Journal of European Industrial Training

Training practices and organisational learning capability: Relationship and implications

Pilar Jerez Gómez, José J. Céspedes Lorente, Ramón Valle Cabrera,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Pilar Jerez Gómez, José J. Céspedes Lorente, Ramón Valle Cabrera, (2004) "Training practices and
organisational learning capability: Relationship and implications", Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 28 Issue: 2/3/4, pp.234-256, https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590410527636
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590410527636
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 16 May 2018, At: 07:12 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 93 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4616 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2007),"Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce", International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 28 Iss 3/4 pp. 224-242 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755227">https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755227</a>
(2003),"Organisational learning: a critical review", The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 8-17 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470310457469">https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470310457469</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:304077 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
JEIT
28,2/3/4
234
Received October 2003
Revised November 2003
Accepted December 2003
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)
Journal of European Industrial
Training
Vol. 28 No. 2/3/4, 2004
pp. 234-256
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0590
DOI 10.1108/03090590410527636
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm
Training practices and
organisational learning
capability
Relationship and implications
Pilar Jerez Gómez and José J. Céspedes Lorente
Departamento de Dirección y Gestión de Empresas,
Universidad de Almerı́a, Almeria, Spain
Ramón Valle Cabrera
Departamento de Economı́a y Empresa, Universidad Pablo de Olavide,
Seville, Spain
Keywords Training methods, Organizational learning, Human resource management, Spain
Abstract This paper provides an in-depth study of the relationship between the company’s
training strategy and its learning capability. On a sample of 111 Spanish companies from the
chemical industry, tests a set of hypotheses which link four different training strategies with the
learning capability dimensions. The results obtained from the regression analyses clearly show that
ongoing training, team-based training and job rotation programmes have a positive influence on
company learning capability. The present study presents evidence of how a specific human
resources strategy (training strategy) influences the development of a strategic capability
(organisational learning). Future studies should analyse the influence of training on performance,
using organisational learning capability as a moderating variable. Additionally, the relationship
between human resource management and learning should also be studied using a configurational
approach. This would enable to take into account the synergic effect deriving from the joint use of
complementary human resources strategies.
Introduction
Organisational learning has been an important research topic within
organisation studies (e.g. Cyert and March, 1963; Cangelosi and Dill, 1965;
Daft and Weick, 1984; Senge, 1990; Huber, 1991). The current interest in the
subject among academics and practitioners reflects the idea that firms need to
improve their products and processes constantly in order to create and maintain
competitive advantage (Smith et al., 1996). Recently, the resource-based view
has focused on intangible resources as a source of heterogeneity among
organisations (Barney, 1992; Teece et al., 1997). Thus, organisational learning
has been evaluated as a strategic capability (Grant, 1996; Lei et al., 1996, 1999)
which can lead to sustainable advantage based on the creation, transfer and
Pilar Jerez Gómez and José J. Céspedes Lorente would like to thank the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Technology and the FEDER for their grant SEC 2001-1578-C02-02.
 institutionalisation of tacit knowledge which is valuable, rare, inimitable and Training
nonsubstitutable (Snell et al., 1996). practices
Organisational learning capability is directly linked to the firm’s human
resources (Nonaka, 1994; Kamoche and Mueller, 1998). Likewise, the different
dimensions that we can identify within organisational learning capability
(e.g. learning commitment, systems thinking, knowledge transfer and
integration, openness and experimentation) may be positively affected by
235
concrete human resources policies. Thus, human capital becomes a strategic
factor, and human resource management a fundamental tool for leading the
organisation towards a culture of learning and knowledge transfer (McGill
et al., 1992; Jones and Hendry, 1994; Koch and McGrath, 1996; Kamoche and
Mueller, 1998).
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

Although relevant contributions have arisen from organisational learning

research, there is clearly a lack of empirical studies that explore the relationship
between human resource management practices and learning development.
This is particularly surprising, since the literature has recognised the role of
human resources practices in creating and maintaining competitive
advantages (e.g. Lado and Wilson, 1994; Yeung and Berman, 1997).
With regard to human resource training policies, several works highlight the
positive effect of certain practices on learning, although empirical evidence of
this has not been supplied. The importance of ongoing training (Ulrich et al.,
1993), mobility across divisions and functions (McGill et al., 1992; Lei et al.,
1999) or personnel rotation programmes (Garvin, 1993) have been reported.
Team or group training (Garvin, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and
multi-skill training (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Pfeffer, 1994) have also been
highlighted as strategies that foment flexibility and cohesion among
employees, both of which are particularly relevant in learning organisations.
However, the way in which training strategy is related to the different
dimensions included in a firm’s learning capability is a research problem
that has not been sufficiently covered in the literature. Therefore, the aim of
this paper is to provide an in-depth study of the relationship between the
firm’s training strategy and its learning capability, providing the empirical
evidence lacking in previous works. This question is relevant in that the
criteria for designing training policy influence the firm’s ability to maintain
highly qualified personnel in the long term, and to encourage their flexibility
and creativity (Garvin, 1993; Lei et al., 1996). They represent, therefore, a
major determining factor in the organisation’s learning capability
development.

Organisational learning capability: literature review

Organisational learning is a dynamic process that involves moving between
different levels of action, going from the individual to the group level, from
there to the organisational level, and vice versa (Huber, 1991; Crossan et al.,
 JEIT 1999). The analysis of learning as a process reveals three main aspects. First,
28,2/3/4 knowledge, or, more specifically, its acquisition or creation and its
dissemination and integration within the organisation, becomes a key
strategic resource (Grant, 1996; Zander and Kogut, 1995; Teece et al., 1997), the
basis of a firm’s learning capability. Second, the creation and dissemination of
knowledge implies the existence of internal changes that may come about both
236 on a cognitive and behavioural level (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). Lastly, these
changes lead to a continuous process of improvement that allows the firm’s
performance to be maintained or augmented (Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Garvin,
1993; Slocum et al., 1994), and even to achieve competitive advantage based on
firms’ varying capabilities to learn (Mahoney, 1995; Brenneman et al., 1998).
Although organisational learning has traditionally been considered an
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

unidimensional construct, various studies have highlighted its complexity and

multidimensionality (e.g. Senge, 1990; Nicolini and Meznar, 1995; Slater and
Narver, 1995). In line with these studies, we deem learning to be a
multidimensional construct, since various aspects must be present in order for
an organisation to develop an effective learning capability.
An overview of the literature reveals that developing this capability is
based, first, on the existence of a strong commitment to learning (Stata,
1989; Garvin, 1993). This commitment implies that management must
establish a strategic view towards learning, making it a visible central
element and a valuable tool that will have an influence on achieving
long-term results (Ulrich et al., 1993; Slocum et al., 1994; DiBella et al., 1996;
Hult and Ferrell, 1997). Likewise, management must ensure that the
personnel understands the importance of learning and that it actively
participates in its achievement (Senge, 1990; Slater and Narver, 1995;
Spender, 1996; Williams, 2001). Finally, management must take a leading
role in the process of change, taking on the responsibility of creating an
organisation that is capable of regenerating itself and of confronting new
challenges (Lei et al., 1999). In order to do this, it has to eliminate old beliefs
and mental models that, though valid for interpreting reality at a specific
point in time, may eventually act as obstacles (De Geus, 1988; McGill and
Slocum, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Lei et al., 1999).
Second, learning capability is based on the existence of a collective
conscience, which enables the firm to be seen as a system in which each
element has to contribute towards obtaining a satisfactory result (De Geus,
1988; Senge, 1990). This view of the firm as a system helps to group an
organisation’s members around a common identity (Sinkula, 1994). The
different individuals and areas making up the firm must have a clear vision of
the organisational objectives and understand how they themselves can
contribute towards their achievement in a coordinated way (Leonard-Barton,
1992; Kofman and Senge, 1993; DiBella et al., 1996; Hult and Ferrell, 1997; Lei
et al., 1999). Viewing the firm as a system implicitly involves recognising
 relationships based on the exchange of information and services (Ulrich et al., Training
1993) and induces developing shared mental models (Senge, 1990; Kim, 1993; practices
Miller, 1996). This gives rise to the idea that organisational learning possesses
a collective nature that goes beyond individual learning (Shrivastava, 1983).
Third, a key part of the organisational learning process is the development
of organisational knowledge, based on the transfer and integration of 237
knowledge that is individually acquired (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Transfer implies the internal dissemination of knowledge, mainly through
conversations and interactions among individuals (Brown and Duguid, 1991;
Kofman and Senge, 1993; Nicolini and Meznar, 1995). Work teams or personnel
meetings become ideal situations in which to openly share ideas (Stata, 1989;
Slater and Narver, 1995; Lei et al., 1999). The fundamental role of work teams in
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

developing organisational learning has been mentioned (DiBella et al., 1996;

Snell et al., 1996), with particular emphasis on multi-functional teams (Garvin,
1993; Ulrich et al., 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). By helping to integrate
knowledge acquired individually (Senge, 1990; Hult and Ferrell, 1997), team
learning contributes towards creating a collective corpus of knowledge that is
submerged in the organisational culture, the work routines and processes, and
other elements making up the organisational memory (Huber, 1991; Walsh and
Ungson, 1991). This memory allows knowledge to be subsequently recovered
and applied in different situations, enabling the firm to learn constantly in spite
of the natural rotation of its members (Levitt and March, 1988; Simon, 1991).
Finally, if learning capability is to mark out differences among firms, the
current competitive context requires more than just adapting to changes within
a set framework (Hedberg, 1981; McGill and Slocum, 1993). Thus, the firm
should concentrate on generative learning. This learning enables the
organisational system in place to be questioned, acting ahead of changes and
not solely adapting to them (Senge, 1990). “Since this learning is more time and
resource dependent, the value and sustainability of the resulting competitive
advantage is higher” (Smith et al., 1996, p. 50). This learning requires an
openness to new ideas and a high degree of experimentation (Leonard-Barton,
1992). A predisposition to openness provides room for new viewpoints,
allowing a constant renewal and improvement of individual knowledge (Senge,
1990; Slocum et al., 1994; Sinkula, 1994). There must be a prior commitment to
cultural and functional diversity, and a willingness to accept all types of
opinions and experiences (McGill et al., 1992; McGill and Slocum, 1993; DiBella
et al., 1996). Openness to new ideas favours experimentation, since it involves
the search for innovative and flexible solutions with which to tackle current
and future problems (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Garvin, 1993). Experimentation
needs a culture that promotes creativity and a risk-taking behaviour (Slocum
et al., 1994; Slater and Narver, 1995; Naman and Slevin, 1993).
 JEIT Organisational learning capability is, then, a complex and multidimensional
28,2/3/4 construct. The previous discussion enables us to identify four dimensions or
components of learning capability, namely:
(1) learning commitment;
(2) systems thinking;
238 (3) openness and experimentation; and
(4) knowledge transfer and integration.

Training strategy and organisational learning capability: theory and

hypotheses
An organisation that values knowledge as a competitive implement should
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

develop and introduce mechanisms to guarantee constant learning

(Leonard-Barton, 1992). One of these mechanisms is training, an idea that
Pfeffer (1994) highlights when pointing out that one of the most obvious signs
of change in competitive approach is the growing importance lent, in most new
work systems, to having a well-trained workforce.
Training is considered to be one of the most significant processes within the
strategic management of human resources (Lawler, 1993; Delaney and Huselid,
1996). It, first, plays a critical role in maintaining and developing capabilities,
both individual and organisational, and also substantially contributes towards
the process of organisational change (Valle et al., 2000). Second, it improves the
retention capacity of qualified employees, thus reducing the involuntary
rotation of personnel (Jones and Wright, 1992; Shaw et al., 1998). Third, it
implies the organisation’s long-term commitment as regards its employees and
reinforces the individuals’ motivation (Pfeffer, 1994). All these aspects lead to a
greater level of competitiveness (Youndt et al., 1996) and to an improvement in
productivity and organisational results (Bartel, 1994; Knoke and Kalleberg,
1994; Huselid, 1995; Delery and Doty, 1996).
The significance of training on the organisational learning process is pointed
out in numerous studies (e.g. McGill and Slocum, 1993; Ulrich et al., 1993;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; DiBella et al., 1996). Training programmes should
not be conceived solely in terms of skills construction that imply immediate
improvements in the carrying out of tasks, but should rather be contemplated
from a wider viewpoint. Training can reinforce the individuals’ commitmment
to the organisation and its objectives (Huselid, 1995; Ichniowski et al., 1997).
Kamoche and Mueller (1998) consider that training should be orientated
towards developing a culture of commitment to learning. Thus, training will be
able to encourage the constant generation of competences based on knowledge
and its dissemination throughout the organisation.
Ongoing training should also be seen as a tool that facilitates
communication among employees, by providing a common language and a
shared vision. Thus, training encourages cohesion, helping to instill a common
 set of values (Ulrich et al., 1993). These elements are a pre-requisite for creating Training
a systems thinking within the organisation. practices
Training programmes are also seen as a fundamental tool to create a climate
of constant learning within the organisation. These programmes favour the
acquisition and constant generation of new knowledge and skills, improving
the level of openness to new ideas (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Garvin, 1993; DiBella
et al., 1996; Lei et al., 1996). Thus, training promotes flexibility, contributing 239
towards improving the necessary critical skills to respond effectively to
competitive challenges (Brockner et al., 1992; Ulrich et al., 1993). The
aforementioned references suggest, therefore, a positive relationship between
ongoing training and the degree of openness and experimentation.
Ongoing training is, finally, the basis of organisational learning, since it
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

favours the sharing of ideas and best practices, helping to the transfer of
knowledge, and avoiding the stagnation of the knowledge stored in the
organisational routines and culture, and the mind of individuals
(Leonard-Barton, 1992; Ulrich et al., 1993).
All these arguments suggest that orientation towards ongoing training is
positively related to each of the four dimensions which make up organisational
learning capability. We can establish, therefore, the following hypotheses:
H1. The greater the orientation towards ongoing training, the greater the
organisational learning capability.
H1a. The greater the orientation towards ongoing training, the greater the
level of commitment.
H1b. The greater the orientation towards ongoing training, the greater the
degree of systems thinking.
H1c. The greater the orientation towards ongoing training, the greater the
degree of openness and experimentation.
H1d. The greater the orientation towards ongoing training, the greater the
degree of knowledge transfer and integration.
Looking at the field of training in greater detail, this paper considers three
possible strategic options:
(1) orientation towards multi-skill training or towards specific training;
(2) considering the individual or the work team as a training unit; and
(3) the use or not of job rotation as a training technique.

Specific training vs multi-skill training

According to the resource-based firm theory, when an employee’s skills and
knowledge are specific to the organisation, his mobility and external transfer
possibilities are reduced, increasing his value to the firm and his replacement
 JEIT costs (Wright et al., 1994; Grant, 1996). Thus, training in specific skills creates a
28,2/3/4 greater potential for competitive advantage, since these skills are rare, more
valuable and more difficult to imitate (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994; Lado and
Wilson, 1994; Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Barney and Wright, 1998). However,
from the point of view of learning, this idiosyncratic nature reduces flexibility.
In order to develop efficiently, organisational learning needs large amounts
240 of creativity, innovation and flexibility on the part of the employees (McGill
et al., 1992; Garvin, 1993). They will constantly have to tackle changes, both
technological and organisational, new challenges and new knowledge that
must be rapidly absorbed and applied within the organisation. This means that
firms that are immersed in dynamic environments do not solely should pursue
the development of specific skills (Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 1988;
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

Gattiker, 1995). Rather than concentrating on the immediate application of

skills, management should encourage flexibility (e.g. using multi-skill training),
ensuring that employees have the basic skills that enable them to develop other
wider-ranging skills in the future (Wright and Snell, 1998). Having people
capable of developing multiple skills is an important factor in obtaining human
resource-based competitive advantages (Arthur, 1994; Pfeffer, 1994; Becker and
Gerhart, 1996; Delaney and Huselid, 1996).
Multi-skill training encourages the human team’s flexibility, which is
essential in learning organisations (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Kiernan, 1993). The
aim is that employees are capable of carrying out tasks in other areas than those
of their assigned post, thus widening their perspectives (Snell and Dean, 1992;
MacDuffie, 1995). They should also be capable of acquiring fuller and more
varied information from their own experience and from that of others (Pfeffer,
1994), thus contributing towards the internal mobility of knowledge (Osterman,
1994). Multi-skill training, therefore, has a positive impact on the degree of
openness and acquisition of new knowledge, as well as on the degree of
knowledge transfer. This enables us to put forward the following hypotheses:
H2. The more multi-skill the training given to employees, the greater the
organisational learning capability.
H2a. The more multi-skill the training given to employees, the greater the
degree of openness and experimentation.
H2b. The more multi-skill the training given to employees, the greater the
degree of knowledge transfer and integration.

Individual training vs. team-based training

In organisational learning context, the tacit knowledge acquired individually
needs to be rapidly integrated into the organisation, enabling the efficient
development of the different organisational capabilities (Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995). We have to bear in mind that the organisation can invest in the
 individual instruction and training of its employees. But if it makes no effort to Training
integrate and store individual knowledge and skills, these will lose a great deal practices
of their value (Kim, 1993).
Teamwork favours this integration and expansion. Therefore, management
should, first, encourage a culture that is orientated towards co-operation and
collaboration. Second, it should develop the most adequate training strategies
to form effective work teams (Arthur, 1992, 1994). A team-based job design is
241
considered more adequate than an individual design for developing
organisational learning (Garvin, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It seems
logical to think, therefore, that in this context, team-based training is an
adequate type of training.
Training in groups or teams, formed by members from the same department
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

or by individuals belonging to different areas, improves the interpretation and

transfer of knowledge (Garvin, 1993; Ulrich et al., 1993), since it makes constant
interaction among the individuals possible (Leonard-Barton, 1992) and allows a
common language to be created (Stata, 1989).
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) consider that training based on autonomous
interdisciplinary teams, with periodic rotation of the members, and that is
aimed at the constant renewal and creation of new knowledge, will contribute
towards the forming of cohered groups that are committed to learning. The
combined effort of all the members will enable the organisation to assume the
returns attributable to its highly qualified personnel, since the high
performance obtained is not put down to individual persons.
According to the above, the following hypotheses can be deduced:
H3. The greater the use of team-based training, the greater the
organisational learning capability.
H3a. The greater the use of team-based training, the greater the level of
commitment.
H3b. The greater the use of team-based training, the greater the degree of
knowledge transfer and integration.

The use of job rotation as a training technique

Training can be provided either in the workplace or outside it, there being
different methods by which to carry it out (Cascio, 1998). One of the types of
on-the-job training most mentioned in the literature on organisational learning
is job rotation, considered to be a practice that has a positive impact on the
organisation’s results (Osterman, 1994; MacDuffie, 1995).
Job rotation has numerous advantages. First, it offers employees the
possibility of acquiring wide-ranging job experience, giving them greater
flexibility when mapping out their professional route and, therefore, greater
career opportunities (Gómez-Mejı́a et al., 2001). Since it is a development tool, it
 JEIT influences the level of motivation and commitment to the organisation and to
28,2/3/4 its objectives.
Second, it enables employees to see the firm from a wide range of
perspectives (Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Snell et al., 1996), thus contributing towards
creating strong personal relations among individuals from different divisions
and with diverse functions (Lei et al., 1999). This favours cohesion, having a
242 positive influence on the vision of the firm as a co-ordinated system.
Third, it favours knowledge transfer and integration (Leonard-Barton, 1992;
Garvin, 1993; McGill et al., 1992; Ulrich et al., 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995), helping to the transformation or conversion of individual tacit
knowledge into collective tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994).
From the above, the following set of hypotheses can be established:
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

H4. The greater the use of job rotation, the greater the organisational
learning capability.
H4a. The greater the use of job rotation, the greater the level of commitment.
H4b. The greater the use of job rotation, the greater the degree of systems
thinking.
H4c. The greater the use of job rotation, the greater the degree of knowledge
transfer and integration.

Methodology
Sample and procedures
We tested these hypotheses in the Spanish chemical industry. The Duns 50,000
database was used to select firms with 50 or more employees (415 companies).
Two key informants for each organisation, the chief executive officer (CEO)
and the most senior ranking human resource manager, were sent a
questionnaire.
The first mailing was done on 30 October 2000. Prior to this, and in order to
increase the response rate, we contacted the firms by telephone to inform them
of the mailing and to point out the questionnaire’s aims and objectives. At the
beginning of 2001 the questionnaire was mailed again to those firms that had
not responded the first time round. As with the first mailing, prior telephone
contact was made to reiterate the importance of their taking part so as to ensure
relevant conclusions. By the time the final date for receiving responses was
reached, 150 questionnaires had been returned, 140 of which were considered
valid. Of the 415 firms included in the study population, only 29 returned both
copies of the questionnaire. The sample for our study is, therefore, made up of
111 firms, which gives a response rate of 26.75 per cent.
In the case of those firms that had returned both questionnaires, we opted for
taking the mean of both responses as a representation of the firm’s position,
given the strong correlation that existed between the answers given by both
 sources (correlations range from 0.75 to 0.92). Furthermore, the results obtained Training
after performing an analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicate that there are no practices
significant differences between either source in any of the items included in the
questionnaire. An ANOVA was carried out to check whether there are
significant differences between those firms that returned the questionnaire and
those that did not, for the variables employees, assets, sales, profit and equity.
The results did not reveal significant differences for any of the variables. Nor are
243
there significant differences between the firms that returned the questionnaire
following the first mailing and those that did so the second time round.

Measurements
Organisational learning capability. To measure organisational learning
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

capability, a multi-item scale was used, designed around the four dimensions
or components identified. The items were generated using some of the items
included in the scales proposed by Goh and Richards (1997) and by Hult and
Ferrell (1997) for measuring learning capability, as well as in the scale
established by Oswald et al. (1994) for measuring shared vision, adapted
accordingly. The remaining items were drawn up following the overview of the
literature. The process of adapting and generating new items was implemented
by carrying out a pre-test, based on personal interviews with five CEOs and six
human resources managers from nine firms in the industry. These activities
greatly helped us to identify those items that were inadequate and to re-word
those that were difficult to comprehend. In this way, and following certain
modifications, the 23 initial items were reduced to 16. Each of them is measured
using a Likert scale, 1 being “completely disagree” and 7 “completely agree”.
Training policies. We measured each of the four training strategies by means
of a semantic differential scale. The respondent should place the firm according
to whether its training strategy is closest to one end of the scale or to the other.
This type of scale allows a clear differentiation between the opposite strategic
options for each training variable. Moreover, this scale makes it easier to
answer the questions and responds to the study’s objectives.
Control variables. The literature has identified different variables that may
have an influence on the organisational learning capability and, then, on the
relationship between training strategy and learning capability. First, larger
organisations have been associated with greater learning capability (Tsang,
1997; Lei et al., 1999). To measure this variable, we used the logarithm of the
number of employees. Second, a firm’s age and its learning capability may be
positively related, due to the accumulative effect of learning (Dodgson, 1993;
DiBella et al., 1996). To measure a firm’s age, we calculated the number of years
since it was founded. Lastly, to reveal the possible effect of corporate strategy
on the decision-making of the affiliated firm, we included a dummy variable
(subsidiary) to indicate whether the firm is a subsidiary of another organization
(value ¼ 1).
 JEIT Results
28,2/3/4 The organisational learning capability scale: construct validity
Prior to the hypotheses testing, we checked the validity of the organisational
learning scale. This was done by analysing content validity, reliability,
convergent validity and discriminant validity. The proposed scale’s content
validity is guaranteed by the literature overview as well as by the
244 aforementioned pre-test that was carried out. In turn, to evaluate the scale’s
reliability, we performed a principal components analysis on the set of 16 items
of the scale. The analysis, whose results are summarised in Table I, gave four
factors, each with eigenvalues above one, which explain 63.11 per cent of the
total variance. As Table I shows, the different items load into the
corresponding factors, exactly as had been established. Table II contains
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

descriptive statistics and correlations among the 16 variables.

Second, a confirmatory factorial analysis was carried out to obtain a more
in-depth judgement of the dimensionality of the construct under study (Hair
et al., 1999). After evaluating the normality of the variables involved, different
systems of structural equations were analysed using LISREL 8, following a
competing models strategy. These structural equation models show different

Factor loadings
Items [variables] F1 F2 F3 F4

Learning commitment
Involve personnel in decisions [LC1] 0.198 0.758 0.174 0.382
Learning as expenditure [LC2a] 0.245 0.829 0.344 0.218
Management in favour of making changes [LC3] 0.301 0.740 0.341 0.178
Learning as a key factor [LC4] 0.354 0.734 0.323 0.435
Reward innovative ideas [LC5] 0.309 0.746 0.165 0.243
Systems thinking
Generalised knowledge of organisational aims
[ST1] 0.322 0.302 0.187 0.790
Contribute towards aims [ST2] 0.426 0.277 0.348 0.828
Interconnection of different parts of firm [ST3] 0.275 0.327 0.277 0.840
Openness and experimentation
Promote innovation and experimentation [EX1] 0.336 0.285 0.712 0.226
Follow up other firms in the sector [EX2] 0.136 0.234 0.836 0.106
Use of outside information sources [EX3] 0.421 0.264 0.647 0.405
Culture open to suggestions and opinions [EX4] 0.315 0.283 0.723 0.374
Knowledge transfer and integration
Discussion and analysis of mistakes [TR1] 0.749 0.189 0.494 0.516
Internal communication present [TR2] 0.821 0.403 0.308 0.318
Table I. Team work as a non-habitual way of working
Factor analysis of [TR3a] 0.821 0.273 0.150 0.242
organisational learning Organisational memory present [TR4] 0.756 0.252 0.381 0.370
capability scale Notes: Oblique rotation; a Item was reverse-coded
 Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

Descriptive
Variables Media statistics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

LC1 4.99 1.26

LC2a 5.76 1.25 0.533***
LC3 5.79 1.11 0.418*** 0.544***
LC4 5.24 1.54 0.492*** 0.522*** 0.474***
LC5 5.00 1.36 0.476*** 0.516*** 0.406*** 0.476***
ST1 5.14 1.40 0.264*** 0.204** 0.247** 0.358*** 0.219**
ST2 4.89 1.36 0.282*** 0.284*** 0.163* 0.344*** 0.236** 0.550***
ST3 4.89 1.38 0.340*** 0.246** 0.275*** 0.350*** 0.221** 0.516*** 0.586***
EX1 5.39 0.99 0.122 0.315*** 0.364*** 0.234** 0.165* 0.168* 0.329*** 0.275***
EX2 5.22 1.13 0.125 0.278*** 0.274*** 0.224** 0.108 0.156 0.173* 0.104 0.450***
EX3 5.59 1.12 0.195** 0.233** 0.259*** 0.332*** 0.226** 0.328*** 0.355*** 0.282*** 0.333*** 0.417***
EX4 5.78 0.97 0.326*** 0.277*** 0.155 0.315*** 0.240** 0.174* 0.335*** 0.314*** 0.372*** 0.451*** 0.396***
TR1 5.21 1.39 0.203** 0.152 0.204** 0.343*** 0.191** 0.324*** 0.445*** 0.422*** 0.309*** 0.276*** 0.421*** 0.491***
TR2 5.39 1.26 0.253*** 0.335*** 0.345*** 0.398*** 0.286*** 0.331*** 0.345*** 0.258*** 0.274*** 0.217** 0.367*** 0.247** 0.533***
TR3a 5.65 1.26 0.219** 0.233** 0.251*** 0.223** 0.204** 0.274*** 0.296*** 0.184* 0.266*** 0.061 0.232** 0.179* 0.496*** 0.574***
TR4 5.03 1.62 0.168* 0.204** 0.226** 0.297*** 0.324*** 0.232** 0.419*** 0.287*** 0.311*** 0.168* 0.381*** 0.353*** 0.550*** 0.507*** 0.421***
Notes: a Item was reverse-coded; * p ,0.1; ** p , 0.05; *** p , 0.01
practices
Training

descriptive statistics
capability scale:
Organisational learning

and correlation matrix

Table II.
245
 JEIT aggregation levels depending on the number of dimensions considered.
28,2/3/4 The proposed model, a second-order model that identifies the four dimensions,
provided the best fit ( x 2 =g:l: ¼ 1:12; RMSEA ¼ 0:033; GFI ¼ 0:89;
NFI ¼ 0:84; CFI ¼ 0:98; IFI ¼ 0:98; RFI ¼ 0:81). Furthermore, the individual
standardised loads of all the variables are significant ( p , 0.01). Third, the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated separately for each of the four
246 dimensions, achieving values of 0.82, 0.78, 0.73 and 0.80, respectively. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the whole scale is 0.88. Finally, we calculated the
composite reliability index, which gives values of 0.83, 0.79, 0.72 and 0.81 for
each of the four learning dimensions, respectively.
The analysis of the statistically significant correlations among the scale’s
four dimensions ( p , 0.01) provided evidence of convergent validity. To
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

evaluate discriminant validity, a comparison was made of the correlation

among the items within each learning sub-scale with the correlation among the
items of one sub-scale and those in each of the remaining sub-scales (McGrath,
2001). This comparison should reveal that the correlations in the first case are
greater than in the second case. Table II shows that this requisite is met in all
cases except one: the correlation between EX4 and TR1.
Hypothesis testing
First, we tested the general hypotheses (H1, H2, H3 and H4) corresponding to
each training strategy. Organizational learning capability is a latent
multidimensional construct. Then, an organization must show high levels in
each and every one of the dimensions defined in order to be able to state that its
learning capability is high. Based on this, we classified the firms included in
our study sample into two groups in terms of whether they score highly in
learning or not. Then, we compared the various training policies to test for
significant differences between the two groups. We identified two groups.
Group 1 was formed by firms that achieve high learning scores (the values for
each learning capability dimension are above its mean; n ¼ 23) and Group 2
was formed by the remaining firms (n ¼ 77). Table III shows the means and
standard deviations in both groups, for each of the training strategies, together
with the F statistic (ANOVA). In all cases, the mean value is greater for Group
1, made up of the firms with high learning scores. Moreover, the existence of
significant differences show evidence for H1, H3 and H4.
Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the specific hypotheses
(e.g. H1a, H1b . . .). We estimated four sets of regressions, one for each learning
dimension as dependent variable. Two models were estimated for each
dependent variable: the first model used control variables only, while the
second model incorporated all the variables. Table IV shows descriptive
statistics and correlations for all the variables involved. Likewise, Table V
summarizes the results of the regression analyses.
In Model 2, ongoing training ðb ¼ 0:348, p , 0.01), group-based training
(b ¼ 0:133, p , 0.05) and job rotation programmes (b ¼ 0:115, p , 0.05) are
 positively related to learning commitment. In Model 4, ongoing training Training
(b ¼ 0:201, p , 0.05) and job rotation programmes (b ¼ 0:119, p , 0.1) are practices
positively related to systems thinking. Ongoing training is positively related
(b ¼ 0:214, p , 0.01) to openness and experimentation (Model 6). Finally,
ongoing training is, also, positively related (b ¼ 0:204, p , 0.05) to knowledge
transfer and integration (Model 8). Thus, we found support for H1a, H1b, H1c,
H1d, H3a, H4a, H4b and H4c. The remaining relationships are not statistically 247
significant. Only variable size shows a light significance level ( p , 0.1) related
to the dependent variable “Knowledge transfer and integration” (model 8).
Normality tests revealed that all variables were not skewed. Additionally, no
problems exist related to multicolinearity and homoscedasticity.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

Discussion and conclusions

We have analysed the relationship between training strategy and the four
dimensions that make up organisational learning capability. As opposed to
traditionally considering organisational learning as an unidimensional
construct, various studies have highlighted the complex and
multidimensional nature of learning (Senge, 1990; Lei et al., 1999). The
results of this study contribute towards organisational learning’s empirical
field of study in two ways. First, we develop and validate a scale for measuring

Hypotheses Variables Group Means SD F

H1 Ongoing training 0 5.1429 1.2640 15.967**

1 6.2609 0.8100
H2 Multi-skill training 0 3.0519 1.2763 0.371
1 3.2609 1.9121
H3 Group-based training 0 4.0909 1.4616 3.427* Table III.
1 4.7391 1.5141 Comparison between
H4 Job rotation programmes 0 3.6494 1.8408 3.014* learning high-scored
1 4.3913 1.6442 firms and not
Notes: * p , 0.1; ** p , 0.05 high-scored

Variables Means SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Ongoing training 5.38 1.28

Multi-skill training 3.08 1.46 2 0.022
Group-based training 4.51 1.36 0.077 0.234* Table IV.
Job rotation programmes 3.90 1.85 0.095 0.316** 2 0.009 Training strategies and
Age 2 0.081 2 0.011 0.024 0.007 control variables:
Size 0.066 0.139 0.015 0.160 0.098 means, standard
Subsidiary 0.198** 0.040 0.050 0.004 2 0.190* 0.252** deviations and
Notes: * p ,0.05; ** p , 0.01 correlations
 Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

248
JEIT

Table V.
28,2/3/4

analysis for

capability subscales
Results of regression

organisational learning
Opennes and Knowledge transfer and
Learning commitment Systems thinking experimentation integration
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Constant 5.375*** 2.919*** 5.178*** 3.482*** 6.121*** 4.724*** 6.214*** 4.591***

Ongoing training 0.346*** 0.201** 0.214*** 0.199**
[0.438] [0.221] [0.353] [0.230]
Multi-skill training 20.068 0.034 0.027 20.044
[20.099] [0.042] [0.050] [20.058]
Group-based training 0.130** 0.120 0.011 0.099
[0.177] [0.142] [0.019] [0.124]
Job rotation programmes 0.120** 0.112* 0.059 0.094*
[0.220] [0.179] [0.142] [0.166]
Age 2 0.004 20.003 2 0.001 20.002 2 0.005 20.003 2 0.002 20.000
[2 0.085] [20.071] [2 0.021] [20.029] [2 0.125] [20.071] [2 0.030] [20.016]
Size 0.018 20.007 2 0.055 20.132 2 0.105 20.128 2 0.222 20.242*
[0.015] [20.006] [2 0.037] [20.087] [2 0.105] [20.126] [2 0.160] [20.167]
Subsidiary 0.036 20.157 0.149 0.032 0.092 0.012 0.393 0.290
[0.017] [20.074] [0.061] [0.013] [0.055] [0.007] [0.167] [0.124]
R2 0.008 0.290 0.005 0.125 0.033 0.177 0.043 0.138
F 0.279 5.831*** 0.178 2.049* 1.208 3.067*** 1.595 2.291**
Notes: Standardised betas in brackets; * p , 0.1; ** p , 0.05; *** p , 0.01
 organisational learning capability that allows the different dimensions forming Training
this capability to be identified. Second, our study provides evidence to back up practices
the relationship between a firm’s training strategy and its learning capability.
This evidence gives initial empirical support to the important role human
resources management plays in learning development (Jones and Hendry, 1994;
Kamoche and Mueller, 1998).
Each of the four training strategies analysed is related to, at least, one of the
249
dimensions of organisational learning, except multi-skill training. Training in
the sector possibly tends to be specifically geared towards the activity the
employee carries out at a given moment. Although it may change depending on
the activity, at the time it is given it is specific. Thus, there is not enough
variability in the sample with regard to this question and, therefore, the
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

relationships proposed are not significant.

In line with our predictions, we found a positive significant relationship
between ongoing training and learning capability. Thus, constant investment
in training favours the acquisition and generation of new knowledge and skills,
as well as the degree of openness to new ideas (Leonard-Barton, 1992; DiBella
et al., 1996; Lei et al., 1996). Likewise, this training provides a common language
and a shared vision, making communication among employees and knowledge
transfer easier (Garvin, 1993). In addition to this, it strengthens individuals’
motivation and commitment to the organisation and to its objectives (Huselid,
1995; Ichniowski et al., 1997).
The evidence found in the relationship between team-based training and
the level of commitment to learning supports the importance of this type of
training as an instrument that helps create cohered groups that are
committed to learning and, therefore, to the constant renewal and creation of
knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). With regard to job rotation
programmes, the results support the positive effect of their use on learning
commitment, since they act as a development tool and improve motivation
levels. The results also indicate that job rotation helps to reinforce cohesion
among individuals and departments (Lei et al., 1999), who all use their
efforts towards achieving a common objective. Likewise, it makes rapid
knowledge dissemination easier, contributing towards changing tacit
knowledge from individual to collective (Ulrich et al., 1993; Nonaka, 1994).
This enables the creation of an organisational knowledge corpus that can be
applied in different situations.
No strong evidence has been found to support the control variables. Thus,
there is no evidence that an organisation’s age or whether it is a subsidiary of a
corporation or not affects its learning capability or the relationship between
this capability and training strategy. With regard to an organisation’s size, the
positive relationship set out on a theoretical level is not supported in practice,
which shows that being smaller does not hinder learning, an aspect that has
been pointed out in other works (e.g. Simonin, 1997).
 JEIT Specific methodological constraints have to be recognised in the present study.
28,2/3/4 First, although centring on a single industry allows a richer examination of the
context and minimises possible external influences on performance, it may
limit its external validity (Rajagopolan, 1996). In this sense, to assess the
generalisability of our findings, studies should test the hypotheses presented
250 here in other industries. Second, the sample size could impose certain
limitations when extending conclusions to the whole of the industry studied.
Third, this study has measured the various training policies using a single
item. Subsequent work could consider multi-item constructs, so as to measure
these strategies even more precisely, with a view to obtaining conclusions that
can be more generally applied.
This study highlights the important role played by organisational learning
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

in the current context, in which knowledge is considered to be a key resource.

An important implication for business can be established from this. Although
the literature has pointed out the fundamental role of constant learning as a
powerful instrument for the improvement of a firm’s competitiveness
(Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994), there is no general
consensus in terms of how managers can contribute towards developing
learning capability more efficiently. Establishing a measurement scale reveals
the different areas of organisational learning in which managers can act to
develop this capability. A relevant implication, therefore, is the approach taken
in the activities and relations that need to be present for a firm to be considered
a learning organisation (Hult and Ferrell, 1997).
The literature on human resources strategic management has examined the
role of the different functions and processes of human resources in developing
strategic capabilities (e.g. Ulrich and Lake, 1991; Lado and Wilson, 1994; Yeung
and Berman, 1997). Likewise, organisational learning has been considered as a
strategic capability that directs resource conversion activities and favours the
existence of sustainable differences among firms (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991;
Mahoney, 1995; Lei et al., 1996, 1999; Snell et al., 1996; Easterby-Smith et al.,
2000). Our study has highlighted how both lines of research can be connected,
by studying the way in which a particular human resources strategy (training
strategy) affects the development of a strategic capability (organisational
learning).
This initial approximation opens new lines of research, because it shows
how firm management can contribute, through human resources management,
towards a more efficient development of organisational learning capability.
This paper has suggested that certain training strategies influence the
organisational learning capability. Future research could be directed towards
analysing the effect of those strategies on performance, using learning
capability as a moderating variable. This would provide a link between two
current lines of research: that analysing the effect of training on performance
 (Aragón-Sánchez et al., 2003; Storey, 2004), and the one relating learning to Training
performance (Henderson and Cockburn, 1994; Tippins and Sohi, 2003). practices
In order to complete the analysis of the relationship between training and
organisational learning, it may be necessary to assess specific training
practices aimed at particular groups of employees within the organisation (e.g.
management, sale personnel). This would require a more specific questionnaire
to the industry under analysis. 251
Another future line of research should analyse the effect of other human
resources strategies (staffing, performance appraisal, career development,
compensation) on learning. This would allow a more in-depth study into the
learning field.
This paper has analysed training practices in an isolated way, i.e. without
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

taking into account the mutual relationship between training and other
practices of human resource management. In future works this question could
be treated, by analysing the relationship between human resources
management and learning using a configurational approach. This would
enable the synergistic effect deriving from the joint use of human resources
strategies that complement each other to be taken into account. A
configurational analysis would contribute towards establishing which
human resources system is most appropriate for developing a learning
organisation.

References
Aragón-Sánchez, A., Barba-Aragón, I. and Sanz Valle, R. (2003), “Effects of training on business
results”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 956-80.
Arthur, J.B. (1992), “The link between business strategy and industrial relations systems in
American steel minimills”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 45, pp. 488-506.
Arthur, J.B. (1994), “Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and
turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 670-87.
Barney, J.B. (1992), “Integrating organizational behavior and strategy formulation research: a
resource based analysis”, in Shrivastava, P., Huff, A. and Dutton, J. (Eds), Advances in
Strategic Management, Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Barney, J.B. and Wright, P.M. (1998), “On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human
resources in gaining competitive advantage”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 31-46.
Bartel, A.P. (1994), “Productivity gains from the implementation of employee training
programs”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 33, pp. 411-25.
Becker, B. and Gerhart, B. (1996), “The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance: progress and prospects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 779-801.
Brenneman, W.B., Keys, J.B. and Fulmer, R.M. (1998), “Learning across a living company: the
shell companies’experiences”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 61-70.
Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T. and DeWitt, R. (1992), “Layoffs, job insecurity and survivors’
work effort: evidence of an inverted U relationship”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 35, pp. 413-25.
 JEIT Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991), “Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward
a unified view of working, learning and innovation”, in Cohen, M. and Sproull, L.S. (Eds),
28,2/3/4 Organizational Learning, Sage, London.
Cangelosi, V.E. and Dill, W.R. (1965), “Organizational learning: observations toward a theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 175-203.
Cascio, W.F. (1998), Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality of Work Life, Profits,
252 McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Crossan, M., Lane, H.W. and White, R.E. (1999), “An organizational learning framework: from
intuition to institution”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 522-37.
Cyert, R. and March, J. (1963), A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), “Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 284-95.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

De Geus, A.P. (1988), “Planning as learning”, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 70-4.
Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A. (1996), “The impact of human resource management practices on
perceptions of organizational performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 949-69.
Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996), “Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource
management: tests of universalistic, contingency and configurational performance
predictions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 802-35.
DiBella, A.J., Nevis, E.C. and Gould, J.M. (1996), “Understanding organizational learning
capability”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 361-79.
Dodgson, M. (1993), “Organizational learning: review of some literatures”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 375-94.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolini, D. (2000), “Organizational learning: debates past,
present and future”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 783-96.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), “Organizational learning”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 803-13.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, July-August,
pp. 78-91.
Gattiker, U.E. (1995), “Firm and taxpayer returns from training of semiskilled employees”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 1152-73.
Goh, S. and Richards, G. (1997), “Benchmarking the learning capacity of organizations”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 575-83.
Gómez-Mejı́a, L.R., Balkin, D.B. and Cardy, R.L. (2001), Managing Human Resources, NewYork,
NY, Prentice-Hall.
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational
capability as knowledge integration”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 375-87.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1999), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
ed., Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Hedberg, B. (1981), “How organizations learn and unlearn”, in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H.
(Eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Henderson, R.M. and Cockburn, I. (1994), “Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in
pharmaceutical research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 63-84.
 Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”, Training
Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
practices
Hult, G.T. and Ferrell, O.C. (1997), “Global organizational learning capacity in purchasing:
construct and measurement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 40, pp. 97-111.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate financial performance”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 635-72. 253
Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K. and Prennushi, G. (1997), “The effects of human resource management
practices on productivity: a study of steel finishing lines”, American Economic Review,
Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 291-313.
Jones, A.M. and Hendry, C. (1994), “The learning organization: adult learning and organizational
transformation”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 153-62.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

Jones, G.R. and Wright, P.M. (1992), “An economic approach to conceptualizing the utility of
human resource management practices”, in Rowland, K. and Ferris, G. (Eds), Research in
Personnel and HRM, Vol. 10.
Kamoche, K. and Mueller, F. (1998), “Human resource management and the
appropiation-learning perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 1033-60.
Kiernan, M. (1993), “The new strategic architecture: Learning to compete in the twenty-first
century”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 7-21.
Kim, D.H. (1993), “The link between individual and organizational learning”, Sloan Management
Review, No. Fall, pp. 37-50.
Knoke, D. and Kalleberg, A.L. (1994), “Job training in US organizations”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 59, pp. 537-46.
Koch, M.J. and McGrath, G.R. (1996), “Improving labor productivity: human resource
management policies do matter”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 335-54.
Kofman, F. and Senge, P.M. (1993), “Communities of commitment: the heart of learning
organizations”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 4-24.
Lado, A.A. and Wilson, M.C. (1994), “Human resource systems and sustained competitive
advantage: a competency-based perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 699-727.
Lawler, E.E. III (1993), “Creating the high-involvement organization”, in Galbraith, J.R. and
Lawler, E.E. III (Eds), Organizing for the Future: The New Logic for Managing Complex
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lei, D., Hitt, M.A. and Bettis, R. (1996), “Dynamic core competences through meta-learning and
strategic context”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 549-69.
Lei, D., Slocum, J.W. and Pitts, R.A. (1999), “Designing organizations for competitive advantage:
the power of unlearning and learning”, Organizational Dynamics, pp. 24-38.
Lengnick-Hall, C.A. and Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (1988), “Strategic human resources management: a
review of the literature and a proposed typology”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 454-70.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992), “The factory as a learning laboratory”, Sloan Management Review,
pp. 23-38.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), “Organizational learning”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14,
pp. 319-40.
 JEIT MacDuffie, J.P. (1995), “Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance:
organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry”,
28,2/3/4 Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 197-222.
McGill, M.E., Slocum, J.W. and Lei, D. (1992), “Management practices in learning organizations”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
McGill, M.E. and Slocum, J.W. (1993), “Unlearning the organization”, Organizational Dynamics,
254 pp. 67-79.
McGrath, R. (2001), “Exploratory learning, innovative capacity and managerial oversight”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 118-31.
Mahoney, J.T. (1995), “The management of the resources and the resource of management”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33, pp. 91-101.
Miller, D. (1996), “A preliminary typology of organizational learning: synthesizing the literature”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 485-505.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

Naman, J.L. and Slevin, D.P. (1993), “Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and
empirical test”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 135-52.
Nicolini, D. and Meznar, M. (1995), “The social construction of organizational learning:
conceptual and practical issues in the field”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 727-46.
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge-creating company”, Harvard Business Review,
November-December, pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Osterman, P. (1994), “How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it?”, Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 47, pp. 173-88.
Oswald, S.L., Mossholder, K.W. and Harris, S.G. (1994), “Vision salience and strategic
involvement: implications for psychological attachment to organization and job”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 477-89.
Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1991) Managing Change for Competitive Success, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Rajagopolan, N. (1996), “Strategic orientations, incentive plan adoptions and firm performance:
evidence from electric utility firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 761-85.
Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Shaw, J.D., Delery, J.E., Jenkins, G.D. and Gupta, N. (1998), “An organization-level analysis of
voluntary and involuntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 511-25.
Shrivastava, P. (1983), “A typology of organizational learning systems”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 8-28.
Simon, H.A. (1991), “Bounded rationality and organizational learning”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 125-34.
 Simonin, B.L. (1997), “The importance of collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the Training
learning organization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1150-74.
practices
Sinkula, J.M. (1994), “Market information processing and organizational learning”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 35-45.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 63-74.
Slocum, J.W., McGill, M. and Lei, D.T. (1994), “The new learning strategy: anytime, anything, 255
anywhere”, Organizational Dynamics, pp. 33-47.
Smith, K.A., Vasudevan, S.P. and Tanniru, M.R. (1996), “Organizational learning and
resource-based theory: an integrative model”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 41-53.
Snell, S.A. and Dean, J.W. (1992), “Integrated manufacturing and human resource management: a
human capital perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 467-504.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

Snell, S.A., Youndt, M.A. and Wright, P.M. (1996), “Establishing a framework for research in
SHRM: merging resource theory and organizational learning”, Research in Personnel and
HRM, Vol. 14, pp. 61-90.
Spender, J.C. (1996), “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.
Stata, R. (1989), “Organizational learning: the key to management innovation”, Sloan
Management Review, No. Spring, pp. 63-74.
Storey, D.J. (2004), “Exploring the link, among small firms, between management training and
firm performance: a comparison between the UK and other OECD countries”, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 112-30.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Tippins, M.J. and Sohi, R.S. (2003), “IT competency and firm performance: is organizational
learning a missing link?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 745-62.
Tsang, E.W. (1997), “Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy
between descriptive and prescriptive research”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Ulrich, D. and Lake, D. (1991), “Organizational capability: creating competitive advantage”,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 77-92.
Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1993), “High-impact learning: building and diffusing
learning capability”, Organizational Dynamics, pp. 52-66.
Valle, R., Martı́n, F., Romero, P.M. and Dolan, S. (2000), “Business strategy, work processes and
human resource training: are they congruent?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21,
pp. 283-97.
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991), “Organizational memory”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-91.
Williams, A.P. (2001), “A belief-focused process model of organizational learning”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 67-85.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and
flexibility in strategic human resource management”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 756-72.
 JEIT Wright, P.M., McMahan, G.C. and McWilliams, A. (1994), “Human resources and sustained
competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective”, The International Journal of
28,2/3/4 Human Resource Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 301-26.
Yeung, A.K. and Berman, B. (1997), “Adding value through human resources: reorienting human
resource measurement to drive business performance”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 321-35.
256 Youndt, M.A., Snell, S.A., Dean, J.W. and Lepak, D.P. (1996), “Human resource management,
manufacturing strategy and firm performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 836-66.
Zander, U. and Kogut, B. (1995), “Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of
organizational capabilites: an empirical test”, Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 76-92.
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)
 This article has been cited by:

1. GopeSharmila, Sharmila Gope, EliaGianluca, Gianluca Elia, PassianteGiuseppina, Giuseppina Passiante.

2018. The effect of HRM practices on knowledge management capacity: a comparative study in Indian
IT industry. Journal of Knowledge Management 22:3, 649-677. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. ALBA MANRESA, ANDREA BIKFALVI, ALEXANDRA SIMON. 2018. THE USE AND
DETERMINANTS OF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION. International Journal of Innovation Management 5, 1850062. [Crossref]
3. Riccardo Sartori, Arianna Costantini, Andrea Ceschi, Francesco Tommasi. 2018. How Do You Manage
Change in Organizations? Training, Development, Innovation, and Their Relationships. Frontiers in
Psychology 9. . [Crossref]
4. Naiara Escribá-Carda, Francisco Balbastre-Benavent, M. Teresa Canet-Giner. 2017. Employees'
perceptions of high-performance work systems and innovative behaviour: The role of exploratory learning.
European Management Journal 35:2, 273-281. [Crossref]
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

5. Joaquín Camps, Víctor Oltra, Joaquín Aldás-Manzano, Guillermo Buenaventura-Vera, Federico Torres-
Carballo. 2016. Individual Performance in Turbulent Environments: The Role of Organizational Learning
Capability and Employee Flexibility. Human Resource Management 55:3, 363-383. [Crossref]
6. Ikhlas I. Altarawneh, Amal Ibrahim Ahmed Aseery. 2016. Training Needs Assessment at Assir General
Educational Directorate, Saudi Arabia. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 06:02,
188-204. [Crossref]
7. Minna Saunila, Kati Tikkamäki, Juhani Ukko. 2015. Managing performance and learning through
reflective practices. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 2:4, 370-390. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
8. C. Vijayabanu, R. Renganathan, K. Govindarajan. 2015. The Upshot of the Learning Organisation:
Case Study of an Indian Private-Sector Bank Using the PLS-SEM Model. Journal of Organisational
Transformation & Social Change 12:2, 178-192. [Crossref]
9. Lai Wan Hooi, Kwang Sing Ngui. 2014. Enhancing organizational performance of Malaysian SMEs.
International Journal of Manpower 35:7, 973-995. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. María Isabel Barba-Aragón. 2014. La habilidad de los directivos y su papel mediador entre formación e
innovación. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa 23:3, 127-136. [Crossref]
11. María Isabel Barba Aragón, Daniel Jiménez Jiménez, Raquel Sanz Valle. 2014. Training and performance:
The mediating role of organizational learning. BRQ Business Research Quarterly 17:3, 161-173. [Crossref]
12. Sun Young Sung, Jin Nam Choi. 2014. Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training
and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 35:3, 393-412. [Crossref]
13. T. Ramayah, Jasmine A. L. Yeap, Joshua Ignatius. 2014. Assessing Knowledge Sharing Among Academics.
Evaluation Review 38:2, 160-187. [Crossref]
14. Jae-Seung Han, Sang-Yong Tom Lee. 2013. The impact of technology transfer contract on a firm’s
market value in Korea. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38:5, 651-674. [Crossref]
15. Lucy Rhodes, Ray Dawson. 2013. Lessons Learned from Lessons Learned. Knowledge and Process
Management 20:3, 154-160. [Crossref]
 16. Victor Oltra, Salvador Vivas-López. 2013. Boosting organizational learning through team-based talent
management: what is the evidence from large Spanish firms?. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 24:9, 1853-1871. [Crossref]
17. Patrick Lynch, Mary T. Holden, Anthony Foley, Denis Harrington, Jennifer Hussey. Engaging
Entrepreneurs with a Blended Problem-based Learning Degree Programme 199-227. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
18. Rajeev Sawhney. 2013. Implementing labor flexibility: A missing link between acquired labor flexibility
and plant performance. Journal of Operations Management 31:1-2, 98-108. [Crossref]
19. Bunjongjit Rompho, Sununta Siengthai. 2012. Integrated performance measurement system for firm's
human capital building. Journal of Intellectual Capital 13:4, 482-514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Chia-Ying Li. 2012. Knowledge stickiness in the buyer–supplier knowledge transfer process: The
moderating effects of learning capability and social embeddedness. Expert Systems with Applications 39:5,
5396-5408. [Crossref]
Downloaded by ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY At 07:12 16 May 2018 (PT)

21. May‐Chiun Lo, Abang Azlan Mohamad, Peter Songan, Alvin Yeo. 2012. Repositioning strategy in the
ecotourism industry: a case of Bario. Business Strategy Series 13:1, 41-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Joaquín Camps, Federico Torres. 2011. Contingent reward leader behaviour: Where does it come from?.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science 28:3, 212-230. [Crossref]
23. Tung-Shan Liao, John Rice, Nigel Martin. 2011. The role of the market in transforming training and
knowledge to superior performance: evidence from the Australian manufacturing sector. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 22:2, 376-394. [Crossref]
24. Joaquín Camps, Antonio Majocchi. 2010. Learning Atmosphere and Ethical Behavior, Does It Make
Sense?. Journal of Business Ethics 94:1, 129-147. [Crossref]
25. Lee Di Milia, Kamal Birdi. 2010. The relationship between multiple levels of learning practices and
objective and subjective organizational financial performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31:4,
481-498. [Crossref]
26. Tharinee Limpibunterng, Lalit M. Johri. 2009. Complementary role of organizational learning capability
in new service development (NSD) process. The Learning Organization 16:4, 326-348. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
27. Felicity Kelliher, Anthony Foley, Anne-Marie Frampton. 2009. Facilitating small firm learning networks
in the Irish tourism sector. Tourism and Hospitality Research 9:1, 80-95. [Crossref]
28. Chien‐Chi Tseng, Gary N. McLean. 2008. Strategic HRD practices as key factors in organizational
learning. Journal of European Industrial Training 32:6, 418-432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Kamal S. Birdi, Malcolm G. Patterson, Stephen J. Wood. 2007. Learning to perform? A comparison of
learning practices and organizational performance in profit- and non-profit-making sectors in the UK.
International Journal of Training and Development 11:4, 265-281. [Crossref]
30. Roland K. Yeo. 2007. Organizational learning in representative Singapore public organizations.
International Journal of Public Sector Management 20:5, 345-365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Susana Pérez López, José Manuel Montes Peón, Camilo José Vazquez Ordás. 2006. Human Resource
Management as a Determining Factor in Organizational Learning. Management Learning 37:2, 215-239.
[Crossref]