Does Theory Travel?

Abstract

The Problem

The dimensions of the learning organization (LO) culture have been accorded attention and have been assessed quantitatively in different contexts. Using a measurement instrument focusing on these dimensions is important. But qualitative scrutiny of the LO concept provides human resource practitioners a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of particular dimensions relevant in the Lebanese context. This can derive value added insights to the applicability of the LO.

The Solution

This article draws attention to the applicability of the LO concept in an international context. It explores the strengths and weaknesses of using the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) as a LO framework with special focus on particular dimensions most relevant in the Lebanese culture. The article provides suggestions for integrating LO best practices into local organizations, both at the individual and organizational levels.

The Stakeholders

Intended audience for this article includes human resource development (HRD) scholars, practitioners, and scholar-practitioners interested in the concept of the LO and in increasing the levels of learning climates in the workplace as a strategic leverage point within organizations.

Keywords

learning organization (LO)Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)Lebanon Lebanese context

Learning organization (LO) theory has been a focus of attention in the organizational literature since the early nineties (Senge, 1990; Marquardt, 2002; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). It became one of the most widely used terms in the business lexicon, and in recent years there has been a proliferation of writings on the LO concept and application around the world (Dirani, 2009; Hernandez, 2000; Lien, Hung, Yang, & Li, 2006; Ortenblad, 2002; Song, Joo, & Chermack, 2009; Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004; Zhang, Zhang, & Yang, 2004). Scholars and practitioners alike consistently note that although much is said about why the LO process works, few concrete descriptions considered how this concept works.

Scholars in different fields of management and human resource development (HRD) have attempted to define the concept of the LO, “as if the idea was homogenous” (Ortenblad, 2002, p. 213). Some researchers noted that the concept itself is still vague and confusing and some are satisfied (Watkins & Golembiewski, 1995). Others acknowledge the difficulty of describing what a complete learning organization looks like (e.g., Marquardt & Berger, 2003; Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1998; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). They argue that each company produces its own LO and these specific LOs are dynamically and continually changing.

Watkins and Marsick (1993) defined the LO as “one that learns continuously and transforms itself” and developed the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) based on years of experience working with organizations interested in increasing their capacity to learn, to adapt, and to change (Watkins & Marsick,1993, 1996, 1997). They suggested a three level framework with seven dimensions for a learning culture. At the individual level they included two dimensions of a LO namely, continuous learning and dialogue and inquiry. At the group level, they included one dimension, team learning, and at the organizational level, they included four dimensions embedded systems, system connections, empowerment, and provide leadership for learning.

Contributions on the applicability of the LO models in different countries and contexts have raised several important and complex issues for scholars and practitioners. Some of the issues are related to the assumptions and values upon which the implementation processes rely (Lang & Wittig-Berman, 2000). Hofstede, Bond, and Luk (1993) suggested that theories, models, and practices are typically developed in particular countries and are usually infused with the distinctive characteristics of that culture.

A major aim of this study is to determine whether theoretical explanations of the LO primarily developed in the West generalize to Middle Eastern settings. It is well documented that values, behaviors, organizational culture, among other contextual factors, influence work outcomes and vary significantly from one country to another (Dirani, 2009). Lebanon is a stratified society that has been labeled as a “Middle Eastern” or collectivist culture (Hofstede, 1993). Over the last 30 years, the Lebanese society has been steadily adopting a Western style in both family and work values (Dirani, 2006).

Lebanon has little in terms of natural resources, but the country relies on human capital and individuals invest heavily in education. Reports on workforce development and performance improvement in Lebanon have been mainly equated with individual training and career development. However, to meet the 21st-century challenges of globalization and technological advances, learning needs to move beyond the individual level, and organizations need to transform their systems and structures to support a learning culture tolerant to openness.

Purpose and Research Questions

The DLOQ has been tested and validated quantitatively in different contexts. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the applicability of the LO concept in Lebanon, an international context. It explores the strengths and challenges of applying the DLOQ framework as a LO model in the Lebanese culture with special focus to particular dimensions most relevant in that context.

The research questions guiding this study are: (a) is the seven-dimension model as suggested by Watkins and Marsick (1997) valid in the Lebanese context? And (b) what particular dimensions are most relevant for LOs in Lebanon?

Review of the Literature

The LO Concept

The concept of the LO is an important area of interest for HRD scholars (Dirani, 2009; Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004; Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, & Howton, 2002; Wang, Yang, & McLean, 2007; Watkins & Marsick, 2003; Yang et al., 2004). Senge (1990) defined the LO as an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future. Sugarman (2001) suggested that a LO could be recognized by its agility in changing how it relates to the external world and how it conducts its internal operations. Ortenblad (2002) viewed the LO as a process that needs effort. He considered the change of behavior of the organization to be a requisite for the LO.

Watkins and Marsick (1993, 2003) argued that the LO was not a collection of individuals learning within the organization; rather they considered it as a process occurring at different levels of the organization. They concluded that a LO would be good at creating new solutions and good at sharing knowledge with other members who may need it. Thus, there should be openness to new ideas and to sharing knowledge for the good of the business (Yang et al., 2004). Still, organizations need to create facilitative structures to support and capture learning to reach their goals (Yang et al., 2004).

LO Model

Many scholars depicted the LO as operating at three levels—the individual level, the group level, and the organizational level (Cummings & Worley, 2009, Watkins & Marsick, 1997). The five-discipline model suggested by Senge (1990) implicitly brings in these three levels of learning: the individual level including mental models and personal mastery; the group level including team work; and the organizational level including shared vision and systems thinking.

Theories of LO have emphasized that the organization needs to work with people at the individual and group levels first. People also need to be empowered to take learning initiatives. Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996) suggested the same three levels of organizational learning as a framework. These three levels can be further considered to belong to one of the two components of a LO: (a) the people who comprise an organization and (b) the structures and culture created by the social institution of the organization. According to Watkins and Marsick (2003) individuals learn on individual bases first, and then learn as clusters, teams, networks, and increasingly large units when they join together in organizational change. Within these levels, Watkins and Marsick proposed the seven-dimension model to capture the LO culture in the workplace.

The aim of learning in the workplace is the initiation of change by individuals on their own. Still, organizations need to create facilitative structures to support and capture learning in order to reach their missions. It is hypothesized that three variables, system connections, embedded systems, and provision of leadership for learning, are the moderators between individual-level learning activities and organizational outcomes (Yang et al., 2004).

Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

Based on the seven dimensions of the LO, Watkins and Marsick (1997) formed the DLOQ that was tested and validated empirically (Dirani, 2009; Yang et al., 2004). The DLOQ grew out of both research and practice (Watkins and Marsick, 1997). The framework presented by Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996, 2003) has been validated in the West and other parts of the world for quite some time (Dirani, 2009; Watkins & Marsick, 2003; Yang et al., 2004). The framework of this article was based on the conceptualization of Watkins and Marsick (2003) of the seven dimensions of the LO.

Although the essence of the LO paradigm is simple, revolving around nurturing a positive propensity to learn, adapt, and change (Jamali & Sidani, 2008), research on the LO is still characterized by vagueness and abstraction (Ortenblad, 2002). This is reflected in the variety of definitions and characterizations of LOs in the literature and in how scholars emphasize different aspects of the LO, adding to the conceptual complexity already in existence. However, such conceptual abstraction, if not addressed, risks undermining the utility that can potentially accrue from a promising change paradigm.

DLOQ Empirical findings in the Arab World

At the empirical level, studies remain very scant in the Arab world on the LO concept, let alone studies utilizing the DLOQ. Abu Khadra and Rawabdeh (2006) conducted a study on the LO in Jordanian industrial companies. In their quantitative study, they attempted to outline key elements and assess development of the LO in Jordan. The outcomes of the study indicated that the LO concept can be explored in Jordanian industry using five constructs: learning and information sharing, vision and strategy, rewards and recognition, benchmarking, and training. Abu Khadra and Rawabdeh noted the importance of integrating cultural dimensions and accounting for distinctive learning orientations across cultures (see also Bhatnagar, 2006). Bates and Khasawneh (2005) examined the relationship between organizational learning culture and learning transfer climate in Saudi Arabia. They concluded that organizational learning culture predicted learning transfer climate and affected organizational innovation. Akin Aksu and Ozdemir (2005) investigated nine dimensions that enable organizational learning in hotel establishments in Turkey. They maintained that leaders have a fundamental role to play in promoting organizational learning by enticing individual learning through teamwork, rewards, training, and other organizational mechanisms.

Dirani (2009) assessed the DLOQ applicability in the Lebanese financial sector. He concluded that the seven-factor model proposed by Watkins and Marsick (1997) was applicable in the banking sector. He also concluded that a learning culture is significantly correlated to employee satisfaction and organizational commitment, two workplace performance outcomes. Finally, in a similar study, Jamali and Sidani (2008) attempted to have a better understanding of the LO concept and tested its application in the Lebanese context. The results showed five core dimensions of the LO that are of most relevance in the Lebanese context, namely employee participation in policy-making, learning climate, systematic employee development, constant experimentation, and rewards for learning.

The review of the literature provided an overview on the applicability of the factor model for measuring the LO concept in the Arab world in general, and in the Lebanese culture in particular. The following section details the method used to collect the data for this study.

Method

Data was collected from a convenient sample in five Lebanese banks. The choice of these banks was driven by the focus of the study and by feasibility considerations. The research design and data collection approaches relied on the DLOQ survey instrument along with two open ended questions inquiring about organizational culture and learning activities. Data collected for this study was part of a larger questionnaire that combined several survey instruments. The best fit scale for all instruments was a 5-point scale. Thus items for the DLOQ were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale on which respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The instrument was translated and validated for use in the Lebanese context and followed the forward-then-back translation approach (Chen & Bates, 2005).

Population and Sample

The population for this study comprised all customer service employees of the five banks and their managers. Nonprobability sampling was used in this study because the five banks provided access to a selected number of branches at different locations throughout Lebanon. Table 1 provides a summary of the sample size, responses, and response rates by bank. The sample was composed of 922 participants. A total of 307 questionnaires were completed and 298 questionnaires were usable (32% response rate).

Table 1.

Sample Size, Responses and Response Rates by Bank.

Bank	Selected branches ^a	Sample	Responses	Valid Responses	Valid response rate (%)
Bank A	15	198	50	50	25
Bank B	15	223	60	57	26
Bank C	10	136	32	30	22
Bank D	12	212	100	100	47
Bank E	10	153	63	61	40
Total	62	922	305	298	32

Note. ^a These branches were selected by respective bank HRD mangers.

Data Analysis

The primary approach to data analysis for the quantitative responses of the questionnaire was through descriptive statistics, correlations, and factor analyses using SPSS v. 19 software. Data analysis of the qualitative responses generated from the two open-ended questions was content analyzed. Content analysis provides classification of textual material and reduction of information to more relevant and quantifiable data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Results provided information on overall organizational culture and on learning practices and training activities of the participant banks.

Qualitative responses were first translated and transcribed into electronic files. Second, they were coded for themes. The researcher selected the sentence as a coding unit of analysis. Sentences were rigorously reviewed in search for emerging themes that might not be captured in the quantitative data. Themes were divided into content categories. Two independent researchers were involved in the analysis of the obtained data and provided substantiation of the outcome themes thus reducing the chance of researcher’s bias influencing the outcome. The content categories were based on the three levels of the DLOQ framework guiding this study.

Results

The purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions: (a) Is the seven-dimension model valid in the Lebanese context? And (b) what particular dimensions are most relevant for LOs in Lebanon?

This study yielded several results in relation to the concept of a LO and the applicability of the DLOQ in the Lebanese context. It also explored employees’ experiences with learning activities and how different training interventions affected their individual learning and whether that learning was integrated into the organizational level.

Validity Analysis

Constructing the validity of research instruments is an ongoing process (Watkins & Marsick, 1997) and is important to assure that the findings are trusted and credible (Gliner, Morgan, & Leech, 2009; Merriam, 2009). The original questionnaire was designed for use in a Western context. Researchers already translated and validated the instrument in more than 70 studies in several countries such as Columbia (Hernandez, 2000), Korea (Song et al., 2009), China (Zhang, Zhang, & Yang, 2004), and Taiwan (Lien et al., 2006), among other countries.

Construct validity of the instrument based on collected data

There are five ways to establish validity of an instrument including evidence based on content, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables, and evidence based on consequences. Exploratory principal components factor analysis was conducted to examine the internal factor structure of the DLOQ.

Following the Kaiser Normalization criterion guidelines of selecting components with eigenvalues greater than one, the analysis of the different variables of the DLOQ produced factors comparable to the original dimensions described in the theoretical framework. Factor analysis for DLOQ produced seven factors with eigenvalues greater than one, and they account for 70% of total variance. Results showed that the factor loadings confirm the original scales of the DLOQ.

To further confirm the construct validity of the DLOQ instrument in the Lebanese context, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. To examine the level of goodness-of-fit of the specified measurement models, several measurement indices were interpreted. The absolute fit measure included χ², the most absolute fit index sensitive to sample size; Jöreskog and Sörbom’s (2001) goodness-of-fit (GFI) which is less sensitive to sample size; adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) which takes into account differing degrees of model complexity (Hair et al., 2006); Jöreskog and Sörbom’s (2001) root mean square residual (RMR) which measures an average of the residuals between individual observed and estimated covariance and variance terms; and Steiger’s (1990) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) which represents the model fit in a population. The incremental fit indices were Bentler’s (1990) comparative fit index (CFI), which measures the degree of fit between the hypothesized and null measurement and Bentler and Bonett’s (1980) nonnormed fit index (NNFI) which is the relative fit index that compares the model being tested to a null measurement. A summary of the CFA results is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Fit Indices for Measurement Models of MSQ and OCQ (n = 298).

Fit indices	DLOQ
χ²(df)	1.95 (62)**
RMSEA	0.065
RMR	0.035
GFI	0.90
AGFI	0.88
NNFI	0.94
CFI	0.95

Note: MSQ: Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire; OCQ: Organization Commitment Questionnaire; RMSEA = root mean square error of estimation; RMR = root mean square residual; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = adjusted GFI; NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index.

p < .001.

The analysis showed that χ² of the seven-dimension model was statistically significant and all estimates of comparative fit indices (GFI, AGFI, CFI, NNFI) indicated a statistically significant data model fit. Furthermore, in terms of the general model fit, a great portion of the covariance and variance of the DLOQ measures in the Lebanese culture could be represented by the proposed scales. In addition, Table 3 provided evidence that the small magnitude of residuals (RMR and RMSEA) for the model also indicated an appropriate model–data fit. All these fit statistics have support evidence of the construct validity of the DLOQ in the Lebanese context.

Table 3.

Mean and Standard Deviations of the Seven Dimensions (N = 298).

Dimension	M*	SD
Learning	4.05	.57
Inquiry & dialogue	3.91	.57
Team learning	3.89	.57
System capture	4.25	.63
Collective vision	3.80	.58
Connecting org & environment	3.94	.61
Strategic leadership	4.26	.69
Total	4.10	.48

Note. *M = normalized to 6-point scale

Descriptive statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

The means of the DLOQ seven dimensions ranged between a low of 3.8 (M = 3.8, SD = 0.58) for collective vision dimension and high of 4.26 (M= 4.26, SD = .69) for strategic leadership dimension. Means and standard deviations are summarized in Table 3.

All correlation coefficients were statistically significant (p < .001) ranging from .51 to .75 and thus satisfying the convergent validity of the hypothesized measures (Yang et al., 2004). In addition, high correlation coefficients were not found among the dimensions eliminating constraints of factor discrimination (Kline, 2005). Table 5 provides a summary of these correlations. Cronbach’s coefficient alphas ranged from .77 to .88 (Table 4). According to the initial steps for examination of item reliabilities, the overall reliability estimates were satisfactory.

Table 4.

Pearson Correlations and Cronbach’s α of the Seven Dimensions of DLOQ (N = 298).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Learning	(.78)
Inquiry & Dialogue	.53*	(.79)
Team Learning	.55*	.65*	(.77)
System Capture	.61*	.52*	.63*	(.81)
Collective Vision	.63*	.51*	.65*	.66*	(.80)
Connecting Org & Environment	.61*	.58*	.70*	.60*	.75*	(.81)
Strategic Leadership	.64*	.53*	.58*	.67*	.70*	.73*	(.88)

Note. ( ) = Cronbach’s α values. *p ≤ 0.01.

Table 5.

Qualitative Data Responses and Response Rates.

	Q1		Q2
Valid questionnaires	n	%	n	%
298	188	63	129	43

Note. Q1 = Organizational culture; Q2 = Learning activities

Qualitative Confirmation of the Seven Dimensions

The primary approach to data analysis generated from the open-ended questions in the DLOQ was content analysis. Answers were explored, sorted, coded, and categorized into themes that reflected the opinions of respondents. All themes were rigorously reviewed by the researcher and two independent researchers in search for emerging themes that might not be captured in the survey.

Respondents provided a range of views about: (a) the organizational culture in their banks and (b) activities that the banks offered to promote learning and support employees’ professional growth. The views provided in-depth understanding on the organizational culture and activities that support, or hinder, learning in the workplace in the Lebanese context.

The first question represents the structures and culture created by the social institution of the organization and the second represents individuals’ learning in the organization. A summary of number of responses to the two questions is shown in Table 5.

Data analysis resulted in three main themes and showed that respondents perceived their organizations to be highest on (a) learning climate, (b) learning activities, but need to remove, and (c) challenges related to learning reward systems and hierarchical organizational structures for learning to be integrated into the organization.

Learning Climate

Respondents understood a learning climate to imply leaders’ tolerance of mistakes, nurturing a positive atmosphere for learning, trust, employee involvement, openness, questioning and feedback, and support. Out of the 298 respondents who completed the questionnaire, 188 respondents provided answers to this question (63%). Table 6 provides a summary of these categories.

Table 6.

Emerging Categories of Employees’ Perspectives on Learning Climate (n = 188).

Category	Occurrence of response
Leaders’ tolerance of mistakes	33
Leadership support of learning	21
Trust	20
Employee involvement	15
Openness and feedback	10
Support	9

The majority of respondents were satisfied with the climate in their branches. Respondents in this category described the organizational culture as “open and friendly,” and “supportive of employees.” They considered the organizational culture as “appropriate culture supporting openness and feedback,” “friendly environment,” “a culture of respect among employees,” and “an environment of collaborative learning among employees.” One respondent considered herself to be “lucky” to work for her branch: “Personally, I feel lucky because I am surrounded with qualified group of employees who have extensive expertise and who discuss different subjects openly to improve their work in a friendly environment.”

Another respondent described what differentiated the culture in her bank from other banks:

What differentiates our bank from other banks or institutions in the country is the leadership that has been supportive and encouraging throughout the years. I am loyal to this institution and proud to be a member of this ‘family.’

Employee involvement was suggested by respondents as one of the best methods where employees have impact on decisions that affect their work. One respondent suggested employee involvement through providing their opinions as a practice that helps with the continuous development for individuals that result in continuous success of the bank. She provided the following comment: “Employees give their own opinions and judgment so they can participate in the growth of the branch.”

Learning Activities

Respondents provided evidence about activities that the banks offered to promote learning and individual development. These activities supported employees’ professional growth as well as the growth of their branches. Out of the 298 respondents who filled the questionnaire, 129 respondents provided answers to this question (43%). Several “learning” activities were mentioned including training (on-boarding, formal and informal), job rotation, and social activities. Table 7 above provides a summary of these categories.

Table 7.

Activities That Promote Learning (n = 129).

Activity	Occurrence of response	%
Training activities	52	56
Job rotation	20	16
On-the-job training	15	12
Social activities	10	8
Others	10	8

Training activities included training within branch (seminars, workshops, and presentations), external training, international training, on-the-job training, and social activities. The following responses illustrate the meaning of this category:

Training seminars are provided by the branch employees with the aim to encourage employees to continuously learn and be interested in all that is new about services provided by the bank and so we share such information and discuss it among ourselves.

Participating in international seminars and conferences helps us support our professional growth and therefore the growth of the entire branch (“In my bank, people help each other learn”). Having more contacts with local and international banks could also be profitable, we can benefit from their strengths.

On-the-job training (OJT) was considered as “one of the best training methods.” One respondent suggested that OJT was particularly appropriate for developing proficiency skills unique to an employee’s job because “banking cannot be learned in universities but through living examples and true experience.”

Challenges

Data analysis provided information on two main challenges including learning reward systems and hierarchical organizational structure. These challenges, if removed, would allow the integration between individual learning and the learning climate.

Learning and reward systems

This theme emerged from 22 respondents who pointed out the need to provide “equal opportunity” for employees to improve and develop, to provide opportunity for “hard working employees” to prove themselves, as well as provide moral and financial support to transform these opportunities into real practices. One respondent wrote the following comment on the effect of providing equal opportunities to employees:

Opportunities should be provided to hard working employees who participate successfully in the productivity of the branch and working on developing those employees to improve their positions either by promotion to higher ranks or by giving them higher salaries.

Hierarchical organizational structure

Twenty respondents challenged the hierarchical structure in their banks. The following response echoes the grievance from this group of employees: “Four hierarchical levels which is too many.” Another respondent gave the following opinion about the hierarchical structure: “It is a good one, but it needs to be little downsized [sic] for better results, in the area of decisions and cooperation between branches and head office.”

These challenges, learning and reward systems and hierarchical organizational structure, provide evidence for a disconnect between the learning activities and organizational climate and call for better operating systems. Learning activities proved effective at the individual level, where employees benefit from several learning opportunities for personal and professional development. At the organizational level, the open environment helped leaders support a culture of trust, feedback, respect, and employee involvement. But apparently, there should be a better system to align individual learning and the learning culture.

Discussion and Implications

This emerging research provides a roadmap on how to measure the learning culture in the Lebanese business context and how to overcome obstacles and move toward a LO model.

Findings from this research study presented factor loadings of each item of the seven dimensions of the DLOQ and provided evidence of the measurement model fit of the DLOQ in the Lebanese context. All factor loadings were significant and thus indicated that the Arabic version of the DLOQ is a valid and applicable measurement in the Lebanese context. Thus, this research confirmed that the different variables of the DLOQ produced reliable and valid measures in the Lebanese culture and that the cultural and organizational differences between Lebanon and the United States do not seem to affect accuracy or consistency. The reason for reaching such comparable results could be due to the fact that the original questionnaire is a well-established and validated instrument in several Western and international contexts.

The LO concept calls for equal focus at three levels: individual, group, and organization. Gaps in organization system capacity in the Lebanese banking sector do not negate the usefulness of learning processes that organizations are handling well. Awareness of such gaps is important because it often leads the organization to recognize that learning needs to be remedied through particular interventions or to monitor and improve particular aspects, which can have a positive spill-over effect on the entire learning drive within the firm. Indeed, given the inter-dependency of the different factors, a weakness in any of the core dimensions may effectively undermine or curtail the learning process.

Our findings suggest the Lebanese organizations surveyed have not made a systematic effort at aligning rewards with learning. Employees need to be rewarded for engaging in learning activities, taking initiative, or acquiring new skills. This ruptured link risks undermining the entire learning process. Reward structures and schemes certainly make a difference, by affecting motivations and hence shaping employees’ learning orientation and the amount of effective learning that takes place. Quite a few scholars stress the importance of crafting flexible and creative rewards for learning, and suggest offering rewards to cater to individual needs and performance (e.g., Abu Khadra & Rawabdeh, 2006; Pedler et al., 1998).

This research study provides empirical evidence to help HRD practitioners become aware of the current organizational learning climate and about the dimensions of the learning culture, and their readiness to improve these dimensions in their organizations. It also helps them develop and sustain a culture conducive to learning and adopt it as a means of survival, of gaining competitive advantage, and of success, since survival in today’s world is for the “fittest to learn” (Dirani, 2006, p. 78). In addition, HRD practitioners need to motivate and encourage employees not only to think toward learning, but also work together toward learning. They need to encourage employees to collaborate with supervisors and leaders to have a shared vision toward integrating their learning to the organizational level. To succeed, HRD practitioners should pay attention to establishing systems and structures that encourage learning. Particular to the DLOQ, HRD practitioners should reinforce the different dimensions that support a learning culture in order to continuously develop and advance their organizations.

For researchers, this study contributes to the understanding of the LO theory. This research would add to the literature base of the LO in the Lebanese context. Also, this study provides HRD scholars and practitioners with a tool that reveals the presence of a learning culture. This tool becomes a means of establishing the importance of a LO in a country where education and human capital are critical to economic sustainability. Finally, this research can create a venue for future research that will lead to improvements in the Lebanese corporate practice.

In summary, the DLOQ provides organizations with a tool to capture the learning culture, but for organizations to survive and continue to be competitive in the new era, they need to (a) focus on employee learning and skill development, (b) support a learning climate that encourages learning and openness, and (c) reward employee learning and establish systems that capture and integrate learning at all levels.

Footnotes

Author Note:

This article was subjected to a two-tier, blind review process that did not involve any of the contributing authors who are currently members of the editorial board.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Khalil M. Dirani is the assistant professor of Human Resource and Organizational Development in the College of Education at The University of Georgia. His work focuses on understanding how organizations develop their employees through fostering a learning culture in international contexts, in particular examining workplace learning in the Middle East region.

References

Abu Khadra

Rawabdeh

. (2006). Assessment of development of the learning organization concept in Jordanian industrial companies. Learning Organization, 13, 455-474.

Akin Aksu

Ozdemir

. (2005). Individual learning and organization culture in learning organizations: Five star hotels in Antalya region of Turkey. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20, 422-441.

Bates

Khasawneh

(2005). Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations. International Journal of Training and Development, 9, 96-109.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Bhatnagar

(2006). Measuring organizational learning capability in Indian managers and establishing firm performance linkage. Learning Organization, 13, 416-433.

Chen

Bates

R. A.

(2005). Instrument translation and development strategies for cross-cultural studies. Proceedings of the 2005 Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference, USA, pp. 693-700.

Cummings

T. G.

Worley

C. G.

(2009). Organization development and change. Mason, OH: Thompson Southwestern

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Dirani

K. M.

(2006). Exploring socio-cultural factors that influence HRD practices in Lebanon. Human Resource Development International, 9, 85-98.

11.

Dirani

K. M.

(2009). Measuring the learning organization culture, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in the Lebanese banking sector. Human Resource Development International, 12, 189-208.

12.

Egan

Yang

Bartlett

K. R.

(2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 279-302.

13.

Ellinger

A. D.

Ellinger

A. E.

Yang

Howton

S. W.

(2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 5-21.

14.

Gliner

Morgan

Leech

(2009). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

15.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

16.

Hernandez

(2000). The impact of the dimensions of the learning organization on the transfer of tacit knowledge process and performance improvement within private manufacturing firms in Colombia (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Georgia, Athens.

17.

Hofstede

Bond

M. H.

Luk

C-L.

(1993). Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: A methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organizational Studies, 14, 483-503.

18.

Jamali

Sidani

(2008). Learning organizations: Diagnosis and measurement in a developing country context: The case of Lebanon. Learning Organization, 15, 58-74.

19.

Jöreskog

Sörbom

(2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide (2nd ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

20.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

21.

Lang

Wittig-Berman

(2000). Managing work-related learning for employee and organizational growth. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 65(4), 37-43.

22.

Lien

B. Y.

Hung

R. Y.

Yang

(2006). Is the learning organization a valid concept in the Taiwanese context? International Journal of Manpower, 27, 189-203.

23.

Marquardt

M. J.

(2002). Building the learning organization: Master the five elements for corporate learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black.

24.

Marquardt

Berger

N. O.

(2003). The future: Globalization and new roles for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 321-331.

25.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

26.

Ortenblad

(2002). A typology of the idea of the learning organization. Management Learning, 33, 213-230.

27.

Pedler

Burgoyne

Boydell

(1998). The learning company. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

28.

Senge

P. M.

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

29.

Song

J. H.

Joo

Chermack

J. T.

(2009). The dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ): A validation study in a Korean Context. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 20, 43-64.

30.

Steiger

J. H.

(1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.

31.

Sugarman

(2001). A learning-based approach to organizational change: Some results and guidelines. Organizational Dynamics, 30(1), 62-76.

32.

Wang

Yang

McLean

G. N.

(2007). Influence of demographic factors and ownership type upon organizational learning culture in Chinese enterprises. International Journal of Training & Development, 11(3), 154-165.

33.

Watkins

K. E.

Golembiewski

R. T.

( 1995). Rethinking organization development for the learning organization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 86-101.

34.

Watkins

K. E.

Marsick

(Eds.). (2003). Make learning count! Diagnosing the learning culture in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2).

35.

Watkins

K. E.

Marsick

V. J.

(1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

36.

Watkins

K. E.

Marsick

V. J.

(1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

37.

Watkins

K. E.

Marsick

V. J.

(1997). Dimensions of the learning organization. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization.

38.

Yang

Watkins

Marsick

V. J.

(2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 31-55.

39.

Zhang

Yang

(2004). Learning organization in mainland China: Empirical research on its application to Chinese state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 258-273.