FACTORS THAT FOSTER AND HINDER ORGANISATIONAL

LEARNING IN THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF

VENEZUELA

Name: Mario Samuel Camacho.

Module: MSCMP November 2016.

Tutor: Michael Cassop Thompson.

Submission Date: 3th July 2017.

i

Word count: 16.252.

ABSTRACT.

This research have been undertaken in response to the need of investigating and improving organisational learning strategies in the Ministry of Science and Technology of

ii

Venezuela. In fact, the research aims at exploring the factors that foster and hinder organisational learning in the aforementioned organisation.

The research adopted the survey as the primary data collection method to obtain the views of individuals about organisational learning and a questionnaire was especially created to measure their viewpoints. In this regard, the study revealed that promoting a cordial environment to make proposals and openly express ideas is the main factor that fosters organisational learning in the Ministry of Science and Technology of Venezuela. On the contrary, punishing mistakes is the main factor that hinders organisational learning in this organisation.

In consequence, these findings bring new insights to the understanding of organisational learning in the Ministry of Science of Technology of Venezuela with the possibility of adapting the learning capabilities of the organisation and compare these findings with organisations of similar characteristics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

iii

I would like to manifest my appreciation and gratitude to the University of Essex for offering me the opportunity to continue studying and specially, to my supervisor Michael Cassop Thompson for his advices and kind dedication during the research process.

Additionally, I am grateful to Santiago for challenging me to continue studying and obtain a new degree.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all the persons that inspired me to continue learning and helped me during the research process.

Thank you.

Mario Samuel Camacho.

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY.

iv

By submitting this research project, I certify that the whole content is my own work and I am the intellectual author of it, unless otherwise indicated.

LIST OF CONTENT.

v

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AIMS. 1

vi

1.1. Importance of Assessing Organisational Learning in the MSTV. 21.2. Understanding Organisational Learning. 31.3. Research Question & Objectives. 4 1.3.1. Research Question. 4 1.3.2. Objectives. 41.4. Chapter Summary. 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. 6

2.1. Learning Definitions and Learning in Organisational Contexts. 72.2. Organisational Learning. 92.3. Influential Factors of Organisational Learning and Organisational Learning

in Practice.11

2.4. Organisational Learning and Learning Organisations. 132.5. Chapter Summary. 14

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY. 16

3.1. Research Philosophy. 17 3.2. Research Approach. 18 3.3. Research Design. 19 3.4. Research Strategy. 20 3.4.1. Administering the Survey. 20 3.4.2. Population and Sample. 21 3.5. Data Analysis. 21 3.6. Reliability and Validity. 22 3.7. Time Horizons. 22 3.8. Ethics. 22 3.9. Chapter Summary. 23

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS. 24

4.1. Results and Analysis. 25 4.1.1. Factors that Foster Organisational Learning in the MSTV. 26

4.1.1.1. A Cordial environment that promotes trust in each other to foster debates and new ideas.

26

4.1.1.2. Rewarding individual learning to promote organisational learning. 274.1.1.3. Keeping indicators of performance to measure individual and organisational learning.

28

4.1.1.4. Training and coaching to update knowledge and encourage organisational learning.

29

4.1.1.5. Reflection and self-assessment to strengthen individual and organisational learning.

30

4.1.1.6. Discussions and meetings to stimulate organisational learning. 314.1.1.7. Incorporation of new learning to the structure of the organisation. 32

4.1.2. Factors that Hinder Organisational Learning in the MSTV. 33 4.1.2.1. Punishment for mistakes at work. 33

4.1.2.2. Complex procedures regarding bureaucracy. 344.1.2.3. Lack of public information about the knowledge previously gained by the organisation.

35

vii

4.1.2.4. Competitive relationships between departments. 36 4.1.2.5. Conflicts between managers and employees. 37 4.1.2.6. Prioritisation of political activities over learning activities. 38 4.1.2.7. Selfishness and competitive relationships between employees. 394.3. Discussion of the Findings. 394.4. Chapter Summary. 43

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS. 44

5.1. Research Summary and Findings. 455.2. Answering the Research Question and Achievement of Objectives. 465.3. Recommendations. 485.4. Further Research. 505.5. Limitations. 51 5.5.1. Study Design Limitations. 51 5.5.2. Statistical or Data Limitations. 51 5.5.3. Impact Limitations. 525.6. Reflections. 52 5.6.1. Reflections about the Research Process. 52 5.6.2. Reflections about the Findings. 53

LIST OF REFERENCES. 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 63

APPENDICES. 67

Appendix A – Questionnaire. English Version. 68Appendix B – Questionnaire. Spanish Version. 69Appendix C – Consent Form. English Version. 70Appendix D – Consent Form. Spanish Version. 71Appendix E – Statistics Results. 72

LIST OF FIGURES.

Figure 1. Respondents’ beliefs on the importance of a cordial environment for fostering organisational learning.

26

Figure 2. Respondents’ beliefs on the importance of rewarding individual learning to 27

viii

promote organisational learning.Figure 3. Respondents' beliefs on keeping indicators of performance to measure organisational learning.

28

Figure 4. Respondents' beliefs on the importance of training and coaching to update knowledge and encourage organisational learning.

29

Figure 5. Respondents' beliefs on the importance of reflection and self-assessment to strengthen individual and organisational learning.

30

Figure 6. Respondents' beliefs on the importance of discussions and meetings to stimulate organisational learning.

31

Figure 7. Respondents' beliefs on the importance of the incorporation of new learning to the organisational structure to foster organisational learning.

32

Figure 8. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of punishing mistakes at work as a limitation for organisational learning.

33

Figure 9. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of bureaucracy as a limitation for organisational learning.

34

Figure 10. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of lack of public information as a limitation for organisational learning.

35

Figure 11. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of competitive relationships between departments as a limitation for organisational learning.

36

Figure 12. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of conflicts between managers and employees as a limitation for organisational learning.

37

Figure 13. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of the prioritisation of political activities over learning actions as a limitation for organisational learning.

38

Figure 14. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of selfishness and competitive relationships between employees as a limitation for organisational learning.

39

Figure 15. Respondents' beliefs on the factors that foster organisational learning. 40Figure 16. Respondents' beliefs on the factors that hinder organisational learning. 42

LIST OF TABLES.

Table 1. Population and sample size. 21

Table 2. Response rate and completed questionnaires. 25

ix

Table 3. Summary of the factors that foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV.

40

x

CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AIMS.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AIMS.

This chapter introduces the relevance of assessing organisational learning in the Ministry of Science and Technology of Venezuela (MSTV), the main concepts of organisational learning, the content of the research, its purpose and finally, the objective of the study to summarise the goals of the research.

In this sense, chapter 1 states the research question and objectives to outline the aim of the study.

Sequentially, chapter 2 highlights the theoretical background of organisational learning as a critical reflection of the existing literature, addressing the principal concepts of organisational learning of the seminal and modern literature. It is also discussed various interpretations and debates in this topic to contrast diverse visions, and later, it is compared the definitions of organisational learning and learning organisations as a special discussion in the subject.

Chapter 3 develops the general research strategy implemented for this study, that is, the methodology. It explains the philosophical perspective adopted, derived from the ontological and epistemological position. Next, it is presented the research approach and research design, describing the deductive focus of the study, characterised by a quantitative analysis. Later, it is explained the research strategy and the details of the questionnaire applied. Finally, it is offered more information of the research such as the data collection procedure, the instrument utilised, the sample and the selection of the research participants, reliability and validity, time horizons and ethical considerations.

The subsequent chapter, data analysis, provides details about the results of the research and the discussions of the findings to clarify their effects on the MSTV.

Chapter 5 is dedicated to the conclusions of the study, putting the research findings into context and responding the research question and addressing the objectives in order to verify if they were achieved, followed by the limitations, proposal for further studies and final reflections

1.1. Importance of Assessing Organisational Learning in the MSTV.

In the last years, organisational learning has been one of the most important debates of some employees of the MSTV, looking for options to enable improvements in the performance of the organisation after evidencing the repetition of multiple managerial mistakes. However, there is no consensus among employees about what factors foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV, only various hypothesis and ideas.

In this regard, the research investigates the most appropriate practices to foster organisational learning in the MSTV as well as the less efficient strategies or conditions to determine what factors are required to develop this learning context and improve the learning potential of the aforementioned organisation.

2

Simultaneously, it is remarkable that there is no similar research studying organisational learning in the MSTV. Nevertheless, the subject of organisational learning possesses a vast literature in other contexts and organisations around the world, including organisations of similar characteristics, whose results can be compared with the present study.

1.2. Understanding Organisational Learning.

Concerning the main concepts of organisational learning, Guinot et al (2016) state that organisational learning is a crucial mean to obtain competitive advantage and it is believed to be essential in the globalised modern organisations (Kirwan, 2013).

However, Senge (2006) argues that some organisations do not have the capacity to deal with the current pace of change of the world to turn into a learning organisation. Due to this fact, organisations can only survive by learning new capabilities and convert these capabilities into new products and organisational processes (Ghaznavi et al, 2013).

Furthermore, the relevance of organisational learning is also justified by the creation of more learning opportunities for individuals, which, is fundamental because the learning process begins in the individual level and it subsequently moves to the collective level (Nonaka 1994, as cited in Knipfer et al, 2013). Then, when a learning culture is already developed, it will be written in the “DNA” of the organisation, removing barriers in the ability to modify behaviours and promote collective learning (Škerlavaj et al, 2013: 101).

As shown above, organisational learning is the foundation of innovation. Nevertheless, in the theoretical level, there is a controversy about the real meaning of organisational learning. Regarding this, Argyris and Schön (1996) argue that organisational learning happens when employees of an organisation experience difficulties and they solve them on behalf of the organisation. Thus, when a “mismatch” is experienced between results and expectations, it is required to understand the conditions of the organisation to change the activities and perceptions, and finally, match expectations and outcomes (Argyris & Schön, 1996: 16).

Although, another influential concept of organisational learning comes from Senge (2006: 3), who affirms that organisational learning occurs […] “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together”.

In short, organisational learning connotes the improvement of actions through a process of self-reflection, changing the potential of the organisation to learn and develop new knowledge (Berends et al, 2003) and nowadays, the organisational capacity to learn is one of “the most valuable asset” in an age, in which, information is key to success (Clegg et al, 2011: 334) and an advantage to compete with other organisations (Casey, 2005, as cited in Knipfer et al, 2013).

In any case, the concepts of organisational learning are evolving, influenced by a variety of academic movements, raising questions regarding the abilities or skills needed to encourage learning as it will be shown in the literature review. Thus, the only certainty is

3

that organisational learning enables performance improvement, individually and collectively.

1.3. Research Question & Objectives. Having established the research structure and content, this section presents the research question and objectives in order to state the research aim and define its boundaries.

1.3.1. Research Question.

As this section is concerned with the definition of the research question, it is noteworthy that the main aim of this research question is delimiting the management activities of the MSTV that promote and interfere with the learning process of the organisation.

In short, the research question is formulated as follows:

► What factors foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV?

This question focuses on determining the most favourable factors to encourage organisational learning according to employees of the MSTV. In a like manner, with the answers of employees, it is also determined the factors that interfere with organisational learning in the organisation.

1.3.2. Objectives.

Similar to the research question, objectives delimit the purpose of the research, establishing direction to the study and demarcating the findings. Particularly, four objectives are developed to investigate the factors that foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV.

Objective 1. To state the most accepted organisational learning factors according to the employees of the MSTV.

With this objective, it will be identified which are the most efficient methods to stimulate organisational learning in the MSTV, so they can be further promoted for correcting business and managerial errors.

Objective 2. To determine the factors that hinder organisational learning according to the employees of the MSTV

This second objective will identify the elements that prevent organisational learning in the MSTV, so they can be corrected in the future.

Objective 3. To investigate alternatives factors to encourage organisational learning in the MSTV.

The aim of objective 3 is to examine alternatives ideas from employees, which, have not been taken into account previously by the leaders of the organisation and could stimulate organisational learning in the MSTV.

4

Objective 4. To justify the implementation of new organisational learning politics in the MSTV.

This objective responds to the necessity of implementing a systematic approach of organisational learning in the different departments of the MSTV due to the lack of guidelines in this subject. This objective will be achieved with the presentation of scientific data given by employees in the survey to justify new politics related to organisational learning.

1.4. Chapter Summary.

In essence, chapter 1 introduced the relevance of studying organisational learning in the MSTV, the most significant and basic definitions to understand organisational learning in a business and managerial environment, the structure and content of every chapter and finally, the research question and objectives to guide the development of the study and discover, what factors foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV?

Equally important, the coming chapter will explore the main definitions of organisational learning and its associated terminology.

5

CHAPTER 2:LITERATURE REVIEW.

6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.

As a starting point, chapter 2 explores the concepts of learning and their application in organisations to initiate the discussion of organisational learning. Later, diverse terms of organisational learning are contrasted in a revision of the current literature to define and critique the understanding of organisational learning. Next, in the review of the organisational learning literature, it is detailed the seminal and generic literature, their strengths and limitations and also the influential factors to create a learning context in organisations. Finally, the chapter closes with a review of the conceptual differences between organisational learning and learning organisations to show their definitions and applications.

2.1. Learning Definition and Learning in Organisational Contexts.

To begin with the definition of learning, the Oxford Dictionary (2011) defines learning as knowledge obtained by study. To further explore this term, Knipfer et al (2013) affirm that learning means creating meanings from the past or current events to guide future behaviours and responses.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that learning presents two levels. Based on Argyris (1999), it can be affirmed that the first level is the single-loop, which, is associated to everyday understanding and it occurs when the learner comprehends and figures out a problem to move on to a next problem without any reflection about the nature of the problem. So, it means a learning process with little or no reflection as it does not focus on altering the cause of the problem to prevent it in the future.

On the other hand, there is another level, which is called, double-loop learning and it is differentiated from single-loop learning as it involves a reflective learning process, in which, learners are encouraged to make questions about how the issue was identified, understood and especially, how it can be altered (Argyris, 1999).

For instance, to differentiate single-loop and double-loop, Argyris (1991: 4) remarks that the majority of companies “have tremendous difficulty addressing this learning dilemma” and they only focus on problem solving, which is the single-loop learning, but they need to critically reflect on their behaviours and identify the roots of the problem, which is the double-loop learning.

To further exemplify this idea, Argyris (1991: 4) provides the analogy of a “thermostat that automatically turns on the heat whenever the temperature in a room drops below 68°F” and for him, it is an example of single-loop learning since it is efficient in its task of keeping the temperature at certain point. However, if the thermostat could reflect about its behaviour, it could ask, "why am I set to 68°F? and then explore whether or not some other temperature might more economically achieve the goal of heating the room” (Argyris, 1991: 4).

Now that it was established the two basic learning levels according to Argyris, it is interesting to notice that there was added a third level of learning called the triple-loop learning, in which, learning is evidenced as collective mindfulness (Stacey, 2011, as cited

7

in Swierczek, 2016). In other words, after the reflective process of the double-loop, in the triple-loop, the learning is fully understood, reproduced and it includes a “learning to learn process” (Swierczek, 2016: 4), thus, in the end, the learning is the source of new strategies, structures and improved processes, which, modifies the values of the organisation (Argyris and Schön, 2006, as cited in Swierczek, 2016), creating new knowledge and innovations (Siriwardena, 2015).

However, for transcending individual learning and develop organisational learning, it is needed a bridge of communication from personal and team learning to organisational learning (Kitapçi & Çömez, 2016) and these first two levels are fundamental mediators in the organisational learning process, and without them, the organisation would not change (Stelmaszczyk, 2016). Thus, organisations are not collections of knowledge of individuals (Argyris and Schön, 1978), organisations are more than that, they are rational entities capable of remembering past events, analyse the future and evaluate alternative actions (Argyris, 1999).

Another concept that remarks the learning tendency of organisations is the one from Clegg et al (2011: 666), “organizations are systematically arranged frameworks relating people, things, knowledge, and technologies, in a design intended to achieve specific goals”. This connotes that organisations are goal-oriented and the learning process is just a previous stage to achieve their objectives, and in order to improve results, organisations develop their own learning styles depending on the context and contingencies (De Long & Fahey, 2000) coordinated with the development of internal capabilities to adapt the learning styles to the culture of the organisation (Chien et al, 2015). Therefore, organisations are learning entities capable of modifying and improving their abilities to adapt to the business context that surrounds them under the pressure of globalisation and the pace of innovation (Hess, 2014).

In this respect, organisations learn in the following ways: by incorporating new knowledge and implementing new systems, by hiring employees with specific knowledge that is not present in the organisation and by discovering new processes (Herbert, 1991, as cited in Ghaznavi et al, 2013). Thus, in organisations, learning occurs in an appropriate cognitive environment (Balsam, 2014) and the idea of organisational learning emerged from the efforts of creating a system, which makes organisations more responsive to changes.

In summary, the concept of learning is applied to organisations to improve their performance, individually and collectively, as it was stated previously and the learning capacity of organisations relies on continuous individual learning, which, is later transferred to the collective knowledge (Mahmood et al, 2015). But, unfortunately, long-term learning in the organisational sphere is not easy to achieve because it is normal to make poor efforts to retain the lessons in the busy day to day managerial environment and it means difficult times on improving performance (Leonard, 2015); additionally, the learning is only sustainable if it is developed dynamically and systematically (Dararat and Taechamaneestit, 2015). So, learning in organisational environments has severe limitations and they are further explained as follows.

Initially, learning in organisations requires a high level of commitment (Klinge, 2015) and as it is an individual process and knowledge is interpreted differently depending on the learner, the learning process is not standard (Guinot et al, 2016). Besides, cognitive constraints may change perception and distort learning (March and Olsen 1975, as cited in

8

Namgyoo et al, 20015). Likewise, as learning is individual, it involves intuitive processes, which are not systematic from the point of view of organisations (Abualqumboz, 2014). Therefore, tacit knowledge is difficult to formalise and that is an obstacle for learning in organisations (Nonaka, 2007, as cited in Kirwan, 2013) due to the complicated process to apply this tacit knowledge in the organisational environment, and to make learning in the organisational context harder, it is necessary to consider that organisations suffer constant changes, and when a learning is already gained, probably, it should be discussed again to keep the pace of the changing environment, so organisations “never find the appropriate balance” (Magee, 2007, as cited in Tortorella et al, 2015: 3990).

Also, learning depends on how trustworthy the origin of the knowledge is and the capacity of the learner to absorb the information (Teare and O’Hern, 2000). Moreover, learning is not obtained if the organisation is not interested enough in learning because good ideas are kept by enthusiasts, but they perish when they are not renewed constantly by all stakeholders (Teare and O’Hern, 2000). Even, factors like being too competent and successful can be limitation for learning because when failure is rarely experienced, and suddenly it arises, individuals in organisations are not used to reflect about failure and “they become defensive, screen out criticism, and put the blame on anyone and everyone but themselves” (Argyris, 1991: 4).

Now, in the next section, it is examined the concepts of organisational learning from different point of views to develop a critical understanding in the subject.

2.2. Organisational Learning.

The main topic to discuss in the study revolves around the organisational learning concepts, which, have been approached by various disciplines and from different angles with decades of development (Knipfer et al, 2013). On this subject, the interest in organisational learning began with the work of Argyris and Schön and it has been growing steadily since 1970 (Kirwan, 2013) due to the necessity of organisations to adapt themselves to the current requirements of the managerial world (Senge et al, 2014).

One of the basic organisational learning concept is the one that relates organisational learning with the capacity to correct managerial errors and improve the performance of organisations, which comes from Argyris (1977), who remarks that organisational learning consists on identifying and rectifying errors within the boundaries of an organisation. Similarly, Hedberg (1981) shares an analogous view, in which, it is stated that organisational learning is stimulated by the interaction of organisations and their context to improve their understanding, based on the results of their actions. Also, Senge (2006: 3) argues that organisations should be spaces to continually learn from errors and increase the capacity to obtain the desired outcomes, and especially, places where employees learn “how to learn together”. Related to the definition of Senge, Lopez et al (2006) conceptualise organisational learning as a process of creation of knowledge in order to develop the potential of the organisation and improve performance.

Under this perspective, the aim of organisational learning is to improve performance through the development of organisational knowledge and capabilities, correcting mistakes in “a continual process of becoming a learning organisation” (Nyhan et al, 2004: 73).

9

Nevertheless, this perspective is not accepted by all authors. Indeed, there is another conceptual trend in organisational learning, which, is focused on cultural issues. In this regard, Fiol and Lyles (1985) affirm that organisational learning is the sum of the learning of each individual of the organisation because organisations develop their own learning systems that are transmitted to all their members utilising, for instance, stories, routines and norms. Likewise, organisations are labelled as learning when they make inferences “from history into routines” to guide the behaviours of teams (Levitt & March, 1988: 319-320). Equally important, Nicolini et al (2003: 3) explain that organisational learning “cannot be conceived as mental processes residing in members’ heads” because it is a form of “social expertise”, located in the cultural sphere. In Addition, organisations incorporate knowledge and routines around their activities, improving their skills and capabilities (Dodgson, 1993) and it is an “ever-present practice that occurs through customary work systems” (Collin et al, 2011: 303).

As noted above, this conceptual trend of organisational learning centres its attention on the organisational culture, which, is transmitted to the members of the organisation through stories, symbols, rituals, routines, norms, among others; and essentially, according to Kummerow et al (2014: 68), organisational culture is a relevant element to consider in organisational learning as cultural matters set the behaviours and “predispositions” of an organisation towards learning, and indeed, beliefs influence all the learning process. This intellectual position is contrary to the previous perspective, in which, organisational learning is only seen as the correction of business and managerial actions omitting the cultural values and intangible assets.

Having considered both perspectives, it is worth mentioning that there is another debate. Some scholars highlight that the definition of organisational learning is a final stage of organisations, while other writers argue that “organisational learning is a process”, such as Argyris and Schön (1978). On this subject, the position that states that being a learning organisation is a final goal of organisations is less accepted than the opinion that considers organisational learning as a process because it implies that being a learning organisation stops learning as there is nothing else to learn and it would promote self-complacency (Nyhan et al, 2004). Thefore, most of the writers see organisational learning as a process. To illustrate this point, Knipfer et al (2013) state that organisational learning is the evolution of personal and collective learning, which, ultimately matures into organisational routines. In the same way, organisational learning is considered as a variation in the knowledge of organisations, influenced by experienced activities (Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011, as cited in Argote, 2015) and also, organisational learning is a mean to assimilate knowledge from organisational processes, challenges and errors to continually improve processes (Schuler & Jackson, 2007, as cited in Lawler and Silitoe, 2013).

In short, the literature about organisational learning shows a wide variety of definitions, and at the same time, controversy because of this proliferation of concepts from different perspectives, while the literature in this subject is “rather prescriptive” anyway (Givel, 2014: 23). So, the concepts of organisational learning are not definitive, they are evolving and they demand further developments to establish a consensus about what really organisational learning is and how to understand it.

To follow the discussion of the definitions of organisational learning, the limitations of organisational learning concepts are commented as follows.

10

As has been seen, there is a huge variety of organisational learning terms to match various research approaches, but, on the other hand, the proliferation of many concepts of organisational learning and no consensus, leads to an "organizational learning jungle" (Visser, 2007: 659). As a matter of fact, Fiol and Lyles (1985: 803) consider that there is no “widely accepted" theory of organisational learning and Tsang (1997) states that there is a vast variety of definitions of organisational learning, as many as authors writing in the topic.

Equally important, the lack of ethical, political and managerial issues in the academic definitions are not taken into account and they are “naively apolitical” as they assume that all stakeholders have similar inclinations and the whole managerial staff behave ethically and care about learning in the workplace (Grieves, 2008: 470).

As a final point and as a solution to the theoretical controversy, Friedman et al (2005: 27) consider that “demystifying organisational learning requires developing models that create clear and observable links between concepts and organizational action", which, means that theory and practice should be together to explain organisational learning as a whole. In consequence, it is pertinent to discuss the elements that influence the practices of organisational learning.

2.3. Influential Factors of Organisational Learning and Organisational Learning in Practice.

This section introduces how the concepts of organisational learning are applied in organisations, showing the practical processes for implementing changes in organisations.

In effect, the concepts of organisational learning, in practical terms, are exploited in modern organisations in several manners. The basic application of this concept is through reflection. Reflection is the catalyst to transform the work experience in individual and collective learning since it provides a suitable understanding of the work (Jarvinen and Poikela, 2001, as cited in Knipfer et al, 2013). Thus, reflection is an easy and effective mechanism to understand implicit knowledge, which, is immersive and it has the potential to systematise knowledge (Knipfer et al, 2013). Besides, it facilitates the adaptation to the business environment and increases the learning capabilities (Alavi et al, 2010, as cited in Alavi et al, 2014). Although, it is well-known that it is very difficult for people, particularly, for managers “to reflect critically on their own work performance” (Argyris, 1991: 6).

Simultaneously, former studies on organisational learning remarked that transformational leadership possess a decisive effect on team learning (Berson et al, 2006, as cited in Guinot et al, 2016) because employees who feel safe in the decision-making process are more comfortable taking risks, innovating and contributing to the organisation with new ideas (Guinot et al, 2016). On the other hand, one of the influential factors to make organisational learning practical in organisations is maintaining a cordial learning environment, who should regulate data creation and data sharing among employees in a friendly and polite manner to encourage learning capabilities (Singh, 2016).

As a consequence, following a leadership style like transformational leadership promotes organisational learning as it fosters risk-taking, reflection, experimentation, dialogue, new ideas and suggestions (Chiva et al, 2007, as cited in Fermin, 2014). Thus, generally

11

speaking, transformational leaders are more trustworthy for creating and improving organisational learning (Kareem, 2016). Similarly, Chiva et al (2007) state that the most important factors to favour organisational learning are cooperation in the decision-making process, open dialogue, acceptance of risks, experimentation and interaction with the business environment.

Following this, despite of the variety of organisational learning influential factors, these factors are still abstract and they lack details to measure improvements, and according to Garvin (1993), applying five fundamental elements in the organisation would ensure that the learning process occurs “by design rather than by chance”:

a. Systematic problem solving. It means relying on scientific methodologies like statistical techniques to obtain quality data and training programmes focused on generating ideas and problem-solving tools such as surveying or Interviewing.

b. Experimentation. It implies testing new knowledge to expand organisational learning activities in a controlled way, keeping a percentage of improvements and showing data in graphics to demonstrate the learning obtained.

c. Learning from past experiences. It involves reviewing the successes and failures of the organisation to assess them systematically, recording the learning.

d. Learning from the experiences of others. It consists on benefiting from studying the experiences of others as not all learning comes from reflection and self-analysis, and this information can be obtained using data collection methods like interviews.

e. Transferring knowledge. It involves spreading information through the organisation to share the learning in a variety of mechanisms (oral, written, visual, etc.).

As a final point, it is recommended to close the learning process conducting reviews of the knowledge gained to make conclusions, and finally, learn from failures and update organisational procedures (Haunschild & Sullivan, 2002, as cited in Desai, 2015).

To summarise, for stimulating organisational learning in a pragmatic manner, it is essential to have a supportive learning environment, which, do not “blame and silence about errors”, on the contrary, it is important to encourage the generation and dissemination of information (Garvin et al, 2008). Moreover, it is necessary to “destigmatise failure” and encourage reflection during the workday and apply a systematic plan to achieve a higher degree of learning in the organisation, quantifying and qualifying every activity in order to judge and measure the advances in organisational learning (Gino & Staats, 2015).

Having considered the influential factors of organisational learning, it is fundamental to recognise their limitations to show their disadvantages.

Particularly, one of the most elemental limitations of implementing organisational learning factors in everyday work is that tacit knowledge of organisations is not easy to formalise in procedures as “work-related knowledge is mirrored” by employees in work related practices and it reproduces ineffective learning cultural traits (Knipfer et al, 2013: 32).

12

Another limitation is that all the staff should be involved in the learning process, especially, at the managerial levels, because managers are the ones with the power to make changes and include new information in the organisational culture (Daft and Weick, 1984, as cited in Ellis et al, 2012). Actually, if senior leadership is not completely involved in the learning process, learning will hardly take place as it is promoted by the influence of organisational leaders (Burea et al, 2016).

Related to the effective flow of information in all levels of the organisation, it is worth noting that relationship conflicts severely interfere in communication and cooperation, which negatively influence the assimilation of information (Greer et al, 2008, as cited in Guinot et al, 2016). In this sense, incompatible ideas in organisations are not easily transferred to the collective learning and this learning do not transcend to the organisational culture (Lawler and Silitoe, 2013).

As a final limitation, Petiz et al (2015) observe that organisational learning, in the end, is just a part of the changing processes to innovate, but it is not the solution of all management problems as it is required to combine organisational learning with organisational culture, leadership, etc. In fact, organisational learning depends on the connection of many elements such as an appropriate organisational culture, a clear organisational strategy and even, the availability of the right technology to promote learning (Castañeda, 2015).

The last point presented in the literature review is the theoretical debate between organisational learning and learning organisations to differentiate both terms.

2.4. Organisational Learning and Learning Organisations.

Another discussion in this subject is regarding the right terminology, is it organisational learning and learning organisations?

Concerning this, the terms organisational learning and learning organisations are used interchangeably, that is, there is no big difference in both concepts. The only difference academicians notice is that organisational learning is inclined to research while learning organisations are more inclined to the organisational practices (Heraty and Morley, 2008, as cited in Kirwan, 2013). To further illustrate this point, the concept of learning organisations is considered relatively new compared to organisational learning. It was born from the seminal book of Senge, The Fifth Discipline, and since the beginning, the development of the concept focused on the applicability of learning in organisations to encourage creativity and innovation, which, is completely different than the organisational learning concept that possess an academic nature (Akhnif, 2017).

In particular, a learning organisation is an organisation with an increasing potential to create its own future (Senge, 2006). Furthermore, learning organisations are described as structured groups, in which, work and learning are united in order to encourage systematic improvements in all organisational levels (Watkins, 1996: 32, as cited in Salleh and Ching Choo, 2011) and it can also be conceptualised as organisations that constantly reward learning processes and initiatives (Dragomir, 2016). In fact, organisational learning describes tasks that foster learning, while learning organisations refers to a particular kind of organisation, which is the difference between “becoming” and “being" (Tsang, 1997: 75).

13

Therefore, a learning organisation connotes an organisation, which, is already in a learning process and is developing more capabilities or increasing its potential. However, writers like Nyhan et al (2004) consider that this debate should end, and that a satisfactory definition of learning organisations needs to include both positions, the process approach and the aim to become a learning organisation. Also, other academicians have contrasted the terms of organisational learning and learning organisations to show that the first concept refers to the processes, by which, organisations can be changed, while learning organisations highlight the promotion of already developed learning activities and capabilities (Finger and Woolis, 1994, cited in Chan and Scott-Ladd, 2004).

At last, it is significant to mention that the definition of learning organisations has some limitations.

At first, it is believed that organisations can achieve the goal of becoming learning organisations but when organisations believes that they have reached the state of a learning organisation, they stop learning in self-complacency (Nyhan et al, 2004). On the other side, like the concepts of organisational learning, the definitions of learning organisations are abundant with a “number of varying opinions on the matter”, in which, depending on the author, the emphasis is on structural matters, personal thinking mechanisms, leaderships models, etc (Al Kalbani, 2015: 34). Related to the previous limitation, Koenig (2015) notices that the terms utilised in organisational learning are built over stronger theoretical and experimental foundations compared to the definitions of learning organisations, because the definitions of learning organisations are still not fully supported by experimentation as they are recent in comparison to the decades of development organisational learning concepts. Another interesting limitation of the concepts of organisational learning and learning organisations is that they are exclusively focused on the cultural conditions of the western organisations, but they are not flexible enough “to be applicable to organisations in other countries” like United Arab Emirates without any adaptation (Al Kalbani, 2015: 20).

2.5. Chapter Summary.

To summarise, the review of organisational learning definitions and practices was narrowed down by the visions of three main writers, along with their seminal works, Argyris and Schön (1978) and Senge (2006), who directed the theoretical discussions of organisational learning and learning organisations. Nevertheless, there was little consensus in the literature about the definitions because of the abundance of concepts to match diverse point of views (Al Kalbani, 2015).

On the other hand, even if there is a judgement that the terms of organisational learning and learning organisation contain conceptual imperfections, the vast number of concepts facilitate the process of selecting an appropriate position for different studies, demonstrating that organisational learning is a complex phenomenon to define and no single definition can fully describe all the knowledge that organisational learning comprises. Similarly, organisational learning in practice, contemplates successes and failures to learn because without errors the capacity to learn is dramatically restricted (García et al, 2014) and even, if the learning is constant, the quest for more learning in organisations is like “the search for the unattainable Holy Grail”, it never ends (Fillion et al. 2015: 75).

14

Finally, the next chapter argues the methodological position of the study, the data collection method and all the relevant information to achieve the research objectives and respond the research question.

15

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.

16

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY.

In the previous chapter, the theoretical knowledge of organisational learning was reviewed and explained to set the existing literature in the subject. Now, the aim of this chapter is presenting and discussing the methodological choices of the research in order to achieve the study objectives, according to the theories shown in the literature review.

In detail, the chapter begins by identifying the philosophy of the research, that is, the epistemological and ontological positions of the study. Then, the research approach explains the deductive nature of the study and research design introduces and justifies the quantitative methodology utilised in this research project. Next, the research strategy explains the general information concerning surveys and how the survey was done to obtain data. Finally, chapter 3 finishes explaining reliability and validity issues, time horizons and the ethical considerations of the study.

As a last consideration, the main concepts presented in this chapter are critically analysed with strengths and limitations to show their advantages and disadvantages and increase understanding of these terms.

3.1. Research Philosophy.

This section is dedicated to the debates of the philosophical choices of the study to understand the rest of the research methodological issues.

In this regard, the research philosophy is related to the nature of knowledge and its development (Saunders et al, 2012) and it is particularly useful because understanding philosophical issues can help to clarify research design (Easterby-Smith et al, 1997). As a matter of fact, the ontological and epistemological assumptions are influential because they impact in the choice of data collection methods, analysis and interpretation of results.

Firstly, ontology studies “the nature of reality” (Saunders et al, 2012: 130) and it comprises two positions, objectivism and subjectivism. Specifically, this study follows the principles of objectivism, which, states that social facts are independent and external of individuals (Saunders et al, 2012). To illustrate objectivism, the organisational culture under objectivism is seen as something that the organisation “has” and not something that the organisation “is”, since organisational culture would be external to social actors (Millmore et al. 2007, as cited in Saunders et al, 2012: 132).

In contrast, epistemology refers to the admissible knowledge in an area of study (Saunders et al, 2012) and according to the epistemological options, this research is inclined to a realist position, which, is understood as an independent reality from subjectivity (Saunders et al, 2012). Actually, the position of this research is critical realism, which, states that the understanding of reality “is a result of social conditioning” and it is conditioned by the social actors involved in the knowledge creation process (Dodson, 2012, as cited in Saunders et al, 2012: 136).

17

For this reason, critical realism is an appropriate perspective for this study as it prevents the researcher to incorporate his own values in the research, avoiding the researcher to influence the study, while, at the same time, it is not so inclined to natural sciences (Bryman & Bell, 2007). In addition, critical realism is more appropriate for managerial research than other approaches like positivism, which, is “claimed to be poor” for deepening in organisational research (Driscoll & McKee, 2007: 212).

Regarding the strengths and limitations of the ontological and epistemological choices, initially, the ontological position of the study, objectivism has the following strengths: the results of the study from this philosophical perspective tend to be objective and the bias of the researcher are notably reduced (Saunders, 2012) and objectivist positions accept that the social environment is the creator of the managements' facts, which, means that it considers the social world for researching (Saunders, 2012). In contrast, objectivism has notorious limitations like the lack of exploration of the subjective views, which, severely limits the research. In fact, it is a “simplistic” approach in comparison to subjectivism because subjects' realities are numerous and objective reality comprises just one point of view (Saunders, 2012: 132).

On the other hand, considering the epistemological choice, critical realism have important strengths such as the consideration of social factors while being objective, utilising observable data and facts (Saunders, 2012). Furthermore, critical realism accepts that the social atmosphere is constantly changing, which makes it suitable for business and management research as it is always evolving (Saunders, 2012). Simultaneously, the most noticeable limitation of critical realism is the lack of understanding of the heterogeneous environment that surrounds business and management because it excludes the interpretativist factors and it is considered “less scientific” than positivist epistemology anyway (Saunders, 2012: 135). To further illustrate the limitations of critical realism, it is known in the academic sphere that critical realism tend to produce generalisations compared to interpretativist positions (Saunders, 2012).

Having established the philosophical approach of the study, the following paragraphs review the research approach.

3.2. Research Approach.

The research approach refers to the “form of reasoning” utilised to obtain conclusions (Saunders, 2012: 144). Singularly, the research is positioned within the quantitative framework, in which, are considered “preconceived theoretical ideas” from a deductive approach, testing hypothesis or assumptions (Saunders et al, 2012: 73). On the contrary, exploring data to develop new theories is understood as an inductive approach (Saunders et al, 2012). To further illustrate the difference between both approaches, deductive approach is based on generalisations and it is required to carefully select the sample, while inductive approach is flexible, allowing interpretations of the social context (Saunders et al, 2012).

To deepen in the analysis and discuss the strengths and limitations of deductive research, the principal strengths of deductive research are summarised as follows: it rigorously tests assumptions, promoting the replication of the study and ensuring a strict process of data collection, in which, data is “operationalised” to be measured (Saunders, 2012: 145).

18

Another strength of deductive approach is the certainty that the conclusions will match the study results as they are based on predetermined premises (Saunders, 2012).

On the other side, to stress the limitations of deductive research, it is recognised that deductive research is based on generalisations, so it is inclined to reductionism (Adams et al, 2014). Thus, it does not explore all the “complexities of reality”, preventing alternative explanations of phenomena as it limits itself only to measurable facts (Saunders, 2012: 146). Likewise, deductive research is believed to be circular as it is based on previous hypothesis, which, do not produce new knowledge, so it limits itself to confirm premises (Saunders, 2012).

Following the research approach, it is discussed the design of the study to explain the quantitative essence of the research.

3.3. Research Design.

The research design is the scheme of the researcher for answering the research question and achieve the research objectives (Adams et al, 2014) and it is divided in two possible methods, quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative methods collect only numerical data to explain facts. They are associated to deductive approaches because they focus on utilising “data to test theory”, usually with a questionnaire (Saunders et al, 2012: 161-162). In contrast, qualitative methodology looks for a deeper understanding of reality utilising data collection techniques like interviews to generate interpretations that are “rich and deep descriptions” of reality (Yates & Leggett, 2016: 225).

Under these circumstances, quantitative data collection and analysis is appropriate for this study as quantitative research is linked to deductive approach (Bryman & Bell, 2011) and it is “reliable and generalizable” (David & Sutton, 2011: 86). Furthermore, a quantitative approach provides the researcher with the confidence to believe that the study is “beyond subjectivity” and statistics are bias-free (Barnham, 2015: 844).

Subsequently, an exploratory study approach is undertaken, which, is useful when the situation is unknown, not previously studied or few studies were conducted in the past. In consequence, exploratory studies are applicable when there is no available information on similar studies solving the same problem (Sekaran, 2003).

Now, to consider the strengths and limitations of quantitative research, in the academic sphere, it is known that the findings from quantitative research are easy to generalise in an objective manner and the data is precise and consistent (Saunders, 2012). Similarly, data obtained through quantitative methods is relatively easy to analyse compared to qualitative research, which, requires a profound understanding of phenomena and contextual information that is not shown in quantitative research (Saunders, 2012). In a like manner, it is relevant to mention that quantitative research does not consider non-numeric data, in which, stories and interpretations of reality are obtained, and it basically, relies on questionnaires as the preferred method for collecting data (Saunders, 2012). In order to deepen in the quantitative nature of the research, the next section examines the strategy taken to collect data.

19

3.4. Research Strategy.

The research strategy is the way the research is carried out in practical terms (Adams et al, 2014), and in the research strategy, it is developed the method to collect data, which, in this case, is the survey. In effect, survey is a quantitative technique related to deductive approach and it is popular in business and management (Saunders et al, 2012) and it is considered the most used technique of data collection in business and management research (Adams et al, 2014).

3.4.1. Administering the Survey.

As can be seen, the survey is administered to obtain the required data utilising a brief questionnaire. In particular, the questionnaire of the study contains various questions to collect information from participants about the factors that promote and prevent organisational learning in the MSTV, and as a final point, it is asked if there is an alternative organisational strategy or observation that may work in the MSTV.

Specifically, the questions are based on the current organisational learning strategies or conditions present in the MSTV. In this regard, the huge majority of the questions are closed-ended to shorten the response time and favour a high response rate, except for the last question, which, is an open-ended question to allow participants to make observations or express any idea that was not contemplated in the questionnaire, so the quantitative data can be complemented with some qualitative data to further explain their perceptions.

In any case, the participants of the survey are asked the extent they agree or disagree with the descriptions associated to organisational learning in the MSTV, using a five-point Likert scale, which is defined by Bryman (2008: 146) as a “multiple-indicator or multiple-item measure of a set of attitudes” related to a singular subject to “measure the intensity of feelings”. The Likert scale ranges from (1) strongly disagree; (2) moderately disagree; (3) neither agree nor disagree; (4) moderately agree and (5) strongly agree, in which, high scores mean agreement and low scores show disagreement.

Ultimately, taking under consideration the strengths and limitations of surveys, it is well-known that surveys have advantages like allowing the collection of “standardised data”, which, can be compared from a “sizeable population in a highly economical way”, so it permits to describe the preferences of a huge number of individuals with low costs (Saunders et al, 2012: 176). Additionally, it permits the generation of findings that represent the entire population (Saunders et al, 2012) and it promotes objectivity and precise results (Saunders et al, 2012).

On the contrary, surveys have various disadvantages such as low response rates, the depth of the responses are limited and if it contains an error in its design, the results obtained would be inaccurate (Adams et al, 2014). Also, there is a limitation regarding the number of questions, which, can be contained in the questionnaire as surveys tend to be inflexible in this matter, so they are considered “authoritative” (Saunders et al, 2012: 176) because the items of questionnaires are predetermined and there is no improvisation allowed.

20

3.4.2. Population and Sample.

To delimit the sample, it was chosen the probability sampling approach, in which, the probability of being selected from the population is known (Saunders et al, 2012). With probability sampling, it is allowed to generalise about the entire population, except cases, in which, the population is fewer than 50 cases (Henry, 1990, as cited in Saunders et al, 2012). However, in the end, “the final sample size is almost always a matter of judgement as well as of calculation” between the confidence in data and margin of error the researcher is able to permit (Saunders et al, 2012: 265).

Incidentally, the sampling frame is taken from the employees database of the MSTV, which, is up to date and accessible to everyone in the organisation, containing contact information, department address, telephone numbers, among other information. On this subject, the participants are selected utilising a systematic random sampling, in which, the first case or subject of the sampling is chosen randomly and remaining cases “are selected at regular intervals” of a given number (Saunders et al, 2012: 683).

Singularly, the population of the study comprises the analysts of the Office of the Deputy Minister for Research and Application of Knowledge, which, include 3 departments that centre its attention in making organisational policies, in which, is included organisational learning. This is the main reason these departments were chosen for the study. On the other hand, the study excluded the population, which, do not work making policies of organisational learning such as cleaners, messengers, security guards, etc.

Population 210

Sample 137

Margin of error 5%

Confidence level 95%

Table 1. Population and sample size.

3.5. Data Analysis.

The data analysis of the study establishes the statistical techniques to interpret the data. Singularly, data analysis consists in the statistical analysis of the collected data to evaluate if the hypotheses or assumptions are supported (Sekaran, 2003) and it is used the principles of descriptive statistics to illustrate the preferences of the participants.

The principal aspect of descriptive statistics for interpreting data will be the frequency distribution, which, according to Adams et al (2014: 169) “is the count of each category in a certain variable”, that is, the count or frequency of each option to give meaning to raw data (Saunders et al, 2012). Later in the study, the raw data obtained will be analysed in EXCEL and SPSS and the final frequencies are presented in bar charts to compare results. Likewise, the arithmetic mean and the median value is provided as well in the appendices to compare the responses of participants.

21

3.6. Reliability and Validity.

Prior to the fieldwork and in order to minimise errors and biases, it is fundamental to ensure the quality of the study through reliability and validity. The reliability points out the extent, in which, a measure is without bias or error-free to guarantee an unvarying measurement, so it provides consistency to the instrument every time it is tested (Sekaran, 2003). On the other hand, validity makes reference to the “strength” of the conclusions derived from the accuracy of the measurements that was “intended to be measured” (Saunders et al, 2012: 684).

Following this, in the practice, the reliability of the questionnaire was examined with a test-retest strategy, which, consist in the “repetition of the same measure on a second occasion” (Sekaran, 2003: 204). Thus, the reliability was tested twice, in a first phase with a small sample, prior to data collection to detect any issue early, and in the data collection process itself as a second phase. The first phase was brief and it was done with a non-probability sampling, whose main benefit is the opportunity to select the participants of the sample with a “subjective judgement” and it is the most functional and pragmatic sampling technique to use in the first phase of a test-retest (Saunders et al, 2012: 281). Therefore, the first phase included 7 participants, who are professional experts in management and capable of providing insightful feedbacks to the questionnaire structure.

In a similar manner, validity was examined through content validity and face validity, which, are related to the agreement that the research scales and questions, indeed, measure logically what it was intended to evaluate (Saunder et al, 2012). Thus, the validity verifies the content of the instrument and checks its appropriateness for measuring the data and its association with the aim of the research and it was done by 3 researchers of the MSTV, who are knowledgeable enough in surveys.

3.7. Time Horizons.

The study is a cross sectional research, which, is understood as “the study of a particular phenomenon (or phenomena) at a particular time” (Saunders, 2012: 669) or when “the researcher gathers the data at once” (Adams et al, 2014: 69).

Indeed, the research is made to determine the factors that encourage and prevent organisational learning, based on the current organisational learning strategies of the MSTV in the first semester of 2017. Therefore, it is a cross sectional research, in which, all the data is obtained in days or weeks.

3.8. Ethics.

Ethical issues are considered in all the research process to ensure high ethical standards, involving research participants in all phases of the research as recommended by Bell and Bryman (2007) in order to avoid the falsification of information, biased analysis, among other ethical transgressions (Adams et al, 2014).

In this sense, for making the participants of the survey feel comfortable with the research, it was assured that the information collected will be anonymous and treated privately. As a second ethical consideration, the objectives of the research were communicated and

22

explained to the participants through verbal communication with the possibility to sign the consent form if requested because “the research and the researched should be linked in a network to address the interests of researcher and researched and guarantee that nobody will be affected” (Greenwood, 2016: 509). The last and third consideration is the right to withdraw from the study at any point, which, was clearly informed prior to answering the questionnaire.

In summary, anonymity and confidentiality is assured and if the organisation receives a report about the findings of the study, it will be impossible to identify individuals as any document showing personal information will be kept and stored in a secure manner and participants were able to withdraw from the research easily at any point.

3.9. Chapter Summary.

This chapter has reviewed the research methods chosen for this study, describing the research settings and also, the way data is collected and analysed. Overall, the most important aspects to take into account after reading the methodology is that the research possesses a quantitative nature with a survey as a research strategy, in which, it is asked to select the organisational learning factors that are considered to be more effective and ineffective in the MSTV.

Then, the following chapter presents the research findings utilising the methodology explained above.

23

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND

DISCUSSIONS.

24

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS.

In the preceding chapter, it was explained the methodology of the research to collect data and this chapter concentrates on showing the results of the study, providing the data obtained through the survey, the interpretation of the data, and finally, the discussions of the practical implications of the data in the MSTV.

In this regard, from the sample of 137 participants invited to complete the questionnaire, a total of 119 questionnaires were filled, which, means that the response rate was 86.8%.

Participants 137

CompletedQuestionnaires

119

Response rate 86.8%

Table 2. Response rate and completed questionnaires.

The response rate of 86.80% was definitely high, but it is necessary to consider that the participants, prior to the study, were willing to take part in the research. Under these circumstances, with the 119 questionnaires completed, the analysis of the data was done to establish the main factors that foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV.

4.1. Results and Analysis.

The following pages determine the preferences of the participants on a variety of assertions based on the questionnaire shown in the appendices to establish the extent they consider important the factors that foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV and their opinions are reflected in figures that summarise the findings. In these figures, the X-axis represents the number of respondents and Y-axis determines the beliefs of the participants.

To further investigate this, each factor is analysed in order of importance according to beliefs of the employees and they are shown as follows:

4.1.1. Factors that Foster Organisational Learning in the MSTV.

Initially, it is shown the factors that foster organisational leaning in the MSTV, and the employees, almost unanimously, agree that a cordial environment is the most relevant factor that fosters organisational learning.

25

4.1.1.1. A Cordial environment that promotes trust in each other to foster debates and new ideas.

Figure 1. Respondents’ beliefs on the importance of a cordial environment for fostering organisational learning.

As shown in Figure 1, most of the respondents, 67.23% strongly agree and 28,57% moderately agree that a cordial environment promotes new initiatives and innovations in the MSTV. That is, 95.8% of employees affirm that this factor is important for organisational learning. In fact, there is almost a consensus that it is the most beneficial factor fostering organisational learning in the organisation as no one questioned the importance of this factor and no observation was made in this regard. Just a small minority were undecided about this factor, so 4.2% of respondents neither agree nor disagree about it.

The second analysis of the questionnaire centre its attention on the importance of rewarding learning for promoting the learning of the whole organisation and the beliefs of the participants are illustrated in the next figure.

26

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage

4.1.1.2. Rewarding individual learning to promote organisational learning.

Figure 2. Respondents’ beliefs on the importance of rewarding individual learning to promote organisational learning.

The results from the statistical test indicate that the perception of the participants is inclined to favour rewards for individual learning as a strategy for fostering organisational learning because 83.19% (strongly agree or moderately agree) of employees agree with the high value of this factor. In this case, the majority of respondents believe that rewarding individual learning encourages organisational learning as 59.66 % strongly agree that this strategy works for the organisation. In a similar manner, an important portion of the participants moderately agree, 23.53%, and 16.81% neither agree nor disagree. It is also noteworthy that nobody disagrees with this factor, so there is no doubt of the importance of rewarding individual learning to foster organisational learning.

The third analysis of the survey is about the importance of keeping indicators of performance over time to measure the evolution of organisational learning in the MSTV and the findings are depicted as follows:

27

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percentage

4.1.1.3. Keeping indicators of performance to measure individual and organisational learning.

Figure 3. Respondents' beliefs on keeping indicators of performance to measure organisational learning.

Evidence demonstrates that employees consider indicators of performance to measure organisational learning a significant factor for promoting organisational learning in the MSTV because almost 70% of employees selected the option moderately agree. Nevertheless, it was obvious that people is not so enthusiastic with this factor since only 12.61% strongly agree with the statement. It should be also noted that a small portion of the participants disagreed and they added up to 5% of the participants.

The fourth analysis identifies the perception of employees about the influential role of training and coaching for organisational learning and the responses are interpreted in Figure 4.

28

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage

4.1.1.4. Training and coaching to update knowledge and encourage organisational learning.

Figure 4. Respondents' beliefs on the importance of training and coaching to update knowledge and encourage organisational learning.

The results suggest that the majority of respondents, 54.62%, moderately agree that training and coaching is a crucial factor to update knowledge and foster organisational learning in the MSTV. However, the general feeling is that this factor is less important for employees than the previous factors since 16.81% of the participants selected the option strongly agree. It is also notorious that more than 25% of the sample neither agree nor disagree and even 3.35% moderately disagree with this factor, which, reflect that they are not sure that training and coaching is the best option for organisational learning in the MSTV.

The next graph finds out whether reflection and self-assessment is judged as an important factor for organisational learning in the MSTV.

29

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percentage

4.1.1.5. Reflection and self-assessment to strengthen individual and organisational learning.

Figure 5. Respondents' beliefs on the importance of reflection and self-assessment to strengthen individual and organisational learning.

Regarding reflection and self-assessment, the tendency of participants was choosing the option moderately agree, with 52.94%, which, means that they believe that reflection and self-assessment do encourage organisational learning, even if a big portion of them neither agree nor disagree (31.09%) and only a small portion of employees were inclined to say that they strongly agree, 12.61% and just 3.36% moderately disagree, so the extremes in this case were not the rule. The following analysis evaluates what employees think about discussions and meetings to stimulate organisational learning.

30

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percentage

4.1.1.6. Discussions and meetings to stimulate organisational learning.

Figure 6. Respondents' beliefs on the importance of discussions and meetings to stimulate organisational learning.

The percentages suggest that the influence of discussions and meetings in the organisational learning process of the MSTV is not crucial. In fact, it seems an ineffective way to change organisational structures because most of the respondents neither agree nor disagree with this assertion, 53.78%. On the other hand, just 8.4% strongly agree and 17.65% moderately agree that discussions and meetings are a critical factor for learning in the organisation. Thus, discussions and meetings are not considered decisive for improving learning in the MSTV.

The final analysis of this section refers to the possibility of incorporating new learning to the politics of the organisation to renew the organisational structure of the MSTV and Figure 7 presents the results.

31

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percentage

4.1.1.7. Incorporation of new learning to the structure of the organisation.

Figure 7. Respondents' beliefs on the importance of incorporating new learning to the organisational structure to foster organisational learning.

The preceding results highlight that 51.26% of the respondents neither agree nor disagree with the importance of this factor to foster organisational learning, and basically, they showed a negative appreciation because 26.89% moderately disagree with this option and even, 6.72% strongly disagree. Nevertheless, 15.12% demonstrate agreement (strongly agree or moderately agree) with this factor for promoting organisational learning.

Now, it will be explained the findings associated to the factors that hinder organisational learning in the MSTV and the results are described in detail as follows:

32

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither disagree nor agree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percentage

4.1.2. Factors that Hinder Organisational Learning in the MSTV.

The factors that hinder organisational learning in the MSTV according to the participants of the survey were the following, ranked by importance:

4.1.2.1. Punishment for mistakes at work.

Figure 8. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of punishing mistakes at work as a limitation for organisational learning.

Punishment for mistakes at work is the main factor that hinders organisational learning in the MSTV as 69.75% of participants strongly agree with this assertion and 23.52% moderately agree. On the contrary, 6.72% neither agree nor disagree with this factor as a limitation for organisational learning. Therefore, this was the most influential factor discouraging organisational learning in this study.

The next graph focuses on the position of participants regarding the effects of bureaucracy preventing organisational learning.

33

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage

4.1.2.2. Complex procedures regarding bureaucracy.

Figure 9. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of bureaucracy as a limitation for organisational learning.

The data shows that 77.31% of respondents strongly agree that bureaucracy is a factor that severely limits the possibility of creating a learning environment in the MSTV. On the other side, 15% of participants moderately agree with this factor as a limitation for organisational learning and only 7.56% consider that they do not agree nor disagree, showing lack of decision about it. Therefore, similar to punishment at work, the complex procedures regarding bureaucracy prevent organisational learning, which makes the efforts for learning unsuccessful.

Next, the following figure analyses the answers about the lack of public information for creating new knowledge in the MSTV and the results are shown as follows:

34

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percentage

4.1.2.3. Lack of public information about the knowledge previously gained by the organisation.

Figure 10. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of lack of public information as a limitation for organisational learning.

The above figure indicates that the participants agree that the lack of public information in the organisation prevents the possibility of creation of new knowledge as 64.71% moderately agree with this factor. Nevertheless, the intensity of the feeling is not as strong as the previous factors since just 4.2% strongly agree with this choice and a significant portion of employees neither agree nor disagree, 20.17%, and 10.92% of the participants is against this statement.

The subsequent graph contains the opinions of the participants regarding competitive relationships between departments and their opinions are presented in Figure 11.

35

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage

4.1.2.4. Competitive relationships between departments.

Figure 11. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of competitive relationships between departments as a limitation for organisational learning.

The data analysis of the beliefs of respondents about the competitive relationships between departments show that the majority moderately agree with this factor that hinders organisational learning, specifically, 48.74% of employees. The second most important consideration derived from the question is the option neither agree nor disagree, which, comprises more than 30% of the preferences of employees and this demonstrates that participants are not entirely sure about this factor, but, in general terms, the respondents are inclined to agree that this factor hinders organisational learning in the MSTV.

36

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Percentage

Now, the figure below studies the opinions of participants in relation to conflicts between managers and employees.

4.1.2.5. Conflicts between managers and employees.

Figure 12. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of conflicts between managers and employees as a limitation for organisational learning.

The results provide insights about the perspectives of the employees in this issue. In fact, they clearly disagree that this factor is hindering organisational learning in the MSTV due to the high percentage that strongly disagree and moderately disagree, 8.4% and 33.61%, respectively. Thus, the majority of participants disagree with different levels of intensity with this statement and another portion neither agree nor disagree, 37.82%, and just a

37

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percentage

minority, moderately agree or strongly agree, 13.45% and 6.72%, respectively. Thus, this factor is discarded as a limitation of the organisational learning processes of the MSTV.

To continue the analysis, the coming graph states the views of the respondents about the effect of prioritising political activities over learning activities.

4.1.2.6. Prioritisation of political activities over learning activities.

Figure 13. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of the prioritisation of political activities over learning actions as a limitation for organisational learning.

The data suggests that this factor does not represent an obstruction for organisational learning in the MSTV. Indeed, respondents are not sure about the influence of political activities over learning activities because 61.34% of the participants of the survey neither agree nor disagree with the influence of this factor as a limitation for organisational learning in the MSTV. As a matter of fact, only a minority of respondents felt agreement with this factor, 5.04% strongly agree and 22.69% moderately agree.

38

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage

At last, Figure 14 shows the attitudes of employees about the role of selfishness and competitive relationships between employees.

4.1.2.7. Selfishness and competitive relationships between employees.

Figure 14. Respondents' beliefs on the effect of selfishness and competitive relationships between employees as a limitation for organisational learning.

The above figure demonstrates that selfishness is the least important factor for most of the employees and just 0.84% considered this option as a major limitation for organisational learning. In a similar manner, 15.13% of participants moderately agree with this factor, although, the vast majority of responses were inclined to the option moderately disagree with 34.45%. So, selfishness and competitiveness among employees does not seem to be a fundamental factor preventing organisational learning.

39

Strongly disagree

Moderately disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Moderately agree

Strongly agree

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percentage

After the interpretation of the findings, the next point focuses on discussing the implications of the results for the MSTV and its employees.

4.3. Discussion of the Findings.

The aim of the discussion section is to explore the meaning of the results and their impact in the MSTV, examining in more detail the perceptions of the participants regarding the selected factors that foster and hinder organisational learning. Moreover, taking into account the observations made by participants in the open-ended question, their explanations will be quoted in the text to show their positions about the subject and complement the results.

Succinctly, the dominant factors that were discovered in the study is that a cordial environment, rewarding individual learning and keeping indicators to measure progress do foster organisational learning and, on the opposite side, punishing mistakes at work, complex procedures due to bureaucracy and lack of public information hinder organisational learning in the MSTV.

Factors that foster organisational learning

Factors that hinder organisational learning

1. A Cordial environment that promotes trust in each other to foster debates and new ideas.

Punishment for mistakes at work.

2. Rewarding individual learning to promote organisational learning.

Complex procedures regarding bureaucracy that prevents organisational learning.

3. Keeping indicators of performance to measure individual and organisational learning.

Lack of public information about the knowledge previously gained by the organisation.

Table 3. Summary of the factors that foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV.

In detail, the synthesised scores of each factor that foster organisational learning in the MSTV, combining the answers that show agreement (moderately agree or strongly agree) are displayed as follows to deepen in the perceptions of employees:

40

Figure 15. Respondents' beliefs on the factors that foster organisational learning.

The huge majority of participants, 95.8%, recognise that maintaining a cordial environment fosters organisational learning in the MSTV as it was previously stated. Indeed, this opinion of employees makes completely sense since a learning organisation is characterised by a collaborative atmosphere, which, involves “doing the right thing […] giving people hope, increasing satisfaction in the workplace, generating creativity and idea sharing, levelling vertical hierarchies, and augmenting participation” (Singh, 2016: 37). In consequence, the factor selected by the employees of the MSTV as the most determinant is in harmony with the literature of organisational learning.

The second most appreciated factor chose by respondents was rewarding and recognising individual learning with 83.19% of agreement, which, is consistent with the idea that “individual performance can be transformed into organizational performance by connecting with organizational process performance” through rewards (Hsiao, 2011: 734). Additionally, rewarding positive actions of employees, “build feelings of confidence and satisfaction” and foster commitment (Al Kalbani, 2015: 86).

Thirdly, keeping indicators of performance was a highly regarded factor by respondents because measuring the progress in this subject was important for 81.52 % of employees, which is advisable for proving and improving the learning gained in organisations (Kirwan, 2013).

Lastly, offering continuous training and coaching was also highly appreciated as a catalyst of organisational learning with 71.43% of agreement, which is congruent with the idea that continuing learning supports organisations dealing with the rapid emergence of new information (Dragomir, 2016).

But, like rewarding individual learning, it is needed to transfer “individual knowledge within a group so that all members develop a shared understanding” (Barba et al, 2014: 162).

41

Incorporating new learning

Discussions and meetings

Reflection and self-assessment

Training and coaching

Indicators of performance

Rewards for learning

Cordial environment

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage

On the other hand, factors like reflections and self-assessment (34.45%), discussions and meetings (26.05%) and incorporating new learning to the politics of the MSTV (15.12%); were disregarded as fundamental for organisational learning in the MSTV. In the light of the low agreement of employees with these factors for promoting organisational learning, it is pertinent to mention that according to their observations, the problem were not the factors, but the impossibility of including new knowledge in the structure of the organisation. This is due to the obstruction of bureaucracy and is this regard, it was commented that the “rigorous bureaucracy is obstructing any plan of changing the organisational structure”. As a matter of fact, “it is almost impossible to incorporate new learning in the organisation with so many strict rules and senseless procedures” and “it takes the approval of many managers to include a single innovation in the managerial domain”. Thus, these factors under different conditions would have had higher percentages of agreement since analysing learning in organisational contexts require to comprehend the personal, working and cultural aspects that prevail in the working environment (Ali et al, 2002, as cited in Fassio and Rutty, 2017).

Simultaneously, the factors that hinder organisational learning in the MSTV combining the results that show agreement are presented in Figure 16.

Figure 16. Respondents' beliefs on the factors that hinder organisational learning.

42

Selfishness between employees

Conflicts managers vs employees

Priorisation of political activities

Competition between departments

Lack of public information

Complex procedures due to bureaucracy

Punishment for mistakes

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage

The most important factors that hinder organisational learning in the MSTV according to its employees is punishment for mistakes at work with 93.28% of agreement, which, is consonant with the idea that putting barriers to risk-taking activities reduce the willingness to provide new ideas (Canaan and El-Kassar, 2013). Incidentally, Al Kalbani (2015) criticises the idea that the role of the employees is just performing the tasks assigned by senior managers, who, are the only capable of taking decisions with no consequences, while employees can be disciplined for mistakes at work.

Equivalent to punishment for mistakes at work, bureaucracy procedures that prevent the incorporation of new learning in the organisation was selected by 92.44% of participants as a factor that hinders organisational learning. In attention to this finding, it is critical to remember that organisations are structured as bureaucracies “designed to follow rules”, but forgetting innovation in the sake of “stability” impedes change (Klemsdal, 2013: 40). Furthermore, bureaucracy can limit change, making adjustments in the organisational structure as a consequence of a political or economic emergency, while, ideally, change should be controlled, well-organised and an open possibility at every moment (Buono and Kerber, 2010, as cited in Fassio and Rutty, 2017).

To expand understanding in this matter, two observations were made, “it is really hard to incorporate new learning in the organisational structure due to the bureaucratic structure. The MSTV is too slow to keep the pace of change” and “we spend long hours in meetings to make proposals and these proposals take years of evaluation before been seen by the minister”. So, the effect of bureaucracy in the organisation is strongly highlighted by respondents.

Later, in the preference of respondents is the lack of public information with 68.91% of agreement, which suggest, likely, discomfort with the internal competition in the organisation that keep information undisclosed when “groups are expected to work and learn together” because cooperation between colleagues is important in all organisations (Kirwan, 2013: 75) and all organisations should develop a fluent dialogue between “top management and subordinates”, between departments (leaders and followers), “as well as between peers” to increase the learning potential (Al Kalbani, 2015:13-14).

Related to the previous factor, the fourth choice was competition between departments with 57.14% of agreement. Considering this, a strong competition is clearly a risk for organisational learning because competition increases the “levels of aggression in those seeking to win at all costs, withholding information” (Bloodgood and Turnley, 2012, as cited in Naidoo and Sutherland, 2016: 77). So, at first, internal competition intensifies motivation, but later, it produces withholding of information among other problems, and according to the observations of employees, “there is a fierce competition between departments and no one is disclosing information to stand out over us”. By the way, factors such as lack of public information and competition between departments had a similar evaluation and it is interesting to note that they are intrinsically related since lack of information, according to the observations of respondents, is caused by competition between departments and without competition, there would be more information.

On the other hand, factors like prioritisation of political activities over organisational activities, conflicts between managers and employees and selfishness between employees scored less than 50% in the preferences of the employees, showing that these factors definitely do not interfere with the organisational learning processes of the MSTV.

43

4.4. Chapter Summary.

Chapter 4 introduced the findings of the study and the most important factors for stimulating organisational learning in the MSTV as well as the factors that are obstructing organisational learning. The results indicated that maintaining a cordial environment at work, rewarding the learning process and having indicators of performance to measure learning are the most favourable factors to foster organisational learning in the MSTV. In addition, the factors that hinder organisational learning were punishment for mistakes at work, maintaining a hermetic bureaucracy and finally, the lack of information of knowledge previously gained.

Subsequently, the next chapter presents the conclusions of the research, exploring the implications of theory and practice of organisational learning, suggesting recommendations, highlighting limitations, offering suggestions for future studies, among other subjects.

CHAPTER 5:CONCLUSIONS.

44

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS.

The present chapter synthesises the concluding notes of the study, particularly, it summarises all information of the research such as the review of all chapters and objectives in order to check if they were achieved. It also reviews the discussions and findings, recommendations to further discuss the effects of the results for the organisation, future research possibilities, limitations and finally, reflections about the research process and implications of the findings in the MSTV.

5.1. Research Summary and Findings.

Initially, in chapter 1, it was presented the research question and objectives to formulate the direction of the study with a brief introduction to the topic, showing the main theories of organisational learning and then, introducing the research question and its objectives.

Sequentially, the chapter dedicated to the literature review discussed the definitions of learning to provide the foundations of organisational learning, displaying the principal concepts of organisational learning, the limitations and strengths of learning as a precise concept and learning in the organisational context. On the other side, the literature review reinforced what scholars have consistently affirmed that organisational learning and learning organisations are influential terms in the modern business and management world, which, is concerned about educating and training workers as an imposition of the contemporary society (Dragomir, 2016). Although, the concepts reflect that consensus have not been achieved about how to define organisational learning because of the multiple terms utilised in diverse areas of knowledge, which, produce confusion between

45

students, academicians and researchers. That is why, there are classical viewpoints in the subject as guides, such as the ones from writers like Argyris, Schon and Senge, who, are cited as seminal literature and their definitions are the foundation of the subsequent concepts. Furthermore, it was discussed that organisational learning literature has several critiques since definitions do not provide good results to all kind of organisations. Thus, the literature has shown that theory and practice of organisational learning should be treated carefully to provide direction to research.

Simultaneously, in chapter 3, it was discussed the methodological aspects of the study to understand how the results were obtained. In particular, it was commented the research philosophy of the study, focusing on the ontological and epistemological position of the research with their strengths and limitations. Equally important, it was examined the research approach, discussing the details of deductive research and its strengths and limitations. The next point discussed was the research design, in which, it was treated the nature of quantitative research and its differences in comparison to qualitative research. Closely related to the research design, it was explained the research strategy, exploring the administration of the questionnaire, the population and sample size, besides, it was debated the strengths and limitations of the survey technique in scientific research. Lastly, it was explained how the data was interpreted, the reliability and validity of the research, the time horizon of the study and especially, the ethics of the research to make sure that all the data will be preserved and kept secret.

Finally, chapter 4 reviewed the data obtained through the survey, interpreting the findings and their meaning for the organisation. In detail, the results and subsequent analysis demonstrated that the main factors that foster organisational learning in the MSTV were the following:

► A Cordial environment that promotes trust in each other to foster debates and new ideas.

► Rewarding individual learning to promote organisational learning.

► Keeping indicators of performance to measure individual and organisational learning.

On the other hand, the three more relevant factors that limit the organisational learning in the MSTV were the following:

► Punishment for mistakes at work.

► Complex procedures regarding bureaucracy that prevents organisational learning.

► Lack of public information about the knowledge previously gained by the organisation.

In conclusion, chapter 4 identified the importance of organisational learning towards the modern organisation, reinforcing the ideas highlighted by scholars that organisational learning requires appropriate learning conditions to be possible. Furthermore, it linked the results of the research to organisational learning theory because the most notorious

46

factors highlighted by respondents are, indeed, the “key characteristics of a learning organisation”, such as “a good reward system”, teamwork, good sources and distribution of information, good leadership and relationships between leaders and followers, training and personal development, etc (Al Kalbani, 2015: 251).

The following part of this chapter will assess whether the research question was answered and the objectives of the research were accomplished.

5.2. Answering the Research Question and Achievement of Objectives.

The second section of the conclusion chapter aims to evaluate whether the research question was answered and objectives were achieved based on the findings of the questionnaire. In essence, it validates the complete research project, checking one by one the four objectives established in the introduction.

Singularly, the research question was the following:

What factors foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV?

And taking into account the results obtained, it can be said that the research question was successfully answered with the results shown in chapter 4, in which, it was established the specific factors that foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV.

Now, it is necessary to check whether the objectives were achieved to conclude the study adequately.

Objective 1. To state the most accepted organisational learning factors according to the employees of the MSTV.

Objective 1 aimed to determine the most important factors in organisational learning from the perspective of the employees of the MSTV, and according to the findings, it was remarked that maintaining a friendly atmosphere that promotes trust in each other fortify organisational learning. Besides, rewarding learning and utilising indicators were also important factors that favour organisational learning.

In such a way, the first objective of the research has been successfully completed.

Objective 2. To determine the factors that hinder organisational learning according to the employees of the MSTV.

As the first objective of the research focused on corroborating the factors that favour organisational learning in the MSTV, this second objective was based on assessing the factors that limit organisational learning in the MSTV. Thus, the study results indicate that the main factors that prevent organisational learning are punishment for errors in the organisational environment, maintaining strict bureaucratic processes that impede the inclusion of new knowledge and the lack of information of the previous knowledge gained by the organisation.

Therefore, the completion of objective 2 was successful as the main barriers of organisational learning of the MSTV were identified.

47

Objective 3. To investigate alternatives factors to encourage organisational learning in the MSTV.

The third objective of the study was also achieved as some participants expressed their opinions in the observation section of the questionnaire, mentioning that managers should be trained in organisational learning to ensure learning in the whole organisation. However, it is worth mentioning that this was the unique new proposal to integrate in the possible factors to foster organisational learning because respondents utilised the last question of the questionnaire to make observations.

Thus, it can be affirmed that the third objective of the study has also been achieved.

Objective 4. To justify the implementation of new organisational learning politics in the MSTV.

Regarding the last objective of the research, the findings of the study justify the revision of the organisational policies in the MSTV and even, the implementation of new ones since many participants showed the need to encourage some factors as well as to avoid the influence of some others factors. Thus, the study will serve to scientifically justify changes in the organisational learning politics of the MSTV.

As a result, this objective has been successfully fulfilled.

In summary, all objectives were achieved and, hopefully, they will serve to improve organisational learning in the MSTV.

The next point to discuss will be the recommendations to improve the managerial processes from the results presented in the data analysis chapter.

5.3. Recommendations.

After evaluating the achievement of the objectives of the study, the following paragraphs provide recommendations and more insights about the research to encourage the implementation of measures that lead to the generation of more practical information of organisational learning in the MSTV. In consequence, this section provides critical recommendations directly related to topics of the research in order to stimulate new ideas that can be adopted by any organisation from the findings of this study.

Thus, based in the findings, the recommendations are summarised as follows:

► For organisational learning to take place, it is recommended to make sure that the conditions are appropriate as direct learning “occurs through trial and error” (Tortorella and Fogliatto, 2014: 4625). So, it is necessary to assure a cordial environment with trust among employees, in which, is possible to produce new ideas and innovate with few limitations and it can be accomplished through the promotion of good interpersonal relationship, social spaces to generate trust in each other and clear rules to foster respect of the ideas of individuals (Guinot et al, 2016).

48

► In order to develop more learning conditions in the organisation, it is suggested to implement policies of rewards and recognition for individual and team learning. This would enhance the efforts of employees in personal and group learning and these rewards would encourage individuals to perform at their best and it may be exercised financially or by non-financial manners (Tortorella and Fogliatto, 2014).

► To measure the degeneration or evolution of organisational learning with the utilisation of monthly, biannual and annual indicators of performance to evaluate learning constantly and improve the learning strategies or factors that underscore in the evaluation. In fact, indicators are fundamental to measure learning practices and organisational culture evolution (Tortorella and Fogliatto, 2014).

► For increasing the learning capabilities, it would be beneficial to permanently train and coach managers and employees, individually and collectively; strengthening organisational learning and updating knowledge since training and coaching increase learning capabilities and stimulate individuals to be committed to the organisation (Kotter, 1996).

► To foster reflection over the learning gained by improving and implementing instruments of reflection and self-assessment of employees and managers because “the process of reflection is one of the driving forces of bottom up organisational learning” (Knipfer et al, 2013: 31).

► For sharing the knowledge gained and promote group learning, it is recommended to establish a schedule of meetings to discuss the learnings obtained. However, meetings should have clear objectives and learning goals, otherwise, it would be considered by employees as a wasted effort of wandering with no organisational learning goals. As a matter of fact, meetings in organisations intended to increase learning should have a clear goal for managers and followers in order to be successful (Al Kalbani, 2015).

► To incorporate new learning into the organisational structure, it is suggested to reduce bureaucratic obstacles and listen to the proposals of employees because bureaucracy means setting the organisation in a defensive position regarding reforms, in which, there is no the “identification of the principle of group responsibility” (Klemsdal, 2013: 50-51).

► To eliminate risk factors that could hinder organisational learning, it is advised to reduce at a minimum the punishment for mistakes at innovating because it is a major disadvantage for organisational learning. In this regard, managers and employees, who, punish mistakes at work should be re-trained to gain more managerial skills and manage this organisational facts appropriately. Actually, “leaders and followers alike may work together to learn about the requirements for a learning organisation, and to learn from other experiences and successful stories in the field” (Al Kalbani, 2015: 256).

► To increase the learning capacity of the MSTV, it would be beneficial to encourage the public use of the information obtained since prior knowledge encourages future research. This can be done through digital shared folders in the website of the MSTV, in which, employees upload their relevant documents for all because, in the long term, shared knowledge is embedded in the organisational processes, so the learning is not lost when individuals leave the organisation (Tortorella and Fogliatto, 2014).

49

► For gaining specific managerial skills, it is proposed to train the leaders of the MSTV in organisational learning. It would strengthen their skills in the subject as they are strategic individuals in the organisation and they can promote the culture of the organisation to interested groups and make changes possible (Hsiao, 2011).

► To stimulate individual and organisational learning by empowering employees through task delegation and fortifying leadership skills of employees due to the fact that when individuals are involved in the decision making-process, they feel stimulated and taken into account, besides, decentralising responsibilities promote changes in the whole organisation (Marsick and Watkins, 2003).

In a few words, there are many components to include in the organisational learning politics of the MSTV and implementing these recommendations would support this process of improvement.

Now, the coming subdivision will state a series of observations to successfully carry out further studies in this subject.

5.4. Further Research.

In order to complement the processes evaluated in the sections above, this part focuses on the proposals for future studies on organisational learning in the MSTV and organisations of analogous characteristics. In this sense, it would be possible to continue this line of research and offer solutions adapted to the realities of the business and management contexts of modern organisations.

Briefly, the proposals are summarised as follows:

► A series of further studies would document the trends of organisational learning and increase the potential decisions and strategies in this subject. So, other proposal should evaluate organisational learning over time with longitudinal analysis, in which, the changes are assessed in months and years, not days or weeks.

► Other studies might utilise a mix of quantitative and qualitative analysis in order to deepen in the organisational learning issues in a qualitative way and listening to the explanations of participants to add meanings to the data just offered. Additionally, various research strategies can be used to collect data that corroborate the information from other points of view, for instance, utilising focus groups, interviews, Delphi method, among others.

► In future studies, the sample might include more organisations of comparable attributes, public or private. Even, it would also support further studies to reproduce the objectives of the research in organisations of different sizes.

► It would be important to raise new questionnaires with different questions that cover other areas of organisational learning or even, other associated theories like knowledge management and organisational culture.

► Future researchers interested in organisational learning could focus their studies on specific segments like senior managers or middle managers to compare the perception of

50

these populations with the points of views of employees. Similarly, the comparison between departments would also be convenient as it would help to extract interesting conclusions of the diverse preferences of all the departments of the MSTV.

► To fortify the results, it would be pertinent to increase the population in further studies as the findings would be considered more generalisable.

► Future research could focus on specific factors already remarked as important in the present study to expand the knowledge in that area. For example, one of the most important findings of the study was that bureaucracy prevents organisational learning and a future study could focus on studying how to transform a bureaucratic organisation into an adaptive learning organisation.

► As learning is a very complex psychological subject and national cultures influence on perceptions when learning, it could be interesting to develop studies on the effects of the Venezuelan national culture and organisational learning since organisational learning is closely associated to cultural facts and individual behaviours (Tortorella and Fogliatto, 2014).

► Comparable to the previous suggestion, it would be beneficial to study the organisational culture and structure because they can be “obstacles” for learning (Ozlem, 2012, as cited in Elshafie, 2016: 90). Thus, discovering the beliefs hidden in the organisational culture can enhance the understanding of the organisation and change the beliefs that prevent the MSTV to be a completely learning organisation.

Succinctly, there are multiple possibilities for further studies of organisational learning in the MSTV to give new directions, approaches and combinations of knowledge in this subject.

Following this, the subsequent section is dedicated to establish the limitations of the research, emphasising on the areas and knowledge that were not included in the study.

5.5. Limitations.

In particular, the goal of this subdivision is to determine the limitations of the research because as any other research, it has limitations. Thus, it will be provided the shortcomings of the study, although, these limitations have not affected the results of the research because it only remarks the limitations that were directly associated to the study, not addressing issues that were not among the objectives of the research. So, the discussion is restricted to topics already stated in the research problem under investigation as limitations can be numerous.

In short, the limitations detected are the following:

5.5.1. Study Design Limitations.

► The study did not include activities, in which, were included tacit or flexible knowledge because of the difficulty of obtaining scientific data about non-formal activities utilising quantitative methodology.

51

► Another limitation is that the questionnaires were delivered in Spanish, not in English because the native language of the participants of the survey is Spanish.

5.5.2. Statistical or Data Limitations.

► The statistical results were guided by basic descriptive statistics and a wider statistical analysis would deliver a new vision to the research since only the frequencies were taken into account to show the percentages of the preferences of respondents. Other descriptive statistics measurements were not incorporated in the data analysis, but presented in the appendices due to the difficulty of associating the percentages with the values of the mean or mode.

► It would have been complicated to use a bigger sample size because not all departments are knowledgeable in organisational learning and the utilisation of participants who do not know what organisational learning is, would affect the results of the study.

5.5.3. Impact Limitations.

► The research was done in a few weeks and it did not considered longitudinal analysis to measure and assess possible changes over time. Thus, it is needed further studies over time to obtain more data.

► Given the nature of this study, the work was limited to a single case study and therefore, it is limited in its applicability. Moreover, it would be interesting to do the same study in organisations, which, competition is stronger.

In summary, the research comprises limitations associated to the impact of the research, its statistics and the study design, in which, there were highlighted shortcomings such as the language barrier to surpass when administering the survey, the difficulties of utilising a bigger population or the limitation of time to obtain more generalisable results.

The last segment of chapter 5 presents the final words and thoughts about the process of research, and especially, the learnings obtained after the completion of the study.

5.6. Reflections.

As mentioned above, the last section of the research is designed to reflect on the research process and findings, illustrating the learning gained after the completion of the study.

5.6.1. Reflections about the Research Process.

In the first place, it is valuable to mention that the entire research process was an exercise of reflection and learning, of trial and error and correcting mistakes as learning was increasing every time a chapter was reformulated. To exemplify this point, when writing the conclusions, it was noticed that many tasks could have been done differently, for instance, if it were known that bureaucratic processes had such an influence limiting the insertion of new knowledge in the organisational structure, it would have been evaluated this factor under a different point of view, trying to solve this problem, which, is now a concern for

52

future studies in the MSTV. Simultaneously, other factors like the prioritisation of political activities over organisational learning activities, conflicts between managers and employees and the selfishness of employees as factors that hinder organisational learning in the MSTV, would have been omitted or written differently as they were not critical elements limiting organisational learning according to respondents.

On another subject, this research have produced more questions to answer after the analysis of the results such as to what extent does individual learning ability influence organisational learning? Are only these factors what influence organisational learning in the MSTV? Is it possible to obtain different findings under diverse economic, social and political contexts? Among other questions.

Additionally, in the theoretical sphere, it was realised that organisational learning is, indeed, an elusive term with many definitions, but in the end, it makes reference to a process of learning from mistakes to improve through reflection. Also, it was learned how to be more critical and not just describe theories, but show that they are just perceptions of some writers and not the ultimate truth.

Furthermore, the research process was also challenging methodologically. Regarding this, it is noteworthy that the research strategy was selected of a quantitative nature on purpose to increase knowledge in this methodology and practice this way of researching.

Finally, as a retrospective reflection, some aspects of the research should have been done differently like further discussing with experts if all the factors selected were really as important as they said or crafting more the questionnaire to facilitate the validation process.

In short, it has been a challenging process but satisfactory, theoretically and methodologically, in which, the knowledge in the matter of organisational learning has been deepened as well as the methodological skills.

5.6.2. Reflections about the Findings.

Due to a hostile socio-economic environment, the learning capacity of the organisation has been severely reduced because of employees leaving the organisation, and at the same time, the bureaucratic conditions of the MSTV were hardened to survive in unstable times. However, in challenging times is when organisational learning is needed the most and evidence has demonstrated that organisational learning is a necessity in the MSTV.

Also, as a consequence of this unstable environment, the factors that foster and hinder organisational learning in the MSTV might change dramatically in the medium term, leaving this findings out of date since the external context that affects the country, (and therefore, the MSTV) is characterised by instability (Derham, 2015) and the external environment of organisations plays an important role in defining the potentiality of individuals and organisations to learn (Ingham, 2015). For instance, a very static and unchallenging context does not promote learning in the personal, group nor organisational level; on the contrary, in extremely complex situations, it is hard to stimulate organisational learning (Ingham, 2015) and the MSTV have been historically influenced by these kind of extreme external circumstances.

53

Surprisingly, there was no previous research about organisational learning in the aforementioned organisation, which made the findings of this study innovative and appropriate for the current circumstances of the organisation. Therefore, it is expected that the findings of the study will be taken into account for a strategic learning plan that outlines how organisational learning domains can help to accomplish performance goals in the MSTV.

But, in the end, the main catalyst of learning is the will to learn, the impulse to improve the own capabilities, and organisational learning is harder than individual learning as it is required the will to learn of numerous individuals. Just in the right conditions organisational leaning is likely to occur and it will not happen without a plan. Thus, the implementation of new learning routines cannot be inserted into an organisation without examining its unique configuration, the relevant knowledge, skills of the stakeholders, beliefs, etc; and this research is a significant step to start the examination of the specific circumstances of the MSTV.

To summarise, this research has been an important personal and professional learning process to better understand organisational life regarding learning and also, it has signified a methodological training to carry out the research in a critical and scientific manner.

As final words and to associate the personal and professional learning gained with organisational learning, it is crucial to remember that organisational learning, and learning in general, is not an “isolated occurrence”, but an “ongoing process of continual improvement and reflection” (Lawler and Silitoe, 2013: 495).

54

LIST OF REFERENCES.

55

LIST OF REFERENCES.

Abualqumboz, M. (2014) Challenges to Interorganisational learning in learning networks: implications for practice. Doctoral thesis. University of Manchester.

Adams, J. Raeside, R. & Khan, H. (2014) Research Methods for Business and Social Science Students. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.

Akhnif, E. Macq, J. Fakhreddine, M. Meessen, B. & Idrissi Fakhreddine, M. (2017) Scoping literature review on the Learning Organisation concept as applied to the health system. Health Research Policy & Systems. Vol. 15. pp. 1-12.

Alavi, S. Abd, D. Muhamad, N. & Arbab, B. (2014) Organic structure and organisational learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility. International Journal of Production Research. Vol. 52 (21) pp. 6273-6295.

Al Kalbani, M. (2015) Leadership and followership practices in learning organisations: a case study of Abu Dhabi education council. PHD thesis. Lancaster University.

Argote, L. (2015) An Opportunity for Mutual Learning between Organizational Learning and Global Strategy Researchers: Transactive Memory Systems. Global Strategy Journal. Vol. 5 (2) pp. 198-203.

Argyris, C. (1977) Double-loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review. Online at: https://hbr.org/1977/09/double-loop-learning-in-organizations [Accessed: 24 th December 2016].

56

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

Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 69 (3) pp. 4-15.

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1996) Organizational Learning : Theory, Method, Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C. (1999) On organizational learning. 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Press.

Balsam, P. (2014) The functions of context in learning and performance, in Balsam, P. & Tomie, A. (eds) Context and learning. 2nd edition. NY, USA: Psychology Press.

Barba, M. Jiménez, D. & Sanz, R. (2014) Article: Training and performance. The mediating role of organizational learning. Cuadernos de Economía Y Dirección de la Empresa. Vol. 17 pp. 161-173.

Barnham, C. (2015) Quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Market Research. Vol. 57 (6) pp. 837-854.

Bell, E. & Bryman, A. (2007) The Ethics of Management Research: An Exploratory Content Analysis. British Journal of Management. Vol. 18 (1) pp. 63-77.

Berends, H. Boersma, K. & Weggeman, M. (2003) The structuration of organizational learning. Human Relations. Vol. 56. pp. 1035-1056.

Bryman, A. (2008) Social research methods. 3rd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods. 3rd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Bunea, A. Dinu, G. & Popescu, D. (2016) The Perspective of Change as an Organizational Learning Factor. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies. Vol. 7 (1) pp. 83-88.

Canaan, L. & El-Kassar, A. (2013) Identifying organizational climate affecting learning organizations. Business Studies Journal. Vol. 5 (1) pp. 19-28.

Castañeda, D. (2015) Artículo: Condiciones para el aprendizaje organizacional. Estudios Gerenciales. Vol. 31. pp. 62-67.

Chan, C. & Scott-Ladd, B. (2004) Organisational Learning: Some Considerations for Human Resource Practitioners. Asia Pacific Journal / Human Resources. Vol. 42 (3) pp. 336-347.

Chien, C. Lin, H. & Ya-Hui, B. (2015) Capability contingent: the impact of organisational learning styles on innovation performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. Vol. 26 (1) pp. 14-28.

57

Clegg, S. Kornberger, M. & Pitsis, T. (2011) Managing & Organizations an Introduction to Theory & Practice. 3rd edition. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Collin, K. Sintonen, T. Paloniemi, S. & Auvinen, T. (2011) Work, power and learning in a risk filled occupation. Management Learning. Vol. 42 (3) pp. 301-318.

David, M. & Sutton, C. (2011) Social Research: An Introduction. 2nd edition. London, UK: Sage.

Derham, M. (2015) Party-System Collapse: The Roots of Crisis in Peru and Venezuela. Bulletin of Latin American Research. Vol. 2. pp. 270.

Desai, V. (2015) Learning through the distribution of failures within an organization: evidence from heart bypass surgery performance. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 58 (4) pp. 1032-1050.

Dodgson, M. (1993) Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures. Organizational Studies. Vol. 14 (3) pp. 375-94.

Dragomir, C. (2016) Continuing learning and learning organizations in contemporary society. significant aspects in Romania. Review of General Management. Vol. 24 (2) pp. 12-21.

Easterby-Smith, M. Thorpe, R. & Lowe, A. (1997) Management research: An introduction. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Ellis, S. Margalit, D. & Segev, E. (2012) Effects of Organizational Learning Mechanisms on Organizational Performance and Shared Mental Models during Planned Change. Knowledge & Process Management. Vol. 19 (2) pp. 91-102.

Elshafie, E. (2016) Towards a Learning Organization: Case Study of King Saud University. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning. pp. 89-99.

Fassio, A. & Rutty, M. (2017) Hacia la identificación de dimensiones relevantes relacionadas con el aprendizaje organizacional. Revista Trilogía. Vol. 9 (16) pp. 85-99.

Fermín, F. Chiva, R. Alegre, J. Renau, J. & Guinot-Reinders, J. (2014) Organic Structure and Organisational Learning Capability: An Empirical Study into Organisations Excelling in Human Resourse Management, in Fernández, A. Ferreras, J. Alegre, J. & Chiva, R. (eds) Shedding New Lights On Organisational Learning, Knowledge And Capabilities. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Fillion, G. Koffi, V. & Ekionea, J. (2015) Peter Senge's learning organization: a critical view and the addition of some new concepts to actualize theory and practice. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict. Vol. 19 (3) pp. 73-102.

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

58

Friedman, V. Lipshitz, R. & Popper, M. (2005) The Mystification of Organizational Learning. Journal of Management Inquiry. Vol. 14 (1) pp. 19-30.

García, J. Maldonado, A. Alvarado, A. & Rivera, D. (2014) Human Critical Success Factors for Kaizen and its Impacts in Industrial Performance. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. Vol. 70. pp. 2187–2198.

Garvin, D. (1993) Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. Online at: https://hbr.org/1993/07/building-a-learning-organization [Accessed: 02nd January 2017].

Garvin, D. Amy, C. Edmondson, A. & Gino, F. (2008) Is Yours a Learning Organization? Harvard Business Review. Online at: https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization [Accessed: 02nd January 2017].

Ghaznavi, M. Toulson, P. Perry, M. & Logan, K. (2013) Organisational Learning and Problem Solving Through Cross-firm Networking of Professionals. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning. pp. 177-185.

Gino, F. & Staats, B. (2015) Why Organizations Don’t Learn. Harvard Business Review. Online at: https://hbr.org/2015/11/why-organizations-dont-learn [Accessed: 02nd January 2017].

Givel, Y. (2014) What are the right skills? An investigation of an organisation’s journey towards becoming a learning organisation, and the skills that help leaders to create the conditions and structures characteristic of a learning organisation. Doctoral thesis University of Leicester.

Greenwood, M. (2016) Approving or Improving Research Ethics in Management Journals. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 137 (3) pp. 507-520.

Guinot, J. Chiva, R. & Mallén, F. (2016) Linking Altruism and Organizational Learning Capability: A Study from Excellent Human Resources Management Organizations in Spain. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 138 (2) pp. 349-364.

Hedberg, B. (1981) How Organizations Learn and Unlearn, in Nystrom, P. & Starbuck, W. (eds) Handbook of Organizational Design. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Hess, E. (2014) Learn or Die: Using Science to Build a Leading-Edge Learning Organization. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hsiao, L. (2011) Key successful factors of learning organizations in Kaoshiung City Government. Pakistan Journal of Statistics. Vol. 27 (5) pp. 733-740.

Ingham, M. (2015) L'apprentissage organisationnel dans les coopérations. Revue Française de Gestion. Vol. 41 (253) pp. 55-81.

Kareem, J. (2016) The Influence of Leadership in Building a Learning Organization. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 15 (1) pp. 7-18.

59

Kitapçi, H. & Çömez, P. (2016) The effect of innovation and organizational learning on firm performance: an empirical study in quality oriented firms. C lear International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management. Vol. 7 (3) pp. 28-34.

Kirwan, C. (2013) Making Sense of Organizational Learning: Putting Theory into Practice , Farnham: Routledge.

Klemsdal, L. (2013) From Bureaucracy to Learning Organization: Critical Minimum Specification Design as Space for Sensemaking. Systemic Practice & Action Research. Vol. 26 (1) pp. 39-52.

Klinge, C. (2015) A Conceptual Framework for Mentoring in a Learning Organization. Adult Learning. Vol. 26 (4) pp. 160-166.

Knipfer, K. Kump, B. Wessel, D. & Cress, U. (2013) Reflection as a catalyst for organisational learning. Studies in Continuing Education. Vol.35 (1) pp. 30-48.

Koenig, G. (2015) L'apprentissage organisationnel. Revue Française de Gestion. Vol. 41 (253) pp. 83-95.

Kotter, J. (1996) Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kummerow, E. Ying, L. & Kirby, N. (2014) Organisational Culture: Concept, Context, and Measurement (In Two Volumes). New Jersey: World Scientific.

Lawler, A. & Sillitoe, J. (2013) Facilitating organisational learning in a learning institution. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management. Vol. 35 (5) pp. 495-500.

Leonard, D. (2015) Why Organizations Need to Make Learning Hard. Harvard Business Review. Online at: https://hbr.org/2015/11/why-organizations-need-to-make-learning-hard [Accessed: 15th March 2017].

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

Lopez, S. Peon, J. & Ordas, C. (2006) Human resource management as a determining factor in organizational learning. Management Learning. Vol. 37 (2) pp. 215-239.

Mahmood, S. Qadeer, F. & Ahmad, A. (2015) The Role of Organizational Learning in Understanding Relationship between Total Quality Management and Organizational Performance. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences. Vol. 9 (1) pp. 282-302.

Marsick, V. & Watkins, K. (2003) Demonstrating the Value of an organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources. Vol. 5 (2): 132–151.

Naidoo, S. & Sutherland, M. (2016) A management dilemma: Positioning employees for internal competition versus internal collaboration. Is coopetition possible? South African Journal of Business Management. Vol. 47 (1) pp. 75-87.

60

Namgyoo, K. Kira, C. & Jinju, L. (2015) The Hierarchy Myopia of Organizational Learning. Seoul Journal of Business. Vol. 21 (2) pp. 71-104.

Nicolini, D. Gherardi, S. & Yanow, D. (2003) Introduction: Toward a Practice-Based View of Knowing and Learning in Organizations, in Nicolini, D. Gherardi, S. & Yanow, D. (eds.) Knowing in Organizations: A Practice Based Approach. London, UK: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.

Nyhan, B. Cressey, P. Tomassini, M. Kelleher, M. & Poell, R. (2004) European perspectives on the learning organisation. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol. 28 (1) pp. 67-92.

Oxford University (2011) The Oxford concise dictionary. 12th edition. Oxford University Press.

Petiz, S. Ramos, F. & Roseiro, P. (2015) The Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Organizational Learning Practices: A Research Study in an Innovation-oriented Portuguese Organization. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning. Vol. 8 (1) pp. 4-11.

Ramalingam, A. (2016) Content Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of the Gujarati Version of the Central Sensitization Inventory. National Journal of Integrated Research in Medicine. Vol. 7. (5) pp. 18-24.

Salleh, K. & Ching Choo, H. (2011) Learning Organisation, Knowledge Management Process and Organisational Performance: Empirical Evidence From a Public University. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning. pp. 485-493.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) Research Methods for Business Students. 6th

Edition. London, UK: Pearson.

Sekaran, U. (2003) Research Methods for Business: A Skills Building Approach. 4th

Edition. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Senge, P. (2006) The Fifth Discipline-The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Revised Edition. New York, NY: Doubleday Dell.

Senge, P. Kleiner, A. Roberts, C. Ross, R. Roth, G. & Smith, B. (2014) The Dance of Change. The Challenges to Sustaining the Momentum in Learning Organizations. New York, USA: Doubleday.

Singh, E. (2016) Learning organization and its impact on organizational effectiveness: a literature review. Clear International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management. Vol. 7 (6) pp. 37-39.

61

Siriwardena, M. (2015) Organisational learning in construction: a framework from the process improvement perspective. Ph.D Thesis. University of Salford.

Škerlavaj, M. Su, C. & Huang, M. (2013) The moderating effects of national culture on the development of organisational learning culture: A multilevel study across seven countries. Journal for East European Management Studies. Vol. 18 (1) pp. 97-134.

Stelmaszczyk, M. (2016) Relationship between individual and organizational learning: Mediating role of team learning. Journal of Economics & Management. Vol 26 (4) pp. 107-12.

Swierczek, A. (2016) Matching organizational learning of supply chains with the environmental conditions. Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI). pp. 1-11.

Teare, R. & O’Hern, J. (2000) Challenges for service leaders: setting the agenda for the virtual organization. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Vol. 12 (2) pp. 97-106.

Tortorella, G. & Fogliatto, F. (2014) Method for assessing human resources management practices and organisational learning factors in a company under lean manufacturing implementation. International Journal of Production Research. Vol. 52 (15) pp. 4623-4645.

Tortorella, G. Marodin, G. Fogliatto, F. & Miorando, R. (2015) Learning organisation and human resources management practices: an exploratory research in medium-sized enterprises undergoing a lean implementation. International Journal of Production Research. Vol. 53 (13) pp. 3989-4000.

Tsang, E. (1997) Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research. Human Relations. Handbook of Organizational Design. Vol. 50. pp. 73-89.

Visser, M. (2007) Deutero-Learning in Organizations: A Review and a Reformulation. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 32 (2) pp. 659-667.

Yates, J. & Leggett, T. (2016) Qualitative Research: An Introduction. Radiologic Technology. Vol. 88 (2) pp. 225-231.

62

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

63

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Ahmadi, A. Daryani, S. & Bevrani, H. (2014) Evaluation of Organizational Learning Process Based on Marquardt Model. Case study: Municipality of Noor city, Iran. International Journal of Management & Innovation. Vol. 6 (1) pp. 56-66.

Ali, Z. & Bhaskar, S. (2016) Basic statistical tools in research and data analysis. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. Vol. 60 (9) pp. 54-61.

Berends, H. & Antonacopoulou, E. (2014) Time and Organizational Learning: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol. 16 (4). pp. 437-453.

Beyene, K. Shi, C. & Wu, W. (2016) The impact of innovation strategy on organizational learning and innovation performance: do firm size and ownership type make a difference? South African Journal of Industrial Engineering. Vol. 27 (1) pp. 125-136.

Bigenho, C. (2017) Becoming a learning organization. Independent School. Vol. 76 (3) pp. 62.

Brunsdon, C. (2016) Quantitative methods I. Progress In Human Geography. Vol. 40 (5) pp. 687-696.

Bunea, A. Dinu, G. & Popescu, D. (2016) The Perspective of Change as an Organizational Learning Factor. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies. Vol. 7 (1) pp. 83-88.

64

Campbell, D. & Cowton, C. (2015) Method issues in business ethics research: finding credible answers to questions that matter. Business Ethics: A European Review. Vol. 24. pp. S3-S10.

Causholli, M. (2016) Evidence of Organizational Learning and Organizational Forgetting from Financial Statement Audits. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. Vol. 35 (2) pp. 53-72.

Dararat, S. & Taechamaneestit, T. (2015) Organization development toward learning organization in a private university. International Journal of Cyber Society & Education. Vol. 8 (1) pp. 19-29.

Edmondson, A. (2011) Strategies for Learning from Failure. Harvard Business Review. Online at: https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure [Accessed: 02 January 2017].

Ferincz, A. (2016) Adaptation and change in organizational learning research. Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review. Vol. 47 (5) pp. 53-63.

Gotsis, G. & Kortezi, Z. (2010) Ethical Considerations in Organizational Politics: Expanding the Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 93. pp. 497-517.

Hotho, J. Lyles, M. & Easterby-Smith, M. (2015) The Mutual Impact of Global Strategy and Organizational Learning: Current Themes and Future Directions. Global Strategy Journal. Vol. 5 (2) pp. 85-112.

Kitapçi, H. & Çömez, P. (2016) The effect of innovation and organizational learning on firm performance: an empirical study in quality oriented firms. Clear International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management. Vol. 7 (3) pp. 28-34.

Kopf, D. Hsu, M. Shows, G. & Albinsson, P. (2016) Quantitative versus Qualitative Research Methods. Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings. pp. 470.

Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2012) The leadership challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations. 5th edition. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Ludwig, R. & Johnston, J. (2016) How to Build a Quantitative Research Project. Radiologic Technology. Vol. 87 (6) pp. 713-715.

Mahler, J. & Casamayou, M. (2009) Organizational Learning at NASA: The Challenger and Columbia Accidents. Washington, USA: Georgetown University Press.

Mahmood, S. Qadeer, F. & Ahmad, A. (2015) The Role of Organizational Learning in Understanding Relationship between Total Quality Management and Organizational Performance. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social Sciences. Vol. 9 (1) pp. 282-302.

McLeod, M. Payne, G. & Evert, R. (2016) Organizational Ethics Research: A Systematic Review of Methods and Analytical Techniques. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 134 (3) pp. 429-443.

65

Mena, J. & Chabowski, B. (2015) The role of organizational learning in stakeholder marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Vol. 43 (4) pp. 429-452.

Myreteg, G. (2015) Organizational Learning and ERP Systems in the postimplementation phase: Where do we Stand? A Literature Review. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation. Vol. 18 (2) pp. 119-128.

Northouse, P. (2013) Leadership: theory and practice. 6th edition. USA: SAGE Publications.

Onen, D. (2016) Appropriate Conceptualisation: The Foundation of Any Solid Quantitative Research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. Vol. 14 (1) pp. 28-38.

Romano, G. (2017) Apprentissage organisationnel et transfert des concepts liés aux écocités vers la Chine. Perspectives Chinoises. Vol. 1. pp. 39-46.

Sarantakos, S. (2013) Social Research. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schein, E. (2010) Organizational culture and leadership. 4th edition. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Seidle, R. (2015) Organisational learning sequences in technological innovation: evidence from the biopharmaceutical and medical device sectors. International Journal of Innovation Management. Vol. 19 (3) pp. 1.

Singh, K. (2007) Quantitative Social Research Methods. Los Angeles, USA: Sage Publications.

Swierczek, A. (2016) Matching organizational learning of supply chains with the environmental conditions. Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI). pp. 1-11.

Uğurlu, Ö. & Kurt, M. (2016) The Impact of Organizational Learning Capability on Product Innovation Performance: Evidence from the Turkish Manufacturing Sector. EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal. Vol. 6 (1) pp. 69-84.

66

APPENDICES

67

APPENDICES.

Appendix A – Questionnaire (English Version).

Please answer the following questionnaire, indicating the extent you agree or disagree with every statement about the MSTV. Select your response by filling the circle that corresponds to your opinion.

FACTORS THAT FOSTER ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING IN THE MSTV.

Strongly Disagree

Moderately Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Moderately Agree

Strongly Agree

1. In the MSTV, discussing errors collectively in meetings to learn from them stimulate organisational learning.

O O O O O

2. In the MSTV, rewarding and recognising individual learning promotes organisational learning.

O O O O O

3. In the MSTV, training and coaching update knowledge and foster individual and organisational learning.

O O O O O

4. In the MSTV, indicators of performance are important to assess individual and organisational learning.

O O O O O

5. In the MSTV, completing self-assessment questionnaires to evaluate individual learning facilitates the organisational learning process.

O O O O O

6. In the MSTV, a cordial environment with trust in each other favours collective learning.

O O O O O

7. In the MSTV, it is possible to incorporate new learning to the organisation politics and structure.

O O O O O

FACTORS THAT HINDER ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING IN THE MSTV.

8. In the MSTV, punishing employees for their mistakes obstruct O O O O O

68

the individual and organisational learning process.

9. In the MSTV, the lack of public information about the knowledge previously gained hinders the production of new knowledge.

O O O O O

10. In the MSTV, bureaucracy is a barrier for change and new learning is not reflected in the organisational structure.

O O O O O

11. In the MSTV, relationship conflicts between managers and employees block learning and leaders do not act on the recommendations received.

O O O O O

12. In the MSTV, competitive relationships between departments prevents collective learning as information and achievements are kept undisclosed.

O O O O O

13. In the MSTV, political issues prevails over learning strategies. O O O O O

14. In the MSTV, employees and managers act in their own self-interest.

O O O O O

15. IS THERE ANY OBSERVATION OR ALTERNATIVE TACTIC FOR ENCOURAGING ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING IN THE MSTV THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED BEFORE?

Thank you for participating in this research.

Appendix B – Questionnaire (Spanish Version).

Por favor, conteste el siguiente cuestionario, expresando su nivel de acuerdo o desacuerdo con cada una de las afirmaciones sobre el MPPEUCT. Seleccione su respuesta rellenando el círculo que corresponda a su opinión.

FACTORES QUE FOMENTAN EL APRENDIZAJE ORGANIZACIONAL EN EL MPPEUCT.

Muy en desacuerdo

En desacuerdo

Ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo

De acuerdo

Totalmente de acuerdo

1. En el MPPEUCT, discutir los errores colectivamente para aprender de ellos y aportar observaciones favorece el aprendizaje grupal.

O O O O O

2. En el MPPEUCT, recompensar y reconocer el aprendizaje individual y organizacional fomenta la innovación.

O O O O O

3. En el MPPEUCT, la capacitación frecuente facilita el aprendizaje individual y organizacional.

O O O O O

4. En el MPPEUCT, el uso de indicadores de desempeño ayuda a evaluar el aprendizaje. individual y organizacional.

O O O O O

5. En el MPPEUCT, completar cuestionarios de auto-evaluación para medir el propio aprendizaje simplifica el aprendizaje individual y grupal.

O O O O O

6. En el MPPEUCT, un ambiente cordial y de confianza entre empleados mejora el aprendizaje colectivo.

O O O O O

7. En el MPPEUCT, es posible reformular las políticas y procedimientos organizacionales para incorporar nuevos aprendizajes.

O O O O O

FACTORES QUE DIFICULTAN EL APRENDIZAJE ORGANIZACIONAL EN EL MPPEUCT.

69

8. En el MPPEUCT, castigar a los empleados por sus errores impide el aprendizaje individual y colectivo.

O O O O O

9. En el MPPEUCT, la información y los aprendizajes no se comparten abiertamente con todos los empleados.

O O O O O

10. En el MPPEUCT, la burocracia es una barrera para el cambio y los nuevos aprendizajes no se reflejan en la estructura organizativa.

O O O O O

11. En el MPPEUCT, los conflictos entre gerentes y empleados bloquean el aprendizaje y los líderes no actúan sobre las recomendaciones recibidas.

O O O O O

12. En el MPPEUCT, las relaciones competitivas entre departamentos impiden el aprendizaje colectivo a medida que la información y los logros no son revelados.

O O O O O

13. En el MPPEUCT, las cuestiones políticas prevalecen sobre las estrategias de aprendizaje.

O O O O O

14. En el MPPEUCT, los empleados y los gerentes actúan en su propio interés.

O O O O O

15. ¿TIENE ALGUNA OBSERVACIÓN O CONOCE DE ALGUNA TÁCTICA ALTERNATIVA PARA INCENTIVAR EL APRENDIZAJE ORGANIZACIONAL EN EL MPPEUCT QUE NO HA SIDO APLICADA ANTES?

Muchas gracias por participar en esta investigación.

Appendix C – Consent Form (English Version).

Participation Consent Form

Please indicate your agreement with each of the statements below. (You can delete sections which do not apply, or with your do not agree).

YES NO

1I have read the Research Information Sheet written by Mario Samuel Camacho and have been provided with a copy to keep.

2I have had the opportunity to ask Mario Samuel Camacho questions about this case study.

3

I consent to participating in this research interview according to the information and principles described in the Research Information Sheet.

70

4

I understand I have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without giving a reason, and that all information I have given will be destroyed.

5I understand that the interviews will be recorded to aid transcription and accuracy.

6

I understand that my identity will be protected by treating the information I provide anonymously, and it will be used by Mario Samuel Camacho for the purpose of writing a report on the research project.

7

I understand that the information I provide will be kept securely, and will not be revealed to any other party, and will be destroyed at the conclusion of the project.

8

I understand that if I have any questions or concerns about how this research is being conducted, I can contact the independent person named in the Research Information Sheet.

DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE/S

Signed Date

Appendix D – Consent Form (Spanish Version).

Formulario de Consentimiento de Participación

Por favor indique su acuerdo o desacuerdo con cada una de las afirmaciones que se presentan a continuación (Usted puede eliminar las secciones que no aplican).

SÍ NO

1

He leído la hoja de información de investigación escrita por Mario Samuel Camacho y he recibido una copia para conservarla.

2He tenido la oportunidad de hacerle preguntas a Mario Samuel Camacho sobre este estudio de caso.

71

3Consiento en participar en esta entrevista de acuerdo con la información y los principios descritos en la hoja de información.

4

Entiendo que tengo la posibilidad de abandonar el estudio sin mayor explicación y que toda la información que he dado será destruida.

5Entiendo que las entrevistas serán grabadas para ayudar a la transcripción y la exactitud.

6

Entiendo que mi identidad será protegida tratando la información que proveo anónimamente, y será utilizada por Mario Samuel Camacho con el propósito de escribir un informe sobre el proyecto de investigación.

7

Entiendo que la información que proveo se mantendrá segura y no será revelada a ninguna otra parte y será destruida al final del proyecto.

8

Entiendo que si tengo alguna pregunta o inquietud sobre cómo se está llevando a cabo esta investigación, puedo contactar a la persona mencionada en la hoja de información.

DECLARACIÓN Y FIRMA

Firma Fecha

Appendix E – Statistics Results.

VALUE

Strongly agree 5

Moderately agree 4

Neither agree nor disagree 3

Moderately disagree 2

Strongly disagree 1

1. Factors that foster organisational learning in the MSTV.

A Cordial environment that promotes trust in each other to

Frequency % Mean Mode Standard deviation

Minimum Maximum

72

foster debates and new ideas

Strongly agree 80 67.23 4,63 5 0,57 3 5

Moderately agree 34 28.57Neither agree nor disagree 5 4.2

Moderately disagree 0 0Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

Rewarding individual learning to promote organisational learning

Frequency % Mean ModeStandard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 71 59.66 4,43 5 0,77 3 5

Moderately agree 28 23.53Neither agree nor disagree 20 16.81

Moderately disagree 0 0Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

Keeping indicators of performance to measure

individual and organisational learning

Frequency % Mean ModeStandard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 15 12.61 3,84 4 0,83 1 1

Moderately agree 82 68.91Neither agree nor disagree 16 13.45

Moderately disagree 0 0Strongly disagree 6 5.04

Total 119 100

Reflection and self-assessment to strengthen individual and

organisational learningFrequency % Mean Mode

Standard deviation

Minimum Maximum

73

Strongly agree 15 12.61 3,75 4 0,72 2 5

Moderately agree 63 52.94Neither agree nor disagree 37 31.09

Moderately disagree 4 3.36Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

Training and coaching to update knowledge and encourage

organisational learningFrequency % Mean Mode

Standard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 20 16.81 3,85 4 0,73 2 5

Moderately agree 65 54.62Neither agree nor disagree 30 25.21

Moderately disagree 4 3.36Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

Discussions and meetings to stimulate organisational learning

Frequency % Mean ModeStandard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 10 8.4 3,14 3 0,84 2 5

Moderately agree 21 17.65Neither agree nor disagree 64 53.78

Moderately disagree 24 20.17Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

The possibility of incorporating new learning to the

organisation's structureFrequency % Mean Mode

Standard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 9 7.56 2,82 3 0,94 1 5

74

Moderately agree 9 7.56Neither agree nor disagree 61 51.26

Moderately disagree 32 26.89Strongly disagree 8 6.72

Total 119 100

2. Factors that hinder organisational learning in the MSTV.

Punishment for mistakes at work

Frequency % Mean ModeStandard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 83 69.75 4,63 5 0,61 3 5

Moderately agree 28 23.53Neither agree nor disagree 8 6.72

Moderately disagree 0 0Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

Complex procedures regarding bureaucracy that prevents

innovationFrequency % Mean Mode

Standard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 92 77.31 4,7 5 0,6 3 5

Moderately agree 18 15.13Neither agree nor disagree 9 7.56

75

Moderately disagree 0 0Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

Lack of public information about the knowledge previously gained by the organisation

Frequency % Mean ModeStandard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 5 4.2 3,62 4 0,74 2 5

Moderately agree 77 64.71Neither agree nor disagree 24 20.17

Moderately disagree 13 10.92Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

Competitive relationships between departments

Frequency % Mean ModeStandard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 10 8.4 3.57 4 0.77 2 5

Moderately agree 58 48.74Neither agree nor disagree 41 34.45

Moderately disagree 10 8.4Strongly disagree 0 0

Total 119 100

Conflicts between managers and employees

Frequency % Mean ModeStandard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 8 6.72 2,76 3 1,01 1 5

Moderately agree 16 13.45Neither agree nor disagree 45 37.82

Moderately disagree 40 33.61Strongly disagree 10 8.4

76

Total 119 100

Prioritisation of political activities over learning actions

Frequency % Mean ModeStandard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 6 5.04 3.18 3 0.8 1 5

Moderately agree 27 22.69Neither agree nor disagree 73 61.34

Moderately disagree 8 6.72Strongly disagree 5 4.2

Total 119 100

Selfishness and competitive relationships between

employeesFrequency % Mean Mode

Standard deviation

Minimum Maximum

Strongly agree 1 0.84 2.39 2 1.02 1 5

Moderately agree 18 15.13Neither agree nor disagree 33 27.73

Moderately disagree 41 34.45Strongly disagree 26 21.85

Total 119 100

77

78