You are on page 1of 45

Development of a Measure for the Organizational Learning Construct

Author(s): Gary F. Templeton, Bruce R. Lewis and Charles A. Snyder


Source: Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall, 2002), pp. 175-218
Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398581 .
Accessed: 04/09/2013 06:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Management Information Systems.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Developmentofa Measure forthe
OrganizationalLearningConstruct
GARY F. TEMPLETON, BRUCE R. LEWIS, AND
CHARLES A. SNYDER

Gary F. Templeton is anAssistant ProfessorofMIS intheCollegeofAdministra-


tiveSciencesat theUniversity ofAlabamain Huntsville. He has previouslytaught
MIS coursesatAthensStateUniversity, SyracuseUniversity, andAuburnUniversity.
He has a B.S. in BusinessAdministration(financemajor),an M.S. in BusinessAd-
ministration,a MastersinMIS, anda Ph.D. in MIS. He has publishedin theareaof
organizational learningand hisresearchalso focuseson largeinformationsystems
development.

Bruce R. Lewis is an Assistant Professor ofMIS in theWayneCallowaySchoolof


BusinessandAccountancy atWakeForestUniversity. He spent25 yearsas a practic-
IT
ing professional, including servingas theExecutiveDirectorofComputing atAu-
burnUniversity andas a member oftheboardoftheAlabamaSupercomputer Authority.
He holdsa B.S. inMathematics andanM.S. inStatistics;hereceivedhisPh.D.inMIS
fromAuburnUniversity. His researchinterests tothemanage-
includeissuesrelating
mentofinformation technology and business systems.
intelligence He haspublished
intheJournal ofManagement InformationSystems,Communications oftheAIS,Jour-
nal ofComputer Information Systems, andExpertSystems withApplications.

Charles A. Snyder is theWoodruff EndowedProfessor ofMIS in theDepartment


ofManagement atAuburnUniversity. He receiveda Ph.D. in Management fromthe
UniversityofNebraskaandhe holdsan M.S. inEconomicsfromSouthDakotaState
an MBA fromtheOhio StateUniversity,
University, anda BFA fromtheUniversity
ofGeorgia.His morethan200 refereed publicationshaveappearedinjournalssuch
as JournalofManagement Information Systems,Information & Management, Acad-
emyofManagement Review,
AcademyofManagement Executive,CaliforniaMan-
agement Review,Data Management,IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management,
andDecisionSupportSystems. He is coauthorof TheManagement ofTelecommuni-
cations,publishedbyIrwinMcGraw-Hill. His researchinterests
includeknowledge
management, resource
information management, expertsystems,computer-integrated
manufacturing,systemsanalysisanddesign,andtelecommunications management.

Abstract: The conceptof organizationallearning(OL) is receivingan increasing


amountofattention andpracticeofmanagement
intheresearch informationsystems
(MIS) due to its for
potential affecting
organizationaloutcomes, includingcontrol
andintelligence,competitive andtheexploitation
advantage, ofknowledgeandtech-
nology.As such,furtherdevelopmentofthesalientissuesrelatedtoOL is warranted,
especiallymeasurement Based on a domaindefinition
oftheconstruct. groundedin
theinitialworkin developingan empirically
thisresearchrepresents
theliterature,
reliableandvalidmeasureoforganizational Therigorous
learning. methodutilizedin
thederivationofthismeasure,whichintegrates twomethodological frameworks for

JournalofManagement /Fall 2002,Vol. 19,No. 2, pp. 175-218.


Systems
Information
2002 M.E. Sharpe,Inc.
0742-1222 /2002 $9.50 + 0.00.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

instrumentdevelopment,is themainstrength of thiswork.The resultis an eight-


28-iteminstrument
factor, forassessingOL, derivedfroma sampleof 119 knowl-
edge-basedfirms.The empirically derivedfactorsare awareness,communication,
performanceassessment, intellectual environmental
cultivation, adaptability,social
intellectual
learning, and
capitalmanagement, organizational MIS
grafting. function
managerscan use thesefactorstogaugeorganizationalorsubunitsuccessinthecre-
ationanddiffusionofnewapplications ofinformationtechnology.

Keywords and phrases: innovation, intelli-


change,organizational
organizational
gence,organizational scale development,
learning, technologyadoption.

Prominentorganizational theorists havepredicted thattheamountofinforma-


tionand knowledgethatorganizations mustprocesswill continueto increase[46,
70]. Severalauthorshaveresponded to thisnewerabyprescribing learningmodels
forthedesignoforganizations thataremoreresponsive environments
toturbulent [8,
39, 91, 99, 112, 128, 134].In suchconceptualizations, organizationallearning(OL)
is depictedas havinga greatpotential foraffecting organizationaloutcomes,suchas
organizational controland intelligence,competitive and
advantage, theexploitation
of knowledgeand technology. Since interest in applyingOL designshas increased
overthepastseveralyears[134],further development ofthesalientissuesrelatedto
OL is warranted, especiallymeasurement oftheconstruct.
OL theory hasprofound relevance tothescienceandpracticeofmanagement infor-
mationsystems(MIS). PastresearchindicatesMIS is usefulin thefacilitation and
exploitation ofthethreemodesofOL espousedbyArgyris andSchn[5], whodrew
upontheworkof Gregory Bateson[12] in thebehavioralsciences.First,MIS can
translateto superior single-loop learning(SLL), themodecorresponding withincre-
mentalorganizational changeinitiatives. Steinand Zwass [128] proposedthatsuc-
cessfulSLL is betterfacilitatedbytheexistence oforganizational memory performance
standards, whichoftenaccompany theadoptionof organizational memory informa-
tionsystems(IS). Second,MIS can be used to exploitdouble-looplearning(DLL),
information processing intended totranslate intoradicalorganizational change.Stein
andVandenbosch [127]discovered fivecritical
successfactors thatcontribute tohigher-
orderlearning(DLL) throughout thesystemdevelopment lifecycle.Theysuggested
thatadvancedIS, suchas expertandexecutiveinformation systems, provideunique
opportunities forlearningthathas strategic implications. Finally,MIS can impact
deuterolearning,wherebyorganizations and itsmemberslearnhow to learn[12].
Alavi[1] surveyed127MBA students todetermine ifgroupdecisionsupport system
(GDSS) usage enhances collaborative learning. She foundthatstudents usingGDSS
in collaborative learning experienced higherlevelsof perceivedskilldevelopment,
self-reported learning,positiveclassroomexperience, andindividual learning perfor-
mance(measuredby coursegrades).Alaviet al. [2], whoconducteda longitudinal
fieldstudytoinvestigate theefficacy ofdesktopvideoconferencing (DVC) insupport-

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 177

ingcollaborative telelearning, corroborated thesefindings. Theirfindings suggested


thathighermeasuresofcritical-thinking skilldevelopment, groupcommitment, and
group attractionwere attributed tothe DVC-supported distance-learningenvironment.
The natureofknowledge or innovations subjectto adoptionduringOL endeavors
is also a significant topicin studiesthatincorporate OL andMIS. Premkumar et al.
[105]examined therelationship betweeninnovation (complexity, compatibility, costs,
relativeadvantage, andcommunicability) anddiffusion (adaptation,internal andex-
and
ternaldiffusion, implementation success) characteristics. Perceptions techni-
of
cal andorganizational compatibility ofelectronic datainterchange (EDI) werefound
to predictitsimplementation success.Nelson[95] assessedtheknowledgeandskill
requirements of IS and enduserpersonnel.He foundthatIS personnelneedmore
organizational knowledge, endusersneedmoreIS-relatedskills,andthatbothper-
sonnelcategoriesweredeficient in generalIS knowledge. VesseyandConger[142]
usedprocess-tracing methods to investigate theeffectiveness ofprocess-,data-,and
object-oriented in
methodologies specifying information requirements duringsys-
temdevelopment. Theyfoundthatprocessmethodologies facilitated
superior learn-
ing,anditwas theonlytypethatsignificantly affected learning overthethreetrials.
Researchalso showstheimpactofOL withintheMIS function. Vandenbosch and
Higgins[138]provided evidence thatMIS success is dependent upon member learn-
ingstyle.Theysurveyed 73 executives inninecompaniesandfoundthatthesuccess
ofan executivesupport system (ESS) is dependent on thetypeofexecutivelearning.
Interestingly,consistent with prior research inMIS, theyfoundthatindividual differ-
ences were not significant to
precursors learning behavior. Larsen [78] investigated
whether theimplementation of an information technology (IT) innovation is best
explained by the ability ofmiddle managers to innovate using businessor IT experi-
ence.He foundthatbusinessandIT knowledgecouldbothstimulate innovativeness
IT
as wellas adoption success.
Theresearch described hereinrepresents themostrigorous attempt todateatcreat-
ing an instrument to assess OL-related behaviors in organizations through theempiri-
cal development ofa validandreliablemeasure.In so doing,itprovidesa systematic
technique forcollecting, analyzing, andinterpreting dataaboutOL forapplication in
organizational research. Thisundertaking is significant because:(1) theconceptof
OL is a paradigmfororganizational thought, (2) without a measureitis difficult to
assesstheextent ofOL inorganizations, (3) a better understanding of OL is important
formanagement, and (4) empiricalresearchin OL willbenefitfroma quantitative
meansofmeasuring theconcept.

LearningDefinitions
ReviewofOrganizational
Due TOthe expansive implicationsof OL theory, impossibleto at-
itis virtually
tribute work,orevendiscipline.
itsgenesistoa singletheorist, Perhapspsychologists
wouldattributeitsdevelopment to pioneersof individuallearningresearchsuchas
Thorndike [136],Watson[146, 147],Pavlov [103],andSkinner[120]. OL theorists
wouldattributeitsbeginnings tomanyimportant cumulative developmentsmadein

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

organizational theorythathelpexplainitsnature.For instance,thetenetsofAdam


Smith's[122] Wealth ofNationsembodiedtheorganizational adoptionoftechniques
andtechnologies. Frederick Taylor's[131]viewsonscientific management explained
how workassociatedwiththemanagement of organizational operations could be
and
objectified improved. In his seminal on
report learning T.P.
curves, Wright [149]
describedtheoutcomepatterns associatedwithwhatmanywoulddescribeas collec-
tivelearning behavior. Creditshouldalso be giventothoseresponsible forarticulat-
ing contrasting organizational design alternatives, such as bureaucracy [148] and
organizational functionalism [49]. Each of these historical works has had a profound
impacton thethought thatled totheneedforOL research.
CyertandMarch[37] werethefirst tocointhephraseorganizational learning, and
articulatelearning as an organizational phenomenon. The cumulative tradition ofOL
researchhasresulted inthedevelopment ofseveralkeytenets, involving: (1) organi-
zationalmode,(2) organizational environment, (3) member behaviorandcognition,
and (4) information content. Organizational moderefersto theextentto whichthe
is
organization seeking intended change, whether itis single,double[5], ordeutero
[12] learning. SLL canbe saidtoembodythephilosophies andprescriptions associ-
atedwithmanaging incremental change,suchas thoseespousedbyEdwardDeming
[41]. DLL relatestotheradicalfieldofchangearticulated byHammerandChampy
[61]. Deutero learning is defined as to and
"learning learn," is perhapsthemostintel-
ligentbehaviororganizations can exhibit.OL also represents a bodyofthought that
(relativetocompeting paradigms) pronounces thesignificance oforganizational en-
vironment in inducingorganizational self-design [107]. More precise classifications
ofmember behaviorandcognition havebeenoffered byHuber[71] andBandura[9].
Senge [114] has articulated a seriesof fiveorganizational disciplines, fromwhich
organizational stakeholders shouldportray intheirwork.
Pastattention on theexplicitnotionofOL hasbeenplacedon itsconceptualization
[96],management [92],development [55],andexploitation [126]. Thereexistsvery
limited previousseriousattempts atproviding an acceptabledomaindefinition ofOL
[10, 132].Barriersto defining OL haveplagueditsdevelopment, andinvolvechal-
lengesassociatedwithreachingconsensus,despiteitscomplexity, in a timeof un-
precedented popularity. Few haveattempted to derivepsychometrically acceptable
measuresof varyingperspectives on theOL construct [57]. Giventhemultitude of
perspectives regarding itsdefinition and use,it is hoped that the resultsof the current
studycontribute atleasta partialsolutionto thedifficulties inherent in OL research.

ofStudy
Progression
This research progressed through three stages. First,a conceptual definition
oftheOL construct was derivedfroma content of
analysis theliterature.
Next,a set
ofitemswas generatedanda measurement instrumentwas designed,evaluated,and
refinedthroughseveralsteps.Finally,datafroman administrationoftheinstrument
weresummarized toprovidea statistical of
profile theextentto which organizations
engagein OL.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 179

This methodology is based on theparadigmformeasurement development pro-


posedbyChurchill [28],whichhasbeenutilizedinvariousMIS studies[80,86, 108,
116,117].Each ofthefourinstrument development phasesenumerated byChurchill
[28] focuses on satisfying and
validity reliability concerns about theconstructthrough
iterativedevelopment andtesting.Thesephasesinclude:(1) construct domainspeci-
fication,(2) construction ofitems,(3) datacollection,and (4) measurepurification.
In thisstudy,particular waspaidtothedatacollectionandmeasurepurifica-
attention
tionstepsbysubjecting theinstrument torepeatedadministrations andtuning.
Thesuccessful tradition oftheChurchill [28] paradigm was augmented inthisstudy
through consideration of Malhotra and Grover's [90] Ideal Survey Attributes
(ISA).
Theseattributes, denotedas IS A-nin thisresearch, aredisplayedinTable 1. Conve-
nientinthecontextoftheChurchill [28] method, theISA itemsrelatetokeysuccess
factorsin instrument development and qualityimprovement [7]. This papernotes
whichoftheISA attributes weresatisfiedineachstepoftheinstrument development
process.

Results
ofOL
StageI: ConceptualDefinition
For this project a conceptual definitionofOL wasdetermined byconducting a
contentanalysisof selectedOL literature. Contentanalysisinvolvesanyof several
techniques usedtosystematically analyzeandconciselydescribethecontent ofwrit-
ten,spoken,orimagecommunications [4,23,25]. It was employed in this
research to
supportexistingtheory definingOL subconstructs (forexample,Huber's[71] four
OL subprocesses) andtoextendthetheory byuncovering additional important activi-
tiesrelatedto OL. The selectedliterature includedacademicandpractitioner articles
and booksconcernedwithOL in severaldisciplines.The ProQuestDirectdatabase
was accessedforarticlesandbooksthatmetthesearchcriterion; articlesandbooks
werechosenifthephraseorganizational learningwas foundinthetitleorwas inthe
keywordlistof thearticle.Bibliographies of theselectedarticleswerereviewedto
furtherexploreimportant concepts.Table2 presents a listofauthorsandtheirworks,
alongwiththeirspecificcontribution in articulating theOL construct, whichwere
discoveredandutilizedinthecontent analysis.
For thepurposesof defining OL, it is important to distinguish betweenwhatthe
conceptis andwhatitis not.The myriad ofdescriptive research on OL can be parsed
into(1) worksthatexplicitly discussOL and(2) worksthatreferto OL inrelation to
otherorganizational issues.WorksthatdiscusstheOL construct (see Table2) areuse-
fulinitsdefinition,whereasthelatter is usefulindescribing itsrelationship withother
concepts[87, 135]. This researchdoes notattempt to defineand measure non-OL
aspectsoforganizations, suchas performance outcomes, context,andresourceavail-
which
ability, might with
correlate OL. Even so, uniquelydefining theOL construct
can be an extremely arduousundertaking. a
First, belief prevailsamongtheorists that
variousperspectives on OL notonlyexist,butalso areappropriate [29]. Forinstance,

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

Table 1. MalhotraandGrover's[90] Ideal SurveyAttributes

General
ISA-1 Is the unitof analysis clearly defined forthe study?
ISA-2 Does the instrumentation consistentlyreflectthat unitof analysis?
ISA-3 Is the respondent(s) chosen appropriate forthe research question?
ISA-4 Is any formof triangulationused to cross-validate results?
Measurement error
ISA-5 Are multi-item variables used?
ISA-6 Is content validityassessed?
ISA-7 Is field-based pretestingof measures performed?
ISA-8 Is reliabilityassessed?
ISA-9 Is constructvalidityassessed?
ISA-10 Is pilotdata used forpurifying measures?
ISA-1 1 Are confirmatory methods used?
Sampling error
ISA-12 Is the sample framedefined and justified?
ISA-13 Is random sampling used fromthe sample frame?
ISA-14 Is the response rate over 20 percent?
ISA-1 5 Is nonresponse bias estimated?
Internalvalidityerror
ISA-16 Are attemptsmade to establish internalvalidityof the findings?
Statistical conclusion error
ISA-1 7 Is statisticalpower sufficient?

inacademia,therearemanyreference disciplines foundtobe influential onOL theory,


includingorganizational sociology;organizational behavior and psychology[119];
organization theory;industrialeconomics;economichistory; and business,manage-
ment,andinnovation studies[44]. Second,within organizations, members withinthe
variousfunctional areas(humanresources, information technology, strategic
manage-
ment,processdevelopment, financeandaccounting, andso on) viewOL differently.
Templeton [132] andShrivastava [118] articulated six andthreeperspectives, respec-
onOL fromwhichdefinitions
tively, might be drawn.Third,subjectsthatlearndo so in
widelyvarying stylepatterns [32,44] thatarelargelydependent uponenvironmental
context[94, 135].Finally,researchers are also to
apt disagree as to thelevelofanalysis
at whichOL is enacted[71, 113]. For thesereasons,it is important to respectthe
varyingpotential operationaldefinitions thatcanbe usefulinpracticeandresearch.
Whereasa well-rounded viewofOL can be veryusefulin helpingresearchers de-
liberate
anddecidewhatareastoinvestigate, any effortto all
satisfy perspectives with
one omnibusmeasurement instrument is futile.Arriving at an acceptabledefinition
andmeasureoftheconceptwillonlyserveas a temporary solutioninsucha complex
andemerging Even
discipline. though the use of definitions in emerging disciplines
suchas OL can be inefficient [29], we believe thatdevelopment effortssuchas the
researchreported hereis a fruitfulwayforthefieldtomakeprogresstowardthegoal
of"normalscience,"as advocatedbyKuhn[77]. Suchefforts willserveas theimpe-
tusfordiscussionandrefinement ofideas,tools,methods, andgoals,whichwillserve

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
181

.2 b '=

S E

il
s
2 S S SSSS S
fe Cl,
i I

1 II
g^ sssss s

1I
11 II
^.2 SS SSSS SSS S S

cd
2

'S IS
S
>^ 8 s
-o o 5 -o

CL,
CL, o
I 1
co
w>
'e ">
-5
cd

ca
io &
N *-' r-^ H.^, 1
'S
S?
O g g E S|E| ||2.

imil
o

'S
<

e2 <! <<<OCCCCCGCQCCCUOOOO

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182

"cd

I S S SS
n S S S
'c u
*
ed fi
?
O

il
cd 5
SS ss s s s
o c 5
""
O
cd
"cd

1 II cd t
g .-o S S S S S
Oi
I g ^

1
I
I t II || SS S SS

I
2
Id __
IS
l'I ^
.g

i
"O o cd -O

f 8s
a 3
o
"c > ss
cd
'B
.2
"cd

.2
1
*S
cd
FT 5 "!
S?
o CO -_^ CM T- IO O i- i CD -v C -
'S P 2- ^S^o co cj> lo ^ cvj
C/3

I
< listliiillsiiilaSi
J
IS
< UQQQQLUEiluIiIOOOOOX

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
183


SS SSS SS SSS S JL

SSS SS SS SSSS SSS

SSS S SSS

S SSSS SSS SS

SSS S

s s

lllllllllillllilll|l|ll

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184

13
o >
NgS SS SSSS
c ^
e
go
o

1
S 2 s s s s
I il
1
1 II ed a
S S S
O '3
Ci e

1 I 1
.S
o
fi ?l
">. SSS SS S

l!
2
"cd __

5
5 cd o
>> .NO S

aex I ffs
co i
1
'5 '>
cd
t3
cd

1
S ,_^
^ ^
"" co1^" ^
,__,
un

I
cd

33
fT IMiii
X)

<

JH
JO -S 5 = gS^lg2
f2

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
185

__, "^
ii 1
. r S S S S S ^
e

o?

! S
o
c
U

I c^
1 | S

C
11
iO
o

bu

'S

1.
SE s
<D cd

"e
D b
s
||
in

g o

I - I s|l| filis*
M ilffEil
I llii Mitiltili!
< <<<comcmmmcmcuOuOOOQQ

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186

1 S
|
1I s ss s
S%
?
o o

1 s s
a

I s >
I |1 s s s
- 11
I g
"O
<
D
11i
_C
u
O
o

co
C

i-
S

X) SE s
"O &M
I
ex
CO
ojo
'S o

I
c

|J sssss s
co

O
"13
cS
N
'
a
?
O S j- ' ^ ^in co
O
</)

1
0)

< flililllLIlII
X)
f2 |< s .1 ? i S ?i .f *.g s 1 8 S
lJJLiLii!iiUOUO(!5l

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
187


ss s s s 1

s s

s s s s s

s s

s s s s s s s ss ss

"
=.
_, ET
_!_ i&
-I s e?sgiv il? *=__ !_
Blliiif|i!iii!SiiiiliIIii!
iitnii liiiiiiiiimii
HllIllIIIiIlllilllllII

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188

"c3
il
.a S-
i 1

2
c S
a

eI s s s s
g v a

O
i s s s
3
s
O

s
.g
SE N
-o Q ^

I
c 'S O
3 D

i
S -S
s s s s s

CS

O
tf
N
'5
E?
O m ^57 cd ^ ^
's g?^ 0 S _ 2 ^^
-Sis1
I
"^S-^o;S

< s lllflilll
S
e2 = iS aaiS S S||

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 189

as standards ofpracticein OL research. It wouldbe mostusefulforthefieldto con-


currently develop,test,anddeliberate theutility ofa working sampleofmeasuresthat
areadequaterepresentations ofmeaningful perspectives.
Due tothenumerous definitionalchoicesavailabletoresearchers, itis necessary to
explainandjustifythepointofviewemployedinattempts atoperationalizing defini-
tionsintomeasures.In consideration ofthevarying perspectives regarding thesub-
ject,thisresearchfocusedon threeparadigmatic views(see Table 2) thattheorists
use whendefiningtheOL concept:thedemographic, social action,and outcome
perspectives. Templeton [132]discussesfourjustifications forfocusing operationaliza-
tionefforts on thesocial actionperspective: (1) ithas an existingcumulative tradi-
tionofacceptanceinthefield,(2) ithasthemostpotential forutility inOL research,
(3) it facilitatestheexamination of waysin whichorganizational membersenact
piecesof OL, and (4) itaddressesthelevelsof analysisthatare activeduringOL.
Each of thesejustifications is aimedat supporting managerialpracticein learning
In
organizations. addition, the social action perspective allows us to inquireabout
organizational thatis moredynamicthandemographic
structure andoutcomes,and
aretherefore moresubjecttomanagerial decisionmakingandcontrol.Forinstance,
environmental contextmaydirectly alterlearningstylechoicesbutnotthedemo-
graphic state of the and
organization, differing learningmechanisms mayresultin
thesameoutcome[83].
In thereviewofliterature forthecontent analysisin thisstudy, all relevant articles
wereprocessedusingontological specification,as described and
byTempleton Snyder
[133]. The ontologicalspecification procedureinvolvesfoursteps:(1) selectionof
thetopicarea,(2) delineation ofconcepts thatdescribetheoverallconstruct, (3) transfer
toa reusablemedium, and(4) useofconceptsinlabelingsource.Thiseffort ledtothe
establishment ofseveralsearchattributes relatedto OL andinvolvedmultiple passes
through theliterature.As a result,78 explicitdefinitionsofOL werediscoveredand
synthesized intothefollowing conceptualdefinition forthisstudy:

Organizationallearningis thesetofactions(knowledgeacquisition,informa-
information
tiondistribution, and
interpretation, organizational
memory) within
theorganizationthatintentionally influence
andunintentionally positiveorga-
nizationalchange.
Ouranalysisof theliteratureuncoveredwidespreadsupportfortheOL components
containedwithintheHuber[71] taxonomy. For thatreason,thisdefinitionis very
similarto Huber's.The methodology produceda definition
ofthesocial-actionper-
spectiveof OL, andnot its correlates.
hypothetical Further, depictsOL
definition
this
andan ongoingprocess.
-levelconstruct
as an organizational

Instrument
StageII: OL Measurement
StageII ofthisprojectinvolved andperfecting
developing an instrumentbasedonthe
conceptual of
definition OL above.
presented In to
addition the thecontent
definition,
analysisoftheliteraturefromStageI produceda sampleofitemstemsthatdepicted

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

OL activities inorganizations (Table3). Again,theseitemswerelargelyderivedfrom


Huber's[71] work,withextensions madein numerous areas.Theseitemswereused
togenerate theoriginalstatements on theinstrument. The methodology forcomplet-
ingStage II involved several steps to establish content validitythroughout theinstru-
mentdevelopment process.
The originaldraftof thequestionnaire includeda totalof 46 questions,each de-
rivedfroman itemstem(Table3) representing a distinct aspectofOL. The questions
characterized therespondent's perceptions about thepresenceintheirorganization of
specificOL behaviors.Sinceorganizations cannotperceivephenomena, individuals
may be (and are)
commonly surveyed as itsproxy [90]. Thus, the OL questionnaire
was designedto elicittherespondent's professional judgmentabouttheappearance
of OL activitiesin theirfirm.Scale responsecategoriesforeach itemon theinstru-
mentwere:(1) strongly disagree,(2) moderately disagree,(3) undecided, (4) moder-
atelyagree,and(5) strongly The
agree. development of these questions addressed the
ISA-1 (unitofanalysisclearlydefined), ISA-2 (instrument reflects unitofanalysis),
and ISA-5 (variablesincludemultipleitems)qualityattributes. In additionto ques-
tionsaboutOL on theinitialquestionnaire, dataon individual- (job function andtop
management and
experience) organizational- (industry and firm size) level demo-
graphic variables were solicited.
Next,a pretest ofthequestionnaire was conducted. Fourcategoriesofrespondents
wereselectedforthepretest, basedon theirexpertise: MIS faculty andpractitioners,
survey instrumentation and
experts, organizational behavior theorists. The question-
naire,sent byfacsimile, includeda separateevaluation form(SEF). The SEF offered
each respondent an opportunity to critiquetheinstrument on matters important for
good questionnaire design,such as format, content, understandability, terminology,
andease andspeedofcompletion. In addition, therespondents wereaskedtoidentify
specificquestionstheyfeltshouldbe addedor deletedfromthequestionnaire. Fi-
nally,therespondents wereaskedto makesuggestions forenhancement. A totalof
ninepretestpacketswereadministered and returned. All responseswerereviewed
andadjustments madebasedon thefeedback.Thepretest stepinthedevelopment of
theinstrument addressedISA-7 (pretesting), and beganthecyclicalprocessof data
collectionand instrument purification thatcontinued throughout StageII.
Following revisions from the a
pretest, pilot testwas undertaken to appraiseand
furtherpurify the instrument. A coverletterand therevisedquestionnaire weread-
ministered to24 IT management professionals from10different industries. Thecover
letterexplainedthepurposeoftheresearch, and askedtherespondents to complete
thequestionnaire andoffersuggestions forimprovement. This steputilizedan elec-
tronicinterface witha web-basedformfordatacollection.Again,thequestionnaire
was revisedbased on thefeedback.The pilotteststepin thedevelopment of the
instrument addressedISA-10 (pilottesting).
The contentvalidity ofthemeasurement instrument was thendirectly investigated
by executing a variation on the procedure developedby Lawshe [79] forquantita-
tivelyassessingcontent validity. Thistechnique employeda content evaluation panel
ofindividuals knowledgeable abouttheconceptbeingmeasured. Thepanelconsisted

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
191

1
1 U !
I
.2
I
co
CD
il
o. * (Dew
P"^
%
W^<U ^CD

lflil? Ili II l
_ *o> &| f .i b. il 5 S. g II | g>i8-S

f ffu s il! I Iff III


II ! jfi&iif
!I lift ! ffff
Il ! laSllsJisiliJaJ
11 j 111|! I

on
I
g
S
-a
cd
f
S
U
C/T
O
j_
c/3
.1
O
e
O
.o
i | gli
c/3
D i I 5
"S
i ! I i *
cd
(D
III I fi II
"cd UOUJ > (5(0 22

'S
N

O J
Id
c
'S)
1 I 1
1 i I
co

-O O O
GO -^

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192

(/)
C
g
1E
t I. |
I il i
8 M*. I 'o
^
Si.. fSS 2.oi
lilil li s iflv
i ^IflilHIii. aliili I
I lili il lifiiill
I
o

Io
c/3

e (p ip "D <ps- O)r


S g (ci) -d (d^ oir.-^^^
S ===========00000000
-o
cd

.2
w
c
u o

"
c/T

i
|
i i
O
o
JD 1 1 'B o
or) o co "8 **

I I f 1
c
"S
si C
li
<DC .2 EcO Q.CO1-0


1 c
cd
I 1
8
!
c
-I
El
1I 1
0
en 1 i 1 S
a i
eS -g
3 s

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 193

of 18leadingOL experts, primarilyfromacademia.Thepanelistsweresenta copyof


therevisedinstrument andwereaskedto respondto each activity'srelevanceto OL
scale: 1 = notrelevant,
ona three-point 2 = important
(butnot 3 = essential.
essential),
All 20 oftheexpertsresponded, andfromthesedata,a contentvalidityratio(CVR)
was computedforeachitemfromthefollowing formula:
CVR = (n - N/2)/(N/2),
wheren is thefrequency countofthenumber ofpanelistsratingtheitemas either3 =
=
essentialor 2 important (butnotessential),and N is thetotalnumberof respon-
dents.Lawshe[79] onlyutilizedthe"essential"responsecategoryin computing the
CVR. In thisstudy,a less stringent criterion was employed[86]. Responsesof both
"important (butnotessential)"and"essential"wereutilizedbecausetheywereposi-
tiveindicatorsoftheitems'relevance toOL. Respondents thatdidnotprovidea rating
on a givenitemwerenotusedin thecalculationof theCVR forthatitem.Table4
presents themeansandCVRs oftheitemsfromtheLawsheprocedure.
The CVR foreachitemwas evaluatedforstatistical significanceat the0.05 level,
using the table published by Lawshe [79]. Statistical
significancemeant thatmore
than50 percentof thepanelistsratedtheitemas either"essential"or "important."
According toLawshe[79],thismajority voteindicatedsomecontent validityforthe
item.Of the46 items,31 werefoundto be significantly contentvalid,andeach re-
mainedon thefinalversionof thequestionnaire. The 15 statistically insignificant
itemsweredroppedfromthestudyat thispoint,resulting in thefinalversionofthe
questionnaire shownin theAppendix.The Lawsheprocedurerespondedto ISA-6
(content validityassessment).
Thefinalversionofthequestionnaire was administered totopmanagersofcompa-
niesin Huntsville, Alabama, a research and science-based community. Thispopula-
tionoffirmswas targeted that
duetotheexpectation organizational learningis more
likelytobe evidentinknowledge-based orinformation technology-dependent firms.
Although OL takesplace in all organizations, some are perceived to be more knowl-
edge-intensive thanothers. As Huntsville consistentlyranksamongthetopU.S. met-
ropolitan areasinsoftware employment density[64] andwas listedas oneoftennew
"hightechhavens"intheUnitedStates[109],thecompaniesinthisstudyaregener-
ally in thislattergroup.The 1999-2000 IndustrialDirectoryfortheChamberof
Commerceof Huntsville/Madison Countywas usedforselectionof thesample.Of
the1,259hightechandknowledge-based firmslistedinthedirectory, 383 wereran-
domlyselectedforthestudy.The coverletteraskedtheheadsof thesecommercial
firmsto serveas proxyrespondents fortheirorganizations. The respondents chosen
forthisstudyaddressed the ISA-3 (appropriate samplerespondents), ISA- 12 (sample
frame justified),andISA-13 (randomsample)qualityattributes.
Threeaspectsofresponsequalitywereassessed.First,119 ofthe383 sampleframe
members responded, representing a 3 1.1 percentresponserate.Thissatisfied ISA-14,
On
thattheresponserateshouldbe over20 percent. average, theserespondents had
approximately 10 yearsof experiencewiththeircompanyand had servedin their
current positionfor6.5 years.The averageage of theircompanieswas nearly13

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194

co oo co N oo i^r^coi^h-r^-inco n co co co co n
c

PC T-T-OC005 b(UT-O>f)(DNO) CO N ^ O N CO
r- r- q oq co oot-cmconoco lo co rr q co co
^
(j oot-'oo T^ddd dddr^d

S (D CM t" CD N inmoOlONOrO ^ CM CO (O 00 ^
g in n q in ^ cocqr^cqcppcpio o^csicvjpcvj^t
CNit^cxicxicxi cvt^t^cncscncJcv T-'csicsic'icsic
g

w w
rj (0
e x: e
co o o

i i 11
I i .1 f i .1
it i la. i li i
fiisf iii i n
lilil fifi II. -I 1
ill gilUJS II i!

11 il I |l I i fil MJ
ttli Jfiiifi|.i;!i
C/2

C/3

se
i!-:iiifll|i!l-:illll
I flBlfffif
illti
"O

I
o>

I If lllilillflllii
|i||!iiinii!pill
-C
co

Tf

sS <<<<<< <<<<<<<< <<<<<

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
195

s
co co co oo N co co r^. co co i^ cd co co in oo co N co |

in ^ co b b b co^tcobco co n n Tt co b
co ^ co in q q q q ^ s <o r co co "* ^ co co in
ot-'t-'t-' do d

co o co co o n oo O) co ^ i- m o co o co ^ co co
in in co s q r- in in t^ evi t- is. q p c'i in o> p p
osi cu cJ cu cu Osi evi cv-t-'cncnt-1 c' c'i evi c'i i-" c' evi

'ET
o
o
CO

. -e
e0
-* .2
S d)
C
~C E B fE
CD
. S1 i i S J
s
S j II s i
- l I S 5 { il
d ^ E c S S 8 oc .g
= *= ^ t '-5 5 9-^ w-S coo
$E^w .M -g ofl)i2 ? -g oco.

lUi! ll if tfif,
llilll lSfsj 11 If
luit! ;il i li
.iillfi i III II Ili |l
E ffl 2 rnSS -SE^??0 O S O E g C
^ h-

IliilH!!!!! ! li
c c "i f^ o E 3oa)EcO oc o

i ifiil! lt!il!li!ll!!!
j
c
C O ) (D ) C (
^ G) (D (D O g) C
flj
-w
*" CD P CD C u. O CD O ^^ C t ^^ ^^
j^CD^EE^rW^CUr'^

s ujluujuj2f 5uj5uJhh.EJi-cu2Oh
^

cpjpo-oo^cp) co^o^oj^ d) .c .- .^ .* _
gQQQQ d: = = = = = = = =^== =

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
196

t^ co r^ co r^cooo co

g Sfe ^ S fe 58

(J Ot- Ot-O

S N i- 00 N ^ 00 00 CD

jg cncncnc evi^c c'i

>
c

1
co

co
g

I ^

|l !
2 g ce OL.3
d) "-
xj <D co ^

li i! i I
f * i I i I
rI
I "-s ?i
o
o i i .| s gs
l^gs ill
c/3

13
'm > o to o o g o
I 1 S I . i &8^ g
8
C/3
D
OU

3
"O
2 JlilISi
<d
8
< 3 Q-<DCOCLCL^CDQL.i2J
x:
C/3

g> .2 (Drfl)(D(Dm?0(D(oc

^ CO-Q-DCl) ^1 O JZ

2 i O OOOOO OOO :>

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 197

years.Second,ISA-17is concerned withthesufficiency ofstatistical


powerinreduc-
ingstatistical conclusion error,ortheaccuracyofconclusionsaboutcovariation made
on thebasis of statistical evidence.Malhotraand Grover[90] statethatstatistical
conclusionerroris dependent uponthestatistical powerofa test(itsabilityto detect
effectsofa specificsize giventheparticular variancesandsamplesizesofthestudy).
In thisstudy, therewas an item-to-subject ratioof3.83 (1 19/31),whichtranslated to
adequate statistical for
power exploratory factor analysis. Third,in order to assess
nonresponse bias (ISA-15) inthereturned questionnaires, a chi-squaretestfordiffer-
encesbetweentheindustry distribution oftherespondent groupandthepopulation
was employed.Usingthefourindustry categories(IT, research, knowledgeapplica-
tion,andengineering/design), thechi-squaretestresultedin a/?-valueof0.451,im-
plying nodifference between thepopulation andsamplegroupswithrespect toindustry
affiliation.
The psychometric properties oftheinstrument wereevaluatednextusingthedata
fromtheadministration of thequestionnaire. Bothconstruct validity(ISA-9) and
reliability(IS A-8) wereaddressed. Construct validity is concerned withtheappropri-
atenessoftheunderlying structure oftheOL construct [24, 129].Thisstudyutilized
twomethodsforassessingconstruct validity:determining theempiricaldimensions
of OL through principalcomponents factor analysis, checkingthereasonable-
and
nessofthesedimensions through knowngroupsanalysis.
Factoranalysiswasemployed inthisresearch toempirically selectthemostimpor-
tantitemsto represent OL [63] and to providea statistical groupingof itemswith
similartheoretical meanings[75]. Categorizing items usingthismethodresultedin
thesatisfaction ofISA-5(variables includemultiple items).Although thecurrent study
startedwiththecreationof itemstemsfromfourprominently knowntheoretical
subconstructs, exploratory (nonhypothetical) methodswereusedtoestablishempiri-
callyderived factors from the data. Exploratory methodswereappropriate because
(1) no theory existsbasedon testing thecoexistenceofall fourfactorsin a cohesive
model,and (2) thisresearchrepresents theinitialempiricalworkdone on thepro-
posed factors. Before construct validitywas assessedvia factoranalysis,twotests
wereperformed to determine the appropriateness of usingfactoranalysison these
data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin =
test(KMO 0.78) exceeded0.70, whichis in the
middling range [60].The Bartlett sphericity test(F = 1998.18,df= 465,p = 0.00) was
significant at the 0.001 level.Thus, the item pool fromtheresponsedatawas ame-
nabletofactoranalysis.
Exploratory principalcomponents factoranalysiswas conductedtoextract factors
witheigenvaluesof one or greater[17, 101, 102, 130]. A screeplotwas used to
further verify thenumber offactors tobe includedin thefinalsolution.The sequen-
tialapplication ofthesetwoprocedures resulted intheinclusionofeightfactors inthe
measureofOL. Severalrotation techniques weretestedon theoriginal31 items.The
rotated factorsolutionswerejudgedon simplicity [75, 116],interpretability[72,80],
andthepercentof varianceexplained[16, 130].The rotation methodthatbestsatis-
fiedthesecriteria was equamax,a combination oftwoorthogonal rotation strategies:
quartimax (whichsimplifies thevariables)andvarimax(simplifies thefactors). The

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
198 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

strength of orthogonal rotation methodslike equamaxis thattheresultsare more


likelyto be replicated infuture studies.
The factorswerestatistically formedbased on theitemfactorloadings.An item
was assignedtoa factor ifitsloadingon thatfactorexceeded0.50,whichis atthetop
of therangeof 0.50 [130] and0.35 [80, 116] used in previousexploratory studies.
Factorsthathadno loadingsexceeding0.50 weredroppedfromfurther analysis.As a
result,a totalofthreeitemsweredropped:II-j (informational unlearning), KA-c (or-
ganizational experiments), and KA-e (experimenting The
organizations). remaining
28-itemsolutionexplained68.4percent ofthesystematic covarianceamongtheitems.
No itemsloaded on multiplefactors.Finally,labels weregivento theempirically
derivedfactorsofOL, as reported inTable5.
The exploratory factoranalysisprocedureresultedin theestablishment of eight
reasonabledimensions to describeOL. Thesefactorsprovidedevidenceofthecon-
structvalidityof thederivedmeasure.The firstfactorwas labeledawareness,and
accountedfor10.6percent oftheoverallcovariance. The fiveitemscontainedinthe
awarenessfactorhadloadingsranging from0.55 to 0.69,andrepresented theextent
to whichorganizational members areawareofthesourcesof keyorganizational in-
formation anditsapplicability toexisting problem areas.
The secondfactor, labeledcommunication, accountedfor9.5 percentof covari-
ance.Factorloadingsrangedfrom0.51 to 0.84 amongthethreeitems,whichrepre-
sentedtheextentofcommunication andthatexistsbetweenorganizational members.
This factorincludedconsideration fortheuse of,and accessibility to,communica-
tionstechnologies.
The thirdfactorwas labeledperformance assessment, and accountedfor9.4 per-
centofthetotalcovariance. Factorloadingsrangedfrom0.58 to0.81 amongthefour
items,whichrepresented thecomparisonof process-and outcome-related perfor-
manceto organizational goals.
The fourth factor,intellectual accountedfor8.8 percentofoverallco-
cultivation,
variance.The factorloadingsofthisconstruct rangedfrom0.51 to 0.68 amongthe
fouritems,whichrepresented thedevelopment of experience, expertise,and skill
amongexistingemployees.
Thefifth factorwasenvironmental whichaccountedfor8.1 percent
adaptability, of
totalcovariance.The fouritemscontainedin thisfactorhad loadingsrangingfrom
0.60 to0.66,andrepresented mostly technology-relateditemspertaining toorganiza-
tionalresponsestoenvironmental change.
The sixthfactor,social learning,accountedfor8.1 percentof totalcovariance.
Factorloadingsinthethree-item constructrangedfrom0.63 to0.74.Theitemsrepre-
sentedtheextent towhichorganizational members learnthrough socialchannelsabout
organizational concerns.
The seventhfactorwas intellectual capitalmanagement, and accountedfor7.4
percent ofcovariance. Theloadingsforthethreeitemsinthisfactorrangedfrom0.56
to0.68.Theintellectual capitalmanagement constructrepresented theextenttowhich
theorganization managesknowledge, skill,and otherintellectual for
capital long-
termstrategic gain.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
199

.8
-g g 2

C7)
*
O

00
IS
g
^ O
o

cd
x: co m co o
CX oo co Is*. co
^ d

D
S 050)00010 T O)i- T- 00 CO 00 CO CO i- 1-
T3 co co co lo in co i^:^ oq n co lo epepcpin
oo d od dodo dodo

o
il.
E 75 g>
o Si

.d w
i!
c
!
cu
1
*-
IL
co^-^3
= o - -S ajo
o cu en
S-Q^-C c**"^
5 -S .i S oggi

1| il Iff -II
Un 4P n
l l il fis fl
fi -fi H |5- I||
siili 1 ! *!f fil!
mti li i in nu
Hi! l
O
'S
C/3

.2
Ulli
i .5 1 S
P8 I gS S
1 II SS|g
? ,ttll H!!
ceu
"/3

5
a
III!
"q_ CD CD O)
PEE"50
CO (/) (/) ^-^
CCDCCD
(/) C (0
^Q-Q-CO^
CO "*" (D CO 0 CD CU

gg-EEE
>> m 0) 0) 5 DUOQ E M (D E 0 CD CD

I fJiifiiffiiiiii
e

D
iri
eu

e2
I mm Us
I o
s Uih
!
lui
I

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200

c<D c3 __ vf 10
T-
S o Is- <>
^ o
o

^t CO CM CO

^ O

S co mino ^t co co oooco cmco


"O co cpcqcp Is: ^ cq cpcpin oo^.
o odd do d odd do


m
Sel
CO
S g1 s S"
8 I .
| ! i |
li S ! S
* - i^ S l 1-
= SM COS g

{! S fl I ?1 ti
II SiStil S | i?
i oe if2 -S 1 I SI
H I Ili I il li
w f 'S Ss*" -g B
gSs| I^e a | ;?
O
ilj ?Sx Irsi s
lifli ini i -i11 il
"o
C/5

_O
iM lis, fsi it
i
Q
.I125
1 I rese?
is i-i
5|S
&Sl>>
?S| ig
b oc tO a
c *
*(DQ.(/)Q.C
CL Q) C 3 C (i)
CD-ScD'C
(DQ-CO C
E
*- c
Q.
C.
CdO
'.ss;"^
JE*
"
D
C
| fillSfSSl If Iff if
li zisxl il 'U
o

f2 t2 <8
U
i

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 201

The eighthfactorwas organizational grafting, whichaccountedfor7.4 percentof


totalcovariance.The twoitemscontainedin organizational grafting hadloadingsof
0.56 and0.82. Thisconstruct represented the extent to which the organization capi-
talizeson theknowledge, practices, andinternal capabilitiesofotherorganizations.
Knowngroupsanalysisis a methodforinvestigating construct validity[33, 34] by
testingfordifferences in scoresbetweenclassesof respondents thatare expectedto
differ.
Ifsignificant differences occuras expected, knowngroupsanalysiscan support
thenotionthattheinstrument hasconstruct validity. Firmage and size areattributes
knownto differentiate respondents and influence OL scale or subscalescores[39,
119].Inthecurrent study, known groups analysis was employed bycalculating Pearson's
correlationcoefficient using the summed item scores for each OL dimension withfirm
age andsize.Table6 showsthattheintellectual cultivation dimension is significantly
correlatedwithboththeage andsizeofthefirm. Theonlyothersignificant correlation
is betweenintellectual capitalmanagement and size. This shows partial association
betweenOL and entity age andsize amonghightechandknowledge-based compa-
nies.Theseresultssuggestthatpropositions abouttherelationship betweenorganiza-
tionallearningand firmage and size have been generatedby researcherswith
conceptualizations aboutOL thatemphasizetheorganization memory component. In
it
addition, suggests that dimensions that are heavilygrounded in intellectualcapital
management arerelatedto firmage andsize,butnototherOL-resident dimensions.
We concludethattheresults ofthistestprovidepartialevidencethatthederivedmea-
sureexhibits construct validity.Thepartialresultsarejustas likelytobe a resultofthe
lackofcollectiveexperience inthefieldregarding thelikelybehaviors oftheOL con-
structinvariousorganizational contexts [137].Thecombination ofthetwomethods -
-
factoranalysisandknowngroupsanalysis providesempirical evidencethattheOL
measureexhibited acceptable construct validity (ISA-9). These two procedures were
used sequentially in this research, and in combination with the Lawshe procedure,
IS A-4,whichcallsfortriangulation
satisfied invalidating themeasure.
Testsofreliability, a further requirement forconstruct validity[100],satisfy ISA-8
andareusedtoassesstheextent towhichrandom error (thatis,variation or unreliability)
existsin an instrument. In thisstudy,reliabilitywas determined by calculating
Cronbach'salphaforeachofthefactors [28,80],as showninTable5. An alphastatis-
ticof 0.5 to 0.6 is sufficient in theexploratory research, but0.8 is inevitably more
desirable[101]. Onlyorganizational grafting =
(alpha 0.46) had an internal reliability
scoreindicating a possibleconcern. The othersevenfactors exhibited alphasgreater
than0.5, six weregreater than0.6, fiveweregreater than0.7, and twoweregreater
than0.8. Usinga Cronbach'salphaof0.7 as theoptimum levelthatmaximizesreli-
abilityand minimizes dimension item size [123], theinstrument is reasonably reliable.

ProfileofOL
StageIII: Statistical
StageIII involvedcomputinga statisticalprofileofthepopulation As can
ofinterest.
be seen from themeans in Table 7, all of the28 itemsthatmade up theeightOL
dimensions on averagereceivedratingsgreaterthatthree.This indicatedthatthey

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
202 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

Table6. Correlations Age,andSize ofLocal Operations


BetweenOL Dimensions,

Statistic OL dimension Age Size

Pearson correlation Awareness -0.12 -0.20


Communication -0.05 -0.05
Performanceassessment 0.03 0.01
Intellectualcultivation -0.22 -0.36
Environmentaladaptability -0. 15 0.06
Social learning -0.18 -0.01
Intellectualcapital management -0.10 -0.31
Organizational grafting -0.06 0.04
Significance Awareness 0.26 0.06
Communication 0.63 0.65
Performanceassessment 0.75 0.94
Intellectualcultivation 0.04* 0.00**
Environmentaladaptability 0.17 0.54
Social learning 0.09 0.91
Intellectualcapital management 0.35 0.00**
Organizational grafting 0.56 0.69
Notes:** Correlation atthe0.01 level;* correlation
is significant is significant
atthe0.05 level.

wereimplemented tosomeextent withincompaniesinthesample.Thetopthreeitems


all dealtwithcommunications. Themostimplemented OL activitywasemployee com-
munications tools(itemIl-g),witha meanratingof4.64 on thefive-pointscale.This
was followedcloselyby electronic meansof communications (itemOM-f) witha
meanof4.5,andencouragement ofemployeecommunications (itemIl-d)witha mean
of 4.45. This finding was to be expected,giventhatthepopulationof interestcon-
sistedofknowledge-based that
organizations typically emphasize communications.
Table8 depictsnormative statistics
(dimensionmeansandstandard for
deviations)
fivecategoriesof thesamplerespondents: CEO, CIO, functional manager,project
manager, and other.Amongthefourwell-defined respondentcategories,theCEOs
perceivedhigherlevelsof OL in theircompaniesthantheotherpositions.On the
otherhand,theCIOs ratedtheircompaniesloweron OL thantheotherpositions.
These statisticsindicatedthatperceptions abouttheextentof OL implementation
varyamongmanagement groups.
Normingstatistics werealso computedforthesix industry groups,as reportedin
Table 9. Accordingto theOL dimensionmeansin Table9, engineering and design
firmsexhibitedslightly moreOL activity thantheothersdid.Althoughtherewere
somedifferences ontheindividual OL dimensions,theseindustrieswereverysimilar
on theiroverallimplementation ofOL.

Conclusions
Managers often seek alternative organizational
formsin orderto facilitate
the
ongoingenvironmental
demandsforchange.Successfulmodels,liketheorganiza-

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
203

1 1
*> t-t- t-t^t^Og
S 1

S ^OlOOOslOCOCOCMO) N(Ot-00)NN(0
g qiqtwr-r-qoqo) o>o>C350>oqoqcoQq
^'^^^^^^Tr^pj CCCCCOCCC
2

1
x
'.la
I
__-
S !
O- P CD
*
OJ

I 8. |1
= CD W Q. <

f S.
i 9"

O oco -S 's .-c J2


(o

g E-E
s ^1S|1
I g| sgasi -s5
s a&T li fllisl
1 !S g fll I iitflll
i 1 fe-s e- Sss^ii
-a
< 8c8-SLS
c
|ScSgtEl
i llS5flt|-l lllfj
i,il!!!f!fiitf!|
u*

fluii! i ilifSi
C
13
C
E
I lIlIl^iillllilMlfl
1
Oh
> E "D Er fl) .SQ."EiJoJo(o0fl)

C/3>^-v (/)(O(0(0(Q<D(0Q)(O(0.E(D.Q}^(Da)CI)
73 0C<D0Q.Q..CQ.C(l)Q-c/)PcP---PCD(O
DooDEEEoEcDS'E^aSSfeQ-cD'C
O O 0)0 O O)C
nO onO O)nO 2 D)^S
S c--oi=-c-ocDS<DSc-a)2cc^c.^
o
r^
ju

e2 I I5 illilsISg lll

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
204

"E o) woot-o^tcoowr-
S -o - -
-*- T- -- ^Z> 1-^ C2> *-
T3 jj i- ; d> "-
;

on -o

g co cqi^i^i^cpinLO^-co
Jg C COCOCCCCCCC

i
1 il
f E II
i o> 3
- "Z 3 o .^
**~w
-. o
1 I * iS
a
o
1 I .Utili
o
o
</3
"S I f SUSS
-o
<
e
! Iff!fill
c
jz co *5 s .2 j= "55
zi
u, S -c .- oEccOOco

fiiiinsiH!
tn
C
h- *

13
c
E
!llllii!&
I llllllilllll
S
I ii!l8lil8?
13 q._ocq<ucl(O0c:c:q.
o
1/3
s SlffSSilS
io
t>
jL>

u 2 2 92ooo9=2

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
205

_ COO) T- Is- LOCO O) O


Qr^co oq cq coco ^o>
/N co

^ -OCO LO ^ t-
.>
_ COO
vSS0^10. ^ ? p o
CM

CO ^ CO C COCO ^t CO

- Oih-- Is. <o 9 P o oo


^^d d ot^ r d
< en

vS ooeo h- co m N lo co
S1^00. "> 9 e3?00. o> co
g co^f co co coco co co

co cj r^io ^ -i-
^tevj oq r. co N -tf r^
w jj/jN w od d d do d d

ti
co ^t co co coco ^* co
^

t- O> CO N CO T-
oqcp O) cq pr^ lo t-
13 u d d d T^d d r-1
C ( O
O <^
m
*r* c^
o c "
Cw S COO) CO CM COLO O t-
fxHc 5 io iq o h. io oq co co
co co" coco ^r co

1
O ^co^t

00 LO ^3" O^f CM T-
O)CO O CO OO i- O
e t-: r r
<L> ^co^ d r r

I
C/3
G
^^So^f CO CO LO^t 00 O)
loo) t- lo T~CP ^ c'|
COCO CO CO COCO CO C
g
O
-a
C/3
cd
PQ -. o> ^t ^ co i-co r^ io
Q^fco r^ ^r ^cp lo oq
(73
fj co d d d d do d d
_O O o
"c
C
W h
<D U ^
^/ c
S C^CNJ t- Is- h-l^ CO 00
^T^ ^ T ? P CJ)
2^^* co ^t coco -^ c

2
co

I illii|SS!|li
O

X) ^sS3>giEo)O)
e2 CO.,<CL S LJJ CD S O

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
206

A (O O) T- N. WO CO O> O
Q r>. co co co co cq r^ o>
j ^ do d d do d d
"53Zl
e
sSoco
w in tt coo t- cm
O)IO IO O> 00 O) O 00
c co coco ^t c
jgc^

Qoqco ?2 fi oqcq S S
w d d do d d
!?
Os c
c c cc c c
ge^t

- 00 CM 00 IO T-LO CO O)
Qv co co in f^i^: ^. Is:
c ^-s ^ do d d do d d
o cn
cd-

&S g ^8 15: ^r g g sC
^ W CO ^ Tf

"8
c ^OO CO Tt CMOO 00 h*

.2 on co do d d T^r^ d t-"

3M li
o S* Scoo ^t e coevj e o
I
O
^
c Sco^cocncoi^oqin
gc^tcccccc

S
"S3
cd
U
1 ^.^dd
Q 58 le S S ^ S
ou d d do d d

83
. ^ S C'i O) O 00 0000 CO CO
W) SP^^P^P^^o?
^" ^r co c ^r ^ ^ c
S C g
"O

co cq^t O5 cq p^ w co
C/5
^ & d d d d do d d
GO
.O
"53 U
e h

5 2 co ^ c c Ttc Tt c
d

I
C/3
-"^

I S^_ =lfIf il
c -

ON
11 iilililillii
IS
U UileHlHl
ooon < l S m (/). O

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 207

tionallearningparadigm, can helpfirmsassimilatenewtechnologies, achievecom-


petitiveadvantage,andprocessknowledgebetterin thepursuitof ongoingrealign-
mentin today'shightech,competitive environments.
The iterative methodology employedin thisresearchintegrated two instrument
development frameworks usedinpriororganizational studies [85,90]. Thorough con-
tentandconstruct validityassessments testswereperformed
andreliability in order
to enhancetheinternal andexternal validityof theresultant measure. All but twoof
Malhotraand Grover's[90] ISAs wereappliedin thisresearchmethodology, thus
assuring thatadequaterigorwaspresent indeveloping a qualitymeasureoforganiza-
tionallearning.
Thisresearchoffers threecontributions totheexisting bodyofknowledge aboutthe
organizational learning a
concept:(1) conceptualdefinition, (2) an empirically reli-
able and validmeasure,and (3) normsforbenchmarking. These contributions, par-
ticularly the OL measure, are important for the
facilitating assessment of OL in
and
organizations enabling futureempirical researchon OL.
The firstcontribution of thisstudyis a consensusdefinition of theOL concept.
Threeviewsof OL wereapparent thedemographic,
in theliterature: social action,
andoutcomeperspectives. The socialactionviewofOL was exploredfurther due to
for
its implications explainingorganizational phenomena and was in
adopted this
study.The followingsocial actiondefinition of theOL construct resulted fromthis
analysis:OL is thesetof actions(knowledgeacquisition, information distribution,
information and
interpretation, organizational memory) within theorganization that
intentionally and unintentionallyinfluence positiveorganizational change.
The secondcontribution ofthisstudyis an empirically derivedmeasureofOL that
exhibited acceptablelevelsofvalidity TheseresultsindicatedthatOL
andreliability.
is a multidimensional construct of
consisting eight distinct components. The eight
underlying dimensions of OL were determined usingfactor analysisappliedto sur-
veydatafroma hightechcommunity:
theextent members
towhichorganizational areawareofthesourcesofkeyorga-
information
nizational toexisting
anditsapplicability problemareas(awareness);
theextentof communication members
and thatexistsbetweenorganizational
(communication);
thecomparison ofprocess-andoutcome-related performance to organizational
goals (performance assessment);
thedevelopment ofexperience, and skillamongexistingemployees
expertise,
cultivation);
(intellectual
technology-relateditemspertaining toorganizationalresponsestoenvironmen-
talchange(environmental adaptability);
theextenttowhichorganizational members learnthroughsocialchannelsabout
organizationalconcerns (social learning);
theextenttowhichtheorganization managesknowledge, skill,andotherintellec-
tualcapitalforlong-term strategicgain(intellectual
capitalmanagement); and
theextent towhichtheorganization capitalizeson theknowledge, and
practices,
internalcapabilitiesofotherorganizations (organizationalgrafting).

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
208 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

Thethird contribution
ofthisstudyis theestablishment
ofnorming data:meansfor
theitemsin theOL construct, and dimensionmeansbased on thepositionof the
respondent andindustry Thesedatamaybe usedtobenchmark
classification. organi-
zationalassessmentresultsusingtheOL instrument. Organizationsscoringabove
thesestandardsmaybeconsidered learning Organizations
organizations. below
scoring
theselevelsmightwanttodedicatemoreresourcestowardtheareasindicatedin the
OL dimensions.
ThetenetsofOL offerrichinsightsintohowMIS researchers andpractitioners
may
inquireintoimprovingthefield.Indications
frompreliminary researchshowthatOL
can greatlyenhancetraditional
MIS functionssuchas IT development, deployment,
and In
support, training. many innovative ways,MIS can stimulate all
andfacilitate
threechange-relevantmodesof learning:single-loop,double-loop,and deutero.In
addition,severalimportant
researchtopicscouldbe studiedattheconvergenceofthe
fieldsofOL andMIS, suchas thenatureoftechnological innovationsandtheadop-
tionofknowledgemanagement withinorganizations.

Limitations
andOpportunities
forFutureResearch
The limitationsof the studyinclude thenatureoftheOL disciplineandmethod-
ologicalissues.Regarding thediscipline,oneproblem is thatOL theoryis stillemerging
in a widespreadeffort to conceptually explain its structureand function [94]. Al-
though a concentrated effortonproviding acceptabledefinitions,measures, andmeth-
ods is paramount to advancingthefield,we shouldexpectfindings havea relatively
shortlifespan.Thisresearchcontributes tothegoal ofadvancingOL theory bypro-
an
viding acceptable measurement instrument at a timeof unprecedented levelsof
theoretical andempirical inquiry intotheconstruct [36].Thisresearch represents the
firstgeneration ofattempts atmeasuring theOL construct, whichwillbe usedas the
foundation forsubsequent advancements madebythemultipledisciplinesattempt-
ing totake the fieldtoward the "normal science"state.Another problemwithadvanc-
ingtheconstruct is itscomplexity. Itconsistsofvarying perspectivesthatderivefrom
a multitude of disciplines.We focuson thesocial actionperspective of OL, at the
expenseofexcludingothers.Forinstance, we havedefinedOL as thoseactionsthat
precedeand influence positiveorganizational change.Therefore, theresulting mea-
suredoesnotassesschangeoutcomes, an aspectofmanyOL definitions. Subsequent
researchshouldbe done on positiveorganizational changesthatare intendedand
unintended consequencesofOL as measured here.Onlythenwillresearchers be able
to discoverhow specificorganizational changescan be assignedto specificOL be-
haviors.In addition, therearea myriad ofparadigms usedintheconceptualization of
howorganizations arestructured andwork.The researchreported hereinis basedon
theviewof organizations as a collectionofindividuals servingas agentsthatacton
behalfof the interests of thefirm.Adherenceto othersof the widelydiverging
conceptualizations aboutorganizations, such as the"collectiveof communalities"
designarticulated byBrownandDuguid[22,p. 54], mayrenderthefindings ofthis
studyless generalizable.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 209

Regarding methodology, thisresearch is limited bytheuseoftopmanagers as proxies


fororganizational members engagedin collectiveaction.However,we justifiedthe
useoftopmanagers as proxyrespondents bycitingthecommonality [90]andeconomy
[73] of this technique. This issue highlights the numerous complexities associated
withacquiringdatafrommultilevel constructs suchas OL [94]. Anotherpotential
methodological limitation is thedisproportionate number ofCEOs inthesample.Yet,
thedispersion ofrespondents was largelyincidental to thegoal ofreachinga senior
local executiverespondent, a priority forobtaining themostknowledgeable proxy
availableforquestioning. In addition, thecollectionofdatain a confined geographi-
cal space (Hunstville, Alabama)limitsthegeneralizability of thestudy.Finally,al-
thoughonly one factor was below acceptable levels for exploratory research,the
reliability scores of some factors (social learning, intellectual capitalmanagement,
andorganizational grafting) indicateda needforfollow-up research.
The measurement instrument developedinthisstudyforOL shouldbe considered
a firstiteration andneedstoundergo further empiricaltestinginorderto improveits
efficacy inorganizational studies. Basedontheeightfactors extracted fromthesample
datain thisstudy,newitemsshouldbe derivedfromtheliterature and testedin the
presence of the items promoted in this research. It would be especially relevant that
newitemsbe generated within thedefinitional meaning of the underlying constructs
containing a smallnumber (2-3) ofitems.Finally,theadditionofnewdimensions to
theOL instrument shouldbe contemplated infuture research, basedon evolvingno-
tionsoftheconcept.
In addition, theinstrument couldbe usedin a longitudinal studytoinvestigate dif-
ferencesin levelsofOL overtime,betweenindustries, betweensectors(privateand
public),andbetweenorganizational subunits (R&D, operations, finance, andso on).
Further, therelationship betweenOL anditsproposedprecursors, contexts, andcon-
sequences[135] would contribute greatly to the current body knowledgeon OL.
of
The mostimportant contribution ofthisresearchis thepotential forestablishing a
quantitative appraisalof theOL construct. In thisvein,it wouldbe appropriate to
determine therelationship betweenOL and organizational effectiveness and other
outcomemeasures.The linkbetweenOL andorganizational sustainability andpros-
perityhas beencommonly suggested, andcan be inferred fromitspopularity in es-
tablished academicjournalsina broadrangeofreference disciplines. Thisrelationship
canbe empirically testedusingthemyriad ofobjectivefinancial dataon corporations
providedin theSecurity andExchangeCommission's(SEC) EDGAR database.Re-
searchers shouldtesttherelationship betweenOL andquality-based measuressuch
as timeto market, totalcycletime,defectsperunit,and technology transfer rates.
Finally, researchers should test the relationship between OL and measures of success
relatedto knowledgemanagement concernssuchas creativity, innovativeness, and
strategic planningand decision-making success.Giventhesepotentialareas in- of
quiry, itis easytogaugethepotential impactofthisresearch ontheeconomicprogress
ofmodernorganizations andsocieties.
Thisprojectcontributes to thecumulative tradition andprovidesthebasis and di-
rection forfuture research ontheOL construct. In addition, theinstrument developed

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
210 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

in thisstudymaybe employedas a diagnostictoolto determinethesuccessof OL


implementationinpractice. howinformation
Understanding technology can support
OL willbe ofparamount in
importance designing effective
organizationalstructures
andculturesforthefuture.Giventhecomplexity oftheOL construct, thenatureof
OL documented inthisresearch in theseendeavors.
willprovidetangiblebenefits

Acknowledgments: Anearlierversionofthispaperwaspresented attheAnnualMeetingofthe


DecisionSciencesInstituteon November thankthefollowing
21, 2000.The authors forassist-
ingintheearlydevelopment oftheresearch
instrument:KarenAyas,ArtBedeian,TerryByrd,
Lt. Col. ChesterCarterIII, RichardDaft,JimDavis, Bill Deery,Anthony DiBella, Nancy
Dixon, FrazierDouglass, HubertFeild, Nelson Ford,David Garvin,Stan Harris,Robert
DorothyLeonard,BryanLukas,MichaelMarquardt,
Hirschfield, David Nye,Paul Nystrom,
SusanOwen,CarlPegais,GeorgeRoth,StanSlater,JohnSlocum,RayStata,GerardoUngson,
AndyVande Ven,CurtisVentriss, andRobertZmud.

References
1. Alavi,M. Computer-mediated collaborative learning:An empiricalevaluation.MIS
Quarterly, 18, 2 (1994), 159-174.
2. Alavi,M.; Wheeler, B.C.; andValacich,J.S.UsingIT toreengineer businesseducation:
Anexploratory investigationofcollaborative telelearning.MIS Quarterly,19,3 (1995),293-312.
3. Albeit,S. The algebraofchange.In B.M. StawandL. Cummings(eds.),Researchin
Organizational Behavior.Greenwich, CT: JAIPress,1992,pp. 179-229.
4. Allen,M.J.,andYen,W.M.Introduction toMeasurement Theory.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/
Cole, 1979.
5. Argyris, C, andSchn,D. A. Organizational Learning:A TheoryofActionPerspective.
Boston:Addison-Wesley, 1978.
6. Argyris, C, and Schn,D.A. Organizational LearningII. Boston:Addison-Wesley,
1996.
7. Bagozzi, R.P.,andBaumgartner, H. The evaluationof structural equationmodelsand
hypothesis testing.In R.P. Bagozzi (ed.), Principlesof Marketing Research.Oxford,UK:
Blackwell,1994,pp. 386-422.
8. Bahlmann,T. The learningorganization in a turbulent environment. HumanSystems
Management, 9, 4 (1990), 249-256.
9. Bandura,A. Social LearningTheory. UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall, 1977.
10.Barnett, C.K. Organizational learning theories: A reviewandsynthesis oftheliterature.
Unpublished manuscript, University ofNew Hampshire, Durham,2001.
11.Barnsley, J.;Lemieux-Charles, L.; andMcKinney, M.M. Integrating learningintointe-
grateddeliverysystems. HealthCare Management Review,23, 1 (1998), 18-28.
12. Bateson,G. Stepstoan EcologyofMind:CollectedEssaysinAnthropology, Psychia-
try,Evolution, and Epistemology. London:Intertext Books, 1972.
13. Bechtold,B.L. Evolvingto organizational learning.HospitalMaterielManagement
Quarterly, 21, 3 (2000), 11-25.
14.Bedeian,A.G. Contemporary challengesinthestudyoforganizations. JournalofMan-
agement, 12, 2 (1986), 185-201.
15. Bell, M., andScott-Kemmis, D. The mythology of learning-by-doinginWorldWarII
airframe andshipproduction. SciencePolicyResearchUnit,University of Sussex,1990.
16.Berg,D. Expanding perceptions, possibilitiesandprofits. JournalforQualityand Par-
ticipation,16, 7 (1993), 6-10.
17. Bernstein, I.H. AppliedMultivariate Analysis.NewYork:Springer- Verlag,1988.
18. Bouwen,R., andFry,R. Organizational innovation andlearning:Fourpatterns ofdia-
log betweenthedominant logicandthenewlogic.International StudiesofManagement and
Organizations, 21, 4 (1991), 37-51.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 2 11

19. Bowman,E.H., andHurry, D. Strategy through theoptionlens:An integrated viewof


resourceinvestments and theincremental-choice process.AcademyofManagement Review,
18, 4(1993), 760-782.
20. Bowonder, B., andMiyake,T. Innovations andstrategic management: A case studyof
HitachiLtd.Technology Analysisand Strategic Management, 6, 1 (1994), 55-81.
21. Brown,A.D., andStarkey, K. Organizational identityandlearning: A psychodynamic
perspective. AcademyofManagement Review,25, 1 (2000), 102-120.
22. Brown,J.S.,andDuguid,P. Organizational learningandcommunities-of-practice: To-
warda unifiedviewofworking, learning, andinnovation. Organization Science,2, 1 (1991),
40-57.
23. Budd, R.; Thorp,R.; and Donohew,L. ContentAnalysisof Communications. New
York:Macmillan,1967.
24. Carmines, E.G., andZeller,R.A. Reliability and Validity Assessment. ThousandOaks,
CA: Sage, 1979.
25. Carney,T.F. Content Analysis.London:B.T. Batsford, 1972.
26. Cavaleri,S.A. "Soft"systemsthinking: A pre-condition fororganizational learning.
HumanSystems Management, 13, 4 (1994), 259-267.
27. Chalofsky, N.E. A newparadigmforlearningin organizations. HumanResourceDe-
velopment Quarterly, 7, 3 (1996),287-293.
28. Churchill, G.A.,Jr.A paradigm fordeveloping bettermeasuresofmarketing constructs.
JournalofMarketing Research,16, 1 (February1979),64-73.
29. Cohen,M.D., andSproull,L.S. (eds.). Organizational Learning.ThousandOaks,CA:
Sage, 1995.
30. Cohen,W.,andLevinthal, D. Absorptive capacity:A newperspective on learningand
innovation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 35, 1 (1990), 128-152.
31. Cook,S.D.N., andYanow,D. Cultureandorganizational learning. JournalofManage-
mentInquiry, 2, 4 (1993), 373-390.
32. Corsini,R. ConciseEncyclopedia ofPsychology. NewYork:Wiley,1987.
33. Cronbach,L.J.Testvalidation. In R.L. Thorndike (ed.), EducationalMeasurement, 2d
ed. Washington, DC: American Councilon Education,1971,pp. 443-507.
34. Cronbach,L.J.,andMeehl,P.E. Construct validity in psychological tests.Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 52, 4 (1955), 281-302.
35. Cross,R., andBaird,L. Technology is notenough:Improving performance bybuilding
organizational memory. SloanManagement Review,41, 3 (2000), 69-78.
36. Crossan,M.M. An organizational learningframework: Fromintuition to institution.
AcademyofManagement Review, 24, 3 (1999), 522-537.
37. Cyert,R.M., andMarch,J.G.A BehavioralTheoryoftheFirm.UpperSaddle River,
NJ:Prentice Hall, 1963.
38. Daft,R.L., andHuber,G.P.Howorganizations learn:A communications framework. In
N. Ditomasoand S.B. Bacharach(eds.),Researchin theSociologyofOrganizations. Green-
wich,CT: JAIPress,1987,pp. 1-36.
39. Daft,R.L., andWeick,K.E. Towarda modeloforganizations as interpretation systems.
AcademyofManagement Review,9, 2 (1984), 284-295.
40. De Geus,A.P.Planningas learning. HarvardBusinessReview,66, 3 (1988), 70-74.
41. Deming,WE. OutoftheCrisis.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1986.
42. DiBella,A.J.;Nevis,E.C.; andGould,J.M.Understanding organizational learning ca-
pability. JournalofManagement Studies,33, 3 (1996), 361-379.
43. Dixon,N.M. Organizational learning: A reviewot theliterature withimplications tor
HRD professionals. HumanResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 3, 1 (1992), 29^9.
44. Dodgson,M. Organizational learning: A reviewofsomeliteratures. Organization Stud-
ies, 14, 3 (1993), 375-394.
45. Dowd,S.B. Organizational learning andthelearning organization in healthcare.Hos-
pitalMaterielManagement Quarterly, 12,3 (2000), 1-3.
46. Drucker,P.F.The comingof thenew organization. HarvardBusinessReview,66, 1
(1988), 45-53.
47. Dutton,J.E.,andDukerich, J.M.Keepingan eyeon themirror: Imageandidentity in
organizational adaptation. AcademyofManagement Journal, 34, 3 (1991), 517-554.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
212 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

48. Engestrm, Y. Innovative learning in workteams:Analyzingcyclesofknowledge cre-


ationin practice.In Y. Engestrm, R. Miettinen, andR.-L. Punamaki(eds.), Perspectives in
Activity Theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1999,pp. 377-404.
49. Fayol,H. GeneralandIndustrial Management, C. Storrs,Trans.London:Pitman,1949.
50. Fiol,CM., andLyles,M.A. Organizational learning.AcademyofManagement Review,
10, 4 (1985), 803-813.
51. Fisher,S.R., andWhite,M.A. Downsizingina learning organization: Aretherehidden
costs?AcademyofManagement Review, 25, 1 (2000), 244-251.
52. Foy,N. TheYinand YangofOrganizations. NewYork:Morrow,1980.
53. Friedlander, F. Patternsofindividual andorganizational learning. and
In S. Shrivastiva
Associates(eds.), TheExecutive Mind:NewInsights on ManagerialThought andAction.San
Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1983,pp. 192-220.
54. Gardner, H. FramesofMind.NewYork:BasicBooks,1983.
55. Garvn,D. Buildinglearningorganizations. HarvardBusinessReview,71, 1 (July-
August1993), 78-91.
56. Gioia,D.A., andThomas,J.B.Identity, image,andissueinterpretation: Sensemakmg
duringstrategic changeinacademia.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 41, 3 (1996),370-403.
57. Goh, S.C., and Richards,G. Benchmarking thelearningcapabilityof organizations.
EuropeanManagement Journal,15, 5 (1997), 575-583.
58. Goldhar,J.D.,and Lei, D. Varietyis free:Manufacturing in thetwenty-firstcentury.
AcademyofManagement Executive,9, 4 (1995), 73-86.
59. Goodman,P.S., and Darr,E.D. Computer-aided systemsand communities: Mecha-
nismsfororganizational learningin distributed environments, MIS Quarterly, 22, 4 (1998),
417-440.
60. Hair,J.F.,Jr.;Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; andBlack,W.C.Multivariate Data Analy-
sis withReadings,4thed. UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall, 1995.
61. Hammer, M.,andChampy, J.Reengineering theCorporation. NewYork:HarperCollins,
1993.
62. Hannabuss, S. Learning andinformation. Information andLibrary Manager,3, 4 (1984),
38-45.
63. Harman,H.H. ModernFactorAnalysis.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress,1976.
64. Haynes,R. SHA namestop25 metroareasforsoftware employment. Softwareand
Information Industry Association (SHA) pressrelease,June6,2000( www.siia.net/sharedcontent/
press/2000/6-6-00.html).
65. Hedberg,B. Howorganizations learnandunlearn. In P.C. Nystrom andW.H.Starbuck
(eds.),HandbookofOrganizational Design.London:OxfordUniversity Press,1981,pp.8-27.
66. Hedberg,B.; Nystrom, P.; andStarbuck, W.H.Campingon seesaws:Prescriptions fora
self-designing organization. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 21, 1 (1976), 41-65.
67. Herbert, I. Knowledgeis a noun,learningis a verb.Management Accounting, 78, 2
(2000), 68-69.
68. Hies,M.J.,and Goul,M. The design,development, and validationof a knowledge-
based organizational learningsupportsystem.JournalofManagement Information Systems,
15, 2 (Fall 1998), 119-152.
69. Hobday,M. Telecommunications inDevelopingCountries:TheChallengefromBrazil.
London:Routledge,1990.
70. Huber,G.P.The natureanddesignof post-industrial organizations. Management Sci-
ence,30, 8 (1984), 928-951.
71. Huber,G.P. Organizational learning:The contributing processesand theliteratures.
Organization Science,2, 1 (1991), 88-115.
72. Kachigan,S.K. Multivariate Statistical Analysis.NewYork:RadiusPress,1982.
73. Kerlinger, F.N.,andLee, H.B. Foundations ofBehavioralResearch,4thed. NewYork:
Harcourt CollegePublishers, 1999.
74. Kiernan,J.M.The newstrategic architecture: Learningto competein thetwenty-first
century : AcademyofManagement Executive, 7, 1 (1993), 7-21.
75. Kim,J.O.,and Mueller,C.W. Introduction to FactorAnalysis.ThousandOaks, CA:
Sage, 1982.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 2 13

76. Kuchinke,K.P. Managinglearningforperformance. HumanResourceDevelopment


Quarterly, 6, 3 (1995), 307-316.
77. Kuhn,T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press,1962.
78. Larsen,TJ. Middlemanagers'contribution to implemented information technology
innovation. JournalofManagement Information Systems, 10, 2 (Fall 1993), 155-176.
79. Lawshe,C.H. A quantitative approachtocontent validity. PersonnelPsychology, 28, 4
(1975), 563-575.
80. Lederer,A.L., and Sethi,V. Root causes of strategic information systemsplanning
implementation problems. JournalofManagement Information Systems, 9, 1 (Summer1992),
25-45.
81. Lee, S.; Courtney, J.F.,Jr.;and O'Keefe,R.M. A systemfororganizational learning
usingcognitivemaps.OMEGAInternational JournalofManagement Science,20, 1 (1992),
23-36.
82. Leonard-Barton, D. The factory as a learninglaboratory. Sloan Management Review,
34, 1 (1992), 23-38.
83. Levinthal, D. A., andMarch,J.G.Themyopiaoflearning. StrategicManagement Jour-
nal, 14, Special issue(Winter1993),95-112.
84. Levitt,B., andMarch,J.G.Organizational learning. In M.D. Cohenand L.b. bproull
(eds.), Organizational Learning.ThousandOaks,CA: Sage, 1995,pp. 516-540.
85. Lewis,B.R. The information resourcemanagement concept:Domain,measurement
andimplementation status.Ph.D. dissertation, AuburnUniversity, 1993.
86. Lewis,B.R.; Snyder, CA.; andRainer,R.K., Jr.An empiricalassessment or theinfor-
mationresourcemanagement construct. JournalofManagement Information Systems, 12, 1
(Summer1995), 199-223.
87. Lukas,B.A.; Tomas,G.; Huit,M.; and Ferrell,O.C. A theoretical perspective of the
antecedents and consequencesof organizational learningin marketing channels.Journalof
BusinessResearch,36, 3 (1996), 233-244.
88. Lyles,M.A., andSchwenk,C.R. Top management, strategy andorganizational knowl-
edge structures. Journal ofManagement Studies, 29, 2 (1992), 153-174.
89. Mahoney,J.T.The management oi resourcesandtheresourceot management, journal
of Business Research, 33, 2 (1995), 91-101.
90. Malhotra, M.K., andGrover, V.An assessment ot surveyresearcnin rujvi: rromcon-
structs to theory. JournalofOperations Management, 16, 4 (1998), 403-423.
91. March,J.Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.Organization ci-
ence,2, I (1991), ll-Sl.
92. McGill,M.; Slocum,J.,Jr.;and Lei, D. Management practicesin learningorganiza-
tions.Organizational Dynamics, 21, 1 (1992), 67-79.
93. Miller,D. A preliminary typology of organizational learning:Synthesizing thelitera-
ture.JournalofManagement, 22, 3 (1996), 485-505.
94. Morgeson,F.R The structure and function ot collectiveconstructs: implications ror
multilevel researchandtheory development. Academy ofManagement Review, 24, 2 (1999),
249-265.
95. Nelson,R.R. Educational needsas perceived byIS andend-user personnel: A surveyof
knowledgeand skillrequirements. MIS Quarterly, 15,4 (1991), 503-525.
96. Nevis,E.C.; DiBella,A.J.;and Gould,J.M.Understanding organizations as learning
systems. Sloan Management Review,36, 2 (1995), 73-85.
97. Nicolini,D., andMeznar,A. The social construction of organizational learning:Con-
ceptualandpracticalissuesin thefield.HumanRelations,48, 7 (1995), 727-746.
98. Nonaka,I. The knowledge-creating company. HarvardBusinessReview,09, b (1^91),
96-104.
99. Nonaka,I. A dynamictheory oforganizational knowledgecreation.Organization ci-
ence,5, 1 (1994), 14-37.
100.Nunnally, J.C.Psychometric Theory. NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1967.
101.Nunnally, J.C.Psychometric Theory, 2d ed. NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1978.
102. Overall,J.E.,andKlett,C.J.AppliedMultivanate Analysis.New York:McGraw-Hill,
1972.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
214 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

103. Pavlov,LP. Conditioned Reflexes. NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,1927.


104. Poell,R.F.; Olivers,G.E.; VanderKrogt,F.J.;andWildemeersch, D.A. Learning-net-
worktheory. Management Learning,31, 1 (2000), 25-49.
105.Premkumar, G.; Ramamurthy, K.; andNilakanta, S. Implementation ofelectronic data
interchange: An innovation diffusionperspective. JournalofManagement Information Sys-
tems,11, 2 (Fall 1994),157-186.
106.Pucik,V. Strategic allianceswiththeJapanese:Implications forhumanresourceman-
agement. In F. Contractor andP. Lorange(eds.),Cooperative StrategiesinInternational Busi-
ness.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,1988,pp. 487-498.
107. Pugh,D.S., and Hickson,DJ. Writers on Organizations. ThousandOaks,CA: Sage,
1989.
108. Rainer,R.K., Jr.,andHarrison, A.W.Towarddevelopment of theendusercomputing
construct in a university setting. Decision Sciences, 24, 6 (1993), 1187-1202.
109. Rogers,A. A newbrandoftechcities.Newsweek, 137, 18 (April30, UU1),44-M.
110.Rothwell, S. Managingorganizational learning. Manager Update,4, 3 (1993),221-232.
111. Sackmann,S.A. CulturalKnowledgein Organizations.ThousandOaks, CA: age,
1991.
112. Schein,E.H. Culture:The missingconceptinorganization studies.Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 41, 2 (1996), 229-240.
113. Schein,E.H. Threecultures ofmanagement: The keytoorganizational learning. Sloan
Management Review, 38, 1 (1996), 9-20.
114.Senge,P. TheFifth Discipline:TheArtandPracticeoftheLearningOrganization. JNew
York:Doubleday/Currency, 1990.
115.Senge,P.,andSterman, J.Systemsthinking andorganizational learning: Actinglocally
andthinking globallyin theorganization ofthefuture. EuropeanJournalofOperationalRe-
search,59, 1 (1993), 137-150.
116. Sethi,V.,andKing,W.R.Construct measurement ininformation systems research: An
illustrationin strategicsystems. DecisionSciences,22, 4 (1991), 455-472.
117. Sethi,V., and King,W.R. Development of measuresto assess theextentto whichan
information technology application providescompetitive advantage. Management Science,40,
12(1994), 1601-1627.
118.Shrivastava, P.A typology oforganizational learning systems.JournalofManagement
Studies,20, 1 (1983), 7-28.
119. Sinkula,J.M.Marketinformation processingand organizational learning. Journalof
Marketing, 58, 1 (1994), 35-45.
120.Skinner, B.F. TheBehaviorofOrganisms. UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Prentice Hall, 1938.
121.Slater,S.F.,andNarver, J.C.Does competitive environment moderate themarket orien-
tation-performance relationship? JournalofMarketing, 58, 1 (1995), 46-55.
122.Smith,A. AnInquiryintotheNatureand Causes oftheWealthofNations.London:W.
StrahanandT. Cadell,London,1776.
123. Spector,P.E. Summated RatingScale Construction: An Introduction. ThousandOaks,
CA: Sage, 1992.
124.Spender,J.-C.Industry Recipes:AnInquiryintotheNatureand SourcesofManagerial
Judgment. Oxford,UK: Basil Blackwell,1989.
125.Sproull,L.S. Beliefsinorganizations. In P.C.Nystrom andW.H.Starbuck (eds.),Hand-
bookofOrganizational Design,vol.2. NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,1981,pp. 167-202.
126. Stata,R. Organizational learning:The keytomanagement innovation. Sloan Manage-
mentReview,30, 3 (1989),63-74.
127. Stein,E.W., and Vandenbosch, B. Organizational learningduringadvancedsystem
development: Opportunities andobstacles.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 13,2
(Fall 1996), 115-136.
128. Stein,E.W., andZwass,V. Actualizing organizational memorywithinformation sys-
tems.Information Systems Research,6, 2 (1995), 85-117.
129.Stone,E. ResearchMethodsinOrganizational Behavior.SantaMonica,CA: Goodyear
Publishing, 1978.
130.Strub, D.W.Validating instruments inIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13, 1 (1989),147-169.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 215

131. Taylor,F.W. The Principlesof Scientific Management. New York:HarperBrothers,


1911.
132.Templeton, G.F. Review:Definingorganizational learning - A focuson thesocial ac-
tionperspective. Submitted toMIS Quarterly, 2002.
133.Templeton, G., and Snyder, C.A. Towarda methodforproviding databasestructures
derivedfroman ontological specificationprocess:Theexampleofknowledge management. In
A. Abecker, S. Decker,K. Kinkelmann, andU. Reimer,Proceedings oftheWorkshop "Knowl-
edge-BasedSystems forKnowledgeManagement in Enterprises." Kaiserslautern,Germany:
DFKI GmbH,1997,pp. 121-131.
134. Templeton, G., and Snyder, C. A modelof organizational learningbased on control.
InternationalJournalofTechnology Management, 18, 5-8 (1999), 705-719.
135.Templeton, G.F.,andSnyder, C.A. Precursors, contexts,andconsequencesoforganiza-
tionallearning. International JournalofTechnology Management, 20, 5-8 (2000), 765-781.
136.Thorndike, E.L. AnimalIntelligence. NewYork:Macmillan,1911.
137. Tsang,E.W.K., and Kwan,K.-M. Replicationand theorydevelopment in organiza-
tionalscience:A criticalrealistperspective. AcademyofManagement Review,24, 4 (1999),
759-780.
138.Vandenbosch, B., andHiggins,C.A. Executivesupport systemsandlearning: A model
andempiricaltest.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 12, 2 (Fall 1995),99-130.
139. Van de Ven,A.H. Centralproblemsin themanagement of innovation. Management
Science,32, 5 (1986), 590-607.
140.Ventriss, C. Organizational theory andstructure: An analysisof threeperspectives. In-
ternationalJournalofPublicAdministration, 13, 6 (1990), 777-798.
141.Ventriss, C, andLuke,J.Organizational learningandpublicpolicy.AmericanReview
ofPublicAdministration, 18,4 (1988), 346-347.
142.Vessey,I., andConger,S.A. Requirements specification:Learningobject,process,and
datamethodologies. Communications oftheACM,37, 5 (1994), 102-113.
143.Walsh,J.P.,andUngson,G.R. Organizational memory. AcademyofManagement Re-
view,16, 1 (1991), 57-91.
144.Watkins, K., andMarsick,V. Sculpting theLearningOrganization: Lessonsin theArt
and ScienceofSystematic Change.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1993.
145.Watkins, K., andMarsick, V.Thecase forlearning. In E.F. HoltonIII (ed.),Proceedings
of the1995 Academyof HumanResourceDevelopment AnnualConference. Baton Rouge:
AcademyofHumanResourceDevelopment, 1995,pp. 1-7.
146.Watson,J.B.Psychology as thebehaviorist viewsit.Psychological Review,20 (1913),
158-177.
147.Watson,J.B.Behaviorism. Chicago:University ofChicagoPress,1924.
148.Weber,M. Bureaucracy. In S.A. TheodoulouandM.A. Cahn(eds.),PublicPolicy:The
EssentialReadings.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall, 1995,pp. 259-265.
149. Wright, T.P. Factorsaffecting thecostof airplanes.Journalof theAeronauticalSci-
ences,3, 4 (1936), 122-128.

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
216 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

Appendix
Version
FinalQuestionnaire
Instructions: questionspertainto yourcompany'slocal operations,
The following
employees,and management.Please respondto each questionusingthefollowing
scale:
12 3 4 5
Strongly Moderately Undecided Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

questionsrelateto yourcompany'slocal operations:


The following

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. The companydevelopsexpertsfromwithin 12 3 4 5
2. The companystoresdetailedinformation
forguidingoperations 12 3 4 5
3. Thereis a formaldatamanagement function
in thecompany 12 3 4 5
4. The companyis slowtoreactto
technologicalchange 12 3 4 5
5. The companymaintains a certainmixof
skillsamongitspool ofemployees 12 3 4 5
6. The companyhireshighlyspecializedor
knowledgeable personnel 12 3 4 5
7. The companymakesextensive use of
electronicstorage(suchas, databases,
datawarehousing, scanneddocuments) 1 2 3 4 5
8. The companycollectsdataon all facets
ofperformance 12 3 4 5
9. The companyacquiressubunits (suchas,
functions,
organizations, departments)
basedon short-term financialgain 12 3 4 5
10. Wheninternal are
capabilities deficient,
we acquirethemfromtheoutside 12 3 4 5

The following
questionsrelateto yourcompany'slocal employees:
11. Employeesuse electronicmeansto
communicate 12 3 4 5
12. Employeeshavea largevariety of
communications tools(telephone,
e-mail,
and so on) fromwhichtochoose
Internet, 1 2 3 4 5

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CONSTRUCT 217

13. Ouremployeesresistchanging tonew


waysofdoingthings 1 2 3 4 5
14. Employeeslearnaboutthecompany's
recentdevelopmentsthroughinformal
means(suchas newsstoriesandgossip) 1 2 3 4 5
15. Employeesretrievearchived
information
whenmakingdecisions 12 3 4 5
16. Employeesmakeextensive use ofIS to
supporttheirwork 12 3 4 5
17. Employeesarekeenlyawareofwheretheir
knowledgecan servethecompany 12 3 4 5
18. Employeeskeepinformation (suchas,
numbers,plans,ideas)awayfromother
employees 12 3 4 5
19. Whenemployeesneedspecificinformation,
theyknowwhowillhaveit 12 3 4 5
tocommunicate
20. Employeesareencouraged
clearly 12 3 4 5

questionsrelateto yourcompany'slocal management:


The following

21. Management addressesproblems


proactively 1 2 3 4 5
22. Management monitorsimportant
performance
organizational variables 12 3 4 5
23. Management removesobsoleteinformation
fromemployeeaccess 12 3 4 5
24. Management assignsemployeesto other
forcrosstraining
partsoftheorganization 1 2 3 4 5
25. Top management information
integrates
fromdifferent areas
organizational 1 2 3 4 5
26. Management learnsfromthecompany's
(suchas, customers,
partners allies)
suppliers, 12 3 4 5
27. Management the
ignores strategies of
competitors'topmanagement 1 2 3 4 5
28. Management learnsnewthingsaboutthe
company by directobservation 12 3 4 5
29. Management encouragestheuse of
frameworks andmodels assistin
to
decision-making 12 3 4 5
30. Management usesfeedbackfromcompany
andtrials
(suchas surveys
experiments
ofnewmethods) 12 3 4 5
31. Employeesarediscouragedfrom
recommending newwork ideas 12 3 4 5

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 18 TEMPLETON, LEWIS, AND SNYDER

bestdescribesyourjob position(checkone)?
32. Whichof thefollowing

_ ChiefExecutiveOfficer
(CEO) _Technology Director
_ Chief Officer
Information (CIO) _ Data Director
Center
ofInformation
_Vice President Technology _ ProjectManager
_ Other
33. Numberofyearsyouhaveworkedinthiscompany

positionin thiscompany
34. Numberof yearsworkedin yourcurrent
35. Numberofemployeesin yourlocal companyoperations
36. Age (in years)ofyourlocal companyoperations

pleasewriteyournameandtheappropriate
To receivetheresultsofthisstudy,
contactinformationbelow:

This content downloaded from 142.3.100.23 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 06:29:02 AM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like