413080

080Cohen et al.Administration & Society

© 2011 SAGE Publications
AAS43410.1177/0095399711413

Administration & Society

Organizational 43(4) 446­–473

© 2011 SAGE Publications
DOI: 10.1177/0095399711413080
Learning and Individual http://aas.sagepub.com

Values: The Case

of Israeli Civil Service
Employees

Aaron Cohen1, Zehava Rosenblatt1,

and Tali Buhadana1

Abstract
This study examines the relationship between individual values and organi-
zational learning among employees of an Israeli government ministry. The
authors examined the predictive relationships between 10 individual values
and organizational learning, focusing on four dimensions of organizational
learning. The study sample consisted of 298 civil service employees working
in one Israeli ministry. The findings showed that three values that reflect a focus
on person–organization fit—namely, security, tradition, and universalism—
were positively and consistently related to all dimensions of organizational
learning. Other values representing a focus on the individual—power and
self-direction—were negatively related to organizational learning.

Keywords
organizational learning, individual values, person-organization fit, Israeli civil
service

1
University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Corresponding Author:
Aaron Cohen, Division of Public Administration, School of Political Science,
University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel
Email: ACOHEN@POLI.HAIFA.AC.IL

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 447

Introduction
Organizational learning (OL) was first defined in terms of the detection and
correction of error (Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996) and later as the process of
improving actions through better knowledge and understanding (Fiol & Lyles,
1985). It has been a concept of interest in the search for efficiency, innovation,
and knowledge management in both the private and public sectors (Barrette,
Lemyre, Corneil, & Beauregard, 2007). OL has chiefly been studied in busi-
ness organizations, but the concept has value in the context of human service
organizations as well (Busch & Hostetter, 2009). Indeed, at a time of major
budget reductions in public organizations, there is an increasing call for dem-
onstrating the difference that careful spending can make in services provided,
and taxpayers and their representatives are demanding that public entities
prove their accountability and effectiveness through performance-based
evaluations and outcome measurements. Under these circumstances, public
organizations have come to recognize that knowledge provides a competi-
tive edge. Understanding the factors that facilitate or inhibit learning would
thus be highly valuable for public sector organizations struggling with lim-
ited resources and the need to demonstrate their service effectiveness (Busch
& Hostetter, 2009).
Bureaucracies are often criticized for their inability to manage uncertainty
and environmental complexity, and in particular, to implement and exploit
the learning activities required to adjust to change. Myers (1985) argues that
bureaucratic structures create a barrier to learning. However, this conclusion
has not been based on empirical research. Although it is possible that bureau-
cratic characteristics such as specialization and formalization may inhibit
learning, it cannot be stated unequivocally that the bureaucratic structure is the
core factor that limits learning in such organizations. Indeed, to become learn-
ing entities, organizations need both flexibility and stability in their manage-
ment of environmental complexity. The stability inherent in many bureaucratic
structures is thus not in itself a factor that is detrimental to learning (Lipshitz,
Friedman, & Popper, 2007).
Clearly, different bureaucracies differ in their strategies, cultures, communi-
cation climates, and formal or informal systems that foster learning. These are
influenced by a given organization’s particular mission and goals as well as
structural factors inherent to bureaucracies in general. A third factor that cannot
be ignored, however, is the characteristics of organizational members, including
their individual values.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

448 Administration & Society 43(4)

As the role of individual values in work-related behaviors and attitudes has

received renewed interest over the past decade (Schwartz, 1999), researchers
have begun to examine the way values affect the workplace (Ang, Van Dyne, &
Begley, 2003; A. Cohen, 2007; Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007; Kirkman &
Shapiro, 2001). Fischer and Smith (2006) highlight the importance of such an
examination, arguing that employees from different sociocultural backgrounds
bring different career aspirations and value systems to their work. The aggrega-
tion of these individual-level inputs shapes the way the organization operates.
In particular, values are thought to play a functional role in key work-related
processes and outcomes (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002).
Values can influence how an individual perceives and interprets a given
situation and the importance he or she gives it (Schwartz, Sagiv, & Boehnke,
2000) as well as how he or she reacts and behaves in given circumstances
(Schwartz, 1996). Furthermore, values play a central role in determining the
fit between individuals and the employment organization (Berings, De Fruyt, &
Bouwen, 2004). The underlying assumption is that people will be happier and
more motivated, satisfied, and committed when their values are congruent with
those emphasized in the group or organization (Berings et al., 2004). It follows
that an understanding of individual-level differences in values may offer
insights into the way organizations operate (Francesco & Chen, 2004).
It is clear that OL, at least as much as other workplace processes, is depen-
dent to a great degree on the characteristics of individual members. First,
although OL does not require that every individual member be a learner, it can
be thought of as the collective accumulation, sharing, and formalizing (through
procedures and policies) of members’ individual learning (Wriston, 2007).
Second, certain psychological states are crucial to make OL happen. In this
regard, Lipshitz, Popper, and Friedman (2002) highlight psychological safety,
without which members would be reluctant to take the risks required for learn-
ing and organizational commitment, which aligns the interests of individuals
with those of the organization.
Because individual values are at the heart of any individual attitude and
behavior, and because the collective attitudes and behaviors of many indi-
viduals shape the organization’s learning culture, we believe that values may
be found as key determinants of OL. In the current article, we explore the
relationship between individual values and perceived OL among Israeli civil
service employees, all employed in one Israeli government ministry. We will
examine the link between individual values on one hand and OL on the other,
while staying at the individual level of analysis.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 449

Conceptual Framework
and Research Hypotheses
Organizational Learning
Argyris and Schön’s (1978, 1996) seminal theory of OL has shaped much of the
current discussion of OL in the organizational literature (Godkin & Allcorn,
2009; Saka-Helmhout, 2010; Thomas & Allen, 2006). Argyris and Schön
argue that people behave according to “mental maps” that shape how they
plan, implement, and review their actions in different situations. These mental
maps—of which people may not be consciously aware (Argyris, 1980)—
govern what we (as human beings) actually do, which may differ from what
we feel we ought to do or would like others to think we do. Argyris and
Schön discuss these competing models in terms of “theories of action.” The
former—how we actually behave—represents action in practice or “theory in
use” (Argyris & Schön, 1978). The latter—how we would like to behave—
represents espoused theory. This is the theory of action to which we give
allegiance and which, on request, we communicate to others (Smith, 2001).
According to Argyris and Schön, this distinction makes it possible to ask ques-
tions about the extent to which behavior fits espoused theory—that is, whether
inner feelings become expressed in action.
Argyris and Schön (1978) argue that effective action results from devel-
oping congruence between theory in use and espoused theory. When there is
a mismatch between the two, the result will be a mismatch between intentions
and outcomes. That is, the consequences of a person’s actions may not be what
he or she intended and may not harmonize with the person’s governing val-
ues. Argyris and Schön suggest two responses to this mismatch, which can be
seen in the notion of single- and double-loop learning.
For Argyris and Schön (1978), learning, in its most basic form, involves the
detection and correction of error. Where something goes wrong, the first step
for many people is to look for an alternative strategy that will work within the
governing variables. In other words, given or chosen goals are operationalized
rather than questioned. According to Argyris and Schön, this is single-loop
learning. In single-loop learning, goals, values, frameworks, and, to a certain
extent, strategies are taken for granted; any reflection is directed toward mak-
ing the strategy more effective. The alternative response, which they call
double-loop learning, is to subject the governing variables themselves to
critical scrutiny. Double-loop learning is likely to produce a shift in the way
strategies and consequences are framed. It is more creative and reflective, but
it is riskier and more difficult for both the individual and the organization
(Smith, 2001).

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

450 Administration & Society 43(4)

Much of Argyris and Schön’s (1978) work has explored how organizations
can increase their capacity for double-loop learning, necessary to improve deci-
sion making in rapidly changing and often uncertain contexts. In their view,
behavior that inhibits double-loop learning is governed by a strong motiva-
tion to avoid embarrassment, to protect oneself from risk and change, and to
enhance control over the environment and the task. To this end, potentially
contradictory information is suppressed, open inquiry is discouraged, and
assumptions are not tested. As such, this model (Model I in Argyris and Schön’s
formulation) leads to “often deeply entrenched defensive routines” (Smith,
2001). The alternative model (Argyris and Schön’s Model II) enhances double-
loop learning by taking as fundamental the learning that requires (a) seeking
out and disseminating valid, reliable data; (b) inclusiveness in hearing others’
views and perspectives; and (c) reasoning about and testing theories and posi-
tions. This model “looks to emphasize common goals and mutual influence,
[to] encourage open communication, [and to] combine advocacy with inquiry”
(Smith, 2001). Then, for OL to occur, the individual learners in the group
must share their discoveries and conclusions, so that they become “embedded
in organizational memory” (Argyris & Schön, 1978, p. 19)—that is, incorpo-
rated into organizational processes and priorities.
Aside from Argyris and Schön (1978, 1996), other researchers have offered
their own approaches to the conceptualizations of OL (Lipshitz & Popper,
2000). For instance, OL has been defined as a cycle or process that facilitates
acquisition of knowledge, a process of collective learning through interaction
with the environment, a process of identifying anomalies and making correc-
tions (this idea is a restructuring of the theory of action), an enhanced ability
to achieve desired results, or an organization’s ability to use experience to
maintain and improve its performance (for a review of these definitions, see
Barrette et al., 2007). Lipshitz and Popper (2000) suggest that the conceptual
confusion surrounding OL is partly attributable to unsatisfactory solutions to
the “paradox of organizational learning” (Argyris & Schön, 1996). In their
view, although it is true that organizations can be said to “learn” through their
members, what organizations “know” is not a simple sum of the knowledge of
each individual member. Lipshitz and Popper advance a conceptual framework
to solve the problematic link between individual-level and organizational-level
learning through the concept of OL mechanisms (OLMs) and the culture in which
they are embedded. Thus, they expand the cognitive approach advanced by
Argyris and Schön to present a value-based foundation for OL.
OLMs, which constitute the structural facet of OL, can be categorized
according to two main features: (a) who detects and corrects errors through
information processing and (b) when and where this learning occurs relative

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 451

to the task system (Lipshitz et al., 2002). Examples of OLMs include strate-
gic planning, auditing, quality control departments, and formal performance
reviews. However, OLMs represent a necessary but not sufficient condition
for productive OL. OLMs may be ineffective because the learning may be
ritualistic or limited by defensiveness, impoverished or distorted information,
organizational politics, or other learning disabilities. Thus, a usable model for
guiding OL needs to go beyond the structural elements to address those fac-
tors that are likely to promote or inhibit OL (Lipshitz et al., 2002). Effective
OL requires a climate or culture that fosters inquiry, openness, and trust.
Popper and Lipshitz (1998) define organizational culture as a normative
system of shared values that shape how organizational members feel, think,
and behave. Barrette et al. (2007) similarly define organizational culture as a
set of implicit assumptions—values, beliefs, and ways of thinking—that
determine how a group perceives, thinks, and reacts in various environments;
these assumptions are taken for granted by members of the group and are
taught to new members. An organizational culture may be characterized in
part by its learning orientation. One can conceptualize learning orientation as
arising from that set of organizational values which influence the propensity
of the firm to create and use knowledge. An organization’s learning orienta-
tion determines what information the organization considers worthy of atten-
tion, interpretation, and evaluation as well as the degree to which the organization
is satisfied with keeping things as they stand and, hence, the degree to which
proactive learning occurs (Sinkula, Baker, & Noordewier, 1997). A learning
culture should promote values such as experimentation, knowledge acquisi-
tion, knowledge sharing, reciprocity, risk taking, and recognition of the oppor-
tunities created by change.
Popper and Lipshitz (1998) argue that learning cultures have in common a
set of core values: validity of information, transparency, issue orientation, and
accountability. (A fifth dimension—continuous learning—was not included in
the present study.) They describe these four dimensions as follows:
Valid information. Valid information is information that is complete, undis-
torted, and verifiable. Making validity of information a key value increases
the likelihood that people will withstand pressures to distort information
(Ellis, Caridi, Lipshitz, & Popper, 1999). Because all learning in organiza-
tional contexts involves the transformation of data into knowledge, Popper
and Lipshitz suggest that having access to valid information is necessary for
effective learning.
Transparency. Transparency is the willingness to hold oneself and one’s
actions open to inspection to receive valid feedback. Making transparency a
value serves the goal of ensuring that information is valid by decreasing the

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

452 Administration & Society 43(4)

likelihood of self-deception and by countering pressures to distort or sup-

press threatening information (Popper & Lipshitz, 1998).
Issue orientation. Issue orientation is manifested when opinions and asser-
tions are judged according to their merits, divorced from the identity and status
of the person pronouncing them. Issue orientation is related to, but is more
focused than, democratization, power equalization, and participation. Similar
to these values, it opens communication channels, thereby enhancing innova-
tion and learning (Ellis et al., 1999; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998).
Accountability. Accountability means accepting responsibility for one’s actions
and their consequences, and for learning from these consequences. Accountabil-
ity facilitates overcoming obstacles to effective learning in the form of action
barriers that prevent the implementation of lessons learned. It also prevents
passing responsibility to others, which handicaps effective implementation of
change programs (Ellis et al., 1999; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). Together,
these dimensions capture the essence of the OL construct.

Schwartz’s Individual Values Model

Schwartz and Sagiv (1995), based on Schwartz’s (1992, 1996) conceptual-
ization, define human values as desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in
importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives. In their formula-
tion, the crucial content aspect that distinguishes values from one another is
the type of motivational goal they express. (Somewhat differently, values can
be thought of as cherished but abstract principles, whereas goals are desired
states that are derived from or consistent with them.) Schwartz and Schwartz
and Sagiv distinguish between 10 types of values (listed in Table 1).
Figure 1 illustrates the conflict and compatibility among value priorities
that, in the view of Schwartz and Sagiv (1995), structure the value system.
Competing value types emanate in opposing directions from the center; com-
patible types are in close proximity around the circle. As shown in Figure 1,
the 10 value types are organized in two dimensions representing higher order
value types. The first dimension—Openness to Change Versus Conservation—
juxtaposes values emphasizing independent thought and action and favoring
change (self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism) with those emphasizing
submissive self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and protection
of stability (security, conformity, and tradition). The second dimension—
Self-Enhancement Versus Self-Transcendence—juxtaposes values emphasizing
pursuit of one’s own relative success and dominance over others (power, achieve-
ment, and hedonism) with those emphasizing acceptance of others as equals
and concern for their welfare (universalism and benevolence). (Note that

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 453

Table 1. Definitions of Motivational Types of Values in Terms of Their Goals and the
Single Values That Represent Them

Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and
resources (Social power, authority, wealth) [Preserving my public image, social
recognition]a
Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according
to social standards (Successful, capable, ambitious, influential) [Intelligent and
self-respect]
Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. (Pleasure, enjoying life)
Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. (Daring a varied life, an
exciting life)
Self-Direction: Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring.
(Creativity, freedom, independent, curious, choosing own goals) [Self-respect]
Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare
of all people and for nature. (Broadminded, wisdom, social justice, equality, a
world of peace, a word of beauty, unity with nature, protecting the environment)
Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom
one is in frequent personal contact. (Helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, responsible)
[True friendship, mature love)
Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that
traditional culture or religion provide the self. (Humble, accepting my portion in
life, devout, respect for tradition, moderate)
Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm
others and violate social expectations or norms (Politeness, obedient, self-
discipline, honoring parents and elders)
Security: Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. (Family
security, national security, social order, clean, and reciprocation of favors) [Sense
of belonging and being healthy]
a
Values in brackets were not used in computing indexes for value types.

hedonism fits in both dimensions, relating to both Openness to Change and

Self-Enhancement.) Evidence for this theoretical structure has been found in
samples from 67 nations (Schwartz, 1992, 2005; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995) as
well as in recent data from 38 countries (Fontaine, Poortinga, Delbeke, &
Schwartz, 2008). These findings, showing that 10 motivationally distinct value
types are recognized across cultures and are used to express value priorities,
provide substantial support for both the content and structure postulates of the
theory. De Clercq, Fontaine, and Anseel (2008), in an extensive quantitative
literature review, also conclude that this model offers a thorough, comprehen-
sive, and crossculturally validated theoretical values structure.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

454 Administration & Society 43(4)

Figure 1. Theoretical model of relationships among 10 motivational types of values

Schwartz (1996) describes several possible processes that may link value
priorities to people’s attitudes and behaviors. He suggests that values influ-
ence, first of all, what we, as human beings, notice and pay attention to in the
world around us. Values then influence our perceptions and interpretations
of various situations. Schwartz argues that his view of value systems as inte-
grated structures facilitates the generation of systematic, coherent hypotheses
about how values and value priorities relate to other attitudes or behaviors.
In his view, external variables (e.g., attitudes or behaviors) tend to be associ-
ated similarly with value types that are adjacent in the model—that is, with
values that fall into the same higher order classes.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 455

A number of arguments provide general conceptual justifications for a rela-

tionship between individual values and OL. First, previous research shows that
people’s beliefs and convictions may lead to specific work behaviors. Lydon
(1996), for instance, contends that core values define who we are in an impor-
tant way. They serve as a bridge from the self to life experiences by informing
us about the meaning that life experiences have for us. Meaning thus fulfills
epistemic concerns about life experiences—but meaning then seeks expression
in a “motivational process” that energizes the person to pursue a goal in the
face of adversity. Furnham, Petrides, Tsaosis, Pappas, and Garrod (2005)
argue that affective disposition can have a pervasive influence on how people
view the world, including their job—meaning that individuals with different
personalities may react to different aspects of their work environment. This
argument relies on the fact that there is considerable variability among people in
the same work environment, although it is uncertain whether this reflects per-
sonality or demographic differences or some combination of the two (Furnham
et al., 2005). Beyond that, Furnham et al. suggest that disposition may at times
influence job-related choices, such that people with a negative disposition will
accept, or may even seek out, less appealing jobs than people whose outlook is
positive. In other words, it may be that people with different inclinations sort
themselves into different jobs.
Second, a careful examination of values make-up on one hand and OL
structure on the other point at reasonable relationships between the two. In
the current research, we expect that employees who highly value tradition, con-
formity, benevolence, universalism, and security will show greater OL than
those who do not. These five core values are compatible with a desire to build
long-term, stable, meaningful, and productive relationships with the organi-
zation. They suggest a willingness to contribute and to support and improve
important aspects of the organization. Most employees who put time and
effort into OL probably consider themselves long-term members of the
organization. They care about the organization and share a positive perspec-
tive about its orientation toward learning.
As such, OL has much in common with the five values in the set listed
above. Benevolence, for instance, shares with OL a focus on enhancing the
welfare of the group, as does universalism. Tradition and conformity empha-
size support, a sense of belonging, and solidarity, all of which are necessary
if one is to accept the primacy of goals such as transparency and account-
ability. Security, similarly, suggests a striving for long-term relationships
and increased stability. People with high levels of these values will most
likely be more willing to become long-term members of the organization
and to contribute to its success. OL is one way of doing so. Therefore, our
Hypothesis 1 states,

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

456 Administration & Society 43(4)

Hypothesis 1: Employees who highly value tradition, conformity, secu-

rity, benevolence, and universalism are likely to show greater OL on
all its dimensions—issue orientation, accountability, validity of infor-
mation, and transparency—than those who do not.

Conversely, we expect that employees who value achievement, hedonism,

stimulation, power, and self-direction will show less OL than those who do
not. These values are likely to have a much weaker or even a negative relation-
ship with OL. People who highly value hedonism or stimulation are likely to
focus more on themselves than on the welfare of the organization as a whole.
Those who value achievement and self-direction will likewise invest more in
advancing their own interests and less in helping the organization because of
their strong focus on, and pride in, their own success. As for power, indi-
viduals who seek to augment their own power within the organization are
likely to perceive the dimensions of OL—accountability, transparency, issue
orientation, and validity of information—as not applicable to themselves or, at
the very least, as values to pay lip service to. We would therefore expect
a negative relationship between power and OL. This leads to our second
hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Employees who value power, hedonism, stimulation,

achievement, and self-direction are likely to show less OL on all its
dimensions—issue orientation, accountability, validity of informa-
tion, and transparency—than those who do not.

It should be noted that we do not draw specific hypotheses regarding the

relationships between values and each separate dimension of OL because of
the exploratory nature of this study. Very few studies, if any, have examined
individual values in relation to OL, meaning that both theory and findings are
insufficient to develop solid hypotheses regarding the relationship between
the two. We hope that the findings of this study will provide future studies
with sufficient data to develop specific hypotheses in future research.

Demographic Variables and OL

This study examines three demographic variables as control variables: age,
gender, and position in the organization. Age is expected to have a positive
relationship with all dimensions of OL. Older employees are likely to
have acquired more knowledge in and about the organization and presum-
ably are more attached to it (Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984); for these

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 457

reasons, they are likely to demonstrate stronger OL than younger employees.

Women—whether old or young—are generally those who are expected to
deal with additional, sometimes conflicting, demands from home, such as the
care of children or aging parents. This situation is particularly true in Israel
(A. Cohen & Kirchmeyer, 2005; Yishai & Cohen, 1997). As a result, women
may invest less time in OL. With regard to organizational status, one may
expect managers to have both a better understanding of the importance of OL
and greater ability to contribute in that regard. At the very least, managers can
be expected to show greater accountability than lower status employees as a
direct result of their managerial responsibilities. Managers are therefore likely
to have greater levels of OL than nonmanagers.
Our study is designed to explore the effect of values on OL above and beyond
the effect of these demographic variables. To measure the relationships between
OL and the demographic variables, we assume that employees who engage
more in OL activities will be more inclined to report on higher levels of OL in
the organization.

The Setting
The study took place in Israel, a country of heavy immigration, many ethnic
minorities, and a diversity of cultural groups. This diversity suggests that
Israel offers a broad spectrum of people with different life and work values.
Therefore, it represents an excellent setting in which to examine individual
values and their influence on organizational processes.
Israel gained its independence in 1948 and since its early days has been
characterized by rapid growth as well as by a continuous state of war with the
Arab nations surrounding it. The pioneering generation that established the
new state, mainly immigrants from Eastern Europe, were in large part com-
mitted socialists, eager to form a socialist society in Israel (Lewis, 1972). It is
not surprising, then, that socialism was the leading socioeconomic ideology
during the first decades of Israel’s existence (Tzafrir, Meshoulam, & Baruch,
2007); its dominance was demonstrated particularly in the collectivist com-
munities known as kibbutzim. This helped to generate a strong sense of cohe-
sion in the country and enabled it to cope with enormous difficulties in areas
such as security (which remains an issue today) and the heterogeneity of its
population, caused by a number of waves of mass immigration from various
countries (Lecker & Shachmurove, 1999).
The late 1970s saw the beginning of a new era in the Israeli labor market
that continues up to the present, as global and political changes led to trans-
formations in Israel’s economy and a modernization of its industrial system.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

458 Administration & Society 43(4)

Because of these changes (among them the growth of the high-tech industry
and the end of hegemony for the ruling Labor Party in 1977), the prevailing
ideology has changed and today tends to follow the American capitalist model
(Sagie & Weisberg, 2001).
Since 1977, all Israeli governments have adopted the principles of liberal-
ization and privatization. Furthermore, recent peace efforts have signaled to
foreign companies and investors that Israel is no longer a risky partner,
supplier, or purchaser (De Fontenay & Carmel, 2004). These processes have
opened Israel to the international market. Indeed, Israeli firms have been vig-
orous in their efforts to establish business ties with companies from other coun-
tries (Lavie & Fiegenbaum, 2000; Sagie & Weisberg, 2001). One important
process during this era has been the emergence of alternatives to the diminish-
ing Histadrut (the national trade union) and government industry organizations,
with engineers and workers in high-tech firms often forgoing union member-
ship in favor of personal contracts. During this period, the country’s civilian
workforce more than doubled, mostly due to immigration from the former
Soviet Union (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 1970, 2002). (Israel’s current
population is around 6,689,700, more than 10 times its 1948 population of
600,000; Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2004.) The country faced the new
challenge of managing a multicultural, multivalue workforce.

Research Design
Participants and Procedure

The study population comprised all the employees in one of Israel’s

smaller government ministries. Questionnaires were distributed to all 512
employees of the ministry, who work in offices throughout the country.
Over about 3 months, 298 usable questionnaires were returned, a response
rate of 58%. The participants were 75.3% female. Their average age was
49.4 years (SD = 9.9) and average tenure in the ministry and in the present
job was 17.0 (SD = 8.8) years and 9.9 (SD = 6.5) years, respectively. Most
of the respondents (80.3%) were married, 55.6% had a university degree,
and 64% were born in Israel. About a third, or 36.4%, held managerial
positions.

Study Measures
Individual values. The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) was applied
to measure the 10 basic values (Schwartz, 2005; Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann,

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 459

Table 2. Items of Organizational Learning Dimensions

Issue orientation
1. In team discussions, participants have equal rights to speak.
2. The focus in the organization is on the what and why of errors and not on who
makes them.
3. Subordinates feel that superiors do not “pull rank” in discussions of work-
related issues.
4. Actions are judged by their merits regardless of the actor.
5. The organization encourages equality among (formal) ranks on professional
discussions.
6. Everyone feels free to contribute to professional discussions.
7. Personal issues are kept out of work-related discussions.
8. Organization members, regardless of rank, have to face the truth equally.
9. Our norm is “we are all in the same boat, everyone can make a mistake.”
10. It is customary to believe that “the boss is never wrong.”a
Accountability
1. People are encouraged to say frankly what they think.
2. The discussion of work-related issues is not affected by who raises them.
3. Admitting error is the norm at all ranks and levels.
4. Team members take personal responsibility when their team’s decisions fail.
5. Organization members take responsibility for their actions.
6. Organization members are expected to learn from the mistakes of others.
7. When organization members make mistakes they are expected to check why
they made them.
8. Every organization member feels responsible for his or her actions even if they
are not successful.
9. Organization members who take part in a project that fails see themselves as
responsible for this outcome.
10. Members are expected to take responsibility for their unsuccessful as well as
successful actions.
11. Organization members try to learn from their errors to improve in the future.
Valid information
1. Organization members tend to sweep their mistakes under the rug.a
2. Organization members provide inaccurate information to defend themselves
when they make errors.a
3. Subordinates inform their superiors of their successes but not of their failures.a
4. When organization members fail to meet targets they prefer to keep it to
themselves.a
5. Organization members prefer not to admit their mistakes.a
6. Organization members tell the truth even if it might hurt them.
(continued)

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

460 Administration & Society 43(4)

Table 2. (continued)

7. Organization members believe that it always pays to tell the truth.

8. Organization members believe they have to tell their bosses of their (own)
work-related errors.
9. Organization members prefer to report “half-truths” to appear successful.a
Transparency
1. It is customary in the organization to discuss work-related errors.
2. Errors are considered in the organization to be natural and legitimate.
3. Everybody in the organization feels free to express criticism.
4. Organization members do not lie to defend themselves.
5. Organization members feel free to surface problems.
a
Keyed negatively.

Burgess, & Harris, 2001). The PVQ presents brief verbal portraits of 40 differ-
ent people, gender matched with the respondent. Each portrait describes a
person’s goals and aspirations that point implicitly to the importance of a
value. The verbal portraits describe each person in terms of what is important
to him or her. Thus, they capture the person’s values without explicitly
identifying values as the topic of investigation. The number of portraits
for each value ranges from three (stimulation, hedonism, and power) to six
(universalism), reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. The score for
the importance of each value is the average rating given to these items, all of
which were designated a priori as markers of a value. All the value items
have demonstrated near equivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses
using multidimensional scaling (MDS; Schwartz, 2005).
OL. The four scales for OL were adopted from Ellis et al. (1999), who devel-
oped this instrument based on Popper and Lipshitz’s (1998) conceptualization.
The four-dimension measure is presented in Table 2. Issue orientation was mea-
sured by 10 items, with Cronbach’s α = .93; accountability by 11 items, with
Cronbach’s α = .74; validity of information by 9 items, with Cronbach’s α =
.97; and transparency by five items, with Cronbach’s α = .89.

Data Analysis
We applied correlation analysis to test the interrelationships among the research
variables and to examine the possibility of multicollinearity. Hierarchical
regression analysis using the “enter” method was used to test the hypotheses.
We did not use the stepwise method because that technique has been criticized
for allowing the computer program to sequence the variables based on their

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 461

contribution to R2 (J. Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The hierarchical
regression using the enter method in SPSS was performed in two stages. In the
first stage, the three demographic variables were regressed on each of the OL
dimensions. In the second stage, the 10 values were entered. For the purposes
of this research, this method has the advantage of allowing the examination
of any variance above and beyond that explained in previous stages. This
allows for exploring the effect of the conceptual variables (individual values)
while controlling for the effect of the three demographic variables.

Results
Table 3 presents the basic statistics of the variables and the intercorrelations
among them. The correlations among the predictor variables are acceptable
and preclude the possibility of multicollinearity. The results show acceptable
reliabilities of the research variables. Table 3 shows that the reliabilities for
all the values, based on the raw data, are all above the minimum threshold of
α = .67 (except for self-direction, α = .61, and power, α = .66). It is notewor-
thy that Schwartz et al. (2001) warned not to expect high internal reliabili-
ties for individual values. They point out that reliabilities below .60 are not
unusual, both because the indexes include only a few items and because many
values have conceptually broad definitions, encompassing multiple compo-
nents. Therefore, the relatively high reliabilities found here are encouraging
and can be attributed to the homogeneity of the scales.
MDS using ALSCAL (SPSSX) allows us to further examine the validity
of Schwartz’s model (1992, 1996). The objective of MDS is to array
points in multidimensional space such that the distances between points
on the scatterplot(s) reflect as closely as possible the subjective distances
obtained by surveying the participants. That is, MDS shows graphically how
different objects of comparison do or do not cluster. The two-dimensional
analysis presented in Figure 2 generally supports Schwartz’s model. It shows
that all the conservation and self-transcendence values, except for tradition,
are concentrated on the right-hand side of the figure, and all the openness to
change and self-enhancement values, except for self-direction, are on the
left-hand side. Universalism, conformity, security, and benevolence form one
strong cluster. Power, hedonism, stimulation, and achievement form a second
good cluster, whereas tradition and self-direction are a little distant from the
two clusters. Although these results basically follow Schwartz’s original model,
the distance between tradition and the general conservation cluster, and
between self-direction and the general openness to change cluster, may reflect
the specific characteristics of the present study. For example, tradition is often

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities (in Parentheses), and Intercorrelations Among Research Variables

462
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Demographics
Age 49.43 9.90
Gendera 0.74 0.44 -.05
Positionb 0.29 0.46 .12 -.12
Individual values
Conformity 4.73 0.86 .15 .03 -.12 (.67)
Tradition 3.55 1.26 .12 -.14 -.11 .38 (.69)
Benevolence 5.18 0.61 .08 .00 -.09 .40 .34 (.68)
Universalism 4.62 0.86 .19 -.04 -.08 .40 .32 .54 (.76)
Self-direction 4.89 0.77 -.01 .04 .12 -.05 -.00 .17 .20 (.61)
Stimulation 3.66 1.06 -.14 -.10 -.01 .07 .16 .27 .29 .37 (.69)
Hedonism 3.83 1.21 -.04 -.13 -.08 .25 .08 .22 .16 .23 .52 (.83)
Achievement 4.13 1.10 -.19 -.04 .03 .25 .04 .22 .21 .44 .43 .33 (.80)
Power 3.30 1.13 .05 -.24 .06 .10 -.03 .07 .09 .34 .39 .38 .57 (.66)
Security 4.86 0.68 .18 -.03 -.17 .56 .30 .39 .50 .16 .08 .33 .22 .16 (.69)
Organizational learning
Issue orientation 3.31 0.87 .14 -.19 -.08 .49 .53 .43 .48 .03 .12 .22 .23 .03 .63 (.93)
Accountability 3.90 1.07 .16 -.18 -.07 .49 .44 .38 .50 .13 .14 .27 .21 .12 .66 .55 (.74)
Valid information 3.98 1.35 .14 -.01 -.19 .50 .45 .33 .46 -.01 .04 .19 .13 .07 .61 .43 .61 (.97)

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Transparency 3.20 1.07 .14 -.20 -.20 .48 .45 .33 .47 .07 .16 .36 .20 .08 .65 .72 .68 .54 (.89)

Note: Correlation ≥ .12 significant at .05; correlation ≥ .15 significant at .01; and correlation ≥ .19 significant at .001. N = 287 to 298 due to missing
values.
a
Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female.
b
Position: 0 = nonmanagerial position; 1 = managerial position.
Cohen et al. 463

Figure 2. Two dimensional analysis of Schwartz’s individual values model

associated in Israeli population with one aspect of religiosity. In sum, the

results of the MDS analysis generally provide strong support for the rele-
vance and validity of Schwartz’s model to the study sample. The summary
results of the obtained model attest to its relative strength: The fit measures
show a satisfying stress (φ) of .088 and a more satisfying squared correlation
index (RSQ) of .96 (considering that any RSQ above .60 is considered good).
Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis, where
the dependent variables were regressed on the demographic variables in the
first step and on the 10 values in the second step. Each of the four dimensions
of OL was analyzed separately. The findings for Step 1 show that the demo-
graphic variables explain relatively high levels of variance in OL (R2 = .11
for transparency; R2 = .07 for issue orientation; and R2 = .06 each for account-
ability and valid information). These results support our expectation that
male employees and older workers are likely to report on higher levels of OL.
The findings for the position variable were largely significant but in the oppo-
site direction to that anticipated: In all the OL dimensions except accountabil-
ity, managers actually scored lower than nonmanagers.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

 Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Results (Standardized Coefficients) of Demographic Variables and Individual Values on

464
Dimensions of Organizational Learning

Organizational
learning Issue orientation Accountability Valid information Transparency

Antecedents Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Demographics
Age .14* .03 .16** .00 .16** -.02 .15** .04
Gendera -.20*** -.15*** -.18** -.13** -.03 .05 -.22*** -.17***
Positionb -.12* .04 -.10 .04 -.22*** -.06 -.24*** -.09*
Individual values
Conformity .01 .09 .10 .05
Tradition .30*** .20*** .26*** .22***
Benevolence .08 .00 -.03 -.07
Universalism .11* .17** .20*** .16**
Self-direction -.10* .02 -.09 -.02
Stimulation .04 -.04 -.11 -.03
Hedonism .05 .06 .05 .19***
Achievement .23*** .06 .01 .12*
Power -.19*** -.04 .06 -.16**
Security .43*** .44*** .37*** .42***
R2 (adjusted) .07(.06) .60(.58) .06(.05) .55(.53) .06(.05) .50(.48) .11(.10) .57(.55)
F 6.60*** 30.70*** 6.33*** 25.25*** 6.32*** 20.61*** 11.64*** 27.91***

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

ΔR2 .53 .48 .44 .46
F for ΔR2 35.50*** 29.03*** 23.38*** 29.26***
Note: N = 287 to 298 due to missing values.
a
Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female.
b
Position: 0 = no managerial position; 1 = managerial position.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
Cohen et al. 465

Step 2 in Table 4 presents the results of a hierarchical regression analysis

of individual values on the OL dimensions. Recall that our two hypotheses
posited that OL would be positively related to tradition, conformity, security,
benevolence, and universalism, and negatively related to power, hedonism,
stimulation, achievement, and self-direction. Regarding Hypothesis 1, we found
a strong positive relationship between security and the four dimensions of OL,
and a weaker but still positive relationship between tradition and universalism
and all four dimensions of OL. However, we found no significant relationship
between OL and either conformity or benevolence. Regarding Hypothesis 2,
we found negative relationships between power and two dimensions of OL,
issue orientation and transparency as well as a negative relationship between
self-direction and issue orientation. A few findings were not expected by
Hypothesis 2, namely, the positive (though weak) relationships between
achievement, on one hand, and issue orientation and transparency, on the
other, and between hedonism and transparency. Hypothesis 2, then, was partly
supported for power and self-direction but not for stimulation, hedonism, and
achievement.
Altogether, the individual values explained a significant amount of vari-
ance beyond that already explained by the demographic variables. The indi-
vidual values added 53% to the variance explained for issue orientation, 48%
for accountability, 44% for validity of information, and 46% for transparency.
This analysis, thus, strongly supports the idea that employees’ individual val-
ues can contribute a great deal to a better understanding of OL.

Discussion
The results of this study generally support our contention that individual values
contribute to employees’ perceptions of organizational learning. In particular,
the fact that individual values contributed to the explained variance of OL above
and beyond the effect of the demographic control variables attests to the rele-
vance of individual values in OL. This is particularly true for the three values
that were positively correlated with all four OL dimensions: tradition, uni-
versalism, and security. The findings for self-direction and power (negatively
correlated with OL on one and two dimensions, respectively) also buttress the
notion that developing an OL culture depends on the values that employees
bring with them into the organization.
The fact that two values associated with openness to change and self-
enhancement—namely, hedonism and achievement—were positively (though
weakly) related to OL is puzzling. Both values (correlated with OL on one and
two dimensions, respectively) reflect a strong emphasis on individual goals

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

466 Administration & Society 43(4)

and interests, unlike the other values that showed a positive correlation with
OL, which reflect an underlying theme of concern for the group or collective.
One way to understand these odd findings is to assume that civil servants may
identify with the organization to a greater degree than workers in the private
sector. In other words, the ministerial employees in our sample may have
internalized the public-service message of the government body that employs
them, such that their personal goals and interests are at least somewhat in
line with the goals and interests of their workplace. In contrast, employees in
business organizations may be more likely to find their interests opposing
those of the organization’s owners and management.
In this regard, another point is worth mentioning. A comparative look at the
four OL dimensions reveals that two of these dimensions, issue orientation
and transparency, were each related to six values, whereas only three values
were related to accountability and validity of information. These results may
imply that issue orientation and transparency are more relevant to the under-
standing of OL for our sample of Israeli civil service respondents than the
other two dimensions, though why accountability and information validity
should be less relevant is not entirely clear. One possible explanation suggests
itself for accountability. Although accountability is typically a built-in part of
organizational operations, it is likely that for public institutions, in particular,
the specific forms taken by accountability measures are a function of cultural
norms associated with the specific institution involved. For instance, account-
ability is likely to involve both norms of personal responsibility and standard-
ized measures in public institutions such as schools (Rosenblatt & Shimoni,
2002). Indeed, accountability is a recognized component of organizational
culture (Popper & Lipshitz, 1998; Wriston, 2007). In public organizations,
then, it may be that cultural norms associated with the particular organization
affect employees’ personal attitudes toward accountability. Future studies that
take a qualitative approach, where respondents report verbally on how they
perceive OL vis-à-vis their personal values, may shed light on these questions.
We hope the current findings will be useful in the development of theory and
hypotheses for such future research.
Taken as a whole, our findings fit well with other concepts in the organi-
zational behavior literature. The most obvious of these is organizational
commitment. The profile that seems most predictive of OL—high scores
for tradition, universalism, and security, and low scores for power and self-
direction—represents a commitment to the collective or the system: an ele-
vation of the group’s needs over those of the individual. Organizational
commitment and OL should therefore show relationships with the same sets
of values. Indeed, A. Cohen (2009) finds positive and significant correlations

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 467

between organizational commitment and conformity, tradition, benevolence,

universalism, and security among Israeli bank employees. Besides organiza-
tional commitment, OL shares conceptual similarities with psychological
safety and information sharing. The values with the largest effect sizes in our
research, as seen in Table 3, show close affinities with these concepts. For
instance, security is fundamental to psychological safety (Lipshitz et al., 2002),
whereas universalism seems important for information sharing. The values that
had conspicuously low correlations with OL, namely, power and self-direction,
are likewise likely to be poorly correlated with both psychological safety and
information sharing, which, like OL, demand cooperation and working together.
The positive yet weak association of hedonism and achievement with OL is not
inconsistent with this overall picture.
Looking in a different direction, the relationships established in this study
between personal values and OL point to existing research on the similarities
between individual and organizational learning. Kim (1993) argues that because
organizations learn through the experience and actions of individuals, OL is
affected directly or indirectly by individual learning. Kim explains organiza-
tional learning in terms of processing individual mental models and learning
schemes. Yet he points out that sometimes learning cycles within organizations
are incomplete. We suggest that awareness of individual values and prefer-
ences adds to our understanding of how individual learning patterns are trans-
formed into learning at the organization level.
Our findings pertaining to the demographic factors (control variables)
were mixed. The relationship of gender and age with OL was as expected:
Men (but not women) and older employees tended to regard themselves as
employed by learning organizations. However, in contrast to our expectation,
managers reported on OL to a lesser degree than nonmanagers. This surprising
result may be unique to the specific population studied—civil servants. It may
be that managers in the focal governmental organization focus on maintain-
ing their power and status. Thus, the values that direct them are power and
self-direction—both found in this study as impediments to OL.
We believe that this study makes several contributions to the literature. First,
it highlights the relationship between OL and individual values in general, and
in the public administration context in particular. Our findings enhance our
understanding of OL in the civil service setting at a time when this concept is
attracting growing interest among scholars. Second, whereas previous studies
tended largely to take a cognitive approach to OL, the contribution of the pres-
ent study is its focus on values, as a critical component needed for effective,
double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Third, the results of the study
demonstrate the degree to which individual values relate to OL beyond the

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

468 Administration & Society 43(4)

effect of significant demographic variables such as age, gender, and manage-

rial position. Finally, the study points at the specific individual values that are
most likely to support a learning culture in public organizations.
Theoretically, the study contributes to the clarification of a critical issue in the
study of OL: the tendency toward anthropomorphism (Friedman, Lipshitz, &
Popper, 2005). This is a tendency to attribute individual capacity—learning—to
the organization and to analyze organizational processes in terms borrowed
from individual analysis. The present study distinguishes between the two. It
emphasizes the degree to which individual attributes can predict (but remain
separate from) organizational processes.
This study does have several limitations. First, any effort to explore aspects
of organizational culture (such as OL) must grapple with the potential confound-
ing effects of (a) the particular organizational context—for example, public-
versus private sector or traditional business versus high-tech business—and
(b) the larger cultural setting in which the organization operates—in this case,
Israel. It should be noted in this context that, like civil servants in many other
countries, Israeli civil service employees are very secure in their jobs, working
under collective agreements that make it almost impossible to terminate their
employment. As we reported above, our study population is distinguished by
a relatively long tenure in the ministry (17 years), and they tend to be older
(average age 49) than is typical in many other occupations. Given this, we
must question whether some of our findings—such as the conspicuously
strong association of security with all dimensions of OL in our study—should
be attributed to the particular Israeli civil service employment setting. We
recommend that the study be replicated in other countries and occupa-
tional settings, with an eye, in particular, toward comparing the public with the
private sector.
Second, the study relied on a snapshot-in-time survey design. Such a design
consists of a single observation with no control group and limited control over
the effects of variables. However, individual values are quite stable con-
structs that are not easily affected by situational changes, and therefore, it is
hard to assume that measuring them in more than one time frame would
yield different findings. This assumption should be tested in future studies.
Finally, as noted above, although the current research departs from pre-
vious studies in moving beyond a cognitive approach to OL, it could be
argued that it did not move far enough. Future studies might expand this
research beyond the focus on values to consider another noncognitive fac-
tor of importance in organizational behavior—namely, emotions. Certainly,
individual and group emotions, normally nonconscious and automatic, are
likely to affect the capacity to detect and correct errors and to enhance

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 469

collective learning in organizations. Although such an endeavor was

beyond the scope of the current research, it would offer valuable insights
into the subject.
Despite the study’s limitations, its findings demonstrate the importance of
individual values in understanding OL. The results suggest that the literature
would benefit from further research into the role of values at the individual level
in the public service arena. In particular, research exploring variables that medi-
ate and moderate the relationship between values and OL would make a particu-
larly valuable contribution to the understanding of this relationship.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

References
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Begley, T. M. (2003). The employment relationships of foreign
workers versus local employees: A field study of organizational justice, job satisfac-
tion, performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 561-583.
Argyris, C. (1980). Inner contradictions of rigorous research. New York, NY: Aca-
demic Press.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning: Theory, method and
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barrette, J., Lemyre, L., Corneil, W., & Beauregard, N. (2007). Organizational learn-
ing among senior public-service executives: An empirical investigation of culture,
decisional latitude and supportive communication. Canadian Public Administration,
50, 333-354.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of
Sociology, 66, 32-40.
Berings, D., De Fruyt, F., & Bouwen, R. (2004). Work values and personality traits as
predictors of enterprising and social vocational interests. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 349-364.
Busch, M., & Hostetter, C. (2009). Examining organizational learning for application
in human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 33, 297-318.
Central Bureau of Statistics (1970). Statistical abstracts of Israel. Jerusalem:
Author.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

470 Administration & Society 43(4)

Central Bureau of Statistics (2002). Statistical abstracts of Israel. Jerusalem:

Author.
Central Bureau of Statistics (2004). Statistical abstracts of Israel. Jerusalem:
Author.
Cohen, A. (2007). An examination of the relationship between commitments and
culture among five cultural groups of Israeli teachers. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 38, 34-49.
Cohen, A. (2009). A value based perspective of commitment in the workplace: An
examination of Schwartz’s basic human values theory among bank employees in
Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 332-345.
Cohen, A., & Kirchmeyer, C. (2005). A cross-cultural study of the work/nonwork
interface among Israeli nurses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,
538-568.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
De Clercq, S., Fontaine, J. R., & Anseel, F. (2008). In search of a comprehensive value
model for assessing supplementary person-organization fit. Journal of Psychology,
142, 277-302.
de Fontenay, C., & Carmel, E. (2004). Israel’s Silicon Wadi: The forces behind
cluster formation. In Breshnahan and A. Gambardella (Eds.), Building High-Tech
Clusters: Silicon Valley and beyond (pp. 40-77). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, S., Caridi, O., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (1999). Perceived error criticality
and organizational learning: An empirical investigation. Knowledge and Process
Management, 6, 166-175.
Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as
moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcomes relationships
in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 715-729.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management
Review, 10, 803-813.
Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect
of values on the link between organizational justice and work behavior. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 55, 541-562.
Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Struc-
tural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: Distinguishing sampling
fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology,
39, 345-365.
Francesco, A. M., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Collectivism in action. Group & Organiza-
tion Management, 29, 425-441.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 471

Friedman, V., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2005). The mystification of organizational
learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 19-30.
Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Tsaosis, I., Pappas, K., & Garrod, D. (2005). A cross-
cultural investigation into the relationships between personality traits and work
values. Journal of Psychology, 139, 5-32.
Godkin, L., & Allcorn, S. (2009). Dependent narcissism, organizational learning and
human resource development. Human Resource Management Research, 8, 484-505.
Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan
Management Review, Fall, 37-50.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating
role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 557-569.
Lam, S. K. S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational
justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 23, 1-18.
Lavie, D., & Fiegenbaum, A. (2000). The strategic reaction of domestic firms to for-
eign MNC dominance: The Israeli experience. Long Range Planning, 33, 651-672.
Lecker, T., & Shachmurove, Y. (1999). Immigration and socioeconomic gaps: Theory
and applications. Applied Economics, 31, 539-549.
Lewis, B. (1972). The emergence of modern Israel. Middle Eastern Studies, 8, 421-427.
Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V. J., & Popper, M. (2007). Demystifying organizational
learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2000). Organizational learning in a hospital. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 345-361.
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A multifacet model of organiza-
tional learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 78-98.
Lydon, J. (1996). Toward a theory of commitment. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olsen &
M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 191-213). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meyer, P. J., & Allen, J. N. (1984). Testing the side bet theory of organizational com-
mitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69, 372-378.
Myers, J. B. (1985). Making organizations adaptive to change: Eliminating bureaucracy
at Shenandoah Life. National Productivity Review, 4, 131-138.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A structural
and cultural approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 34, 161-179.
Rosenblatt, Z., & Shimoni, O. (2002). Teachers’ accountability: An experimental field
study in physical education. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15,
309-328.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

472 Administration & Society 43(4)

Sagie, A., & Weisberg, J. (2001). The transformation in human resource management
in Israel. International Journal of Manpower, 22, 226-234.
Saka-Helmhout, A. (2010). Organizational learning as a situated routine-based activ-
ity in international settings. Journal of World Business, 41, 41-48. doi:10.1016/j
.jwb.2009.04 009
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory
and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated
value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olsen, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Values: The
Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23-47.
Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory on universals in
individual human values. In A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho
(pp. 56-95). Brasilia, Brazil: Editora Universidade de Brasilia.
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001). Extending
the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method
of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542.
Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and
structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116.
Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Boehnke, K. (2000). Worries and values. Journal of
Personality, 68, 309-346.
Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based
organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 305-318.
Smith, M. K. (2001). Chris Argyris: Theories of action, double-loop learning and
organizational learning. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from
www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm
Thomas, K., & Allen, S. (2006). The learning organization: A meta-analysis of themes in
literature. Learning Organization, 13, 123-139.
Tzafrir, S. S., Meshoulam, I., & Baruch, Y. (2007). HRM in Israel: New challenges.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 114-131.
Wriston, M. J. (2007). Creating a hi-performance culture. Organizational Develop-
ment Journal, 25(1), 8-16.
Yishai, Y., & Cohen, A. (1997). (Un) Representative bureaucracy: Women in the
Israeli senior civil service. Administration and Society, 28, 441-465.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Cohen et al. 473

Bios
Aaron Cohen is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science,
University of Haifa, Israel. He received his PhD in Management at the Technion—
Israel Institute of Technology and taught for 3 years at the University of Lethbridge,
Alberta, Canada. His current research interests include commitment in the workplace and
in particular, organizational commitment and occupational commitment, organizational
citizenship behavior, cross-cultural research, and work/nonwork relationship. His
work has been published in Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and more.

Zehava Rosenblatt is a faculty member in the Department of Leadership and Educational

Policy, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel, and heads the university Center
for Educational Evaluation and Administration. She received her PhD from the
Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Engineering and
Management. Her specialization is school human resource management and teacher
organizational behavior, and her research interests focus on teacher withdrawal
behaviors, teacher training, job insecurity, and accountability.

Tali Buhadana is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science, University

of Haifa, Israel.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016