Faculty Members’ Perception of Learning Organization: A Case of Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

Based on the learning organization theory the main purpose of this research is to discuss how demographics variables affect the learning organization disciplines perception in faculty members of higher education institutes (HEIs) of Pakistan. This study explores that how demographic variables affect the learning organization disciplines perception at the HEIs level. We use the demographic variables and learning organization model in higher education institutions of Pakistan. In doing so, we used a survey instrument to collect data from 253 faculty members of HEIs in Pakistan. In addition, 15 in-depth interviews were conducted with the same respondents. Study findings revealed that there is a low application of the learning organization disciplines in HEIs in Pakistan. Further study also explains that demographic variables generated a variance of 2.7% in learning organization culture. Further, this study suggested some substantial implications for universities and regulatory bodies of HEIs.

Keywords

learning organization gender education experience age and higher education institutions

Introduction

In the current era, for the latest wave of business changing techniques, technological development, diverse working methods, and rapid change in the learning culture, organizations need to deal with new learning culture for their long-term survival (Tibbs, 2011; Tidd & Bessant, 2020). A large and growing literature review body explained that the learning and change process in an organization are inseparable because of the negligence for its importance (Ho & Wang, 2015; Waddell, 2017).

Learning is a key to an organizational change process, which gives an organization an edge as compared to other organizations with a slow process (Tidd & Bessant, 2020). Researchers have explored that learning has a strong link with change; it paves the way for an organization to become a learning organization (Maden, 2012; Real et al., 2014; Williams, 2016). Firstly, Senge (1990) introduced a learning organization theory that delivered a significant contribution to an organization’s performance. According to this theory, “a place where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations are set free where people are continuously learning together” (Senge, 1990, p. 70). lt has five disciplines (team learning, shared vision, mental model, personal mastery, and system thinking) these disciplines collectively play a central role to promote the learning environment at the organization level.

However, learning organization concepts has taken a significant role in the current business scenario and educational institutions (Santa & Nurcan, 2016). Learning organization has become a paradigm for organizations’ survival (Pedler & Hsu, 2019). It means that a learning organization now became the lungs for organizational success. So, it should be taken seriously for the organization development (Hussein et al., 2016).

Pakistan is now moving towards its progressive stage in educational reforms, but some challenges are still creating hurdles for the cultivation of learning organization disciplines in HEIs (Čierna et al., 2017). Until now, the Pakistani government introduced nine national educational policies, but the government still could not get the required results. All the challenges are based on the lack of resources, funds, improper implementation, and an inappropriate learning environment. These are also some other aspects that concern organizational culture, organizational politics, and organizational structure (Choi & Chandler, 2020). These obstacles stand in the way of an organization’s transformation into a learning organization.

However, a stream of research discussions on learning organization disciplines in the HEIs has been completed like Jordan (Al-jawazneh & Al-Awawdeh, 2011), Malaysia (Ghaffari et al., 2017a), Lebanon (Jamali & Sidani, 2008), and Iran (Sharifirad, 2011). The findings of these studies explained that there is still a theoretical void in a relationship between learning organization disciplines and demographic variables. Therefore, this explains that this is a new theoretical contribution in the literature of learning organization. So, there is an intense need for long-term thinking to make it possible for HEIs to become a learning organization (Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016). This is because limited research has done in this area, especially in the context of Pakistan. Therefore, there is a need for theoretical and practical contributions by testing and validating learning organization disciplines with demographic variables in a novel context in HEIs of Pakistan (Senge, 1990). In Pakistani educational institutes (universities), organizational structure settings comprise individual and group members who commonly utilize their power. Therefore, this bureaucratic structure is challenging to practice learning organization. Cultural and political constraints are also creating difficulties in the learning organization process (Ingvaldsen & Engesbak, 2020). Therefore, Pakistan represents a perfect setting to study the implementation of the learning organization in HEIs. In this study, the HEIs (universities) from Hazara division were selected for the purpose of this research. These HEIs directly or indirectly related to the learning organization concept. These HEIs are helping the community and government for building learning organization culture. Furthermore, these institutes are also imparted knowledge to MS/MPhil and PhD scholars. So, there were an intense need to study this area.

Furthermore, the study’s main objective is to analyze how demographic variables affect the learning organization discipline in HEIs of Pakistan. Moreover, to know the perception of the faculty about learning organizing at the HEIs level. Besides, a question arises about why a learning organization is essential for an organization? This study going to disseminate to the scholars about the importance of learning organization disciplines in HEIs.

Besides that, we want to know how demographic variables affect the learning organization disciplines in HEIs. Further, the study provides an answer to the following questions: (a) what extent faculty members experienced the learning organization disciplines (personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking) in HEIs of Pakistan? (b) How many significant differences perceived by faculty members based on learning organization disciplines with demographic variables (age, gender, academic rank, and years of experience)?

The study aims to identify the connection between demographics variables and learning organization. The arrangements of this paper is made in the following manner. Section 2 explains the literature findings of the learning organization disciplines, demographics variables (age, gender, experience, and education). Section 3 presents the methodology of the study. Section 4 shows data analysis and the last section 5 consist of discussion, implications, limitation, and direction for future research and conclusion.

Literature Review

Learning Organization

The learning organization idea was firstly presented by Örtenblad (2002). Then further work of the Senge (1990) extended this concept in the literature of the learning. He defined that learning organization as “where people continually expand their capacity y to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (Senge, 1990, p. 7). His findings explain that this is a humanist orientation concept, but it also needs to exercise in the business, education, and health sectors. Many other researchers like Garvin (2003), Pedler and Hsu (2019), and Watkins and Kim (2018), explain this concept with the other variables but there is increasingly important to explain this concept implication in the business, industrial, and education sectors. On the other side, Watkins and Kim (2018) identified that a learning organization as “one that learns continuously and transforms itself” (p. 8). Further, another researcher explained that learning organization as a place leads to creation, acquisition, change of knowledge, and the translation of actions in the organization based on newly gained pledge and intuition. Garvin (2003) demonstrated that the learning organization concept is an organization where an individual staff capacity is enhanced to learn, change, and adapt (Watkins & Kim, 2018). These two researchers explained the importance of the learning organization in different lines to the organizational context. They elaborated on this concept’s importance at the organizational level. Therefore, this concept needs attention at the organizational level. Learning organization operationally can be defined as a term given to an organization that facilitates its employees’ learning and continuously transforms itself. Furthermore, the organization that strives to develop its future is the one that is learning. Assumes that learning is a continuous and creative process for its members, and that it evolves, adapts, and transforms in response to the needs and aspirations of individuals both inside and outside the organization, and that people at all levels can participate. It is constantly strengthening their capacity to generate results, both individually and collectively.

Senge (1990) further divided learning organization disciplines into individual and group levels categories. Personal Mastery, System thinking, and mental model are related to individual behaviors, while team learning and shared vision are related to the group-level category.

According to Senge (1990), personal mastery is “continually clarifying and deepening our vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience and of seeing reality” (p. 7). This discipline has elaborated that personnel mastery has shown an individual’s commitment to organizational vision and behaves like the long-term learning process (Senge, 1990). It clarifies and deepens personal mission, vision, focusing thoughts, energy, and seeing the world in a visionary manner of an organizational member. It means personnel mastery paves the way for the learning process from the individual to the organizational level.

System thinking also has significant role in the integration of the learning organization process at the organizational level (Senge, 1990). It stimulates those factors like thinking, describing, and understanding to shape our behavior (Čierna et al., 2017). Further, this discipline also strengthens a realization of the potential of other learning organization disciplines. It is just like a framework for analyzing and inspecting the learning process at the organizational level. Similarly, mental model, can be defined as “deeply ingrained assumptions, generations, or even pictures and images that influence how we understand the world and take action” (Senge, 1990, p. 8). The mental model refers to how individuals see the world practices visible, and recognize what they are in stock (Senge, 1990). It is important for an individual’s behavior change and promoting the learning organization building process in an organization.

In the second category, team learning and shared vision give a collective vision, and these are different from the former three (Senge, 1990). Team learning is “the process of aligning and developing the team’s capacity to create the results of its members they truly desired” (Senge, 1990, p. 14). It is worthwhile for the long life of organizational learning. It promotes collective vision, dialogue, collaboration, addressing problems and solutions, and builds a collectivist approach to achieve organizational goals (Crawford, 2018). Therefore, team learning creates a collaborative organizational culture in which learning process can flourish. It means without team learning it is quite challenging to create a collaborative and teamwork approach (Stone et al., 2010).

Shared vision is a discipline, a set of tools and techniques for aligning disparate aspirations around shared value (Senge, 1990). Watkins and Kim (2018) have suggested that a shared vision is the main factor in creating a learning organization environment. That explains that this discipline has importance for learning organization development process at the organization level.

All these learning organization disciplines have increasing importance for the organizational learning process (Marwick, 2001). These disciplines have proved their value in the different sectors, including education. All the researchers focus on making an organization a learning organization for its growth and success (Jamalzadeh, 2012; Kim et al., 2017). The study’s primary goal is to identify the learning organization discipline’s strengths and weaknesses and perception at the HEIs level. Therefore, there is a lack of studies that depict the significance of learning organization concepts at the HEIs level, especially in the context of a developing country. Thus, the study aims to unpack the learning organization concepts within higher education institutes in Pakistan. All the above arguments of the researchers explain that learning organization has importance for the organization to achieve a competitive advantage as compared to other organizations (Ju et al., 2021).

Demographic Variables and Hypotheses Development

In this study, demographics variable (Age, employee experience, academic Ranks, Gender) relationship with the Learning organization.

Age and Learning Organization

The researchers explain that age has a statistically positive connection with learning organization (Ju et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2007).On the other side, Ghaffari et al. (2017b) have explained non-academic employees; results show that there are no significant differences in perceptions of learning organization dimensions based on non-academic education levels. Although, there is a paucity of knowledge about this concept in the learning organization concepts study. On the other hand Thakur and Chaudhuri (2015), findings contradict this correlation of age and learning. Their results also indicated that age and learning organization have an insignificant relationship. The preceding reasoning suggested a need to know that age has a significant relationship with a learning organization. So, based on the above discussion, we hypothesize as follows.

H1. Age has an association with the learning organization.

Job Experience and Learning Organization

Employees’ job experience has supported the ideal learning organization perception. With the latest technological change and needs of the current era, learning organization disciplines got importance for the organizations (Fillion et al., 2015; Varshney, 2020). Further, a researcher has believed that job experience is positively connected to the learning organization (Thakur & Chaudhuri, 2015). On the other side, Ghaffari et al. (2017b) views contrast with Thakur and Chaudhuri (2015) that explained that the learning organization’s dimension has no significant difference from that job experience. Further, Park et al. (2014) said that experience could help to understand the learning organization’s concepts at the organization level. Therefore, job experience positively tends employees to enhance learning culture for promoting learning organization culture. The following hypothesis is proposed based on the preceding rationale.

H2. Faculty experience has a positive relationship with the learning organization.

Education and Learning organization

Education has a strong need for promoting a sustainable learning organization at the education institutes level (Ali, 2012; Leal Filho et al., 2018). Further research Aktharsha and Anisa (2011) expanded our knowledge that qualification and learning organization concepts have a strong relationship to enhance the knowledge management system of an organization level. Furthermore, Čierna et al. (2017) and Nabi et al. (2018) explained that education has a role in inspiring an organization to become a learning organization. So, we can reveal that education is an essential tool for building a learning organization discipline in HEIs. Based on the above discussion, we formulated our hypothesis as follows:

H3. Academic Rank a positive relationship with learning organization

Gender and Learning Organization

Learning organization concepts became important after 1990 when Senge explained this concept. Now every organization is trying to make a foundation for the learning organization. Gender has an important role in every organization. This is crucial in the learning and change process of the organization (Lee-Gosselin et al., 2013). This study findings show that gender indirectly affects the learning organization (Chen et al., 2010). But on the other side, some other researchers explain that gender is not in favor of the learning organization concept (Tortorella et al., 2015). Similarly, according to Mahto et al. (2018), gender has a relationship with the learning organization disciplines.

Several researchers explain that gender plays a fostering role in developing the learning organization environment (Chen et al., 2010; Thomas et al., 2016). Researchers also demonstrated that gender plays a role in strengthening the university level’s learning organization discipline (Kalkan, 2017). Based on the above arguments, our study hypothesis assumes as follows.

H4. Gender has a positive and significant association with the learning organization discipline.

Methodology

Data Collection

The current study has utilized the mixed-method approach to examine the hypotheses. We’ve covered this in greater detail in the previous paragraphs. It is possible to observe data convergence or divergence in hypothesis testing by using a mixed-method approach, which enhances the validity and reliability of the resulting data as well as strengthening causal inferences (Abowitz & Toole, 2010; Grafton et al., 2011). The target sample of the study was universities of the Hazara region of Pakistan. All four universities were selected for the data collection. Universities are the main source of knowledge, providing a better learning environment. The faculty members’ lists were searched from different universities’ websites. This study chose faculty members (lecturers, assistant professors, associate professors, and professors) as a target sample. A total of 320 questionnaires were distributed to the faculty members of the universities, only 253 faculty members’ responses were received. The survey included 145 masters, 89 MS/MPhil, and 19 PhD qualification faculty members. All the faculty members are from the four universities of Hazara Division. Data was collected through purposive sampling technique. Data was also collected through semi-structured interviews to deeply analyze the research question. For this purpose, 15 interviews were conducted with the same respondents based on purposive sampling technique.

Measurement

The current study respondents gave their information through a standard questionnaire related to demographics variables and learning organization disciplines. The measurement scale was consisting of a 5-point Likert scale, that is, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree

A mixed-method approach was used to collect the data from the respondents. A mixed-method approach is used to confidence in the findings (Molina-Azorin et al., 2017). A standard learning organization questionnaire was adapted (Park et al., 2014). Questionnaire consisting of 35 items. Items Cronbach’s alpha was .95.

The interview process was carried out with an addition to the questionnaire, semi-structured interviews were utilized to understand the learning organization in Pakistan’s HEIs. The interviews were tape-recorded and detailed notes were taken on-site. The interviews were conducted in Urdu with a smattering of English. Later these interviews were transcribed and translated into English. We used purposive sampling to choose the participants for interviews from the broader sample used for the questionnaire. The interviews lasted for between 40 and 60 minutes. For in-depth analysis, 15 interviewers were conducted with the participants, including two professors, three associate professors, five assistant professors, and lecturers in universities.

In the first stage of the analysis, interview transcripts were read and reread several times to obtain a thorough understanding of the nature of the responses. The content of each of the transcripts was then coded into key categories derived from the theoretical frameworks outlined above learning organization dimension, team learning, shared vision, mental model, systematic thinking, personal mastery.

Fifteen questions were asked in these interviews, and their responses were recorded.

The interviews probed into a wide range of topics in-depth understanding of those covered in the questionnaire, including the learning organization model’s dimensions. Besides, we kept the interview open for respondents to take in the direction of their choice. The identification of the respondents was concealed by giving them pseudonyms in this study. The interview participants belonged to different educational disciplines, gender, and age groups.

Procedure

The main survey aim was to know and evaluate to what extent the HEIs faculty members perceive learning organization disciples (Senge, 1990). The questionnaire was tested through in a pilot study in December 2019. A total of 70 questionnaires were emailed to respondents; out of 63 responses were received. The questionnaire items’ internal consistency was (r = .95), which was satisfactory to process this study further. The internal consistency of other learning organization sub-variables was also checked. The calculated overall values of sub-variables were: personal mastery (n = 0.85), mental models (n = 0.86), shared vision (n = 0.83), team learning (n = 0.84), and systems thinking (n = 0.86). The overall internal consistency coefficient for the survey was (α = .95). After the pretested evaluation, 320 questionnaires were emailed to faculty members of the universities. Respondents recorded responses through five points Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) for LOQs sub-variable items. Among 35 items of learning, organization sub-variable like personal mastery has (6 items), shared vision (7 items), team learning (7 items), mental mode (8 items), and system thinking have (7 items). Gender, age, academic rank, and years of experience were also part of this survey questionnaire. The 253 participants recorded their responses. Table B1 shows the convergent reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) of the variables, which are in the range of the threshold values. Table B2 shows inter-correlation among the variables. The inter-factor correlations were lower than the recommended level, indicating no multicollinearity issue.

The following questions are the main addressing for the learning organization (a) to the extent did faculty members perceive the learning organization disciplines (personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking) in HEIs of Pakistan’? (b) How much are significant differences in the learning organization disciplines’ perceptions based on faculty members’ demographic characteristics (age, gender, academic rank, and years of experience)?

Firstly, for the first question answer, a descriptive statistic was used. The mean and standard deviations of learning organization disciplines were computed through statistical formula. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for academic rank and years of experience was used to determine the answer to the second question that is, whether there were differences in these perceptions based on selected demographic characteristics. Further, Tukey’s post hoc test was employed to test the significant difference when differences were detected.

Further, a regression analysis was also used to measure how much variance was explained by dependent variables such as age, gender, experience, and academic rank independent variable learning organization disciplines. The regression analysis purpose was to check the variance shown by demographic variables in the learning organization. Three interviews were also conducted as a pilot study. All the processes like respondents’ bias, research bias, and reactivity were taken care of to make reliable and validate the interview process. Three pre-pilot interviews were carried out to check the reliability of the Triangulation process was also used to make the interview validity.

Results Analysis Descriptive Statistics

ln total, 253 respondents, 180 (71 %) males and 73 (29%) females, recorded their responses. Among 253 respondents, 111 respondents (43.9%) aged 30 to 35 years, 103 (40.7%) aged 36 to 40 years; 22 (8.7%) aged 41 to 45 years, and 17 (6.7%) age 46 to50 years. The highest response rate remained at 30 to 35 years and lowest at 46 to 50 years. Out of 253, 99 (39%) were lecturers, 88 (350 %) assistant professors, 46 (18%) associate professors, and 20(8%) professors.

Measurement and Hypotheses Testing

To determine the extent to which learning organization disciplines have been practiced in the HEIs environment, we have started analyzing the mean of the learning organization disciplines (See Table B1). Results indicate that the lowest mean for the learning organization disciplines are (2.24). The highest mean is (2.45). These mean values show that faculty members at the university did not regularly perceive the learning organization disciplines’ practices. In this regard, the “system thinking” mean is higher than other learning organization disciplines mean. The lowest mean value (2.24) was for the personal mastery discipline of a learning organization. It means there is a need to encourage learning organization motive at the university level. Further, the analysis of the means of the learning organization disciplines of each item was also investigated.

Discipline I: In the questionnaires, seven statements composed team learning discipline. The faculty members, against these seven statements, recorded their responses. Appendix B (see Tables B2 –B6) explains the means and standard deviations of the seven items of team learning.

Overall, the seven items mean is 2.33, which shows low to the moderate application of this concept in the university environment. Out of seven items of team learning, item 4 has the highest mean value (2.39), and item 1 had the lowest mean value (2.09). Secondly, shared vision (see Appendix B, Table B5) results show that the indices 7 mean 2.55, representing a low-to-moderate perception of this discipline in the university’s environment. This discipline results showed that item 6 has the mean value (2.52), and item 2 had the lowest mean value (2.24).

On the other hand, third discipline mental models results explain that overall eight items mean was 2.40, indicating low -to- a moderate perception of this discipline (see Appendix B, Table B6), the highest mean values were for items 1 and 7 (2.55), and the lowest mean value was for item 4 (2.16). System thinking is the fourth discipline of learning organization comprising of seven indices. The overall mean score for all items was 2.45, indicating a low-to-moderate agreement of this discipline was practised in the university environment (Appendix B, Table B7). While item 2 had the highest mean values (2.57), item 6 had the lowest mean value (2.31). The last discipline, Personal mastery, confirmed an overall mean score (2.40) for all items, indicating a low-to-moderate application of this discipline in the university environment. While items 5 and 6 had the highest mean value (2.36), item 3 had the lowest mean value of (2.11; see Appendix B, Table B8).

Furthermore, using demographic variables as a reference, the second research question investigated whether there are statistically significant differences in faculty members’ perceptions of learning organization disciplines across the board (age, gender, academic rank, and years of experience).It was decided to employ a t-test for independent samples to see if there was a difference between male and female faculty members. One-way ANOVA, on the other hand, was employed to determine whether the variations of the four-level groups of academic rank and years of experience were equal or statistically substantially different from one another. Results (see Appendix, Table B10) show no significant differences at the α = .05 level between male and female faculty members’ perceptions, except team learning and personnel mastery. One-way ANOVA results (see Appendix, Table B10) show that no significant differences were identified about perceptions of the three academic rank groups (lecturer, professor, associate professor, and assistant professor). Table B10 (see Appendix B) has extended our knowledge about the differences between the four experience level groups of the study part.

Table B11 (See Appendix B) also explains the difference in the current study’s learning organization concepts. Furthermore, Table B13 (See Appendix B) presents the difference in means between the faculty members’ groups.

Regression Analysis

Linear regression test was also employed to test the relationship between age, experience, and academic rank with learning organization disciplines. All the linear regression assumptions were checked for the proper implementation of the test findings of the study. The regression analysis assumptions included normality, homoscedasticity, multi-collinearity outliers, and homogeneity, and collinearity was checked (see Appendices B and C). The graphical representation explains that all the assumptions were fulfilled to run the regression analysis.

Table B12 (see Appendix B) results demonstrated that demographic variables (academic rank and experience) explain the variance of .027 in a learning organization. These findings provide a new understanding of the relationship between employees’ academic rank, age, gender, and experience with learning organization disciplines.

All other factors (academic rank and years of experience) except age and gender do not significantly correlate with a learning organization. This result shows alignment with Wang et al. (2007) findings, which showed that demographic variables have no significant association with a learning organization. Similarly, organizations’ academic rank results contradict to Nazari and Pihie, (2012) findings. There was a significant and positive correlation between faculty members’ age and the learning organization, as shown in Table B13 (see Appendix B). On the other hand, academic rank and faculty experience do not significantly relate to the learning organization. Our study results do not align with Darling-Hammond et al. (2020) findings. They believe that faculty members’ education and learning capacity affect the organization and students in the institutions. It means that study hypotheses H I and H4 are accepted.

These results are further substantiated with the interview findings. A script of the interview questions was provided in Appendix A. Some other respondents said, “learning organization is a type of learning environment” (R5 & R10). Similarly, (R3 & R8) explain it as a process of learning. We have started by asking the respondents if their university has a clear vision. The majority of the respondents answered in favor of the vision statement, but their understanding varied drastically. Besides, many respondents have different understandings of the purpose of having a vision. For example, a respondent contended, “the vision helps our university diffusion knowledge” (R1 & R3). Vision helps people working in an organization with what it aspires to be (R8). This showed that the understanding of vision was not clear among respondents. The respondents also showed a mixed response to the question. For instance, a respondent said; I do not think our vision is fully aligned with organizational culture (R6). Further, regarding the mental model, respondents viewed that “it is the measure of inner thought of the people” (R6 & R10). Further, (R3 & R5) have the view that “mental model is related mental model strength.” Other respondents believed that organizations try to better themselves and acquire an advantage over others through a vision statement. However, for system-thinking respondents explains, “it is related to thinking about institutions system (R7 & R12)”. Regarding personnel mastery, the (R6 & R13) elaborated it as “that it related an individual to organizational commitment.”

Most of the respondents have noted a lack of continuous commitment to learning within the university environment. The majority of the respondents were familiar with the learning organization concept. However, most participants thought that the concept is primarily theoretical and hardly provides any framework for action. The respondents also explained that the university’s faculty members are not fully motivated to learn and develop with their full potential.

Therefore, the findings of overall interviews have complemented a question by depicting that in HEIs, the concept of a learning organization is yet to be fully implemented. Many participants argued that they had practiced these activities to some extent. However, largely, the implementation of the concept remained was not admirable. Thus, the university systems and processes are still lacking to support a learning organization’s activities and integrate these activities into daily operations.

Discussion

This study looked into the unexplored relationship between demographic variables and learning organization disciplines at Pakistan’s higher education institutions. The study affirms four hypotheses to explore the relationship of demographics variables (age, gender, academic rank, and experience) with learning organization disciplines. The study results proved that both quantitative and qualitative findings show that the learning organization concept is an important factor in developing the HEIs in Pakistan. The data analysis shows that shared vision has the highest mean value and personal mastery has the lowest mean value. In addition, these findings showed that the majority of employees prefer to operate in accordance with the vision of the organization. The results also demonstrate a positive and significant association among the learning organization disciplines; our study’s results are linked to the study (Malik & Garg, 2020).

The faculty members at HEIs believe that team learning is an essential element for information sharing, continuous practicing, shared vision, skill development, communication, personal learning, and sharing ideas and opinions. They believe that team learning leads us to respect each other without any gender basis to create employees’ goals, create a knowledge culture, and allow employees to solve problems. Teamwork is necessary for two-way communication, sharing viewpoints, decreasing misunderstandings, misconceptions, and a faster learning process through mutual coordination and collaboration. Team learning helps the organization combat a problem and retain the learning process (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). However, the results are consistent with Ponnuswamy and Manohar (2016) and Senge (1990) findings that team learning is important for learning the organization process.

Moreover, about the shared vision, the faculty members at the higher education institutes believe that shared vision also had a unique place across organizational boundaries in developing learning organization discipline. They remarked that shared vision is significant for the management system’s support in creating a communication system, enhancing leadership roles, and developing its personal growth and vision. It also gives a particular direction to develop their personal goals and vision to disseminate knowledge to develop a collective approach; these findings are in line with Al-Kurdi et al. (2020).

The personal mastery results revealed that faculty perceived the practice of personal mastery as low relevant to other disciplines of a learning organization. It means that faculty members mostly; did not prefer to improve their personal and professional growth (Bruns, 2013). The similarities of these research results are not consistent with previous studies’ findings (Ponnuswamy & Manohar, 2016). So, there is a need to focus on this point.

Moreover, system thinking findings confirm an increasing move in the university environment. Faculty members prefer to follow university rules and policies to the students’ needs and abilities. Faculty members have the perception that student disciplines, changing education practices, and other university challenges are also affecting learning organization disciplines. The results corroborate with the findings of Ponnuswamy and Manohar (2016) and Senge (1990) studies that showed learning organization factor systems thinking high-level perception at the university level.

Similarly, the overall interviews’ findings complemented the question by exposing that a learning organization’s concept is not fully implemented in higher education commission institutions. Many participants argued that they practice these activities to some extent. But largely, the implementation of the concept remained was not admirable. Most of the respondents are not familiar with the learning organization concepts.

H1 was developed to examine the relationship between age and learning organization disciplines. The study’s findings support our hypothesis H1, which shows that age has a positive and significant relationship with a learning organization. The results of the study consistency with the previous study of Erdem et al. (2014).

H2 explains the direct relationship of the faculty members experiences with the learning organization disciplines. The study findings demonstrate that faculty experience has a negative and insignificant relationship with learning organization disciplines. The findings are not in line with Varshney (2020).

H3 shows that academic rank has a positive and insignificant relationship with the learning organization disciplines. The findings are not in line with Čierna et al. (2017).

H4 develop a relationship of the gender and learning organization disciplines at the HEIs of Pakistan. The study results demonstrate that gender statistically has a positive and significant relationship with the learning organization disciplines. That shows that gender plays a role in the perception of the learning organization concept at the HEIs. The study results are consistent with Almarghani and Mijatovic (2017).

Theoretical Contribution

This study adds to the literature of learning organization theory in Pakistani higher education institutions. Firstly, this research demonstrates a relationship between the disciplines of the learning organization; secondly, It reveals that the learning organization’s and demographics have a statistically significant relationship with each other. This research fills the void in the previously unexplored literature. Previous studies only explain that learning organization disciplines internal relationships (Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011)

The goal of the study is to figure out how demographic variables other (gender, age, education, experience) have influence on the learning organization discipline. This literature explains that demographic variables have a positive relationship with the disciplines of the learning organization (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Mahto et al., 2018). This is a new contribution to the growing body of knowledge about the learning in organizations.

Practical Contribution

The practical contribution of the study is that learning organization disciplines’ implication in human resource practices is important. Firstly, our study findings explain that demographic variables have a significant connection with learning organization disciplines. That explains the learning organization practices can be enhanced by creating a learning environment among the organization’s employees. To increase the level of the HEIs learning organization perception is important (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). This perception will help the HEIs enhance the learning organization disciplines (Styles & Knowles, 2020). Study results show that learning organization disciplines are a suitable measure of the perceived learning organization. HEIs administration should build a creative tension learning environment for the source and renewal of learning organization disciplines. The administration should be enhanced inter and intra-organizational learning, information sharing, value to faculty members, commitment to learning, and change them from the past and present experiences. University management should also focus on gender issues to ease learning organization concepts in higher education institutes.

Limitation and Future Research

Despite the fact that this study adds to the present learning organization literature in both theoretically and practically, it may have certain limitations for future research. Only universities in the Hazara region are involved in this study; the population size can be extended over time by examining the enhancement in learning organization disciplines using a more detailed survey method for future study. The current study findings cannot be applied to other universities due to the small sample size. Furthermore, in this study, only faculty members of the HEIs were selected to record their responses and administrative staff were not included as the respondents.

In addition, in other fields, a longitudinal study may be performed. To learn learning organization environment, this study can be carried out in other industries, health, and education institutions. In the study model, leadership can be included as a mediator in future study.

Furthermore, for the discrimination, delegation and decentralization process there is need to conduct a future research. There is also a need for proper coaching, training the faculty members to enhance the learning organization perception at the HEIs level. The other determines like institutional environment link with learning organization culture can be explored in future research. It is possible to use faculty members and other administrative staff as respondents for future research within the university.

Conclusion

It is proposed in this study that there are correlations between demographic characteristics and learning organization in higher education institutions, and that hypotheses are tested. The study results show that demographic variables (age, gender) have a positive and significant relationship with the learning organization disciplines. While education and experience haven’t been statistically significant with learning organization disciplines. The interviews findings also show that learning organization disciplines are more important for the HEIs of Pakistan. The study shows that perception of the learning organization at the HEIS is important for giving practical instructions to design tasks, policy implications for higher education institution/departments/ authorities, managers, supervisors, and other connected parties are provided related to learning organization perception. The study results show that perception of the people about learning organization prevail at the HEIs (universities) level.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Table B14.

Understanding of Learning Organization and Its Sub-Dimensions.

Key dimensions	Sub-themes	Exemplary quotes	Responses showing evidence
Understanding of the learning organization	Familiarity with the term Definition Faculty identification Major LOD practices	A process of learning An environment of learning An organization where an atmosphere is created for the learning process	R3 & R8 R5 &R10 R6 & R11
Shared vision	Familiarity with the term Recognition Real importance for faculty members	Organizational goals A vision of the higher education institutions Shared information about the long term vision of the HEIs	R1 & R3 R6 R8
Mental model	Recognition Definition Effect on faculty members and organization	Inner thoughts of the people Metal level of the people How mental level of the people can strong enough?	R6 & R10 R3 R5
System thinking	Familiarity with the term Definition Effect individually and collectively in HEIs	Thinking about the system Understanding the system To describe the importance of our behaviors	R12 R7 R4
Personal mastery	Familiarity with the term Definition Importance for faculty	Commitment for the organization Deepen the vision of the organization Champion of his/her work	R13 & R6 R7 R3

Appendix C

Acknowledgements

This paper and the research behind it would not have been possible without the exceptional support of Dr. Yong Ming Wang and Hong Li Yin. Their enthusiasm, knowledge and exacting attention to detail have been an inspiration and kept our work on track from our first encounter with the paper draft. The generosity and expertise of one and all have improved this study in innumerable ways and saved us from many errors; those that inevitably remain are entirely our own responsibility.

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.

ORCID iD

Waqar Ahmad

References

Abowitz

D. A.

Toole

T. M.

(2010). Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 108–116.

Aktharsha

U. S.

Anisa

(2011). Knowledge management system and learning organization: An empirical study in an engineering organization. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(2), 26–43.

Al-jawazneh

B. E.

Al-Awawdeh

W. M.

(2011). Measuring the degree of the presence of learning organization dimensions at the branches of commercial banks in the governorate of Almafraq-Jordan. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(11), 27.

Al-Kurdi

O. F.

El-Haddadeh

Eldabi

(2020). The role of organisational climate in managing knowledge sharing among academics in higher education. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 217–227.

Ali

A. K.

(2012). Academic staff’s perceptions of characteristics of learning organization in a higher learning institution. International Journal of Educational Management, 26, 55–82.

Almarghani

E. M.

Mijatovic

(2017). Factors affecting student engagement in HEIs-it is all about good teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 940–956.

Bruns

H. C.

(2013). Working alone together: Coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise. Academy of Management journal, 56(1), 62–83.

Chen

L.-T.

Chen

C.-W.

Chen

C.-Y.

(2010). Are educational background and gender moderator variables for leadership, satisfaction and organizational commitment? African Journal of Business Management, 4(2), 248–261.

Choi

Chandler

S. M.

(2020). Knowledge vacuum: An organizational learning dynamic of how e-government innovations fail. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101416.

10.

Čierna

Sujová

Hąbek

Horská

Kapsdorferová

(2017). Learning organization at higher education institutions in the EU: Proposal for implementing philosophy of learning organization—results from research. Quality & Quantity, 51(3), 1305–1320.

11.

Crawford

E. O.

(2018). Intercultural technology-based collaboration: Engaging US and South African pre-service teachers in virtual research teams to generate solutions to local environmental issues. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching and Learning Journal, 11(3), 1–17.

12.

Darling-Hammond

Flook

Cook-Harvey

Barron

Osher

(2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140.

13.

Edmondson

A. C.

Lei

(2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.

14.

Erdem

İlğan

Uçar

H. İ

. (2014). Relationship between learning organization and job satisfaction of primary school teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 9–20.

15.

Fillion

Koffi

Ekionea

J.-P. B.

(2015). Peter Senge’s learning organization: A critical view and the addition of some new concepts to actualize theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 19(3), 73.

16.

Garvin

D. A.

(2003). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Harvard Business Review Press.

17.

Ghaffari

Burgoyne

Shah

I. M.

(2017a). Assessing learning organization dimensions and demographic factors in top public universities in Malaysia. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 11(9), 114–127.

18.

Ghaffari

Burgoyne

Shah

I. M.

(2017b). Assessing the psychometric properties of dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire in the Malaysian public higher education context. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 11(11), 1–9.

19.

Grafton

Lillis

A. M.

Malina

M. A.

Nørreklit

H. S.

Selto

F. H.

(2011). Lessons learned: Advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(1), 59–71.

20.

M. H.-W.

Wang

(2015). Unpacking knowledge transfer and learning paradoxes in international strategic alliances: Contextual differences matter. International Business Review, 24(2), 287–297.

21.

Hussein

Omar

Noordin

Ishak

N. A.

(2016). Learning organization culture, organizational performance and organizational innovativeness in a public institution of higher education in Malaysia: A preliminary study. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 512–519.

22.

Ingvaldsen

J. A.

Engesbak

(2020). Organizational learning and bureaucracy: An alternative view. The Learning Organization, 27, 403–415.

23.

Jamali

Sidani

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

24.

Jamalzadeh

(2012). The relationship between knowledge management and learning organization of faculty members at Islamic Azad university, Shiraz branch in academic year (2010-2011). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 1164–1168.

25.

Jiménez-Jiménez

Sanz-Valle

(2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417.

26.

Lee

Park

Yoon

S. W.

(2021). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between learning organization and organizational performance and employee attitudes: Using the Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire. Human Resource Development Review, 20(2), 207–251.

27.

Kalkan

(2017). The effect of gender on school administrators and teachers’ perceptions of learning organization: A meta-analysis study. Education & Science, 42(191), 165–175.

28.

Kim

Watkins

K. E.

Z. L.

(2017). The impact of a learning organization on performance. European Journal of Training and Development, 41, 177–193.

29.

Leal Filho

Raath

Lazzarini

Vargas

De Souza

Anholon

Quelhas

O. L. G.

Haddad

Klavins

Orlovic

(2018). The role of transformation in learning and education for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 199, 286–295.

30.

Lee-Gosselin

Briere

Ann

(2013). Resistances to gender mainstreaming in organizations: Toward a new approach. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 28, 468–485.

31.

Maden

(2012). Transforming public organizations into learning organizations: A conceptual model. Public Organization Review, 12(1), 71–84.

32.

Mahto

R. V.

McDowell

W. C.

Kudlats

Dunne

T. C.

(2018). Learning orientation and performance satisfaction as predictors of small firm innovation: The moderating role of gender. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(3), 375–391.

33.

Malik

Garg

(2020). Learning organization and work engagement: The mediating role of employee resilience. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(8), 1071–1094.

34.

Marwick

A. D.

(2001). Knowledge management technology. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 814–830.

35.

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

Bergh

D. D.

Corley

K. G.

Ketchen

D. J.

Jr. (2017). Mixed methods in the organizational sciences: Taking stock and moving forward. SAGE.

36.

Nabi

Walmsley

Liñán

Akhtar

Neame

(2018). Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 452–467.

37.

Nazari

Pihie

Z. A. L.

(2012). Assessing learning organization dimensions and demographic factors in technical and vocational colleges in Iran. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(3), 70–92.

38.

Örtenblad

(2002). A typology of the idea of learning organization. Management learning, 33(2), 213–230.

39.

Park

Y. K.

Song

J. H.

Yoon

S. W.

Kim

(2014). Learning organization and innovative behavior: The mediating effect of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 38, 75–94.

40.

Pedler

Hsu

S.-W.

(2019). Regenerating the learning organisation: Towards an alternative paradigm. The Learning Organization, 26, 97–112.

41.

Ponnuswamy

Manohar

H. L.

(2016). Impact of learning organization culture on performance in higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 21–36.

42.

Real

J. C.

Roldán

J. L.

Leal

(2014). From entrepreneurial orientation and learning orientation to business performance: Analysing the mediating role of organizational learning and the moderating effects of organizational size. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 186–208.

43.

Santa

Nurcan

(2016). Learning organization modelling patterns. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(1), 106–125.

44.

Senge

P. M.

(1990). The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

45.

Sharifirad

M. S.

(2011). The dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ): A cross-cultural validation in an Iranian context. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5–6), 661–676.

46.

Stone

Kaminka

Kraus

Rosenschein

(2010, July). Ad hoc autonomous agent teams: Collaboration without pre-coordination. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1504–1509).

47.

Styles

J. K.

Knowles

L. J.

(2020). Why become a learning organization: Measuring the dimensions of learning at the University of the Bahamas. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(4), 69–87.

48.

Thakur

Chaudhuri

(2015). Learning organization notion in Indian banking industry. Journal of Business and Management, 17(3), 32–38.

49.

Thomas

Madden

Qazi

(2016). Learning organization orientation in gender-based categories of schools. Journal of Research & Reflections in Education, 10(1), 52–68.

50.

Tibbs

(2011). Changing cultural values and the transition to sustainability. Journal of Futures Studies, 15(3), 13–32.

51.

Tidd

Bessant

J. R.

(2020). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley.

52.

Tortorella

G. L.

Marodin

G. A.

Miorando

Seidel

(2015). The impact of contextual variables on learning organization in firms that are implementing lean: A study in Southern Brazil. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 78(9–12), 1879–1892.

53.

Varshney

(2020). Employees’ job involvement and satisfaction in a learning organization: A study in India’s manufacturing sector. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 39(2), 51–61.

54.

Waddell

(2017). Societal learning and change: How governments, business and civil society are creating solutions to complex multi-stakeholder problems. Routledge.

55.

Wang

Yang

McLean

G. N.

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

56.

Watkins

K. E.

Kim

(2018). Current status and promising directions for research on the learning organization. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(1), 15–29.

57.

Williams

(2016). Coalescence of research: Urban advantage as a learning organization structured to support a culture of inquiry. City University of New York.