent for private andpublic sector, which are acceptable values for the principal component varimax rotatedfactor 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 classified into nine dimensions (seeTable IV) are defined as leadership, supportive learning climate, teamwork, holisticthinking, sense of ownership, morale, empowerment and networked structure.

TLO20,2

160



Sl no. Items Ratings

1 This organization is alive to changes and is strongly connected with

the environment

1 2 3 4 5

2 This Organization encourages employees to prioritize their tasks interms of their strategic thrust

1 2 3 4 5

3 The vision of this Organization is developed by its top leaders,without involving most members in its development

1 2 3 4 5

4 The organizational structure allows and facilitates most of its partsand people to accomplish their tasks

1 2 3 4 5

5 Most of the critical information is shared in an authentic way atmost levels in this organization

1 2 3 4 5

6 Most people in this organization are optimistic about their personaland organizational future

1 2 3 4 5

7 The organization gives importance to and facilitates self-development of its people

1 2 3 4 5

8 People are generally willing to suspend their own assumptions, and

think collectively on critical matters

1 2 3 4 5

9 People in this organization generally see and deal with things inisolation, they seem to miss their interconnections

1 2 3 4 5

10 People here ignore working out consequences or implications of most actions that they plan.

1 2 3 4 5

11 The organizational vision is inspiring for most of its people, andseems to be linked with their own personal goals

1 2 3 4 5

12 There isenough decentralization and delegation in this organization 1 2 3 4 513 There is free flow of relevant information in this organization 1 2 3 4 514 Generally people here believe that they can influence what happens

in this organization, in a very limited way1 2 3 4 5

15 This organization is rather insulated, and does not learn from otherorganizations

1 2 3 4 5

16 People here, who have strong views during discussions, continue to

hold them, even after a decision has been taken

1 2 3 4 5

17 The organization generally treats each event by itself. These aretreated as discrete events rather than seeing them in a pattern

1 2 3 4 5

18 The top leaders search for the key variables which make the mostimpact, prioritizing the various items in terms of their importance

1 2 3 4 5

19 Top leaders give highest priority to developing an inspiring visionfor this organization

1 2 3 4 5

20 Employees in this organization feel that they lack proper directionfor the work they are supposed to do

1 2 3 4 5

21 People here generally hesitate to communicate negative informationto their seniors

1 2 3 4 5

22 When people, working here, get together, generally they talk aboutnegative things, and discuss some emotion-laden issues from the

past

1 2 3 4 5

23 There is no conducive climate in this organization for learning;people are generally critical and not supportive.

1 2 3 4 5

24 Not enough time and attention is given to clearing or taking care of hurt feelings; most attention is on completing tasks rather than onimproving human processes.

1 2 3 4 5

25 People generally are busy with their present concerns and they arenot able to see the larger issues beyond the immediate.

1 2 3 4 5

( continued )

Table IQuestionnaire of LOP

survey


161



Sl no. Items Ratings

26 The organization is willing to discontinue a business line, or closedown a unit, even when it does not seem to be central to its main

purpose

1 2 3 4 5

27 The vision developed by the top people is generally limited to thatlevel, does not get communicated to most people in the organization

1 2 3 4 5

28 People, while working on their tasks, experience a lot of supportfrom the seniors

1 2 3 4 5

29 Most communication in this organization is through rumorsbecause of lack of proper communication by the authorities in time

1 2 3 4 5

30 People in the organization are more aware of the constraints, andfeel helpless in dealing with them

1 2 3 4 5

31 The organization does not give importance to critical enquiry andreflection by people; there seems to be a rush for completing theassignments.

1 2 3 4 5

32 Coordinated action is lacking; people do most of their work bythemselves.

1 2 3 4 5

33 People are willing to examine their basic assumptions, when theyget information conflicting with their expectations.

1 2 3 4 5

34 Management encourages people to reflect on information and data,and reframe them at the strategic level.

1 2 3 4 5

35 The top management develops organizational vision, butcommitment to it by most people seems to be low

1 2 3 4 5

36 People are more interested in getting formal authority, rather thandeveloping their personal power to influence decisions

1 2 3 4 5

37 Generally people come to know about critical decisions andinformation from sources other than the management of theorganization

1 2 3 4 5

38 People are more interested in getting immediate benefits rather thanpostponing them for larger gain in future

1 2 3 4 5

39 There is enough dialogue amongst various levels in dealing withcritical issues

1 2 3 4 5

40 Enough attention is given to developing a consensus before takingdecisions on key problems.

1 2 3 4 5

41 The organization uses boundary workers, like vendors, asenvironment scanners.

1 2 3 4 5

42 Strategic information and decisions are not shared at all levels, norare comments invited on such critical matters.

1 2 3 4 5

43 The vision developed by leaders is not translated into detailedconcrete actions to be taken

1 2 3 4 5

44 There is lack of recognition and reward for taking difficult decisionsand solving critical problems

1 2 3 4 5

45 Internal exchange of information for solving problems isencouraged here

1 2 3 4 5

46 People hesitate to take calculated risks; generally, there is lackboldness in decision making

1 2 3 4 5

47 Openness is valued in the organization; people are encouraged toget ideas from various sources

1 2 3 4 5

48 Cross-functional teams are set up in the organization to deal withcommon issues

1 2 3 4 5

Notes: Strongly disagree ¼ 1, Disagree ¼ 2, Neither agree nor disagree ¼ 3, Agree ¼ 4, Stronglyagree ¼ 5Table I.

TLO20,2

162



The internal consistency of the actual survey data were tested by computing theCronbach’s Alpha ( a ). The value of alpha for all dimensions is 0.802 and 0.813 forprivate and public sectors respectively (see Table V), which is well above theacceptable 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 sectorsrespectively, indicating that the factor analysis test has proceeded correctly and thesample used is adequate as the minimum acceptable value of KMO is 0.5 (Othman andOwen, 2002). Therefore, it can be concluded that the matrix did not suffer frommulticollinearity or singularity. The result of Bartlett test of Sphericity shows that it ishighly significant (sig ¼ 0.000) which indicates that the factor analysis processes iscorrect and suitable for testing multidimensionality (Othman and Owen, 2002).Therefore, the statistical tests has resulted that the proposed items and all dimensionsof 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 sixthranked 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 classified into eight dimensions (see Table V) are defined asnetworked structure, leadership, employee participation, system thinking,empowerment, task orientation, transparency and autonomy. Table VII shows thepercentage of variation explained by factor analysis with varimax rotation. “Systemthinking” happens to be the most important factor whereas “Transparency” is leastimportant factor. “Networked structure” is considered to be next important factor

Publicteaching

Public non-teaching

Privateteaching

Private non-teaching

Sl. No. Dimensions Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1 Holistic frame 27.90 7.79 30.87 9.21 32.46 6.83 30.87 7.942 Strategic thrust 27.57 9.25 27.21 8.82 32.32 6.34 35.76 7.323 Shared vision 27.57 8.27 28.98 7.82 29.55 10.36 26.79 8.614 Empowerment 32.52 8.37 28.35 6.99 30.90 6.01 34.44 7.515 Information inflow 28.41 8.77 27.90 6.69 31.08 9.34 27.87 8.236 Internality 24.90 7.54 26.91 6.35 31.29 6.81 27.84 7.287 Learning 30.00 8.00 27.78 6.88 32.22 8.50 31.15 7.278 Synergy 27.60 8.52 30.09 8.49 32.22 8.26 31.47 8.64

Table IIIMean and SD of learning

dimensions

Source Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig.

ORG type 6872.778 1 6872.778 27.381 0.000STAFF type 27.028 1 27.028 00.108 0.743ORG £ STAFF 163.878 1 163.878 00.653 0.420Error 79317.062 316 251.003Total 86380.747 319

Table IITwo-way ANOVA

showing main effects oftype of organizations and

type of staff and theirinteraction effect


163



D i m e n s i o n

I t e m

n o .

F 1

F 2

F 3

F 4

F 5

F 6

F 7

F 8

C r o n b a c h a l p h a ( o v e r a l l ¼

0 . 8

0 2 )

L e a d e r s h i p

3

0 . 7

2 4

0 . 6

8 0

1 0

0 . 6

3 6

2 0

0 . 7

4 6

3 0

0 . 6

2 4

4 3

0 . 7

6 2

4 4

0 . 6

9 6

S u p p o r t i v e l e a r n i n g c l i m a t e

1

0 . 8

4 5

0 . 7

7 6

2

0 . 7

7 5

7

0 . 6

2 5

T e a m w o r k

2 2

0 . 6

7 1

0 . 6

9 8

2 3

0 . 7

5 3

H o l i s t i c t h i n k i n g

1 6

0 . 6

9 9

0 . 7

1 3

1 7

0 . 7

5 8

4 6

0 . 7

1 6

S e n s e o f o w n e r s h i p

3 7

0 . 6

3 0

0 . 8

0 2

3 8

0 . 8

0 8

M o r a l e

6

0 . 6

6 9

0 . 6

6 5

3 3

0 . 6

4 0

E m p o w e r m e n t

1 4

0

. 7 1 9

0 . 6

1 8

4 1

0

. 6 9 7

4 2

0

. 6 7 7

N e t w o r k e d s t r u c t u r e

1 2

0 . 8

2 5

0 . 7

3 8

1 3

0 . 6

1 2

Table IV.Factor loading score(private institutes)

TLO20,2

164



D i m e n s i o n

I t e m

n o .

F 1

F 2

F 3

F 4

F 5

F 6

F 7

F 8

C r o n b a c h a l p h a ( o v e r a l l ¼

0 . 8

1 3 )

N e t w o r k e d s t r u c t u r e

2 8

0 . 6

0 3

0 . 8

9 1

2 9

0 . 6

9 2

3 0

0 . 6

3 7

4 4

0 . 7

2 5

4 5

0 . 6

6 5

4 8

0 . 7

0 6

L e a d e r s h i p

3 2

0 . 6

8 1

0 . 7

5 9

3 5

0 . 7

8 7

3 6

0 . 6

8 6

3 7

0 . 7

0 4

3 8

0 . 6

5 8

E m p l o y e e p a r t i c i p a t i o n

2 0

0 . 6

4 7

0 . 6

4 1

2 1

0 . 6

9 6

2 2

0 . 6

5 1

4 1

0 . 6

2 4

4 2

0 . 6

4 5

S y s t e m

t h i n k i n g

2

0 . 6

6 9

0 . 7

0 1

1 0

0 . 7

9 2

1 1

0 . 6

8 4

1 6

0 . 6

5 9

1 7

0 . 6

4 9

E m p o w e r m e n t

1 2

0 . 7

0 5

0 . 6

0 2

1 3

0 . 7

4 5

3 4

0 . 6

4 6

4 0

0 . 6

8 2

T a s k o r i e n t a t i o n

2 4

0 . 8

0 8

0 . 8

0 3

2 5

0 . 7

6 6

2 6

0 . 6

0 1

T r a n s p a r e n c y

4

0 . 6 1 3

0 . 6

1 5

5

0 . 6 9 9

6

0 . 6 0 4

A u t o n o m y

4 6

0 . 7

1 0

0 . 7

3 6

4 7

0 . 7

1 6

Table VFactor loading score

(public institutes)


165



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 policyformulations 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 reflection, flexible 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 sendingemployees to external training programmes, conferences etc., identification and use of

employees with needed skills and expertise for implementing changes, modifications

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 findings 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 reflective and creative learning environment in

organizations.

Dimensions Percentage of commonality variance explained Ranking of factors

Leadership 12.544 1Holistic thinking 10.926 2Sense of ownership 9.797 3Teamwork 8.978 4Supportive learning climate 8.897 5Morale 7.975 6Empowerment 6.893 7Networked structure 6.885 8

Table VI.Percent of variationexplained by factoranalysis (private sector)

Dimensions Percentage of commonality variance explained Ranking of factors

System thinking 12.864 1Networked and lateral structure 10.896 2Leadership 10.769 3Task orientation 9.962 4Employee participation 9.699 5Empowerment 7.875 6Autonomy 7.847 7Transparency 5.938 8

Table VII.Percent of variationexplained by factoranalysis (public sector)

TLO20,2

166



7. ConclusionsThe extent of organizational learning is found to be significantly higher in case of institutes of private sector compared to the public sector institutes. However, in boththe 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 leavesa lot to be desired in the premier Technological Institutes of India. Continuousimprovement in all the major mechanisms of organizational learning is the need of thehour as perceived in both public and private sector. This fact indicates that there ispotential for stagnation if continuous improvement for providing a learning climate isnot undertaken. Therefore, it is evident that a focused dedication towardsorganizational learning is needed in both the sectors. It can be inferred from thesurvey that the management of educational institutes has the opportunities to influencethe sense of openness and continued adaptability to enhance a learning climate in theseorganizations. Nature of staff is not found to be a significant factor so far as perceptionof extent of organizational learning was concerned. Mean scores in each dimensions of organizational learning indicate that “Internality” as a learning dimension has lowestmean score for the public sector organizations whereas “Shared vision” has the lowestmean score in the private sector organizations irrespective of nature of staff. “Holisticframe” and “Strategic thrust” have highest mean score in the teaching andnon-teaching category respectively for private sector. The highest mean scores areobtained for dimensions “Empowerment” and “Holistic frame” for teaching andnon-teaching category respectively in the public sector.

The dimensions of organizational learning by public and private sectortechnological institutes are found to be similar to the ones already proposed in themeasuring instrument. “Leadership” emerged as a new dimension in both the sectorsand so also “Networked structure”. These two factors can be assumed to reflect thedimensions of “Shared vision” and “Information inflow” respectively. The present

study validates the mechanisms of the organizational learning proposed in theinstrument of the survey (Pareek, 2002a, b). The factors like “Morale” and “Taskorientation” reflect the “Internality” dimension which includes essence of control overmost part of one’s destiny, optimism, self-discipline, commitment and moderate risktaking. “Transparency” and “Sense of ownership” can be assumed to reflect the“Synergy” dimension which includes coordinated action, consensus-building andcommitment to consensual decision. The fact that “Leadership” emerges as the mostvalued factor in the private sector institutes and third among eight dimensions in thepublic ones, the onus lies in leading these institutes with able managers who inspire theemployees to learn and adapt. The management has opportunity to enhance thepotential of the academic institutes for learning by choosing effective leaders whoprovide 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 takeinitiatives and the belief that one can influence events. This has implications forstrategies of reinforcement for bringing about more interest in undertaking individualprojects and assignments by employees of public sector. This would further thelearning process within the organization. In case of private sector institutes, thedimension “Shared vision” has the lowest mean score, as perceived by both teaching


167



and non-teaching employees. “Shared vision” implies developing a vision throughparticipation and inspiring members by linking the vision with their personal goals.This indicates that developing and using transformational leadership in private sectorinstitutes 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 insuch institutes towards organization learning have been endorsed and compared withprevious models. As a whole, the learning in such institutes is far below than expected.Therefore, change agents with dynamic leadership are required to improve thesituation. Frameworks based on existing or new organization learning models need tobe evolved to facilitate the adaptability of technical institutes of India. In future, thework can be extended to propose models for change phenomenon and implementationmethodology to be evolved. The work can also be extended to manufacturing sectors toidentify the dimensions needed to be improved or incorporated in the existing systemto facilitate organizational learning. Although the methodology proposed here is quitegeneric 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 operatingin 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 learningorganization 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 hotelindustry 1898-1980”, Management Science, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 996-1016.

Bhatnagar, J. and Sharma, A. (2005), “The Indian perspective of strategic HR roles andorganizational 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 pharmaceuticalindustry”, 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 managementparadigm”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 452-64.

Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), “Learning orientation firm innovationcapability and firm performance”, Industrial Marketing Management , Vol. 31 No. 6,pp. 515-24.

Dean, J. (2000), Improving Children’s Learning: Effective Teaching in the Primary School , 1st ed.,Routledge, London.

TLO20,2

168



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”, OrganizationStudies, 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 firms”, 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.


169



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, GeographyCompass, 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”, OrganizationScience, 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 financial 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 , reviseded., 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.

TLO20,2

170



Sorenson, O. and Sorensen, J.B. (2001), “Finding the right mix: franchising, organizationallearning, 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 benefits and limitations of computersystems”, European Management Journal , Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 599-608.

ZareiMatin, H., Jandaghi, G. and Moini, B. (2007), “Comparing organizational learning rates inpublic and non-profit 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 instrategic alliances”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 701-13.

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 authorsDr B. Patnaik is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Humanities and SocialSciences, 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 cultureand 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 researchprojects.

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 theCollege of Engineering and Technology Bhubaneswar, India. His area of research is servicequality management. His area of interest includes total quality management, statistical processcontrol, service quality management, strategic planning and analyzing consumer behavior. Hehas published more than ten research papers in various international and national conferencesand journals.


171



Dr S.S. Mahapatra is presently working as Professor at the Department of MechanicalEngineering in National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, India. His areas of interest includemulti-criteria decision-making, quality engineering, simulation, lean systems and service qualitymanagement. 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 visitingfaculty to many business schools in India. S.S. Mahapatra is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: [email protected]

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 atPadmanava College of Engineering, Rourkela, India for two years. Her areas of research includemarketing and consumer behavior.

TLO20,2

172

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

organisation learning and cultur

Documents