70

Commitment To Learning Within A Public Land Management Agency: The Inuence of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture

Volume 27, Number 1pp. 70-84

Journal of Park and Recreation AdministrationSpring 2009

Raintry J. Salk Ingrid E. Schneider

AUTHORS: : Raintry J. Salk is with the Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, 115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Ave N., St. Paul, MN 55108, phone: (612) 423-5375, email: salk0006@umn.edu. Schneider is also with the Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors would like to acknowledge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their participation in the study. In addition, we thank reviews of Scott Jackson, Pam Jakes, David Knoke, and the anony-mous JPRA reviewers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Organizational learning enhances effectiveness and adaptability, both of which are critical in the complex public manage-ment arena. Essential to increasing organizational commitment to learning are factors related to leadership and culture. Despite their importance, lim-ited research exists on these factors in the natural resource management lit-erature, and to date, no studies have explored their simultaneous effect on or-ganizational learning. Such a void leaves PLMAs at a disadvantage and with a research opportunity. This study explored the ability of one particular style of leadership, transformational leadership, and learning culture to predict or-ganizational commitment to learning across multiple sites within one orga-nization. Transformational leaders are effective communicators, share infor-mation on a consistent basis, and articulate a strong vision to subordinates, while a learning culture is one that supports values that include transparency, accountability, valid information, and issue orientation. These characteristics were assessed through an online questionnaire administered to 314 employ-ees across 32 units of a public land management agency in the U.S. Results indicate that in isolation, transformational leadership style signicantly pre-dicted higher levels of organizational commitment to learning. Similarly, two learning culture factors were signicant predictors of organizational commit-ment to learning. However, when transformational leadership and learning

GeorgeHighlight

71

culture were simultaneously assessed, transformational leaderships effect was minimized, and only one cultural factor was signicant. Thus, ndings suggest that leader behavior is a less important contributor to organizational learning commitment than organizational learning culture. Public land man-agement agencies interested in enhancing their organizational commitment to learning should prioritize efforts to build or shape their learning culture. In particular, agencies should support and encourage the value of account-ability. Specic suggestions to enhance accountability include the integration of learning activities into job descriptions, meetings focused on organization-al processes and lessons learned, as well as forums where open discussion among employees is encouraged.

KEYWORDS: Organizational learning, commitment to learning, learning culture, transformational leadership, Corps of Engineers

Increasingly, public land management agencies (PLMAs) recognize learning as a way to enhance organizational effectiveness (e.g., Graham & Kruger, 2002; Lee, 1993; Meffe, Nielsen, Knight, & Schenborn, 2002). Organizational learning purportedly enables PLMAs to be more adaptive and make necessary adjustments in response to the myriad of opera-tional issues (Lee, 1993; Meffe et al., 2002; Stankey, Clark, & Bormann, 2005). This is par-ticularly important in PLMA contexts where the complex interplay of ecological and social forces must be addressed and incorporated into management decisions and actions. For example, when considering visitor access during a re, a variety of ecological, social, and administrative issues are both important and dynamic. The appeal of a learning orientation is obvious as it facilitates organizational change (Goh, 2003) and enables an organization to more quickly and efciently attain management goals (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003; Bapuji & Crossan, 2004; Daft, 1995; Ellis & Shpielberg, 2003; Lahteenmaki, Toivonen, & Mattila, 2001; Shipton, Fay, West, Patterson, & Birdi, 2005).

Literature Review Within the organizational learning literature, a lack of denitional consensus and mul-tiple, disjointed theoretical streams exist. Typically, organizational learning is viewed as something related to experience, knowledge, or capacity for improved knowledge. Pisano and colleagues (2001) equate organizational learning to experience. On the other hand, Huber (1991) asserts, an organization learns if any of its units acquires knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the organization (p. 89), and thus, learning need not be conscious, intentional or produce changes in observable behavior. Several other au-thors operationalize organizational learning as the capacity, or process, of enhanced actions through improved knowledge and understanding (Argote & Ophir, 2002; DiBella, Nevis, & Gould, 1996; Fiol & Lyles, 1985). Regardless of which organizational learning denition one adopts, organizational learning leads to favorable outcomes such as improved perfor-mance, efciency, adaptability to change, and innovation (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Argote et al., 2003; Bapuji & Crossan, 2004; Daft, 1995; Ellis & Shpielberg, 2003; Lahteenmaki et al., 2001; Shipton et al., 2005). Within a PLMA context, a learning orientation would

72

also positively impact ecological and social resources for which PLMAs are responsible. Importantly, Bontis and colleagues (2002) found that organizational performance was more closely related to organizational learning than individual or group level learning.For organizational learning to thrive, purposeful adoption of structures and processes to encourage learning is imperative (Dodgson, 1993; Lipshitz, Popper, & Friedman, 2002). Such explicit structures and processes can ensure that they (an organization) continually improve their business processes and generate new ideas (Hanvanich, Sivakumar, & Hult, 2006, p. 602). Specically, organizational learning requires mechanisms to facili-tate information accumulation, distribution, and sharing within the organization (Argote, 1999; Argote & Ophir, 2002; Gnyawali & Stewart, 2003; Pawlowsky, 2001). As the insti-tutionalization of these mechanisms differs, an organizations ability and rate of learning can also differ. For instance, Argote and Epple (1990) found that poor knowledge transfer between sites accounted for the variability in rates of learning in manufacturing settings. Similarly, Shipton and colleagues (2005) found organizations that possessed mechanisms designed to promote learning were more innovative than organizations that exhibited fewer mechanisms. However, the presence of learning structures and processes is not enough. Employees must also interact with them (Ahmed, Zoh, & Zairi, 1999). There-fore, to ensure ongoing learning, employees must view learning as a fundamental op-erational characteristic and be committed to learning as a primary means to accomplish tasks and duties (Farrell, 2000; Hurley & Hult, 1998; Lipshitz et al., 2002). Therefore, if organizational learning is to be effective, the organization, as a whole, must possess a strong organizational commitment to learning. Otherwise, learning can become mechani-cal, ritualistic, and unproductive (Lipshitz et al., 2002; Senge, 1990). Several factors facilitate organizational commitment to learning, but in the organi-zational management literature, the two most prominent are leadership (Farrell, 2000; Hayes & Allinson, 1998; Hurley & Hult, 1998; McGill, Slocum, & Lei, 1993; Vera & Crossan, 2004) and organizational culture (Ellis, Caridi, Lipshitz & Popper, 1999; Lip-shitz, Popper, & Friedman, 2002; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). Complex environments, in particular, require leaders who are effective communicators, share information on a consistent basis, and articulate a strong vision to subordinates (Farrell, 2000; Slater & Narver, 1995). Leaders who exhibit these behaviors are often referred to as transforma-tional leaders. Transformational leadership motivates followers to transcend their self-interests for a collective purpose, vision, and/or mission (Feinberg, Ostroff, & Burke, 2005, p. 471). Culture, on the other hand, dominates how an organization functions and is critical to any activity within the organization (Lucas & ogilvie

1 , 2006). Schein (1985)

denes culture as a set of shared, implicit assumptions among a group that determines how it perceives, thinks, and responds to its various environments. An organizational cul-ture supportive of learning espouses accountability and transparency, among other values (Ellis et al., 1999; Lipshitz et al., 2002; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998; Somech & Drach-Za-havy, 2004). Although the conceptual literature suggests these factors are important to organizational learning, empirical evidence of their actual inuence is minimal. Studies that assess the inuence of both factors are even scarcer. The role of organizational learning toward effective management has become more widely acknowledged in both PLMA settings and the natural resource management lit-

1

The author does not capitalize their last name.

73

erature in the 21st century (e.g., Graham & Kruger, 2002; Lee, 1993; Meffe et al., 2002). However, while a learning orientation has been both encouraged and espoused, no study to date has investigated learning within PLMAs from an organizational learning perspec-tive. Thus, very little is known about the status, proliferation, or extent of organizational learning institutionalization in PLMA settings. Further, information on factors that con-tribute to organizational learning proliferation is absent. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the capability of transformational leadership and learning culture to predict organizational commitment to learning. As leadership style and learning cultures vary across organizational settings, we specically sought to investigate their roles across multiple sites within one organiza-tion, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Since 2003, the USACE has explicitly stated a commitment to become a learning organization, most prominently articulated in their Learning Organization Doctrine (USACE, 2003) and their focus on communities of practice.

Leadership Style Leadership plays a signicant role in organizational learning (Farrell, 2000; Hurley & Hult, 1998; McGill et al., 1993; Vera & Crossan, 2004) as it inuences both the degree and type of learning that occurs (Hayes & Allinson, 1998; Sackman, 1991; Vera & Cros-san, 2004). Leaders set the tone for the entire organization and determine the nature of the organizations work as well as the scope of learning. As such, management support for learning is essential for it to occur (Goh, 2003). Beyond management support, the leaders management style directly impacts orga-nizational members willingness to learn. For instance, leaders who support experimen-tation, teamwork, and sharing create a different organizational atmosphere than leaders who favor competition, hierarchy, and organizational status maintenance. Transforma-tional leadership style is thought to be more conducive to learning (Pawlowsky, 2001; Slater & Narver, 1995; Vera & Crossan, 2004) as it encourages inquisitiveness (Senge, 1990), invokes a desire to learn (Slater & Narver, 1995), and creates a willingness to face boundaries to learning (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders also foster trust and inspire employees to pursue a collective vision (Bass, 1985; Feinberg et al., 2005; Senge, 1990), as well as shift values and priorities to motivate employees to perform beyond expectations (Yukl, 1998). Transformational leadership is comprised of four elements: inspirational motiva-tion, idealized inuence, individualized consideration, and intellection stimulation (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass, 1985). Typically assessed through subordinate- and self-apprais-als, inspirational motivation includes the development and articulation of an attractive vision for the future, the use of symbols and emotional arguments, and active demonstra-tion of optimism and enthusiasm. Idealized inuence includes behaviors such as mak-ing sacrices for the benet of the group and setting examples of appropriate behavior through demonstration of high ethical standards. Individualized consideration includes providing support, consideration, and coaching to employees. Intellectual stimulation involves behaviors that increase responsiveness of problems and challenge employees to view problems from new perspectives. Transformational leadership impacts both individuals and groups. At the individual level, transformational leadership enhances employee satisfaction, commitment, moti-

74

vation, performance, and empowerment (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Shamir, Zakay, Brienen, & Popper, 1998). At the group level, transformational leadership enhances collective efcacy (Walumba, Wang, Lawler, & Shi, 2004), as well as personal identication with leaders and social identication with the work unit (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). While transformational leadership has been investigated across a wide array of organizational phenomena, research investigating its effect on organizational learning constructs is scant (Vera & Crossan, 2004).

Organizational Culture An organizations culture dominates how it learns given that culture not only shapes the interaction between employees and inuences the transfer and sharing of knowledge, but also how new ideas are approached (Ahmed et al., 1999; Lucas & ogilvie, 2006). For organizational commitment to learning to thrive, organizations require a strong set of core values and norms (Lucas & ogilvie, 2006). Specic values of import are suggested to include inquiry, openness, active participation and involvement, support, trust, and freedom to learn from one another (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984; Lucas & ogilvie, 2006; McGill, et al., 1993). Further, several values shown to positively impact organizational learning include transparency, accountability, validity, and issue orientation (Lipshitz et al., 2002; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998; Ellis et al., 1999).Popper and Lipshitz (1998) assert that these four values of transparency, accountability, validity, and issue orientation contribute to a culture that promotes and enhances con-tinual organizational learning, or an organizational learning culture. Transparency is the ability to expose ones thoughts and actions to others to receive feedback. Pressure to distort or suppress unfavorable information is counteracted in transparent cultures and openness to criticism and admission of error is facilitated. Accountability involves as-suming responsibility for learning and active incorporation of the lessons learned into future action. Through assuming responsibility, boundaries and obstacles that prevent the implementation of lessons learned are more easily surmounted. Valid information is viewed as the requirement of complete, undistorted, and veriable information, whereby the focus is on the information content, regardless of the social standing of the source. Issue orientation, related to democratization, participation, and power-equalization, per-mits open communication channels, thereby enhancing innovation and learning (McGill et al., 1993). Among the studies that use the theoretical construct of organizational learning cul-ture, only one has treated it as a group level construct and assessed the degree of con-sensus among organizational members (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004). The lack of attention to assessing consensus is of particular concern, given that a major aspect of organizational culture entails that values are to be shared, as opposed to individually held. Therefore, further investigations of organizational learning culture should employ adequate tests to ensure consensus among employees perceptions. In sum, organizational commitment to learning can be inuenced by leadership style and organizational learning culture. However, empirical evidence of their roles is scant, particularly at the group level. Similarly, their simultaneous investigation is completely absent from the organizational sciences and management literature. Given decreasing resources and need for management optimization, understanding what and how different variables inuence learning works toward efciency and effectiveness. Thus, this study

75

assesses the capability of both transformational leadership and learning culture to predict organizational commitment to learning. Based on the review of the literature, we hypoth-esized the following:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership, comprised of items related to inspirational motivation, idealized inuence, individualized consideration, and intellection stimula-tion, will be positively related to organizational commitment to learning.Hypothesis 2: Organizational learning culture, conceptualized as the four shared learning values of transparency, accountability, validity, and issue orientation, will be positively related to organizational commitment to learning.Hypothesis 3: Both transformational leadership and organizational learning culture will be positively related to organizational commitment to learning when entered simultane-ously.

MethodStudy Setting The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provided access to potential respon-dents. USACE is a branch of the U.S. Department of Defense that employs more than 30,000 civilian and military personnel. The agency primarily provides engineering ser-vices related to water resources and civil work projects. The agencys organizational structure is hierarchical. The national headquarters is located in Washington, D.C., and seven divisional ofces exist across the country, each of which is divided by watershed districts. The 35 districts provide general oversight of 456 lakes spread across the seven divisions. Each lake has a manager and several employees. The agency is one of the largest providers of outdoor recreation in the U.S., providing 30 percent of recreational opportunities on Federal lands and hosting approximately 400 million people per annum (USACE, n.d.).

Sample The study constructs were conceptualized at the unit level and all employees within each unit were of interest. To release the questionnaire and gather employee contact information, an electronic invitation to participate was sent to all USACE Operations Project Managers who provide general oversight of lake or projects within the agency (n =130). A total of 65 sites volunteered to participate in the study, and the email addresses of all professional, administrative, and technical employees at each of the voluntary sites were obtained. Four email addresses were invalid, resulting in an effective sample size of 603. A response rate of 70.6% (n=426) was obtained. To minimize biases in ag-gregate scores, managers were removed from the sample, as were sites with fewer than ve respondents (Bliese, 1998). Thus, our nal sample resulted in the 32 sites and 314 employees.

Data CollectionInstrument The online questionnaire was pre-tested among select USACE personnel (n=17) through Zoomerang (an online survey system). As a result of the pre-test, only a slight modication in the instructions was required. Following a modied Dillman (2000) tech-

76

nique, an electronic questionnaire was administered. A ve-tiered email approach was utilized that included a pre-notication, an invitation, and three reminders to complete the online questionnaire. Each notice included an overview of study purpose as well as ensured anonymity and condentiality. Potential respondents were instructed to respond in relation to their work site and not the agency as a whole.

Measures Commitment to learning. Based on Lipshitz and colleagues (2002) conceptualiza-tion, three items measured employees perception of their organizations commitment to learning: in general, this lake is committed to on-going learning, at this lake, employ-ees feel that USACE embraces that their employees continually learn, and employ-ees at this lake are encouraged to learn from experience. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement on a ve-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree; `= .88). Transformational leader behavior. From Bass and Avolios Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 5X, sixteen items measured transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 1995). Respondents indicated the frequency with which their lake manager/project manager engaged in each of the leadership behaviors on a ve-point scale (1=never and 5=frequently, if not always; `= .95). Learning culture. A 35-item learning values scale, developed by Ellis and col-leagues (1999), measured organizational learning culture. Example questions included at my lake, the focus is on the what and why of errors and not on who makes them and errors at my lake are considered to be natural and legitimate. Respondents were asked to specify their level of agreement with items on a ve-point scale (1=never and 5=frequently, if not always). The four-factor structure measures distinct learning values: issue orientation (`= .91), accountability (`= .91), valid information (`= .91), and trans-parency (`= .72). Control variable. Organizational size was treated as a control variable. The size of the organization has an effect on organizational structures and processes, as well as an effect on the organizational culture and degree of interaction with leadership (George & Jones, 1997) and thus may indirectly affect commitment to learning. Thus, the treatment of organizational size as a control variable was deemed appropriate.

AnalysisAggregation of Individual Level Scores As data in this study were conceptualized at the site level, individual level scores were aggregated. In the organizational sciences, a customary approach to justify aggre-gation is the use of rwg(j) and interclass correlation coefcients ICC(1) and ICC(2) (see Bleise, 2000). The rwg(j) index measures interrater consensus and determines whether data aggregation to a higher level of analysis is justied (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). The rwg(j) index is calculated separately for each group and a score of .70 or higher is typically indicative of within-group agreement. ICC(1) estimates the variance in an individuals response that can be explained by group membership and thus measures variation between groups. ICC(1) values that indicate group level effects typically fall in the range of .05 to .20 (Bleise, 2000). ICC(2) evaluates the internal consistency of the group means; values above .7 are considered highly acceptable, while values between

77

.50 and .70 are marginally acceptable (Klein et al., 2000). Commitment to learning in our data exhibited sufcient within-group agreement and adequate between group variability and reliability (average rwg(j) across groups was .84; ICC(1) = .07 and ICC(2) = .66). Similarly, transformational leadership exhibited sufcient within-group agreement and adequate between group variability and reliability (average rwg(j) = .94 ; ICC(1) = .16; ICC(2) = .64). All four learning culture factors had similarly adequate measures of within-group agreement and adequate between group variability. Specically, each had rwg(j)s greater than .86 (issue orientation .91; account-ability .95; transparency .86; and valid information .93) and ICC(1) values above .06 (issue orientation .11; accountability .07; transparency .09; and valid information .06). The ICC(2) values were marginal, however (issue orientation = .54; accountability= .41; transparency= .49; and valid information= .38). ICC(2) values are a function of group size and given the relatively low average group size, the results are not surprising. Thus, while the ICC(2) values are slightly below the recommended level, they were similar to previously published results (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004) and did not seem to be low enough to prohibit aggregation. Therefore, the aggregation test results provided suf-cient statistical justication for aggregation of all variables to the site level. To test the hypotheses, a series of OLS regression analyses was conducted with the group level data. Our control variable, organizational size, serves as a baseline model. Model one assesses the effect of transformational leadership on organizational commit-ment to learning and included organizational size and transformational leadership vari-ables. Model two assesses the effect of organizational learning culture on organizational commitment to learning and included our control variable and organizational learning culture factors. Model three included all variables: organizational size, transformational leadership, and organizational learning culture factors.

Results Individuals expressed moderate levels of organizational commitment to learning transformational leadership and organizational learning culture (Table 1). Each of the variables was signicantly and positively related to each other. However, as correlation analysis does not account for the interdependent nature of the data, these results serve only to indicate signicant relationships and support their further investigation. The hypotheses focused on the effect of transformational leadership and organiza-

Table 1. Individual-level Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations. (n=314)

78

tional learning culture on organizational commitment to learning. Results of the base-line regression model revealed that organizational size was not a signicant predictor of organizational commitment to learning (Table 2). In model one, the addition of trans-formational leadership revealed transformational leadership was positively related to commitment to learning (a= .47, p

79

above that of culture. This suggests that while transformational leadership does play a role in learning, other factors inuence their relationship. As such, future investigations should explore potential sources of mediation, including culture, on leaderships effect on organizational commitment to learning. A second important contribution relates to organizational learning culture. When assessed with only our control variable, results revealed only two of the four organiza-tional learning culture factors were signicant: accountability and valid information. Therefore, contrary to our hypothesis, not all organizational learning culture factors were signicantly related to organizational commitment to learning. Further, the relationships of valid information and transparency were not in the anticipated direction. This nding may be attributed to the uniqueness of the PLMA context and will be discussed in the subsequent section. The lack of signicance and directional effect of the various orga-nizational learning culture factors does shed light on what aspects of a learning culture enhance or diminish organizational commitment to learning. Additional validation of these ndings would be advantageous. A third important contribution of this study relates to our simultaneous analysis of transformational leadership and organizational learning culture. This is the rst time these variables have been explored simultaneously with regard to learning and, as such, there are no previous works for comparison. This study, therefore, provides initial evi-dence on the relative importance of each. Our ndings indicate transformational lead-ership lost its signicant predictive power when organizational learning culture was introduced. Specically, valid information was more important to organizational com-mitment to learning than leader behavior when both were considered. This suggests that the organizational culture has a more profound effect on organizational commitment to learning than leader behavior. This is also evident in the comparison of model ts. The organizational learning culture model (Model 2) was the best t to the data based on the adjusted R2 values. Therefore, it can be surmised that organizational learning culture is of greater import. However, given the diminished effect of transformational leadership, the ndings also suggest the possibility of a relationship between leadership and culture that was not explored in this study. Thus, the relationship between the two constructs, transformational leadership and organizational learning culture, deserves further atten-tion. The fourth contribution of the study relates to the treatment of conceptual con-structs. Our study joins only a handful of studies that have assessed transformational leadership as a group level construct (e.g., Kark et al., 2003; Walumba et al., 2004). However, the sufcient within-group agreement and adequate between group variability and reliability of the measure supports its use in future research. In a related vein, with only one exception (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004), the organizational learning culture scale had not been treated as a group level construct. While within-group agreement and group level effects were established, the study revealed lower than ideal internal consis-tency or reliability in-group means [ICC(2) values]. Given ICC(2) values depend upon group size, our lower values could be attributed to our average group size. However, Somech and Drach-Zahavys (2004) used the same scale, with a larger average group size, and had similar reliability issues. Thus, further investigation is called for to assess the validity of the construct measuring shared values (a central tenet of organizational culture) as opposed to individually held values.

80

Managerial Contributions and Implications A learning orientation has become more prominent within PLMAs, at least rhe-torically (Meffe et al., 2002). As such, attention to what contributes to a commitment to learning throughout an organization deserves attention. This study illustrated that lead-ership and culture are both important when explored in isolation. Efforts to enhance or maximize organizational learning should therefore focus on values that cultivate a cul-ture conducive to learning. Additionally advantageous are leaders who share information readily, demonstrate effective communication, and provide a strong vision that fosters learning. Organizational learning culture, however, was shown to be of greater import. Spe-cically, two of the four learning values were signicant predictors to commitment to learning: accountability and valid information. When accountability is an organizational norm, organizational members assume responsibility for learning and action, admit mis-takes, and learn from errors. Accountability encourages frank and open discussion, such that the lessons learned can be incorporated into future action. This suggests that to maximize a learning culture in PLMA settings, a focus on the tenets of accountability should be stressed throughout. Specic suggestions to enhance accountability include the integration of learning activities into job descriptions, meetings focused on organi-zational processes and lessons learned, as well as forums where open discussion among employees is encouraged. Interestingly, valid information had a negative effect on orga-nizational commitment to learning and was the only signicant predictor when organiza-tional learning culture and transformational leadership were both assessed. Therefore, a culture that focuses on the importance of valid and accurate information hinders learning commitment. This nding is not surprising, given in PLMA settings information, is fre-quently changing and being updated, and therefore, the expectation that information is required to be valid and complete may hinder action. Another possibility is that a sole fo-cus on valid and accurate information limits the scope of what type of learning is accept-able and what type of content is permissible. Regardless of the explanation, our ndings suggest that to maximize commitment to learning, clear articulation of the acceptability that information will never be complete or certain is important. Thus, this nding seems to validate that a PLMAs organizational culture should embrace uncertainty as an orga-nizational reality (Lee, 1993; Stankey et al., 2005).

Limitations and Future Research As with any study, this research is not without limitations. One limitation was the sample size. Given the study relied on voluntary participation within only one PLMA, the number of sites included in the analysis was a limitation. While an adequate number of employees were included in the study, when aggregated to the site level, it led to a compromise in power. Future research should attempt to validate these ndings across a greater number of sites. Further, although this study examined several sites within an agency, future research should examine the generalizability of the ndings in other PLMAs or organizational contexts. The agency under investigation explicitly put forth a commitment towards learning, and thus the ndings may not be as salient in other con-texts where the prominence of organizational commitment is not as forthcoming. The study ndings also suggest several opportunities for future research. Three lines of research are worthy of mention. First, this study focused on group level constructs, and

81

as such, did not incorporate the effect of individual perceptions. Future research should employ a multilevel approach, where individual perceptions (e.g., individuals percep-tion of leadership behavior) and group level constructs are explored simultaneously. Second, the measurement of organizational learning culture included four shared values. While these four are central, other variables (e.g., trust, freedom, and openness) might reveal important elements of an organizational culture conducive to learning. Another possible extension is to include measures of the relative strength of shared values within each setting. The extent to which values are shared within a setting could impact learn-ing. This type of exploration could be achieved through assessing the strength of the cul-ture within each setting and then comparing them across settings (Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats, 2002). As such, the contextual effect of strongly shared values (greater con-sensus) as opposed to weaker shared values (greater dissensus) could be explored across settings to shed further light on the role of organizational learning culture. Third, and perhaps most important to extending our ndings, is the previously mentioned explora-tion of the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational learning culture. Organizational learning will continue as an important element of PLMA effective-ness and adaptation. An ongoing commitment to learning is strengthened by a robust learning culture. In particular, agencies that value accountability and emphasize the im-portance of learning will positively impact their ability to fulll their mission.

ReferencesAhmed, P. K., Loh, A. Y. E., & Zairi, M. (1999). Cultures for continuous improvements

and learning. Total Quality Management, 10(4&5), S426-S434.Argote, L. (1999). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring

Knowledge. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1990). Learning curves in manufacturing. Science, 247, 920-

924.Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations:

An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582.

Argote, L., & Ophir, R. (2002). Intraorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 181-207). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire sampler set: Manual, forms and scoring key. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35(4), 397-417.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Harper and Row.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (form R). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

82

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:

Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klien, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bleise, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level considerations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355-373.

Bontis, N., Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing organizational learning systems by aligning stocks and ows. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 437-469.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Basss (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.

Daft, R. L. (1995). Organizational theory and design. St. Paul, MN: West.Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial

work experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21, 169-183.DiBella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M. (1996). Understanding organizational

learning capability. Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 361-379.Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and telephone survey: The tailored design method. New York:

Wiley Interscience.Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures.

Organization Studies, 14 (3), 375-394.Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational

leadership on follower development and performance: A eld experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735-744.

Ellis, S., Caridi, O., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (1999). Perceived error criticality and organizational learning: An empirical investigation. Knowledge and Process Management, 6, 166-175.

Ellis, S., & Shpielberg, N. (2003). Organizational learning mechanisms and managers perceived uncertainty. Human Relations, 56(10), 1233-1254.

Farrell, M. A. (2000). Developing a market-oriented learning organization. Australian Journal of Management, 25(2), 201-222.

Feinberg, B. J., Ostroff, C., & Burke, W. W. (2005). The role of within-group agreement in understanding transformational leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 471-488.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 59, 153-170.

Gnywali, D. R., & Stewart, A. C. (2003). A contingency perspective on organizational learning: Integrating environmental context, organizational learning processes, and types of learning. Management Learning, 34(1), 63-89.

Goh, S. (2003). Improving organizational learning capability: lessons from two case studies. The Learning Organization, 10(4), 227-236.

Graham, A. C., & Kruger, L. E. (2002). Research in adaptive management: Working

83

relations in the research process. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-538. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacic Northwest Research Station.

Hanvanich, S., Sivakumar, K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2006). The relationship of learning and memory with organizational performance: The moderating role of turbulence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 600-612.

Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory of and practice of individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51(7), 847-871.

Huber, G. P. (1991). The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 427-460.

Hurley, R.F., & Hult, G.T.M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42-54.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and Dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255.

Klien, K. J., Bliese, P. D., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M. B., Grifn, M. A., et al. (2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. In K. J. Klien, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 512-556). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lahteenmaki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organizational learning and proposals of measurement. British Journal of Management, 12, 113-129.

Lee, K. N. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A Multifacet Model of Organizational Learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(1), 78-98.

Lucas, L. M., & ogilvie, d. t. (2006). Things are not always what they seem: How reputations, culture, and incentives inuence knowledge transfer. The Learning Organization, 13(1), 7-24.

McGill, M. E., Slocum, J. W., & Lei, D. (1993). Management practices in learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(1), 5-17.

Meffe, G. K., Nielsen, L. A., Knight, R. L., & Schenborn, D. A. (2002). Ecosystem management: Adaptive, community-based conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Pawlowsky, P. (2001). The treatment of organizational learning in management science. In M. Dierkes, A. B. Antal, J. Child, & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. (pp. 61-88). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pisano, G. P., Bohmer, R. M. J., & Edmondson, A .C. (2001). Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac

84

surgery. Management Science, 47(6), 752-768.Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A structural

and cultural approach to organizational learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(2), 161-179.

Sackman, S.A. (1991). Cultural knowledge in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.Senge, P. M. (1990). The 5th discipline: The art and practice of the learning

organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.Shipton, H., Fay, D., West, M., Patterson, M., & Birdi, K. (2005). Managing people to

promote innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management,14(2), 118-128.Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinen, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic

leader behavior in military units: Subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387-409.

Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization: Learning and empowerment from whom? Management Learning, 29, 337-364.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior from an organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 281-298.

Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. M., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 220-229.

Stankey, G. H., Clark, R., & Bormann, B. T. (2005). Adaptive management of natural resources: Theory, concepts, and management institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR 654. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacic Northwest Research Station.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2003). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers learning organization doctrine: Road map for transformation. [accessed online at www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/learning/learning.htm]

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (n.d.). Recreation: Value to the nation. Washington, D.C. USACE Institute for Water Resources, Engineering and Research Development Center (ERDC), and Natural Resources Management. [retrieved online at http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil/employees/vtn/pdfs/recreation.pdf].

Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222-240.

Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efcacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515-530.

Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.