The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm

DLOQ
The Dimensions of Learning
Organization Questionnaire
(DLOQ)
661
A cross-cultural validation in an
Iranian context
Mohammad Sadegh Sharifirad
Islamic Azad University-Kerman Branch, Kerman, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement
scores related to the learning organization culture, the Dimensions of Learning Organization
Questionnaire (DLOQ), in an Iranian context. This research can contribute to the growing literature of
learning in organizations.
Design/ methodology/approach – The data were collected through distributing questionnaires to
54 service firms and manufacturing companies in ten major cities of Iran during the third quarter of
2010. Rigorous translation procedures, including both forward and backward processes, have been
used to guarantee the relevance of this instrumentation in different cultural contexts. Confirmatory
factor analysis, simple item-internal consistency estimates, and item inter-correlation analysis were
performed to test the validity of DLOQ.
Research limitations/implications – There are five positional limitations. First, this study relies
on self-report and different perceptions of questions can bring about percept-percept bias. Second, the
nature of this research is cross-sectional which may cause causality among variables. Third, the
various organizational levels in the questionnaire can render some misinterpretations while answering
the questions. Furthermore, the length of the original questionnaire (43 questions) could cause lack of
concentration and boredom, which in turn, can impact the results. Last, two constructs related to
performance (knowledge and financial performance) in the questionnaire were omitted.
Originality/value – This study confirms, according to some statistical results, that the Iranian
version of DLOQ has produced reliable measurement scores with the construct validity sufficient to
measure the learning organization culture in the Iranian context.
Keywords Organizational learning, Learning organizations, Questionnaire validity, Measurement,
Learning processes, Iran
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Since organizations face a fluctuating environment and unpredictable changes brought
about by the information age, technological advancement and the knowledge economy
(Kim and Mauborgne, 2005; Joo, 2007), the best way to survive is getting ready to
adapt. Consequently, a large number of organizations make an effort to capitalize on a
learning organization culture of creativity, and on transferring knowledge and
correcting its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1993). International Journal of Manpower
Vol. 32 No. 5/6, 2011
The concept of learning organization has been quite ambiguous (Ortenblad, 2004) pp. 661-676
since it was first coined (probably by Garratt, 1987). Many researchers have attempted q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7720
to clarify the idea of organizational learning aiming, more specifically, at integrating DOI 10.1108/01437721111158251
IJM existing knowledge and perspectives of this particular idea. In order to contribute to “a
32,5/6 more complete understanding of organizational learning” (Huber, 1991) “a holistic
model of organizational learning” (Lahteenmaki et al., 2001), and “an integrative and
parsimonious conceptual framework that can help researchers and practitioners
identify, study, and introduce organizational learning to organizations” (Lipshitz et al.,
2002).
662 Therefore, one of the most critical issues is the lack of a practical and validated
measurement tool (Lim and Morris, 2006; Yang et al., 2004). In fact, little has been so far
known about how to effectively measure the learning culture as a supportive system for
organizational learning process until the Dimensions of Learning Organization
Questionnaire (DLOQ) came into being (Yang et al., 2004). In order to use an instrument
universally, testing it in different cultural contexts is crucial. According to previous
research, DLOQ has been used in the contexts of the USA, Colombia, China, and Taiwan
(Ellinger et al., 2002; Hernandez, 2000; Lien et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004; Zhang et al.,
2004) to bear the stamp of verification in different cultures.
In Iran, according to available research, the performance of public service
organizations is low. Some researchers think that one of the most important reasons for
this is that the Iranian public service organizations suffer from lack of a kind of
organizational culture that promotes learning in these organizations (e.g. Danaee Fard
et al., 2009). In other words, Iranian public service organizations need to change to
become learning organizations. Accordingly, we suggest that Iranian public
organizations, as well as the private ones, have to shape learning organizations by
building a learning culture. Thus, the priority of most large Iranian companies ought to
be transforming their organizational culture and their individual management systems.
It seems necessary to conduct some research in the realm of organizational learning
in order to identify and uncover unique organizational learning enhancing or
restricting factors that are embedded in a non-Western context. On the same ground,
Iranian organizations are supposed to evaluate their status quo in terms of individual’s
learning process, team-based approach, and system-related organizational structure.
Considering the above-mentioned points, DLOQ would be a suitable tool to assess
learning organization climate and organizational learning processes.
Since there are sparse studies in Asian countries, especially in Iran, to find a
validated tool to measure organizational learning, this research targeted the evaluation
of DLOQ, in terms of validity as well as applicability, in an Iranian culture context. As
a result, survey questions have the ability to measure the intended characteristics
precisely and consistently given a different cultural context from the one in which they
may have been developed. Thus, the research question was, “Is the Dimensions of
Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ), developed by Watkins and Marsick
(1996), a suitable measurement tool for learning organization climate in Iranian
organizations?”

Literature review
This study has capitalized upon the questionnaire (DLOQ), which was applied by
Watkins and Marsick (1996). First of all, the development of DLOQ is reviewed.
Afterwards, the related practical research done in the past is considered. Finally, the
essence of validating this measurement tool for the learning organization in the Iranian
cultural context is explored.
The development of the DLOQ DLOQ
Some authors, such as Garvin (1993), have suggested that the exponents of the learning
organization concept need to satisfy three objectives in order to create a tangible result
when we subscribe to. These are:
(1) a clear definition;
(2) practical operational advice which managers can use; and 663
(3) tools and assessment instruments to measure their achievements.

A diversity of perspectives has emerged since the formal and practical introduction of
organizational learning in The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge (1990). The abundance of
definitions has led to several constructs of learning organizations offered by different
researchers (Table I).
One of the most severe but common critiques of HRD practices is the lack of
measures to assess applications empirically in the workplace (Holton, 1996, 2005;
Holton et al., 2000; Tsang, 1997; Yang et al., 2004). Nevertheless, the efforts of Watkins
and Marsick (e.g. 1996, 2003) are of significant importance in erecting the foundation of
measurement factors of the learning organization. They provided an integrative
concept of the learning organization based on three approaches:
(1) for systems thinking, organizational generativity (Senge, 1990);
(2) for a learning perspective, comprehensive aspects of learning at all
organizational levels (Pedler et al., 1991); and
(3) for strategic perspective, managerial practices (Garvin, 1993; Goh, 1998).

Watkins and Marsick (1996) proposed an integrated model for a learning organization
(Lien et al., 2006). They also developed the DLOQ to identify the learning activities in
organizations. The instrument has been widely employed to determine the
characteristics of a learning organization (Watkins and Marsick, 2003). It is
organized into five sections addressing individual level, team level, and organization
level learning, and measuring the financial performance of the organization, with the
last section gathering information about the organization and the role of the
respondent in that organization (Jamali and Sidani, 2008). The dimensions of the
questionnaire are:
(1) creating continuous opportunities (“continuous learning”);
(2) promoting inquiry and dialogue (“inquiry and dialogue”);
(3) encouraging collaboration and team learning (“collaboration and team
learning”);
(4) empowering people toward a collective vision (“empower people”);
(5) establishing systems to capture and share learning (“create systems”);
(6) connecting and organization to its environment (“connect the organization”);
and
(7) providing strategic leadership for learning (“strategic leadership”; Lien et al.,
2006).
IJM
Author Definition of learning organization Learning organization constructs
32,5/6
Senge (1990) An organization where people Personal mastery
continually expand their capacity to Mental models
create the results they truly desire, Shared vision
where new and expansive patterns of Team learning
thinking are nurtured, where collective Systems thinking
664 aspiration is set free, and where people
are continually learning how to learn
Garvin (1993) An organization skilled at creating, Systematic problem solving
acquiring and transferring knowledge, Experimentation
and at modifying its behavior to reflect Learn from past experiences
new knowledge and insights Learning from the others
Transferring knowledge
Pedler et al. (1991) An organization that facilitates A learning approach to strategy
learning for all its members and Participative policy making
consciously transforms itself and its Informating
context Formative accounting and control
Internal exchange
Reward flexibility
Enabling structures
Workers as environmental scanners
Inter-company learning
Learning climate
Self-development opportunities
Moilanen (2005) A learning organization is a Driving forces
consciously managed organization Finding the purpose
with learning as a vital component in Questioning
its values, visions and goals as well as Empowering
in its everyday operations and their Evaluating
assessment
Watkins and We originally defined the learning Continuous learning
Marsick (1996) organization as that is characterized by Dialogue and inquiry
continuous improvement, and by the Team learning
capacity to transform it Embedded system
Empowerment
Leadership
Financial performance
Knowledge performance
Armstrong and A learning organization has The learning environment
Foley (2003) appropriate cultural facets (visions, Identification of learning and
values, assumptions and behaviors) developmental needs
that support a learning environment; Meeting the learning and
processes that foster people’s learning developmental needs
and development by identifying their Applying learning in the workplace
learning needs and facilitating
learning; and structural facets that
enable learning activities to be
supported and implemented in the
workplace
Griego et al. (2000) An organization that constantly Training and education
Table I. improves results based on increased Rewards and recognition
Sample definitions and performance made possible because it Information flow
constructs of learning is growing more adroit Individual and team development
organization Vision and strategy
Quite distinct from other tools, it has a comprehensive approach toward learning and DLOQ
can evaluate organizational learning in four levels of individuals, teams, organization
and global (Figure 1). Although the DLOQ is a relatively new instrument, its utility has
been verified in several recent empirical studies conducted in different contexts: the
USA, Colombia, China, Taiwan and Korea (Ellinger et al., 2002; Watkins and Marsick,
2003; Yang et al., 2004; Hernandez, 2000; Zhang et al., 2004; Lien et al., 2006, Song et al.,
2009). 665
This instrument has the option to gauge the perceptions of employees regarding
these seven constructs at a particular time, i.e. to take the pulse of an organization at a
specific moment in time (Jamali and Sidani, 2008).
The DLOQ has also been revised and validated to be scientifically reliable (Watkins
and Marsick, 2003; Yang, 2003) even in a developing country context in specific
(Hernandez and Watkins, 2003). The specific dimensions of DLOQ are described in
Table II.
Apart from the juxtaposed aspects of learning, practical applications in actual
organization setting, 12 items have been added to evaluate the level of performance
improvement in both financial and knowledge areas. On the whole, the tool that
consists of seven dimensions of the learning organization and two measures of
performance was developed in two forms (43 items and 21 items) and was named
DLOQ: Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire.

Validation background of DLOQ

A number of research studies have been conducted in order to test the validity and
reliability of the dimensions of the learning organization in different cultural contexts:
the USA, Colombia, China, Taiwan and Korea (Ellinger et al., 2002; Watkins and
Marsick, 2003; Yang et al., 2004; Hernandez, 2000; Zhang et al., 2004; Lien et al., 2006;
Song et al., 2009). These studies have succeeded in verifying the applicability of DLOQ
in the societies with different cultural backgrounds by providing internal consistency
of each item’s reliability (coefficient alpha range from 0.71 to 0.91) (Song et al., 2009)

Figure 1.
Learning organization
dimensions
IJM
Component Definition
32,5/6
Create continuous learning opportunities Learning is designed into work so that people can
learn on the job
Opportunities are provided for ongoing education
and growth
666 Promote inquiry and dialogue People gain productive reasoning skills to express
their views and the capacity to listen and inquire into
the views of others
The culture is changed to support questioning,
feedback, and experimentation
Encourage collaboration and team learning Work is designed to use groups to access different
modes of thinking
Groups are expected to learn together and work
together
Collaboration is valued by the culture and rewarded
Create systems to capture and share learning Both high- and low-technology systems to share
learning are created and integrated with work
Access is provided
Systems are maintained
Empower people towards a collective vision People are involved in setting, owning, and
implementing a joint vision
Responsibility is distributed close to decision
making so that people are motivated to learn toward
what they are held accountable to do
Connect the organization to its environment People are helped to see the effect of their work on
the entire enterprise
People scan the environment and use information to
adjust work practices
The organization is linked to its communities
Table II. Leaders model and support learning Leaders model, champion, and support learning
Watkins and Marsick’s Leadership uses learning strategically for business
Model (2003) of the seven results
dimensions of the
learning organization Source: Adapted from Watkins and Marsick (2003)

and reliable factor structure of the dimensions of the learning organization (Lien et al.,
2006).
Moreover, DLOQ has been a participant with some other aspects of management
literature in some research to address applicability to the overall organizational
circumstances that lend valid factor constructs of measures including leadership,
organizational commitment, organizational creativity, job satisfaction, learning
transfer, and so on, in both educational and business settings, both profit and
non-profit (e.g. Hernandez, 2000; Joo, 2007; Lim, 2003).
After calculating and comparing the reliability estimates for different constructs of
organizational learning, it was revealed that the reliability estimates for team learning
(a ¼ 0:76) and for empowerment (a ¼ 0:78) were slightly lower than those in most of
the previous studies. After analyzing and examining the data in an item-by-item
fashion, no noticeably insufficient sub-items were detected. The reason might be the
intrinsic differences of culture or contextual perception of the translated questionnaire.
In various parts of organizations in Iran, different attitudes pertain to each section of
the organization flash in the minds of members. Nevertheless, the two lower coefficient DLOQ
estimates could not impact the overall reliability of the scale (a ranges from 0.76 to 0.87
with the overall a ¼ 0:96; respectively).

The necessity for a validated DLOQ in Iran

From the beginning of the twenty-first century, Iranian society has witnessed many
economical, social and political changes. Clearly, the pace of change with respect to 667
social, political and economic environment experienced by many Iranian organizations
has increased the level of complexity needing to be managed. Human resource
management is, as an important part of an organization, affected by general and
international environment (Daft, 2001). For example, in retrospect, traditional human
resource system did not pay enough attention to the skills of the employees and
elevation of knowledge in organizations whereas today, by complying on different
international sanctions, many organizations try to train their employees and
disseminate available knowledge among the clerks.
Iranian organizations, whether public or private, should attempt to leapfrog the
barriers and obstacles to creativity by using participative management system and
delegation of the authority to subordinates (Danaee Fard et al., 2009). In order to
provide on-time, relevant, and accurate information for decision-making, Iranian
organizations need to design organizational total information system, and
organizational and managerial experience documentation systems.
Related research in Iran concerning organizational learning and learning
organizations have all had the objective of using some tools to investigate the
relationships between some subjects and learning in organizations rather than
culturally validating the measurement instruments in an Iranian culture. Since 2007, a
number of organizations, which were governmental, have been sold to the private
sector and are now only being controlled by the government. It has rendered the
promotion of offering better services to the customers. In line with their objective, i.e.
enhancing effective performance, they have paid relatively more attention to
organizational learning and have tried to move toward knowledge management.
This unprecedented study can hence support and corroborate organizational
learning research in Iran through examining the validity and reliability of the DLOQ in
addition to the applicability of the instrument in an Iranian context. We suppose that
the application of this research can help Iranian organizations to successfully apply
learning organization strategies with verified constructs of the learning organization
characteristics.

Methodology
As an outline, in this section, we discuss the sampling and data collection procedure,
and then give details about the applied measurement tool and the method of
translation.

Participants and procedure

The survey used in this study was conducted in 54 governmental, semi-governmental,
and private sector organizations in six major cities of Iran. This research was
conducted through the appreciating cooperation of six professors of management at
the universities of the cities. They were contacted through e-mail and were invited to
IJM help the current research in terms of data collection. After their acceptance, several
32,5/6 translated questionnaires were posted to them. Totally, 900 43-question questionnaires
were sent to the scholars. After two weeks and several reminding calls and e-mails, 625
completed questionnaires were delivered that accounts for approximately 66 percent of
response rate.
As a result, we collected 625 complete cases from 54 Iranian organizations. In the
668 surveyed organizations, 45 percent were governmental; 35 percent belonged to private
sector; and 20 percent were semi-governmental.
In terms of sample frame, approximately 68 percent were men, showing the
preference of Iranian organizations in recruiting. Regarding positions of the members,
about 14 percent were senior managers, 34 percent were middle managers and 52
percent of the participants were non-managers. As for the type of job or function,
around 14 percent were in R&D sections, 81 percent were in general or supporting
management tasks (for instance, planning, human resources, marketing, accounting
and financing). In terms of the kind of industry, almost 45 percent were in oil and gas,
chemical, and heavy industrial areas, 35 percent in IT and media-related occupations
and 20 percent in finance and business. This wide range of industries and
organizations and the variety of organizational positions can render the general
reliability to be higher; consequently, this diversity is acceptable.

The measurement tool

The administered questionnaire for the current research was the original and complete
version of DLOQ, which has been validated in several cultures (Ellinger et al., 2002;
Watkins and Marsick, 2003; Yang et al., 2004; Hernandez, 2000; Zhang et al., 2004; Lien
et al., 2006; Song et al., 2009). Apart from the empirical side of DLOQ, the theoretical
frame has been legible for three main reasons.
First, it has a clear and inclusive definition of the blocks that a learning organization
is made up of. It puts forward the constructs via the cultural perspective and thus
provides adequate measurement domains for scale construction (Yang et al., 2004).
Second, it considers all levels of organizations and scans all groups and societies in an
organization. Redding (1997) reviewed several measurement tools and figured out that
the offered framework by Watkins and Marsick (1996) was among the few that scans
learning at all levels (individuals, teams, organization and global). Third, not only does
this framework identify the main dimensions of the learning organization, but it also
joins them in a theoretical framework by specifying their relationship (Yang et al.,
2004). Last, it has focused on the perspective of action imperatives and therefore has
practical implications (Yang et al., 2004).
Since there were no standard and validated DLOQ in Iran, we made an effort to
translate the questionnaire comprehensively and critically. The DLOQ (Watkins and
Marsick, 2003) has been adapted and translated into Persian through the four steps of
scrupulous translation: forward translation, assessment, backward translation, and
assessment based on the yard sticks of clarity, common language, and cultural
adequacy (Harkness et al., 2003; Presser et al., 2004).
The questionnaire consists of the seven dimensions of a learning organization plus
two factors related to performance. The seven dimensions of learning organization are
categorized into four groups:
 (1) individuals (continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue); DLOQ
(2) teams (team learning);
(3) organization (empowerment, systems capture learning); and
(4) global (strategic leadership and connection to environment).

The study used a Likert-type questionnaire to measure the dimensions of

organizational learning. Responses were provided on a six-point Likert scale that
669
ranged from “almost never true” to “almost always true”. In this research, due to
validation objectives rather than analysis of the relationship between learning and
performance, the administered questionnaire consisted of seven constructs and the
questions of knowledge performance and financial performance were not considered.
To elaborate, the ultimate translated questionnaire was developed in some steps. To
begin, five bilingual scholars, experts in organizational learning, from three of the best
Iranian universities were chosen and asked to review the original English questionnaire
to modify it in terms of statements and format of the survey instrument. Then we asked
a bilingual expert to translate the modified sections into Persian. Eventually, another
expert translated the Persian questionnaire back into English with an aim to revise any
possible inappropriate Persian wordings and translations.

Data analysis approach

At the beginning of our analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to
determine construct validity. Construct validity refers to the extent to which a scale
developer can ensure exactly what the instrument is measuring (e.g. Crocker and
Algina, 1986). Explorative factor analysis was not used because it is used to explore
underlying factors when there is little previous theoretical background for the domain
of interest.
To support or disconfirm the hypothesis, we started our examination by using CFA
(Yang, 2003) to examine the validity and applicability of DLOQ in Iranian culture. As a
support to the utilized approach, Kline (2005, p. 71) contends that “the technique of
CFA analyzes a priori measurement models in which both the number of factors and
their correspondence to the indicators are explicitly specified”. CFA analysis is an
acceptable method to validate the selected measurement tool for three main reasons
(Song et al., 2009):
(1) the measurement of DLOQ is based on a pre-developed theory;
(2) CFA examines the adequacy of item-to-factor associations; and
(3) it examines the construct validity of theoretically offered tool (Hair et al., 2006;
Yang et al., 2004; Thompson, 2004; Thompson and Daniel, 1996).

After CAF, some tests regarding internal consistency, zero-order correlation analysis
and scale reliability were used. Item inter-correlation and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
estimates are the initial steps to examine the proposed items reliability in terms of
internal consistency of the measures (Yang et al., 2004).

Results
Numerous analyses were carried out in order to examine the validity and reliability of
DLOQ in Iranian context. To test the hypothesis, several CFAs according to different
IJM levels of work position, business units were conducted. Besides, various assumptions,
32,5/6 among them normal distribution, general item internal consistency, and item internal
correlation were positively supported.

The results of CFA

In order to confirm the construct validity of the Iranian version of the DLOQ, CFA was
670 used. Statistically, this study selected and juxtaposed several measurement indices to
examine the level of the goodness-of-fit of the particular measurement model. The
absolute fit measurements consists of chi-square (x2) which is the most fundamental
absolute fit index and sensitive to sample size; GFI devised by Jöreskog and Sörbom
(1984), which is less dependent on sample size; adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) which
takes heed of complexity degree of models (Hair et al., 2006). Further applied index is
RMR, which is the root mean square residual observed and estimated covariance and
variance terms ( Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2001). Steiger’s (1990) root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). The incremental fit indices were comparative fit index or
CFI. It indicates the degree of fit between the hypothesized and null measurement
models. Finally, Bentler and Bonnet (1980) proposed the relative fit index (NNFI),
which compares the model being tested to a baseline model (null model).
DLOQ as the hypothesized measurement model consists of seven dimensions
which, totally, has 43 questions. Collectively, all represent the single circumstance of
the learning culture. Statistically, the implication is the DLOQ is a second-order factor
structure that contains two layers of latent construct (Hair et al., 2006). Therefore, the
analysis of two separate simple CFA and a higher-order CFA were carried out
(Table III).
Initially, the acquired chi square ðx2ð625Þ ¼ 695:76=1330.81) of simple and
higher-order CFA are not statistically significant ( p , 0.001), which shows close
model fit with data. Table III shows, according to goodness-to-fit indices, the
measurement model in the Iranian context has a good level of conformity.
In terms of the first-order CFA, all indices of comparative fit (GFI, AGFI, CFI, and
NNFI) have acceptable and in-range figures (all are well above 0.94), indicating a
statistically significant data-model fit. In addition, as for general model fit, a great
portion of the variance and covariance of the learning organization could be justified
by the suggested model with seven dimensions ðGFI ¼ 0:94Þ: Considering residuals,
the small numbers of RMR and RMSEA with 0.032 and 0.046, respectively, can be the
indicators of a suitable model-data fit. These entire figures boil down to the verification
of construct validity in an Iranian culture context.
As a result, although DLOQ, as an organizational learning measurement tool, is
developed in Western countries, its construct validity in Asian context is attained. On

Model df x2 x2 (df) RMR RMSEA GFI AGFI CFI NNFI

54 Items-7 Factors 512 695.76 * * 1.36 0.032 0.046 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.98
7 Factors-1 Construct 512 1330.81 * * 2.60 0.038 0.078 0.90 0.92 0.98 0.98
Table III.
Fit indices for Notes: RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation; RMR ¼ root mean square residual;
measurement models of GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit index; AGFI ¼ adjusted GFI; NNFI ¼ non-normed fit index; CF ¼ comparative
the DLOQ fit index; * *p , 0.01
the other, the results of the higher-order CFA, available in Table III, also produced DLOQ
statistically significant model fit (RMR ¼ 0.038, RMSEA ¼ 0.078, GFI ¼ 0.90 and
CFI ¼ 0.98). Consequently, it is shown that the seven dimensions of the DLOQ are a
one-factor structure measuring the learning organization culture in the Iranian context.
It is compatible with the recent research conducted by Song et al. (2009).
Figure 2 schematically presents the factor loadings of CFA. All factor loadings are
more than 0.89 which helps in the accumulation of reasons to show the measurement 671
model fit of the DLOQ in the Iranian context. Thus the number of misconceptions and
misinterpretations regarding question answering has been in an acceptable range.
In order to gather sufficient evidence to enhance and boost a certain level of
reliability, we carried out two separate CFA analyses according to the demographic
nature (participant’s posts and unit of business). First, data were analyzed based on the
levels of participant positions (non-manager level employees, associate and middle
managers, and executive senior managers). Monitoring the results of separate CFA
analyses, we can conclude that the organizational positions of participants cannot
impair the applicability and construct validity of DLOQ (Table IV).

Figure 2.
Factor loadings of the
DLOQ

Levels df x2 x2 (df ) RMR RMSEA GFI CFI

Non-managers 512 975.76 * 1.91 0.038 0.062 0.94 0.98

Middle Managers 512 855.56 * 1.67 0.041 0.061 0.90 0.99
Senior Manager 512 812.34 * 1.59 0.035 0.058 0.91 0.97 Table IV.
Executive Manager 512 927.67 * 1.81 0.041 0.072 0.87 0.98 Comparison CFA
analysis by different
Note: *p , 0.05 positions at workplace
IJM In the second place, business unit was considered as the second criterion to answer the
32,5/6 question whether business unit is a factor on which model fit depends on (Table V).
The collection of good-to-fit indices does not show any considerable deviance from
the suggested model.

672 Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates

Central limit theorem suggests that the collection of data could be considered to have a
normally distributed shape (Urdan, 2005). Collinearity (or multicollinearity) is the
undesirable situation when one independent variable is a linear function of other
independent variables, which is displayed with VIF (Variation Inflation Factor). It does
not show any multicollinearity among the collected data for the seven dimensions (VIF
rages from 2.33 to 2.56) (Kutner et al., 2004).
As it is shown, all correlations are statistically significant (p , 0.001). According to
Yang et al. (2004), convergent validity of the hypothesized measures is satisfied
through significantly correlated constructs of organizational learning, ranging from
0.54 to 0.77. The range of correlations stipulates that factor discrimination is not
constrained (Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005). Furthermore, the Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha reliability estimates for the seven dimensions of a learning organization have
proved to be acceptable (all were above 0.76) (Table VI). This is the initial step at
measurement of a learning organization, thus the overall reliability estimates were
satisfactory (Yang et al., 2004).
In brief, considering all different undertaken CFA analyzes based on demographic
information, data received from DLOQ lend itself appropriately to the hypothesized
model. Therefore, construct validity is verified in the Iranian context. Consequently,

Business units df x2 x2 (df) RMR RMSEA GFI CFI

Electronics 512 935.76 * 1.83 0.031 0.057 0.93 0.99

IT/communication 512 915.56 * 1.79 0.044 0.074 0.91 0.99
Table V. Heavy industry-related 512 1002.34 * 1.96 0.030 0.062 0.87 0.95
Comparison CFA Finance/trading 512 987.67 * 1.93 0.038 0.073 0.84 0.97
analysis by considering
various business units Note: *p , 0.05

Dimensions Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Continuous learning 3.54 0.76 (0.81)

2. Inquiry and dialogue 3.30 0.66 0.63 * (0.82)
3. Team learning 2.98 0.76 0.67 * 0.54 * (0.76)
4. Embedded system 2.75 0.76 0.58 * 0.51 * 0.67 * (0.82)
5. Empowerment 2.72 0.74 0.56 * 0.36 * 0.68 * 0.54 * (0.78)
6. System connection 2.78 0.75 0.61 * 0.48 * 0.63 * 0.67 * 0.72 * (0.87)
Table VI. 7. Providing leadership 3.04 0.71 0.57 * 0.58 * 0.59 * 0.64 * 0.71 * 0.368 * (0.87)
Descriptive statistics,
correlations, and Notes: N ¼ 625; *p , 0.001; Cronbach’s alphas are shown on the diagonal; the correlation
reliabilities coefficients were calculated using the means of the items from each dimension
the results support the applicability of DLOQ and confirm the validity of the Iranian DLOQ
version of DLOQ.

Discussion
This research study pioneered examining the validity and applicability of the
Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) in an Iranian context to
show whether DLOQ is viable to be used in Iran. In this section we discuss the 673
theoretical and practical implications of the results, point out the limitations of our
study, and put forward further research directions.

Implications for research and practice in HRD

This research answers the fundamental question of “Is DLOQ valid enough to be used
in Iran?”. The answer to this question contributes to the extension of organizational
learning literature, in terms of tool measurement. According to the results, DLOQ is an
appropriate measurement tool for the evaluation of learning organization culture in
Iran. The theoretical implication is that this is the first research validating the DLOQ in
an Iranian context.
Organizational learning as a path toward gaining the competitive advantage should
be pursued by the organizations growing the ambition of prosperity. Therefore,
checking the pulse of an organization in terms of organization learning seems
indispensable at different points of time. Accuracy in assessment is crucial; as a result,
DLOQ is proved to be a reliable measurement tool for different organizations in Iran to
elevate the level of organizational learning through diverse kinds of HRD strategies
such as increasing motivation at work. Organizational practitioners utilize the scores
from an organization with a strong performance as a benchmark to guide their practice
for organizational learning.

Limitations
Looking through the lens of methodology, this research study has several limitations.
First, this study used the same method (self-reporting) in order to collect data that can,
consequently, lead to the inflation of the relationships among variables due to common
method variance. Second, this study did not consider the two performance-related
constructs (knowledge performance and financial performance) as the objective
measurement tools of organization performance. Third, this empirical research has
constrained itself to a cross-sectional survey method, which implies that the causality
among the variables may be the prerequisite of speculation. In line with this,
longitudinal research would substantiate the conclusions of this research.
Furthermore, DLOQ assesses organizational learning at different levels; continuous
learning, system connection and embedded system are at organizational level,
whereas, team learning, empowerment, and dialogue and inquiry are group-level. It can
raise the issue regarding the unit of analysis. Last, the original questionnaire contains
43 questions which entail good concentration to answer. This lengthy list of questions
can inject boredom and indifference in replying; consequently, impair the reliability of
the research. It is recommended to test the short version of DLOQ, which is suggested
and tested by Yang et al. (2004), in Iran, in order to examine its validity and
applicability in an Iranian context.
IJM Recommendation for future research
32,5/6 This study demonstrates that despite the designing and developing of the DLOQ in the
USA, it can be used and applied in an Asian context. This instrument can be used in
conjunction with other validated measurement tools to expand and further research in
the realm of cultural factors, which may impact organizational development. Future
studies may investigate the relationships between organizational learning and other
674 cultural factors such as the effects of trust, ethics and justice on the boost of
organizational learning in Asian contexts.
The collected data in this study were from major cities in Iran, which can raise the
uncertainty in generalizing the results. The culture of people in these cities is
influenced by the size, fame and the large amount of communication between the
employees and managers. In contrast, in smaller cities people hold the traditional view
of “familiarity breeds contempt”, thus, it seems necessary to validate this instrument in
more diverse cities of Iran.

References
Armstrong, A. and Foley, P. (2003), “Foundations for a learning organization: organizational
learning mechanisms”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 74-82.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
covariance structure”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Crocker, L. and Algina, J. (1986), Introduction to Classical And Modern Test Theory, CBS College
Publishing, New York, NY.
Daft, R.L. (2001), Organizational Theory and Design, 7th ed., South Western College Publishing,
Cincinnati, OH.
Danaee Fard, H., Anvari Rostami, A.A. and Taghiloo, H. (2009), “How types of organizational
cultures contribute in shaping learning organizations”, Singapore Management Review,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 49-61.
Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E., Yang, B. and Howton, S.W. (2002), “The relationship between the
learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: an empirical assessment”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Garratt, B. (1987), The Learning Organization, Harper Collins, London.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), “Building a learning organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 78-91.
Goh, S.C. (1998), “Toward a learning organization: the strategic building blocks”, S.A.M.
Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 15-20.
Griego, O., Geroy, G. and Wright, P. (2000), “Predictors of learning organizations: a human
resource development practitioner’s perspective”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 5-12.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harkness, J.A., van de Vijver, F. and Mohler, P.P. (2003), Cross Cultural Survey Methods, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Hernandez, M. (2000), “The impact of the dimensions of the learning organization on the transfer
of tacit knowledge process and performance improvement within private manufacturing
firms in Colombia”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.
Hernandez, M. and Watkins, K.E. (2003), “Translation, validation and adaptation of the Spanish DLOQ
version of the modified dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire”, Human
Resource Development International, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 187-96.
Holton, E.F. (1996), “The flawed four-level evaluation model”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 5.
Holton, E.F. (2005), “Holton’s evaluation model: new evidence and construct elaborations”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 37-54. 675
Holton, E.F., Bates, R.A. and Ruona, W.E.A. (2000), “Development of a generalized learning
transfer system inventory”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 333-60.
Huber, G. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and literature”,
Organization Science, Vol. 2, pp. 88-115.
Jamali, D. and Sidani, Y. (2008), “Learning organizations: diagnosis and measurement in a
developing country context”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 58-74.
Joo, B. (2007), “The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity in
Korean firms”, PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved January 28, 2008,
from the ProQuest Digital Dissertations database (publication AAT 263468).
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1984), “LISREL VI: analysis of linear structural relationships by
maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods (computer
program)”, Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (2001), LISREL 8.50, Scientific Software, Chicago, IL.
Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (2005), “Blue ocean strategy: from theory to practice”, California
Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 105-21.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J. and Neter, J. (2004), Applied Linear Regression Models,
McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Columbus, OH.
Lahteenmaki, S., Toivonen, J. and Mattila, M. (2001), “Critical aspects of organizational learning
research and proposals for its measurement”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12,
pp. 113-29.
Lien, B.Y., Hung, R.Y., Yang, B. and Li, M. (2006), “Is the learning organization a valid concept in
the Taiwanese context?”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 189-203.
Lim, T. (2003), “Relationships among organizational commitment, learning organization culture,
and job satisfaction in one Korean private organization”, unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Lim, D.H. and Morris, M.L. (2006), “Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction,
and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 85-115.
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M. and Friedman, V.J. (2002), “A multi-facet model of organizational
learning”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 78-98.
Moilanen, R. (2005), “Diagnosing and measuring learning organizations”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 71-89.
Ortenblad, A. (2004), “The learning organization: towards an integrated model”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 294-308.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1991), The Learning Company: A Strategy for
Sustainable Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
IJM Presser, S., Rothgeb, J.M., Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E. and Singer, E. (2004), Methods for
Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ.
32,5/6 Redding, J. (1997), “Handwriting the learning organization”, Training and Development, Vol. 51
No. 8, pp. 61-7.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY.
676 Song, J.H., Joo, B.K. and Chermack, T.J. (2009), “The Dimensions of Learning Organization
Questionnaire (DLOQ): a validation study in South Korean context”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1.
Steiger, J.H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation
approach”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25, pp. 173-80.
Thompson, B. (2004), Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts
and Applications, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Thompson, B. and Daniel, L.G. (1996), “Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of
score: a historical overview and some guidelines”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 56, pp. 197-208.
Tsang, E.W.K. (1997), “Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy
between descriptive and prescriptive research”, Human Relations, Vol. 50, pp. 73-89.
Urdan, T.C. (2005), Statistics in Plain English, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1996), In Action: Creating the Learning Organization, American
Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (Eds.) (2003), Making Learning Count! Diagnosing the Learning
Culture in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yang, B. (2003), “Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 152-62.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. and Marsick, V.J. (2004), “The construct of the learning organization:
dimensions, measurement, and validation”, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-55.
Zhang, D., Zhang, Z. and Yang, B. (2004), “Learning organization in mainland China: empirical
research on its application to Chinese state-owned enterprises”, International Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 258-73.

Further reading
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (1999), Facilitating Learning Organization: Making Learning
Count, Gower, Brookfield, VT.

About the author

Mohammad Sadegh Sharifirad gained his MSc degree in Executive Master of Business
Administration from Tehran University in Iran. He is a Professor at Piam Noor University in
Kerman in the Faculty of Industrial Engineering. His research interests include leadership,
organizational learning and psychological safety. Mohammad Sadegh Sharifirad can be
contacted at: ili_teacher@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.