Institute of Human Resource Management 
National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所

Master Thesis
碩士論文

Advisor: Dr. Bih-Shiaw Jaw
指導教授：趙必孝  博士

Organizational-Learning-Oriented
 Human Resource Management
組織學習導向的人力資源管理

Submitted by Shih-Lung Tuan
研究生：段世龍  撰

January  1999
中華民國八十八年一月

Organizational-Learning-Oriented 
Human Resource Management 
Abstract
Never before in history have so many companies seen themselves confronted with so many and such rapid changes in their environment.  In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge.  Thus, the organizational learning ability has become crucial for companies to survive.  This thesis is to determine what kinds of human resource management policies contribute to creating a learning environment and the learning ability of an organization.  
Research variables include organizational-learning-oriented HRM, organizational climate, and organizational learning ability.  Among them, organizational-learning-oriented HRM is the independent variable, while organizational learning ability is the dependent one.  Organizational climate is acting as a mediating variable. 
The study is empirical in nature and questionnaires were designed to gather data.  To analyze the data, various types of analysis, including ANOVA, regression, Pearson correlation, and path analysis, were employed.  
The main research findings show that among organizational-learning-oriented HRM, participant appraisal and empowerment would improve the organization climate of relation and openness; then the organizational climate of relation and openness would boost the learning ability of an organization.  Additionally, empowerment also has a direct effect on organizational learning ability.
Managers should, on the one hand, empower the employees by giving them more authority and needed training, and on the other hand, communicate with employees by participant appraisal.  Therefore, individuals will have the opportunities to learn through empowerment and have the feedback concerning what he or she should learn.  An open and harmonious organizational climate will emerge if empowerment and participant appraisal are truly carried out.  Then a community of learning will form.  The company is not just a place where employees go to work.  It is a community where individuals are committed to learning and sharing knowledge with each other. 

Keywords: organizational learning; learning organization; learning ability; human resource management; organizational climate

組織學習導向的人力資源管理
論文摘要
在一個變化劇烈的環境下，高度的組織學習能力為企業藉以存活以至於成功的核心競爭力。本論文之目的便為找出何種人力資源管理可以幫助一個組織提昇學習能力，此種人力資源管理即所謂的組織學習導向人力資源管理。

本研究為一實證研究，研究變數包括「組織學習導向人力資源管理」（自變數）、「組織氣候」（中介變數）、「組織學習能力」（應變數）。以問卷作為蒐集資料的方式。資料分析方法包括：單因子變異數分析、回歸、皮爾森相關、以及路徑分析。

研究結果發現：「組織學習導向人力資源管理」中的「參與式績效評核」與「賦能」會正向影響「組織氣候」中的「關係」與「開放」。而「組織氣候」中的「關係」與「開放」會更進一步地提昇「組織學習能力」。然而「賦能」也會直接正向影響「組織學習能力」。

依據研究結果，本研究建議企業應藉由「賦能」給予員工充足的職權與符合需求的訓練，如此員工便有許多的學習機會與能力；並且以「參與式績效評核」和員工溝通，給予員工回饋，讓員工瞭解自己過去的工作成效和以後應努力的目標。在實際施行「賦能」與「參與式績效評核」之後，一個開放及和諧的組織氣候便會形成。公司便不只是員工上班的地方，而是員工在一起學習及分享知識的「學習社區」。

關鍵字：組織學習、學習型組織、學習能力、人力資源管理、組織氣候

Chapter 1  Introduction

This chapter introduces the background of this research.  The first topic to be presented is the research background, which includes discussions on the move to the knowledge age, the need of the organization’s ability to learn, the importance of the learning environment, and the role of organizational-learning-oriented human resource management.  In addition, the research objectives of this study will also be discussed.

1.1 Research Background

Knowledge Age

Never before in history have so many companies been confronted with so many and such rapid changes in their environment.  Rapid change affects more and more aspects of business: development cycles in products, ranging from computer chips to potato chips, are being compressed, and control over intellectual resources is becoming more important than control over raw materials (Mills & Friesen, 1992).  Change has become the rule (Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992).  Globalization, higher customer expectations, greater competitive pressures, shorter cycle times - each signals a need to work differently (Ulrich, Glinow, Ann, & Todd, 1993; Mingie, 1996).

Unfortunately, many organizations have not survived change.  One-third of the Fortune 500 companies listed in 1970 had vanished by 1983.  In 1982, Peters and Waterman identified 43 'excellent' companies, which had demonstrated superiority on six critical financial yardsticks over a period of 20 years.  Just 5 years later, only 14 were still excellent on the basis of those same measures.  Some had disappeared entirely; many were in trouble (Dixon,1993).

In a world of increasing interdependence and rapid change, it is no longer possible to figure it out from the top.  Successful organizations are building competitive advantage through less controlling and more learning – that is, through continually creating and sharing new knowledge (Senge, 1997).  Nonaka (1991) pointed out that in an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge.  We are in a transition from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Age (Sandow & Rhodes, 1996).

Organization’s Ability To Learn

For organizations in the 1990's, learning makes the critical difference.  Through learning, organizations adapt to change, avoid the repetition of past mistakes, and retain critical knowledge that would otherwise be lost.  The ability to implement a strategic change, to respond to a competitive challenge, and to move information cross divisional boundaries are all closely tied to the organization's ability to learn (Stata, 1989).

Unfortunately, too many organizations are unable to learn from their mistakes; they fail to adapt to customer needs and do not improve their processes to meet rising competitive standards.  As a result, they eventually lose market share and drop out of the race.  Even when they do learn, it is often by accident rather than as a result of a deliberate attempt to deepen understanding, and too frequently the learning remains confined to small pockets of the organization.  The reason most organizations are inefficient learners is their lack of systematic processes to facilitate learning (Dixon, 1993). 

All organizations learn, but some don’t learn fast enough to survive (Mills & Friesen, 1992).  The former Shell planning chief Arie deGeus (1988) said that in today’s business world, the root source of all competitive advantage is a company’s relative ability to learn.  The rate at which individuals and organizations learn may become the only sustainable competitive advantage (Stata, 1989).  To survive in today’s turbulent business climate, organizations must transform themselves into “learning organizations” (Mills & Friesen, 1992). 

Learning Environment

As knowledge becomes more central to competitiveness, the ability of individuals and organizations to learn becomes a primary means for winning (Ulrich, Glinow, Ann, & Todd, 1993).  It is impossible to conceive of a learning organization, however defined without individual learners.  The organization depends absolutely on the skills, approaches and commitment of individuals of their own learning (Mumford, 1992).

Clearly, however, the individual learner can be helped or hindered by the organization in which he or she works; the environment may not be absolutely fundamental but it can be a powerful influence, which ought to be properly defined and directed.  In that sense, attention to “the learning organization as environment” is certainly desirable (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995; Mumford, 1992).  For instance, Japanese firms put in place managerial systems that encourage extensive horizontal and vertical information flow and support the transfer of know-how from the partnership to the rest of the organization. The policies guiding the management of human resources at all levels and functions constituted a vital part of such a leaning infrastructure (Pucik, 1983).  

Organizational-Learning-Oriented Human Resource Management

Human resource management deals with employees and their working environment.  Therefore, the task of creating an environment that encourages individual learning and transfer of knowledge is primarily taken by the human resource department of a company.  

In a company, knowledge can be accumulated through an explicit human resource activity, such as training, or implicitly as a by-product of daily operations (Itami, 1987).  It is fair to say that human resource management plays an important role in creating a learning environment and, furthermore, building a learning organization.  

1.2 Research Objectives

This study is empirical in nature and its purpose is to examine the relationship between the learning ability of an organization, its organizational climate, and its human resource management policies.   The research objectives of this paper are as follows:

First, this study is to determine what kinds of human resource management policies contribute to creating a learning environment and the learning ability of an organization.  

Second, this study is to ascertain what kinds of organizational climate contribute to the learning ability of an organization. 

Third, this study is to find out if there is some type of causality among an organization’s human resource management policies, organizational climate, and organizational learning ability. 

Finally, this study is to provide managers with some suggestions on how to build a learning organization.
Chapter 2  Literature Review

This chapter elaborates and clarifies the concept of organizational learning or learning organization.  In addition, the organizational climate and human resource management that would contribute to the learning ability of an organization are also discussed based on the relevant literature.

2.1 Organizational Learning

The two similar and closely related terms “organizational learning” and “learning organization” are sometimes used interchangeably.  Organizational learning is a concept used to describe certain types of activity that take place in an organization while the learning organization refers to a particular type of organization in and of itself.  Nevertheless, there is a simple relationship between the two – a learning organization is one which is good at organizational learning (Tsang, 1997).  The learning organization, however, is an ideal, a vision.  Various organizations or parts of organizations achieve this in varying degrees. 

The concept of organizational learning was introduced by Cyert and March (1963) over 30 years ago as a process by which organizations as collectives learn through interaction with their environments.  Although there exists widespread acceptance of the notion of organizational learning and its importance to strategic performance, no theory or model of organizational learning is widely accepted (Fiol & Lyles, 1985).  Researchers have been creating their own definitions of organizational learning.  Consequently, definitions vary greatly in terms of the breadth of ideas covered.  Table 2-1-1 lists the major works in the stream of research dealing with organizational learning. 

Table 2-1-1
Definitions of Organizational learning
Author 	Definition	
Nevis, Dibella & Gould
(1995)	Organizational learning is the capacity or process within an organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience.	
Cook & Yanow 
(1993)	A definition of organization learning as the acquiring sustaining, or changing of inter-subjective meanings through the artificial vehicles of their expression and transmission and through the collective actions of the group. 	
Swieringa & Wierdsma
(1992)	By the term ‘organizational learning’ we mean the changing of organizational behaviour.	
Huber
(1991)	An entity learns if, through its processing of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed.	
Strata
(1989)	Organizational learning occurs through shared insights, knowledge, and mental models and builds on past knowledge and experience—that is, no memory.	
Levitt & March
(1988)	Organizations are seen as learning by encoding inferences from history into routines that guide behavior.	
Fiol & Lyles
(1985)	Organizational learning means the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding.	
Shrivastava 
(1981)	Organizational learning refers to the process by which the organizational knowledge base is developed and shaped.	
Argyris
(1977)	Organizational learning is a process of detecting and correcting error.	
Simon 
(1969)	Organizational learning is the growing insights and successful restructuring of organizational problems by individuals reflected in the structural elements and outcomes of the organization itself.	

Source: Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research. Human Relations, 50(1), p. 76.

According to Table 2-1-1, the organizational learning process, generally speaking, is viewed as a cyclical one in which individuals actions lead to organizational interactions with the environment, the environment responds, and environmental responses are interpreted by individuals who learn by updating their beliefs about cause-effect relationship.  Obviously, an organization can only learn because its individual members learn.  Without individual learning there can be no question of organizational learning.  On the other hand, an organization has not automatically learned when individuals within it have learned something (Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992).

There is a close relationship between individual learning within an organizational context and organizational learning (Tsang, 1997).  As Argyris and Schon (1978) have pointed out, there is no organizational learning without individual learning.  An organization learns via the individuals who are part of it (Kim, 1993; Mills & Friesen, 1992).  Hence, individuals are fundamental to the development of organizational learning.  We can think of organizational learning as a metaphor derived from our understanding of individual learning.

Organizational learning, however, differs from individual learning for it is a collective event (Stata, 1989).  Individual learning is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for organizational learning, because organizational learning is a collective learning process.  A learning process takes place through interaction with and between a number of people (Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992).  Not only learning of individuals within an organization but also the sharing what they have known or learned with each other contributes to organizational learning.

The importance of individual learning and information sharing figures prominently in most of the definitions of “learning organization” as follows.

Senge (1990): A learning organization is an organization in which people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns or thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.

Swieringa & Wierdsma (1992): A learning organization is based on a philosophy in which its members consider themselves and each other as adults: as people who have the will and the courage to take on responsibility for their own functioning in relation to the other person, and who expect the same of the other person.

Solomon (1994): A learning organization is a place having a proactive, creative approach to the unknown, encouraging individuals to express their feelings, and using intelligence and imagination instead of just skills and authority to find new ways to be competitive and manage work. 

According to the discussion above, a conclusion can be drawn that to improve organizational learning or to build a learning organization means to enhance the learning of individuals within the organization and the information sharing between them.  It is, therefore, fair to say that organizational learning ability consists of individual learning and transfer of knowledge among members of the organization. 

2.2 Organizational Learning Ability

The ability to learn faster becomes even more significant as organizations become more knowledge-based.  If two knowledge corporations have the same intellectual potential, the competitive edge goes to the corporation that can learn faster (Guns, 1998).  How can an organization learn effectively?  The short answer is: Hire smart people and let them talk to one another (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).  Ensuing on the discussion in the previous section, this section introduces the individual commitment to learning as well as the transfer of knowledge, which together compose the organizational learning ability.

Commitment To Learning

Learning organizations are possible because not only is it our nature to learn but we love to learn.  In the book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Peter M. Senge (1990) explains, “As the world becomes more interconnected, and business becomes more complex and dynamic, …organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the organizations that discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels in an organization.”

It is assumed that people are intrinsically curious and naturally look for ways to do things more effectively.  The issue is how to help them, how to empower their efforts to improve through both increased authority and more effective tools, methods, and ways of sharing insights.  Our misplaced efforts to motivate people stem from a failure to recognize the difference between motivating and inspiring.  The great teacher kindles students’ inner motivation by her own passionate commitment to learning.  The word inspire means “to breathe life into.”  Leaders inspire commitment by being committed, by breathing their own life into what they care about.  It is impossible to get another person to commit to something.  On the other hand, when you are around people who are committed, your own commitment naturally tends to emerge (Senge, 1993).

Transfer Of Knowledge

Intellect is a difficult tool to harness because it resides in the mind of the individual.  To tap into workers’ knowledge, employers must let employees know they value their expertise and aid them in communicating their knowledge by creating environments and sharing knowledge throughout the organization (Martinez, 1998).

Learning, particularly collective learning, takes place through interaction with others (Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992).  Systems dynamics suggests that organizations are like giant networks of interconnected nodes (Stata, 1989).  Attempts at introducing new behavioral models in one node without adequate preparation in and support from other nodes has little lasting impact.  Senior management and affected line managers each represent nodes that can either accelerate or block management development efforts (Mullen & Lyles, 1993).

Individual and organizational learning demands competence, reflection, and transformation that can thrive only in a faster learning climate, stimulated by challenging and supporting leaders and entrepreneurial teams.  The critical first step in creating a faster learning organization is reawakening an interest in learning (Guns, 1998).  If every person is more open and is willing to share what they have learned, then a giant network of learning is formed in this organization. 

The Analogy Of Private Office And Hallway

Dixon (1997) uses private office and hallway as an analogy for talking about individual learning and organizational learning.  Each and every individual in an organization learns for himself or herself.  It is a continual process of constructing and re-constructing meaning as the individual encounters new experiences and ideas.  Over time, each accumulates a great deal of knowledge and expertise about the organization and about his or her job.  Each individual, however, may keep what he or she has learned within the wall of a private office. 

Hallways are the only spaces in which it is possible for an organization to learn.  It can not learn in the private offices, although individual learning can certainly take place there.  Hallways are places where collective meaning is made – in other words, meaning is not just exchanged, it is constructed in the dialogue between organizational members.  In the process of articulating their own meaning and comprehending how that meaning differs from the meaning others have constructed, individuals alter the meaning they hold.  The meaning each organizational member articulates influences others.  Influence does not necessarily imply agreement, but it does suggest a recognition.  Out of this confluence of ideas, new meaning develops.  It is this joint construction of meaning that is organizational learning (Dixon, 1997).

Some of the best conversations usually happen in the hallways.  It is because the hallway takes away some of the sense of hierarchy, making the participants seem more equal.  Besides, the hallway invites multiple perspectives – anyone who wanders by can join in, adding their idea to the mix.  For all these reasons, people talk more freely and openly in the hallway.  Moreover, people talk in more depth as well, being more willing to raise those subjects that are of concern to us but that seem undiscussable in another setting (Dixon, 1997).

To sum up, to uplift the organizational learning ability of a company, it is of utmost importance to ensure an organizational climate that will encourage and stimulate individual learning as well as the sharing of ideas.  To put it in a metaphoric way, an organization should build comfortable private offices to foster individual learning, and build comfortable hallways to boost the transfer of knowledge among the employees. 

2.3 Organizational Climate for Learning

John Reed, CEO of Citicorp, has said, “We know how to hire smart people and put them in the organization.  We have to put more of our energy into building and creating smart organizations by capitalizing on our smart people” (McGill & Slocum, 1993).  This comment implies the importance of the climate of an organization.  

Just as one can be energized by the fresh, crisp air at a mountain resort in spring, so, too, can the organizational climate of a company provide people with a source of stimulation (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).  To be able to improve the learning ability of an organization, it is most important to create an environment in which people can learn (Solomon, 1994).

Climate as a general construct is defined as a psychologically meaningful description of the work environment (James & Jones, 1976; Jones & James, 1979).  In other words, the transfer climate is not the work environment per se or the way in which people respond to it; rather, it is the interpretative or perceptual medium through which the work environment affects job attitudes and behaviors (Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990). 

Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) defined climate as a set of attributes specific to a particular organization that may be induced from the way that organization deals with its members and its environment.  For the individual member within the organization, climate takes the form of a set of attributes and expectancies which describe the organization in terms of both static characteristics (such as degree of autonomy) and behavior-outcome and outcome-outcome contingencies (Hershberger, Lichtenstein & Knox, 1994).  This definition implies that although each organization has its own objective characteristics, workers within a particular organization differ in their perceptions of these characteristics (Pritchard & Karasick, 1973).  Individuals in the same work group differ in their perceptions of the work environment (James, Hater, Gent & Bruni, 1978). 

Organizational climate is a mediating variable in the relationship between the organizational context and an individual’s attitude toward the job and behavior on the job (Holton, Bates, Seyler & Carvalho, 1997).  Rather than managing through the abstractions of plans and controls, top-level managers should be recognizing that their key task is to create a work environment that stimulates the company’s valuable human resource to be more motivated, creative, and entrepreneurial than its competitors’ employees.  Only when they liberate and motivate their people to develop and leverage their knowledge and expertise will they have created a learning organization (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

What kinds of organizational climates contribute to the learning ability of an organization?  Following are six kinds of organizational climates that contribute to the learning ability of the organization which include relation, innovation, openness, pressure, discipline, and conflict.

Relation

Knowledge is transferred through social interactions (Sandow & Rhodes, 1996; Luhmann, 1990; Miller, 1978; Mingers, 1995; Zeleny, 1988).  As people work together, they not only learn from doing, they develop a shared sense of what has to happen to get the job done.  They develop a common way of thinking and talking about their work.  Eventually, they come to share a sort of mutual identity – a single understanding of who they are and what their relationship to the larger organization is.  It is in these groups where some of the most valuable and most innovative work-related learning occurs (Stamps, 1997).  For example, a new concept, idea, or issue is communicated through a network of interactions.  At first the concept may be fuzzy, but through recursive interactions the network brings shared meaning to the fuzzy concept.  As long as the interactions occur recursively throughout the network, a learning subsystem exists within the organization (Sandow & Rhodes, 1996).

The difficulty of capturing and transferring knowledge depends on the kind of knowledge involved.  Knowledge that is more or less explicit can be embedded in procedures or represented in documents and databases and transferred with reasonable accuracy.  However, it is estimated that less than five percent of knowledge lies in explicit knowledge databases.  The vast majority of corporate knowledge is the information that is shared or created in face-to-face conversations among workers.  Tacit knowledge transfer generally requires extensive personal contact.  Knowledge is the thing that resides within and between humans (Stamps, 1998).  Thus, a harmonious working relationship is essential.  Not all the learning communicated will be complex and intuitive, but it is the tacit knowledge that we cannot readily transfer in any other way (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

Innovation

Innovation is the extent to which the organization encourages individuals to generate and experiment new ideas and is willing to take the risk of doing so (Kovach, 1997; Klunk, 1997; Dixon, 1997; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995; Senge, 1993). 

In a fast-paced, continually shifting environment, resilience to change is often the single most important factor that distinguishes those who succeed from those who fail (Weisbord, 1997).  Steep hierarchies tend to preserve the knowledge of a formative period in the firm’s life when it was successful.  Over time they tend to rigidify and find it more and more difficult to learn new things (Mills & Friesen, 1992).  Examples of this are readily apparent in hindsight: IBM’s view of the future of personal computers, or GM’s ideas about what cars the American public wanted (Dixon, 1997).

A key characteristic of the learning organization is that it is open to new ideas.  Within the workplace, it is not uncommon to hear phases such as: “We did that before,” or “It doesn’t work that way,” or “ That is not the way we do it here.”  Yet, creative thinking is nothing more than taking the usual to unusual places (Kovach, 1997).

For every change, there is a need for a new participative experiment.  That is the central tenet behind the concept of a learning organization.  It's also the hardest principle to master (Weisbord, 1997).

For most people, learning means taking in information.  One might say, “ I learned all about accounting yesterday; I took the seminar.”  But what does one mean when one says this? That one took in certain information and can now play it back with some accuracy?  But no one learns how to ride a bike, or walk, or talk that way.  People learn by experimenting. Real learning is about enhancing one’s capacity, being able to do something one was not able to do before.  It is inseparable from action (Senge, 1993).

If learning comes through experience, it follows that the more one participates in guided experiences, the more one learns.  Therefore, venturing into uncharted waters is an important part of organizational learning (Gould, DiBella & Nevis, 1993).  With so many experiments underway, some are bound to fail.  In a learning organization, failure is expected, even desirable (McGill & Slocum, 1993).

Openness

For learning to be more than a local affair, knowledge must spread quickly and efficiently throughout the organization.  Mechanisms to do this include written, oral, and visual reports; site visits and tours; personnel rotation programs; education and training programs linked explicitly to implementation, and standardization programs (Garvin, 1993). 

Research conducted by Klunk (1997) revealed that top management is not always aware of the problems that exist within an organization.  His research demonstrated that poor lines of communication contribute to this situation.  Top management needs to be aware of those things that can impede an organization's ability to perform, since top management is expected to craft a vision, a strategy, and goals for the way ahead.  Therefore, it is critical to have free-flowing information, both horizontally and vertically.

Table 2-3-1
The Iceberg of Ignorance
Problems known to top managers	4%	
Problems known to general supervisors	9%	
Problems known to supervisors	74%	
Problems known to rank-and-file employees	
100%	
Source: Klunk, S. W. (1997). Conflict And The Dynamic Organization. Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly, November 1997, pp. 37-44.

Openness means a willingness to put all the cards on the table, eliminate hidden agendas, make our motives, feelings, and biases known, and invite other points of view - thereby engendering trust in relations between people (Stata, 1989).  You cannot share knowledge without trust, honesty, and openness (Kovach, 1997).

It is not easy to form a sense of trust.  Individuals cannot fully understand others’ positions, and often explain others’ behavior by attributing intentions that are based merely on their own assumptions.  Unfortunately, the worst is often assumed.  This tacit chain of reasoning is: they know they are having this impact...they intend it...it must be because they don't care, or are protecting their turf.  This logic makes it reasonable to hold others responsible for the problem (Putnam, 1993).  Misunderstandings are bound to happen, if there is no open communication existing in an organization.  A learning organization is a place that encourages individual to express their feelings (Solomon, 1994). 

Trust is most easily recognized in transparent, open management processes that give employees equity and involvement.  For instance, the Kao Corporation embraces this, giving employees complete access to information and much input into decision making, reflecting Chairman’s belief in equality and commitment to continuous learning (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

If one wishes to accelerate one’s learning, one needs to move individuals, teams, departments, and divisions to be open and competent enough to embrace the faster learning required of them (Guns, 1998).

Pressure

Learning occurs between a fear and a need.  On the one hand, people feel the need to change if they are to accomplish their goals.  On the other hand, people feel the anxiety of facing the unknown and unfamiliar (Senge, 1997).

3M, for example, has overcome the constraints of its humble roots as a sandpaper manufacturer to emerge as one of the world’s most consistently innovating companies.  With a long-established objective of generating 25 percent of its sales from products introduced in the most recent five-year period, the company has grown from simple industrial abrasives to a portfolio of more than 100 technologies that it has leveraged into some 60,000 products sold through more than forty divisions and national subsidiaries in fifty countries.  Rather than slowing the pace of innovation and renewal, CEO Desi DeSimone has recently increased the target for his $15 billion corporation to ensure that 30 percent of future sales comes from products introduced in the previous four years (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

In learning organizations, top management works hard to replace an internal environment that constrains perspectives and restricts activities with one that induces employees to strive for more ambitious objectives.  In a company where people feel pressured, they are constantly encouraged to see themselves and the organization not in terms of its past or present constraints, but in terms of its future possibilities (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

Discipline

In traditional organizations, management assumed that desirable behavior could be induced largely through the formal reporting relationships of the structural hierarchy and the policies and procedures meant to reinforce them—an authoritative system.  Compliance to authority, or the rules that supported it, was a necessary requirement of overall cohesion in the system.  

A management context shaped by discipline, on the other hand, does not rely on authority relationships or management policies as the means for influencing individual behavior.  Rather, self-discipline becomes integrated into the flow of the company’s ongoing activities and is reflected in every aspect of corporate daily life.  In disciplined organizations, people do more than follow directives and conform to policies; they also return phone calls promptly, come to meetings on time, refrain from questioning in the corridors decisions made in the conference room, and above all, deliver on promises and commitments (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

In a culture based on discipline rather than compliance, individual behavior tends to be embedded – built from the bottom up rather than imposed or driven from the top down. In other words, discipline encourages all employees to strive voluntarily to meet and exceed their own commitments (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

Conflict

Differences foster collective learning (Guns, 1998; Klunk, 1997).  We learn only when there is a discrepancy between how we are currently thinking about something and some event or data that calls our current thinking into question.  If people continually agree on things, then there can be little to no new learning.  Disagreement creates tension, but it gets people thinking.  The longer the tension is tolerated, the greater the possibility that fresh ideas will emerge.  The longer the tension is tolerated, the greater the possibility that fresh ideas will emerge (Dixon, 1997; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

People comment and make decisions on things based on their own background or experiences.  Invariably, they apply tacit assumptions in the process.  Tacit assumptions, however, can be wrong.  One of the most advantageous outcomes of fostering multiple perspectives is the opportunity it affords the collective to become aware of the tacit assumptions.  Once noticed, these assumptions can be publicly discussed and their accuracy and usefulness debated.  Those assumptions that have become outdated and are handicapping the organization can be discarded and those that still serve the common interest can be maintained (Dixon, 1997; Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

A learning organization consciously permits contradictions and paradoxes.  In a learning organization, conflicts are not seen as threats to be avoided, but as challenges to be met (Bencivenga, 1995; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992).  Moreover, the most successful companies recognize their members’ conflicting views and experiences as a source of strength (Katzenbach & Smith, 1933; Klunk, 1997).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is crucial to create an organizational climate, including relation, innovation, openness, pressure, discipline, and conflict, that promotes organizational learning ability.  The question to be asked then is “How to achieve this goal?”  The answer should be forthcoming from the human resource department of a company, since human resource management deals with employees and their working environment. 

2.4 Organizational-Learning-Oriented HRM

An organization has many tools to manage the process of learning, but in principle, the learning ability of an organization depends on its ability to accumulate invisible assets, such as knowledge (Heberg, 1981).  As invisible assets are embodied in people, policies regarding human resources are critical to organizational learning.  The objective of the human resource management (HRM) activities is to complement line management in providing a supporting climate and appropriate systems to guide the process of learning.  Organizational learning results from a combination of hard and soft organizational practices anchored in specific HRM techniques (Pucik, 1988).

The human resource (HR) and organizational development staff, who are most likely to understand the psychology of adult learning and change, are integral in promoting any HR program.  Their tasks typically include developing a learning organization profile and goals, helping to form cross-functional teams, showing those teams how to learn from their own experiences, developing training programs, and so on.  The teams will also need HR’s guidance in teaching the lessons they have learned to others in the organization who could profit from that information, and in reviewing ways to speed up a process or change how their teams interact (Bencivenga, 1995).

HRM can do much to create a learning climate and further improve organizational learning ability through its various functions, which include recruitment, placement and job design, training and development, appraisal and rewards, which are discussed in the following paragraphs:

Recruitment 

Skills can be trained, but hardly can ability or personality.  Hence, it is very important to recruit people with the attitude and personality that contribute to organizational learning ability.  A learning organization must select people not for what they know, but for whether they are able to learn (McGill & Slocum, 1993).  

Diversity of the workforce also plays a vital role in organizational ability.  Companies should hire people of different backgrounds.  Creative ideas emerge from the dialog between different perspectives. 

Placement And Job Design

Ensuring employees have an interesting job is a non-monetary incentive that can be developed to stimulate people to learn and further form a commitment to learning.  Continuous learning only occurred with well-designed jobs.  Among these are the broadened scope of work itself, the greater opportunity for diversion and challenge, and the wider range of people with whom a person interacts (Mills & Friesen, 1992).  The learning organization itself is a form of compensation.  To be able to work in this form of organization is a benefit to many people and one that they ardently desire.  It is work without the hassle of a boss and a bureaucracy (Mills & Friesen, 1992).

In a learning organization, boundaries are places where intensive contact is needed because it is precisely there that an exchange of ideas takes place between the separate sections and cooperation is thus crucial (Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992).  Changes occur at the points of contact in the organization where, from the meeting of the different angles of incidence, interests and contributions, learning takes place (Klunk, 1997; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992).

The structural characteristics of learning organizations are permeability, flexibility, and network intimacy.  All boundaries in a learning organization are highly permeable, which maximizes the flow of information and opens the organization to its experiences.  The lines between management and employees, between departments, between employees and customers, between the company and its competitors are blurred.  The organization’s structure is based on the need to learn; the driving organizing principle is to put the necessary resources in the hands of the people who need them.  As tasks, needs, and people change, the structure changes so that customers and employees alike face minimal inconveniences.  Network intimacy, closeness, and openness between management, employees, customers, competitors, and the community make it possible for the learning organization to constantly monitor changing needs and people (McGill & Slocum, 1993).

A very important way that organizations learn is through empowered employees.  Empowerment of employees will provide the autonomy that permits innovation to emerge.  The role of managers must switch from supervision to facilitation, if innovation is truly to take hold (Mills & Friesen, 1992; Mumford, 1992).  Enlightened companies, usually driven by the need to respond rapidly to changing market conditions, tell employees to think for themselves and to take action to solve problems.  This is the equivalent of putting the power of organizational learning into the hands of employees. 

Empowerment of employees happens in several ways.  One way is through the team phenomenon.  More and more task forces, process-improvement teams, and self-directed work units are being given responsibility for innovations and improvements, as well as the authority to act upon on what they learn.  The total quality movement is another example.  Front-line workers and teams are asked to measure their own quality data, run experiments and take responsibility for making improvements.  They check with internal customers and stakeholders to keep their spontaneous learning aligned with the organization’s needs (Kramlinger, 1992).

Training And Development

Leshner & Browne (1993) pointed out that cross-functional teams, which involve the cross training of workers in several task areas, can help to create a learning organization.  For example, customer service representatives at Chubb Life America engage in group training and individual customer representative training for up to two hours per day.  Representatives, who performed separate functions under the previous system, pair off and teach each other their respective tasks to increase their job knowledge and functionality.  Cross-functional teams allow management to reassign people from their regular tasks to address unforeseen problems imposed by a changing environment (Leshner & Browne, 1993).

Cross training appears to be a type of formal training.  However, in recent research that took place at Motorola, the researchers calculated that every hour of formal training yielded a four-hour spillover of informal learning.  Stamps (1998) defines informal learning as that “in which the learning process is neither determined nor designed by the organization, regardless of the formality or informality of the goals and objectives toward which the learning is directed.”  When workers attempt to apply to their jobs something they have learned in a formal training session, sometimes the new information does not quite fit, even though it seems to make good sense.  In such cases, workers may figure out together how the new information or technique can be incorporated into the existing work routine.  Sometimes they change work processes to accommodate their new ideas.  As these new ideas and new work processes take shape, new learning occurs (Stamps, 1998).

Human resource development is being transformed from training to learning.  Training is done to us or what we do to someone else.  Learning is something we do for ourselves (Galbraith & McGrath, 1997).  The shift in emerging terminology is summarized in Table 2-4-1.  A senior official should be tasked to review how learning, not just training, maximizes the human assets of the organization (Galbraith & McGrath, 1997).

Table 2-4-1
The shift in human resource development terminology
OLD	NEW	
Trainee	Leaner	
The Transfer Model Of Learning	The Social Model Of Learning	
Training Events	Self-Directed Learning On The Job	
Big Training Departments	Outsourcing Training	
Monoculturalism	Diversity	
Individual Workers	Teams	
Functions	Process	
Control	Empowerment	
Source: Galbraith, J & McGrath, J. (1997). The “Learning” In The Learning Organization. The Public Manager, Spring, p. 35.

The learning organization requires organizational learning in addition to traditional training.  Organizational learning is a set of processes and structures to help people create new knowledge, share their understanding, and continuously improve themselves and the results of the enterprise.  Solomon (1994) states the evolution of training in a learning organization as summarized in Table 2-4-2.

Table 2-4-2
The Evolution of Training in A Learning Organization
TRADITIONAL TRAINING	ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING	
Employees receive skills training; executives receive development training.	All employees receive learning support, lifelong development.	
Training goals are based on requests by users.	Learning goals are based on corporate strategy and user’s needs.	
Training primarily addresses immediate needs or short-term plans.	Learning focuses on core competencies and long-term strategic plans.	
Needs assessments are done by the training group or by managers.	Needs assessments are done jointly by individuals, managers and training groups.	
Training is conducted locally or at an offsite classroom.	Education takes place at the workplace, job site or anywhere.	
Delivery of training is scheduled on a periodic basis.	Delivery of education is on real time, upon request.	
Training approach is delivery of knowledge.	Education approach is to design learning experiences or workplace interventions.	
Training is instructor driven; programs designed by specialist.
Content is generalized; developed by training specialist; often prescriptive.	Education is self directed; process design involves participants.
Content is specific and applied; developed jointly with trainees; trainees determine content.	
Trainers develop and deliver content, trainees are recipients. 	Educators facilitate process and coach learners, learners are joint developers.	
Source: Solomon, C. M. (1994). HR Facilitates the Learning Organization Concept. Personnel Journal, November 1994, p. 62.

Appraisal And Rewards

The appraisal and reward systems in many multinational firms encourage hoarding of critical information.  Information if treated as a source of power, not as a resource.  Managers can make themselves indispensable by blocking the flow of information.  Such a behavior is not only tolerated, but these “valuable experts” are often rewarded in terms of superior compensation and considerable operational autonomy.  Any increase in information concerning the activities of the partnership outside of their own domain is seen by these managers as a threat to their power (Mills & Friesen, 1992).

A firm which aspires to be a learning organization must teach its employees how to learn and to share information, and it must reward them for success in doing so (Mills & Friesen, 1992).  The appraisal and reward systems in the learning organization recognize and reinforce learning.  This means that pay and promotion practices are tied to risk-taking, flexibility, continuous improvement, and other behaviors that learning organizations require.  More than this, it means that punishments for failure and dissent are eliminated.  In most organizations today, not only are risk-taking and dissent not encouraged, but they are severely punished and generally regarded by employees and managers alike as career enders.  By contrast, learning organizations encourage dissent.  Management believes that intellectual diversity enhances and improves experience (McGill & Slocum, 1993).

Moreover, during performance reviews, feedback should be solicited from peers and subordinates on these and other competencies.  It is only when pay and promotion are hinged to these intangible factors that employees modify their behavior (Stata, 1989 ;Mullen & Lyles, 1993).

It is crucial to communicate the result of performance appraisal with employees.  By doing so, employees can understand how their work contributes to overall goals and objectives.  Employees need to know the direction of the company, or they become apathetic.  Everyone needs to be part of the mission and vision.  Everyone needs to be constantly learning from each other, since learning enables change.  In fact, learning becomes synergistic when it is encouraged (Kovach, 1997).

At Andersen Consulting, for example, the partners see their primary roles as strengthening the firm for those who follow them.  This will-accepted value, which they call “trusteeship,” is evident in the commitment of the partners make to the development and support of the firm’s associates.  When recruited into the firm, each new employee is assigned a counseling partner who accepts responsibility for meeting with the new member every six months to discuss his or her performance.  In addition, project managers give associates feedback and support, evaluating their specific project.  Through such activities, Andersen guides its operations while simultaneously developing its capabilities (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995).

Besides the appraisal and reward systems that are set to boost organizational learning directly, attention should be made on the well-being of employees life in the form of various benefit programs.  It has been proven in the military campaigns that the only leader whom soldiers will reliably follow when their lives are on the line is the leader who is both competent and whom soldiers believe is committed to their well-being (Senge, 1997).

Chapter 3  Methodology

The main focus of this chapter is to describe the research methodology of this study.  This chapter begins off by presenting the research structure, which include organizational-learning-oriented HRM, organizational climate, organizational learning ability, and demography.  The research hypotheses will follow next.  Then, the manipulative definition for each of research variables will be examined.  The last item to be presented in this chapter is the sampling procedure, including sampling results and analysis method such as factor analysis and reliability analysis.

3.1 Research Structure

Based on the previous literature review, a preliminary research structure is presented at figure 3-1-1.  Only when commitment to learning and transfer of knowledge exist among individuals in an organization can the organization learn.  Commitment to learning and transfer of knowledge, therefore, together compose the dependent variable, which is organizational learning ability.  Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management, which enhances the learning ability of an organization, is extracted from literature as the independent variable.  Organizational-learning-oriented HRM has to create an environment that is perceived by people in the organization that encourages learning and facilitates the transfer of knowledge.  That is, Organizational-learning-oriented HRM would influence organizational learning ability through the manipulation organizational climate.  Organizational climate, therefore, is presented as the mediator in the research structure. 

Additionally, to consider the differences between each individual, demographic variable is also presented as an independent variable, which influences the commitment to learning and the propensity of transferring knowledge of individuals. 

Organizational climate

Relation
Innovation
Openness
Pressure
Discipline
Conflict

Demography

Gender
Age
Education level
Seniority
Position

Organizational learning ability

Commitment to learning

Transfer of knowledge

Organizational-learning-oriented HRM

Figure 3-1-1 
Research structure

3.2 Hypothesis

Based on the research structure discussed above, the hypotheses of this research are proposed as follows.

Hypothesis 1-1: There is a difference in “commitment to learning” for different demographic characteristics.
Hypothesis 1-2: There is a difference in “transfer of knowledge” for different demographic characteristics.

Hypothesis 2-1: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of relation.
Hypothesis 2-2: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of innovation.
Hypothesis 2-3: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of openness.
Hypothesis 2-4: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of pressure.
Hypothesis 2-5: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of discipline.
Hypothesis 2-6: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of conflict.

Hypothesis 3-1: Organizational climate of relation has a direct effect on commitment to learning.
Hypothesis 3-2: Organizational climate of innovation has a direct effect on commitment to learning.
Hypothesis 3-3: Organizational climate of openness has a direct effect on commitment to learning.
Hypothesis 3-4: Organizational climate of pressure has a direct effect on commitment to learning.
Hypothesis 3-5: Organizational climate of discipline has a direct effect on commitment to learning.
Hypothesis 3-6: Organizational climate of conflict has a direct effect on commitment to learning.
Hypothesis 3-7: Organizational climate of relation has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.
Hypothesis 3-8: Organizational climate of innovation has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.
Hypothesis 3-9: Organizational climate of openness has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.
Hypothesis 3-10: Organizational climate of pressure has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.
Hypothesis 3-11: Organizational climate of discipline has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.
Hypothesis 3-12: Organizational climate of conflict has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.

Hypothesis 4-1: Organizational-learning-oriented HRM has a direct effect on commitment to learning.
Hypothesis 4-2: Organizational-learning-oriented HRM has a direct effect on   transfer of knowledge.

3.3 Manipulative Definition & Measurement Of Variables

Organizational-Learning Oriented HRM

The manipulative definition of organizational-learning oriented human resource management (organizational-learning-oriented HRM) is “human resource management which encourages individuals to learn and transfer knowledge so as to enhance the learning ability of an organization.”  Organizational-learning-oriented HRM was measured in the first part of the questionnaire.  Based on the literature review, 24 statements were extracted and used in part one of the questionnaire to stand for different organizational-learning-oriented human resource management activities.  Categorized by different human resource management functions, these statements asked are follows: 

Placement and job design
1. When assigning, my company will consider whether the employee is interested in the job.
2. When a position is open, my company hires within first.
3. Job rotation is frequently implemented.
4. I can choose the content of my job.
5. The content of my job varies frequently.
6. I have to cooperate with other departments to conduct my job.
7. I can decide how to get my job done.

Training and education
8. My company provides education and training programs that are not directly related to my current position.
9. The education and training programs in my company usually interest me.
10. My company encourages continuing education plans.
11. Most of the training programs provided in my company meet my needs.
12. A wide variety of training programs are provided in my company.

Appraisal
13. I am appraised by more than my boss, i.e. by my peers, subordinates, customers, or myself.
14. My boss will communicate the results of appraisals with me.
15. In my company, appraisal is based on the performance of a group of people, not individuals.
16. Goals that are applied to employees are usually challenging.
17. The amount of training I received affects my appraisal results.

Compensation
18. My company provides various financial participation plans, such as stock shares and bonuses.
19. Salaries in my company are competitive within the industry.
20. I can chose different combinations of benefits to suit my needs.
21. The bonus system in my company is based on group results.
22. The benefits my company provides meet my needs.
23. My company encourages and supports different clubs.
24. Non-job-related activities, such as trips and sports competitions, are often held.

Each question was cast on a 6-point scale.  In every question, participants circled the number that stands for “strongly disagree”, “moderately disagree”, “disagree slightly”, “agree slightly”, “moderately agree”, or “strongly agree”.

Organizational Climate

The definition of organizational climate in this study follows from Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970), who defined climate as a set of attributes specific to a particular organization that may be induced from the way that organization deals with its members and its environment.  For the individual member within the organization, climate takes the form of a set of attributes and expectancies which describe the organization (Hershberger, Lichtenstein, & Knox, 1994).  This definition implies that although each organization has its own objective characteristics, workers within a particular organization differ in their perceptions of these characteristics (Pritchard & Karasick, 1973).  Individuals in the same work group may differ in their perceptions of the work environment (James, Hater, Gent, & Bruni, 1978). 

Organizational climate was measured by the 34 questions in the second part of the questionnaire.  In every question, participants circled the number that stands for “strongly disagree”, “moderately disagree”, “disagree slightly”, “agree slightly”, “moderately agree”, or “strongly agree”.  Based on the literature review, six kinds of organizational climate that are relevant to organizational learning, including relation, innovation, openness, pressure, discipline, and conflict, are defined as follows.

Relation: The extent to which support and warmth among coworkers are perceived by the members of an organization.  “Relation” was measured in the second part of the questionnaire from item 1 to item 6. 

Innovation: The extent to which the organization encourages individuals to generate and experiment new ideas and is willing to take the risk of doing so.  “Innovation” was measured in the second part of the questionnaire from item 16 to item 23. 

Openness: The extent to which members of an organization are willing to communicate and reveal what they know and what they don’t know.  “Openness” was measured in the second part of the questionnaire from item 11 to item 15.

Pressure: The extent to which the stress or pressure of achieving high performance is perceived by the members of an organization.  “Pressure” was measured in the second part of the questionnaire from item 24 to item 28. 

Discipline: The extent to which the individuals in an organization strive voluntarily to meet and exceed their own responsibilities.  “Discipline” was measured in the second part of the questionnaire from item 29 to item 32. 

Conflict: The extent to which different opinions and ideas are tolerated or encouraged in an organization.  “Conflict” was measured in the second part of the questionnaire from item 7 to item 9. 

Organizational Learning Ability

The manipulative definition of “organizational learning ability” is “the ability of learning on an organizational scale, which is embodied in individual commitment to learning and transfer of knowledge.”  Organizational learning ability was measured by the 10 questions in the third part of the questionnaire.  In every question, participants circled the number that stands for “strongly disagree”, “moderately disagree”, “disagree slightly”, “agree slightly”, “moderately agree”, or “strongly agree”.  Based on the literature review, organizational learning ability consists of “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge”.  

Commitment to learning: The extent to which the individual sees learning as a continuous, satisfactory and exciting thing to do in an organization.  “Commitment to learning” was measured in the third part of the questionnaire form item 1 to item 5.

Transfer of knowledge: The extent to which the individual shares and discusses ideas in an organization.  “Transfer of knowledge” was measured in the third part of the questionnaire form item 6 to item 10.

Demography

Gender: The gender of the participant, which includes male and female.
Age: The age of the participant.
Education level: The highest academic degree or certificate the participant obtained.  Five categories, under junior high school, senior high school, junior college, bachelor’s degree, and master’s degree or above, are listed for the participant to choose from.
Seniority: The length of time for which the participant has worked for the company.
Position: The position of the participant.  Two categories, manager and non-manager, are listed for the participant to choose from. 

3.4 Sample

Sampling Procedure

The organizational learning ability is important across all kinds of industries.  This study, therefore, did not confine the sample to people who work for a certain industry.  In order to ensure the human resource management practice and organizational climate of a company have influenced the participant of this study, participants are confined to those who have worked at the current company for at least one year. 

Sample companies were selected randomly from top 1000 manufacturers and top 500 service companies in Taiwan ranked by Common Wealth Magazine (1998).  Two hundred companies were selected from the top 1000 manufacturers and 100 from the top 500 service companies.  One letter and four questionnaires were enclosed in each mailing and sent to the head human resource manager of those companies selected.  

These human resource managers were asked in the letter to forward the four questionnaires to any four employees who had worked at the company for at least one year.  All the questionnaires were self-stamped.  After finishing answering the questionnaire, the participant could just put it into a postbox directly.  

Of the 1,200 questionnaires were sent out by mail, 192 replies were received.  Among the replies, 19 were invalid.  Therefore, there were 173 valid replies, giving a valid reply rate of 14.42% (see Table 3-4-1).

Table 3-4-1
Valid Reply Rate
Questionnaires Sent	No. Of Replies	Valid Replies	Valid Reply Rate (%)	
1,200	192	173	14.42	

Description Of The Sample

After the descriptive statistical analysis on the valid sample, the results are summarized in Table 3-4-2, and Table 3-4-3.

Table 3-4-2
Description of the sample (1)
Demography	Frequency	Percentage (%)	
Gender
(N=173)	Male
Female	89
84	51.	4
48.6	
Education level
(N=172)
(missing=1)	Under junior high 
Senior high
Junior college
Bachelor
Above Master 	1
32
57
63
19	0.	6
18.6
33.1
36.	6
11.0	
Position
(N=172)
(missing=1)	Manager
Non-manager	93
79	54.1
45.9	

Table 3-4-3
Description of the sample (2)
Demography	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Deviation	
Age
(N=172)
(missing=1)	19	63	36.60	9.27	
Seniority
(N=173)	1	38	11.00	9.03	

3.5 Analysis Method

The answers of 173 valid replies were transformed into data in the computer.  Furthermore, statistical package software, including SPSS for windows and LISREL 8W, was used to analyze the data.  To test the hypotheses of this study, various types of analysis were employed.

Descriptive Statistics Analysis
Descriptive statistics analysis, including mean, standard deviation, and so forth, was employed to generally examine the distribution of the answers. 

Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis
Three sets of factor analysis were conducted on organizational-learning-oriented human resource management, organizational climate, and organizational learning ability.  Afterward, reliability analysis was employed to examine the internal consistency of each factor by its Cronbach’s Alpha (Jams, Demareem, & Wolf, 1984).  The alpha value has to exceed 0.5, which is the basic standard required to determine weather a questionnaire is reliable (Nunnally, 1967).

One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
One-way ANOVA was employed to examine whether “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge” would differ owning to different gender, education level, and position.  

Regression Analysis
Regression analysis was employed to examine whether “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge” would be affected by age and seniority of each individual. 

Correlation Analysis
Pearson correlation analysis was employed to test the relationship between each variable. 

Path Analysis
Path analysis deals with estimating path coefficients and paths from correlation coefficients computed on observational data (Fiedler, 1993).  It helps to state the direction of causality between two variables (Asher, 1983).  Statistics software package, LISREL 8W, was employed to implement path analysis to test the whole research structure.  

3.6 Factor Analysis & Reliability Analysis

Factor Analysis For “Organizational-Learning-Oriented HRM” 

Six factors emerged by the factor analysis with a varimax rotation for “organizational-learning-oriented HRM”.  In accordance to the questions they contain, these 6 factors are named respectively as “benefits which satisfy personal and interpersonal needs”, “participant appraisal”, “commitment-based HRM”, “Off-job training”, “Empowerment”, and “Employee-oriented placement”.  All of the 6 factors had eigenvalues greater than one and in sum explained 64.9 percent of the common variance.  Factor loadings are reported in Table 3-6-1.

Table 3-6-1
Factor Analysis for “Organizational-Learning-Oriented HRM”
Item Number	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5	Factor 6	
Benefits which satisfy personal and interpersonal needs	
24	.81	.07	.09	.23	.10	.09	
23	.76	.18	.19	.15	.21	.05	
25	.73	.06	.12	.35	-.03	.14	
22	.60	.31	.01	-.14	.34	.00	
20	.49	.46	.13	.12	-.23	.28	
Participant appraisal	
15	.19	.78	.02	.14	.32	-.04	
17	.19	.69	.12	.22	.16	.22	
13	.05	.62	.27	.24	-.02	.19	
14	.06	.60	.43	.25	.11	.07	
Commitment-based HRM	
2	.16	.06	.63	-.01	.10	.42	
18	.27	.21	.60	.19	-.11	.27	
16	.22	.52	.58	-.04	.04	-.10	
3	-.06	.16	.52	.19	.19	.19	
19	.35	-.01	.47	.35	.39	-.15	
Off-job training	
12	.24	.22	.29	.76	.11	-.04	
10	.20	.26	.07	.66	.31	.18	
8	.24	.41	-.08	.59	.04	.25	
Empowerment	
9	.23	.07	-.01	.25	.72	.04	
7	-.08	.16	.13	.13	.60	.40	
5	.11	.15	.48	-.10	.54	.12	
11	.29	.20	.24	.40	.45	.25	
Employee-oriented placement	
4	.04	.15	.11	.08	.22	.79	
1	.20	.08	.28	.11	.40	.78	
Eigenvalues	7.98	1.83	1.49	1.40	1.24	0.98	
% Variance Explained	34.7	7.9	6.5	6.1	5.4	4.3	

Factor Analysis For “Organizational Climate”

After the factor analysis with a varimax rotation for “organizational climate”, there were also 6 factors emerging, which were “Relation”, “Innovation”, “Openness”, “Pressure”, “Discipline”, and “Conflict”.  All of the 6 factors had eigenvalues greater than one and in sum explained 66.5 percent of the common variance.  Factor loadings are reported in Table 3-6-2.

Table 3-6-2
Factor Analysis for “Organizational Climate”
Item Number	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4	Factor 5	Factor 6	
Relation	
02	.87	.11	.12	-.05	.08	-.03	
01	.86	.13	.14	.05	.10	.03	
04	.81	.24	.06	.42	.18	.14	
03	.73	.14	.28	-.04	.24	.15	
05	.71	.33	.23	.06	-.04	.13	
06	.67	.23	.33	.11	.15	.14	
10	.42	-.23	.21	.07	.32	.32	
Innovation	
20	.11	.80	.12	.06	.17	.13	
22	.26	.67	.07	-.18	.23	.14	
19	.20	.65	.14	.33	.13	.30	
17	.10	.61	.39	.06	.13	.16	
23	.22	.60	.37	.22	.07	.15	
21	.27	.56	.20	.26	.25	.03	
18	.31	.49	.36	.18	.22	.23	
16	.17	.45	.43	-.03	.30	.12	
Openness	
12	.25	.27	.74	-.01	.11	.11	
13	.18	.14	.67	.21	-.05	.14	
15	.24	.39	.60	.00	.29	.05	
14	.42	.27	.60	.05	.17	.16	
11	.14	.04	.58	-.05	.22	.33	
Pressure	
27	.09	.13	.13	.80	.20	.01	
25	.02	-.01	.05	.80	.03	-.14	
26	.13	.02	-.03	.76	.27	.00	
24	-.11	.08	.05	.74	.01	.10	
28	.01	.24	-.05	.55	.53	.13	
Discipline	
30	.17	.22	.16	.18	.80	-.01	
29	.02	.24	.00	.24	.69	.15	
31	.27	.23	.31	.14	.68	.07	
32	.37	.14	.31	.11	.59	.10	
Conflict	
09	.15	.22	.10	-.07	.05	.81	
08	.08	.24	.29	.07	.11	.77	
07	.17	.38	.46	.02	.11	.62	
Eigenvalues	11.73	3.30	2.29	1.45	1.37	1.13	
% Variance Explained	36.7	10.3	7.2	4.5	4.3	3.5	

Factor Analysis For “Organizational Learning Ability”

Two factors emerged from the factor analysis with a varimax rotation for “organizational learning ability”, including “transfer of knowledge” and “commitment to learning”.  Both factors had eigenvalues greater than one and in sum explained 64.6 percent of the common variance.  Factor loadings are reported in Table 3-6-3.

Table 3-6-3
Factor analysis for “organizational learning ability”
Item number	Factor  1	Factor  2	
Transfer of knowledge	
08	.86	.14	
09	.86	.00	
07	.74	.34	
06	.67	.33	
10	.47	.39	
Commitment to learning	
02	.16	.83	
01	.05	.83	
03	.25	.77	
04	.44	.70	
05	.56	.56	
Eigenvalues	5.01	1.46	
% Variance Explained	50.1	14.6	

Reliability Analysis

Cronbach’s Alpha was employed to examine the internal consistency of each variable.  The commonly used threshold value for acceptable reliability is 0.7 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1992).  The internal consistency is very strong when Cronbach’s Alpha exceeds 0.7 (Cortina, 1993).  According to the Cronbach’s Alpha of each variable summarized in Table 3-6-4, the reliability of the questionnaire is satisfactory.  Therefore, these variables are deemed to be appropriate for this study.

Table 3-6-4
Reliability analysis
Variables	Cronbach’s Alpha	
Organizational-learning-oriented HRM	
Benefit which satisfy personal and interpersonal needs	.81	
Participant appraisal	.80	
Commitment-based HRM	.71	
Off-job training	.78	
Empowerment	.70	
Employee-oriented placement	.76	
Organizational climate	
Relation	.90	
Innovation	.89	
Openness	.84	
Pressure	.83	
Discipline	.84	
Conflict	.84	
Organizational learning ability	
Transfer of knowledge	.83	
Commitment to learning	.86	

3.7 Limitations Of The Study

This study is conducted through questionnaire.  Therefore, there exists inherent methodological limitations of questionnaire investigation, such as whether the participants really understand the questions. 

In an attempt to gather necessary data to the utmost, the questionnaire designed for this study might be so lengthy as to try participants’ patience.  Hence, the answers might not be able to reflect the variables this study intends to investigate. 

The third part of the questionnaire, which investigated “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge”, required the participants to evaluate themselves.  There is a vast possibility for bias when self-reporting.  The participants, therefore, might exaggerate their responses.

Chapter 4  Result & Discussion

This Chapter reports research findings resulting from empirical tests of the four main research hypotheses.  Findings are reported in four sections.  The first section presents the descriptive statistics analysis of each factor.  The next section reports findings regarding the influence of demography on dependent variables.  The third section presents the findings concerning the correlation between research variables.  The last section reports the findings of the path analysis. 

4.1 Descriptive Statistics Analysis

This section presents the descriptive statistics analysis, including mean, standard deviation, and so forth.  This analysis is to generally examine the distribution of the answers. 

Organizational-Learning-Oriented HRM

As shown in Table 4-1-1, the means exceed the medians in “empowerment”, “off-job training”, “commitment-based HRM”, as well as “benefits which satisfy personal and interpersonal needs”.  For “participant appraisal” and “employee-oriented placement”, by contrast, the means are below the medians.  Two rough conclusions can be made.  First, firms in Taiwan do not stress too much on participant appraisal.  Additionally, while placing, they do not give much consideration to employee’s interest in a job.

Table 4-1-1
Descriptive statistics analysis of “organizational-learning-oriented HRM”
Factors	Min	Max	Median	Mean	Standard Deviation	
Benefit	5	30	17.5	17.84	5.02	
Appraisal	4	24	14	12.76	4.39	
Commitment	8	29	17.5	18.46	4.42	
Training	3	18	10.5	11.33	3.14	
Empowerment	5	24	14	16.00	3.26	
Placement	2	12	7	6.46	2.12	

Benefit = benefits which satisfy personal and interpersonal needs
Appraisal = participant appraisal
Commitment = commitment-based HRM
Training = off-job training
Empowerment = empowerment
Placement = employee-oriented placement

Organizational Climate

According to Table 4-1-2, the means outnumber the medians for the organizational climates of relation, openness, pressure, and discipline.  On the other hand, the organizational climates of innovation and conflict have opposite results.  One, therefore, can roughly conclude that the organizational climate of the companies in Taiwan does not encourage different voices or innovative ideas.  

Table 4-1-2
Descriptive statistics analysis of “organizational climate”
Factor	Min	Max	Median	Mean	Standard Deviation	
Relation	9	41	24.5	28.87	5.57	
Innovation	8	42	28	27.01	6.80	
Openness	6	28	17.5	18.57	4.66	
Pressure	9	30	17.5	20.58	4.12	
Discipline	4	24	14	16.10	3.40	
Conflict	3	18	10.5	9.46	3.14	

Organizational Learning Ability

Judging from Table 4-1-3, means for both “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge” are particularly high.  Because the participants were required to describe themselves in terms of their commitment to learning and transfer of knowledge, there doomed to be an inherent bias of self-reporting.  This can explain the particularly high values of the means for these two factors.

Table 4-1-3
Descriptive statistics analysis of “organizational learning ability”
Factor	Min	Max	Median	Mean	Standard Deviation	
Commitment to learning	11	30	17.5	23.14	3.59	
Transfer of knowledge	10	30	17.5	21.20	3.78	

4.2 The Influence Of Demography On Dependent Variables

This section reports the influence of demography on organizational learning ability which consists of “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge”.  One-way ANOVA was employed to test whether the “gender”, “education level”, and “position” of an individual would have significant influences on the dependent variables.  Additionally, multiple regression was employed to test whether the “age” and “seniority” of an individual would have significant influences on the dependent variables.  The results are summarized in Table 4-2-1 as well as 4-2-2.

Table 4-2-1
One-way ANOVA Analysis of Demography for Commitment to Learning
Demography	F Value	Sig. (P Value)	
Gender	0.726	0.773	
Education level	0.900	0.575	
Position	0.638	0.858	

Table 4-2-2
One-way ANOVA Analysis of Demography for Transfer of Knowledge
Demography	F Value	Sig. (P Value)	
Gender	1.725	0.035*	
Education level	1.063	0.395	
Position	0.723	0.798	
* p<0.05

Table 4-2-3
Transfer of Knowledge for Different Genders
Gender	N	Mean	Standard Deviation	
Male	89	21.92	0.39	
Female	84	20.42	0.41	

As shown in Table 4-2-1, there is no difference among genders, education levels, or positions in terms of commitment to learning.  Furthermore, in terms of transfer of knowledge, according to Table 4-2-2, the same conclusion can also be applied, except for genders.  A significant difference (p<0.05) appears between different genders.  According to Table 4-2-3, male participants tend to get higher points than their female counterparts.  That is, male participants are more willing to express their opinions and question those of others in the company.  This might be due to the culture in Taiwan, which encourages females to conform and discourages them from expressing their own opinions.  

The multiple regression analysis of age and seniority for transfer of knowledge and commitment to learning was conducted and summarized in Table 4-2-4.  According to the p-values, it can be concluded that there is no influence of either age or seniority on transfer of knowledge and commitment to learning. 

Table 4-2-4
Multiple Regression of Demography for Transfer of Knowledge and Commitment to Learning
	Transfer of knowledge	Commitment to learning	
Independent variables	Beta	Beta	
Constant	20.890	24.070	
Age	0.003	-0.151	
Seniority	0.082	0.286	
F value	0.600	2.501	
P value	0.550	0.085	
R square	0.007	0.029	

4.3 Correlation Analysis

This section is to examine how research variables correlate to one another by using Pearson correlation analysis. 

Correlation Between Independent Variables And Mediating Variables 

As shown in Table 4-3-1, most of the independent variables positively correlate to mediating ones in a significant manner. 

Table 4-3-1
Correlation between Independent Variables and Mediating Variables
	Relation	Innovation	Openness	Pressure	Discipline	Conflict	
Benefit	.300***	.405***	.415***	.194*	.221**	.281***	
Appraisal	.370***	.596***	.560***	.325***	.434***	.510***	
Commit	.387***	.519***	.507***	.321***	.501***	.400***	
Training	.243**	.394***	.416***	.176*	.280***	.330***	
Empower	.361***	.522***	.480***	.209**	.382***	.432***	
Placement	.238**	.368***	.367***	.121	.254**	.292***	
* p<0.05  ** p<0.01  *** p<0.001

Correlation Between Independent Variables And Dependent Variables

The correlation between “organizational-learning-oriented HRM” and “organizational learning ability” is summarized in Table 4-3-2.  All of the independent variables are positively correlated to dependent variables in a significant manner. 

Table 4-3-2
Correlation between Independent Variables and Dependent Variables
	Transfer of knowledge	Commitment to learning	
Benefit	.424***	.417***	
Appraisal	.435***	.444***	
Commit	.450***	.403***	
Training	.402***	.410***	
Empower	.564***	.570***	
Placement	.301***	.327***	
*** p<0.001

Correlation Between Mediating Variables And Dependent Variables

Table 4-3-3 summarizes the correlation between “organizational climate” and “organizational learning ability”.  All of the independent variables are positively correlated to mediating variables in a significant manner. 

Table 4-3-3
Correlation between Mediating Variables and Dependent Variables
	Transfer of knowledge	Commitment to learning	
Relation	.445***	.483***	
Innovation	.494***	.484***	
Openness	.519***	.585***	
Pressure	.262**	.254**	
Discipline	.399***	.440***	
Conflict	.431***	.406***	
** p<0.01  *** p<0.001

To sum up, there is a strong correlation between independent, mediating, and dependent variables.  Therefore, it is fair to conclude that there is a tight relation among “organizational-learning HRM”, “organizational climate”, and “organizational learning ability”.  Finally, the correlation between all the factors is summarized in Table 4-3-4.

Table 4-3-4
Correlation between All The Factors
	appraisal	benefit	commit	empower	place	training	conflict	relation	open	innovate	pressure	discipline	lean	transfer	
appraisal	1.000														
benefit	.512***	1.000													
commit	.596***	.545***	1.000												
empower	.509***	.450***	.569***	1.000											
place	.352***	.305***	.452***	.452***	1.000										
training	.601***	.567***	.491***	.507***	.308***	1.000									
conflict	.510***	.281***	.400***	.432***	.292***	.330***	1.000								
relation	.370***	.300***	.387***	.361***	.238**	.243**	.429***	1.000							
open	.560***	.415***	.507***	.480***	.367***	.416***	.611***	.611***	1.000						
innovate	.596***	.405***	.519***	.522***	.368***	.394***	.604***	.558***	.679***	1.000					
pressure	.325***	.194*	.321***	.209**	.121	.176**	.144	.182*	.225**	.338***	1.000				
discipline	.434***	.221**	.501***	.382***	.254**	.280***	.394***	.493***	.521***	.592***	.477***	1.000			
learn	.444***	.417***	.403***	.570***	.327***	.410***	.406***	.483***	.585***	.484***	.254**	.440***	1.000		
transfer	.435***	.424***	.450***	.564***	.301***	.402***	.431***	.445***	.519***	.494***	.262**	.399***	.587***	1.000	
* p<0.05  ** p<0.01  *** p<0.001

4.4 Path Analysis

To identify the causality between the research variables, path analysis was employed in this section.  LISREL (Linear structure relation), developed by two statisticians, Joreskog and Sorbom, based on covariance structure analysis, is statistics software that deals with the causality between variables.  The advantage of LISREL is that it is capable of processing a series of variables and identifying the causality between them simultaneously (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993).  

The absolute value of “t-value” was employed to examine the significance of different paths.  The path is considered significant, if the absolute value of t-value is greater than or equal to 2 (t  2 ) (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988).

The Structure For Path Analysis

As shown in Figure 4-4-1, the structure for path analysis is presented.  The causalities between variables can be translated into eight equations, which follow the definitions of the variables listed below:

V7 = P7,1V1 + P7,2V2 + P7,3V3 + P7,4V4 + P7,5V5 + P7,6V6
V8 = P8,1V1 + P8,2V2 + P8,3V3 + P8,4V4 + P8,5V5 + P8,6V6
V9 = P9,1V1 + P9,2V2 + P9,3V3 + P9,4V4 + P9,5V5 + P9,6V6
V10 = P10,1V1 + P10,2V2 + P10,3V3 + P10,4V4 + P10,5V5 + P10,6V6
V11 = P11,1V1 + P11,2V2 + P11,3V3 + P11,4V4 + P11,5V5 + P11,6V6
V12 = P12,1V1 + P12,2V2 + P12,3V3 + P12,4V4 + P12,5V5 + P12,6V6
V13 = P13,1V1 + P13,2V2 + P13,3V3 + P13,4V4 + P13,5V5 + P13,6V6 + P13,7V7 + P13,8V8 + P13,9V9 + P13,10V10 + P13,11V11 + P13,12V12
V14 = P14,1V1 + P14,2V2 + P14,3V3 + P14,4V4 + P14,5V5 + P14,6V6 + P14,7V7 + P14,8V8 + P14,9V9 + P14,10V10 + P14,11V11 + P14,12V12

The definitions of the variables presented in the above equations are as follows:
V1 = Benefits which satisfy personal and interpersonal needs
V2 = Participant Appraisal
V3 = Commitment-based HRM
V4 = Off-job training
V5 = Empowerment
V6 = Employee-oriented placement
V7 = Relation
V8 = Innovation
V9 = Openness
V10 = Pressure
V11 = Discipline
V12 = Conflict
V13 = Transfer of knowledge
V14 = Commitment to learning

Pi,j stands for path estimate, in which i stands for the ith dependent variable and j stands for the jth independent variable.  

Figure 4-4-1
Research Model for Path Analysis

Organizational 
climate

�c	Relation (V7)
�c	Innovation (V8)
�c	Openness (V9)
�c	Pressure (V10)
�c	Discipline (V11)
�c	Conflict (V12)

Organizational learning ability

�c	Commitment to learning (V13)
�c	Transfer of knowledge (V14)

Organizational-learning-oriented HRM

�c	Benefit (V1)
�c	Appraisal (V2)
�c	Commitment (V3)
�c	Training (V4)
�c	Empowerment (V5)
�c	Placement (V6)

The results of the path analysis are presented and discussed in three categories, which are:

1.	Independent variables versus mediating variables;
2.	Mediating variables versus dependent variables; and 
3.	Independent variables versus dependent variables. 

Independent Variables VS Mediating Variables

The results of the path analysis between independent variables (organizational-learning-oriented HRM) and mediating variables (organizational climate) are reported in Table 4-4-1.  In Table 4-4-1, the numbers in the parentheses are t-values, while the numbers above them stand for maximum likelihood path estimates.  

According to Table 4-4-1, there are three dimensions of organizational-learning-oriented HRM that influence organizational climate.  They are “participant appraisal”, “commitment-based HRM”, and “empowerment”.  Among them, “participant appraisal” has a significant impact on all six dimensions of organizational climate.  As for “empowerment”, it significantly influences four dimensions of organizational climate, which are “relation”, “innovation”, “openness”, and “conflict”.  “Commitment-based HRM”, by contrast, significantly influences the other two dimensions of organizational climate, which are “pressure” and “discipline”.  All the influences mentioned above are positive in nature. 

Table 4-4-1
Direct Effects of Independent Variables on Mediating Variables (n=173)
	Benefit	Appraisal	Commit	Training	Empower	Placement	
Relation	0.	08
(-0.54)	0.	39*
(4.26)	0.	07
(0.71)	-0.03
(-0.36)	0.	21*
(2.43)	0.	06
(0.73)	
Innovation	0.	05
(0.62)	0.	40*
(4.84)	0.	13
(1.54)	-0.07
(-0.91)	0.	23*
(2.95)	0.	07
(1.11)	
Openness	0.	07
(0.88)	0.	32*
(3.81)	0.	14
(1.62)	0.	00
(0.02)	0.	16*
(2.00)	0.	10
(1.35)	
Pressure	-0.01
(-0.07)	0.	25*
(2.42)	0.	23*
(2.19)	-0.07
(-0.73)	0.	02
(0.19)	-0.05
(-0.62)	
Discipline	-0.15
(-1.74)	0.	23*
(2.56)	0.	39*
(4.16)	-0.03
(-0.32)	0.	13
(1.47)	-0.01
(-0.09)	
Conflict	-0.05
(-0.54)	0.	39*
(4.26)	0.	07
(0.71)	-0.03
(-0.36)	0.	21*
(2.43)	0.	06
(0.73)	

Mediating Variables VS Dependent Variables

The results of the path analysis between mediating variables (organizational climate) and dependent variables (organizational learning ability) are reported in Table 4-4-2.  In this table, the numbers in the parentheses are t-values, while the numbers above them stand for maximum likelihood path estimates.

According to Table 4-4-2, among six dimensions of organizational climate, there are only two dimensions have influence on both “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge” in a significant manner.  They are “relation” and “openness”.  Therefore, if a company wishes to improve the organizational learning ability by enhancing the commitment to learning and the transfer of knowledge among employees, it is very important to maintain a harmonious and supportive work environment.  Additionally, it is also vital to ensure an open climate.  In other words, top management should reveal all the relevant information, such as financial statements and their implications, to employees and communicate with them. 

Table 4-4-2
Direct Effects of Mediating Variables on Dependent Variables (n=173)
	Relation	Innovation	Openness	Pressure	Discipline	Conflict	
Learn	0.	15*
(2.45)	-0.08
(-1.12)	0.	29*
(4.12)	0.	07
(1.14)	0.	12
(1.84)	0.	00
(0.04)	
Transfer	0.	14*
(2.11)	0.	01
(0.19)	0.	14*
(2.00)	0.	09
(1.42)	0.	03
(0.49)	0.	09
(1.31)	

Independent Variables VS Dependent Variables

The results of the path analysis between independent variables (organizational-learning-oriented HRM) and dependent variables (organizational learning ability) are reported in Table 4-4-3.  Table 4-4-3 summarizes the direct effects of independent variables on dependent variables.  In this table, the numbers in the parentheses are t-values, while the numbers above them stand for maximum likelihood path estimates.

According to table 4-4-3, the only dimension of organizational-learning-oriented HRM that has a direct impact on both “commitment to learning” (path estimate = 0.34, t = 4.38) and “transfer of knowledge” (path estimate = 0.32, t = 3.85) is “empowerment”.  In other words, “empowerment” would influence “organizational learning ability” both directly and indirectly through organizational climate.

Table 4-4-3
Direct Effects of Independent Variables on Dependent Variables (n=173)
	Benefit	Appraisal	Commit	Training	Empower	Placement	
Learn	0.	14
(1.84)	0.	01
(0.13)	-0.15
(-1.77)	0.	04
(0.46)	0.	34*
(4.38)	0.	03
(0.48)	
Transfer	0.	13
(1.63)	-0.04
(-0.38)	-0.01
(-0.07)	0.	05
(0.59)	0.	32*
(3.85)	-0.01
(-0.21)	

All the results of each path analysis discussed above are summarized in Figure 4-4-2.  

Organizational Climate

Organizational-learning-oriented HRM

Benefits 

Relation

0.39

Organizational Learning Ability

0.15

0.21

Participant Appraisal

0.40

Innovation

0.14

Commitment to learning

0.23

0.25

0.34

0.29

0.25

Commitment-based HRM

Openness

0.23

0.14

0.39

Off-job
Training

0.23

Pressure

Transfer of knowledge

0.16

0.32

Empowerment

Discipline

0.39

0.21

Employee-Oriented Placement

Conflict

Figure 4-4-2
Path diagram

Chapter 5  Conclusion & Suggestion

This chapter concludes and integrates the major research findings of this thesis.  In addition, some suggestions for managers and future researchers are given based on the findings herein.

5.1 Conclusion

This section concludes the major findings on the basis of the research hypotheses proposed in chapter three, as well as the results reported in chapter four.  

Females Show Less Propensity To Express Their Own Opinions And To Question Others’

The research results concerning hypothesis one are summarized in Table 5-1-1.  The demographic characteristics that this study employed, including gender, age, education level, seniority, and position, pose no significant effects on commitment to learning.  The same statement can be made for most of the demographic characteristics on transfer of knowledge, except for gender.  Male participants tend to, at least so the research showed, express their ideas and question those of others more than their female counterpart.  This result might come as no surprise.  In Chinese culture, females have been taught to be obedient and docile as well as discouraged from being too assertive.  

A conclusion can be drawn that different age, education level, seniority, or position of individuals would not make a difference when it comes to commitment to learning and transfer of knowledge.  As for the gender of individuals, it would make a difference in terms of the propensity to express their opinions and question those of others, but would not affect the attitude toward learning. 

Table 5-1-1
Research Findings on Hypotheses 1
Research Hypotheses	Conclusion	Demography	Findings	
Hypothesis 1-1:
There is a difference in “commitment to learning” for different demographic characteristics.	not supported 	Gender	no difference	
		Age	no difference	
		Education level	no difference	
		Seniority	no difference	
		Position	no difference	
Hypothesis 1-2:
There is a difference in “transfer of knowledge” for different demographic characteristics.	partially supported	Gender	male > female	
		Age	no difference	
		Education level	no difference	
		Seniority	no difference	
		Position	no difference	

Tight Relation Is Shown Between Human Resource Management And Organizational Climate

The research results concerning hypotheses two are summarized in Table 5-1-2.  In addition to the high correlation (see Table 4-3-1), organizational-learning-oriented HRM, as a whole, has a causal relation with organizational climate.  Specifically, “participant appraisal’ has a positive impact on every aspect of organizational climate.  “Commitment-based HRM” affects the organizational climate of “pressure” and “discipline”, while “empowerment” affects that of “relation”, “innovation”, “openness”, and “conflict”. 

Table 5-1-2
Research Findings on Hypotheses 2
Research hypotheses	Conclusion	Findings	
Hypothesis 2-1: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management hass a direct effect on the organizational climate of relation.	partially supported	Participant appraisal and empowerment have a positive direct effect on relation.	
Hypothesis 2-2: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of innovation.	partially supported	Participant appraisal and empowerment have a positive direct effect on innovation.	
Hypothesis 2-3: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of openness.	partially supported	Participant appraisal and empowerment have a positive direct effect on openness.	
Hypothesis 2-4: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of pressure.	partially supported	Participant appraisal and commitment-based HRM have a positive direct effect on pressure.	
Hypothesis 2-5: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of discipline.	partially supported	Participant appraisal and commitment-based HRM have a positive direct effect on discipline.	
Hypothesis 2-6: Organizational-learning-oriented human resource management has a direct effect on the organizational climate of conflict.	partially supported	Participant appraisal and empowerment have a positive direct effect on conflict.	

Relation And Openness Enhance Organizational Learning Ability Directly 

The research results concerning hypotheses three are summarized in Table 5-1-3.  Notwithstanding the extremely significant correlation in all respects between organizational climate and organizational learning ability (see Table 4-3-3), only “relation” and “openness” show significant direct impact on organizational learning ability.  This suggests that, as far as organizational learning ability is concerned, there exists a significant correlation with organizational climate in all respects, but only a significant causal relation exists with the organizational climate of “relation” and “openness”.

Table 5-1-3
Research Findings on Hypotheses 3
Research hypotheses	Conclusion	Direction	
Hypothesis 3-1: 
Organizational climate of relation has a direct effect on commitment to learning.	supported	positive	
Hypothesis 3-2: 
Organizational climate of innovation has a direct effect on commitment to learning.	not supported	N/A	
Hypothesis 3-3: 
Organizational climate of openness has a direct effect on commitment to learning.	supported	positive	
Hypothesis 3-4: 
Organizational climate of pressure has a direct effect on commitment to learning.	not supported	N/A	
Hypothesis 3-5: 
Organizational climate of discipline has a direct effect on commitment to learning.	not supported	N/A	
Hypothesis 3-6: 
Organizational climate of conflict has a direct effect on commitment to learning.	not supported	N/A	
Hypothesis 3-7: 
Organizational climate of relation has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.	supported	positive	
Hypothesis 3-8: 
Organizational climate of innovation has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.	not supported	N/A	
Hypothesis 3-9: 
Organizational climate of openness has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.	supported	positive	
Hypothesis 3-10: 
Organizational climate of pressure has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.	not supported	N/A	
Hypothesis 3-11: 
Organizational climate of discipline has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.	not supported	N/A	
Hypothesis 3-12: 
Organizational climate of conflict has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.	not supported	N/A	

Only Empowerment Possesses A Significant Direct Impact On Organizational Learning Ability

The research results concerning hypotheses 4 are summarized in Table 5-1-4.  As shown in Table 5-1-4, only “empowerment” in organizational-learning-oriented HRM has a significant direct effect on both dimensions of organizational learning ability.  Although only “empowerment” has a causal relation with organizational learning ability, the correlation between every aspect of organizational-learning-oriented HRM and organizational learning ability is of distinct significance.  This means other factors might have to be introduced into the research structure to find out the causal relation.  

Table 5-1-4
Research Findings on Hypotheses 4
Research hypotheses	Conclusion	Findings	
Hypothesis 4-1: 
Organizational-learning-oriented HRM has a direct effect on commitment to learning.	partially supported	Empowerment has a positive direct effect on commitment to learning	
Hypothesis 4-2: 
Organizational-learning-oriented HRM has a direct effect on transfer of knowledge.	partially supported	Empowerment has a positive direct effect on transfer of knowledge	

The Most Important Factors To Uplift Organizational Learning: Participant Appraisal, Empowerment, Relation, And Openness 

Given the research findings as a whole, Figure 5-1-1 emerges.  Participant appraisal and empowerment would improve the organizational climate of relation and openness; then the organizational climate of relation and openness would boost the learning ability of an organization.  In other words, participant appraisal and empowerment affect organizational learning ability indirectly though the organizational climate of relation and openness.  However, empowerment, in addition to its indirect effect, also has a direct effect on organizational learning ability.

Organizational Learning Ability

Organizational Climate

Organizational-learning-oriented HRM

Figure 5-1-1
Path Diagram

Relation

Openness

Empowerment

Participant Appraisal

Transfer of Knowledge

Commitment to Learning

5.2 Suggestion For Managers

Organizational Learning Is Embedded In An Open And Harmonious Organizational Climate

Organizational learning is an abstracted idea and is embodied in the commitment to learning and transfer of knowledge among employees.  If an organization wishes to become a learning organization, it has to ensure a high degree of commitment to learning and transfer of knowledge among its employees.  However, these qualities can only thrive in the right organizational climate.  Just like one can be energized by the fresh air, so can employees be stimulated by the organizational climate.  An open and harmonious organizational climate is crucial for organizational learning.  

In an open climate, employees are willing to put all the cards on the table, eliminate hidden agendas, make motives, feelings, and biases known, and invite other points of view.  Misunderstandings can be eliminated and trust can be developed with open communication.  “Open-book management”, which was proposed by John Case in 1993, embodied this concept (Schuster, Carpenter, Kane, 1997).  Revealing all the important information about the company to employees not merely creates a sense of trust, but also make employees feel that they are truly part of the company.  In an open climate, employees are better able to identify themselves with the company and are more willing to discuss new ideas with each other. 

Consider an organization like a big machine, where harmonious relations are the lubricant that ensure every part of the machine works well together—without friction.  The vast majority of corporate knowledge is the information that is shared or created in face-to-face conversations among workers.  Stamps (1998) pointed out that knowledge is the thing that resides within and between humans.  Thus, a harmonious working relationship is very essential for organizational learning.  In a harmonious climate, information flows more freely within the organization and the employees are more apt to support one another.

Reappraise The 
Importance Of Appraisal

Two common misconceptions are that the purpose of appraisal is either to adjust one’s salary or to give a good employee “a pat on the back.”  Performance appraisals require advanced preparation and that the meeting itself can and should be a collaborative planning session during which both the supervisor and the employee can take an in-depth look at past performances and can together make plans for the future.

The most important part of an effective performance appraisal is the process itself.  By working together to analyze and evaluate the employee’s performance, his or her place within the organization as a whole, and by setting goals for the near and long term, employees can strengthen the relationship vertically as well as horizontally and become a team of adults working toward a common, agreed upon goal.

This kind of appraisal is called participant appraisal.  Traditionally, appraisal is unilateral.  Unilateral appraisal is only to adjust one’s salary or to give a good employee “a pat on the back”, while participant appraisal is a very good tool to improve communication and relation in a company.

Empower Employees = Strengthen Organization

Empowering each and every individual in an organization means giving him or her the authority and needed training.  The role of managers must switch from supervision to facilitation.  Organizational learning is based on individual learning.  Empowerment basically enhances the learning of every individual in an organization and therefore improve the organizational learning ability.  

The Community Of Learning

The concept of a community of learning will be used to conclude the results of this thesis.  In Figure 5-2-1, the little circles stand for individual in a company and the big circle stands for the company which is the learning community.  Managers should, on the one hand, empower the employees by giving them more authority and needed training, and on the other hand, communicate with employees by participant appraisal.  Therefore, individuals will have the opportunities to learn through empowerment and have the feedback concerning what he or she should learn.  An open and harmonious organizational climate will emerge if empowerment and participant appraisal are truly carried out.  Then a community of learning will form.  The company is not just a place where employees go to work.  It is a community where individuals are committed to learning and sharing knowledge with each other. 

Empowerment

Participant Appraisal

Figure 5-2-1
Community of Learning

Open

Harmonious

5.3 Suggestions For Future Researches

The sampling of this study did not discriminate any industry.  The result of this study might have varied, had a specific industry been consigned as the parent population.  Future researches may focus on a certain industry, such as hi-tech or banking industry, in order to conclude suggestions for the specific industry.

In the responses to the questionnaire, a self-report bias seemed to appear for “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge”.  This inevitably has distorted the result of this study.  Future research might look at alternatives to prevent skewed results. 

This study was conducted in Taiwan.  It would be valuable and interesting to conduct this research in other regions around the world to identify the differences existing among different cultures.

Besides basic demography, this study did not involve personality or personal characteristics.  Different personality and personal characteristics might have a significant impact on individuals’ “commitment to learning” and “transfer of knowledge”.  Future research, therefore, might be designed to involve more personal data as research variables. 

For all the high correlation between variables, yet there do not appear to be many significant causalities among them.  One possible explanation for this is that there are some important variables missing in this study.  In future research, more variables can be introduced in order to make it more complete. 

References 

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Asher, H. (1983). Causal Modeling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bartlett, C. & Ghoshal, S. (1995). Rebuilding Behavioral Context: Turn Process Reengineering into People Rejuvenation. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1995, pp.11-23. 

Bencivenga, D. (1995). Learning Organizations Evolve in New Directions. HRMagazine, October 1995, pp.69-73.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E. & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Chambers, Nancy (1997). Does The Bell Toll for Your Living Company. HR Focus, 74(10), pp. 1-5.

Cook, S. D. N. & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), pp. 373-390.

Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory Of The Firm. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press.

DeGeus, A. P. (1988). Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp.70-74.

Dixon, N. M. (1993). Organizational Learning. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada Report.

Dixon, N. M. (1997). The Hallways of Learning. Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1997, pp. 23-34.

Fiedler, A. M. (1993). The Effect of Vision Congruence On Employee Empowerment, Commitment, Satisfaction, And Performance. Doctor of Philosophy in Management Dissertation. Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

Fiol, C. M. & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational Learning. Academy Of Management Review, 10(4), pp. 803-813.

Galbraith, J & McGrath, J. (1997). The “Learning” In The Learning Organization. The Public Manager, Spring, pp.34-38.

Garvin, D. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review, 36(4), p. 79.

Gould, J., DiBella, A., & Nevis, E. (1993). The Systems Thinker, Pegasus Communications Inc., 4(8), pp. 137-150.

Guns, B. (1998). Faster Learning. Executive Excellence, 15(9), pp. 7-10.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W.C. (1992). Multivariate Data Analysis with Reading. Macmillan. 

Hershberger, S.L., Lichtenstein, P., & Knox S. S. (1994). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Perceptions of Organizational Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), pp. 24-33.

Holton, E. F., Bates R. A., Seyler, D. L., & Carvalho, M. B. (1997). Toward Construct Validation of a Transfer Climate Instrument. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8(2), pp. 95-113.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes And The Literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), pp. 88-115. 

James, L. R., Hater, J. J., Gent, M. J., & Bruni, J. R. (1978). Psychological Climate: Implications From Cognitive Social Learning Theory And Interactional Psychology. Personnel Psychology, 31, pp. 783-813.

James, L. R. & Jones. A. P. (1976). Organizational Structure: A Review Of Structural Dimensions And Their Conceptual Relationships With Individual Attitudes And Behaviors. Organizational Behavior And Human Performance, 16, pp.74-113.

Jones, A. P. & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological Climate: Dimensions And Relationships Of Individual And Aggregated Work Environment Perceptions. Organizational Behavior And Human Performance, 23, pp.201-250.

Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling With The SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A Guide To The Program And Application. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kim, D. H. (1993). The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1993, pp. 37-49.

Klunk, S. W. (1997). Conflict And The Dynamic Organization. Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly, November 1997, pp. 37-44.

Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P. & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The Role Of Climate And Culture In Productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate And Culture (pp. 282-318). San Francisco: Joessy-Bass.

Kovach, J. W. (1997). Invest in Learning. Executive Excellence, Feb 1997, p. 11.

Kramlinger, T. (1992). Training’s Role In A Learning Organization. Training, July 1992, pp. 46-51.

Leshner, M. & Browne, A. (1993). Increasing Efficiency Through Cross-Training. Best’ Review, December, pp. 39-40.

Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational Learning. Annual Review Of Sociology, 14, pp.319-340.

Liedtka, J. M., Haskins, M. E., Rosenblum, J. W., & Weber J. (1997). The Generative Cycle: Linking Knowledge and Relationship. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1997, pp. 47-58.

Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on Self-Reference. New York: Columbia University Press.

Martinez, M. N. (1998). The Collective Power of Employee Knowledge. HRMagazine, February 1988, pp.88-94.

McGrill, M. E. & Slocum, J. W. (1993). Unlearning the Organization. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), pp.67-79.

Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Mingers, J. (1995). Self-Producing Systems: Implications And Applications Of Autopoiesis. New York: Plenum Press.

Mills, Daniel & Friesen, Bruce (1992). The Learning Organization. European Management Journal, 10 (2), June 1992, pp. 146-156.

Messier, P. & Engel, C. (1993). The 21st Century Learning Society. Washington: National Learning Foundation.

Mullen, T. P. & Lyles, M. A. (1993). Toward Improving Management Development’s Contribution To Organizational Learning. Human Resource Planning, 16(2), pp.35-49.

Mumford, A. (1992). Individual And Organizational Learning: The Pursuit Of Change. Management Decision, 30(6), pp.143-148.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, pp.96-104.

Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.

Pritchard, R. D. & Kararsick, B. W. (1973). The Effects Of Organizational Climate On Managerial Job Performance And Job Satisfaction, Organizational Behavior And Human Performance, 9, pp. 126-146.

Pucik, Vladimir (1988). Strategic Alliances, Organizational Learning, and Competitive Advantage: The HRM Agenda. Human Resource Management. Spring 1988, 27(1), pp.77-93.

Putnam, R. (1993). The Systems Thinker. Pegasus Communications Inc., 4(6), pp. 56-67.

Sandow, D. & Rhodes, L. (1996). The Wizard’s Curtain: A Reply from Oregon. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(2), pp.185-192.

Schein, E. H. (1993). How Can Organizations Learn Faster? The Challenge of Entering the Green Room. Sloan Management Review, Winter 1993, pp.85-92.

Schuster, J. P., Carpenter, J., & Kane, M. P. (1997). The Power of Open-Book Management: Releasing the True Potential of People’s Minds, Hearts, and Hands. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Senge, P. M. (1997). Community of Leaders and Learners. Harvard Business Review, September-October 1997, pp.30-32.

Senge, P. M. (1993). Transforming the Practice of Management. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4(1), pp.5-32.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art And Practice Of The Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. 

Stamps, D. (1997). Communities of Practice: Learning is Social. Training is Irrelevant? Training, February 1997, pp. 34-42.

Stamps, D. (1998). Learning Ecologies. Training, January 1998, pp. 32-38.

Stata, R. (1989). Organizational Learning – The Key to Management Innovation. Sloan Management Review, Spring 1989, pp. 63-73.

Swieringa, J. & Wierdsma, A. (1992). Becoming a Learning Organization. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley. 

Solomon, C. M. (1994). HR Facilitates the Learning Organization Concept. Personnel Journal, November 1994, pp.56-66.

Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research. Human Relations, 50(1), pp. 73-89.

Ulrich, D., Glinow V., Ann, M., & Todd, J. (1993). High-Impact Learning: Building and Diffusing Learning Capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), pp.52-66. 

Walsh, J. & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational Memory. Academy of Management Review, January, pp. 57-91.

Zeleny, M. (1988). Knowledge As A New Form Of Capital. Human Systems Management, 8(1), pp. 45-58.