Lopez 2006

Management Learning
http://mlq.sagepub.com/
Human Resource Management as a Determining Factor in Organizational Learning

Susana Pérez López, José Manuel Montes Peón and Camilo José Vazquez Ordás
Management Learning 2006 37: 215
DOI: 10.1177/1350507606063443
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/37/2/215
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Management Learning can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://mlq.sagepub.com/content/37/2/215.refs.html
>> Version of Record - May 24, 2006
What is This?
Downloaded from mlq.sagepub.com at NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIV on April 10, 2014
Management Learning
Copyright © 2006 Sage Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi
http://mlq.sagepub.com
Vol. 37(2): 215–239
1350–5076
Susana Pérez López, José

Manuel Montes Peón and
Camilo José Vazquez Ordás
University of Oviedo, Spain
Human Resource Management as a

Determining Factor in Organizational
Learning
Abstract The role of human resource management in learning organizations has been
discussed by a number of researchers. It is suggested that some of the more traditional
personnel functions of HR practitioners may be tailored to encourage a focus on learning
and thus to help achieve organizational goals. However, there is a lack of empirical studies
that explore the relationship between human resource management and organizational
learning. This article aims to address this shortcoming. More specifically, the purpose of
this article is to analyse the relation between four human resources practices (hiring,
training, compensation and decision-making) and organizational learning. The hypoth-
eses proposed were tested on a sample of 195 Spanish companies using the structural
equation modelling technique. The results support that selective hiring, strategic training
and employee participation in decision-making positively influence organizational learn-
ing. Key Words: contingent compensation; employee participation in decision-making;
human resource management; organizational learning; selective hiring; strategic training
At present we find ourselves in a competitive environment characterized by market
globalization, greater complexity and increasing changes, which reinforces the
need for flexibility and differentiation in firms. Consequently, traditional sources
of competitive advantage such as subsidized markets, physical and financial assets
and even technology have been pushed into the background in favour of
knowledge, since they tend to be increasingly easily available to everyone on equal
terms, in open markets.
In order to survive and obtain advantages in this environment, companies need
to be able to innovate and assimilate new knowledge, allowing them to take a
different approach. Learning and creativity become necessary in order to guarantee
the sustainability of competitive advantage (Ulrich et al., 1993). Being aware of this,
DOI: 10.1177/1350507606063443
216 Management Learning 37(2)
many companies build technical infrastructures that allow the retrieval and distribu-
tion of knowledge, while at the same time concentrating on aspects such as strategy,
quality control and stock control (Von Krogh et al., 1997). However, the reason why
many companies fail is due to their excessive focus on technical problems at the
expense of human resources (Cross and Israelit, 2000; Ruggles, 1998).
The role of human resource management in learning organizations has been
discussed by a number of researchers (e.g. Kamoche and Mueller, 1998; Probst
and Büchel, 1997). It is suggested that some of the more traditional personnel
functions of HR practitioners may be tailored to encourage a focus on learning
and thus to help achieve organizational goals. An emphasis on employee commit-
ment to core organizational values has been at the heart of many of the specific
innovations of human resource management practices introduced over recent
years. Many authors signal the importance of employees being directly involved
in the decision-making processes and being paid on the basis of their willingness
to assume risks and to share knowledge (Garvin, 1993; Goh and Richards, 1997;
Nonaka, 1991; Snell et al., 1996; Ulrich et al., 1993). Likewise, training and
selective hiring oriented to attract people with creative ideas and a desire to
share learning have also been highlighted as strategies that promote flexibility
and cohesion among employees, both of which are particularly relevant in learn-
ing organizations.
However, the way in which human resource management is related to organiza-
tional learning is a research problem that has not been sufficiently covered in the
literature. Although several works highlight the positive effects of certain HR prac-
tices on learning, there is a lack of empirical studies that explore this relation.
Thus the aim of this article is to analyse the relation between human resource
management and organizational learning. Specifically, how selective hiring, strate-
gic training, employee participation and contingent compensation contribute to
the generation of organizational learning. First, we analyse the concept of
organizational learning, attempting to clarify this conceptually confusing area. We
then propose and test several hypotheses about the relation between HR practices
and organizational learning, using data collected from 195 Spanish firms. Finally,
our findings and the implications for future research are discussed.
Organizational Learning
For over 30 years, research on organizational learning has contributed significantly

to the development of organizational theory and the change in strategic manage-
ment. Moreover, this research has increased very rapidly over the past 10 years
(Sadler-Smith et al., 2001). The contributions of the resource-based view of the
firm and the approach based on knowledge management suggest that competitive
advantage arises as a result of the abilities and capabilities of the company. Thus
learning becomes a fundamental strategic aspect (Bueno and Salmador, 2003; Lei
et al., 1999). But in spite of the increasing interest in this subject, providing a
definition of the concept of organizational learning is difficult. This is due to the
fact that this subject has been studied by several disciplines and from various
approaches (Easterby-Smith, 1997; Tsang, 1997). For example, with respect to the
existence of organizational learning, Huber (1991) assumes that an organization
Pérez López et al.: Human Resource Management in Organizational Learning 217
learns if any of its units acquire knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful
to the organization. Nevis et al. (1995) define organizational learning as the
capacity or processes within an organization to maintain or improve performance
based on its experience. Klimencki and Lassleben (1998) describe organizational
learning as the changes in organizational knowledge that are induced by informa-
tion processing and that enable an organization to find new ways of surviving and
succeeding in new situations. And Sadler-Smith et al. (2001) see organizational
learning as the development or acquisition of new knowledge or skills in response
to internal or external stimuli that leads to a more or less permanent change in
collective behaviour, enhancing organizational effectiveness.
Although these definitions vary in their description of organizational learning,
the consensus seems to be to treat organizational learning as a process by which
new knowledge or insight is developed by a firm (Chiva and Alegre, 2005).
Therefore, from a managerial perspective we define organizational learning as a
dynamic process of creation, acquisition and integration of knowledge aimed at
developing the resources and capabilities that allow the organization to achieve a
better performance.
One of our assumptions is that organizational learning is a process to improve
the development of the organization by means of new initiatives (technological,
productive or commercial). This requires a move from simply putting more
knowledge into databases to levering the many ways that knowledge can migrate
into an organization and impact business performance (Cross and Baird, 2000;
Davenport and Prusak, 1998). If organizational learning 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).
Argyris and Schön (1978) emphasize double-loop learning (generative) as an
important level of learning, in contrast to single-loop learning (corrective), which
they have found to be more common. Similarly, Senge (1990) makes a highly
persuasive case for generative learning compared to adaptive learning, which he
sees as more prevalent. The governing values of double-loop learning—valid
information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment to the choice
and constant monitoring of its implementation—ensure the continuation of
inquiry by reducing the likelihood of disruptive self-sealing ‘defensive routines’
(Naot et al., 2004). This approach does not negate the value of everyday
incremental ‘fixes’, instead it provides a more complete model for observing and
developing organizational learning (Nevis et al., 1995). After periods of significant
discontinuous change, incremental adaptive learning may be just the thing to help
consolidate transformational or generative learning.
Another assumption is that the individual plays a fundamental role in the
development of organizational learning. Individuals have the ability and the
opportunity both to reach conclusions about important notions connected with
their jobs and to communicate such notions to others (Shipton et al., 2002). The
interaction of individuals through certain media or instruments creates new
knowledge and adds to the pool of organizational knowledge that acts as the
engine of the organization’s growth and learning capability (Tempest, 2003; Yahya
and Goh, 2002). Management initiatives must help individuals learn more
effectively and also attend to the social processes that shape how knowledge
becomes actionable in such contexts as cross-functional teams or communities of
practice (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Gherardi and Nicolini, 2002; Swan et al., 2002;
Tsoukas, 2002).
And the last assumption made is that the learning process has identifiable
stages. Several authors have studied the process of organizational learning in order
to define its stages or dimensions. Huber (1991) has developed a model of
organizational learning emphasizing the importance of three processes: knowledge
acquisition, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization. In a similar way, Slater
and Narver (1995) and Tippins and Sohi (2003) consider that organizational
learning consists of four dimensions: information acquisition, information dissem-
ination, shared interpretation and development of organizational memory. Follow-
ing these authors, we conceptualize organizational learning in the following
dimensions:
1 knowledge acquisition, which due to its distinctive characteristics can be subdivided

into external and internal knowledge acquisition;
2 distribution, by means of which knowledge is spread among the members of the
organization;
3 interpretation, in which individuals share and incorporate aspects of their
knowledge that are not common to all of them, thereby achieving shared
understanding as well as coordinating the decision-making; and
4 organizational memory, which tries to store knowledge for future use, either in
organizational systems designed for this purpose or in the form of rules,
procedures and other systems.
Most studies of organizational learning have been concerned with the acquisi-
tion of knowledge, or—to a lesser extent—with the sharing or distribution of the
acquired knowledge (Walsh and Ungson, 1991). Less is known about the assimila-
tion process, the stage in which individual and group learning is embedded into
the non-human aspects of the organization, including its systems, structures,
procedures and strategy (Bounfour, 2003; Nevis et al., 1995). Organizational memory
is also much in need of systematic investigation, particularly by those whose special
concerns are improving organizational learning and decision-making.
All these characteristics make it clear that the learning process in a firm will be a
very wide-ranging one, involving the obtaining of knowledge from the existing
organization, the combining of knowledge, data or previous experience, and the
generation of new uses for the resources (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
The Link between Human Resource Management and Organizational

Learning
As already discussed, individuals play a fundamental role in the development of

organizational learning, since the organization would not exist without them.
Therefore, HR systems may contribute to the capacity of the organization to learn,
by facilitating the development of organization-specific competencies that result in
complex social relationships based on the company’s history and culture, and
generate tacit organizational knowledge (Barney, 1992; Reed and DeFillipi, 1990;
Wright and McMahan, 1992). Hence there are a number of HR activities that are
particularly relevant to the promotion of learning as a core activity.
Using literature relevant to human resource management and organizational
learning as a starting point, this article analyses the relation between four HR
practices (hiring, training, compensation and decision-making) and organizational
learning.
Selective Hiring
A central concern of human resource management, especially in relation to
organizational learning, is the recruitment and retention of valued employees
(Davenport, 2000). The importance of managing the employment relationship
such that it generates value-added knowledge for the organization has an obvious
link to hiring (Ulrich and Lake, 1990; Wayland and Cole, 1997).
Organizations need to attract new employees who will contribute to the learning
of the company through their abilities and values (Armstrong, 1995). Where
organizations have identified a particular need or a gap in expertise, recruitment
schemes can target new employees to fit such requirements. Competency profiles
are instrumental in this regard, in that they tell hiring managers what knowledge,
skills, abilities and other attributes applicants should possess to be successful once
hired. It is usually quite easy to determine whether a job applicant has the
necessary technical or professional competencies to perform well on the job. What
is more difficult to gauge, however, is whether a particular applicant has the
necessary level of initiative or ability to work effectively with others as a member of
a team or to provide regular coaching and mentoring. These ‘softer’ competencies
are more subjective in nature and are therefore more difficult to measure
(Lapierre and McKay, 2002). Nevertheless, they are no less important to success on
the job. Indeed, a great deal of research suggests that the degree of cultural fit and
value congruence between job applicants and their organizations significantly
predict both subsequent turnover and job performance (Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly
et al., 1991). DiBella et al. (1996) and Williams (2001) point out that companies
that are orientated towards learning should emphasize the selection of individuals
with appropriate cultural and linguistic backgrounds to support knowledge
management activities. Appropriate diversity should encourage individuals and
teams to operate autonomously and in a non-uniform manner, while at the same
time ensuring that their activities are aligned with the underlying values and vision
of the organization as a whole (Gardiner et al., 2001).
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Selective hiring practices have positive effects on learning.
Training
Training is considered to be one of the most significant HR practices for the
organizational learning process (DiBella et al., 1996; McGill and Slocum, 1993;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1993). Therefore, with this in mind it is
necessary to identify the changes that have taken place in this area in the last few
years. The individual plays a more active role in defining his or her own training
objectives, and attempts to match them to company objectives. The focus of

human resource training is placed on developing people who are capable of
tapping internal and external information and turning it into useful organiza-
tional knowledge. Thus training programmes should not be conceived solely in
terms of skill construction that implies immediate improvements in the carrying
out of tasks, but should rather be analysed from a wider viewpoint (Gómez et al.,
2004). Kamoche and Mueller (1998) consider that training should be orientated
towards developing a culture of commitment to learning. Training would show the
employees and managers how the entire knowledge management framework is
linked to the company’s strategy. A clear understanding of the company’s mission
and values would help ensure a right direction for the learning processes
(acquisition, distribution, interpretation and organizational memory).
Likewise, strategic training should be seen also as a fundamental tool that
facilitates communication among employees, by providing a common language
and a shared vision. On the one hand, these programmes favour the sharing of
ideas and best practices, avoiding the stagnation of the knowledge stored in the
organizational routines and culture and helping to instil a common understanding
(Leonard-Barton, 1992; Ulrich et al., 1993). On the other hand, they favour the
acquisition and constant generation of new knowledge and skills, improving the
level of openness to new ideas (DiBella et al., 1996; Garvin, 1993; Lei et al., 1999;
Leonard-Barton, 1992). Thus training promotes flexibility, contributing towards
improving the necessary critical skills to respond effectively to competitive
challenges (Ulrich et al., 1993).
From such arguments we can formulate the following hypothesis:
H2: Strategic training significantly improves organizational learning.
Compensation and Reward

Pay systems have traditionally been linked to holding a certain type of job.
However, organizational learning literature draws attention to the need to go
further than the explicit job description, and to establish a different form of
compensation system that reinforces the experimentation and transfer of knowl-
edge (Lei et al., 1999; Lepak and Snell, 1999). Reward and incentives should
reinforce a risk-taking attitude in order to promote creativity in daily problem
solving (Garvin, 1993; Goh and Richards, 1997; Snell et al., 1996; Ulrich et al.,
1993; Yahya and Goh, 2002). They should also stimulate knowledge exchange and
sharing among group members (Pil and MacDuffie, 1996; Yahya and Goh, 2002).
Since the number of team-based activities is increasing, competitive pay systems
that are based on individual rewards could discourage the exchange of knowledge,
limiting the effectiveness of the measures taken to enhance knowledge transfer
(Lei et al., 1999; Quinn et al., 1996). Group-based incentives reinforce cooperation
between members, improving the dissemination, transfer and integration of
knowledge (Leonard-Barton, 1992; McGill and Slocum, 1993).
On the other hand, organizations are now beginning to use alternative types of
reward—‘incentives-in-kind’ instead of purely financial remuneration. Pedler et al.
(1997) point out that money is not necessarily the only, or indeed the most valued,
incentive, and that for a proportion of employees a wide variety of rewards might
be considered equally valuable. Pfeffer (1998) suggests some policies and practices
that are focused on retaining employees: prizes, certificates of recognition,
learning opportunities or promotion. Likewise, Hogg and Terry (2000) maintain
that publicizing achievements can provide the greatest incentive to ambitious
employees; public praise for their efforts is often more highly valued than the
award itself.
Therefore, based on this analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Contingent compensation positively influences learning.
Employee Participation
Much of the literature on learning-oriented organizations recommends a high
level of participation and it can be argued that employee involvement, commit-
ment and job satisfaction are all prerequisites for organizational learning. Indeed,
Marquardt and Reynolds (1994) identify ‘empowerment’ as one of the essential
elements in learning organizations. Empowered people possess a sense of power
and authority that incentivizes them to innovate and explore new possibilities
(Yahya and Goh, 2002). It may be claimed that without a significant level of
participation, individual members in an organization have neither the opportunity
nor the motivation for individual learning that may, in turn, lead to organizational
learning (Dixon, 1994).
Although the advantages of participation are heavily emphasized by a number of
writers, the offer of greater power to workers is not always welcome, particularly in
older organizations with a hierarchical structure. In an already uncertain environ-
ment employees may be understandably reluctant to assume responsibility for
decision-making or outcomes (Plunkett and Fournier, 1991). Some managers
similarly mistrust greater employee participation, fearing a lack of control or
perhaps worrying that power sharing might erode their own positions. In
summary, certain conditions exist that affect the success of participative manage-
ment, and unless these conditions are managed skilfully, an attempt at partici-
pative management may fail (Nykodym et al., 1994).
But in order to realize the potential of individual, collective and organizational
learning, it is essential that employees are granted a significant level of power and
authority over their work (Vera and Crossan, 2004). Where workers play a passive
role in the organization, it is probably unrealistic for managers to expect them to
contribute creative ideas or knowledge to help achieve organizational objectives
(Gardiner et al., 2001).
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Employee participation has a positive effect on organizational learning.
Methodology
Sample and Data Collection

Survey methodology has been used for the empirical analysis. The sampling
universe was the Dun & Bradstreet database of companies operating in Spain, and
the sampling frame was set to include only companies whose personnel count
exceeded 200. Companies with fewer than 200 employees were not included in the
sample because they do not usually have a formalized learning process (Lei et al.,
1999; Tsang, 1997). Data were solicited from a population of 2740 Spanish firms,
through a structured questionnaire dispatched to the managing director. Manag-
ing directors had been identified as appropriate key respondents based on two
criteria: (a) possession of sufficient knowledge; and (b) adequate level of
involvement with regard to the issues under investigation (Campbell, 1955).
A number of approaches were used to ensure response quality and to enhance
the response rate. These collectively constitute a modified version of Dillman’s
(1978) ‘total design method’. More specifically, the process was organized as
follows: first, the research instrument was pre-tested twice. In its draft form, it
underwent a pre-test with managing directors from four companies. A second pre-
test was conducted after in-depth discussions with academics and questionnaire
design experts. This second pre-test was conducted in six firms, for two of which
in-depth case studies were developed. After some minor modifications, the final
questionnaire was mailed to managing directors together with a letter explaining
the purpose of the study and assuring anonymity. Further, given the low response
rates associated with organizational research, all respondents were promised a
complementary summary of the results. Five weeks after the initial mailing, we
sent a follow-up mailing that included the same material as the first.
A total of 215 surveys were returned, with a response rate of 7.8 percent. This
rate is neither as high as in US or UK studies nor out of line with comparable
survey-based studies of HR practices or organizational learning in Spain, such as
those by Ordoñez (2002), Ordiz and Fernández (2003) and Prieto and Revilla
(2004), whose response rates were 6.5 percent, 4.18 percent and 10.5 percent,
respectively. Of these 215 surveys, eight had over 80 percent of values missing, so
we decided to eliminate them, following the complete case approach described in
Hair et al. (1998), and 12 surveys had serious internal inconsistencies, so these
were also eliminated.
To check the representativeness of the sample, we compared the sample and the
population in terms of two criteria: the company size (we considered three levels,
between 200 and 1000 employees, between 1000 and 5000 employees and over
5000 employees) and the sector of activity (we differentiated between industrial
companies, financial companies and non-financial service companies). The test
(chi-square) has shown there are no significant differences between the sample
and the population (size χ2 = 2.826, d.f. = 2, p = 0.234; sector 2 = 2.957, d.f. = 2,
p = 0.227). We also examined whether there were any differences in the means of
all the variables used in this study between early and late respondents. The
rationale behind such an analysis is that the late respondents (i.e. sample firms in
the second wave) are more similar to the general population than the early
respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). These comparisons did not reveal
any significant differences, indicating that non-response bias was not a serious
issue in this study.
Measures
As described earlier, a research instrument was developed to serve as the basis for
collecting data pertaining to organizational learning and HR practices using self-
typing measures, a well accepted practice in strategy research. All constructs were
measured using a multiple five-point Likert scale with response options ranging
from 1 = ‘Strongly Disagree’ to 5 = ‘Strongly Agree’ (see Appendix).
Organizational Learning
Empirical research into organizational learning has not yet reached maturity.
While internal knowledge acquisition, external knowledge acquisition, distribu-
tion, interpretation and organizational memory were discussed in the literature as
components of organizational learning, no scales were available to assess these
constructs. Prior scales have focused only on certain aspects of learning such as
information acquisition and shared understanding. Thus an original scale had to
be engineered, based on theoretical contributions from organizational learning
literature and extensive discussion with academic and managing directors during
the pre-testing phase of questionnaire development. Moreover, in order to develop
a survey that was as comprehensive as possible, items from other reliable
instruments were also reviewed. More specifically:
• Knowledge acquisition: As noted previously, knowledge may be acquired from the

experience of others or through direct experience. Learning from others
encompasses common practices such as benchmarking, networking, making
strategic alliances and working with customers. Measures of external knowledge
acquisition were adapted from Nonaka et al. (1994) and reflect these practices
very closely. On the other hand, measures of internal knowledge acquisition or
experimentation were derived and adapted from Goh and Richards (1997). The
scale asks questions on the extent to which new work methods and innovative
processes are supported and encouraged.
• Knowledge distribution may occur through liaison positions, integration roles, face-
to-face contact in meetings or utilization of information technology to create an
organizational bulletin board. So, based on Nonaka et al. (1994), we selected six
items that aim to assess the extent to which organizations have developed
knowledge distribution mechanisms.
• Interpretation: Measures of this construct were derived and adapted from Nonaka
et al. (1994), Hult and Ferrel (1997) and Bontis et al. (2002). The scale assesses
elements such as effective conflict resolution, working in teams and enactive
liaison activities.
• Organizational memory: The theoretical domain for these scale items was based on
Huber (1991) and Walsh and Ungson (1991). The scale developed comprises
nine items that reflect the consignment or retention of experiences and
information to memory and the retrieval or recovery of previous experiences
that are stored in the memory.
Human Resource Practices The underlying theory suggests that selective hiring is
characterized by emphasizing attributes that are difficult to change through
training, screening for cultural fit, use of internal channels for recruitment to
promotional positions and promoting the contracting of permanent staff. So,
based on studies by MacDuffie (1995), Wood and Albanese (1995) and Pfeffer
(1998), we selected four items that reflect these theoretical facets very closely.
Measures of strategic training were derived from Pfeffer (1998) and Yahya and
Goh (2002). The scale asks questions regarding the extent to which training
programmes involve all company personnel, the extent to which training is offered
to employees throughout their working life and also the extent to which training
focuses on generalist competencies and organizational culture. The operationaliza-
tion of contingent compensation is rooted in Osterman (1994), Hale and Bailey
(1998) and Yahya and Goh (2002). We used two items that measure the extent to
which the compensation is mixed—fixed and variable—and the extent to which
the company offers incentives to its employees related to this performance. Finally,
the participation of employees is measured by three items based on McClelland
(1985) and Roche (1999). That is, employees’ participation in decision making,
sharing of information on items such as financial performance and strategic
measures and level of personnel empowerment in the firm.
Analysis and Results
Validation of the Proposed Constructs

It is well known that when survey research is not properly conducted it can
provide misleading results, with measurement errors representing one of the most
significant sources of bias. While, however, measurement errors are almost
inevitable, the extent to which they affect the findings is a function of what
particular efforts (a priori) and checks (a posteriori) have been undertaken to
minimize and assess the potential bias.
On this account construct validation is particularly relevant. In effect it involves
a multifaceted process comprising two basic steps. The first—content validity—
which requires the identification of a group of measurement items deemed to
represent the construct of interest. And the second step—construct validity—
which seeks to establish the extent to which the empirical indicators actually
measure the construct.
Content Validity Most of the scales employed have been adopted from existing
literature and validated scales used in the extant literature, as well as from in-depth
discussions with academics and managing directors during the pre-testing phase of
questionnaire development. Moreover, as described in the sample and data
collection section, considerable efforts were made during the field-based validation
of the research instrument to ensure content validity by establishing relevance with
practice and eliminating wording problems (such as biased, ambiguous, in-
appropriate or double-meaning items).
Construct Validity To establish construct validity, a series of empirical tests was used
to examine the measurement properties of the indicators, namely unidimension-
ality, reliability and validity (see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, factor
correlations and reliabilities). After purifying the initial scales through exploratory
factor analysis and item-to-total correlations, we tested the construct validity of our
measures by employing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equa-
tion modelling (EQS) (Bentler, 1995). Unlike the traditional and more commonly
used exploratory factor analysis (EFA), CFA contains inferential statistics that allow
for hypothesis testing regarding the construct validity of a set of measures, leading
Pérez López et al.: Human Resource Management in Organizational Learning
Table 1 Factor correlations, means, standard deviations and reliabilities

Mean SD Reliability A.EXTERNAL A.INTERNAL DISTRIBUT INTERPRET MEMORY HIRING TRAINING COMPENSAT PARTICIPAT
A.EXTERNAL 3.611 0.754 0.696 1.000

A.INTERNAL 3.600 0.836 0.840 0.420** 1.000
DISTRIBUT 3.437 0.771 0.772 0.295** 0.464** 1.000
INTERPRET 3.420 0.738 0.822 0.407** 0.520** 0.706** 1.000
MEMORY 3.702 0.700 0.844 0.255** 0.458** 0.524** 0.430** 1.000
HIRING 3.835 0.740 0.705 0.104 0.180* 0.360** 0.443** 0.197** 1.000
TRAINING 3.888 0.709 0.604 0.232** 0.129 0.270** 0.326** 0.159* 0.262** 1.000
COMPENSAT 3.359 0.857 0.885 0.227** 0.395** 0.488** 0.495** 0.307** 0.402** 0.181* 1.000
PARTICIPAT 3.466 1.248 0.775 0.224** 0.211** 0.251** 0.300** 0.133 0.262** 0.206** 0.257** 1.000
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
225
to a stricter and more objective interpretation of validity than EFA (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988).
As far as unidimensionality is concerned, two sets of statistics were used for the
verification of the unidimensionality hypothesis:1 (1) the significance of the factor
loadings; that is, the estimated correlation between a particular item and the latent
construct it represents, and (2) the overall acceptability of the measurement
model in terms of the model’s fit to the data. In our case, the first-order
measurement model of human resource practices exhibits acceptable model fit,
and all item-to-construct loadings are statistically significant, supporting the
unidimensionality of the scale used (see Table 2).
To confirm dimensionality of the organizational learning, second and third-
order confirmatory factor models were run, following Nonaka et al. (1994). A
second-order model was estimated to test whether external knowledge acquisition
and internal knowledge acquisition are affected by the higher-order construct
knowledge acquisition. And a third-order model is based on a hierarchical
structure in which the dimensions obtained from the second-order factor analysis
(knowledge acquisition, knowledge distribution, interpretation and organizational
memory) are viewed as factors that are presumed to be caused by organizational
learning. The results for the estimated models can be found in Table 2. If we
compare these models using Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) and the
Consistent Akaike’s Information Criterion (CAIC), both parsimonious goodness-of-
fit measures, we find that the best model would be the second-order one. However,
the differences are not very important, particularly if we consider the CAIC, for
which the differences between the second- and third-order models are minimal.
On the other hand, analysing the rest of the results obtained we find that the
loadings of the second-order factors on the third-order factor were all high and
significant at p < .001, and the comparative fit index (CFI) exceeded the
recommended norm of 0.9. This indicates a good model fit and confirms the scale
dimensionality. Hence, although the parsimonious goodness-of-fit measures are
slightly worse in the third-order model, we consider that the results as a whole, as
well as the theoretical bases, support the selection of this model. Confirmatory
factor analysis was also used to establish convergent validity by confirming that all
scale items loaded significantly on their hypothesized construct factors (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988).
With respect to reliability, we computed the composite reliability estimates
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981), which are directly analogous to the commonly used
coefficient alpha statistics. As shown in Table 1, all composite reliability coeffi-
cients exceed the recommended minimum value of 0.6 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
This result provides confidence that items used for measurement of the latent
constructs are internally consistent.
In order to test the discriminant validity, we first checked whether the latent
correlation between any two constructs plus/minus twice the standard error
included 1.0. (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). If this were not so, it would prove
that the correlation between the dimensions is significantly far from 1, and that
consequently the dimensions do represent different concepts. The results obtained
(see Table 3) support discriminant validity. A second approach for testing the
discriminant hypothesis compares two CFA models: one in which the correlation
of a pair of latent variables is constrained to equal 1.0, and another in which the
Table 2 Measures and test of unidimensionality

Measures Factor loadings (t-student)
Organizational learning
First order measurement model
V1←A. External 0.65 (9.144)
V3←A. External 0.60 (8.893)
V4←A. External 0.63 (9.042)
V6←A. External 0.53 (7.766)
V7←A. Internal 0.74 (13.164)
V8←A. Internal 0.87 (16.318)
V9←A. Internal 0.78 (13.751)
V10←Distribution 0.59 (9.280)
V16←Interpretation 0.63 (8.689)
V22← Memory 0.59 (9.112)
V23← Memory 0.53 (6.696)
V24← Memory 0.56 (6.905)
V26← Memory 0.69 (9.408)
V27← Memory 0.75 (9.209)
V28← Memory 0.58 (8.908)
V29← Memory 0.70 (10.345)
V30← Memory 0.71 (10.755)
Second order factor model

A. Internal← Acquisition 0.67 (5.658)
A. External← Acquisition 0.80 (8.684)
Third order factor model

Acquisition← Organizational Learning 0.81 (3.758)
Distribution← Organizational Learning 0.95 (8.524)
Interpretation← Organizational Learning 0.93 (8.091)
Organizational Memory← Organizational Learning 0.61 (6.838)
Model Summary Statistics

First-order model: S-Bχ2 = 352.358, d.f. = 265, (p < 0.001); Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) =
0.061; Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI) = 0.912; CFI = 0.922; AIC = –126.39; CAIC = –1258.73
Second-order model: S-Bχ2 = 365.500, d.f. = 268, (p < 0.001); RMSR = 0.059; NNFI = 0.912; CFI
= 0.921; AIC = –128.24; CAIC = –1273.40
Third-order model: S-Bχ2 = 366.781, d.f. = 270, (p < 0.001); RMSR = 0.067; NNFI = 0.906; CFI =
0.915; AIC = –119.68; CAIC = –1273.39
All first, second and third-order loadings are significant at p < 0.01
Table 2 Continued
Measures Factor loadings (t-student)
Human resource practices
First order measurement model
V31←Hiring 0.58 (6.944)
V32←Hiring 0.72 (8.256)
V33←Hiring 0.46 (5.900)
V34←Hiring 0.68 (9.963)
V35←Training 0.69 (7.010)
V36←Training 0.44 (4.315)
V37←Training 0.60 (5.486)
V38←Compensation 0.84 (11.708)
V39←Compensation 0.94 (12.792)
V40←Participation 0.61 (9.327)
Model summary statistics:
S-Bχ2 = 53.801, d.f. = 48, (p = 0.261); RMSR = 0.059; NNFI = 0.971; CFI = 0.979
All first, second and third-order loadings are significant at p < 0.01
correlation is free to vary (Venkatraman, 1989). A significant lower chi-squared

value for the unconstrained model provides support for discriminant validity. As
shown in Table 3, all model comparisons support the discriminant validity of our
measures. Finally discriminant validity was assessed using a method proposed by
Fornell and Larcker (1981). They suggest that the squared correlation between
any two constructs should be less than the variance extracted by either of the
individual constructs. This criterion is fulfilled in all cases except for the
distribution and interpretation constructs, for which the Fornell and Larcker
criterion is violated. However, since two of the criteria employed support dis-
criminant validity and also in view of the theoretical interest of the items included
in the scales, we have decided not to modify them.
In any case, the results need to be interpreted with care, bearing in mind that
although the distribution and interpretation constructs represent different dimen-
sions from the theoretical perspective, they are strongly correlated, and some prob-
lems of discriminant validity between the scales used to measure them may exist.
Hypothesis Testing
The hypotheses were tested by structural equation modelling using EQS version
5.7a. This analysis enables us to examine the relations between selective hiring,
strategic training, contingent compensation, employee participation in decision-
making, and organizational learning. We first estimated a model including all the
items on the scales, but the model had two problems: on the one hand, the
number of parameters to estimate was very high compared to the sample size; and
on the other, the global fit was not particularly good (CFI = 0.88; Normed Fit
Index (NFI) = 0.72; NNFI = 0.87; RMSR = 0.07). So we opted instead to use a
methodology that is frequently used in the literature (Bell and Menguc, 2002;
Table 3 Discriminant validity test

Correlation coefficients
Organizational learning χ2 (d.f. = 266)
Acquisition External—Acquisition 0.55 (0.400; 0.692) 441.084 (p* < .001)
Internal
Acquisition External—Distribution 0.41 (0.234; 0.578) 421.852 (p < .001)
Acquisition External—Interpretation 0.54 (0.396; 0.692) 439.754 (p < .001)
Acquisition External—Memory 0.32 (0.144; 0.488) 415.293 (p < .001)
Acquisition Internal—Distribution 0.60 (0.472; 0.714) 455.643 (p < .001)
Acquisition Internal—Interpretation 0.63 (0.519; 0.715) 467.985 (p < .001)
Acquisition Internal—Memory 0.52 (0.395; 0.655) 446.578 (p < .001)
Distribution—Interpretation 0.89 (0.820; 0.968) 541.527 (p < .001)
Distribution—Memory 0.62 (0.501; 0.745) 461.555 (p < .001)
Interpretation—Memory 0.50 (0.360; 0.632) 440.253 (p < .001)
Base model (unconstrained) χ2 = 403.607 (d.f. = 265)
Human resource practices χ2 (d.f. = 49)
Hiring—Training 0.39 (0.204; 0.592) 74.881 (p < .001)
Hiring—Participation 0.56 (0.418; 0.710) 101.273 (p < .001)
Hiring—Compensation 0.37 (0.210; 0.530) 79.568 (p < .001)
Training—Participation 0.25 (0.056; 0.444) 69.406 (p = 0.005)
Training—Compensation 0.28 (0.102; 0.462) 70.131 (p = 0.003)
Participation—Compensation 0.35 (0.197; 0.501) 79.217 (p < .001)
Base model (unconstrained) χ2 = 61.308 (d.f. = 48)
* Denotes the significance of χ2 differences between the constrained and unconstrained model.
Hibbard et al., 2001; Iglesias, 2004; Spreng et al., 1996) when the models include
multidimensional scales with a large number of items. The attributes for each of
the organizational learning constructs were combined into a single index. The
indices were created as an average of the indicators resulting from the confirma-
tory factor analysis. Each dimension of organizational learning was represented in
the structural modelling by a construct with a single item, and this item was the
index corresponding to this dimension. The error term of the items were set equal
to the scale variance times 1 minus the reliability; thus the reliability of the
constructs is fixed at the value of the composite reliability coefficients calculated in
the previous confirmatory factor analysis. On the other hand, the constructs
measuring the HR practices were operationalized in the structural equation model
with all their indicators, just as they were in the confirmatory factor analysis. The
specific model that was evaluated is depicted in Figure 1. This figure sets out the
fit indices, the variance explained by the model (R2), the standardized path
coefficients (β) and the t-values.
The overall model demonstrates an acceptable fit. Although the Satorra–Bentler
statistic is significant (S–Bχ2 = 145.918, d.f. = 108, p = 0.008), considerable
discussion has taken place in the structural equation modelling literature concern-
ing the validity of this test as an index of model fit due to its sensitivity to the
sample size. As a result, a number of complementary fit indexes have been
proposed that reflect the improvement in fit of a specified model that includes
fixed and free parameters, over the independence model, in which all parameters
Figure 1 Representative model of the relationships between human resource practices and
organizational learning
V31 0.58
V32 0.70
HIRING
V33 0.45
A. INTERNAL
0.70 0.65
V34
0.57 0.39 0.19 ACQUISITION
(1.970)
0.37
0.84
V35 0.65 A. EXTERNAL
0.78
V36 0.44 TRAINING R2=0.56
0.23 DISTRIBUTION
(2.724) 0.93
0.64
V37
ORGANIZATIONAL
0.28 LEARNING
0.06
(0.937) 0.96
V33 0.82 INTERPRETATION
COMPENSATION 0.61
V39 0.96
0.50
0.25 (5.133)
0.35
ORGANIZATIONAL
V40 0.60 MEMORY
V41 0.75 PARTICIPATION

0.83
V42
Notes: In the relationship diagram we show the standardized parameters. In brackets t-student
statistics are presented.
Model summary statistics: S-Bχ2 = 145.918, d.f. = 108, p = 0.008; RMSR = 0.052; NNFI =
0.938; CFI = 0.95.
are fixed to zero. The usual recommended cut-off point is 0.9. The most
commonly used fit index is Bentler’s (1995) CFI, which has a value of 0.950 in our
case, with most other fit indices exceeding 0.9. In addition, examination of the
residuals via indices such as the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR; 0.052) also
indicates acceptable model fit. We now outline the findings for our hypotheses.
The results show clear support for hypotheses H1, H2 and H4. The findings
show that organizational learning is positively influenced by selective hiring
(β = 0.19, t = 1.970, p < .05), strategic training (β = 0.23, t = 2.724, p < .01)
and participation in decision-making (β = 0.50, t = 5.133, p < .01). Conversely,
a non-significant influence was found with respect to the contingent reward
(β = 0.06, t = 0.937). With reference to the explained variance (R2) of the
endogenous variables, the research model has shown good predictive power. The
R2 coefficient indicates that the model explains approximately 56% of the variance
in organizational learning.
Finally, correlations between the human resource practices were moderate in
magnitude and statistically significant, indicating support for the notion that firms
need to horizontally integrate various aspects of human resource management in

order to establish learning mechanisms.
Discussion
In the present economic environment, competitive advantage results from generat-

ing and applying knowledge through organizational learning, a process in which
individuals play a vital role (Soliman and Spooner, 2000). Thus the aim of this
study was to analyse the relation between human resource management and
organizational learning. In this respect, our findings provide initial empirical
support for the important role that HR practises with an emphasis on employee
commitment to core organizational values have on learning development.
First, in line with our predictions, we found a significant positive relation
between selective hiring and organizational learning. Thus, as DiBella et al. (1996)
and Williams (2001) indicate, organizations that have identified learning as their
primary objective can begin to address it by matching new employees to their
requirements, and attracting those people with creative ideas and a desire to share
learning. These new recruits will not only bring different perspectives based on
previous work experience to the organization, but if they are specifically employed
for their creative talents they are likely to question accepted practice and try
out ways of working that promote learning, both individually and collectively
(Gardiner et al., 2001).
Second, our findings reveal that strategic training influences organizational
learning. This is consistent with the empirical research of Gómez et al. (2004),
who studied the links between training and organization learning. These authors
observed that constant investment in training favours the acquisition and genera-
tion of new knowledge, knowledge transfer among employees, and individuals’
commitment to the organizational learning. Therefore these results support, as
numerous authors indicate (DiBella et al., 1996; McGill and Slocum, 1993; Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1993), the idea that training plays a critical role
in maintaining and developing capabilities, both individual and organizational,
and also substantially contributes toward the process of organizational change.
Contrary to our expectations, organizational learning is not influenced by
reward systems. Our findings do not support the notion that compensation and
reward systems focusing on performance will positively influence organizational
learning. This may be due to the fact that in many Spanish companies, where
people work in teams and collaborate on projects, individualized rewards persist.
Many employees have been conditioned to work within a culture that favours
individual contributions, yet most organizations promote the sharing of knowledge
and ideas, and outcomes based on collective performance. One of the roles of
human resource managers should be to examine the reward system of the
organization and to determine the extent to which it actually reflects the espoused
aim and vision.
Finally, our results concur with the framework suggested by Marquardt and
Reynolds (1994) and seem to confirm that employee participation is an essential
element in learning organizations, since it is the practice that most closely
correlates to the learning process.
This highlights the need to move towards developing manager–worker relations

in which the participation of the worker in decision-making is emphasized, some-
times even by allowing the worker to make decisions that are traditionally reserved
for management. As Pedler et al. (1997) affirmed, learning-oriented organizations
require decentralized decision-making and need to allow people at all levels to
exercise substantial influence over organizational decisions and processes.
To summarize, this study makes a contribution to the organizational learning
and learning organization literature by providing additional insight into the
organizational factors that facilitate learning (Bapuji and Crossan, 2004). While
there has been an underlying assumption about the role of human resources in
organizational learning, based on case studies and other descriptive methods, we
provide evidence on how traditional personnel functions of human resources—
selection, training and participation—may be tailored to facilitate and promote the
development of learning. Moreover, in contrast to other previous studies that focus
on individual practices, we analyse simultaneously the influence a series of human
resource practices have on learning. In the learning organization literature,
‘learning organization’ has sometimes been equated erroneously with the quantity
and quality of self-developmental activity. While it may be true that in these
organizations the employees are actively encouraged to take responsibility for their
own development, it is not a distinguishing feature of learning organizations;
indeed, such approaches run the risk of isolating learning as an exclusively
individual phenomenon. As has been shown in this work, there are other human
resource practices that are particularly relevant to the promotion of learning. It
should also be pointed out that the theoretical assumptions are tested in a broad
range of industries. Thus the generalizability of the results is not limited to a
certain sector under study.
Various managerial implications follow directly from the foregoing discussion.
The adoption of learning as a central competence of the company is a collective
responsibility and it will only happen as a result of a carefully designed strategy
and shared management objectives. Results from this research suggest human
resource professionals must drop their traditional insistence on their prerogative
for direction and control and assume a new ‘softer’ style of management that
encourages employee commitment to core organizational values, since this will
provide the basis for knowledge creation and organizational learning. However, it
should be emphasized that learning orientations are based on the development of
shared aims and values, and that learning in such organizations is the focus at all
levels from the shop-floor to senior manager. Learning cannot be solely the
responsibility of human resource practitioners.
Limitations and Future Research
The findings and implications of the research should also be considered in the
light of its limitations. Perhaps the most significant limitation of the current study
is that the research design was cross-sectional, not longitudinal. As such, cause–
effect relations cannot be definitively inferred from the results. Causality can really
be tested only with data collected at different points of time.
In addition, a weakness of this study is that all data are collected for key
respondents. Despite the fact that, both in the data and construct validation
phases, considerable efforts were devoted to ensuring data quality with encourag-
ing results, the potential of survey biases cannot be excluded. Admittedly, the
respondents’ perceptions might not necessarily coincide exactly with objective
reality. This could result in potential bias. First, the senior managers’ view
regarding the issues central of this study could differ from the view of middle
managers or other members of the organization at non-management levels.
Furthermore, subjective biases may stem from an implicit tendency of the
respondents to rationalize their firm’s competitive behaviour based on received
wisdom about what constitutes effective management praxis (Arnold and Feldman,
1981; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; Spanos and Lioukas, 2001).
Finally, it is possible to identify potential research areas for the future develop-
ment of this study. Thus it would be desirable to analyse human resource strategy
along with other variables such as organizational structure, leadership style and
corporate strategy. Since all the organizational factors are closely interlinked, the
effectiveness of human resource management could be determined by the
existence of a global approach affecting all areas of the organization.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology
and the European Regional Development Funds for their financial assistance for this
research through research project SEC 2002-04522-C02-02. We would also like to thank Dr
Victor Iglesias of the University of Oviedo for his advice and experience concerning aspects
of structural equation modelling, and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments on early versions of this article.
Note
1. Another criterion used to evaluate the unidimensionality of the scales is to verify that the
reliability indicators exceed 0.4. The indicator reliabilities can be deduced from Table 2,
and we found that in this case some items did not fulfil this criterion. However, we
decided to retain them in view of their theoretical interest.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988) ‘An Update Paradigm for Scale Development
Incorporating Unidimensionality and its Assessment’, Journal of Marketing Research
25(May): 186–92.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1978) Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Armstrong, J. S. and Overton, T. (1977) ‘Estimation Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys’,
Journal of Marketing Research 14: 396–402.
Armstrong, M. (1995) Personnel Management Practice, 5th edn. London: Kogan Page.
Arnold, H. J. and Feldman, D. C. (1981) ‘Social Desirability Response Bias in Self-report
Choice Situations’, Academy of Management Journal 24: 377–85.
Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y. (1988) ‘On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models’, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 74–94.
Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M. (2004) ‘From Questions to Answers: Reviewing Organizational
Learning Research’, Management Learning 35(4): 397–417.
Barney, J. B. (1992) ‘Integrating Organizational Behaviour and Strategy Formulation
Research: A Resource Based Analysis’, Advances in Strategic Management 8: 1231–41.
Bell, S. J. and Menguc, B. (2002) ‘The Employee–Organization Relationship, Organiza-
tional Citizenship Behaviors, and Superior Service Quality’, Journal of Retailing 78:
131–46.
Bentler, P. M. (1995) EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariable
Software.
Bontis, N., Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2002) ‘Managing an Organizational Learning
System by Aligning Stocks and Flows’, Journal of Management Studies 39(4): 437–69.
Bounfour, A. (2003) The Management of Intangibles. The Organisation’s Most Valuable Assets.
London: Routledge.
Brown, J. and Duguid, P. (1991) ‘Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice:
Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation’, Organizational Science 2(1):
40–57.
Bueno, E. and Salmador, P. (2003) ‘Knowledge Management in the Emerging Strategic
Business Process: Information, Complexity and Imagination’, Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment 7(2): 5–17.
Campbell, D. T. (1955) ‘The Informant in Quantitative Research’, American Journal of
Sociology 60(January): 339–42.
Chatman, J. A. (1991) ‘Managing People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in
Public Accounting Firms’, Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 459–84.
Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2005) ‘Organizational Learning and Organizational Knowledge:
Towards the Integration of Two Approaches’, Management Learning 36(1): 49–68.
Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000) ‘Feeding Organizational Memory: Improving on Knowledge
Management’s Promise to Business Performance’, in L. Robert, J. Cross and S. B. Israelit
(eds) Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective and Organizational
Learning Process, pp. 69–90. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cross, R. and Israelit, S. (2000) ‘Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual,
Collective and Organizational Process’, in L. Robert, J. Cross and S. B. Israelit (eds)
Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective and Organizational Learning
Process, pp. 69–90. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Davenport, T. (2000) Human Capital: What It Is and Why People Invest in It. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
DiBella, A. J., Nevis, E. C. and Gould, J. M. (1996) ‘Understanding Organizational Learning
Capability’, Journal of Management Studies 33(3): 361–79.
Dillman, D. (1978) Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley.
Dixon, N. (1994) The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively. Maiden-
head: McGraw-Hill.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997) ‘Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and
Critiques’, Human Relations 50(9): 1085–113.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. D. (1981) ‘Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error’, Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.
Gardiner, P., Leat, M. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2001) ‘Learning in Organizations: HR
Implications and Considerations’, Human Resource Development International 4(3): 391–405.
Garvin, D. A. (1993) ‘Building a Learning Organization’, Harvard Business Review 71(July–
August): 78–91.
Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2002) ‘Learning in a Constellation of Interconnected

Practice: Cannon or Dissonance?’, Journal of Management Studies 39(4): 419–36.
Goh, S. and Richards, G. (1997) ‘Benchmarking the Learning Capacity of Organizations’,
European Management Journal 15(5): 575–83.
Gómez, P. J., Lorente, J. J .C. and Cabrera, R. V. (2004) ‘Training Practices and
Organisational Learning Capability. Relationship and Implications’, Journal of European
Industrial Training 28(2–3): 234–56.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hale, J. and Bailey, G. (1998) ‘Seven Dimensions of Successful Reward Plans’, Compensation
and Benefits Review 30(4): 71–7.
Hedberg, B. (1981) ‘How Organizations Learn and Unlearn?’, in P. C. Nystrom and W. H.
Starbuck (eds) Handbook of Organizational Design, pp. 8–27. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hibbard, J. D., Kumar, N. and Stern, L. W. (2001) ‘Examining the Impact of Destructive
Acts in Marketing Channel Relationships’, Journal of Marketing Research 38(February):
45–61.
Hogg, M. A. and Terry, P. J. (2000) ‘Social Identity and Self-categorization Processes in
Organizational Contexts’, Academy of Management Review 25(1): 121–40.
Huber, G. (1991) ‘Organizational Learning: Contributing Processes and the Literature’,
Organizational Science 2: 88–115.
Hult, G. T. and Ferrel, O. C. (1997) ‘Global Organization Learning Capacity in Purchasing:
Construct and Measurement’, Journal of Business Research 40: 97–111.
Iglesias, V. (2004) ‘Preconceptions about Service: How Much Do They Influence Quality
Evaluations?’, Journal of Service Research 7(1): 90–103.
Kamoche, K. and Mueller, F. (1998) ‘Human Resource Management and the
Appropriation–Learning Perspective’, Human Relations 51: 1033–60.
Klimencki, R. and Lassleben, H. (1998) ‘Modes of Organizational Learning: Implications
from an Empirical Study’, Management Learning 29: 405–30.
Lapierre, L. M. and McKay, L. (2002) ‘Managing Human Capital with Competency-based
Human Resource Management’, 22nd McMaster World Congress; 4th World Congress on
the Management of Intellectual Capital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Lei, D., Slocum, J. W. and Pitts, R. A. (1999) ‘Designing Organizations for Competitive
Advantage: The Power of Unlearning and Learning’, Organizational Dynamics 37(3):
24–38.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) ‘The Factory as a Learning Laboratory’, Sloan Management
Review 34(1): 23–38.
Lepak, D. P. and Snell, S. A. (1999) ‘The Human Resource Architecture: Toward a Theory
of Human Capital Allocation and Development’, Academy of Management Review 24(1):
31–48.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995) ‘Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance:
Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry’,
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48: 197–221.
McClelland, D. C. (1985) Human Motivation. Glensview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
McGill, M. and Slocum, J. (1993) ‘Unlearning the Organization’, Organizational Dynamics
22(2): 67–79.
Marquardt, M. and Reynolds, A. (1994) The Global Learning Organization. Burr Ridge: Irwin
Professional Publishing.
Naot, Y., Lipshitz, R. and Popper, M. (2004) ‘Discerning the Quality of Organizational
Learning’, Management Learning 35(4): 451–72.
Nevis, E. C., Dibella, A. J. and Gould, J. M. (1995) ‘Understanding Organizations as
Learning Systems’, Sloan Management Review 36(2): 73–85.
Nonaka, I. (1991) ‘The Knowledge-creating Company’, Harvard Business Review 69(6):

96–104.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. and Konno, N. (1994) ‘Organizational Knowledge
Creation Theory: A First Comprehensive Test’, International Business Review 3(4): 337–51.
Nykodym, N., Simonetti, J. L., Nielsen, W. R. and Welling, B. (1994) ‘Employee Empower-
ment’, Empowerment in Organizations 2(3): 45–55.
Ordiz, M. and Fernández, E. (2003) ‘High-involvement Practices in Human Resource
Management: Concept and Factors that Motivate their Adoption’, International Journal of
Human Resource Management 14(4): 511–29.
Ordoñez, P. (2002) ‘Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning: Typologies of
Knowledge Strategies in the Spanish Manufacturing Industry from 1995 to 1999’, Journal
of Knowledge Management 6(1): 52–62.
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J. A. and Caldwell, D. E. (1991) ‘People and Organizational
Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person–Organization Fit’, Academy
of Management Journal 34: 487–516.
Osterman, P. (1994) ‘How Common is Workplace Transformation and How Can We
Explain Who Adopts It?’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47(2): 173–87.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1997) The Learning Company: A Strategy of
Sustainable Development. London: McGraw-Hill.
Pfeffer, J. (1998) ‘Seven Practices of Successful Organizations’, California Management Review
40(2): 96–123.
Pil, F. K. and MacDuffie, P. (1996) ‘The Adoption of High-involvement Work Practices’,
Industrial Relations 35: 4213–55.
Plunkett, L. C. and Fournier, R. (1991) Participative Management: Implementing Empowerment.
New York: Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. M. and Organ, D. W. (1986) ‘Self Report in Organizational Research:
Problems and Prospects’, Journal of Management 12: 531–44.
Prieto, I. and Revilla, E. (2004) ‘Information Technologies and Human Behaviors as
Interacting Knowledge Management Enablers of the Organizational Learning Capacity’,
in proceedings of the Conference on Organizing Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities,
Innsbruck, Austria, 2–3 April.
Probst, G. and Büchel, B. (1997) Organizational Learning: The Competitive Advantage of the
Future. London: Prentice-Hall.
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P. and Filkenstein, S. (1996) ‘Managing Professional Intellect:
Making the Most of the Best’, Harvard Business Review 74(2): 71–80.
Reed, R. and DeFillippi, R. J. (1990) ‘Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation and
Sustainable Competitive Advantage’, Academy of Management Review 15(1): 88–102.
Roche, W. K. (1999) ‘In Search of Commitment-oriented Human Resource Management
Practices and the Conditions that Sustain Them’, Journal of Management Studies 36(5):
653–78.
Ruggles, R. (1998) ‘The State of the Notion: Knowledge Management in Practice’,
California Management Review 40(3): 80–9.
Sadler-Smith, E., Spicer, D. P. and Chaston, I. (2001) ‘Learning Orientations and Growth in
Smaller Firms’, Long Range Planning 34(2): 139–58.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Shipton, H., Dawson, J. and West, M. (2002) ‘Learning in Manufacturing Organizations:
What Factors Predict Effectiveness?’, Human Resource Development International 5(1): 55–72.
Slater, S. F. and Narver, J. C. (1995) ‘Market Orientation and the Learning Organization’,
Journal of Marketing 59(July): 63–74.
Snell, S. A., Youndt, M. A. and Wright, P. M. (1996) ‘Establishing a Framework for Research
in Strategic Human Resource Management: Merging Resource Theory and Organiza-
tional Learning’, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 14: 61–90.
Soliman, F. and Spooner, K. (2000) ‘Strategies for Implementing Knowledge Management:
Role of Human Resource Management’, Journal of Knowledge Management 4(4): 337–45.
Spanos, Y. E. and Lioukas, S. (2001) ‘An Examination into the Causal Logic of Rent
Generation: Contrasting Porter’s Competitive Strategy Framework and the Resource-
based Perspective’, Strategic Management Journal 22: 907–34.
Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. B. and Olshavsky, R. W. (1996) ‘A Re-examination of the
Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction’, Journal of Marketing 60(July): 15–32.
Swan, J. A., Scarbrough, H. and Robertson, M. (2002) ‘The Construction of Communities
of Practice in the Management of Innovation’, Management Learning 33(4): 477–96.
Tempest, S. (2003) ‘Intergenerational Learning. A Reciprocal Knowledge Development
Process that Challenges the Language of Learning’, Management Learning 34(2): 181–200.
Tippins, M. J. and Sohi, R. S. (2003) ‘IT Competency and Firm Performance: Is
Organizational Learning a Missing Link?’, Strategic Management Journal 24: 745–61.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1997) ‘Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A
Dichotomy between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research’, Human Relations 50(1):
73–89.
Tsoukas, H. (2002) ‘Introduction: Knowledge-based Perspectives on Organizations: Situated
Knowledge, Novelty, and Communities of Practice’, Management Learning 33(4): 419–26.
Ulrich, D. and Lake, D. (1990) Organizational Capability: Competing from the Inside Out. New
York: John Wiley.
Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Von Glinow, M. (1993) ‘High Impact Learning: Building and
Diffusing Learning Capability’, Organizational Dynamics 22(2): 52–66.
Venkatraman, N. (1989) ‘Strategic Orientation of Business Enterprises: The Construct,
Dimensionality and Measurement’, Management Science 35(8): 942–62.
Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2004) ‘Strategic Leadership and Organizational Learning’,
Academy of Management Review 29(2): 222–40.
Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Ichijo, K. (1997) ‘Develop Knowledge Activists’, European
Management Journal 15(5): 475–83.
Walsh, J. P. and Ungson, G. R. (1991) ‘Organizational Memory’, Academy of Management
Review 16(1): 57–91.
Wayland, R. and Cole, P. (1997) Customer Connections: New Strategies for Growth. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Williams, A. P. O. (2001) ‘A Belief-focused Process of Organizational Learning’, Journal of
Management Studies 38(1): 65–87.
Wood, S. and Albanese, M. T. (1995) ‘Can We Speak of Human Resource Management on
the Shop Floor?’, Journal of Management Studies 3(2): 215–47.
Wright, P. M. and McMahan, G. C. (1992) ‘Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Human
Resource Management’, Journal of Management 18(2): 295–320.
Yahya, S. and Goh, W. (2002) ‘Managing Human Resources Toward Achieving Knowledge
Management’, Journal of Knowledge Management 6(5): 457–68.
Appendix
Organizational Learning Scale

External knowledge acquisition
V1 Cooperation agreements with other companies, universities, technical colleges, etc.
are fomented.
V2 We have a system that allows us to learn successful practices from other organizations.
V3 The company is in touch with professionals and expert technicians.
V4 The organization encourages its employees to join formal or informal nets made
up by people from outside the organization.
V5 We often ask our customers what they want or need.
V6 The employees attend fairs and exhibitions regularly.
Internal knowledge acquisition

V7 There is a consolidated and resourceful R&D policy.
V8 New ideas and approaches on work performance are experimented continuously.
V9 Organizational systems and procedures support innovation.
Knowledge distribution
V10 All members are informed about the aims of the company.
V11 Meetings are periodically held to inform all the employees about the latest
innovations in the company.
V12 The company has formal mechanisms to guarantee the sharing of the best
practices among the different fields of the activity.
V13 Information technology is used to improve the flow of information and to encourage
communication between individuals within the company.
V14 There are within the organization individuals who take part in several teams or
divisions and who also act as links between them.
V15 There are individuals responsible for collecting, assembling and distributing
internally employees’ suggestions.
Knowledge interpretation
V16 All the members of the organization share the same aim to which they feel
committed.
V17 Current organizational practice encourages employees to solve problems together
before discussing them with a manager.
V18 Teamwork is a very common practice in the company.
V19 The company is able to rid itself of obsolete knowledge and seek new alternatives.
V20 The company develops internal rotation programmes so as to facilitate the
movement of employees from one department or function to another.
V21 The company offers other opportunities to learn (visits to other parts of the
organization, internal training programmes, etc.) so as to make individuals aware
of other people or departments’ duties.
Organizational memory
V22 The company has databases to stock its experience and knowledge so as to be able
to use them later on.
V23 The company has directories or e-mails filed according to the field they belong to,
so as to find an expert on a concrete issue at any time.
V24 The company has up-to-date databases of its customers.
V25 Experience has taught us what questions to ask our customers.
V26 There is access to the organization’s databases and documents through some kind
of network (Lotus Notes, Intranet, etc.)
V27 Databases are always kept up to date.
V28 All the employees in the organization have access to the organization’s databases.
V29 Employees often consult the databases.
V30 The codification and knowledge administration system makes work easier for the
employees.
Human Resource Practices Scale
Selective hiring
V31 Permanent staff hiring is more common in the company.
V32 Internal promotion takes priority over external hiring of staff to occupy vacancies.
V33 The members of the department or team of which the new worker will be part,
participate in the selection of candidates.
V34 In the selective process not only are knowledge and experience taken into
account, but also the capacity to work in synergy and continuous learning.
Strategic training
V35 Employee training and development policies cover all the personnel in the firm.
V36 Training programmes focus on generalist competencies and organizational
culture.
V37 Employees receive training throughout their professional lives.
Contingent compensation
V38 The organization has a mixed system of rewarding: fixed + variable.
V39 The company offers incentives to its employees related to their performance.
Participation of the employees in decision making

V40 Employees’ participation in decision-making process.
V41 Inform the employees about economic and strategic information.
V42 Level of personnel empowerment in the firm.
Note: The items removed are in italics.
Contact Addresses
Susana Pérez López is in the Department of Business Administration, University of Oviedo,

Avda. del Cristo S/n, 33071 Oviedo, Spain.
[email: sperez@uniovi.es]
José Manuel Montes Peón is in the Department of Business Administration, University of
Oviedo, Avda. del Cristo S/n, 33071 Oviedo, Spain.
[email: jmmontesuniovi.es]
Camilo José Vazquez Ordás is in the Department of Business Administration, University of
Oviedo, Avda. del Cristo S/n, 33071 Oviedo, Spain.
[email: cvordas@uniovi.es]

Lopez 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Management Learning

Human Resource Management as a Determining Factor in Organizational Learning

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - May 24, 2006

Susana Pérez López, José

Human Resource Management as a

For over 30 years, research on organizational learning has contributed significantly

1 knowledge acquisition, which due to its distinctive characteristics can be subdivided

The Link between Human Resource Management and Organizational

As already discussed, individuals play a fundamental role in the development of

H1: Selective hiring practices have positive effects on learning.

objectives, and attempts to match them to company objectives. The focus of

H2: Strategic training significantly improves organizational learning.

Compensation and Reward

Sample and Data Collection

• Knowledge acquisition: As noted previously, knowledge may be acquired from the

Analysis and Results

Validation of the Proposed Constructs

Table 1 Factor correlations, means, standard deviations and reliabilities

A.EXTERNAL 3.611 0.754 0.696 1.000

Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 2 Measures and test of unidimensionality

Second order factor model

Third order factor model

Model Summary Statistics

correlation is free to vary (Venkatraman, 1989). A significant lower chi-squared

Table 3 Discriminant validity test

V41 0.75 PARTICIPATION

need to horizontally integrate various aspects of human resource management in

In the present economic environment, competitive advantage results from generat-

This highlights the need to move towards developing manager–worker relations

Limitations and Future Research

Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. (2002) ‘Learning in a Constellation of Interconnected

Nonaka, I. (1991) ‘The Knowledge-creating Company’, Harvard Business Review 69(6):

Organizational Learning Scale

Internal knowledge acquisition

Participation of the employees in decision making

Susana Pérez López is in the Department of Business Administration, University of Oviedo,

You might also like