Strategic factors and barriers for promoting educational organizational …hera.ugr.es/doi/16657482.pdf · · 2007-05-22Strategic factors and barriers for promoting educational

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.tat

$We would l�CorrespondiE-mail addre

[email protected]

(R. Llamas-San

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 478–502

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Strategic factors and barriers for promoting educationalorganizational learning$

V.J. Garcıa-Morales�, F.J. Lopez-Martın, R. Llamas-Sanchez

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Granada, Campus Cartuja, s.n., 18071 Granada, Spain

Abstract

This article uses a global model to analyse empirically how the personal and professional development of educators

(personal mastery) facilitates the creation of a series of basic shared values (shared vision) and of team learning by the

members of the educational centre, these inter-related strategic factors favouring, in turn, educational organizational

learning and subsequent improvement in organizational performance. Likewise, verification is made of different learning

barriers that hinder the acquisition, dissemination and sharing of knowledge by blocking shared vision and team learning.

Using a national survey in educational centres in Spain, we found that these hypotheses are verified and that organizational

learning plays a key role in the generation of organizational performance.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Educational organizational learning; Educational centres; Personal mastery; Shared vision; Team learning; Learning barriers;

Performance

1. Introduction

For the optimum development of learning ineducational centres, educators should firstly recog-nize, support and defend learning as a fundamentalelement and valuable tool for obtaining long-termbenefits. Recognition begins by accepting the needfor one’s own personal growth and learning(personal mastery). Personal mastery is the disci-pline of personal growth and learning (Senge,1990a; Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith, & Kleiner,1994). It concentrates on the part of learning in the

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

e.2005.11.012

ike to thank the Project SEC 2003-07755.

ng author.

sses: [email protected] (V.J. Garcıa-Morales),

s (F.J. Lopez-Martın), [email protected]

chez).

learning organization that is the realm of theindividual, allowing us to constantly clarify anddeepen our personal vision. In other words, it lets usconcentrate the whole time on what we really wishfor. Personal growth allows us to concentrate ourenergies, develop patience and see reality objec-tively, expanding personal aptitude and capabilityto learn and encouraging others to learn. From thisconstant search for learning rises the spirit of theintelligent organization. It is essential to establisheducational centres that produce intellectual wealthand, at the same time, allow people to develop theirhumanity and values. Without doubt, people are thebasis and the principle of all business competences;therefore, their personal development should bepromoted.

Educators with personal mastery should encou-rage the acquisition, creation and transfer of

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.J. Garcıa-Morales et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 478–502 479

knowledge. They should involve all the integralparts, irrespective of organizational level (students,other colleagues, etc.), so that they may acquire newknowledge, know its application, understand thereality, incorporate it into their own cognitivemodel and develop adequate behaviour aimed attheir transformation. Shared vision is composed ofa guiding philosophy or core ideology and atangible image of what we aspire to become (Collins& Porras, 1991, 1996). It is the result of a creativeorientation and generative conversation (Maani &Benton, 1999) that encourage a common commit-ment to the future we wish to achieve (Senge et al.,1994). This image causes enthusiasm and emotion,which are translated into moving from the specificto the image of the future. This process is similar toSenge’s creative tension, from which the organiza-tion learns. The vision brings people closer to theorganization’s commitments (educating, learning,etc.) and, by involving them more closely with thesecommitments, promotes a collective sense of theeducational centre’s aims.

Likewise, teamwork and team learning should beencouraged as a central means of learning withineducational centres (Veenman, Van Benthum, Boot-sma, Van Dieren, & Van Der Kemp, 2002). Teamlearning can be seen as a process of alignment anddevelopment of the team’s capability, with the aimof creating the results the members want. This formof learning transforms collective aptitudes forthought and communication such that the teamsdevelop an intelligence and capability that aregreater than the sum of the members’ individualtalents. This learning allows them to discover whatbrings the best results.

Shared vision and team learning are related, sinceshared vision allows an essential space to be createdfor the development of learning and teamwork.Both facilitate educational organizational learningand improvement in organizational performance.We define educational organizational learning asthe capacity within an educational centre to con-stantly improve the intellectual level of its membersand improve performance. This activity involvesknowledge acquisition (development or creation ofskills, insights, relationships), knowledge sharing(dissemination to others of what has been acquiredby some) and knowledge utilization (integration ofthe learning so that it is assimilated, made widelyavailable and generalized to new situations). AsSenge (1990a, p. 3) states, learning organizations are‘‘organizations where people continually expand

their capacity to create the results they truly desire,where collective aspiration is set free, and wherepeople are continually learning how to learntogether’’.

It is also important to analyse the influence oflearning on performance. The word ‘‘learning’’usually has positive connotations. It is thus usuallyassociated with improvements in performance.However, we should bear in mind that, as withindividuals, learning does not necessarily lead to anintelligent or improved behaviour. For learning toimprove performance, we must obtain the correctknowledge from that learning and ensure that it istranslated into appropriate actions. Only so we willimprove organizational performance. Different bar-riers or obstacles hinder the obtaining of educa-tional organizational learning by impeding thecreation of a correct shared vision or team learning.It is only by recognizing these problems and facingup to them that we can overcome them.

In this study, we aim to verify how educators’personal mastery facilitates the presence of basicshared values and team learning in the members ofthe educational centre, these inter-related strategicfactors (shared vision and team learning) favouring,in turn, educational organizational learning andsubsequent improvement in organizational perfor-mance. We also verify the existence of differentlearning barriers that hinder the acquisition, dis-semination and sharing of knowledge by blockingshared vision and team learning. To achieve thesegoals and to fill in the empirical gaps existing in thisfield of research, we used a sample of 200 educatorsbelonging to different educational centres in Spain.

2. Background

There are currently many signs that learning isacquiring great importance and attracting muchattention, on both the individual and the organiza-tional level. In academic and scientific circles,learning is currently one of the main challenges inthe study of organizations, and interest in organiza-tions that learn is increasing. We form part of aSociety of Knowledge in which the old mechanicalforms of thought from the industrial era are nolonger of any use. We now need to create contexts inwhich the organization’s members can learn andexperience systemic thought, question their mentalassumptions and models, encourage dialogue, createa vision and carry out their actions effectively andefficiently.

ARTICLE IN PRESSV.J. Garcıa-Morales et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 478–502480

The need to turn the organization into a learningentity (intelligent organization) is becoming an evermore popular idea among specialists and research-ers. How to achieve it is not easy and raises manyunanswered questions, even more so in the case ofeducational centres. Here, data are transformed intoinformation via the ‘data process’. Subsequently,the information is turned into knowledge via the‘learning process’. The resulting knowledge is adynamic integration of experiences, values, contex-tualized information, perceptions and ideas thatestablish a mental structure allowing the evaluationand incorporation of new experiences, ideas andinformation. Thus, the knowledge is a combinationof idea, learning and mental model, enablingdistinctive basic educational competences to beobtained through a ‘mental creation process’. Thesecompetences generate value and competitive ad-vantages.

Only educational centres that have an adequatelearning process can incorporate and correctlyexploit knowledge on a personal, group or organi-zational level. Learning enables the development ofnew abilities and knowledge, increasing the organi-zational capacity to act efficiently and improvingthe performance of both the educational centre andits members. Thus, learning comprises the acquisi-tion (cognitive development), dissemination andutilization of this knowledge (behavioural develop-ment). Educational centres attempt to stay afloatand face up to adversities through their ability tolearn and act in order to satisfy the changing needsof students and of society in general. These centresdevelop the central capacity for generative learningwhen they not only detect and correct existing errors(adaptive learning) but also change values, strate-gies and the theory used in the educational centre,providing added value to students and to societyand satisfying their latent needs for new knowledge,teaching and education.

Nowadays, the close link between competitiveadvantage and organizational learning (e.g., East-erby-Smith, 1998; Moingeon & Edmondson, 1996;Senge, 1990a; Ulrich, Von Glinow, & Jick, 1993)reveals the need to carry out empirical studies toidentify, analyse and promote the strategic factorsthat enable educational centres to possess thecapacity to learn generatively.

The first significant factor in achieving educa-tional centres that encourage organizationallearning is the presence of educators with the realcapacity to learn and a view of learning as

investment, not expenditure. Personal masteryshould be analysed as the discipline of growthand personal learning. Because people are the basisand principle and all competences, their personaldevelopment should be promoted. Thus, ifeducators manage to gain a high level of personalmastery, there will be important positive effectson learning in educational centres. Educators with ahigh degree of personal mastery will achievegreater communication between the normalconscious (a conscious mind) and the subconscious(the automatic or subconscious mind). This willallow them to carry out extremely complex taskswith ease and will make them more committed totheir own development as well as to that of othersand the entity (Senge, 1990a; Senge et al., 1994,1999).

Personal mastery helps the organization togenerate a shared vision—originating from personalvisions—and subsequent organizational learning.To achieve this we must create a feeling ofcommunity within the organization. This en-courages collective commitment, which acts as adriving force that affects and unites all the membersin an effort to ensure the common interest. Thisvision should be oriented towards the future andrequires the creation of an adequate organizationalflexibility that is transformed into flexibility ofvision the more we work on it, learning from thepast and the present (Senge, 1990a; Senge et al.,1994).

Personal mastery also affects the propensity toencourage teamwork and team learning, which, inturn, affect organizational learning. Without teamlearning, the organization cannot learn, since theteam is the fundamental learning unit, over andabove the individual himself. Furthermore, whenteams learn, the members learn. Teams are based onintelligent people who have developed the skills ofindividual learning such as knowing how to listen,reflect, read, write, calculate and use their knowl-edge to advantage; in other words, individuals witha high level of personal mastery (Guns, 1996; Senge,1990a). Shared vision plays an equally importantrole in building team learning. We should point outthat individuals do not abandon their own visionfor that of the team’s vision. Rather, the team’svision is a reflection of its members’ individualvisions (Senge, 1990a). Though much has beenwritten on teams and on learning in organizations,there is still no full understanding of the value oflearning in teams. This may be due to the fact that


most of the empirical research on team learning hastaken place in laboratories rather than in real-lifeorganizations (Edmondson, 1999), hence theinterest in analysing this variable in educationalcentres.

Teams must learn to identify, synthesize andeliminate the factors blocking learning (Hart, 1996).Undoubtedly, team learning and shared vision arenegatively affected by barriers, disorders or ob-stacles that block them and hinder subsequentorganizational learning. In addressing how organi-zations can improve their team learning and sharedvision, researchers have identified a number ofproblems that organizations face when trying todevelop these strategic factors (e.g., McGill &Slocum, 1994; Niemi, 2002; Rosenholtz, 1986;Senge, 1990a; Shaw & Perkings, 1992; Snyder &Cummings, 1998). Because these problems preventorganizations from achieving their learning poten-tial, they can have an adverse effect on organiza-tion’s performance. Understanding the nature of theproblems is a necessary first step towards resolvingthem. A second step should be finding a way tosynthesize these different problems into a fewlearning barriers. Knowledge of the interrelatedcauses is essential both for analyzing the barriersand for designing appropriate interventions to treatthem. Unfortunately, although researchers haveidentified a number of problems, there have beenfew attempts to synthesize these problems into twoor three barriers.

The main problems that influence the achieve-ment of team learning and shared vision in theeducational centre are: (1) multiple-personalitydisorder, (2) temporal myopia, (3) perturbations,(4) superstitious learning, (5) fancy footwork, (6)paralysis, (7) social defences, (8) independentsub-units, (9) defensive routines, (10) projection,(11) over-emphasis on competition, and (12)reactivity.

2.1. Multiple-personality disorder

Departmental boundaries and dysfunctional re-ward and control systems may encourage people notto share their visions (Wenger, 1997). As a result,the educational centre may appear to act as if it hasmultiple personalities or inter-competing perspec-tives, to lack a shared vision that facilitates co-ordination and correct team learning. This disorderis related to the problem of multiple independentsub-units.

2.2. Temporal myopia

This myopia (and spatial and failure myopia)prevents the correct contemplation of reality,making learning more difficult. It prevents peoplefrom understanding that what is adequate in theshort run (exploitation) is not necessarily so in thelong run (exploration) and vice versa. Thus, asimplified world is created that concentrates moreon the past than on the present and/or future. Thisspecialization may generate a short-term competi-tive advantage but also produces a lack of adaptivecapability potential in the long term, there beingmore overall disadvantages than advantages(Levinthal & March, 1993). It generates competencytraps (we focus more on short-term rewards and theuse of old competences and do not strive for newknowledge that provides strategic competences inthe long run).

2.3. Perturbations

Noise or perturbations in the learning process canlead to situations in which early signs, wronglyinterpreted by the noise, give rise to highlyinappropriate results (Lounamaa & March,1987). The presence of experimental process noisemay hinder team learning or shared vision.Small variations in apparently unimportant ele-ments will thus bring about ambiguous and/orerroneous results. In short, perturbations prevent usfrom seeing the cause–effect relationship (Bohn,1995).

2.4. Superstitious learning

Ignorance, conflict and ambiguity can lead us toassociate diverse outcomes with actions withoutthere being a true cause–effect relationship. Thiscauses a fictitious erroneous relationship on whichwe will make equally erroneous decisions. If thesedecisions are not corrected quickly; very negativeeffects will ensue: an interpretation is generated thatusually coincides with superstitious learning (Le-vinthal & March, 1993; March & Olsen, 1975). Ateam or organization may incorrectly believe that itsown actions will achieve a positive result byrepeating the action which in fact yields harmfulresults (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Levitt & March,1988). Or which causal relationships betweenorganizational actions and environmental effectsmay be explained without adequate knowledge of


the alternative explanations or without considera-tion of whether these interpretations are trust-worthy (Levitt & March, 1988).

2.5. Fancy footwork

This is related to the defensive routines thatpeople use with defensive reasoning. People performactions that prevent them from seeing the incon-gruence of what they are doing or that allow themto reject the presence of such incongruences. Whenthis occurs, they will blame others. Fancy footwork

is very dangerous to the team or organization. Ifeverybody uses it, this blindfolded attitude willaffect shared vision and prevent people fromrecognizing their commitments. If members feelthe presence of fancy footwork but are unable tochange the situation, they will feel bad and asituation of ‘‘organizational malaise’’ (Argyris,1990) will be created.

2.6. Paralysis

This is the inability to act, such that, althoughclear plans and proposals exist, they are neverimplemented due to organizational constraints,confusion, apathy or complacency (Sitkin, 1992);a lack of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation regardlessof goal consensus (Hedberg, 1981); role definitions,discrepant goals, or contradictory proposals(March & Olsen, 1975); or a lack of decisionconsensus, which gives rise to a lack of commitmentfrom different teams (Walsh, 1995). A situationof ‘‘paralysis by analysis’’ (Eisenhardt, 1989) isequally possible, since people are anxiousabout negative outcomes and thus hesitatewhen it comes to making decisions or sanctioningactions.

2.7. Social defences

To drive out the defensive routine is complicated,for both social and psychological reasons. On asocial level, educational management blames whatmust be said and heard, thus entering into anti-learning. When threats arise, defensive reasoningcomes to the fore, leading management to censorsomething external and protect self without admit-ting it, even though management insists it isprotecting the team, the department or the centre(Argyris, 1994).

2.8. Independent sub-units

The existence of a large number of independentlearning sub-units may have an effect on results.Under certain circumstances, too many learningfrontiers can reduce the usefulness of said learning(Lounamaa & March, 1987). Likewise, certainevents may facilitate learning on one level whilepreventing it on another (Levinthal, 1991).

2.9. Defensive routines

These are ingrained habits, actions or practicesthat are used to protect us from feeling threatened,embarrassed or surprised when we express ourfeelings. They act as a protective barrier for ourdeepest assumptions. These routines usually becomeorganizational and are of a defensive nature.Although they prevent the organization’s membersfrom feeling embarrassed or threatened whenpossible errors are discovered in deep-rootedlayouts (they hide the deepest assumptions), theyalso stop the team or organization from discoveringthe causes of the embarrassment or threat byencouraging mediocrity and promoting anti-learn-ing (Argyris, 1990). The routines usually maskthemselves. They are systemic and are thus incor-porated into the organizational culture (Senge,1990a). Because most people subscribe to them,the routines remain in place, affecting new arrivalseven though organization members come and go.Breaking the defensive routine is difficult both forsocial and psychological reasons (Argyris, 1994).

2.10. Projection

This learning disorder occurs when centre mem-bers distort what they see for different reasons, suchas the ambiguity of environmental data, whichmakes its interpretation more difficult (Beyer, 1981);political interests that lead to perceptions notsupported by available data (Hickson, 1987); orthe erosion of goals by lowering the aspiration levelsHedberg, 1981).

2.11. Over-emphasis on competition

One of the main dysfunctions hindering learningis the presence of excessive competition (Kofman &Senge, 1993). Fascinated with competition, we oftenfind ourselves competing with the every people withwhom we need to collaborate, destroying the proper


balance between competition (it can promoteinvention and daring) and cooperation. Over-emphasis on competition makes looking good moreimportant than being good, turning ignorance into asign of weakness and causing the so-called ‘‘skilledincompetence’’ of Argyris (1990).

2.12. Reactivity

The tendency to change only in reaction tooutside forces is also harmful to learning. Externalreaction is not bad in itself. The problem is that ourcurrent institutions usually undermine our intrinsicdrive to learn. We should promote creation wherethe impetus for change in the creating mode comesfrom within, from the individual and collectivepower of the organization’s members (Kofman &Senge, 1993). It is necessary to learn proactively.

In the following sections, we synthesize theseproblems into a few principal learning barriers andpresent a systematic model consisting of eighthypotheses about how personal mastery and learn-ing barriers affect shared vision and team learningand how these factors are related to organizationalperformance through organizational learning. Thefactors we have just analysed are among those mostfrequently analysed in the relevant literature (e.g.,Kofman & Senge, 1993; Senge, 1990a; Senge et al.,1994; Slater & Narver, 1995). We recognize thatsome other factors might be included in this model;however, it was necessary to limit our model to beable to offer empirical evidence for our arguments.

3. Hypotheses

3.1. Personal mastery capability

Any organization requires its people, the basisand principle of all business competences, toimprove their personal and professional develop-ment potential. Only through this search forconstant, individual and personal learning can thespirit of the ‘‘intelligent organization’’ be achieved.

Shared visions emerge from personal visionsdeveloped through personal mastery. ‘‘Personalmastery is the bedrock for developing sharedvisions. This means not only personal vision, butcommitment to the truth and creative tension—thehallmarks of personal mastery’’ (Senge, 1990a,p. 211). Thus, shared vision and personal masteryare almost always simultaneous projects. In thecontext of what they want for the organization,

people must inevitably reflect on what they want forthemselves, on the current reality and on theirobjectives (Senge et al., 1994).

In the same way, personal mastery is closelylinked to team learning. ‘‘Team learning is theprocess of aligning and developing the capacity of ateam to create the results its members truly desire. Itbuilds on the discipline of developing shared vision.It also builds on personal mastery, for talentedteams are made up of talented individuals’’ (Senge,1990a, p. 236). Individuals do not abandon theirown vision for that of the team. Rather, team visionis a reflection of their individual visions, the fruit ofpersonal mastery (Senge et al., 1994). The teammembers should be committed in one direction; thatis, they must perceive a common fate (Maani &Benton, 1999). Such alignment and commitment toa shared vision enable the team to develop itscapacity to think and act in a joint and synergicmanner (Moravec, Johannessen, & Hjelmas, 1997;Senge et al., 1994). Based on the above, we canformulate the following hypotheses:

H1. Personal mastery capability will be positivelyassociated with shared vision capability.

H2. Personal mastery capability will be positivelyassociated with team learning capability.

3.2. Learning barriers

Numerous authors have studied the diverseproblems that hinder organizational learning. Inthis study, we have analysed the main obstacles thatblock, delay, distort or prevent educational organi-zational learning by acting on the presence of ashared vision or team learning why we group theminto a few main learning barriers.

These learning barriers explain why the membersof educational centres can work as a team withoutthere necessarily being team learning or the sharingof a common vision (e.g., Argyris, 1990, 1994;Levinthal & March, 1993; Senge 1990a). They canalso prevent the correct realization of the processthat integrates individual and team learning and/orthe process by which one personal vision feeds offother personal visions to build up a shared vision—such that individual learning may never be shared,disseminated and absorbed by the other members,hindering their growth in intellectual capital. Tak-ing the above into account, we have established thefollowing hypotheses:


H3. Learning barriers will be negatively associatedwith shared vision capability.

H4. Learning barriers will be negatively associatedwith team learning capability.

3.3. Shared vision capability

The team is formed by a small number of peoplewith complementary skills who are committed to acommon purpose or vision, set of performancegoals, and approach for which they hold themselvesmutually accountable (Katzenbach, 1997; Katzen-bach & Smith, 1993). If we want the educationalcentre to learn, its constituent teams need to learn.Team learning is the next logical step after sharedvision, since a collective vision gives the team theenergy to learn together and a context in which towork as a team. A joint aspiration gives the teammembers a motivation for joint learning. Further-more, shared vision offers a framework for theemotional changes that team learning requires(Senge et al., 1994).

A visionless team cannot create its own future butonly reacts to it (Collins & Porras, 1991). Withoutvision we will have adaptive team learning. Withshared vision we will obtain generative teamlearning. Shared vision gives us the strength toreveal our thoughts to the other team members,recognizing defects and rejecting underlying as-sumptions, learning from our mistakes, having thecourage to experiment and the will to take risks(e.g., Mintzberg, 1994; Senge, 1990a). Likewise,shared vision is a vision that rests upon the othermembers of the team or the organization (Senge,1990a; Senge et al., 1994). Based on all this, weadvance the following hypothesis:

H5. Shared vision capability will be positivelyassociated with team learning capability.

Likewise, shared vision, which guides an organi-zation’s learning, allows all the energies of theeducational centre’s members to be concentratedand put into play (Slater & Narver, 1995). It istherefore one of the central capabilities to encou-rage organizational learning (Maani & Benton,1999; Senge, 1990a; Senge et al., 1994) and ‘‘anecessary but not a sufficient condition for thedevelopment of an organization that can learn,adapt, and respond effectively to a rapidly changingcompetitive environment’’ (Dess & Picken, 2000,p. 22). Not creating a shared context (a shared

vision) prevents the implementation of a learninglaboratory (Leonard-Barton, 1992), blockingknowledge management and neutralizing organiza-tional learning (Fahey & Prusak, 1998).

Hence, there is a positive relationship betweenshared vision and organizational learning (e.g.,Hodge, Anthony, & Gales, 1998; Hodgetts,Luthans, & Lee, 1994; Senge, 1990a; Senge et al.,1994; Thomas, 1994). Educational centres that learnpossess a common or shared vision that pushesthem towards action and the fulfilment of theirobjectives (Landier, 1992). Such rationales andevidence imply the following:

H6. Shared vision capability will be positivelyassociated with educational organizational learningcapability.

3.4. Team learning capability

From the perspective of resources and capabil-ities, the transformation processes of the standardresources in core capabilities imply learning. Thereare different phases in the core capability develop-ment process. The essential elements in this processof creating core competences are individuals andteams, since they generate knowledge when theysolve problems in different stages. The result is thedevelopment of organizational capabilities, butthese are the result of the individuals and teamsand of their learning (Andreu & Ciborra, 1996).

The strategic literature has established the pre-sence of a relationship between team learning andorganizational learning. In this sense, although thescope of the learning is organizational, ‘‘learningorganizations’’ defend their learning through workteams (Edmondson, 1999; Katzenbach & Smith,1993; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992). In fact, if weanalyse quick-learning organizations, we see thatthe team occupies a central role, encouraging themembers of these organizations to learn together(Guns, 1996).

Without teams and team learning, the organiza-tion cannot learn. The team is the basic learningunit, more so than the individual himself. Accordingto Lynn (1998), the team can learn not only fromitself (within-team learning is the learning thatoccurs within the context of the team itself, theequivalent of learning by doing), but also fromother teams within the organization (cross-teamlearning: the experience gained by one team within acompany and then transplanted to another) or from


the market (market learning: knowledge gainedexternal to the firm from competitors, suppliers, andcustomers). The role of the team is so importantthat team learning is one of the five disciplines thatpromote organizational learning. There is a positiverelationship between team learning and organiza-tional learning (Senge, 1990a; Senge et al., 1994), forthe adoption of a systemic perspective forms thebasis for turning individual and team learning intoorganizational learning. The very team learningwheel exposes how learning occurs in a team inwhich there is public reflection, shared feeling, jointplanning and co-ordinated action (Senge et al.,1994).

The presence of self-led work teams encouragessocialization and allows individuals to interact witheach other and share experiences and mental models(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Thusteamwork and team learning help to initiate theknowledge creation process, which will generateorganizational learning (e.g., Nonaka & Johansson,1985; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka, Rein-moeller, & Senoo, 1998). However, although theorganizational knowledge creation process takesplace on a team level, the organization will providethe necessary conditions to make it possible (Non-aka & Takeuchi, 1995). Thus, learning from theperspective of knowledge can be understood as theprocess of creating new knowledge produced withinthe organization’s individuals and teams and as theprocess that encourages intraorganizational andinterorganizational knowledge (Sanchez & Heene,1997).

Nevis, Dibella, and Gould (1995) and DiBella,Nevis, and Gould (1996) highlight the importanceof teamwork and team learning for organizationallearning, underlining the propensity we may have todevelop individual or team skills as one of the sevenlearning orientations. Team learning is the point ofunion between individual and organizational learn-ing. ‘‘The individual learning should be embeddedin a concept of team learning, which in turn shouldbe embedded in a concept of organization lear-ningy at the individual level, the critical process isinterpreting; at the group level, integrating; and atthe organization level, institutionalising’’ (Inkpen &Crossan, 1995, p. 598). In short, team learning is soimportant that certain authors have studied learningon a team level but not on an organizational level(e.g., Honey & Mumford, 1982; Pedler, 1991;Revans, 1982, 1983). Taking the above intoaccount, we can formulate the following hypothesis:

H7. Team learning capability will be positivelyassociated with educational organizational learningcapability.

3.5. Organizational performance

The influence of educational organizationallearning on the educational centre’s performanceshould be analysed empirically, since there is verylittle knowledge of whether learning is transformedinto performance (Snyder & Cummings, 1998) andof the ambiguity or time-lag between the two(learning today will affect performance tomorrow).The possibility that the results of learning will bedisguised by exogenous factors makes the study ofsuch a link even more difficult (Inkpen & Crossan,1995). To suggest that incremental learning shouldalways lead to incremental performance improve-ments is misleading (Inkpen & Crossan, 1995;Tsang, 1997), since it is possible that learning maynot improve the organization’s results because it isnot correctly put into practice (Cook & Yanow,1993; Hoopes & Postrel, 1999; Huber, 1991).However, generally speaking, organizational learn-ing has a positive impact on performance improve-ments and on changes in behaviour, leading towardsperformance improvements (e.g., Argyris & Schon,1978; Bohn, 1994; Dodgson, 1993; Fiol & Lyles,1985; Garvin, 1993; Senge, 1990a).

Thus, organizations or educational centres with agreater amplitude, depth and speed of learning havehigher levels of performance (Demarest, 1997;Hurley & Hult, 1998; Zahra, Ireland, & Hitt,2000). The presence of a shared vision and teamlearning that favour the sharing of knowledgeamong all the members of the centre also has apositive effect on organizational performance. Norshould we forget that educational centres thatpromote the learning spirit willingly sacrifice partof today’s performance in order to achieve im-proved performance tomorrow. Present perfor-mance is the fruit of yesterday’s learning, andtomorrow’s performance will be the product oftoday’s learning (Guns, 1996; Senge, 1990b). Sincelearning is a major component in any effort toimprove organizational performance and to achievea sustainable competitive advantage (March, 1991),we propose:

H8. Educational organizational learning capabilitywill be positively associated with organizationalperformance.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1We are deeply grateful to one of the referees of this article for

suggesting the need to confirm that the information provided by

the main person polled was representative of the organization

(internal representativity). To confirm the validity of the

information provided by the director of studies or department

head, we obtained additional information from ten professors in

several educational centres. We then used different tests to

contrast these results with those obtained from the main person

polled for each centre and confirmed the non-presence of

significant differences in the variables studied. Once we confirmed

the existence of internal representativity in the sample, we

followed the recommendation of different previous research

(e.g. Glick, 1985) in only considering the questionnaires obtained

from the director of studies/department head.

V.J. Garcıa-Morales et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 478–502486

4. Methodology

This section presents the research methodologyused in this study. We first describe the sample usedand then go on to discuss how each of the variablesincluded in the study is operationalized. Finally, wepresent the statistical analysis.

4.1. Sample and procedure

The first necessary step in an empirical study isselecting the population to be analysed (Schofield,1996). The population for this study consisted of thehigh schools and universities from two of Spain’sautonomous regions (Andalusia and Madrid). Thesample of educational centres was selected by meansof a stratified sampling with proportional affixation(types of educational centre and autonomousregions) from the database of the Spanish Ministryof Education and Science. Choosing a sample offirms located in the educational sector and in arelatively homogeneous geographic, cultural, legaland political space minimizes the impact of thevariables that cannot be controlled in the empiricalresearch (Adler, 1983; Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, &Sanders, 1990).

Drawing on our knowledge of key dimensions inthis study, previous contacts with interested tea-chers (practicing teacher, teachers who left teaching,etc.), and new interviews with consultants andacademics interested in the topic and familiar withthe Spanish education system, we developed astructured questionnaire to investigate how educa-tional centres face learning issues. We omitted theresponses of the interviewees in this first stage fromthe subsequent analysis of the survey data.

As in other research in the field of knowledge andorganizational learning (e.g. Simonin, 1999; Yli-Renko, Autio, & Sapienza, 2001), we provided onequestionnaire per sample unit to a sufficient numberof sample units, such that the information obtainedwould be representative and extrapolatable to thepopulation (external representativity). We decidedto follow other recent research (e.g. Cant, 2004;Colley & Volkan, 2004) in using educators (speci-fically directors of studies and department heads) asour key informants, since they receive informationfrom a wide variety of members in the organizationand are therefore a very valuable source forevaluating the different variables of the organiza-tion. Educators also play a major role in formingand moulding these variables by determining the

types of behaviour that are expected and supported(Baer & Frese, 2003). Although numerous actorsmay be involved in the process, those polled in thisstudy are ultimately responsible for plotting theorganization’s direction and plans and for guidingthe actions carried out to achieve them. In addition,we chose the same types of informant to ensure thatthe level of influence among the organizations isconstant, which increases the validity of the vari-ables’ measurements (Glick, 1985).1

Surveys were mailed to the 400 selected centresalong with a cover letter. We used this methodbecause it allowed us to reach a greater number ofcentres at a lower cost, to exert less pressure forimmediate reply, and to provide the intervieweeswith a greater sense of autonomy. In addition to thequestionnaire, the envelope contained a stampedaddressed envelope for returning the survey. Thecover letter explained the goal of the study andoffered recipients the possibility of receiving theresults once the study was completed. To reducepossible desirability bias, we promised to keep allindividual responses completely confidential andconfirmed that our analysis would be restricted toan aggregated level that would prevent the identi-fication of any organization.

The questionnaires were sent in April 2001. Fiveweeks later, a second mailing was done and theeducators were contacted by phone in order toincrease the level of response. The completedquestionnaires were received during the months ofMay and June 2001. The respondents were given thepossibility of contacting the interviewer by phone ore-mail with any queries, suggestions or recommen-dations they had. Two hundred valid questionnaireswere returned, which gives an overall valid responserate of 50% (Table 1). Fifty nine per cent of therespondents were male and 41% were female. In all,78.9% of the respondents were in the 25–45 age

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Technical details of the research

Geographical location Spain (Andalusia & Madrid)

Methodology Structured questionnaire

Procedure Stratified sample with

proportional affixation to the

kind of educational centre &

geographical location (High

schools 266 [Andalusia 194,

Madrid 72]; University school

134 [Andalusia 92, Madrid

42])

Population 2161 educational centres

Sample (response) size 400 (200) educational centres

Sample error 6.9%

Confidence level 95%, p–q ¼ 0.50; Z ¼ 1.96

Period of collecting data Pretest (March 2001). First

mailing (April 2001). Second

mailing (May–June 2001)

V.J. Garcıa-Morales et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 478–502 487

group. 58.8% had less than 10 years of experience inthe educational centre. We did not find significantdifferences between the respondents and the sampleor between early and late respondents. Likewise, aseries of w2 and t-tests revealed no significantdifferences between the replies of directors of studiesand department heads or corresponding to gender,geographical location, age and years of experiencein the educational centre or type of educationalcentre.2 Since all measures were collected in thesame survey instrument, the possibility of commonmethod bias was tested using Harman’s one-factortest (see Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Scott & Bruce,1994). A principal components factor analysis of thequestionnaire measurement items yielded ten factorswith eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted for65% of the total variance. Since several factors, notjust one single factor, were identified and since the

2Cultural differences between different centres can and usually

do affect professional development and other strategic variables.

Culture is a factor that must be taken into account in studies of

education and of organizational learning, since failure to do so

may produce a bias of acculturation in the research (e.g.,

Barkema, Bell, & Pennings, 1996; Elsass & Veiga, 1994). Still,

our consideration of university schools and high schools, the use

of the same types of informant (Glick, 1985), and the use of

organizations located in a relatively homogeneous cultural space

(Adler, 1983; Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990) in

order to minimize the impact of culture have led to the non-

presence of significant differences between the two kinds of centre

in the variables analysed for the sample chosen in this research.

first factor did not account for the majority of thevariance (27%), a substantial amount of commonmethod variance does not appear to be present(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986)

4.2. Measures

4.2.1. Personal mastery capability

Analysis of personal mastery reveals that certaincircumstances are needed in order for it to develop.The educational centre must promote personalgrowth and learning and provide an appropriateorganizational climate (e.g., Dibella et al., 1996;Nevis et al., 1995; Senge, 1990a; Slater & Narver,1995). Educators with a high level of personalmastery know their current reality, have a personalvision and adequately handle the creativetension that is generated so that the realitycan be made to resemble the vision (e.g.,Fritz, 1989; Senge, 1990a, 1990b; Senge et al.,1994). They possess the necessary competences,skills and abilities to face up to professional andpersonal challenges successfully and have a constantpersonal desire to learn; they are committed toeducational work, patience, perseverance and thespirit of sincerity (e.g., Aubrey & Cohen, 1995;Senge, 1990a; Senge et al., 1994).

We asked the educators to evaluate the impor-tance they gave to different practices that promotepersonal mastery, using 11 items. These wereassessed on a seven-point scale, with high ratingsindicating important development of personalmastery. Exploratory principal components analysiswith varimax rotation showed that we had toeliminate one item, since the anti-image correlationmatrix showed that the measure of samplingadequacy (MSA) was less than 0.5, which mayindicate that a variable that does not seem tofit with the structure of the other variables. Theseitems formed two clear factors. The first factorexplains 33% of the variance, and the seven itemsrelated to this first factor were directly linked to theeducator’s personal mastery with a high reliability(a ¼ 0.76). We calculated the arithmetical mean ofthese items; a high score indicated a high degree ofpersonal mastery of the educator. The secondfactor, formed by three items reflecting creativetension, explained 12% of the variance but pre-sented a low reliability (a ¼ 0.52) and therefore wasnot included in our research. The appendixshows the items in this and the other measures usedin this study.


4.2.2. Learning barriers

As we have already mentioned, numerous ob-stacles can prevent, block or delay organizationallearning by acting on team learning and sharedvision. Based on prior research studies (e.g.,Argyris, 1994; Argyris & Schon, 1978; Kofman &Senge, 1993; Levinthal & March, 1993), 12 itemswere formulated with the aim of synthesizing theseproblems (multiple-personality disorder; temporalmyopia; perturbations; superstitious learning; fancyfootwork; paralysis; social defences; independentsub-units; defensive routines; projection; overem-phasis on competition; reactivity) into a fewprincipal learning barriers and examining whetherthese barriers existed in the educational centresanalysed. The educators evaluated the importanceof these problems on a seven-point scale with highrating indicating serious problems. Exploratoryprincipal components analysis with varimax rota-tion showed that these items formed two clearbarriers. Thus, the first factor explains 34% of thevariance, and the six items related to this first factor(perturbations, superstitious learning, fancy foot-work, social defences, defensive routines, projec-tion) were directly linked to the organizationaldefensive model. This model prevents correctlearning for social and political reasons, routines,perturbations, and inaccurate perception of cau-se–effect relationships. We calculated the arithme-tical mean of theses items; a high score indicated ahigh barrier to learning. The items presented a highreliability (a ¼ 0.75). The second factor explains11% of the variance, and the six items related to thissecond factor (multiple-personality disorder, tem-poral myopia, paralysis, independent sub-units,over-emphasis on competition and reactivity) weredirectly linked to organizational inertia. This factorreflected the reasons that proactive learning, learn-ing in the long term, and learning withoutover-emphasis on competition are blocked. Wecalculated the arithmetical mean of these items; ahigh score indicated a high barrier to learning. Theitems presented a high reliability (a ¼ 0.68).

4.2.3. Team learning capability

There are numerous scales that attempt tomeasure team work and learning (e.g., Rama-moorthy & Carroll, 1998; Shaw, Duffy, & Stark,2000; Wagner, 1995). Based on these, we havedrawn up a scale which asked the educators toevaluate the importance they gave to differentcharacteristics that allow team learning to be

promoted, using nine items (atmosphere of teamdialogue, good communication channels, spirit ofopenness, preference for working collectively, teamheterogeneity, rewards and incentives for teamwork,informal meetings, collective challenges, spirit of co-operation and companionship). These were assessedon a seven-point scale, with high ratings indicatingsignificant development of team learning. Explora-tory principal components analysis with varimaxrotation showed that these items formed two clearfactors. The first factor explained 44% of thevariance, and the seven items related to this firstfactor were directly linked to the conditions thatencourage team learning with a high reliability(a ¼ 0.86). Due to the importance of analysing thesecharacteristics in our research (e.g. collectivism,dialogue, communication), the seven items wereused to measure team learning in our global model.The second factor, formed by two items that reflectthe existence of salary and job heterogeneity in theteam, explained 13% of the variance, but presenteda low reliability (a ¼ 0.16). Therefore, was not usedin our research.

4.2.4. Shared vision capability

The first step in sharing a vision is ensuring thatothers understand this vision. For this to happen,the vision should be simple, clear and well commu-nicated. Only then will it be understood by all theeducational centre’s members (Oswald, Mossholder,& Harris, 1994). Furthermore, this vision shouldencourage the presence of a shared commitment tothe future we wish to achieve. A lack of commit-ment to and confidence in the vision will lead to anegative situation of enlistment or mere observance(Senge et al., 1994). The vision should not beimposed on all the other members of the centre,since this would bring about apathy and compla-cency (Maani & Benton, 1999). An educationalcentre with shared vision is not made by a singlecharismatic visionary educator. Rather, it is a centrein which the responsibility of describing the visionfalls upon all its members. The vision is present atall levels, and each individual or team makes thisvision its own, perhaps adapting it slightly butmaintaining a coherence with the shared vision ofthe centre itself (Collins & Porras, 1991). In short,the vision is born of the personal vision of eachperson and of the creative synthesis generated byinteraction with the individual visions of the othermembers of the centre (Senge, 1990a; Senge et al.,1994).


Based on previous scales that measured clarity,vision sharing, trust in the vision, the presence ofsimilarity in the goals to be reached and coherencewith the personal vision and with the individualvisions of others (e.g., Jehn, 1995; Oswald et al.,1994; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), we asked theeducators to evaluate the importance they gave tothese key characteristics of shared vision using fiveitems. These were assessed on a seven-point scale,with high ratings indicating important developmentof a shared vision. Exploratory principal compo-nents analysis with varimax rotation showed thatthese items formed two clear factors. Thus, the firstfactor explained 50% of the variance, and the threeitems related to this first factor were directly linkedto sharing a vision in the educational centre with ahigh reliability (a ¼ 0.76). Due to the importance ofanalysing these characteristics (clarity, sharing andtrust in the shared vision) in our study, we usedthese three items to measure shared vision in ouroverall model. The second factor, made up of twoitems that reflected the coherence between theeducational centre’s shared vision and the personaland individual visions, explained 16% of thevariance but presented a low reliability (a ¼ 0.41).Therefore, it was not used in our research.

4.2.5. Educational organizational learning capability

We should encourage organizational learning ineducational centres as a mechanism for the genera-tion of distinctive basic educational competencesthat allow the results obtained to be improved.Based on the existing literature (e.g., Fiol & Lyles,1985; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 1990a), weasked the educators to evaluate whether their centrehad ongoing processes in place to search for theacquisition of new knowledge and changes inbehaviour oriented towards improving the educa-tional results (cognitive and behavioural change).We also asked whether the acquisition, sharing,dissemination and application of knowledge andlearning were encouraged among the differentmembers (organizational learning process). Like-wise, they were shown the ideal model for anintelligent educational centre, with a view toevaluating whether the centre surveyed respondedto that model. These three items were assessed on aseven-point scale, with high ratings indicatingsignificant organizational learning. We validatedour scales using a confirmatory factor analysis andshowed that the scale was unidimensional with a

high reliability (a ¼ 0.77). We used the three itemsto measure shared vision in our global model.

4.2.6. Organizational performance

We established a scale to measure differentaspects of organizational performance in educa-tional centres. We asked the educators to evaluatethe following on a seven-point scale: the personalsatisfaction their work gave them; the level at whicheducational innovations were implemented; theagile, quick implementation of the new knowledgelearned; the centre’s ability to absorb new data,information and knowledge from students, collea-gues or other centres with a view to adapting themto our educational systems; the centre’s capacity toanticipate and engage the changes stemming fromeducational reform and the demands of futurestudents; the improvement in educational quality;the entrepreneurial culture; and economic viabilityof the educational centre. High ratings indicatedgood educational organizational performance. Wevalidated our scales using a confirmatory factoranalysis and showed that the scale was unidimen-sional with a high reliability (a ¼ 0.76). We calcu-lated the arithmetical mean of theses items; a highscore indicated good educational organizationalperformance.

4.3. Model and analysis

LISREL 8.30 program was used to test thetheoretical model. Fig. 1 shows the basis of themodel proposed and the hypotheses to be con-trasted. We used a recursive non-saturated model,taking personal mastery (x1) and learning barriers(x2) as exogenous latent variables; shared vision (Z1)as the first-grade endogenous latent variable; andteam learning (Z2), educational organizationallearning (Z3) and organizational performance (Z4)as the second-grade endogenous latent variables.Through its flexible interplay between theory anddata, this structural equation model approachbridges theoretical and empirical knowledge for abetter understanding of the real world. Suchanalysis allows for modelling based on both latentand manifest variables, a property well suited to thehypothesized model, where most of the representedconstructs are abstractions of unobservable phe-nomena. Furthermore, structural equation model-ling takes into account errors in measurement,variables with multiple indicators and multiple-group comparisons.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

PersonalMastery

Barriers

SharedVision

TeamLearning

η3

η2

η1

ξ2

ξ1

η4OrganizationalLearning

Performance

H 4 (-)

H 7 (+)

H 5 (+)

H 6 (+)

H 8 (+)

H 2 (+)

H 1 (+)

H 3 (-)

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.


5. Results and discussion

This section presents and discusses the mainresults of our research. First, Table 2 reports themeans and standard deviations for all the measuresas well as the inter-factor correlations matrix for thestudy variables in order to evaluate the significancelevel of the relationships that exist. Positivecorrelations exist among personal mastery, teamlearning, shared vision, educational organizationallearning and organizational performance, andnegative correlations between learning barriers andthe rest of the variables analysed. The non-presenceof multicolinearity was verified by calculating aseries of tests (e.g. tolerance, variance inflationfactor) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1999).

Second, structural equation modelling (Bollen,1989) was performed to estimate direct and indirecteffects using LISREL 8.30 with the correlationmatrix and asymptotic covariance matrix as input.We checked the presence of good fit in the jointmodel, the measurement model and the structuralmodel (Hair et al., 1999). At a 5% level, thesignificance reached by the measurement model’scoefficients was statistically different from zero(tX1.96) and presented factorial loads above theiracceptable value of 0.4. The reliability coefficientswere above the acceptable level, except for one ofthe items that measured shared vision (SHARVIS3),which was eliminated from the study. Once this itemis eliminated, the constructs display satisfactorylevels of reliability, as indicated by composite

reliabilities ranging from 0.76 to 0.93 and sharedvariance coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 0.70(Table 3). Convergent validity—the extent to whichmaximally different attempts to measure the sameconcept agree—can be judged by looking at boththe significance of the factor loadings and the sharedvariance. The amount of variance shared orcaptured by a construct should be greater than theamount of measurement error (shared variance40.50). All the multi-item constructs meet thiscriterion, each loading (l) being significantly relatedto its underlying factor (t-values greater than 14.13)in support of convergent validity. Likewise, a seriesof w2 difference tests on the factor correlationsshowed that discriminant validity—the degree towhich a construct differs from others—is achievedamong all constructs (Anderson & Gerbin, 1988).Discriminant validity was established between eachpair of latent variables by constraining the esti-mated correlation parameter between them to 1.0and then performing a w2 difference test on thevalues obtained for the constrained and uncon-strained models (see Anderson & Gerbin, 1988).The resulting significant differences in w2 indicatethat the constructs are not perfectly correlated andthat discriminate validity is achieved.

The overall fit measures, the multiple squaredcorrelation coefficients of the variables (R2’s),and the signs and significance levels of the pathcoefficients all indicate that the model fits thedata well (w97

2¼ 269.42, po0.001; wratio

2¼ 2.77;

NFI ¼ 0.95; NNFI ¼ 0.96; CFI ¼ 0.97). The

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Means, standard deviations and correlations

Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Permast 5.42 0.87 1.00

2. Barrier1 3.52 1.22 �0.42 1.00

3. Barrier2 3.24 1.10 �0.25 0.54 1.00

4. Sharvis1 4.78 1.73 0.43 �0.25 �0.14 1.00

5. Sharvis2 4.37 1.81 0.55 �0.30 �0.14 0.56 1.00

6. Teamlea1 4.61 1.71 0.51 �0.36 �0.19 0.40 0.41 1.00

7. Teamlea3 4.57 1.68 0.46 �0.44 �0.23 0.38 0.43 0.64 1.00

8. Teamlea4 4.94 1.59 0.58 �0.29 �0.26 0.36 0.41 0.57 0.48 1.00

9. Teamlea6 3.85 1.84 0.54 �0.44 �0.13 0.28 0.43 0.52 0.41 0.50 1.00

10. Teamlea7 4.92 1.75 0.41 �0.37 �0.20 0.37 0.40 0.54 0.43 0.52 0.47 1.00

11. Teamlea8 5.73 1.38 0.44 �0.25 �0.22 0.34 0.38 0.40 0.30 0.57 0.41 0.42 1.00

12. Teamlea9 5.55 1.42 0.58 �0.44 �0.32 0.40 0.36 0.56 0.44 0.60 0.42 0.44 0.49 1.00

13. Orglear1 4.69 1.57 0.53 �0.30 �0.14 0.39 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.39 0.38 0.29 0.37 0.32 1.00

14. Orglear2 4.47 1.54 0.57 �0.35 �0.11 0.41 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.32 0.42 0.60 1.00

15. Orglear3 4.62 1.47 0.52 �0.42 �0.15 0.40 0.39 0.50 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.30 0.19 0.42 0.49 0.53 1.00

16. Perfor 5.05 0.88 0.69 �0.25 �0.24 0.40 0.50 0.41 0.38 0.59 0.50 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.57 0.59 0.49 1.00

Note: n ¼ 200. Correlation 13 is significant at po0.10. Correlations between 0.14 and 0.18 are significant at po0.05. Correlations between

0.19 and 0.23 are significant at po0.01. Correlations greater than 0.23 are significant at po0.001

Table 3

Measurement model—validity, reliability and internal consistency

Variables Items Parameter Validity, reliability and internal consistency

l* R2 AM

Personal mastery Permast lx11 1.00 (f.p.) 1.00

Barriers Barrier1 lx22 0.91 (f.p.) 0.83 a ¼ 0.707 CR ¼ 0.767 SV ¼ 0.631

Barrier2 lx23 0.61*** (14.13) 0.47

Shared vision Sharvis1 ly11

0.83 (f.p.) 0.69 a ¼ 0.719 CR ¼ 0.829 SV ¼ 0.708

Sharvis2 ly12

0.85*** (29.68) 0.73

Team learning Teamlea1 ly23

0.82 (f.p.) 0.67 a ¼ 0.863 CR ¼ 0.930 SV ¼ 0.657

Teamlea3 ly24

0.84*** (34.10) 0.70

Teamlea4 ly25

0.83*** (37.66) 0.69

Teamlea6 ly26

0.80*** (28.48) 0.65

Teamlea7 ly27

0.74*** (29.71) 0.55

Teamlea8 ly28

0.77*** (28.36) 0.59

Teamlea9 ly29

0.87*** (27.03) 0.75

Organizational learning Orglear1 ly310

0.72 (f.p.) 0.52 a ¼ 0.776 CR ¼ 0.787 SV ¼ 0.553

Orglear2 ly311

0.77*** (25.16) 0.59

Orglear3 ly312

0.74*** (18.53) 0.55

Organizational performance Perfor ly413

1.00 (f.p.) 1.00

Notes: l* ¼ standardized structural coefficient (t-students are shown in parentheses); f.p. ¼ fixed parameter; R2¼ reliability;

AM ¼ adjustment. measurement. a ¼ alpha cronbach. CR ¼ composite reliability; SV ¼ shared variance; ***po0.001 (two-tailed).


hypothesized model was a significantly better fitthan the null model (w120

2¼ 5055.45, po0.001;

Dw232¼ 4786.03, po0.001). All of the modification

indices for the beta pathways between majorvariables were small, suggesting that adding further

paths would not significantly improve the fit. Theresiduals of the covariances were also small andcentred around zero. Inspection of the standardizedstructural coefficients (see Fig. 2) showed that thehypotheses were supported. The relative importance

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Personal

Mastery

Barriers

Shared

Vision

Team Learning

Organizational

LearningPerformance

PERMAST

BARRIER1

SHARVIS1 SHARVIS2

TEAMLEA1 TEAMLEA3 TEAMLEA4 TEAMLEA6 TEAMLEA7 TEAMLEA8 TEAMLEA9

ORGLEAR1 ORGLEAR2 ORGLEAR3

PERFOR

λx11=1.00

λx22=0.91

λx23=0.61

λy23=0.82

λy24=0.84 λy

25=0.83 λy26=0.80 λy

27=0.74 λy28=0.77

λy29=0.87

λy312=0.74

λy413=1.00

λy311=0.77λy310=0.72

γ21=0.53***

γ11=0.72***

β21=0.41***

β31=0.26**

β23=0.71*** β43=0.75***

γ22=0.13***

γ12=-0.09†

BARRIER2

ε1 ε2

ε3 ε5 ε6 ε7 ε9ε8ε4

ε10 ε11 ε12

ε13

η1ξ1

δ1

δ2

δ3

ξ2

η2

η3η4

λy11=0.83 λy12=0.85

Fig. 2. Results of structural equation model. Note: Completely standardized solution. ypo0.10, *po0.05, ** po0.01, *** po0.001.


of the variables is reflected by the magnitude of thecoefficients.

The findings (see Table 4) show that personalmastery significantly and positively affects sharedvision (g11 ¼ 0.72, po0.001). Thus, as predicted inHypothesis 1, one of the essential elements we mustconsider on analysing shared vision is the capabilityfor personal mastery. Shared vision acts as theenergizing motor that drives and unites the mem-bers of the educational centre to succeed in creatingthe common future they desire (Collins & Porras,1996; Maani & Benton, 1999). To achieve thisshared vision requires creating an environment thatallows the development of competences, skills andpersonal and professional abilities and that en-courages the expression, transmission, sharing, andcreative synthesis of the personal visions of theorganization’s members (Senge, 1990a; Senge et al.,1994).

Likewise, personal mastery significantly andpositively affects team learning (g21 ¼ 0.53,po0.001). The presence of individuals with a highdegree of personal mastery encourages people to

work in teams, thus verifying Hypothesis 2. Inaddition to the direct effect that exists betweenpersonal mastery and team learning, there is also anindirect effect between both 30, po0.001) throughshared vision [0.72� 0.41; see, for instance, Bollen(1989) for calculation rules]. The total effect ofpersonal mastery on team learning is 0.83(0.53+0.30), supporting Hypothesis 2. Previousresearch has revealed different strategic factorsrelated to personal mastery (e.g. educational level,developmental level, the existence of complemen-tary capabilities, diversity of knowledge among themembers) that favour teamwork and team learning(Guns, 1996; Maani & Benton, 1999; Senge, 1990a;Senge et al., 1994).

Both shared vision and team learning may notoccur due to the existence of certain barriers (theorganizational defensive model and organizationalinertia) that prevent them from flourishing ineducational centres. These barriers can impede theformation of shared vision by breaking thelink between individual and shared mental models.They can also prevent learning within the team,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Direct, indirect and global effects

Effect from To Standardized structural coefficients t

Direct effects

Personal mastery - Shared vision 0.72*** 8.77

Personal mastery - Team learning 0.53*** 4.12

Learning barriers - Shared vision �0.09y �1.79

Learning barriers - Team learning �0.13*** �3.68

Shared vision - Team learning 0.41*** 4.04

Shared vision - Educational organizational learning 0.26** 3.05

Team learning - Educational organizational learning 0.71*** 8.87

Educational organizational learning - Organizational performance 0.75*** 17.56

Indirect effects


Personal mastery - Educational organizational learning 0.78*** 8.55

Personal mastery - Organizational performance 0.58*** 9.29

Learning barriers - Team learning �0.04 �1.42

Learning barriers - Educational organizational learning �0.14*** �3.55

Learning barriers - Organizational performance �0.11*** �3.49

Shared vision - Educational organizational learning 0.29*** 3.67

Shared vision - Organizational performance 0.42*** 6.18

Team learning - Organizational Performance 0.53*** 8.67

Total effects

Personal mastery - Shared vision 0.72*** 8.77


Personal mastery - Educational organizational learning 0.78*** 8.55

Personal mastery - Organizational performance 0.58*** 9.29

Learning barriers - Shared vision �0.09y �1.79

Learning barriers - Team learning �0.17*** �3.76

Learning barriers - Educational organizational learning �0.14*** �3.55

Learning barriers - Organizational performance �0.11*** �3.49

Shared vision - Team learning 0.41*** 4.04

Shared vision - Educational organizational learning 0.55*** 6.12

Shared vision - Organizational performance 0.42*** 6.18

Team learning - Educational organizational learning 0.71*** 8.87

Team learning - Organizational performance 0.53*** 8.67

Educational organizational learning - Organizational performance 0.75*** 17.56

Note: ypo0.10, *po0.05, **po0.01, ***po0.001.


producing learning only for individuals and break-ing the link between shared mental models and teamlearning (e.g. Argyris, 1990; Kim, 1993; Senge,1990a). The results of the model reveal that learningbarriers are negatively associated with shared visioncapability (g12 ¼ �0.09, po0.10), supporting Hy-pothesis 3. Thus, personal mastery and learningbarriers are closely related (R2

¼ 0.57) to sharedvision. There is also a direct negative relationbetween learning barriers and team learning cap-ability (g22 ¼ �0.13, po0.001). In addition to thisdirect effect, there is another indirect effect betweenboth (�0.04, p40.10) through shared vision(�0.09� 0.41). The total effect of learning barrierson team learning is �0.17 (�0.13+�0.04), support-

ing Hypothesis 4. If these barriers are not overcome,we do not foster organizational learning. Theprocess remains incomplete, and shared vision andteam learning are not achieved.

Team learning is also explained very well by themodel (R2

¼ 0.90) in terms of personal mastery,learning barriers and shared vision. Team learningis the logical next step after shared vision. This isdemonstrated by the fact that there is a significantpositive relationship between both (b21 ¼ 0.41,po0.001), as established in Hypothesis 5. Once ashared mental model has been created, the team actsaccording to this mental model assumed by all. Thiscollectively internalized vision guides behaviour andenables team learning rather than the vision of


particular individuals to prevail (Collins & Porras,1996; Senge et al., 1994).

Educational organizational learning capability isaffected both by shared vision and team learning(R2¼ 0.89). The presence of a shared vision in the

educational centre allows all efforts to be pooled toachieve a common compromise with regard toeducational organizational learning. That this re-lationship is both positive and significant(b31 ¼ 0.26, po0.01) verifies Hypothesis 6. Sharedvision is highly important for organizational learn-ing (Maani & Benton, 1999; Senge 1990a; Senge etal., 1994), particularly because it pushes organiza-tional members to work the same way to obtaincommon objectives (Landier, 1992; Slater & Narver,1995). The absence of shared vision has beenanalyzed as one of the most important causes offailure for the processes of organizational learning(e.g., Fahey & Prusak, 1998; Leonard-Barton,1992). Likewise, team learning is significantlyrelated to educational organizational learning, suchthat the greater and stronger team learning is, thegreater the organizational learning (b23 ¼ 0.71,po0.001), as pointed out in Hypothesis 7. Thisshows that the fundamental unit of learning inmodern organizations is not the individual but theteam (Senge, 1990a). The results verify, as did theapproach of action learning, that organizationallearning is produced by the confrontation andexchange of experiences between members whoform a specific collective. Comparing the magni-tudes of these effects indicates that the effect of

Table 5

Model statistics against theoretical model

Model Description w2 df Dw

1 Theoretical 269.42 97

2 Without relationship shared vision-organizational learning

276.49 98 7.

3 Without relationship team learning-organizational learning

296.67 98 27.

4 Without relationship personal mastery-team learning

295.15 98 25.

5 Without relationship barriers-team

learning

278.49 98 9.

6 Without relationship shared vision-team learning

274.32 98 4.

7 Without relationship personal mastery-shared vision

354.86 98 85.

8 Without relationship barriers-shared

vision

272.34 98 2.

Note: n ¼ 200.

team learning is significantly larger than the effectof shared vision on educational organizationallearning.

Finally Hypothesis 8 was supported by ourfinding a statistically significant parameter estimatefor the path between educational organizationallearning and organizational performance(b43 ¼ 0.75, po0.001). The replacement of ineffi-cient practices and routines with learned ones thathave shown greater efficiency will improve theaverage yield of the organization (e.g., Argyris &Schon, 1978; Bohn, 1994; Garvin, 1993; Senge,1990a). Our research shows that organizationalperformance is strongly affected by educationalorganizational learning (R2

¼ 0.56). Other indirecteffects in the model can be seen in Table 4.

In testing the theoretical framework, we fit severalnested models, each incorporating different assump-tions about parameters. Comparisons with reason-able alternative models are recommended as ameans of showing that a hypothesized model isthe best representation of the data. Comparison isconsidered to be an important part of assessingmodel fit (Bollen & Long, 1993; Kelloway, 1995).The summary statistics in Table 5 indicate thatModel 1 was preferred to the others, supporting theinclusion of a model with these relationships amongthe analysed constructs. For example, if we comparethe theoretical model (Model 1) with a model thatdoes not consider the relationship between personalmastery and shared vision (Model 7), we can seethat the latter has a worse Normed Fit Index

2 NFI NNFI CFI ECVI AIC PGFI NCP

0.95 0.96 0.97 2.32 347.42 0.69 172.42

07 0.95 0.96 0.96 2.35 252.49 0.69 178.49

25 0.94 0.95 0.96 2.48 372.67 0.69 198.67

73 0.94 0.95 0.96 2.47 371.15 0.69 197.15

07 0.94 0.96 0.96 2.36 354.49 0.69 180.49

9 0.95 0.96 0.96 2.34 350.32 0.69 176.32

44 0.93 0.94 0.95 2.87 430.86 0.69 256.86

92 0.95 0.96 0.96 2.32 348.34 0.69 174.34


(rNFI ¼ 0.02), Non-Normed Fit Index (rNNFI ¼0.02), Comparative Fit Index (rCFI ¼ 0.02), Ex-pected Cross-Validation Index (DECVI ¼ 0.55),Akaike Information Criterion (DAIC ¼ 83.44),and Estimated Non-Centrality Parameter (DNCP ¼84.44). Hence, results show that personal masteryaffects shared vision and that Model 1 was preferredto Model 7 (Dw2 ¼ 85.44, Ddf ¼ 1). Likewise, we seethat the theoretical model is preferable to theremaining models formulated (see Table 5). Lengthrestrictions prevent a detailed discussion of eachmodel. In sum, the proposed theoretical modelrepresented (see, Fig. 2) the preferred, mostacceptable and parsimonious model.

6. Conclusions

Our conclusion discusses the implications of thisstudy for research and practice. It then points outsome limitations due to the nature of the samplestudied and directions for future research.

6.1. Implications for research and practices

The educational centre is seen as a socialcommunity specializing in speed and efficiency inthe creation and transfer of knowledge. Newknowledge in itself will provide the basis fororganizational renewal and the generation ofsustainable competitive advantages, and we recog-nize organizational learning as the key to thegeneration of new knowledge and competitiveadvantage. Organizational learning allows theintegration, redesign, increase and liberation ofexisting resources and knowledge to create a newcomposition of knowledge and resources that willaugment organizational capability to carry outeffective action and improve organizational perfor-mance, leading to a sustainable competitive advan-tage. We must encourage organizations that learn tolearn, that is, intelligent organizations. In order tobecome an intelligent organization, the organizationitself must address certain determining factorsthat boost the dynamic capability to learn at itsvery core (e.g. personal mastery, shared vision, teamlearning) and must overcome obstacles that hinderlearning by blocking the aforementioned strategicfactors.

The results of this research reveal that we mustencourage educational centres where all the mem-bers can develop themselves both personally andprofessionally (reaching a high degree of personal

mastery). The basis of educational organizationallearning should begin with the development of thosein charge of helping to learn, i.e. the educatorsthemselves. Only then can the students’ preparationbe improved. Educators open to learning encouragelearning in others by helping the organization’smembers to discover their own mental models, torestructure their visions of reality so as to seebeyond the superficial conditions, to developsystemic comprehension and to learn. The respon-sibility for learning should be returned to eachsubject who, supported by his knowledge, will bethe one to guide his development within as well asoutside the organization (Senge, 1990a, 1990b).

Another of the educator’s essential componentsshould be the ability to transmit and create a sharedvision. One of the main challenges is to provide avision of the future that has a meaning for everyoneon all levels (Senge et al., 1994). The educator mustbe the prime believer in the need to create a visionthat is shared, not imposed. A vision cannot beforced onto employees, since this would only lead toapathy and complacency. It would not represent atrue commitment as regards learning (Maani &Benton, 1999). An educational centre withoutshared vision cannot create its own future; it canonly react to it (Collins & Porras, 1991). Withoutvision we have merely adaptive learning, but withvision we can achieve generative learning (Min-tzberg, 1994; Senge, 1990a). Following the same lineas previous research works (e.g., Senge, 1990a,1990b, Senge et al., 1994), we have empiricallyverified the presence of a positive relationshipbetween personal mastery and shared vision.Personal mastery is the foundational discipline fromwhich we should foster shared vision (Senge, 1990a).Shared vision emerges from the creative orientationand personal and professional development of themembers of the organization (Maani & Benton,1999).

People committed to personal mastery are alsomore committed to teamwork and team learning andpromote a climate that is favourable to both (e.g.,Moravec et al., 1997; Senge, 1990a; Senge et al.,1994). Team learning is stronger than the mere sum ofthe learning of individual minds (e.g., Maani &Benton, 1999; Senge, 1990a), for it is based on peoplewho have developed their individual learning skillsthrough personal and professional development(Guns, 1996), as has been empirically proved. Forteams to learn, learning must already have takenplace in the individual members (Senge, 1990a).


This research has also verified the presence of apositive relationship between team learning andshared vision, established team learning as the nextstep after shared vision (Senge et al., 1994). Teammembers are committed to a common purpose, setof performance goals, and approach for which theyhold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach,1997), and shared vision is needed to avoidindividualistic behaviours (Longenecker & Neubert,2000). A successful team is totally committedto the vision of a project and clearly understandsits mission and objectives (Lynn, 1998; Senge,1990a; Senge et al., 1994). Its members must feel astrong interest, even a passion, for the objectivesand mission, which must in turn build on thepersonal visions of its members (Maani & Benton,1999).

Educators have an important job: creating theconditions that facilitate the development of perso-nal mastery, shared vision and team learning toobtain a competitive advantage over the educationalcentres where educators do not introduce themproperly. They must encourage the organization’smembers to achieve high levels of personal mastery,since this development will enable them to takemore initiative, have a broader and deeper sense ofresponsibility in their work and learn faster. Whatthen can educators intent on nurturing personalmastery do? They can work to foster a climate inwhich the principles of personal mastery arepracticed. There is nothing more important to anindividual committed to his own growth than asupportive environment. This environment can beprovided by continually encouraging personalvision. The central strategy of the educator shouldbe to become a good role model. Nothing fosterspersonal mastery more powerfully in the organiza-tion than to have an educator who is serious in hisown personal mastery.

Talking about personal mastery may openpeople’s minds somewhat, but team learning willspeak stronger than words. To develop teamlearning, we should try to create a spirit of sincerity,learn to listen to others, use techniques like theladder of inferences, the left column and othermechanisms to develop aptitude for reflection andinquiry, such as dialogue and expert discussion.Educators generate team learning from the convic-tion that their efforts will yield more productiveeducational centre and greater personal satisfaction.

An educational centre commitment to personalmastery and team learning would be naive and

foolish if educators in the organization lacked thecapabilities of building a shared vision. There are noformulae for creating shared vision, but there areguidelines that can help to orient us. The educatormust prepare the educational centre and shape themental models, since, without an effective awarenessof the changes needed and a deep commitment bytop management, moving toward this vision wouldbe impossible. Then, the firm’s strong and weakpoints are analyzed and the environment is exam-ined, questioning the future and drawing up thestrategy to reach it.

Finally, specific actions must be taken to over-come the internal and external obstacles to sharedvision or team learning. This study would not becomplete if we did not take a look at the learningbarriers (the organizational defensive model andorganizational inertia). The influence of theselearning barriers is generally accepted in theliterature. The educator can do a lot to preparethe organization’s minds and to create a context(culture, structure) that allows the organization toovercome these barriers. The members of theeducational centre (educators, students, adminis-trative personnel) should all recognize the over-coming of the learning barriers as an essentialobjective and devote the adequate means to achiev-ing this goal. It has been shown that there is anegative relationship between these barriers andshared vision and team learning (e.g., Argyris, 1990;Senge, 1990a; Senge et al., 1994). Only if we manageto overcome these obstacles will we obtain anadequate shared vision and team learning which, asproven empirically, will boost educational organiza-tional learning.

If this is not achieved, the members of thecentre will not share their visions but will actas if they have different perspectives andcompete with each other, thus eliminating teamlearning or shared vision. Such barriers hinder thecreation of communities in which knowledge,experience and expertise are shared, freely movedby the spirit of a collective mind. Nonetheless, if thebarriers can be overcome, the centre’s ability to setup co-ordinated effective actions that allow thedevelopment of organizational learning willincrease.

The results of this study also shed additional lighton competitive implications of organizational learn-ing, showing positive relationships between learningand organizational performance, as had alreadybeen obtained by prior researchers (e.g., Argyris &


Schon, 1978; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Garvin, 1993;Senge, 1990a). Through internal learning, educatorsshould try to ensure that members of the centrepossess knowledge with a high number of commonterms and meanings. Such shared vocabularyfacilitates their subsequent integration and coordi-nation, increasing creativity, and enables them toperform subsequent joint projects more easily. Inthe same way, external learning will enable thecentre to increase its store of knowledge and thus toface different questions more efficiently (Grant,1996). Thus, learning is a major component in anyeffort to improve organizational performance andmanages to strengthen the competitive advantage ofthe organization’s members (March, 1991). Wemust not forget, of course, that there will be adelay or time lag between the linking of organiza-tional learning and performance. We must remem-ber, however, that today’s learning will affecttomorrow’s performance, making this relationshipeven more positive (Guns, 1996; Inkpen & Crossan,1995).

6.2. Limitations and directions for future research

This study has several limitations that maysuggest further possibilities for empirical research.First, survey data based on self-reports may besubject to social desirability bias (Podsakoff &Organ, 1986). However, the assurance of anonymitycan reduce such bias even when responses relate tosensitive topics (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). Thelow risk of social desirability bias in this study wasindicated by several educational managers whocommented at the end of their questionnaires thatit made no sense at all for their companies to gobeyond regulatory compliance. Still, the responsesare subject to interpretation by individual educa-tional managers. Second, the absence of an objec-tive measure of educational organizational learningis a limitation. However, the external validation ofthis variable and of some of the variables (e.g.organizational performance) from the archival dataof a subset of respondents increased confidence inthe self-reports and reduced the risk of commonmethod variance (Sharma, 2000). Furthermore, asmentioned earlier, we tested for the possibility ofcommon method bias using Harman’s one-factortest, and it does not appear to be present (Konrad &Linnehan, 1995; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Scott &Bruce, 1994).

Third, the cross-sectional nature of the researchinto a series of dynamic concepts (educationalorganizational learning, shared vision, etc.) allowsus to analyze only a specific situation in time of theorganizations studied, not their overall conductover time. Our approach has reduced the magnitudeof this problem, however, for the items shows thatdynamic characteristics and causal affirmations canbe made if the relationships are based on theoreticalrationales (Hair et al., 1999). This is why we beganwith a theoretical effort that would allow us toidentify and check the formal existence of thedifferent cause–effect relationships. Nonetheless,future research should focus on longitudinal study.Educational organizational learning is very neces-sary and complex, influenced by organizational,personal, and environmental issues. One way ofapproaching educational organizational learningwith greater precision and of studying its determi-nants, processes, and results systematically isthrough longitudinal research, for this approachallows us to analyze the evolution of their variablesover time and to draw more reliable conclusionsabout these activities.

Four, our model analyses only some of the factorsthat, strategically, have been recognized as the maincatalysts (or obstacles) for educational organiza-tional learning. Others could be analysed, such asabsorptive capacity, technology or systems thinking(e.g. Senge, 1990a). However, the strategic variablesanalysed have explained a high percentage ofeducational organizational learning variance. Weshould examine additional learning barriers, such asspatial myopia, tunnel vision, shooting the messen-ger, and so on. More attention to the influence ofspecific strategic factors or barriers to organiza-tional learning is necessary in the future. Empiricalpapers supporting (or rejecting) our results wouldbe welcomed. We find especially interesting thegeneration of empirical research better to under-stand the influence of these factors or barriers oneducational organizational learning and organiza-tional performance. Fifth, our use of a singlerespondent must be taken into account. Difficultiesin obtaining sponsorship for research based onmultiple views for each organization, lack of analternative database of organizational characteris-tics for Spanish organizations, the value of theknowledge that those polled have of their organiza-tions, and common practice in educational centreresearch all supported the use of this director ofstudies or department head as respondents. Sixth,


the educator’s perception both of the environmentsurrounding the educational centre and of theresources and capabilities existing inside it arefundamental for creating organizational learning.To make sense of the complex environmentsurrounding them, educators tend to form simpli-fied internal cognitive representations (mental mod-els). Using these mental models, educators focus oncertain variables that they judge to be critical andmake decisions, measure their performance, and soon, based on these variables (Porac & Thomas,1990). It is therefore better to consider the relationsanalysed here more as perceptions than as definitivestatements. Nevertheless, the participants have agreat deal of experience in the strategic factors andbarriers analysed.

Development of a collaborative scheme betweenacademics and practitioners would allow an orga-nizational strategy to be generated around the‘‘conceptual triad’’ (knowledge management, orga-nizational learning and intellectual capital) todetermine other factors that influence educationalorganizational learning and to study further theprocesses, means and mechanisms by which totransform the educational centre into a ‘‘learningorganization’’ where people have an internal moti-vation to learn and develop themselves personallyand professionally and, thus, create a sustainablecompetitive advantage. Future studies should bebased on a larger sample, preferably in more thanone country. The homogeneous geographical con-text examined here limits the influence of externalconditions, but future research might well integratethe influences of external factors explicitly. It wouldalso be interesting to study similar characteristicswith information provided by other actors in theeducational centre (e.g. alumni, staff) and confirmthe consistency of the results.

Appendix A

Please indicate your degree of agreement ordisagreement (1, ‘‘disagree completely’’; 7, ‘‘agreecompletely’’) with the following statements:

Personal mastery

1.
The educational centre fosters personal growth andlearning (favours the personal and professionaldevelopment of the organization’s members).
2.
We possess the competences, skills, and abilitiesneeded to face the everyday tasks of theirpersonal and professional life with certainty.
3.
There is a constant individual desire to read,study and learn new methods and skills thatenable us to improve as people and professionalsrather than because we feel obligated to do so byour work or by colleagues.
4.
We view the gap between the desired state andthe current one with a positive attitude andconsider this gap an opportunity to learn.
5.
We have the patience and perseverance necessaryto achieve the goals we hope to reach.
6.
We uphold truth over our personal interests. 7. Our usual workplace has a pleasant environment
in which to work and learn.

Learning barriers

1.
Barriers between some sections, areas or depart-ments and others reduce the sharing of knowl-edge between people in different groups.
2.
We usually focus more on the exploitation ofcurrent knowledge than on the search for newknowledge.
3.
Many external factors in our work make correctlearning challenging or difficult.
4.
We often associate specific results with causesthat have not really produced them, which leadsus to repeat the action or commit an error.
5.
We very often justify facts, guidelines andactions that do not seem very justifiableobjectively.
6.
Although the goals of our organization areclear, we almost never realize them due to lackof agreement or interest.
7.
We often decide to act in a specific wayeven though it does not seem logical, allegingthat it is necessary for the good of thegroup, department or organization (socialreasons).
8.
Our work is very independent of the rest of ourcolleagues in the organization.
9.
In our work, it is assumed that the professorknows everything (if he does not know some-thing, he should hide it so as not to be seen asincompetent).
10.
Political interests often make us defend posi-tions unsupported by reality.
11.
We are normally more concerned with compet-ing than with collaborating with the rest of theorganization’s members.
12.
We almost always change things because some-one from outside tells us to, not through ourown initiative.


Team learning

1.
The educational centre has an atmosphere ofteam dialogue in which people express their ideasfreely and fearlessly and listen to the opinions ofothers.
2.
The educational centre has good communicationchannels that encourage work in teams.
3.
In the educational centre, there is a preference forworking collectively rather than individually.
4.
The educational centre consistently encourageschallenges that allow the development of perso-nal and team abilities.
5.
The educational centre usually has informalmeetings to discuss openly how to resolveproblems, allowing us to know each other andgenerate close relations between the members.
6.
The educational centre has a spirit of openness tonew information, knowledge and experiences.
7.
The educational centre encourages a spirit of co-operation and companionship.
Shared vision

1.
The educational centre’s mission or ultimate goalis well communicated and understood by all themembers of the organization.
2.
Goals are created and upheld by the greatmajority, not just by the leaders or by certainmembers (the goals of the educational centre arecreated and shared by all).
3.
We are committed to the goals because we believein them, not because they have been imposed byforce.
Educational organizational learning

1.
The educational centre has ongoing processes inplace to search for the acquisition of newknowledge and changes in behaviour orientedtowards improving educational results.
2.
The educational centre greatly encourages theacquisition, sharing, dissemination and applica-tion of knowledge and learning among thedifferent members.
3.
Our educational centre fits the ideal model of alearning organization.
Organizational performance

Please indicate the quality of your organization’sperformance (1, ‘‘very low’’; 7, ‘‘very high’’) for thefollowing statements:

1.
The personal satisfaction that your work pro-vides.
2.
The level at which educational innovations wereimplemented.
3.
The agile, quick implementation of the newknowledge learned.
4.
The centre’s ability to absorb new data, informa-tion and knowledge from students, colleagues orother centres with a view to adapting them to itseducational systems.
5.
The centre’s capacity to anticipate and engagethe changes stemming from educational reformand the demands of future students.
6.
The improvement in educational quality. 7. The existence of an entrepreneurial culture open
to educational change.
8. The economic viability of the educational centre.
References

Adler, N. J. (1983). Psychological safety and learning behaviour

in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbin, D. W. (1988). Structural equation

modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step

approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Andreu, R., & Ciborra, C. (1996). Core capabilities and

information technology: An organizational learning ap-

proach. In B. Moingeon, & A. Edmondson (Eds.), Organiza-

tional learning and competitive advantage. Beverley Hills, CA:

Sage.

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defences. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning.

Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77–85.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A

theory of action perspective. London: Addison-Wesley.

Aubrey, R., & Cohen, P. (1995). Working wisdom timeless skills

and vanguard strategies for learning organizations. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates

for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations,

and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,

45–68.

Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H., & Pennings, J. M. (1996). Foreign

entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management

Journal, 17, 151–166.

Beyer, J. M. (1981). Ideologies, values and decision making in

organizations. In P. C. Nystrom, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.),

Handbook of organizational design (2nd ed., pp. 166–202).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Bohn, R. E. (1994). Measuring and managing technological

knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 36(1), 61–73.

Bohn, R. E. (1995). Noise and learning in semiconductor

manufacturing. Management Science, 41, 31–42.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variable.

New York, USA: Wiley-Interscience Publication.


Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation

models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cant, G. A. (2004). Internationalizing the business curriculum:

Developing intercultural competence. The Journal Academy of

Business, September, 177–182.

Colley, R., & Volkan, A. (2004). Teaching workloads of

marketing program leaders and faculty and criteria for

granting load relief. The Journal Academy of Business,

September, 1, 316–324.

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1991). Organizational vision and

visionary organizations. California Management Review,

34(1), 30–52.

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your company’s

vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 65–77.

Cook, S. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational

learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373–390.

Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management.

Long Range Planning, 30(3), 374–384.

Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. (2000). Changing roles: Leadership

in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 18–34.

Dibella, A., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M. (1996). Understanding

organizational learning capability. Journal of Management

Studies, 33, 361–379.

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

literatures. Organization Studies, 14, 375–394.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1998). Organizational learning and national

culture: Do models of organizational learning apply outside

the USA? Boletın de Estudios Economicos, 53, 281–295.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning

behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,

44, 350–383.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-

velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32,

543–576.

Elsass, P. M., & Veiga, J. F. (1994). Acculturation in acquired

organizations: A forcefield perspective. Human Relations, 47,

431–453.

Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of

knowledge management. California Management Review,

40(3), 265–276.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning.

Academy of Management Review, 10, 803–813.

Fritz, R. (1989). The path of least resistance. New York: Fawcett-

Columbine.

Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard

Business Review, 71(4), 78–91.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organiza-

tional and psychological climate: Pitfall in multilevel research.

Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the

firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

Guns, B. (1996). The faster learning organization; gain and sustain

the competitive edge. London: Pfeiffer & Company.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.

(1999). Analisis multivariante. Madrid: Prentice-Hall.

Hart, E. (1996). Top teams. Management Review, 85(2), 43–47.

Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P.

C. Nystrom, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of

organizational design (1st ed., pp. 3–27). London: Oxford

University Press.

Hickson, D. J. (1987). Decision-making at the top of organiza-

tions. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 165–192.

Hodge, B. J., Anthony, W. P., & Gales, L. M. (1998).

Organization theory: A strategic approach. Prentice-Hall–Si-

mon & Schuster.

Hodgetts, R. M., Luthans, F., & Lee, S. M. (1994). New

paradigm organizations: From total quality to learning to

world-class. Organizational Dynamics, 22(3), 5–19.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990).

Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quanti-

tative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 25, 286–306.

Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). The manual of learning styles.

Maidenhead: Peter Honey.

Hoopes, D. G., & Postrel, S. (1999). Shared knowledge, ‘glitches’,

and product development performance. Strategic Manage-

ment Journal, 20, 837–865.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing

processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2,

88–115.

Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. (1998). Innovation,

market orientation, and organizational learning: An integra-

tion and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62,

42–54.

Inkpen, A. C., & Crossan, M. M. (1995). Believing is seeing: Joint

ventures and organization learning. Journal of Management

Studies, 32, 595–618.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits

and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

Katzenbach, J. R. (1997). The myth of the top management team.

Harvard Business Review, 75(6), 83–91.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of

teams. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 111–120.

Kelloway, E.K. (1995). Common practice in structural equation

modelling. In C.L. Cooper, C.L., & I.T. Robertson (Eds.),

International review of industrial and organizational psychology

(pp. 141–180). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Kim, D.H. (1993). A framework and methodology for linking

individual and organizational learning application in TQM and

product development. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge, MA:

MIT Sloan School of Management.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commit-

ment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational

Dynamics, 22(2), 5–23.

Konrad, A., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures:

Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing

organizational practices. Academy of Management Journal,

38, 787–820.

Landier, H. (1992). Hacia la empresa inteligente: Guıa para la

gestion del cambio. Bilbao: Ediciones Deusto.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). The factory as a learning laboratory.

Sloan Management Review, 34(1), 23–38.

Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Organizational adaptation and environ-

mental selection. Organization Science, 2, 140–145.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning.

Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning.

Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

Longenecker, C. O., & Neubert, M. (2000). Barriers and

gateways to management cooperation and teamwork. Busi-

ness Horizons, 43(5), 37–44.

Lounamaa, P. H., & March, J. G. (1987). Adaptive coordination

of a learning team. Management Science, 33, 107–123.


Lynn, G. S. (1998). New product team learning: Developing and

profiting from your knowledge capital. California Manage-

ment Review, 40(4), 74–93.

Maani, K., & Benton, C. (1999). Rapid team learning: Lessons

from team new Zealand America’s Cup campaign. Organiza-

tional Dynamics, 28(4), 48–62.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organiza-

tional learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1975). The uncertainty of the past:

Organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of

Political Research, 3(2), 147–171.

McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1994). The smarter organization.

How to build a business that learns and adapts to marketplace

needs. New York: Wiley.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New

York: The Free Press.

Moingeon, B., & Edmondson, A. (1996). Organizational learning

and competitive advantage. London: Sage.

Moravec, M., Johannessen, O. J., & Hjelmas, T. A. (1997).

Thumbs up for self-managed teams. Management Review,

86(7), 42–47.

Nevis, E. C., Dibella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Under-

standing organizations as learning systems. Sloan Manage-

ment Review, 36(2), 73–85.

Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning—a cultural change needed in

teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Educa-

tion, 18(7), 763–780.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowl-

edge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37.

Nonaka, I., & Johansson, J. K. (1985). Japanese management:

What about the ‘hard’ skills? Academy of Management

Review, 10, 181–191.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating

company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of

innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P., & Senoo, D. (1998). The art of

knowledge: Systems to capitalize on market knowledge.

European Management Journal, 16, 673–684.

Oswald, S. L., Mossholder, K. W., & Harris, S. G. (1994). Vision

salience and strategic involvement: Implications for psycho-

logical attachment to organization and job. Strategic Man-

agement Journal, 15, 477–489.

Pedler, M. (1991). Action learning in practice. Hampshire,

England: Gower Publishing Limited.

Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organiza-

tional research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Manage-

ment, 12, 531–544.

Porac, J. F., & Thomas, H. (1990). Taxonomic mental models in

competitor definitions. Academy of Management Review, 15,

224–240.

Ramamoorthy, N., & Carroll, S. J. (1998). Individualism/

collectivism orientations and reactions toward alternative

human resource management practices. Human Relations, 51,

571–588.

Revans, R. W. (1982). Origins and growth of action learning.

Chartwell-Bratt.

Revans, R. W. (1983). The ABC of action learning. Chartwell-

Bratt.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). Organizational conditions of teacher

learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 91–104.

Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). Strategic learning and knowl-

edge management. New York: Wiley.

Schofield, W. (1996). Survey sampling. In R. Sapsford, & V. Jupp

(Eds.), Data collection and analysis. London: Sage Publica-

tions.

Scott, S., & Bruce, R. (1994). Determinant of innovative

behaviour: A path model of individual innovation in the

workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.

Senge, P. M. (1990a). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday

Publ.

Senge, P. M. (1990b). The leader’s new work: Building learning

organizations. Sloan Management Review, 32(1), 7–23.

Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A.

(1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday

Publ.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Roth, G., &

Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change. The challenges to

sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York:

Doubleday, Publ.

Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational

context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental

strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681–697.

Shaw, R. B., & Perkings, D. N. T. (1992). Teaching organizations

to learn. In D. A. Nadeler, M. Gerstein, & R. B. Shaw (Eds.),

Organizational architecture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Stark, E. M. (2000). Interdepen-

dence and preference for group work: Main and congruence

effects on the satisfaction and performance of group

members. Journal of Management, 26, 259–279.

Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge

transfer in strategic alliance. Strategic Management Journal,

29, 595–623.

Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of

small losses. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),

Research in organizational behavior (14th ed., pp. 231–266).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the

learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63–74.

Snyder, W. M., & Cummings, T. G. (1998). Organization

learning disorders: Conceptual model and intervention

hypotheses. Human Relations, 51, 873–895.

Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. (1992). Becoming a learning

organization. Reading, MA: Addisson-Wesley.

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation:

The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management

Journal, 41, 464–476.

Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning

organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescrip-

tive research. Human Relations, 50, 73–89.

Thomas, C. W. (1994). Learning from scenarios: Imagining the

years ahead. Planning Review, 22(2), 6–10 44.

Ulrich, D., Von Glinow, M. A., & Jick, T. (1993). High-impact

learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organi-

zational Dynamics, 22(2), 52–66.

Veenman, S., Van Benthum, N., Bootsma, D., Van Dieren, J., &

Van Der Kemp, N. (2002). Cooperative learning and

teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1),

87–103.

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism:

Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management

Journal, 38, 152–172.

Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition:

Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science,

6, 280–321.


Wenger, E. (1997). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning,

and identify. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital,

knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young

technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22,

587–613.

Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). International

expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode

of market entry, technological learning, and performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 43, 925–950.

Documents

Strategic factors and barriers for promoting educational organizational …hera.ugr.es/doi/16657482.pdf · · 2007-05-22Strategic factors and barriers for promoting educational