The Learning Organization

Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning organization

Ashok Jashapara
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ashok Jashapara, (2003),"Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning organization", The Learning
Organization, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 31 - 50
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470310457487
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 06:42 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 119 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4590 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Darren Dalcher, (2012),"The nature of project management: A reflection on The Anatomy of Major Projects
by Morris and Hough", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5 Iss 4 pp. 643-660 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538371211268960
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)

Alberto De Marco, Timur Narbaev, (2013),"Earned value-based performance monitoring of facility construction projects",
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 11 Iss 1 pp. 69-80 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14725961311301475
D. Parker, A. Verlinden, R. Nussey, M. Ford, R.D. Pathak, (2013),"Critical evaluation of project-based performance
management: Change intervention integration", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62
Iss 4 pp. 407-419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401311329634

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:368748 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

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


Cognition, culture and
competition: an
empirical test of the
learning organization
Ashok Jashapara
The author
Ashok Jashapara is a Senior Lecturer in Knowledge
Management in the Department of Information Science at
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.
Keywords
Learning organizations, Cognition, Corporate culture,
Competitive advantage, Organizational performance,
Kaizen
Abstract
This research examines the principal assumption
underlying the learning organization literature that
organizational learning leads to increased organizational
performance and explores the role of organizational
learning, culture and focused learning on organizational
performance. The study is based on a stratified sample of
181 UK construction firms and adopts a structural
equation methodology. As no scales exist from prior
research, a new instrument is developed for a learning
organization. The results suggest that double-loop
learning and cooperative cultures have a positive effect
on organizational performance. The effect of competitive
forces means that organizational learning focused on
efficiency and proficiency leads to competitive advantage
in the UK construction industry.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . pp. 31-50
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 0969-6474
DOI 10.1108/09696470310457487
31
The external environment for many
companies nowadays is characterised by
turbulence associated with globalization, de-
regulation of markets, changing customer and
investor demands and increasing product-
market competition (Mitroff et al., 1994).
There is a growing need in organizations to
move beyond solving existing problems to
improving continuously in the face of
changing conditions (Druker and White,
1994; Hamel and Prahalad, 1994).
Knowledge has emerged as the most
strategically-significant resource of the firm
(Grant, 1996b, p. 375) and the ability of a
firm to learn faster than its competitors as the
only sustainable form of competitive
advantage (DeGeus, 1988).
These assumptions have given rise to the
notion of a learning organization (Garvin,
1993; Jashapara, 1993; Nevis et al., 1995;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Pedler et al.,
1991; Senge, 1990; Swieringa and Wierdsma,
1992). Much of the literature is conceptually
based on a management science perspective
(Garvin, 1993; Nevis et al., 1995) or
organizational development thesis (Dixon,
1994; Hawkins, 1994; Pedler et al., 1991).
There is little evidence in the current
literature to show how the prescribed forms of
learning are likely to lead to increased
performance among firms. The bias is
towards the ``soft'' Harvard school of human
resource management (Beer et al., 1985;
Walton, 1985) rather than the ``hard''
Michigan school (Fombrun et al., 1984)
focusing on strategic aspects. The urge to
prescribe seems to overcome the need to show
how data was collected underlying these
models.
Empirical research on the learning
organization and the role of both knowledge
within the firm and alliances within firm
strategy has suffered from widespread reliance
on anecdotes and assertion, rather than
statistical evidence (Mowery et al., 1996).
Apart from small sample, in-depth studies of
a few organizations, there is virtually no
empirical work in this area (Nonaka et al.,
1994; Simonin, 1997, 1999). Even the related
discipline of organizational learning is
characterised by qualitative research with a
few handful of studies involved with
hypothesis development and testing.
The purpose of this research is to examine
the relationships between organizational
learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978), culture
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
(Carroll, 1995; Cook and Yanow, 1993),
competitive forces (Mintzberg, 1991) and
organizational performance (Brews and Hunt,
1999). The conceptual model for this study is
based on the notion of a ``competitive learning
organization'' (Jashapara, 1993) and adapts
existing theory on organizational learning
(Argyris and Schon, 1978) and the learning
school of institutional economics (Mintzberg,
1991). There are currently no studies linking
organizational learning and performance or
explicitly testing the primary assumption
underlying this literature (DeGeus, 1988).
Much of this research is developmental as
there are no scales on the construct of a
``learning organization''. The study develops
an instrument of a learning organization and
relies on a cross-sectional sample and on a
structural equation approach (LISREL) that
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
allows the manipulation of latent (not directly
observable) variables. The research is focused
on the UK construction industry.
Cognition, culture and competition
The paradox of organizational learning is that
it is not merely individual learning even
though organizations learn through the
experience and actions of individuals (Argyris
and Schon, 1978). Individuals build cognitive
maps of their work contexts (Dixon, 1994)
and it is only when these maps are made
explicit and shared that individual learning is
transferred to the organizational level (Kim,
1993). The process of interpreting the nature
of a problem or work situation enables an
individual to develop a cognitive map of that
domain (Huff, 1990). Nonaka (1994)
proposes that cognition arises from a spiral of
knowledge creation in which tacit knowledge
is converted to explicit knowledge at an
individual level and, subsequently, to group
and organizational levels.
Organizational learning can be viewed as a
distinction between cognitive and behavioural
development (Fiol and Lyles, 1985, p. 806)
with similar parallels in the individual learning
literatures. Cognitive development can be
viewed as organizational changes that affect
the interpretation of events and the
development of shared understanding among
organizational members (Daft et al., 1988). In
contrast, behavioural development can be
seen as new responses or actions based on
existing interpretations. Argyris and Schon
32
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
(1978) refer to the behavioural learning as
``single-loop'' learning. This entails detection
and correction of errors leading to the
modification of rules within the established
set of governing variables. The higher
cognitive level is referred to as ``double-loop''
learning that occurs when the assumptions
and principles that constitute the governing
variables are examined and challenged. Hayes
and Allinson (1998) put it more succinctly as
``doing things better'' for single-loop learning
and ``doing things differently or doing
different things'' for double-loop learning.
The ideas for double-loop learning derive
from cybernetics and represent an adaptation
of Bateson's (1973) ideas retaining notions of
logical hierarchies and contextual
dependence.
A number of studies have investigated the
disparate literatures of organizational learning
and tried to chart its varied terrain (Argyris
and Schon, 1978; Easterby-Smith, 1997; Fiol
and Lyles, 1985; Hedberg, 1981; Huber,
1991; Levitt and March, 1988; Nicolini and
Meznar, 1995; Shrivastava, 1983). Each
examination has provided a somewhat
different map of the landscape depending on
the underlying epistemological perspective of
the researchers. The notion of organizational
learning adopted in this study is the
hierarchical notions of behavioural and
cognitive learning from Argyris and Schon
(1978).
The conceptual model for this study is
shown in Figure 1 and focuses on competition
and whether learning leads to competitive
advantage. Organizational learning is no
longer enough in itself and a company must
be capable of learning more efficiently than its
competitors (Hamel and Prahalad, 1993).
The key is alignment between an organization
and its environment (Fiol and Lyles, 1985)
and the proposed conceptual model
(Jashapara, 1993) adopts Mintzberg's (1991)
dynamic of competitive forces and an
institutional economics perspective of
competition and strategic change (Hodgson,
1988; Langlois, 1986; Pucik, 1988).
Competition is viewed as a process through
people's day-to-day learning rather than a
steady state condition (Mintzberg, 1990a).
The planning school approach to competition
(Ansoff, 1991, 1994) was rejected in this
study as the dynamics of the process of
competition, especially within the firm,
remain richly implicit but never explored in
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
Figure 1 Conceptual model of a competitive learning organization
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
the work (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991).
Strategy formation is adaptive, incremental
and a complex learning process where ends
and means are either specified simultaneously
or are intertwined (Fredrickson and Mitchell,
1984; Mintzberg, 1990b).
The learning focus for a ``competitive
learning organization'' is based on
Mintzberg's (1991) system of seven forces.
The force for direction is concerned with
strategic vision and may relate to
organizations in start-up or turnaround
situations. The force for efficiency is
concerned with standardization and
formalization of processes and may relate to
bureaucratic organizations where
rationalization and restructuring are a major
focus. The force for proficiency is concerned
with tasks requiring high levels of knowledge
and skills and may relate to professional
organizations. The force for concentration is
concerned with concentrating efforts on
serving certain markets particularly in large
diversified firms. The force for innovation is
concerned with discovering new things for the
customer and may relate to adhocracies
comprising skilled experts or multi-
disciplinary projects.
Mintzberg (1991) articulates two internal
cultural forces that have an impact on a firm's
33
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
effectiveness; the forces of cooperation and
competition. In this conception,
organizational culture is viewed as a product
of continual struggles by groups of
organizational members to impose values and
identities on the role of others (Carroll,
1995). Dominant forces of cooperation may
result in an ideological organization such as a
kibbutz. The force of competition is
concerned with the pulling apart of politics
and may relate to political organizations
where conflicting in-fighting takes over.
There may be limits to the levels of
cooperation as ideology discourages change
and if individuals perceive a need for change,
they may be forced to challenge the ideology
which breeds politics.
As the competitive forces are rarely static
and vary continuously through time, a state of
``configuration'' (Mintzberg, 1991) occurs
when one force dominates and the
organization is drawn towards a coherent
form. However, configuration may lead to the
problem of ``contamination'' where the
dominant force undermines equally valid
forces. In some periods, organizations may go
through states of ``combination'' where no
single force dominates. This may result in
periods of ``conversion'' from one form to
another. The state of ``combination'' may
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
result in problems of ``cleavage'' where two or
more forces may confront each other and
eventually paralyse the organization. The
internal forces of competition and
cooperation can be important catalysts in
managing the problems of ``contamination''
and ``cleavage''.
Measuring organizational performance
The emerging literatures of the learning
organization assume that learning will
improve organizational performance
(DeGeus, 1988; Garvin, 1993). Learning in
an organization can be seen as a process
through which managers ensure the long-
term adaption of the organization to its
environment (Lado and Wilson, 1994;
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
Pfeffer, 1994). Chakravarthy (1986) proposes
that useful measures of organizational
performance are ones that help assess the
quality of a firm's adaptation. Brown and
Laverick (1994) add that useful measures of
performance should enable an organization to
distinguish between successful and
unsuccessful implementation of business
strategy.
There are three frameworks that are
frequently used to conceptualise
organizational performance (Dess and
Robinson, 1984; Ford and Schellenberg,
1982). The goal approach (Etzioni, 1964)
focuses on the explicit goals of the
organization such as profitability or turnover.
The systems resource approach (Yutchman
and Seashore, 1967) examines the key
internal and external factors required for a
firm's survival. The constituency approach
(Thompson, 1967) views organizational
performance as the fulfilment of the
constituent needs of internal and external
stakeholders.
Such frameworks demonstrate that
organizational performance is a complex and
multi-dimensional phenomenon. There is
little agreement on how organizational
performance should be measured (Cameron
and Whetten, 1983) and no one criterion or
set of criteria dominates. The outcome
variables selected mostly reflect the
preferences of the researchers involved
(Brews and Hunt, 1999).
The most widely available information
source on companies is financial information.
Woo and Willard (1983) factor analysed 14
34
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
distinct quantitative measures of financial
performance used in strategic management
research and concluded that ROI (return on
investment) and ROS (return on sales) were
important measures of performance. Any
accounting measure only records the history
of a firm. However, the effective monitoring
of a firm's strategy requires measures that can
capture its potential future performance
(Chakravarthy, 1986). The market to book
(M/B) ratio measures the perceived ability of
a firm to return to its shareholders an amount
in the future in excess of their expected return
(Rappaport, 1981). However, the measure is
not entirely free from accounting
manipulations as the book value of a firm can
be distorted (Brown and Laverick, 1994).
Apart from the numerous criticisms in the use
of financial performance measures by
McGuire and Schneeweis (1983), Smith
(1992) identified 45 reputable UK companies
using five or more dubious ``financial
engineering'' techniques.
There is an increasing call to supplement
the small set of traditional financial
performance measures with non-financial
indicators which provide an understanding of
the processes behind them (Eccles and
Nohria, 1992). Non-financial indicators have
been shown to be legitimately linked to
financial results for those managers for whom
the bottom line is everything (Kravetz, 1988;
Schuster, 1986). The difficult challenge is the
development of non-financial measures that
deliver realistic data on a company's current
position and future performance (Hiltrop and
Despres, 1994)
As the focus of this study is concerned with
the effect of learning in organizations on
performance, a variety of approaches for
measuring human resource performance were
investigated from the two broad schools of
thought. The first school is concerned with
measuring the costs and benefits of human
resource activities on purely financial terms
(Cascio, 1991; Fitz-Enz, 1990; Flamholtz,
1985). This approach fails to provide
guidance for implementing human resource
programmes or an understanding of the
processes underlying them (Hiltrop and
Despres, 1994). The second school is
concerned with measuring a set of human
resource practices and determining their
contribution to the firm's competitive
position (Kravetz, 1988). There is no
consensus among researchers on the effective
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
human resource practices to be measured
(Bernardin and Kane, 1993; Schuler, 1984;
Tsui, 1984). This study attempted to develop
a composite measure of organizational
performance based on published financial
company accounts and human resource
indicators identified through exploratory
interviews with directors of UK construction
companies.
Theoretical model and hypotheses
The first theoretical model (Model 1)
adopted in this study is shown in Figure 2.
This model examines the relationships of a
number of independent variables arising from
the concept of a ``competitive learning
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
organization'' (Jashapara, 1993) on the
dependent variable of organizational
performance (Brown and Laverick, 1994).
The key construct of organizational
performance has been developed as a
composite measure consisting of an economic
dimension (Chakravarthy, 1986; Pearce et al.,
1987; Woo and Willard, 1983) and an
organizational dimension (Delaney and
Huselid, 1996; Hiltrop and Despres, 1994;
Kravetz, 1988; Tsui, 1984). This is in
recognition that organizational performance is
a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon
and that there is no widespread agreement of
Figure 2 Model 1 ± regression model of constructs
35
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
a definitive approach to measuring
performance (Eccles and Nohria, 1992).
Many of the existing models of the learning
organization can be seen as politically naive to
assume that there is a free and open exchange
of information throughout an organization
(Coopey, 1995). Huber (1991) recognises
that political behaviour can cause problems
for learning as it leads to distortion and
suppression of information. Hierarchies and
power differences can lead to reductions in
quantity and quality of information that gets
passed up or down an organization (Easterby-
Smith, 1990). Two diametrically opposite
constructs have been developed to examine
the internal political dimensions in
organizations under constructs of ``internal
forces of cooperation'' and ``internal forces of
competition''. As the constructs are polar
opposites, the relationship of one construct
``internal forces of cooperation'' was
examined more closely in this study.
H1. Internal forces of cooperation in
organizations are related positively to
organizational performance.
The cognitive and behavioural aspects of
organizational learning in this study were
taken directly from definitions developed by
(Argyris and Schon, 1978). Single-loop
learning is the process that maintains the
central features of the organization's ``theory-
in-use'' by detecting and correcting errors
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
within a given system of rules. In contrast,
double-loop learning is where organizational
norms are resolved by setting new priorities
and weighting of norms.
H2. A company's level of double-loop
learning is related positively to
organizational performance.
H3. A company's level of single-loop learning
is related positively to organizational
performance.
The institutionalist perspective adopted in
this study sees competition and strategic
change as intimately linked (Pettigrew and
Whipp, 1991). Competition is never static
and is quintessentially unstable (Schumpeter,
1950). Strategic change is regarded as a
continuous process whereby focussed
organizational learning on the dynamics of
competitive forces leads to a firm's source of
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
competitive advantage (Mintzberg, 1991).
These generic areas of focused learning are
defined using the constructs: ``learning
focused on efficiency'', ``learning focused on
innovation'', ``learning focused on direction'',
``learning focused on proficiency'' and
``learning focused on concentration''
(Mintzberg, 1991).
H4. Organizational learning focused on
efficiency is related positively to
organizational performance.
H5. Organizational learning focused on
innovation is related positively to
organizational performance.
H6. Organizational learning focused on
direction is related positively to
organizational performance.
H7. Organizational learning focused on
proficiency is related positively to
organizational performance.
H8. Organizational learning focused on
concentration is related positively to
organizational performance.
The above relationships in Model 1 can
develop our understanding of single
relationships between the constructs.
However, from the institutionalist (Hodgson,
1988) and realist (Bhaskar, 1975; Outhwaite,
1987) perspective adopted in this study, the
underlying causal mechanisms and processes
are of primary importance. An underlying
causal model (Model 2) was proposed to
examine the inter-relationships between the
constructs as shown in Figure 3. The model
assumes that the cultural dimension (internal
forces of cooperation and competition) has an
36
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
effect on organizational learning; the
organizational learning informs elements of
learning focus and each construct has an
effect on organizational performance. This
causal model was explored using structural
equation modelling (Joreskog and Sorbom,
1989) to assess the level of fit between the
original data and model. An alternative model
(Model 3) as shown in Figure 4 was proposed
based on findings from multiple regression
analysis of Model 1.
Research design
Sample and data
The population for this study consisted of
small, medium and large UK construction
companies. The best estimate of population
size of the UK construction industry is
205,704 registered firms (Department of
Environment, 1993). One of the difficulties
with the population statistics is that the
outputs, such as number of firms and their
turnover, are given in relation to various
building trades rather than standard industry
classifications (SIC) (Central Statistical
Office, 1980) that are found in financial
databases. After discussions with the DOE,
the following assumptions were agreed as the
link between general trades figures
(Department of Environment, 1993) and the
SIC codes (Central Statistical Office, 1980)
as shown in Table I.
This study used the Commission of the
European Communities' (1994) definitions
for organizational size so that future cross-
European studies could be compared. Small
firms consisted of 14-79 employees, medium-
sized firms consisted of 80-599 employees
and large firms consisted of over 600
employees.
The sampling frame for this study used the
FAME CD-ROM database. FAME was the
most comprehensive CD-ROM database
available containing detailed UK company
financial information and was updated
monthly. A theoretical sample size of 225 was
determined for a stratified sample (Tull and
Hawkins, 1990) of construction firms. The
stratified sample was established as shown in
Table II for the different SIC codes. The
sample of companies with SIC code 5020 was
increased from six to 30 companies so that
effective comparisons could be made
between groups.
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
Figure 3 Model 2 ± path diagram for original model in LISREL notation
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
The informants were selected randomly from
the sampling frame. Senior executives were
chosen as informants as they were most likely
to recognise and assess the relative
importance of organizational learning on
performance and strategy related matters
(Glick et al., 1990). The firm's top executives
were the informants most likely to observe
and analyse the impact of competitive forces
on the firm's activities (Simonin, 1997). A
pilot study was conducted including 12
interviews with construction executives to aid
questionnaire wording and design. The pilot
questionnaire was pre-tested on 50
construction executives (16.6 per cent
response rate) to estimate the reliability of the
constructs. In some cases, the construct items
were replaced in the main study because of
their poor levels of reliability.
From the 1,284 companies participating in
this study, 180 fully completed, usable
37
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
questionnaires were obtained (14.1 per cent
response rate). The majority of respondents
were top executives of UK construction firms.
There were 50 replies received from non-
respondents explaining their reasons for non-
response. The main reasons for non-response
were volume of questionnaires received by the
executives, pressures of work, inaccuracies in
the FAME database and the sensitivity of the
questionnaire.
Instrument development
The research strategy involved developing a
reliable and valid ``learning'' instrument in
the absence of such scales in the literature.
The main construct of organizational
learning (Argyris and Schon, 1978) was
developed as a part of the five sub-constructs
related to organizational learning focused on
competitive forces (Mintzberg, 1991). Each
of these five sub-constructs was developed
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
Figure 4 Model 3 ± Path diagram for alternative model in LISREL notation
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
using eight items; four items linked to single-
loop learning and four items linked to
double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon,
1978) as shown in Table III. Acquiescence
bias (Spector, 1992) was reduced from the
items by using an equal number of positively
and negatively worded items. Similarly, 16
items were developed for the cultural
construct related to Mintzberg's (1991)
defintion of internal organizational forces.
Each of the items was placed into the
instrument randomly using a random
number generator.
The learning styles questionnaire (Honey
and Mumford, 1986) was used in an attempt
to provide nomological validity for the
instrument as no similar instruments
existed. The original questionnaire was
deemed too long with 80 items and a
shortened version (Honey and Mumford,
1989) was used instead. An attempt was also
made to control social desirability bias by
using a shortened form of the Marlowe-
38
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
Crowne social desirability scale (Ballard,
1992). This scale has consolidated the work
of Reynolds (1982); Strahan and Gerbasi
(1972) and developed a composite sub-scale
(13 items).
A composite measure of organizational
performance was developed based on an
economic and human resource dimension.
The economic dimension was informed by
Pearce et al. (1987) on CEOs' perceptions of
company performance relative to competitors
in the same industry. Three items in their
study: return on capital employed, turnover
growth and overall performance were
included in this study together with five
additional items as shown in the Appendix.
The human resource measure of performance
was developed from Kravetz (1988) and Tsui
(1984) and empirical findings on
performance from construction executives in
the exploratory interviews.
Likert scales were used throughout the
development of the organizational learning
 Cognition, culture and competition The Learning Organization
Ashok Jashapara Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50

Table I SIC assumptions using Department of Environment's (1993) housing and construction statistics
SIC code SIC definition DOE assumption
5000: Construction Establishments engaged in building and civil Building and civil engineering contractors +
and demolition engineering work, not sufficiently specialised to demolition contractors + reinforced concrete
work be classified elsewhere in Division 5, and specialists + plant hirers + constructional
demolition work. Direct labour establishments engineers + miscellaneous
of local authorities and government departments
are included
5010: Construction Establishments engaged in the construction, General builders + carpenters and joiners +
and repair of improvement and repair of both residential and roofers + scaffolding specialists
buildings non-residential buildings, including specialists
engaged in sections of construction and repair
work, such as bricklaying, building maintenance
and restoration, carpentry, roofing, scaffolding
and the erection of steel and concrete structures
for buildings
5020: Civil Construction of roads, car parks, railways, Civil engineers + asphalt and tar sprayers
engineering airport runways, bridges and tunnels. Hydraulic
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)

engineering, e.g. dams, reservoirs, harbours,

rivers and canals. Irrigation and land drainage
systems. Laying of pipelines, sewers, gas and
water mains and electricity cables. Construction
of overhead lines, line supports, and aerial
towers. Construction of fixed concrete oil
production platforms. Construction work at oil
refineries, steelworks, electricity and gas
installations and other large sites. Shaft drilling
and mine sinking. Layout of parks and sports
grounds
5030: Installation Establishments engaged in the installation of Plumbers + heating and ventilation
of fixtures and fixtures and fittings, including, such as gas engineers + electrical contractors +
fittings fittings, plumbing, heating and ventilation plant, insulation specialists
sound and heat insulation, electrical fixtures and
fittings
5040: Building Establishments specialising in building Painters + plasterers + glaziers + flooring
completion work completion work such as painting and contractors + suspended ceiling specialists
decorating, glazing, plastering, tiling, on-site + floor and wall tiling specialists
joinery and carpentry, flooring (including parquet
floor laying), installation of fireplaces etc.

and performance instruments. Research tends Results

to show that the choice between different
attitude measures is immaterial (Menezes and
Elbert, 1979; Peter and Churchill, 1986).
Likert scales have the advantage that they are
fairly easy to administer provided that clear
instructions are given. Questionnaires were
administered through a postal survey and
seven point Likert scales were used
throughout this study. The construct items
were revised on the basis of results and
analysis of the pilot questionnaire testing for
levels of reliability. A minimum of five items
were forwarded to represent each construct in
the main study.
39
Construct reliabilty, validity and
descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistic, internal consistency
and correlations of the main constructs are
shown in Table IV. The reliability of each
construct was determined by computing the
alpha coefficient of internal consistency
(Cronbach, 1951). The standardised item
alpha coefficients are presented to ensure that
high alpha scores are not obtained simply as a
result of a large number of items. Nunnally
(1978) suggests that an acceptable level for
Cronbach alpha as 0.70 whereas Robinson
et al. (1991) propose that coefficients above
 Cognition, culture and competition The Learning Organization
Ashok Jashapara Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50

Table II Stratified sample of main survey

SIC code: 5000 SIC code: 5010 SIC code: 5020 SIC code: 5030 SIC code : 5040
Size of firm Required FAME Required FAME Required FAME Required FAME Required FAME All firms
Small: 14-79 243 709 497 187 97 (158) 158 303 349 167 124 1,306
Medium: 80-599 44 393 65 99 23 (38) 38 31 182 11 49 174
Large: 600 and over 8 (64) 64 4 (18) 18 2 (4) 4 3 (22) 22 2 (4) 4 20
Total 295 566 122 336 180 1,500
Notes: Required figures show theoretical sample requirements. FAME figures are the no. of firms in the FAME database with the number of employees
stated. Bracket figures show where the sample has been increased in areas to account for anomalies between the required sample and the limitations
of the FAME database. Response rate of 15 per cent assumed. Sample required = 1,500 companies

Table III Outline of pilot questionnaire

No. of Total no.
Construct Sub-construct References items of items
Organizational learning (single- Focused on efficiency Argyris and Schon (1978) 8 40
loop and double-loop Focused on innovation and Mintzberg (1991) 8
learning) Focused on direction 8
Focused on proficiency 8
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)

Focused on concentration 8
International organizational Cooperation Mintzberg (1991) 8 16
forces Competition 8
Learning styles questionnaire Activist Honey and Mumford (1986) 10 40
(short form) Reflector 10
Theorist 10
Pragmatist 10
Social desirability scale None Ballard (1992) 13 13
Organizational performance Economic Pearce et al. (1987, p. 133) 8 16
Organizational 8
Total number of items in
questionnaire 125

Table IV Descriptive statistics, internal consistency and correlations

Pilot study Main study
Variable (n = 50) (n = 181) Mean SD Y1 X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 SDS
Y1: Organizational performance 0.83 0.88 28.1 5.87 1.00
X1: Internal forces of cooperation 0.71 0.75 20.3 4.07 0.38** 1.00
X3: Double-loop learning 0.90 0.83 35.3 6.30 0.38** 0.58** 1.00
X3: Single-loop learning 0.82 0.69 35.0 5.97 0.35** 0.41** 0.63** 1.00
X4: Learning focused on efficiency 0.77 0.54 25.5 4.10 0.48** 0.60** 0.73** 0.54** 1.00
X5: Learning focused on innovation 0.84 0.70 25.2 4.36 0.32** 0.47** 0.85** 0.68** 0.61** 1.00
X6: Learning focused on direction 0.79 0.57 20.3 3.84 0.16* 0.20** 0.49** 0.67** 0.27** 0.52** 1.00
X7: Learning focused on proficiency 0.82 0.71 25.5 4.77 0.36** 0.39** 0.62** 0.71** 0.48** 0.54** 0.35** 1.00
X8: Learning focused on concentration 0.60 0.60 14.6 3.12 0.31** 0.44** 0.82** 0.55** 0.58** 0.71** 0.39** 0.47** 1.00
Social desirability scale (SDS) 0.60 0.66 7.4 2.73 0.14 0.16* 0.20** 0.30** 0.26** 0.23* 0.09 0.33** 0.21** 1.00
Notes: is the standardized Cronbach alpha coefficient; *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed); **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed)

0.60 are acceptable, particularly for
developmental studies. Almost all the
constructs have an internal consistency above
this value apart from two constructs X4 and
X6. In each case, the constructs had higher
reliability levels in the pilot study and, hence,
the same items were retained in the
main study.
40
Evidence for construct validity can be
provided in the following way. The dependent
variable, ``organizational performance'' (Y1),
was factor analysed using Varimax rotation
after establishing a body of evidence to
proceed with factor analysis (item correlation
matrix, Bartlett test of sphericity and the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
adequacy). The rotated factor solution
presented two factors with the economic
dimension items loading on Factor 1 and the
organizational dimension items loading on
Factor 2. In a similar manner, the factor
solution for double-loop and single-loop
learning presented two factors consistent with
the underlying assumption of error detection
and error correction in their definitions
(Argyris and Schon, 1978).
Three external measures of performance
were gathered from company accounts to
provide evidence of convergent validity of the
organizational performance scale: return on
shareholder funds, return on capital
employed and return on total assets. Analysis
showed higher correlations with the
profitability factor and the economic
dimension rather than the organizational
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
dimension of performance. Discriminant
validity for all the constructs is provided by
the relatively low correlations with the social
desirability scale as shown in Table V.
Convergent validity for the construct Internal
forces of cooperation (X1) can be provided by
the strong but negative correlation (± 0.73)
with its diametrically opposite construct,
``internal forces of competition''. Convergent
validity for double-loop (X2) and single-loop
(X3) learning was provided by the strong and
statistically significant correlations (0.63)
between the constructs. The hypothesis to
test these constructs (X2 and X3) with the
executive's learning style was rejected due to
the poor levels of scale reliability (Activist a =
0.54 and Pragmatist a = 0.51). The aim was
to provide further evidence for convergent
validity and provide a link between individual
and organizational learning (Allinson and
Hayes, 1988; Kim, 1993).
Support for nomological validity is provided
by the relatively high and statistically
Table V Regression results
Independent variables B t
X1 = Internal forces of cooperation 0.36 0.12
X2 = Double-loop learning 0.06 ± 0.03
X4 = Learning focused on efficiency 0.96 0.34
X7 = Learning focused on proficiency 0.47 0.19
Constant 36.52
R2 0.272
Adjusted R2 0.255
F statistic 15.164*
(df = 4)
Notes: *t-value is significant at p < 0.005 level
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
significant correlations between
organizational performance (Y1) and double-
loop (X2) learning (0.38) and single-loop
(X3) learning (0.35) as theoretically
determined in the literature (DeGeus, 1988).
Evidence for known groups validity was
provided by testing the null hypothesis that
population means of the constructs were
equal as there is no evidence in the literature
to support differences between groups
distinguished by size or SIC classification for
any constructs in this study. Levene's test and
the Bonferroni test were performed on the
constructs to accept the hypothesis that the
population means are equal.
Regression model of constructs
The assumed hypothetical model for linear
regression analysis is shown in Figure 2.
Multiple regression was carried out using the
stepwise selection method. The first variable
was selected in the same manner as forward
selection. The criteria used for entry into the
regression equation was the computed
probability of the F statistic (Probability of
F-to-enter(PIN)) is less than 0.05. The first
independent variable was examined for
removal as in backward elimination using the
POUT (probability of F-to-remove) criteria
of 0.10. This process was continued with all
the variables in the equation and provided the
results shown in Table V.
Structural equation model of constructs
In contrast to the earlier analysis of construct
reliability, the measurement model displays
higher levels of reliability as indicated by
composite reliabilities ranging from 0.74 to
0.97 as shown in Table VI with shared
variance coefficients ranging from 0.79 to
0.97 (following Fornell and Larcker's (1981,
pp. 45-6) formulae). There are clearly no
reliability concerns with the two earlier
constructs; learning focused on efficiency (3 :
a = 0.96) and learning focused on direction
(5 : a = 0.83). The loadings for the majority
1.44
of elements of the measurement model are
± 0.26
significant at the p < 0.001 level and the
3.24*
standard errors are predominantly small in
2.24*
both the proposed models. This is further
6.65*
evidence for convergent validity showing that
variables are significantly related to their
specified constructs and the measurement
model is acceptable. Additional evidence is
provided by the predominantly high squared
multiple correlations for the x and y variables
41
 Cognition, culture and competition The Learning Organization
Ashok Jashapara Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50

Table VI Structural parameter estimates for original model (Model 2) and alternative model (Model 3)
Models Original model (Model 2) Alternative model (Model 3)
Construct Reliability Hypotheses Path Coeff. Estimate t-value Path Coeff. Estimate t-value
Internal forces of cooperation (1 ) 0.79 H1 1 8 81 0.559 2.037 1 5 51 0.572 2.013
Double-loop learning (1 ) 0.79 H2 1 8 81 3.976 0.014* 1 5 51 50.848 0.218*
Single-loop learning (2 ) 0.88 H3 2 8 82 5.085 0.006* 2 5 52 ± 31.272 ± 0.046*
Learning focused on efficiency (3 ) 0.96 H4 3 8 83 43.184 0.191* 3 5 53 68.383 1.134*
Learning focused on innovation (4 ) 0.74 H5 4 8 84 ± 41.162 ± 0.136*
Learning focused on direction (5 ) 0.83 H6 5 8 85 ± 8.383 ± 0.041*
Learning focused on proficiency (6 ) 0.97 H7 6 8 86 13.912 0.030* 4 5 54 8.483 0.014*
Learning focused on concentration (7 ) 0.94 H8 7 8 87 ± 7.795 ± 0.048*
Note: *t-value is significant at p < 0.005 level

together with the exceptionally high total
coefficient of determination for Model 3 (y
variables = 0.999, x variables = 0.739).
The structural model results for the original
model (Model 2) revealed a moderately
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
a marked improvement in the overall
structural model fit. The Chi squared (2 )
statistic is reduced to a value of 293.80,
almost half the value of the original model.
The GFI shows an improvement to 0.760

acceptable level of overall fit using a number
of indices as shown in Table VI. However, the
significant deficiencies in Model 2 related to
the poor levels of squared multiple
correlations and the total coefficient of
determination for structural equations. The
initial multiple regression showed that three
constructs did not have a significant
relationship with the dependent variable,
organizational performance. The same
constructs, learning focused on innovation
(4 ), learning focused on direction (5 ) and
learning focused on concentration (7 ) had
negative structural loadings with the
organizational performance construct (see
Table VI). An alternative model (Model 3)
was developed without these three constructs
to see whether the overall measurement and
structural model fit could be improved. In
addition a null model was developed as the
simplest model that could be justified with all
12 variables loading on a single  latent
variable.
A number of structural model fit measures
were investigated recognising their strengths
and weaknesses. The Chi squared (2 )
statistic can be regarded as a goodness (or
badness) of fit measure where large 2
corresponds to a bad fit and a small 2
corresponds to a good fit. Joreskog and
Sorbom (1989, p. 43) suggest that the Chi
squared (2 ) statistic is not valid in a number
of applications as it is sensitive to sample size,
departures from normality and specification
error. As such a number of other goodness of
fit indices are provided in Table VII. In all
cases, the alternative model proposed reveals
42
where a value of 1.000 represents perfect fit.
The number of significant residuals (26) are
almost reduced by half in the alternative
model. The ``acid test'' of the non-centrality
parameter (McDonald and Marsh, 1990)
which is independent of sample size shows a
similar halving (1.496) in the alternative
model.
Incremental fit measures provide indices to
compare the proposed model relative to a
null model (Bearden et al., 1982; Bentler and
Bonett, 1980; Marsh et al., 1988; McDonald
and Marsh, 1990). In each case, the indices
show a marked improvement with the
alternative model (Table VII). Parsimonious
fit measures provide evidence to support
improvements using an alternative model. A
slight anomaly exists with the parsimonious
normed fit index which shows a slightly
lower fit for the alternative model. This
anomaly arises due to the significantly
reduced degrees of freedom in the alternative
model (23) compared to the original model
(43). However, the mass of evidence points
towards the alternative model (Model 3)
providing a reasonable representation of
the data.
Looking more closely at the structural
parameter estimates, the first notable result is
the significant negative effect of single-loop
learning in rejection of H3 ( 52 = ± 31.272, t
= ± 0.046). This evidence confirms the
theoretical assumption that it is double-loop
learning ( 52 = 50.848, t = 0.218) rather than
single-loop learning that has an impact on
organizational performance in support of H2.
The cultural variable parameter, internal
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
Table VII Goodness of fit indices for structural models of study
Original model
(Model 2)
Absolute fit measures
Chi square (2 )
Degrees of freedom (df)
Goodness of fit index (GFI)
Root mean square residual (RMSR)
Number of significant residuals (NSR)
Rescaled non-centrality parameter dk
Incremental fit measures
Tucker-Lewis index tk (TLI)
Relative non-centrality index hk (RNI)
Normed fit index bk (NFI)
Parsimonious fit measures
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)
Parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI)
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
forces of cooperation, shows a positive effect
on organizational performance ( 51 = 0.572,
t = 2.013) in support of H1. However, it is
interesting to note that the internal forces of
cooperation have a negative effect on double-
loop learning ( 21 = ± 0.767, t = ± 4.803).
This implies that there may be a flux in the
cultural variable with the internal forces of
cooperation and competition and their effects
on double-loop learning and organizational
performance. The other postulated
antecedents of learning focus have a
significant effect on organizational
performance; learning focused on efficiency
( 53 = 68.383, t = 1.134) and learning
focused on proficiency ( 54 = 8.483,
t = 0.014) in support of H4 and H7.
Discussion and conclusions
The structural equation modelling approach
adopted in this study has focused on the
processes of culture, cognition and
competition in organizations and their effects
on organizational performance by explicitly
articulating the role of the key variables. Prior
research in this area has been qualitative in
nature and there have been no previous
studies that have involved hypothesis
development and testing of the independent
variables in this study. The aim of the study
was to advance our understanding of the
processes of cognition, culture and
competition in organizations and their effects
on organizational performance.
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
Alternative
model (Model 3) Null model
631.80 293.80 1,424.50
43 23 66
0.714 0.760 0.301
4.320 4.227 6.507
47 26 78
3.253 1.496 7.506
0.336 0.428
0.567 0.801
0.556 0.794
0.481 0.530
0.362 0.277
The empirical findings of this study are a
mixture of instrument development and
determining relationships between the key
variables. Each construct in this study
demonstrated high levels of reliability and
provided evidence for convergent,
discriminant, nomological and known
groups validity.
In addition, a composite measure of
organizational performance was developed to
include financial and organizational aspects of
this complex and multidimensional
phenomenon (Brown and Laverick, 1994)
rather than using traditional financial data
that can be subject to manipulation and
misinterpretation depending on the firm's
strategy. Significant efforts were made to
reduce social desirability and acquiescence
bias in order to develop well grounded
instruments.
The results indicate that firms with
cooperative cultures are more likely to achieve
competitive advantage. Isaacs (1993) and
Schein (1993) reinforce the need for dialogue
to improve communication and to strengthen
a culture of openness and trust in
organizations. However, an anomaly arises in
the findings to show that competitive or
political cultures are more likely to lead to
double-loop learning. As such, the most
effective organizations are more likely to have
a flux between competitive and cooperative
cultures rather than showing idealized forms
of either. In this conception, organizational
culture can be viewed as a continual struggle
by groups of organizational members to
43
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
impose values and identities on the role of
others (Carroll, 1995). This flux is
characterised by the culture of adversarial
client-contractor relationships and the drive
towards partnering in the UK construction
industry (Barlow and Jashapara, 1998). The
nature of construction as a project based,
cyclical and fragmented industry maintains
this inherent flux of organizational culture
and hinders the total development of culture
in its idealised forms of cooperation or
competition (Baden and Baden, 1993;
Winch, 1998). These findings add further
support to Cook and Yanow's (1993)
definition of organizational learning from a
cultural perspective and show direct links to
organizational learning from a psychological
and management science perspective (Argyris
and Schon, 1978; Huber, 1991).
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
The results support the basic premise
underlying the learning organization
literatures that organizational learning leads
to competitive advantage (DeGeus, 1988;
Grant, 1996a). In particular, it is the cognitive
dimension of double-loop learning rather
than behavioural dimension of single-loop
learning that has a direct and positive effect
on organizational performance. Organizations
that continually questions their underlying
assumptions and ``do things differently'' are
more likely to achieve sustainable competitive
advantage. In contrast, firms engaged purely
in single-loop learning or ``doing things
better'' are more likely to have an adverse
effect on their performance. This result
demonstrates the key role of double-loop
learning in the process of strategic change in
organizations.
Mintzberg's (1991) dynamics of
competitive forces was adopted in this study
as the principal focus of organizational
learning for firms to gain competitive
advantage. Undirected organizational
learning was not seen as sufficient in itself to
deliver performance improvements and align
the firm's learning to its environment (Fiol
and Lyles, 1985). The results show that
learning focused on efficiency and
proficiency had a positive effect on
organizational performance. The
competitive market of the UK construction
industry is characterised by over-capacity
and low margins. In these circumstances, it is
clear that learning focused on efficiency
would have a direct effect on performance.
Numerous UK government initiatives
44
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
(CRISP, 1995; DETR, 1998; Latham, 1994;
OST, 1995) have tried to tackle the
problems of efficiency and perceived poor
productivity levels of the construction
industry. The force of proficiency is
concerned with tasks requiring high levels of
knowledge and skills and the results show
that the movement of construction firms
towards professional organizations is an
important force at this time. In examining
the HRM practices of the UK construction
sector, Druker et al. (1996, p. 415) observe
that the traditional pyramid construction
organization with a large manual workforce
is being replaced by a structure that is
heavier in its professional and managerial
component and much lighter in its directly
employed manual base. However, there are
inherent structural problems in this industry
for attracting high calibre recruits to satisfy
this force for proficiency due to the
dangerous, dirty and unpleasant work
environments that contribute to a poor
image of the industry (Gann and Seneker,
1998).
The other postulated relations of learning
focus that failed to show significance on
organizational performance were learning
focused on innovation, direction and
concentration. This is purely indicative of the
competitive environment at the time of the
study and is likely to respond to the dynamic
nature of strategic change processes
(Hodgson, 1988). Despite the growing
literature on the need for innovation in
construction, this force may not be significant
due to the large number of small firms in the
industry and the nature of construction
projects. Projects are collaborative ventures
with other firms and almost all inventions
have to be negotiated with one or more actors
(Winch, 1998).
The results of the stratified sample in this
study could be developed into benchmarks
(Codling, 1992) related to size of company
and SIC classifications for organizational
learning and the notion of intellectual capital
(Edvinsson and Malone, 1997). However,
benchmarking is likely to develop imitative
strategies or incremental innovations (Drew,
1997) more akin to single-loop learning rather
than a strategy for achieving competitive
advantage. In addition, there are
methodological issues related to establishing
an independent body to provide integrity and
credibility to regular industry-wide
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
assessments of organizational learning as they
change and respond to the competitive
environment. Barney (1991) also suggests
that firms would not be interested in losing
their competitive advantage by sharing
information in a benchmarking exercise.
Nevertheless, there are firms that could use
benchmarks as ``stretch goals'' to improve
their performance and learning and move
towards the goal of double-loop learning.
Limitations of study
Three limitations of this study should be
noted. First, the organizational learning
instrument has been developed on the
assumption that executives can assess
accurately the levels of organizational learning
and the extent to which this learning is
focused in their organizations. This
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
assumption may apply to industries such as
construction where there are large numbers of
small firms but the assumption does become
challenged with the complexity of
organizational learning and the formation of
sub-cultures of learning in large firms. Future
research is needed to test this assumption and
the validity of executives assessing
organizational learning at different levels in
their organizations and the organization as a
whole.
The second limitation concerns construct
development in this study. As there were no
instruments related to constructs in this
study, the validity of the constructs needs
further testing. Future research is needed to
provide additional evidence for validity and,
in particular, convergent validity of the newly
developed scales.
The third limitation is the relatively low
response rate of 14.1 per cent. This response
rate is relatively common for UK postal
surveys and is considerably lower than the 40-
50 per cent response rates achieved in the
USA. The low response rates introduce non-
response bias where non-respondents may
hold views that are significantly different from
respondents, thereby limiting generalizability
of the findings. Also, the length of the
questionnaire (107 items in the main study)
may have resulted in measurement error as
respondents were unable to maintain their
concentration over prolonged periods of time.
The findings of this study could be developed
to explore sectorial and cross-industry
international comparisons of organizational
45
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
learning and to further develop the scales of
this study.
Conclusions
Three important conclusions can be derived
from this study. First, organizational learning
in the form of double-loop learning does lead
to competitive advantage and provides
evidence to support this assumption
underlying the learning organization literature
(DeGeus, 1988). It is this cognitive
dimension of double-loop learning that will
aid organizations sustain competitive
advantage rather than the behavioural
dimensions of single-loop learning. Single-
loop learning has an adverse effect on
organizational performance.
Second, cooperative organizational cultures
lead to increased performance among
construction firms. However, it is competitive
or political cultures that are more likely to
engender double-loop learning. Hence,
effective organizations are likely to
demonstrate a flux between cooperative and
competitive cultures rather than these
polarities of organizational culture in their
idealised forms.
Third, the dynamics of competitive forces
means that construction firms need to focus
their organizational learning on efficiency and
proficiency to achieve competitive advantage.
The ability of firms to align their learning to
changes in the competitive environment is key
to increased performance. This conception of
strategy views competition as a process
through people's day-to-day learning and
alignment of their learning to the external
environment. As competition is essentially
unstable and uncertain, the learning focus is
never static and will change to respond to the
competitive environment.
References
Allinson, C.W. and Hayes, J. (1988), ``The learning styles
questionnaire: an alternative to Kolb's inventory?'',
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 269-81.
Ansoff, H.I. (1991), ``Critique of Henry Mintzberg's `the
design school': reconsidering the basic premises of
strategic planning'', Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 449-61.
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
Ansoff, H.I. (1994), ``Comment on Henry Mintzberg's
rethinking strategic planning'', Long Range
Planning, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 2-7.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning:
A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Baden, R.H. and Baden, R. (1993), Total Quality in
Construction Projects, Thomas Telford, London.
Ballard, R. (1992), ``Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne
social desirability scale'', Psychological Reports,
Vol. 71 pp. 1155-60.
Barlow, J. and Jashapara, A. (1998), ``Organisational
learning and inter-firm partnering in the UK
construction industry'', The Learning Organization,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 86-98.
Barney, J.B. (1991), ``Firm resources and sustained
competitive advantage'', Journal of Management,
Vol. 17, pp. 99-120.
Bateson, G. (1973), ``The logical categories of learning and
communication'', in Bateson, G. (Ed.), Steps to an
Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology,
Psychiatry and Epistemology, Paladin, London.
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
Bearden, W.O., Sharma, S. and Teel, J.E. (1982), ``Sample
size effects on chi square and other statistics used
in evaluating causal models'', Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 19, November, pp. 425-30.
Beer, M., Laurence, P.R., Mills, Q.N. and Walton, R.E.
(1985), Human Resource Management, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), ``Significance tests
and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88,
pp. 588-606.
Bernardin, H. and Kane, J. (1993), Performance Appraisal:
A Contingency Approach to System Development
and Evaluation, Kent Publishing Co., Boston, MA.
Bhaskar, R. (1975), A Realist Theory of Science, Leeds
Books, Leeds.
Brews, P.J. and Hunt, M.R. (1999), ``Learning to plan and
planning to learn: resolving the planning school/
learning school debate'', Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 889-913.
Brown, M.D. and Laverick, S. (1994), ``Measuring
corporate performance'', Long Range Planning,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 89-98.
Cameron, K.S. and Whetten (1983), Organizational
Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Carroll, C. (1995), ``Rearticulating organizational identity:
exploring corporate images and employee
identification'', Management Learning, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 463-82.
Cascio, W. (1991), Costing Human Resources, PWS-Kent
Publishing Co., Boston, MA.
Central Statistical Office (1980), Standard Industrial
Classification, HMSO, London.
Chakravarthy, B.S. (1986), ``On tailoring a strategic
planning system to its context: some empirical
evidence'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8
No. 6, pp. 517-34.
Codling, S. (1992), Best Practice Benchmarking: The
Management Guide to Successful Implementation,
Gower, London.
Commission of the European Communities (1994),
``European observatory for SMEs ± comments by the
46
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
commission on the 2nd annual report'', Document
Number: COM(94)352.
Cook, D.N. and Yanow, D. (1993), ``Culture and
organizational learning'', Journal of Management
Inquiry, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 373-90.
Coopey, J. (1995), ``The learning organization, power,
politics and ideology'', Management Learning,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 193-214.
CRISP (1995), An Introduction to the Whole Industry
Research Strategy, Department of the Environment,
Construction Research and Innovation Strategy
Panel, London.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), ``Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests'', Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 297-333.
Daft, R.L., Sormunen, J. and Parks, D. (1988), ``Chief
executive scanning, environmental characteristics
and company performance: an empirical study'',
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 123-39.
DeGeus, A. (1988), ``Planning as learning'', Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 66, March/April, pp. 70-4.
Delaney, J.T. and Huselid, M.A. (1996), ``The impact of
human resource management practices on
perceptions of organizational performance'',
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 949-69.
Department of Environment (1993), Housing and
Construction Statistics: 1982-1992, HMSO, London.
Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. (1984), ``Measuring
organizational performance in the absence of
objective measures: the case of the privately-held
firm and conglomerate business unit'', Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 5, pp. 265-73.
DETR (1998), Rethinking Construction, Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
Dixon, N. (1994), The Organizational Learning Cycle: How
We Can Learn Collectively, McGraw-Hill,
Maidenhead.
Drew, S.A.W. (1997), ``From knowledge to action: the
impact of benchmarking on organizational
performance'', Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 427-41.
Druker, J. et al. (1996), ``Between hard and soft HRM:
human resource management in the construction
industry'', Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 405-16.
Druker, J. and White, C. (1994), ``Trade unions on the
brink: the case of construction'', Cardiff Business
School Employment Research Unit Conference
Paper, Cardiff.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997), ``Disciplines of organizational
learning: contributions and critiques'', Human
Relations, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 1085-113.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1990), ``Creating a learning
organization'', Personnel Review, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 24-8.
Eccles, R. and Nohria, N. (1992), Beyond the Hype:
Rediscovering the Essence of Management, Harvard
Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual Capital,
Harper Business, New York, NY.
Etzioni, A. (1964), Modern Organizations, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985), ``Organizational
learning'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 803-13.
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
Fitz-Enz, J. (1990), Human Value Management: The Value-
Adding Human Resource Management Strategy for
the 1990s, Jossey-Bass, Oxford.
Flamholtz, T. (1985), Human Resource Accounting, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Fombrun, C.J., Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1984),
Strategic HRM, Wiley, New York, NY.
Ford, J.D. and Schellenberg (1982), ``Conceptual issues of
linkage in the assessment of organizational
performance'', Academy of Management Review,
January, pp. 49-58.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, F. (1981), ``Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error'', Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 18, February, pp. 39-50.
Fredrickson, J.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (1984), ``Strategic
decision processes: comphrehensiveness and
performance in an industry with an unstable
environment'', Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 399-423.
Gann, D. and Seneker, P. (1998), ``Construction skills
training for the next millennium'', Construction
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
Management and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 569-80.
Garvin, D.A. (1993), ``Building a learning organization'',
Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 78-84.
Glick, W.G., Huber, G.P., Miller, C.C., Doty, D.H. and
Sutcliffe, K.M. (1990), ``Studying changes in
organizational design and effectiveness:
retrospective event histories and periodic
assessments'', Organisation Science, Vol. 1,
pp. 293-312.
Grant, R.M. (1996a), ``Prospering in dynamically
competitive environments: organizational capability
as knowledge integration'', Organization Science,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 375-87.
Grant, R.M. (1996b), ``Toward a knowledge-based theory
of the firm'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17
pp. 109-22.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1993), ``Strategy as stretch
and leverage'', Harvard Business Review, March-
April, pp. 75-84.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the
Future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hawkins, P. (1994), ``Organizational learning: taking stock
and facing the challenge'', Management Learning,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 71-82.
Hayes, J. and Allinson, C.W. (1998), ``Cognitive style and
the theory and practice of individual and collective
learning in organizations'', Human Relations, Vol. 51
No. 7, pp. 847-71.
Hedberg, B. (1981), ``How organizations learn and
unlearn'', in Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (Eds),
Handbook of Organizational Design, Cambridge
University Press, London.
Hiltrop, J.M. and Despres, C. (1994), ``Benchmarking the
performance of human resource management'',
Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 43-57.
Hodgson, G. (1988), Economics and Institutions, Polity
Press, Cambridge.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1986), The Manual of
Learning Styles, Peter Honey, Maidenhead.
Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1989), ``Short form of
learning styles questionnaire'', The Guardian,
London.
47
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
Huber, G. (1991), ``Organizational learning: the
contributing processes and the literature'',
Organizational Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Huff, A. (1990), Mapping Strategic Thought, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Isaacs, W.N. (1993), ``Taking flight: dialogue, collective
thinking and organizational learning'',
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 24-39.
Jashapara, A. (1993), ``The competitive learning
organization: a quest for the holy grail'',
Management Decision, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 52-62.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1989), LISREL 7: A Guide
to the Program and Applications, SPSS, Chicago, IL.
Kim, D.H. (1993), ``The link between individual and
organizational learning'', Sloan Management
Review, Fall, pp. 37-50.
Kravetz, D. (1988), The Human Resources Revolution:
Implementing Progressive Management Practices
for Bottom-line Success, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.
Lado, A.A. and Wilson, M.C. (1994), ``Human resource
systems and sustained competitive advantage:
a competency-based perspective'', Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 19, pp. 699-727.
Langlois, R.N. (1986), Economics as a Process: Essays in
the New Institutional Economics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Latham, S.M. (1994), Constructing the Team ± Final
Report of the Government/Industry Review of
Procurement and Contractural Arrangements in the
UK Construction Industry, HMSO, London.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988), ``Organizational
learning'', Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14,
pp. 319-40.
McDonald, R.P. and Marsh, H.W. (1990), ``Choosing a
multivariate model: noncentrality and goodness of
fit'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 247-55.
McGuire, J. and Schneeweis, T. (1983), ``An analysis of
alternate measures of strategic performance'',
Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the
Strategic Management Society, Paris.
Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. and McDonald, R.P. (1988),
``Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor
analysis: the effect of sample size'', Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 391-410.
Menezes, D. and Elbert, N.F. (1979), ``Alternative semantic
formats for measuring store image: an evaluation'',
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February,
pp. 80-7.
Mintzberg, H. (1990a), ``The design school: reconsidering
the basic premises of strategic management'',
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 171-95.
Mintzberg, H. (1990b), ``Strategy formation: schools of
thought'', in Fredrickson, J.W. (Ed.), Perspectives on
Strategic Management, Harper Business, New York,
NY, pp. 105-235.
Mintzberg, H. (1991), ``The effective organization: forces
and forms'', Sloan Management Review, Winter,
pp. 54-67.
Mitroff, I.I., Mason, R.O. and Pearson, C.M. (1994),
``Radical surgery: what will tomorrow's
organizations look like?'', Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 8, pp. 11-22.
Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. and Silverman, B.S. (1996),
``Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge
 Cognition, culture and competition
Ashok Jashapara
transfer'', Strategic Management Journal, Winter,
Special Issue No. 17, pp. 77-91.
Nevis, E.C., DiBella, A.J. and Gould, J.M. (1995),
``Understanding organizations as learning systems'',
Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 73-85.
Nicolini, D. and Meznar, M.B. (1995), ``The social
construction of organizational learning: concepts
and practical issues in the field'', Human Relations,
Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 727-46.
Nonaka, I. (1994), ``A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation'', Organizational Science, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C.C. and Konno, N.
(1994), ``Organizational knowledge creation theory:
A first comphrehensive test'', International Business
Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 337-51.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-
Creating Company, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
OST (1995), UK Technology Foresight: Construction 2,
Office of Science and Technology, HMSO, London.
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)
Outhwaite, W. (1987), New Philosophies of Social Science
± Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory,
Macmillan Education, Basingstoke.
Pearce, J.A., Freeman, E.B. and Robinson, R.B. (1987),
``The tenuous link between formal strategic
planning and performance'', Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 658-75.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1991), The
Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable
Development, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Peter, J.P. and Churchill, G.A.J. (1986), ``Relationships
among research design choices and psychometric
properties of rating scales: a meta analysis'', Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, February, pp. 1-10.
Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1991), Managing Change for
Competitive Success, Blackwell, Oxford.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Pucik, V. (1988), ``Strategic alliances, organisational
learning and competitive advantage: the HRM
agenda'', Human Resource Management, Spring,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 77-93.
Rappaport, A. (1981), ``Selecting strategies that create
shareholder value'', Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 139-49.
Reynolds, W.M. (1982), ``Development of reliable and
valid short forms of Marlowe Crowne social
desirability scale'', Journal of Clinical Psychology,
Vol. 38, pp. 119-25.
Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (1991),
``Criteria for scale selection and evaluation'', in
Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S.
(Eds), Measures of Personality and Psychological
Attitudes, The Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Schein, E.H. (1993), ``On dialogue, culture and
organizational learning'', Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 40-51.
Schuler, R.S. (1984), ``Gaining competitive advantage
through human resource management practices'',
Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 241-55.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1950), Capitalism, Socialism, and
Democracy, Harper, New York, NY.
48
The Learning Organization
Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50
Schuster, F. (1986), The Schuster Report: The Proven
Connection Between People and Profits, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Practice of the Learning Organization, Century
Business, London.
Shrivastava, P.A. (1983), ``A typology of organizational
learning systems'', Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
Simonin, B.L. (1997), ``The importance of collaborative
know-how: an empirical test of the learning
organization'', Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1150-74.
Simonin, B.L. (1999), ``Ambiguity and the process of
knowledge transfer in strategic alliances'', Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 595-623.
Smith, T. (1992), Accounting for Growth, Century Business
Books, London.
Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction:
An Introduction, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Strahan, R. and Gerbasi, K.C. (1972), ``Short,
homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne
social desirability scale'', Journal of Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 28, p. 191.
Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A. (1992), Becoming a Learning
Organization, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Thompson, J. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
Tsui, A.S. (1984), ``Personnel department effectiveness: a
tripartite approach'', Industrial Relations, Vol. 23,
pp. 184-97.
Tull, D.S. and Hawkins, D.I. (1990), Marketing Research:
Measurement and Method, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Walton, R.E. (1985), ``From control to commitment in the
workplace'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63
No. 2, pp. 77-84.
Winch, G. (1998), ``Zephyrs of creative destruction:
understanding the management of innovation in
construction'', Building Research and Information,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 268-79.
Woo, C.Y. and Willard, G. (1983), ``Performance
representation in business policy research:
discussion and recommendation'', Proceedings of
23rd Annual National Meeting of the Academy of
Management, Dallas, TX.
Yutchman, E. and Seashore, S.E. (1967), ``A system resource
approach to organizational effectiveness'', American
Sociological Review, December, pp. 891-903.
Appendix
Learning in organizations
questionnaire
Please indicate the extent of your
agreement with the following statements by
circling the appropriate point on the scale
provided.
If you disagree strongly, CIRCLE the
number 1. If you agree strongly, CIRCLE
the number 7. If your feelings are
less strong, circle one of the numbers in
the middle.
 Cognition, culture and competition The Learning Organization
Ashok Jashapara Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50

There are no right or wrong answers. All we Learning in your organization in the last year.
are interested in is a number that truly reflects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
your feelings about your organization. Disagree stongly Agree strongly

Table AI
Item no. Items
Learning focused on efficiency
14 ( ) We've learnt to do the job right first time at minimum cost
12 ( ) We've developed efficient ways of managing people by acknowledging our past mistakes
34 ( ) We've encouraged individuals to explore new and unusual ways of cost cutting
18 ( ) We are quite defensive towards new ways of doing a job
30 ( ) We've concealed sensitive information about cost over-runs on projects
Learning focused on innovation
37 ( ) We've discovered new ways of doing our jobs effectively
22 ( ) We've generated many ideas to do our work better
7 ( ) We've cultivated an atmosphere of continually questioning everything
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)

9 ( ) We've encouraged new ideas that continually question current ways of doing things
32 ( ) We've tried to safeguard our old ways of doing things
Learning focused on direction
1 ( ) We've realised the need to question our core activities
8 ( ) We've revised our long term organizational goals
11 ( ) We've tried to develop a shared vision of the organization
19 ( ) We've continually questioned our strategic directions
3 ( ) We've abandoned looking at new areas of business
Learning focused on proficiency
21 ( ) We've realised the need for training at all levels in the organization
29 ( ) We've accumulated expertise through training
16 ( ) We've concentrated on reducing our training expenditure
27 ( ) We've encouraged new ways of looking at training and learning
23 ( ) We've abandoned trying to develop individuals
Learning focused on concentration
6 ( ) We've detected the need for BS5750 in our organization
25 ( ) We've achieved a consistent level of market share in our key activities
13 ( ) We've imitated our competitor's efforts in developing our markets
31 ( ) We've consolidated our marketing efforts towards established areas of work
33 ( ) We've continually developed new ways of delighting our clients
15 ( ) We've continually questioned our efforts for serving different markets
4 ( ) We've maintained our old ways for satisfying different market needs
28 ( ) We've stopped questioning our rationale for pursuing different markets
Internal forces of cooperation
17 () We've developed a high level of trust among individuals
24 () We've reduced the level of defensiveness among individuals and groups
10 () We've encouraged a greater level of collaboration among individuals
20 () We've accepted a greater level of conflict in the organization
36 () We've detected a higher level of discord in the organization
Internal forces of competition
38 () We've noticed an increasing level of conflict between individuals
2 () We've withheld information from certain individuals in the organization
5 () We've censored internal information on sensitive projects
35 () We've advocated an environment of openness among employees
26 () We've cultivated working conditions based on understanding and compromise
Notes: = single-loop learning item; = double-loop learning item;  = positively worded item;  = negatively
worded item

49
 Cognition, culture and competition The Learning Organization
Ashok Jashapara Volume 10 . Number 1 . 2003 . 31-50

Organizational Performance in the last estimates how YOUR FIRM currently

year compares to similar firms on each item.
To the best of your knowledge, please 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CIRCLE the number which you feel Much less Much more

Table AII
Item No. Items
Organizational performance ± economic dimension
100 Our return on capital employed has been:
105 Our turnover growth has been:
107 Our overall performance has been:
101 Our ability to gain contracts has been:
92 Our reputation has been:
104 Our ability to gain repeat business has been:
99 Our profit per employee has been:
93 Our level of client satisfaction has been:
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)

Organizational performance ± organizational dimension

94 The morale has been:
97 The degree of work enjoyment has been:
102 The level of doing jobs well has been:
103 The loyalty of staff has been:
98 The amount of change management acceptance has been:
96 The amount of flexibility has been:
95 The level of staff satisfaction has been:
106 The well-being of staff has been:

50
 This article has been cited by:

1. Maia C. Connors. 2018. Creating cultures of learning: A theoretical model of effective early care and education policy. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly 36, 32-45. [CrossRef]
2. Liat Eldor, Itzhak Harpaz. 2016. A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate and its relationship with
extra-role performance behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37:10.1002/job.v37.2, 213-235. [CrossRef]
3. Satwinder Singh, Tamer K. Darwish, Kristina Potočnik. 2016. Measuring Organizational Performance: A Case for Subjective
Measures. British Journal of Management 27:10.1111/bjom.2016.27.issue-1, 214-224. [CrossRef]
4. A. M. S. Al-Raqadi, A. Abdul Rahim, M. Masrom, B. S. N. Al-Riyami. 2015. Enhancing transparency and learning
sustainability on the perceptions of improving naval ships’ support performance. International Journal of System Assurance
Engineering and Management . [CrossRef]
5. A. M. S. Al-Raqadi, A. Abdul Rahim, M. Masrom, B. S. N. Al-Riyami. 2015. Sustainability of knowledge and competencies
management on the perceptions of improving ships’ upkeep performance. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering
and Management . [CrossRef]
6. A. M. S. Al-Raqadi, A. Abdul Rahim, M. Masrom, B. S. N. Al-Riyami. 2015. System thinking in single- and double-loop
learning on the perceptions of improving ships’ repair performance. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and
Management . [CrossRef]
7. A. M. S. Al-Raqadi, A. Abdul Rahim, M. Masrom, B. S. N. Al-Riyami. 2015. Cooperation and direction as potential
components for controlling stress on the perceptions of improving organisation’s performance. International Journal of System
Assurance Engineering and Management . [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)

8. Bo Xiong, Martin Skitmore, Bo Xia. 2015. A critical review of structural equation modeling applications in construction
research. Automation in Construction 49, 59-70. [CrossRef]
9. Elias George Carayannis, Audrey Depeige, Stavros Sindakis. 2014. Dynamics of ultra-organizational co-opetition and circuits
of knowledge: a knowledge-based view of value ecology. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:5, 1020-1035. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
10. Chonnatcha Kungwansupaphan, Sununta Siengthai. 2014. Exploring entrepreneurs’ human capital components and effects
on learning orientation in early internationalizing firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 10, 561-587.
[CrossRef]
11. Paraskevi Dekoulou, Panagiotis Trivellas. 2014. Learning Organization in Greek Advertising and Media Industry: A Way to
Face Crisis and Gain Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 148, 338-347. [CrossRef]
12. Claudia Lenuţa Rus, Sofia Chirică, Lucia Raţiu, Adriana Băban. 2014. Learning Organization and Social Responsibility in
Romanian Higher Education Institutions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 142, 146-153. [CrossRef]
13. Peter S.P. Wong, Sam K.S.Wong. 2014. To learn or not to learn from project monitoring feedback: In search of explanations
for the contractor's dichromatic responses. International Journal of Project Management 32, 676-686. [CrossRef]
14. V.S.R. Vijayakumar, R.N. Padma. 2014. Impact of perceived organizational culture and learning on organizational
identification. International Journal of Commerce and Management 24:1, 40-62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Francisco Brahm, Jorge Tarziján. 2014. Transactional hazards, institutional change, and capabilities: Integrating the theories
of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 35:10.1002/smj.2014.35.issue-2, 224-245. [CrossRef]
16. Pui Ting Chow, Sai On Cheung, Ka Ying Chan. 2012. Trust-building in construction contracting: Mechanism and
expectation. International Journal of Project Management 30, 927-937. [CrossRef]
17. Peter Shek Pui Wong, Ka Yin Lam. 2012. Facing Turbulence: Driving Force for Construction Organizations to Regain
Unlearning and Learning Traction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 138, 1202-1211. [CrossRef]
18. Richa Awasthy, Rajen K. Gupta. 2012. Dimensions of the learning organization in an Indian context. International Journal
of Emerging Markets 7:3, 222-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Mark Loon, Yet Mee Lim, Teck Heang Lee, Cai Lian Tam. 2012. Transformational leadership and job‐related learning.
Management Research Review 35:3/4, 192-205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Swee C. Goh, Catherine Elliott, Tony K. Quon. 2012. The relationship between learning capability and organizational
performance. The Learning Organization 19:2, 92-108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Stephen Eldridge, Antonio L Gamo Sánchez. 2012. How an unlearning context can help
managers overcome the negative effects of counter-knowledge. Journal of Management & Organization 18, 231-246.
[CrossRef]
22. Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Stephen Eldridge, Antonio L Gamo Sánchez. 2012. How an unlearning context can help
managers overcome the negative effects of counter-knowledge. Journal of Management & Organization 18, 231-246.
[CrossRef]
 23. Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Stephen Eldridge, Antonio L. Gamo Sánchez. 2012. How An Unlearning Context Can
Help Managers Overcome The Negative Effects of Counter-Knowledge. Journal of Management & Organization 981-1005.
[CrossRef]
24. Emilia van EgmondInnovation, Technology and Knowledge Transfer for Sustainable Construction 95-123. [CrossRef]
25. Ali Khamis Ali. 2012. Academic staff's perceptions of characteristics of learning organization in a higher learning institution.
International Journal of Educational Management 26:1, 55-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Peter S.P. Wong, Sai On Cheung, Regina L.Y. Yiu, Mary Hardie. 2012. The unlearning dimension of organizational learning
in construction projects. International Journal of Project Management 30, 94-104. [CrossRef]
27. Matineh Eybpoosh, Irem Dikmen, M. Talat Birgonul. 2011. Identification of Risk Paths in International Construction
Projects Using Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 137, 1164-1175.
[CrossRef]
28. T.M. Srithika, Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya. 2011. Measuring value progress in outsourcing organizations. Strategic
Outsourcing: An International Journal 4:2, 112-130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Paul A. Fuller, Andrew R.J. Dainty, Tony Thorpe. 2011. Improving project learning: a new approach to lessons learnt.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 4:1, 118-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, Maria Teresa Sánchez-Polo. 2011. Influence of the open-mindedness culture on organizational
memory: an empirical investigation of Spanish SMEs. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22, 1-18.
[CrossRef]
31. Kris Law. 2010. From driving to learning: The organizational learning process. IEEE Engineering Management Review 37,
66-79. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)

32. Shahla Ghobadi, Farhad Daneshgar. 2010. A conceptual model for managing incompatible impacts of organisational structures
on awareness levels. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 8, 256-264. [CrossRef]
33. Peter Shek Pui Wong, Sai On Cheung, Ray Tsuen Hoi Wu. 2010. Learning from project monitoring feedback: A case of
optimizing behavior of contractors. International Journal of Project Management 28, 469-481. [CrossRef]
34. Z Irani. 2010. Investment evaluation within project management: an information systems perspective. Journal of the
Operational Research Society 61, 917-928. [CrossRef]
35. S. Thomas Ng, Yoki M. W. Wong, James M. W. Wong. 2010. A Structural Equation Model of Feasibility Evaluation and
Project Success for Public&#8211;Private Partnerships in Hong Kong. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 57,
310-322. [CrossRef]
36. Somaieh Alavi, Dzuraidah Abd. Wahab, Norhamidi MuhamadExploring the relation between organizational learning and
knowledge management for improving performance 297-302. [CrossRef]
37. Kris M.Y. Law, Angappa Gunasekaran. 2009. Dynamic organizational learning: a conceptual framework. Industrial and
Commercial Training 41:6, 314-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. M. Sadiq Sohail, Salina Daud. 2009. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions. VINE 39:2, 125-142. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
39. Sai On Cheung, Pui Ting Chow, Tak Wing Yiu. 2009. Contingent Use of Negotiators’ Tactics in Construction Dispute
Negotiation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135, 466-476. [CrossRef]
40. Peter Shek Wong, Sai On Cheung, Ka Lam Fan. 2009. Examining the Relationship between Organizational Learning Styles
and Project Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135, 497-507. [CrossRef]
41. Tharinee Limpibunterng, Lalit M. Johri. 2009. Complementary role of organizational learning capability in new service
development (NSD) process. The Learning Organization 16:4, 326-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Rebecca M. Guidice, Joyce Thompson Heames, Sheng Wang. 2009. The indirect relationship between organizational‐level
knowledge worker turnover and innovation. The Learning Organization 16:2, 143-167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Yong Cao, Renhui LiConflict Analysis between Tacit Knowledge Sharing and Its Exclusivity Based on Meta-game Theory
31-35. [CrossRef]
44. Arthur Morgan, Ani Raidén, Gerald Naylor. 2008. Unlocking the potential to influence government skills policy: a case
study of the UK construction industry. International Journal of Training and Development 12:10.1111/ijtd.2008.12.issue-4,
238-252. [CrossRef]
45. C.C. Chen, Y.H. Yang, S.T. HsiungThe study of factors impacting on organizational innovation in financial holding company
2082-2086. [CrossRef]
46. Le Chen, Sherif Mohamed. 2008. Contribution of knowledge management activities to organisational business performance.
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 6:3, 269-285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
47. Ling ZhangThe evaluation of awareness net model 773-777. [CrossRef]
 48. Peter Shek Pui Wong, Sai On Cheung, Ka Yan Leung. 2008. Moderating Effect of Organizational Learning Type on
Performance Improvement. Journal of Management in Engineering 24, 162-172. [CrossRef]
49. Swee C. Goh, Peter J. Ryan. 2008. The organizational performance of learning companies. The Learning Organization 15:3,
225-239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Peter S.P. Wong, Sai On Cheung. 2008. An analysis of the relationship between learning behaviour and performance
improvement of contracting organizations. International Journal of Project Management 26, 112-123. [CrossRef]
51. Megan Lee Endres, Steven P. Endres, Sanjib K. Chowdhury, Intakhab Alam. 2007. Tacit knowledge sharing, self‐efficacy
theory, and application to the Open Source community. Journal of Knowledge Management 11:3, 92-103. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
52. Peter S. P. Wong, Sai On Cheung, Cliff Hardcastle. 2007. Embodying Learning Effect in Performance Prediction. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management 133, 474-482. [CrossRef]
53. Seok Hee Jeong, Taewha Lee, In Sook Kim, Myung Ha Lee, Mi Ja Kim. 2007. The effect of nurses? use of the principles
of learning organization on organizational effectiveness. Journal of Advanced Nursing 58:10.1111/jan.2007.58.issue-1, 53-62.
[CrossRef]
54. Constantine Kontoghiorghes, Susan M. Awbre, Pamela L. Feurig. 2006. Examining the relationship between learning
organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational performance. Human Resource Development
Quarterly 16:10.1002/hrdq.v16:2, 185-212. [CrossRef]
55. Marah F. Abu Khadra, Ibrahim A. Rawabdeh. 2006. Assessment of development of the learning organization concept in
Jordanian industrial companies. The Learning Organization 13:5, 455-474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. Ashok Jashapara, Wei-Chun Tai. 2006. Understanding the complexity of human characteristics on e-learning systems: an
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 06:42 30 January 2016 (PT)

integrated study of dynamic individual differences on user perceptions of ease of use. Knowledge Management Research &#38;
Practice 4, 227-239. [CrossRef]
57. Ani B. Raidén, Andrew R.J. Dainty. 2006. Human resource development in construction organisations. The Learning
Organization 13:1, 63-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Jennifer Calhoun, Alecia DouglasAn Analysis of Hospitality and Tourism Research: 359-381. [CrossRef]