the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (dloq): a validation study in a korean context

The Dimensions of LearningOrganization Questionnaire(DLOQ): A Validation Study in a Korean Context

Ji Hoon Song, Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo, and Thomas J. Chermack

The purpose of this study is to assess the validity and reliability of themeasurement scores of the learning organization culture, the Dimensions ofLearning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ), in a Korean context. Atotal of 1,529 cases from 11 firms in two major Korean conglomerates wereanalyzed. Rigorous translation procedures, including both forward andbackward processes, have been applied to ensure the relevance of thisinstrumentation in different cultural contexts. As the results of confirma-tory factor analysis, simple item-internal consistency estimates, and itemintercorrelation analysis show, the Korean version of the DLOQ has pro-duced reliable measurement scores with a construct validity adequate tomeasure the learning organization culture in the Korean context.

To survive and thrive in a world characterized by turbulent change andfierce competition due to technological advancement and the knowledge-based economy (Dodgson, 1993; Kim & Mauborgne, 2005; Joo, 2007), anorganization must always be ready to adapt. Thus many organizations striveto have a learning organization culture of creating, acquiring, and transfer-ring knowledge and modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge andinsights (Garvin, 1993).

There has been growing awareness of the importance of individual knowl-edge, or human capital, created in an organization that plays a key role in

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 20, no. 1, Spring 2009 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.20007 43

Note: An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the 2008 annual conference of theAcademy of Human Resource Development in Panama City, Florida.

44 Song, Joo, Chermack

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

many functions (Drucker, 1992; Thurow, 2003; von Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka,2000). However, human capital cannot be created in a vacuum. The spark isindispensable, but without air there can be no flame. Likewise, human capitalis contingent on learning organization culture and organizational learningprocess. Without such a culture supporting learning in the organization, theefforts invested in individual learning and development would not producethe expected outcomes (Joo & Yang, 2007). Thus organizations have anincentive to create an environment conducive to high individual learningand development by encouraging organizational learning culture.

The concept of the learning organization culture and the organizationallearning process has received increasing attention in the fields of humanresource development (HRD) and organization development (OD). One ofthe most critical issues, however, has been the lack of practical and validatedmeasurement tools (Holton, Bates, & Ruona, 2000; Lim & Morris, 2006;Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004). As a matter of fact, little has been knownabout how to adequately measure the learning organization culture as a sup-portive system for organizational learning process until the dimensions oflearning organization questionnaire (DLOQ) came into being (Yang et al., 2004).For an instrument to be generalizable, it needs to be assessed in various cul-tural settings. There have been studies of the validation of the DLOQ in thecontexts of the United States, Colombia, China, and Taiwan (Ellinger,Ellinger, Yang & Howton, 2002; Hernandez, 2000; Lien, Hung, Yang, & Li, 2006;Yang et al., 2004; Zhang, Zhang, & Yang, 2004) to verify its applicability indifferent cultures.

Although Korea has little in terms of natural resources, it has the mostimportant resource: human capital. Thanks to human capital and investmentin education, Korea has achieved one of the highest rates of economic growth inthe world in the past several decades. However, to meet challenges such asglobalization, technology advancement, and the knowledge-based economy,learning at the individual level will not suffice. Thus the priority of most largeKorean companies has been on transforming organizational culture as well asthe individual performance management system. More specifically, since theearly 1990s a number of Korean organizations have competitively introducedthe concept of the learning organization as an ideal model that could allowcollaborative learning to occur continuously (Yoo, 2005).

Even though Korean companies have focused enormous effort onplanning and implementing various strategic choices to become learningorganizations, it has not been an easy task to measure how successful theprocess and the outcomes of their efforts have been. Organizational learningin the international context needs indigenous research, a type of design inwhich the researchers focus their attention on identifying and uncoveringunique organizational learning enhancing or restraining factors that areembedded in a non-Western context. This research is one such effort torespond to this issue. One of the most critical issues for Korean organizations

is to have culturally and systematically acceptable measurement tools to evaluatetheir status in the individual’s learning process, team-based approach, andsystem-related organizational structure. From this perspective, the DLOQwould be the suitable measurement tool to assess learning organization climateand organizational learning processes. As mentioned above, however, becauseorganizational learning theories and learning organization models are devel-oped primarily in Western cultures, there has been increasing need for validatedmeasurement of the learning organization culture in Korean context. Therehave been several studies using the DLOQ in the Korean culture ( Joo, 2007;Lim, 2003), but no such effort for validation of the DLOQ in the Koreancontext has been made. We believe this study can respond to the issue.

The purpose of this research is to assess the validity and applicability ofthe DLOQ in a Korean cultural context. In this way, survey questions are ableto measure the intended characteristics accurately and consistently given adifferent cultural context from that in which they may have been developed.Therefore, the research question for this inquiry was, Is the Dimensions ofLearning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) developed by Watkins andMarsick (1996) an appropriate measure of the learning organization climatein Korean business organizations?

Literature Review

To address the suggested research question, two realms of literature werereviewed: the concept of the learning organization and the distinction betweenlearning organization and organizational learning.

The Concept of Learning Organization. The concept of the learning orga-nization is an increasing area of interest in the fields of HRD, management, andeven school systems (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004; Marquardt, 1996, 2002;Wang, Yang, & McLean, 2007). Interest in the learning organization as thesource of organizational success and competitive advantage has been a strongfocus in these fields in past decades (Ellinger et al., 2002; Gilley & Maycunich,2000; Leonard, 1998; Tsang, 1997). Three efforts have been hailed as land-mark works on the learning organization: Organizational Learning: A Theory ofAction Perspective Reading (Argyris & Schön, 1978); The Fifth Discipline: The Art &Practice of the Learning Organization (Senge, 1990); and Sculpting the LearningOrganization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systematic Change (Watkins &Marsick, 1993).

Argyris and Schön (1977, 1978, 1996) proposed the concept of doubleloop learning and theories-in-use based on the reflective organizationallearning process. With regard to organizational learning, they stressed thesupremacy of collective learning and the continuous reflection process inorder to achieve high performance in an organization. The focus on thecontinuous and collaborative learning practice became the groundwork ofthe concept of the learning organization. In brief, it placed more emphasis

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) 45



on the process-oriented concept (organizational learning) that underpins thelearning practices that could occur in all the entities of an organization.

Senge (1990) modified the basic assumptions about the learning orga-nization by proposing a fifth discipline, consisting of five fundamental elementsfor the successful learning organization: (1) systems thinking, (2) personalmastery, (3) mental models, (4) shared vision, and (5) team learning. Senge(1990) defined the learning organization as the “organization that is continu-ously expanding its capacity to create its future” (p. 14). Furthermore, heinsisted that the learning organization is “where people could expand theircompetency to lead desirable results, where new and expansive patterns ofthinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and wherepeople are persistently learning how to learn together” (p. 3). In brief, theproposed five components are the basis of building a learning organization.

According to Watkins and Marsick (1993), the concept of the learningorganization could be explained as “one that learns continuously and trans-forms itself. . . Learning is a continuous, strategically used process—integratedwith and running parallel to work . . . Learning also enhanced organizationalcapacity for innovation and growth. The learning organization has embed-ded systems to capture and share learning” (p. 8). They focused more on thesystem approach regarding the workplace applications and supportiveenvironmental factors that promote persistent learning processes.

Three commonalities were drawn from the literature study: (1) the keyof the learning organization is the organizational learning process; (2) thebases of the successful learning organization are collective thinking, togeth-erness of people, and human competency; and (3) a learning organization isthe systematic environment in which continuous learning could take placeby way of connections with organizational components (e.g., Argyris & Schön,1996; Garvin, 1993, 2000; Leonard, 1998; Senge, 1990; Watkins & Marsick,1996). This study is theoretically based on Watkins and Marsick’s frameworkof the learning organization (1997), which will be elaborated later.

Learning Organization vs. Organizational Learning. In many cases, theterms learning organization and organizational learning are used interchangeably.However, we agree that there should be a distinction between the two concepts( Jensen, 2005). As various authors argued, “there is a growing dichotomybetween the two streams of research: the learning organization stream and theorganizational learning stream” (Huysman, 2000, p. 134).

Vera and Crossan (2005) defined organizational learning as the processof collective learning activities through shared thoughts and actions, whichis affected by the institutionalized climate on the basis of the integrativeanalysis of previous literatures of Argyris and Schön (1978) and Duncan andWeiss (1979). In contrast, Senge (1990) defined a learning organization as “aplace where people continually expand their capacity of creating results,where patterns of thinking are broadened and nurtured, where collectiveaspiration is free and where people are continually learning to learn” (p. 1).


Considering these perspectives, we view organizational learning as thecollaborative learning process of individuals, and the learning organizationas the nature and/or characteristics of organization that could promotecontinuous organizational learning process (Lahteenmaki, Toivonen, &Mattila, 2001). Organizational learning analyzes learning processes withoutpaying much attention to the outcomes; learning organization is mainlyprescriptive, linking to improvement (Huysman, 2000). Thus, whereas thelearning organization has to do with the contextual mechanism that trans-forms external knowledge into internal knowledge, organizational learning isall about learning processes that transform local or individual knowledgeinto collective knowledge (Huysman, 2000).

Marsick and Watkins (2003) argued that climate and cultural aspects arebuilt by complicated components, among them leadership, learning process,and other supportive systematic factors. To be more specific, the DLOQcontains seven dimensions of the positive nature and cultural aspects of asupportive learning organization, which encourage dynamic organizationallearning process at two levels: organizational structure and people’scollaborative learning. As for the theoretical framework of the DLOQ, itintegrates both concepts or streams: learning organization and organizationallearning. Regarding the subdimensions of the DLOQ, we believe thatcontinuous learning, system connection, and embedded systems are closelyassociated with contextual mechanism, which leads to learning organization,whereas dialogue and inquiry, team learning, empowerment, and strategicleadership are more related to organizational learning process. Therefore wesuggest that the DLOQ be a measure for learning organization culture, whichplays a pivotal role as an antecedent for many dependent variables of HRD.

Theoretical Framework

This study is based on Watkins and Marsick’s framework of learningorganization (1997): the Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaire.First, we review the development of the DLOQ. Then, the related empiricalstudies on the DLOQ in different cultural settings are described. Finally, wediscuss the need for this validated measurement tool for the learningorganization in the Korean cultural context.

The Development of the DLOQ. One of the most severe but commoncritiques of HRD practices is the lack of measures to assess applicationsempirically in the workplace (Holton, 1996, 2005; Holton et al., 2000; Tsang,1997; Yang et al., 2004). To date, numerous studies have been conducted toexamine the substantial concept of the learning organization. However, littleregard was given to how to measure the conceptualized learning organiza-tion in the workplace empirically until the 1990s.

The endeavors of Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996, 1997) are of greatimportance in constructing the basic notions of the measurement factors of




the learning organization. Their approach encompassed comprehensive com-ponents of the learning organization construct; in turn, in order to define theconstruct of the learning organization, Watkins and Marsick provided anintegrative concept of the learning organization based on three approaches:(1) for systems thinking, organizational generativity (Senge, 1990); (2) for alearning perspective, comprehensive aspects of learning (Pedler, Burgoyne, &Boydell, 1991); and (3) for strategic perspective, managerial practices(Garvin, 1993; Goh, 1998).

From a broader theoretical standpoint, Watkins and Marsick (1993,1996, 1997) proposed the DLOQ, a constructive concept of learningorganization measures that has seven dimensions of learning-related factors inboth people-oriented and structure-oriented components. The model of aneffective learning organization is considered one that has the capability tointegrate people and organizational structures in order to facilitate continuouslearning and encourage organizational changes (Yang et al., 2004). Throughintegration of the aforementioned dimensions of the learning organization,Watkins and Marsick (1997) proposed an integrated model. The specific sevendimensions of a learning organization culture are described here in Table 1.


Table 1. Watkins and Marsick’s Model (1997) of the Seven Dimensionsof the Learning Organization

Dimension Description

Continuous learning Opportunities for ongoing education and growth areprovided; learning is designed into work so that people canlearn on the job.

Inquiry and dialogue The organizational culture supports questioning, feedback,and experimentation; people gain productive reasoning skillsto express their views and the capacity to listen and inquireinto the views of others.

Team learning Work is designed to use teams to access different modes ofthinking; collaboration is valued by the culture and rewarded;teams are expected to learn by working together.

Embedded system Necessary systems to share learning are created, maintained,and integrated with work; employees have access to thesehigh- and low-technology systems.

Empowerment People are involved in setting and implementing a sharedvision; responsibility is distributed so that people aremotivated to learn what they are held accountable to do.

System connection The organization is linked to its communities; peopleunderstand the overall environment and use information toadjust work practices; people are helped to see the effect oftheir work on the entire organization.

Strategic leadership Leadership uses learning strategically for business results;leaders model, champion, and support learning.

The original version of the DLOQ consisted of 43 items to measure theseven dimensions; later on, throughout empirical validation of the instru-ments, Yang et al. (2004) refined the DLOQ and fabricated an abbreviatedversion of it, which consisted of 21 items that did not depreciate the originaltheoretical structure.

From the given approaches, through empirical validation procedures,the abbreviated version of the DLOQ has been assimilated as an instrumentapplicable to measuring the concept of the learning organization (Yang et al.,2004). Furthermore, to emphasize practical applications in actual organi-zation settings, 12 items have been added for measuring the level of perfor-mance improvement in both financial and knowledge domains. Consequently,an instrument that consists of seven dimensions of the learning organizationand two measures of performance improvement was developed in two forms(43 items and 21 items) and was named DLOQ: Dimensions of the LearningOrganization Questionnaires (Yang et al., 2004).

Validation Studies of the DLOQ. To date, several studies have been doneto examine the validity and reliability of measures of the learning organizationin several cultural contexts: the United States, Colombia, China, and Taiwan(Ellinger et al., 2002; Lien et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2004;Hernandez, 2000). The results of these studies have verified the applicabilityof the DLOQ in different cultures, providing internal consistency of each item’sreliability (coefficient alpha range from .71 to .91) and reliable factor structureof the dimensions of the learning organization (Lien et al., 2006).

Furthermore, several types of subjects have participated in researchwith the DLOQ, to address applicability to the overall organizational circums-tances that lend valid factor constructs of measures including leadership,organizational commitment, organizational creativity, job satisfaction, learn-ing transfer, and so on, in both educational and business settings, both profitand nonprofit (Hernandez, 2000; Joo, 2007; Lim, 2003; McHargue, 1999;Wang, 2005).

Table 2 summarizes the cross-cultural validation studies in terms of thescale reliability of the measurement items. The comparison of the iteminternal consistency estimates of cross-cultural studies revealed useful sug-gestions for further revision on the developing Korean version of the DLOQ.The reliability estimates for Team Learning (� � .78) and System Connec-tion (� � .79) were slightly lower than those in most of the previousstudies. Even though more careful examination of item-by-item analysis wasincluded, no particularly inadequate subitems were found. Those resultsmay be due to the differences of culture or contextual understanding of thetranslated questionnaires. However, those slightly lower coefficient estimatescould not decrease the overall reliability of the scales (� ranges from .74 to .84, and overall a � .95, respectively).

The Need for the Validated DLOQ in Korea. Since the early 1990s,Korean society has undergone enormous changes. Human resources (HR) is




one of the areas that have experienced dramatic change. For example, the tra-ditional HR system in Korea focused on cultivating long-term loyalty and orga-nizational attachment on the part of employees by providing job security andvarious seniority-based HR policies (Yu, Park, & Kim, 2001). However, glob-alization, fierce international competition, and economic distress—especiallythe 1997 international monetary fund (IMF) bailout—demanded more effi-cient and flexible human resources with lower labor costs. In such a situation,many organizations in Korea introduced so-called best practices to HR poli-cies, mainly based on the U.S. practices (Bae & Rowley, 2001). Since 1997, anumber of large organizations in the private sector have tried to promote var-ious change efforts such as downsizing, restructurings, mergers and acquisi-tions, changing business strategies, and cultural transformations. One of themwas the concept of the learning organization, which later transitioned intoknowledge management.

Korean companies eventually began to introduce more strategic applica-tions of the learning organization (Song, 2000; Yoo, 2005). Korean organi-zations had a critical need to catch up with global and innovative economictrends, specifically regarding the strategic implications of the learning organi-zation for practical continuous learning (Kim, 1997, 1998; Yoo, 2005).Furthermore, Korean organizations needed to learn how to link learningpractices with continuous performance improvement (Song, 1999, 2000).

Because Korean organizations have their own cultures and hierarchicaldecision-making structures, applications of numerous types of measurementtools in the Korean context without strict processes of validation have thepotential of producing negative side effects (Jang, Kim, & Kim, 2001; Sin, O, &Park, 1999; Song, 2000). Some even argued that application of learning


Table 2. Summary of the Scale Reliability Estimates of the Previous Validation Studies

Previous Studies

Korean Chinese Taiwan Latin U.S.

Zhang LienHernandez

Yang Ellingeret al. et al. et al. et al.

Dimensions of Current (2004) (2006) (2000) (2003) (2002)Learning Organization n � 1529 n � 477 n � 679 n � 906 n � 469 n � 208

Continuous Learning .74 .80 .72 .80 .79 .81Inquiry & Dialogue .80 .78 .89 .81 .85 .86Team Learning .78 .78 .86 .79 .84 .85Embedded System .76 .82 .71 .81 .80 .85Empowerment .78 .82 .75 .81 .75 .84System Connection .79 .84 .89 .80 .82 .87Providing Leadership .84 .85 .91 .84 .86 .89

organization approaches to many Korean organizations failed because of theabsence of culturally validated instruments and the unconditional introductionof Western best practices (Jang et al., 2001; Yoo, 2005). From an academicperspective, even though several studies on the concept of the learning orga-nization and application of the DLOQ have been conducted in Korea, only afew have resulted in structural validation processes to measure acceptabilityand applicability of the instruments in the Korean culture (Joo, 2007; Lim,2003).

This study can therefore contribute to the organizational learningresearch in Korea by examining the validity and reliability of the DLOQ aswell as the applicability of the instrument in a Korean cultural context. Webelieve that the results of this study will be beneficial for many Koreanorganizations in successfully applying learning organization strategies withstandardized measures of the learning organization characteristics.

Methods

In this section, we first describe sample and data collection procedures. Thenwe elaborate information about the instrument and translation procedure.Finally, we briefly discuss the analytical strategy.

Sample and Data Collection. We chose two Korean conglomerates thathave invested a huge amount of time and effort in the learning organizationand organizational learning. That is, the two are known as exemplary organi-zations for learning organizations in the Korean context, with a number of bestpractices. The two conglomerates have more than 20 subsidiaries, represent-ing diverse industries: electronics, telecommunication, IT solutions, construc-tion, heavy industry, oil and gas, chemical, international trading, insurance,and finance. Three among them were Fortune Global 500 companies.

We approached two senior managers in the HR headquarters andstrategic planning offices of each conglomerate. The managers suggested fiveand six subsidiaries for the sampling. Selection of the respondents was basedon the experience of learning organization interventions and the level ofunderstanding about the concept of learning organization cultural aspects of selected organizations. As alternative methods for data collection, Internet-and intranet-based surveys were used as well. As a result, approximately5,000 employees were randomly selected and received an invitation letter viacompany e-mail. Approximately 3,000 employees who indicated theirintention to participate received survey questionnaires. A total of 1,545participants finally served as voluntary participants. Through an appropriatedata screening process, 16 incomplete cases and extreme outliers weredeleted. Consequently, we collected 1,529 completed cases from 11 for-profit organizations. Therefore, the response rate was approximately 33%.

With regard to sample size, Kline (2005) suggested that determinationcould be considered on the basis of the ratio of cases to free parameters




(10:1 or, even better, 20:1). Bentler and Chou (1987) also suggested that thesample-to-parameters ratio for structural equation modeling should bebetween 5:1 and 10:1. Because the rate in this study was 73:1, which is wellover the guideline, there is no potential issue regarding the number ofparticipants. As a matter of fact, this study has the largest sample amongvalidation studies of the DLOQ. As for the missing data treatment, a completecase approach was used, based on listwise deletion (Hair, Black, Babin,Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Because this study has used a comparably largenumber of cases, a complete case approach could be acceptable, showinglittle bias of chi-square (Hair et al., 2006).

Regarding the sample frame, almost 87% were male, indicating mascu-line dominance in Korean organizations. In terms of position levels, approxi-mately 32% were senior managers or higher, almost 53% were middlemanagers, and the remaining 15% were nonmanagers. As for the type of jobor function, approximately 25% were in R&D functions, another 25% werein general or supporting management functions (which include planning,human resources, finance, and so forth), and 21% were in marketing andsales. In terms of the industry, approximately 62% were in electronic, IT, and communication-related areas; 18% were in finance and trading busi-nesses; and 17% were in oil and gas, chemical, and heavy industrial areas.We assume that this diversity of the collected data in terms of the positionsof the participants, functions of work, and types of business could grantgeneral reliability to the sample selection procedures.

Instrumentation. For the current research, the abbreviated 21-item DLOQwas validated in terms of item internal consistency and psychometric proper-ties of the constructs from the data collected in Korean for-profit organizations.The rationale for using the shortened version of the DLOQ came from theempirical literature in terms of the goodness-of-fit-index (Ellinger et al., 2002;Lien et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004). The seven dimensions of the DLOQ weremeasured with 21 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 � strongly disagree,5 � strongly agree).

The first version of the Korean DLOQ was translated using literal com-binations of two doctoral dissertations of Korean colleagues and one conferenceresearch article (Joo, 2007; Lim, 2003). The DLOQ (Watkins & Marsick,1997) has been adapted and translated into Korean through the four steps ofscrupulous translation: forward translation, assessment, backward translation,and assessment based on the criteria of clarity, common language, and culturaladequacy (Harkness, van de Vijver, & Mohler, 2003; Presser, Rothgeb, Couper,Lessler, Martin, & Singer, 2004).

More specifically, the translation process is as follows. First, to ensureface validity for the DLOQ within the Korean context, three experts (one practi-tioner and two academics) in the Korean HRD field reviewed the instrumentin English. These experts offered suggestions for refinement of statementsand for format of the survey instrument. In addition, to ensure validity in


the process of translation, the researcher had a bilingual expert translate thissection of the instrument and the instructions into Korean, and anotherbilingual expert translated it back into English to establish accurate transla-tion of the questionnaire. Differences were reviewed, and inappropriate Koreanwordings and translations were revised.

Data Analysis Technique. The primary concern of this research wasassessing the applicability of the DLOQ to the Korean cultural context.Whereas explorative factor analysis (EFA) is used to explore underlying fac-tors when there is little previous theoretical guidance for a domain of interest,confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to confirm or disconfirm a hypoth-esized factor structure of interest (Yang, 2005). Because a number of studieshave already used the DLOQ, this validation study is based on CFA and relia-bility tests as for the analysis techniques. As suggested by Hinkin (2005), fol-lowing the CFA descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities wereconducted. Data analyses were performed with SPSS 16.0 and LISREL 8.80.

First, a CFA was employed to examine validity and applicability of thehypothesized constructs of measurement in the Korean culture. According toKline (2005), “the technique of CFA analyzes a priori measurement modelsin which both the number of factors and their correspondence to theindicators are explicitly specified” (p. 71). Analysis of CFA is the appropriatemethod to validate the hypothesized measurement for three reasons: (1) measurement of the DLOQ has been developed on a theoretical basis; (2) it verifies the adequacy of the item-to-factor associations; and (3) itexamines the construct validity of theoretically proposed measurement (Hair et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004; Thompson, 2004; Thompson & Daniel, 1996).Second, to assess item internal consistency, zero-order correlation analysis andscale reliability tests were used. Item intercorrelation and Cronbach’s coefficientalpha estimations are the initial steps to examine the proposed items’ reliabilityin terms of internal consistency of the measures (Yang et al., 2004).

This study included perceptions of influence at several levels: organiza-tional, group, and individual. Thus, there can be a concern about what self-report responses on perceptions of the contextual characteristics reallymeasure. That is, one of the potential issues in this study is the unit of analysis.However, what matter are the perceptions themselves and their relation toorganizational learning and learning organization. Like much social scienceresearch, we believe the levels of analysis for some subdimensions in thisstudy can be justified in that it is the psychological meaning of environmentalevents that largely influences individual behavior (Amabile, 1996; Woodman,Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).

Results

To ensure that theoretical measurement of the learning organization is validand reliable in the Korean context, several analyses were conducted. In order




to underpin the given research purpose, several CFAs were conducted toexamine construct validity of the proposed measurement. In addition,various assumptions, among them normal distribution, general item internalconsistency, and item internal correlation, were positively identified.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis. To confirm the construct validity of the Korean version of the DLOQ, first CFA was used. To examine the level of thegoodness-of-fit of the specified measurement model, several measurementindices were interpreted. The absolute fit measures included chi-square (�2),the most fundamental absolute fit index, which is respectively sensitive to sam-ple size; Jöreskog & Sörbom’s goodness-of-fit index or GFI (2001), which isless sensitive to sample size; adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI), which tries totake into account differing degrees of model complexity (Hair et al., 2006);Jöreskog & Sörbom’s root mean square residual or RMR (2001), which mea-sures an average of the residuals between individual observed and estimatedcovariance and variance terms; and Steiger’s root mean square error of approx-imation (RMSEA; 1990), which represents the model fit in a population. Theincremental fit indices were Bentler’s comparative fit index or CFI (1990),which measures the degree of fit between the hypothesized and null measure-ment; and Bentler and Bonett’s nonnormed fit index or NNFI (1980), whichis the relative fit index that compares the model being tested to a null mea-surement.

The hypothesized measurement model of the DLOQ has sevendimensions consisting of 21 subitems, and in turn those seven dimensionsrepresent the single circumstance of the learning organization culture. From astatistical standpoint, this means that the DLOQ is a second-order factorstructure that contains two layers of latent construct (Hair et al., 2006). Thustwo separate simple CFA and a higher-order CFA were analyzed (see Table 3).


Table 3. Fit Indices for Measurement Models of the DLOQ

Current Zhang et al. Lien et al. Yang et al. Ellinger et al.Fit Indices study (2004) (2006) (2003) (2002)

�2(df) 920.13 (168) 632.57 (167) 830.21 (168) 2031.88(778)/ 328.54 (157)2746.29 (778)

RMSEA .054 .077 .076 .06/.08 .073RMR .023 .056 .042 .05/.06 .053GFI .95 .89 .89 .82/.75 .87AGFI .93 .85 .85 .79/.71 .81NNFI (TLI) .99 .85 .92 .87/.81 .91CFI .99 .88 .93 .88/.83 .94

Note: RMSEA � root mean square error of approximation; RMR � root mean square residual;GFI � goodness-of-fit index; AGFI � adjusted GFI; NNFI � nonnormed fit index; CFI � compara-tive fit index.

First, the chi square (x2 (1529) � 920.13/1189.85) of both CFAs wasstatistically significant (p � .001), confirming the lack of a close model fitwith the data. Nevertheless, these results were not pervasive in the currentresearch, because chi square analysis is sensitive to sample size (Hair et al.,2006; Yang et al., 2004). Holistic evaluation of the model fit of the measure-ment needs to consider other several model fit indices. Table 4 indicates thatthe Korean measurement model of the DLOQ demonstrated a better fit to the data in all indices, compared with the results in other studies.

Figure 1 shows the factor loadings as a result of CFA. For the first-orderCFA, all estimates of comparative fit indices (GFI, AGFI, CFI, NNFI) werewell above .93, indicating a statistically significant data-model fit. Further-more, in terms of the general model fit, a great portion of the covariance andvariance of the learning organization culture in the Korean context could berepresented by the proposed seven dimensions of the DLOQ (GFI � .95).Moreover, the small magnitude of residuals (RMR � .023, RMSEA � .054) alsoindicated an appropriate model-data fit. With regard to these fit statistics, moreevidence of construct validity in a Korean cultural context has been provided.

Thus, this research confirmed that the DLOQ produces a reliable andvalid measure in the Korean cultural setting and that the cultural differencesbetween the United States and Korea do not seem to affect accuracy orconsistency. The results of the higher-order CFA, furthermore, produced astatistically acceptable model fit (RMR � .026; RMSEA � .060; GFI � .93;CFI � .99) as well. These results hold that the seven dimensions of theDLOQ are a one-factor structure measuring the learning organization culturein the Korean context.

Finally, the factor loadings of each item on the seven dimensions lentsupplemental evidence of the measurement model fit of the DLOQ in theKorean context. All factor loadings of each item of the DLOQ on the sevendimensions were greater than .67. Thus these factor loadings also indicatethat the translated version of DLOQ is a valid and applicable measurementin the Korean context.

In addition, to improve the reliability of the previous CFA analysis, datawere categorized according to their demographic nature (participant’s position



Table 4. Assessment of Model Fit of the Hypothesized Measurement Models

Model df x2 x2/df RMR RMSEA GFI AGFI CFI NNFI

21 Items 168 920.13** 5.47 .023 0.54 .95 .93 .99 .997-Factors

7 Factors - 1 182 1189.85** 6.53 0.26 0.60 .93 .91 .99 .99Construct

Note: **p � .001.


and unit of business). Then separate CFA analyses were conducted. Thisapproach may increase a certain level of reliability of the construct validationof the DLOQ in the Korean context.

First of all, four models were tested according to the four levels ofparticipant position (nonmanager-level employees, associate and middlemanagers, senior managers, and executive managers). Based on the results ofseparate CFA analyses (see Table 5), regardless of participant position in theorganization, the DLOQ was found to be an applicable and valid concept interms of the construct validity.

Second, separate CFAs were considered to compare the model fit to data depending on type of business unit (see Table 6). Although all of the


Figure 1. Factor Loadings of the DLOQ

Help each other learn

Take time to support learning

Being rewarded for learning

Provide open feedback

Ask what others think

Spend time building trust

Have freedom to adapt goals

Act on our recommendations

Create measurement system

Make its lessons learned available

Measure the results of training

Recognize for taking initiative

Give people control over resource

Support calculated risk-taking

Encourage global perspectives

Provide mentoring/coaching

Provide opportunities to learn

Ensure the consistent actions

Work with outside/resources

Continuous Learning

Inquiry and Dialogue

Team Learning

EmbeddedSystem

Empower-ment

SystemConnection

StrategicLeadership

LearningOrganization

Culture

.70

.73

.69

.90

.91

.95

.94

.93

.89

.90

.76

.75

.76

.76

.67

.79

.72

.75

.67

.71

.77

.73

.74

.76

.74

.76

.82

.81

Encourage diverse perspectives

Revise thinking with information

models showed a fairly acceptable level of model fit to the data, IT andcommunication-related business units demonstrated a bit higher error variancein terms of the RMSEA and RMR. We suppose that this phenomenon couldresult from the independent nature of job characteristics of the IT-orientedemployees. However, further research is needed to investigate the specificcharacteristics of each business unit.

Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities. According to thecentral limit theorem, the collected data could be assumed to have a normallydistributed shape (Urdan, 2005). The collected 1,529 cases were larger thanany sample in other validation studies. Furthermore, the variance inflation factor (VIF) shows that there is no severe multicollinearity among the collec-ted data for the seven dimensions (VIF ranges from 2.43 to 2.98; Kutner,Nachtsheim, & Neter, 2004).

All of the correlation coefficients were statistically significant (p � .001).According to Yang et al. (2004), significantly correlated factors suggest thesatisfied convergent validity of the hypothesized measures, ranging from .59to .73. No extremely high correlation coefficients, which might result in theconstraints of factor discrimination, were found among the subfactors (Byrne,1998; Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005). In addition, Cronbach’s coefficientalphas were reasonably acceptable, ranging from .74 to .84 (see Table 7).According to those initial steps for examination of item reliabilities, theoverall reliability estimates were satisfactory (Yang et al., 2004).

In summary, according to separate CFA analyses from the nature ofdemographic information, the DLOQ is a fairly acceptable fit to the data and



Table 6. Comparison CFA Analyses by Different Types of Business Unit

Business Units df x2 x2/df RMR RMSEA GFI CFI

Electronic 168 452.60* 2.69 .027 .056 .93 .99Finance/Trading 168 358.81* 2.13 .023 .050 .93 .99IT/Communication 168 474.96* 2.82 .043 .089 .84 .97Heavy Industry-related 168 471.36* 2.8 .034 .074 .87 .98

Note: *p � .05.

Table 5. Comparison CFA Analyses by Different Levels of Work Position

Levels df x2 x2/df RMR RMSEA GFI CFI

Nonmanager 168 319.91* 1.9 .038 .074 .85 .98Middle Manager 168 345.67* 2.05 .027 .055 .91 .99Senior Manager 168 640.18* 3.81 .025 .059 .93 .99Executive Manager 168 334.41* 1.99 .033 .073 .85 .98

Note: *p � .05.


has construct validity in the Korean context. These results underpin overallapplicability of the Korean version of the DLOQ.

Discussion

The findings of this study and the implications for research and practice inthe field of HRD are discussed. Then we identify the limitations of this studyand make recommendations for future research. Finally, some conclusionsfollow.

Theoretical Implications. This study found that, in terms of rigor and rel-evance, the shortened 21-item DLOQ is an appropriate measure for learningorganization culture in Korean context. The theoretical implication is that thisis the first study validating the DLOQ in Korean context, integrating previousstudies. In addition, this research serves as evidence establishing further gen-eralizability and robustness for the DLOQ itself. From a theory developmentperspective, we also argue that this research contributes to the growing bodyof assessments that generally indicate the overall accuracy and validity of thetheory of the learning organization developed by Watkins and Marsick (1996).That is, the DLOQ is gaining evidence in a variety of contexts that confirm itsmeasurement accuracy and validity. Using Lynham’s general method of theorybuilding in applied disciplines (2002), the DLOQ is one of the rare examplesthat a theory has been conceptually developed, operationalized, confirmed,and applied in the discipline of HRD.

Implications to the Practices of HRD. As for practical implications, thisresearch would enable the theory of the learning organization or organizationallearning to be applied in HRD practices. The primary goal of establishing thereliability and validity of the measure from an academic standpoint is that themeasure should be used in practice with confidence that the practice is based onsound theory. The results of this study indicate that the DLOQ is a useful mea-sure of perceived learning organization characteristics in Korean organizations.


Table 7. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Dimensions M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Continuous Learning 3.68 .72 (.74)2. Inquiry & Dialogue 3.70 .72 .69** (.80)3. Team Learning 3.65 .75 .62** .72** (.78)4. Embedded System 3.61 .73 .65** .66** .69** (.76)5. Empowerment 3.55 .73 .61** .65** .71** .69** (.78)6. System Connection 3.75 .72 .62** .59** .65** .62** .66** (.79)7. Providing Leadership 3.76 .74 .65** .66** .67** .65** .66** .73** (.84)

Note: n � 1529; **p � .001; Internal consistency estimates are presented in the diagonal.

This indicates that the DLOQ is an appropriate tool for a quick snapshot oflearning organization culture. For instance, HRD professionals in Korean orga-nizations can use the DLOQ to assess the learning culture of an organizationas part of their organizational analysis before implementing an organizationalchange effort.

Although no instances of severe multicollinearity were found among thesubdimensions (Byrne, 1998; Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005), the correlationcoefficients were similar, ranging from .59 to .73. Cronbach’s coefficientalphas were reasonably acceptable, ranging from .74 to .84. It may be diffi-cult to analyze not only the relationships among the subdimensions of theDLOQ but also the relationships between the subdimensions and othervariables. Thus it is an imperative issue to increase the utility of the DLOQ.

This study has successfully validated the Korean version of the DLOQ,but some previous studies (Egan, 2005; Joo, 2007) reported a nonpositivedefinite matrix when there is a relatively small sample (n � 250). Assuggested by Yang (2005) and Marsick and Watkins (2003), therefore,instead of the 21-item model a unidimensional 7-item model that representseach subconstruct could be an alternative choice. In this way, the measure-ment model could have a better fit to relatively limited data, satisfying the sample-to-parameter ratio (5:1 to 10:1) and increasing the utility of themeasure.

Limitations. In terms of methodology, this study has several potential lim-itations. First, the study relies on self-reported and reflective recollection of theindicators of the constructs in this study by employees who volunteered theirparticipation. Because of the perceptual nature of the data, there is the possi-bility of a percept-percept bias. Second, this empirical study confines itself toa cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room for speculation with regardto causality among the variables. Longitudinal research would substantiate theconclusions of this study. In addition, the sample of this study, consistingmostly of highly educated male managers in a large organization, is likelyrestricted to a certain group with similar demographic characteristics (malesof relatively high cognitive ability, or employees in a small organization). Last,as discussed earlier, there can be a concern about the unit of analysis issue.Though some subdimensions (continuous learning, system connection, andembedded system) are organization-level, others (team learning, empower-ment, and dialogue and inquiry) are group-level.

Recommendations for Future Research. As mentioned in the previous sec-tions, time and effort have been put into developing reliable instruments tomeasure effective learning organization climate. This research focused on theDLOQ, which considered both individual and group-level learning processand systematic organizational structure. Many critical points in terms of thereliability and construct validity of the DLOQ have been positively defined inthe Korean context. However, to assess more comprehensive applicability of the DLOQ in various contexts, a multiple-aspect-oriented approach needs




to be considered. As one of the examples, the Multi-Traits-Multi-Method(MTMM) approach could be implied by the cross-culturally collected data formore solid evaluation on psychometric consistency and cross-culturally accept-able construct validity.

In addition, as one of the limitations of this research, we collected datafrom fairly large organizations, with more than 1,000 employees. However,even small or medium-size organizations may have experienced some fea-tures of a learning organization climate in their own way, although it has notbeen publicized or officially recognized. For future research, more in-depthinvestigation on the activities and efforts of small and medium-size organiz-ations’ learning organization climate should be considered, which couldpresent a blinded chance for benchmarking; comparison research on the typesof activities and perceptional differences depending on the size of the organi-zation could pull out practical, interesting, and worthy results. In line withthis, qualitative studies that actually consider indigenous perspectives ratherthan simply translations of Western concepts should be deemed an additionalway forward.

Finally, the use of the DLOQ is confined to four HRD journals. Littleresearch using the DLOQ has been found in management or organizationalpsychology journals. It is hoped that more research with rigor and relevancewould make this instrument more prevalent in diverse fields of research.

Conclusion. Traditionally, human resource development (HRD) hasmainly focused on individual training: “HRD practitioners need to pay moreattention to employee development programs, such as on-the-job experience,coaching, mentoring, management development, and career development” ( Joo & McLean, 2006, p. 253). That is, greater emphasis is needed on organi-zational learning and development, which includes organizational culturetransformation and change management. Thus organizational learning cultureplays an important role as an antecedent for many dependent variables ofHRD: learning, performance, satisfaction, change, creativity, productivity, andeffectiveness (Joo, 2007).

We have found that the DLOQ is a valid and reliable measure of percep-tions of learning organization culture in Korean organizations. Next stepswill involve linking the perceptions of that culture to some of the dependentvariables we have mentioned, such as performance, satisfaction, change,productivity, and effectiveness to name a few. These will be complex studies,no doubt, but what we are poised to learn about the relationships betweenlearning culture and these dependent variables is exciting for organizationalresearchers indeed.

Research such as this reflects the fact that the learning organization is aconcept that is growing in popularity and use, but we are only beginning toset a theoretically grounded foundation in place that is verified throughrigorous research. Additional studies in a variety of cultural and internationalcontexts will add to the stability of this foundation, or point out weak spots


that can be addressed through refinement and development of the research,theory, and practice of the learning organization.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective reading.Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice(Vol. 1). Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Bae, J., & Rowley, C. (2001). The impact of globalization on HRM: The case of South Korea. Jour-nal of World Business, 36(4), 402–428.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2),238–246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods &Research, 16(1), 78–117.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic con-cepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literature. Organization Studies,14(3), 375–394.

Drucker, P. (1992, September–October). The new society of organizations. Harvard BusinessReview, 95–104.

Duncan, R., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design.In B. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 75–124). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Egan, T. M. (2005). Factors influencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examinationof quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 160–181.

Egan, T., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and jobsatisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Devel-opment Quarterly, 15(3), 279–302.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between thelearning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 5–21.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78–91.Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston:

Harvard Business School Press.Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance and change: An intro-

duction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. S.A.M. Advanced

Management Journal, 63(2), 15–20.Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data

analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F., & Mohler, P. P. (2003). Cross cultural survey methods. Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley.Hernandez, M. (2000). The impact of the dimensions of the learning organization on the transfer of

tacit knowledge process and performance improvement within private manufacturing firms in Colom-bia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.




Hinkin, T. R. (2005). Scale development principles and practices. In R. A. Swanson & E. F.Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 161–179).San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Holton, E. F. (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quar-terly, 7(1), 5.

Holton, E. F. (2005). Holton’s evaluation model: New evidence and construct elaborations.Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), 37–54.

Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W.E.A. (2000). Development of a generalized learning trans-fer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 333–360.

Huysman, M. (2000). An organizational learning approach to the learning organization. Euro-pean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 133–145.

Jang, J. A., Kim, S., & Kim, D. J. (2001). Case study of learning organization in bencher businessorganizations. Business Education Research, 3(1), 77–98.

Jensen, P. E. (2005). A contextual theory of learning and the learning organization. Knowledgeand Process Management, 12(1), 53–64.

Joo, B. (2007) The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity in Koreanfirms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from ProQuestDigital Dissertations database (publication no. AAT 3263468).

Joo, B., & McLean, G. N. (2006). Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literaturereview and a case study. Human Resource Development Review, 5(2), 228–257.

Joo, B., & Yang, B. (2007). The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee cre-ativity. Philadelphia: Academy of Management Conference Proceedings.

Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide (2nd ed.). Lincolnwood, IL:Scientific Software International.

Kim, L. (1997). The dynamic of Samsung’s technological learning in semiconductors. CaliforniaManagement Review, 39(3), 86–100.

Kim, L. (1998). Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9(4), 506–521.

Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: From theory to practice. CaliforniaManagement Review, 47(3), 105–121.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:Guilford Press.

Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models. Columbus,OH: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Lahteenmaki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organizational learn-ing research and proposals for its measurement. British Journal of Management, 12,113–129.

Leonard, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lien, B. Y., Hung, R. Y., Yang, B., & Li, M. (2006). Is the learning organization a valid conceptin the Taiwanese context? International Journal of Manpower, 27(2), 189–203.

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction,and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Devel-opment Quarterly, 17(1), 85–115.

Lim, T. J. (2003). Relationships among organizational commitment, learning organization culture, andjob satisfaction in one Korean private organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Minnesota.

Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building in applied disciplines. Advances inDeveloping Human Resources, 4(3), 221–242.

Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Building the learning organization: Master the five elements for corporate

learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black.


Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learningculture: The dimensions of learning organizations questionnaire. Advances in Developing HumanResources, 5(2), 132–151.

McHargue, S. K. (1999). Dimensions of the learning organization as determinants of organizationalperformance in nonprofit organizations. Unpublished Ed.D. thesis, University of Georgia.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainabledevelopment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., & Singer, E. (2004). Methodsfor testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York:Doubleday/Currency.

Sin, S. M., O, H. S., & Park, Y. T. (1999). An empirical study on organizational learning style andperformance: Case of Korean firms. Korean Knowledge Management Associations, 2, 331–364.

Song, Y. S. (1999, August). The directions and strategies of HRD in era of knowledge manage-ment. Industrial Education, 28–31.

Song, Y. S. (2000). Directions and strategies for the corporate HRD organization to meet the information and knowledge era of the 21st century. Business Education Research, 2(1), 53–69.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimationapproach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts andapplications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of score:A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56,197–208.

Thurow, L. (2003). Fortune favors the bold: What we must do to build a new and lasting global pros-perity. New York,: HarperCollins.

Tsang, E.W.K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomybetween descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 73–89.

Urdan, T. C. (2005). Statistics in plain English (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Organizational learning in knowledge management: Toward an

integrative framework. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizationallearning and knowledge management (pp. 123–141). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock themastery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Wang, X. (2005). Relationships among organizational learning culture, job satisfaction, and organiza-tional commitment in Chinese state-owned and privately owned enterprises. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Minnesota.

Wang, X., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2007). Influence of demographic factors and ownershiptype upon organizational learning culture in Chinese enterprises. International Journal of Train-ing & Development, 11(3), 154–165.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art andscience of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria,VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization. Warwick, RI: Part-ners for the Learning Organization.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. (Eds.). (2003). Make learning count! Diagnosing the learning cul-ture in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2).

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational cre-ativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.




Yang, B. (2005). Factor analysis methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research inorganizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 181–199). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Yang, B., Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimen-sions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 31–55.

Yoo, J. (2005). Knowledge management and learning organization in real-time enterprise. KoreanKnowledge Management Associations, 14, 355–375.

Yu, G. C., Park, W. S., & Kim, D. O. (2001). Changing patterns of human resource managementsystems in Korea: Evidence from 1998–2000 panel data. Proceedings of the Korean Associationof Personnel Administration International Conference. Seoul, Korea.

Zhang, D., Zhang, Z., & Yang, B. (2004). Learning organization in mainland China: Empiricalresearch on its application to Chinese state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Trainingand Development, 8(4), 258–273.

Ji Hoon Song is assistant professor of occupational education studies in the School ofTeaching and Curriculum Leadership College of Education at Oklahoma State University.

Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is assistant professor of business administration in the College ofBusiness at Winona State University.

Thomas J. Chermack is assistant professor of organizational performance and changein the College of Education at Colorado State University.


the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (dloq): a validation study in a korean context

Documents