Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Learning Organization Practices Impact on Employee's
Organizational Commitment: An Applied Study on ASSTMT
Employees
Mohamed.Wahba*
This paper aims to test the impact of learning organization
practices on the organizational commitment of the employees
through measuring the relation between the learning organization
dimensions and organizational commitment types, by applying the
study on "Arab academy for science and technology and maritime
transfer" managerial employees, with the usage of SPSS package
for data analysis. The study conducted in 2 months and the impact
assessed, effective recommendations mentioned. The paper
surveyed the literature review of the learning organization concept
,organizational
commitment, organizational learning. The
conclusion and future research points are mentioned also.
Field: Human Resources Management
1. Introduction
Human beings learn till their death, no matter whatever they are learning at any stage of
the life. A new-born baby learns from her mother laps and with the passage of time the
baby robust into a mature human being by learning from the environment. So, it is always
in a season for a man to learn. A mother learns from the environment and tells it to her
child and her child learns from her. Both of them learn from each other and the socialized
environment. As we people learn by learning together in this world. When this learning
procedure happens in an organization then that organization become the world of the
learning organization where every employee learn from each other and expose their ideas
openly to their peers, seniors and colleagues, no matter who is in front of them; everyone
is learning from each other in his own style. None of the candle loses its light while
lightening another candle. So never stop sharing and helping others because it makes
your life, world and organization (as a home) more beautiful. This complex corporate world
would be more beautiful, successful and victorious if it will become the learning corporate
world which means the learning organizations. Continuous improvement requires a
commitment to learning. (Gravin, 2008)
The Learning Organisation (LO) concept that appeared as a new buzzword in 1990, would
represent an evolution of the organisational learning perspective because of its embedded
potential to develop transformational change in firms and also to re-conceptualise an
organisation. It would mean a new way of thinking and relationships within organizations
based upon an organic systems cosmovision, non mechanistic, and where human being is
not considered in a deterministic way, as an object. Instead, he is considered as a subject,
creative and capable of choices, a proactive actor able to produce individual and social
change. Learning involves much more than information transfer that is why it is ineffective
to present this LO concept as only another trainning technique. Learning and LO concept
can’t be imposed, it requires an internal desire to learn and change. Additionally, learning,
_______________
Dr. Mohamed Wahba, Department of Business Administration, Arab Academy for Science and Technology
and Maritime Transport, Egypt. E-mail: m_wahba2003@hotmail.com
1
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
knowing and changing are complex and interdependent phenomena that will require
researchers and managers to understand the logic embedded in the LO idea before its
implementation. Learning is the central work of colleges and universities. According to
David Garvin (1993), for an entity to be a learning organization, it must acquire new ideas
that lead to improvements in the way it does business (Bauman, 2005). This means that
learning (1) is a regular part of daily work; (2) is practiced at personal, work unit,
Department , and organizational levels; (3) results in solving problems at their source
(‚root cause‛); (4) is focused on building and sharing knowledge throughout your
organization; and (5) is driven by opportunities to effect significant, meaningful
change(Hertz ,2005)
So this paper aims at testing the impact of learning organization practices on the
organizational commitment level of the employees of the "Arab Academy for Science and
Technology and Maritime Transport"
2. Literature Review
2.1 Conception of Learning Organization
Argyris (1964) discussed the idea of learning in individuals and organizations. His
innovative thinking around notions such as the learning society, double-loop learning, and
reflection-in-action has become part of the language of education (Smith, 2001). Senge
(1990b) defined learning organizations as: organizations where people continually expand
their capacity 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 to see the whole together. He pointed out that the dimension that
distinguishes learning from more traditional organizations is the mastery of certain basic
disciplines. The above five disciplines were identified as converging on innovative learning
organizations (Senge, 1990a).Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996, 1997) argued that there
are three levels of organizational learning. The first is the individual level, which is
composed of two dimensions of organizational learning: continuous learning and dialogue
and inquiry. The second is the team or group level, which is reflected by team learning and
collaboration. The third is the organizational level, which has four dimensions of
organizational learning: embedded systems, system connections, empowerment, and
provision of leadership for learning.These three levels can be further considered to belong
to one of the two components of Watkins and Marsick’s model of a learning organization.
Yang (2003) argued that the first component represents people who comprise an
organization, and the second component represents the structures and culture created by
the social institution of the organization. Structural-level learning activities could serve as a
refining function by filtering and incorporating individual and group learning into the
organization’s mission or effectiveness. Garvin (1993) defined learning organization as “an
organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its
behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights”. Based on this definition, Garvin,
Edmondson, and Gino (2008) constructed the concept of the learning organization from
the following three building blocks: 1) a supportive learning environment: an environment
that supports learning has four characteristics, including psychological safety, appreciation
of differences, openness to new ideas, and time for reflection (Garvin et al., 2008). Davis
and Daley (2008) described that, in a learning organization, individual and group
performance within the organization results in interactions with the environment; 2)
concrete learning processes and practices: learning processes involve the generation,
collection, interpretation, and dissemination of information (Garvin et al., 2008). Garvin
2
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
(1993) argued that companies must review their successes and failures, assess them
systematically, and record the lessons in a form that employees find open and accessible.
Therefore, these concrete processes ensure that essential information moves quickly and
efficiently into the hands and heads of those who need it (Garvin et al., 2008); and 3)
leadership behavior that reinforces learning: Garvin et al. (2008) pointed out that
organizational learning is strongly influenced by the behavior of leaders. So, if leaders
signal the importance of spending time on problem identification, knowledge transfer, and
continuous learning, these learning organization practices are likely to flourish (Garvin et
al., 2008).
2.2 Learning Organization versus Organizational Learning
There is three normative distinctions between organizational learning and the learning
organization have been identified in the literature (Ortenblad, 2001). First, organizational
learning is viewed as a process or set of activities, whereas the learning organization is
seen as a form of organization (Tsang, 1997). Second, some authors hold the view that
learning takes place naturally in organizations, whereas it requires effort to develop a
learning organization (Dodgson, 1993). Third, the literature on organizational learning
emerged from academic inquiry, while the literature on the learning organization
developed primarily from practice (Easterby-Smith, 1997).Tseng and McLean (2008)
provided a conceptual framework to analyze the relationship between organizational
learning and the learning organization. They found that there is a need for a greater
comprehension of organizational learning that, in turn, will contribute to a better theoretical
implementation of becoming a learning organization. Therefore, organizational learning is
the activity and the process by which organizations eventually reach the ideal of a learning
organization (Finger & Brand, 1999). Organizational learning is a dynamic process of
creation, acquisition, and integration of knowledge aimed at the development of resources
and capabilities that contribute to better organizational effectiveness (Argyris & Schön,
1978; Gille y & Maycunich, 2000; López et al., 2006).
2.3 Organizational Commitment
2.3.1 Concepts of Commitment to the Organization
Organizational commitment has received a great deal of study, both as a consequence of
and as an antecedent to other work-related areas of research (Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Randall, 1990; Reichers, 1985). Steers (1977) described organizational commitment as
the strength of an employee’s involvement in and identification with the organization.
Organizations want their commitment from their employees because committed
employees will exert more effort (Mowday, Porter, & Dubin, 1974; Scholl, 1981) when the
enterprise drives toward the goal of becoming a learning organization. Therefore,
organizational commitment is a strong belief in and acceptance of an organization’s goals
and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization’s goals
and values, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Thus, in a workplace,
employees’ work behavior is influenced by several perspectives of commitment. Allen and
Meyer (1990) distinguished three facets of commitment: (a) affective commitment is the
identification with the values and goals of the organization, (b) continuance commitment is
based on the material benefits to be gained from remaining at the organization or the
3
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
costs of leaving, and (c) normative commitment is defined as a perceived duty to support
the organization and its activities. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) also mentioned that
commitment has different bases (components of commitment) that cause attachment to
different foci. Mowday et al. (1979) described commitment in three aspects: commitmentrelated behaviors, attitudinal commitment, and loyalty to the organization. Commitmentrelated behaviors represent the manners in the organization where individuals forgo
alternative courses of action and choose to link themselves to the organization (Mowday
et al., 1979). Attitudinal commitment often encompasses an exchange relationship and is
defined by three dimensions: positive affect for the organization, identification with the
organization, and a willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization (Jaussi, 2007).
Loyalty to the organization is the state of attachment experienced by an organizational
member as a feeling of allegiance and faithfulness (Fletcher, 1993).
2.3.2 Measurement of Organizational Commitment
Representative of these approaches are instruments developed by: (1) Mowday et al.
(1979); (2) Meyer and Allen (1987, 1991); and (3) Yousef (2003). Mowday et al.’s (1979)
instrument was developed on the basis of a definition of organizational commitment that
conceptualized the construct as having three primary components: “(1) a strong belief in
and acceptance of the organization's goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and (3) a strong desire to maintain
membership in the organization”. Under this approach, commitment is conceptualized as a
state in which an individual identifies with a particular organization and its goals and
wishes to maintain membership in order to facilitate those goals (Mowday et al., 1979).
This instrument contains 15 items, and respondents are asked to indicate the extent of
their agreement with the items. The 15 items reflect a combination of attitudes and
behavioral intentions and emphasize the employee’s moral involvement with the
organization (Ferris & Aranya, 1983). This instrument has been the most widely utilized to
date (Angle & Perry, 1981; Cooke, 1997; Fiorito, Bozeman, Young, & Meurs, 2007; Lam,
1998; Lee & McNeeley, 1992; Morris & Steers, 1981).
Yousef’s (2003) instrument sought to validate the dimensionality of the measurement of
organization commitment construct from a non-western cultural setting (the United Arab
Emirates). He used Mowday et al.’s (1979) OCQ to assess respondents’ loyalty and desire
to remain with the organization, their beliefs in and acceptance of the values and goals of
the organization, and their willingness to put in extra effort to help the organization
succeed (Yousef, 2003). In order to compare the results of a non-western cultural study
with those of western studies, Yousef (2003) amended Mowday et al.’s
The learning orientation of the organization is pertinent to the context of keeping
employees committed (Sayeed, 2001). Bhatnagar (2007) commented that learning
organization practices through training interventions will increase the level of employee
commitment. Organizational learning practices strengthen the psychological contract and
motivate employees to have continued commitment to the firm (Harel & Tzafrir, 1999).
Committed employees, consequently, accept as true that their organizations will
constantly offer them prospects to develop and grow in their career paths (Bhatnagar,
2007).
Several studies have reported a relationship between workplace learning and
organizational commitment (Ahmad & Bakar, 2003; Bartlett, 2001; Kontoghiorghes &
4
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Bryant, 2004; McMurray & Dorai, 2001). These studies have found that participation in
training and learning activities enhances employees’ organizational commitment (Cho &
Kwon, 2005). Considering the results of the previous studies on organizational
commitment and learning organization practices, the relationship between the two
constructs is reciprocal (Cho & Kwon, 2005). Consequently, learning organization
practices can assist in enhancing employee commitment toward the organization. Also,
organizational commitment makes employees more motivated and eager to learn in the
workplace (Cho & Kwon, 2005).
3. The Methodology and Model
3.1Study Objective:
 To test the impact of learning organization practices on the employees'
organizational commitment.
 To determine the nature of the relation between learning organization dimensions
and organizational commitment.
3.2 study Question:
 Is there a relationship between learning organization dimensions and organizational
commitment?
3.3 Study Variables and model:
There are two variables in present study, independent variable is learning
Organization practices and dependent variable is Organizational
Commitment. This study will find out the relationships between learning
organization dimensions and organizational commitment.
3.4 Study Hypothesis:
Confronting the above stated variables and objectives. The following unidirectional
hypotheses are tested in the study,
H1: There is no relationship between continuous learning and organizational commitment.
H2: There is no relationship between empowerment and organizational commitment.
H3: There is no relationship between team learning and organizational commitment.
H4: There is no relationship between embedded systems and organizational commitment.
H5: There is no relationship between system connections and organizational commitment.
H6: There is no relationship between dialogue and inquiry and organizational commitment.
H7: There is no relationship between providing leadership and organizational commitment.
3.5 Questionnaire:
The study instrument is a questionnaire consists of 2 parts:1st part: Demographic information,2nd part learning organization dimensions which measure: continuous learning,
empowerment, team learning, embedded systems, system connections, dialogue and
inquiry organizational commitment which measure : a strong belief in and acceptance of
5
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
the organization's goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of
the organization, strong desire to maintain membership in the organization”. The
statements are assessed by using Likert scale of five points scale ranging from 1"highly
agree" to 5"highly disagree". Based on Watkins and Marsick (1996, 1997), the seven
dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ) (Marsick & Watkins, 2003;
Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004 Chien-Chi Tseng, 2010) .
Developed by Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979), the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ) was used as the measurement for organizational commitment in this
study. The OCQ is measured by 9 items and characterized by several related aspects of
commitment: (1) a willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization; (2) the degree
of goal and value congruency within the organization; and (3) a desire to maintain
membership (Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974
Chien-Chi Tseng, 2010).
3.6 Sample:
The selected sample was aconvienance sample of 111 employees working in managerial
positions in the Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transfer and the
sample was as follows:56.2% males,43.8%females, 6.2% of sample aged in range 26-30
years, 43.8%% of sample aged in range 30-40 years, 18.8% of sample aged in range 4145 years, 18.8% of sample aged in range 41-45 years, 12.5% of sample aged in range 4650years, 12.5% of sample aged more than 50 years. 93% of sample working as administration manager, and 7% working as general manager. The entire sample work-ing in
full time jobs, 88% of the sample had working experiences 16-20years and 12%had
working experience more than 20 years. The entire sample married and has children.37%
of the sample had bachelor degree in commerce and law, 25%had mas-ter degree in
management,38% had PHD degree.
3.7 Data analysis Technique:
The data analysed by using SPSS 16 soft-ware package .For assuring the accuracy of the
analysis, it used more than one way to analysis which are: reliability analysis, multiple
linear regression analysis and model, stepwise regression, non parametric chi-squared
test of association.
4. The Findings
4.1 Reliability Analysis:
Cronbach's alpha coefficient was applied to estimate the reliability of studied
variables, where alpha values reveal the reliability and the internal consistency between
the selected dimensions of the studied variables. It can be shown that the values of
cronbach’s alpha for the variables under study exceeds 0.65, which is an acceptable level
for the reliability of the variables.
4.2 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis and Model:
Regression analysis is conducted to build the model through which organizational
Learning Practices dimensions are tested to check their significance and impact on
Organizational Commitment. The model was observed to be significant as shown in the
table (4) in appendixes.
6
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
After checking the significance of each variable, it was found that there are some variables
are not significant, which means that their impact disappears in the presence of other
variables, as shown in the table below. It could be found that the coefficients of the
variables Continuous Learning and Inquiry are not significant.
This will lead the researcher to use stepwise regression to be able to check which
variables can be deleted from the model, so as to find a significant model with minimal
number of variables.
4.3 Stepwise Regression
The SPSS stepwise regression procedure was employed in the table below to ascertain the
proposed relationships between the independent variables and the dependant variable.
The model regression equation is created from the “Unstandardized Coefficients” in the
coefficients table above. Thus, the regression equation for predicting Organizational
Commitment is:
Y=
0+
1x1 +
2x2 + ...
pxp +
.
The table above proposes the following model:
Organization Commitment = 1.067 + 0.154*Team Learning + 0.172*People
Empowerment + 0.173*Environmental Connection + 0.217*Strategic Leadership
4.4 Non Parametric Chi-Squared Test of Association
Through the following, the chi-square value is observed to test the linear association
between Organization Commitment and the Organizational Learning Practices dimensions
under study.
I. Organization Commitment versus Continuous Learning
The value of Pearson Chi-Squared is large with a small P-value less than 0.05. This
means that there is a significant linear association between Organization Commitment and
Continuous Learning, which means that Continuous Learning is an important dimension
when studying Organizational Learning practices and its effect on Organization
commitment.
II. Organization Commitment versus Inquiry
The value of Pearson Chi-Squared is large with a small P-value less than 0.05. This
means that there is a significant linear association between Organization Commitment and
Inquiry, which means that it is important to consider dialogues when studying
organizational Learning and its effect on Organization Commitment.
III. Organization Commitment versus Team Learning
The value of Pearson Chi-Squared is significant, which means there is a linear
association between Organization Commitment and Team Learning.
IV. Organization Commitment versus People Empowerment
The value of Pearson Chi-Squared is significant, which means there is a linear
association between Organization Commitment and People Empowerment.
V. Organization Commitment versus Environment Connection
7
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
The value of Pearson Chi-Squared is not significant, which means there is a linear
association between Organization Commitment and connections within the
environment.
VI. Organizational Commitment versus Strategic Leadership
The value of Pearson Chi-Squared is not significant, which means there is a linear
association between Organization Commitment and Strategic Leadership.
5. Summary and Conclusions
From
the
previous
result
analysis,
it
concluded
the
following:
-There is significant linear association among all learning organization dimension and
organizational commitment excepts both of: environment connection and strategic
leadership.
-Also, from the stepwise regression analysis it founded that the organizational
commitment mostly impacted with: Team learning, people empowerment, environmental
connection and strategic leadership,the organizational commitment level impacted by the
learning organization by organizational level , so the organization understudy must
develop and implement qualified programs and tools to enhance the mentioned
dimensions in order to increase the employee organizational commitment level.
References
[survey]. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization. 215-239. 26(1), 1-14 A
study in the health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), affective,
normative, and continuance commitment: Empirical tests of commitment effects in federal
agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 197-226.
Ahmad, K. Z., & Bakar, R. A. (2003). The association between training and organizational
commitment among white-collar workers in Malaysia. International Journal of Training
and Development, 7(3), 166-185.
Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of
Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of
and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 12, 231-248.
Angle, H. L., & Lawson, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment and employees’
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Applied Psychology, 79(1), 15-22.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley.
Smith, M. K. (2001). Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and
organizational
learning.
Retrieved
May
07,
2007,
from
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm
Bartlett, K. R. (2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment:
Bartlett, K. R. (2005). Survey research in organizations. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton
Bauman, G. L. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to achieve
equity in educational outcomes new directions for higher education, no. 131, fall, Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Predictors of organizational commitment in India: strategic HR
8
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Carson, K. D., & Carson, P. P. (2002). Differential relationships associated with two
commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative science Quarterly,
commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 149-169.
commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological
critiques. Human Relations, 50 (9), 1085-1106.
culture. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 152-162.
determining factor in organizational learning. Management Learning, 37(2),
Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11), B. (UMI No. 3287827)
distinct dimensions of continuance commitment. International Journal of Organization
Theory and Behavior, 5(3 & 4), 359-381.
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and
Easterby-Smith, M., & Araujo, L. (1999). Current debates and opportunities. In M.
Easterby- Smith, L. Araujo, & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the
learning organization: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 1-21)..
Finegan, J. E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on organizational
Finger, M., & Brand, S. B. (1999). The concept of the learning organization applied to the
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4),
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization?
Garvin, David A. (1993). "Building learning organizations", Harvard Business Review, Vol.
71 No.4, pp.70-4.
Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance, and change:
An introduction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Gravin, D. (Review March 2008). A tool kit from: "Is yours a learning organization?"
Harvard business review: 109-116.
Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and
Harel, G. H., & Tzafrir, S. S. (1999). The effect of human resource management practices
Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109-116.
Hertz, H.S. (2005), Education criteria for performance excellence baldrige national quality
program national institute of standards and technology, technology administration.
Department of Commerce. 1-84.
International Journal of Human resource Management, 18(10), 1782-1811.
Jaussi, K. S. (2007). Attitudinal commitment: A three-dimensional construct. Journal of
Johnson, M. P. (1991). Commitment ot personal relationship. Advanced in Personal
Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 1067-1079.
learning culture in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lease, S. H. (1998). Annual review, 1993-1997: Work attitudes and outcomes. Journal of
López, S. P., Peón, J. M. M., & Ordás, C. J. V. (2006). Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M.
(1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can’t define HRD in one county, how can
McMurray, A. J., & Dorai, R. (2001). The relationship between workplace training and
organizational commitment in Australian organizational settings: A preliminary analysis. In
O. A. Aliaga (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Academy of Human 145 Resource
Development Conference. Tulsa, OK: Academy of Human Resource Development.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1987). Organizational commitment: Toward a
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in workspace: Theory, research and
moratorium or a resurrection? Human Relations, 50, 727-749.
9
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Morris, J. M., & Steers, R. M. (1981). Structural influences on organizational
motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589-599.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Dubin, R. (1974). Unit performance, situational factors,
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages:
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of
Murray, P., & Donegan, K. (2003). Empirical linkages between firm competencies and
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 51-61.
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 10(3), 51-62.
Ortenbald, A. (2001). On differences between organizational learning and learning
organization. Learning Organization, 8 (3, 4), 125-133.
outcomes of personal learning, organizational commitment, and turnover intention.
Oxford University Press.
Park, S. (2007). Relationships among managerial coaching in organizations and the
Park, S. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2007). Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of
performance ratings: Both type of commitment and type of performance count.
Press.Psychological Reports, 75, 1539-1551. Relationships, 3, 117-143.
Resource Management, 38, 185-200.
Sayeed, O. B. (2001). Organisational commitment and conflict-studies in healthy
Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a
Senge, P. M. (1990a). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (1990b). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7-23.
Studies, 14, 375-394.
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic
three-component model. London: The University of Western Ontario, Department
transformation of the public sector. In M. Easterby- Smith, L. Araujo, & J.
Tsang, E. (1997). Organizational learning and learning organization: A dichotomy
Vocational Behavior, 53, 154-183.
Wallace, J. E. (1997). Becker’s side-bet theory of commitment revisited: Is it time for a
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Dimensions of learning organization (DLOQ)
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2003). Making learning count! Diagnosing the
we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International,
4(3), 313-326.
Yang, B. (2003). Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning
Yousef, D. A. (2003). Validating the dimensionality of Porter et al.’s measurement of
10
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Appendix
Table 1: Dimensions of Learning Organization Applied in Technical and Vocational Colleges
Dimensions
Definitions
Continuous Learning The extent of developing learning in organization by learning how to learn new
knowledge, values and skills and creating continuous learning opportunities through
experiments for personal and career development on the job.
Dialogue & Inquiry
Dialogue is the extent to which culture of organization allows members to have open
communication with open minds to talk, discuss, and explain their experiences and
skills. Inquiry involves questioning about the views of others yet does not attack the
individuals.
Collaboration
The degree to which an organization tries to design work for organizational members to
achieve a unified action on common purposes, have shared vision and personal mastery
to exchange their views and ideas and learn how to work collaboratively.
Embedded System
The extent of creating organizational capacity through both high and low technology
systems and finding ways to maintain what is learned.
Empowerment
The process of enabling organization members to participate in policy making, to know
how to get something done, to assess their needs, to influence others and to create a
shared and collective vision. This process continues to get feedback from organization
members to recognize the gap between the current status and the new vision.
System Connection
The extent to which an organization has open systems to connect the organization to its
external and internal environment to help organization members to see the impact of
their work on the entire organization and think worldwide.
Strategic Leadership Refers to organizational leaders’ competence to think strategically, being models,
champion, support learning and energize organization to create change, and develop
collective vision to help organization members to move in the new direction.
(Nazari and Pihie, 2012)
11
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Table 2: Reliability analysis
Cronbach’s Alpha
0.925
0.668
0.672
0.839
0.834
0.746
Variable
Continuous Learning
Inquiry
Team Learning
Create Systems
Environment Connection
Organizational Commitment
Table 3: one way anova table
b
ANOVA
Model
1
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Regression
19.240
6
3.207
Residual
22.327
104
.215
Total
41.568
110
F
Sig.
14.937
.000
a
a. Predictors: (Constant), Strategic Leadership, Environment Connection, People Empowerment, Team Learning,
Continuous Learning, Inquiry
b. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment
Table 4: Regression analysis
Coefficients
a
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
1.169
.307
Continuous Learning
-.034
.052
Inquiry
-.101
Team Learning
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
t
Sig.
3.803
.000
-.057
-.658
.512
.108
-.132
-.941
.349
.143
.060
.185
2.388
.019
People Empowerment
.201
.047
.370
4.305
.000
Environment Connection
.177
.048
.280
3.727
.000
Strategic Leadership
.305
.096
.425
3.190
.002
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment
12
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Table 5: stepwise analysis
Coefficients
a
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model
1
2
3
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
1.169
.307
Continuous Learning
-.034
.052
Inquiry
-.101
Team Learning
Beta
t
Sig.
3.803
.000
-.057
-.658
.512
.108
-.132
-.941
.349
.143
.060
.185
2.388
.019
People Empowerment
.201
.047
.370
4.305
.000
Environment Connection
.177
.048
.280
3.727
.000
Strategic Leadership
.305
.096
.425
3.190
.002
(Constant)
1.162
.306
3.791
.000
Inquiry
-.117
.105
-.152
-1.119
.266
Team Learning
.142
.060
.182
2.368
.020
People Empowerment
.193
.045
.355
4.293
.000
Environment Connection
.173
.047
.273
3.682
.000
Strategic Leadership
.304
.095
.424
3.193
.002
1.067
.295
3.618
.000
Team Learning
.154
.059
.198
2.616
.010
People Empowerment
.172
.041
.316
4.211
.000
Environment Connection
.173
.047
.273
3.679
.000
Strategic Leadership
.217
.054
.302
3.980
.000
(Constant)
a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment
Table 6: Chi-square analysis (Organization Commitment versus Continuous Learning)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
a
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
25.185
27.340
8.900
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
12
12
1
.014
.007
.003
111
a. 14 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.
Table 7: Chi-square analysis (Organization Commitment versus Inquiry)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
df
a
30.984
30.503
17.121
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
9
9
1
.000
.000
.000
111
a. 10 cells (62.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.
13
Proceedings of 3rd Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
25 - 26 February 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-19-1
Table 8: Chi-square analysis (Organization Commitment versus team learning)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
18.787
20.306
13.315
6
6
1
.005
.002
.000
111
a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .59.
Table 9: Chi-square analysis (Organization Commitment versus people empowerment)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
a
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
81.203
62.046
22.932
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
12
12
1
.000
.000
.000
111
a. 12 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .16.
Table 10: Chi-square analysis (Organization Commitment versus environment
connection)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
df
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
a
34.253
36.025
16.868
9
9
1
.000
.000
.000
111
a. 8 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .23.
Table 11: Chi-square analysis (Organization Commitment versus Strategic Leadership)
Chi-Square Tests
Value
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear Association
N of Valid Cases
df
a
28.647
31.358
21.643
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
9
9
1
.001
.000
.000
111
a. 10 cells (62.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.
14