Bridging Learning Investments and Service Performance in Public Sector

This report presents an in-depth analysis of the Organisational Learning Capability (OLC) model within the context of public sector organizations. The study explores how to bridge the gap between investments in learning initiatives and improvements in service provision by examining the role of digital technologies in enhancing learning programs. The research employs a mixed-methods approach, including a literature review and semi-structured interviews with experienced participants across various sectors. The findings are synthesized to propose an OLC model comprising key elements such as learning processes, enablers, and influential factors. The report highlights the importance of OLC in facilitating learning, addressing challenges in digital technology adoption, and ultimately improving service performance within public sector organizations. The study also discusses the role of coaching learning programs within the broader OLC framework and provides insights into the facilitating factors for the implementation of OLC.

Title of the Paper (16pt Times New Roman, Bold, Centered)
AUTHORS' NAMES ()
Department ()
University ()
Address ()
COUNTRY ()
Abstract: - Public organizations provide training to enhance their employee’s capabilities to provide better
services. Public organizations use different learning methods to enhance their employee’s skills and service
offering. Therefore, public organizations are considering different learning programs such as classroom
training, coaching, mentoring etc. For the organizations to be effective in providing the learning programs to
their employees, there is a need to have an approach to support these efforts. This study suggests that
Organizational Learning Capability (OLC) is the right approach to do that. This is because OLC facilitates the
learning process. The study proposes an OLC model consists of the key elements that represent the definition of
OLC; these are the learning processes, enablers, influential factors. This paper explores how organizations can
bridge the gap between investments in learning initiatives and improvement in service provision in public
organizations. The context of this study is the creation of a set of learning and development programs in the
public services organizations. The top OLC model helps to define all other learning programs where the
coaching learning program is presented in this paper.
Key-Words: - Organisational Learning capability, Learning programmes, Public services
organisations, Coaching learning programme, Learning process in organisations
Received:
1 Introduction
The advent of new digital technologies and
the gig economy present an opportunity for
revisiting the way learning programmes are
conducted. Organisations invest massively in
learning programmes to upskill human talent and
improve service offering. In 2016, $359 billion was
spent globally (Borzykowski, 2017). However, these
investments usually lack the expected impact on
service performance: three quarters of managers and
employees are dissatisfied and lack the required
skill to do their jobs (Glaveski 2019). Organisations
are considering digital technologies to address these
challenges, but, without the right deployment
strategy, they risk committing the same mistakes
and using technology for waste automation (Holweg
et al. 2018). Thus, adopting digital technologies to
deliver impactful and cost-effective learning
programmes requires an aligned deployment
framework that account for the challenges digital
technologies pose to learning, including employees’
difficulty to undertake and complete training
(Edmondson 2012).
The context of this study is the creation of a
set of learning programmes in public sector
organisations. The authors built a mixed-methods
field study focusing on coaching learning programs.
Data were collected and analysed during three
phases. First, the theoretical foundations of OLC
were reviewed, recording different key factors.
Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with multiple experienced participants across
industrial sectors in Europe and UAE to capture
their perspectives of the organisational learning
programs enablers and challenges. Third, findings
from the previous two phases were reconciled to
produce a model for OLC which includes a detailed
analysis of the role that digital technologies play in
enabling the organisational learning.
2 Problem Formulation
This paper explores how organisations can
bridge the gap between investments in learning
programmes and service performance in public
sector organisations. The author adopts an
organisational learning capability (OLC) perspective
to study what strategic enablers and influential
factors affecting the link between digital
technologies and organisational learning. OLC
emphasises on the ability of organisations to acquire

and translate knowledge from external sources,
operations, experiences and initiatives into
improvement changes (Leonard Barton 1992,
Popper and Lipshitz 1998).
2.1
Exploring OLC has the potential to highlight a
distinctive framework that advantage technological
investments in learning.
2.1.1
OLC addresses the individual, group and
organizational levels to realize the management
goals (Crossan, Lane, and White 1999, Goh 2003,
Lawrence et al. 2005).
3 Problem Solution
The Organizational Learning Capabilities
Research on organizational learning has focused
on the “change in the organization that occurs
as the organization acquires experience”
(Argote and Miron-Spektor 2011: 1124), from
at least three perspectives: behavioral,
knowledge and systems. Behavioral researchers
have compared concepts from individual
learning to organizational learning, highlighting
the role of bounded rationality and the
challenges of learning under uncertainty (March
and Olsen 1975, Levinthal and March 1993,
Simon 1991). Organizational learning
researchers focused on understanding the role
of knowledge in learning Finally, researchers
took a learning systems angle, finding
management practices that foster organizational
learning (Senge 2006, Örtenblad 2007, Back
2012, Caldwell 2012a, 2012b, Shrivastava
1983).
Barton (1992) operationalizes OLC as an
organization’s ability to acquire and translate
knowledge from external sources, operations,
experiences and initiatives into improvement
changes at the individual, group and
organizational level to realize the management
goals. While research on organizational
learning argues that learning causes myopia,
prevents innovation and causes structural
rigidity (Levinthal and March 1993, March and
Olsen 1975, Simon 1991), OLC provides an
alternative vantage point to analyses those
challenges. It argues that some organizational
structures, processes and values can become
enablers and influential factors for innovation
and adaptation and improvements. (Jiménez-
Jiménez and Sans-Valle 2011, Alegre and
Chiva 2008).
Enablers of the Organizational Learning
Capability
Different opinions about organizational learning
enablers can be broadly classified in acquire
and capture knowledge enablers, which allow
the organization to grab learning experiences
from its employees, associates, competitors and
the environment and establish a mode of
documentation (DiBella, Nevis, and Gould
1996); translate knowledge enablers, which
transform knowledge sources into learning and
integrate it across the organization, including
dissemination mode, and skill development
(DiBella, Nevis, and Gould 1996, Jerez-Gómez,
Céspedes-Lorente, and Valle-Cabrera 2005,
Goh 2003); realize management goals enablers,
which promote common mental models (e.g.
mission and vision) (Senge 1990, Goh 2003),
and reward systems (Goh 2003). Finally,
systemic change enablers such as those that
focus on leadership commitment, empowerment
and experimentation (Goh 2003, Jerez-Gómez,
Céspedes-Lorente, and Valle-Cabrera 2005,
Jerez Gómez, Céspedes Lorente, and Valle
Cabrera 2004, García-Morales, Jiménez-
Barrionuevo, and Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez 2012,
Moghadam et al. 2013). Table 1 present an
example of enablers considered in this study.
Table 1 present OLC enablers that are identified
from the reviewed literature.

Table 1 Enablers of organizational learning
Facilitating Factors for Implementation of OLC
Facilitating factors describe the “organizational
and managerial characteristics or factors that
facilitate the organizational learning process or
allow an organization to learn” (Goh and
Richards 1997: 577). Some studies referred to
facilitating factors as the dimensions of learning
and have been used as components of
instruments to measure learning. These
dimensions are derived from both the Learning
Organization literature (c.f. Hult and Ferrell
1997), and the Organizational Learning (c.f.
Chiva-Gómez 2004, Chiva, Alegre, and
Lapiedra 2007), (Chiva, Alegre, and Lapiedra
2007). A summary of the facilitating factors is
presented below:
Table 2 Factors that facilitate learning in
organization
Digitalization of learning process
Recently, digital innovations have blossomed
due to progress in infrastructure and algorithms,
and emergence of a new generation of digital
savvies. This innovation has profound
implications for corporate management and
learning (Noruzy et al. 2013, Khin and Ho
2019, Szalavetz 2019, Schweitzer, Hand rich,
and Heidenreich 2018, Ylijoki and Porras 2016,
Camisón and Villar-López 2014, Laurell et al.
2020). Three mechanisms are to note:
improving structural performance, (cost-related
efficiency gains), enhancing relational
performance (collaboration quality across
different teams) and promoting new product
development performance (Schweitzer,
Handrich, and Heidenreich 2018). Performance
benefits are only achieved if the appropriate
conditions exist; an integrated development
environment and other tactics need to be in
place to reduce the risk of derailing innovation
practices (Szalavetz 2019).
Researchers found the use of digital platforms
for education can benefit multiple dimensions
of learning programs through; ease of access to
knowledge, emergence of a massive open
online courses, integration with industries,
global mobility of learners, competitive
landscape, objectivity of assessment, and time

dedicated per instructor. (Wildan Zulfikar et al.
2018, Sánchez et al. 2019).
For digital technologies to deliver,
organizations need to align digital innovation
with corporate goals, foster the right
organizational culture, build talent/roles with
the right skills on the effective appropriation of
digital instruments (Caputo et al. 2019, Vial
2019), and get leadership buy-in (Muninger,
Hammedi, and Mahr 2019, Vial 2019).
However, these digitalisation enablers have not
been integrated with the application of learning
programs. Two gaps are addressed; 1) a need
for a well-defined OLC model to help
organizations introduce and implement learning
programs cost-effectively. 2) Most of the papers
have not addressed comprehensively compiling
the facilitating factors of learning process in
organizations.
Research design and methodology
This study seeks to gain a better understanding
of the learning practices in public sector to
support the development of an OLC model that
encourages learning culture activities, utilising
digital technology to enhance performance and
service offering. A structured interview
protocol using face to face and video meetings
was used to collect data. The protocol covered
key aspects mentioned in the literature
including learning processes, enablers,
influential factors and digital enabling
technology. The study interviewed 37
employees from 30 public sector organisations
from seven countries. The sample, shown in
Table 3, includes managers in healthcare,
education, social care, local authorities and law
enforcement sectors.
Table 1 Field study participants
Data analysis
we rated organisation using a 1-5 Likert scale
where higher scores indicate greater
effectiveness and/or adoption on 4 areas:
learning processes, enablers, facilitating factors,
and challenges in adopting digitally enabled
learning processes. The same measurement
applied to the frequency wherever it occurred.
Data were filtered to include only inputs with
an average effectiveness above 3.
Figure 1 shows that public service
organisations are performing all the needed
tasks to conduct any learning programme.
Designing, evaluation of the learning
programmes and the evaluation of the gained
knowledge tasks are less effective which should
be considered in the final model.
Figure 1 – Tasks performed to conduct
learning programme in organisations
Figure 2 summarise the key learning
facilitating factors in public sector ranked by
importance according to the interviewees.
These factors are important to support the

execution of the different activities of the
defined learning process.
Figure 2 - Learning Processes Facilitating
Factors
Interviewees discussed the role of digital
technologies in enabling the implementation of
learning programmes. Virtual learning
environments and business games supported
learning in public organisations, particularly,
when they are accessed through different
devices, including smart phones and tablets.
However, several challenges emerge from
implementing these digital technologies (see
Figure 3), including the adoption resistance
from older employees and privacy and cyber
security concerns. The analysis shows the
importance of creating an organisational
capability to reap benefits from digital
technologies: from improving the employee’s
digital skills to facilitate access to specifying
the right structures to monitor execution of
learning. Therefore, the intended OLC model
should be developed to address and overcome
these challenges.
Figure 3 - Challenges in implementing digital
technologies
The Organisational Learning Capabilities
Model
The OLC model shown in Figure 4
represents one of the main contributions of this
research which consists of three main elements;
learning routines, influential factors, and
enabler. The model encapsulates elements
which were discussed in the literature review
and endorsed via the field study (questionnaires
and structured interviews) both in the UAE and
Europe. The proposed OLC model is a
graphical representation of the OLC definition
which is to say that “OLC is the facilitation of a
process to ensure that the organisation is
learning from its operations and experiences of
different projects and initiatives. This learning
process is influenced by certain factors that are
directly related to the performance of both
employees and service provision.” (Moghadam
2013, Ton Bruining 2009, Alegre, J. and
Chiva,2008). The OLC model presents a
process for public sector organisations to learn
via different stages with several tasks in each
stage. The model shows several key influential
factors that should be taken into account to
ensure the effectiveness of the learning process.
Several enablers have also been captured to
facilitate an effective application of the learning
in the organisation. Previous knowledge and

experiences are going to be used to support the
identification of any knowledge gaps in the
employee’s skills, and supporting the defined
new learning process.
Figure 4 - The organisational learning
capabilities model
Learning processes and routines
Previous studies on Organizational Learning
focused on the four Organizational Learning
Processes (Argote and Miron-Spektor 2011):
knowledge creation, knowledge retention
(Majchrzak, Cooper, and Neece 2004, McGrath
and Argote 2001, Arrow, McGrath, and Berdahl
2000), knowledge transfer (Argote and Ingram
2000, Bechky 2003) and knowledge search
(Knudsen and Levinthal 2007). This paper
builds upon such theoretical framework and
discusses five routines that enable the
organizational learning processes presented
above. These routines are knowledge
identification, learning program selection,
planning and designing, the delivery of the
learning programs, the Impact Evaluation and
knowledge Sharing. The following paragraphs
present the routines that enable the
aforementioned learning process.
1. Gap identification: Prior to starting the
learning process itself, knowledge gap
identification is performed to
determining the gap between
performance standards and employees’
skills. During process, the organisational
strategy, customers’ feedback and
performance reviews are analysed to
find potential missing skills. This results
into a competence matrix that is used to
tailor learning programmes needed.
2. Plan and Design: In this stage specific
are selected to close the identified
knowledge gap. Here, organisations
select the learning programmes -
classroom training, apprenticeships,
coaching, a Gemba Walk or a
customized degree - that better fits
employee’s needs. This routine includes
selecting or developing the right
digitalised tools to enable proper
implementation of the learning
programme.
3. Delivery: The organization starts to
prepare a mixture of methods to deliver
the learning programmes. The most
popular ones are face-to-face delivery,
virtual, and blended delivery. The latter
is one of the most effective methods as
it combines the virtues of both providing
a good balance between the engagement
and empathy from face-to-face methods
with the flexibility and adaptability of
virtual methods, providing a nimbler yet
effective learning. The progress of all
the delivery should be digitally recorded
to be used in future analysis.

4. Evaluation: monitoring of learning
programs delivery, using digital tools
should carry on until throughout
learning cycle. The entire program
should be evaluated to ensure that
objectives are met, and gaps are
mended. Feedback should be collected
from all stakeholders and should be
analysed. Programs impact on
employees’ line managers and overall
organizational performance should be
studied.
5. Transfer: learning programmes should
produce valuable knowledge to the
organisation which should be captured
and shared across the organisation
through:
 Gathering feedback from employees,
managers, and various stakeholders.
 Digitally documenting the progress,
impact and lesson learnt log.
Enablers
Six enablers (Supportive leadership,
relationship with Universities, Altruism, data
visualization, new technologies, learning in
Communities) play a key role in public
organisation learning; they yielded the right
environment to maximize the benefits of
learning programmes.
Facilitating Factors
Nine factors (knowledge sharing, dialogue,
participative decision making, interaction with
the external environment, experimentation, risk
taking, systems thinking, leader commitment,
and teamwork cooperation and group problem
solving) were associated with positive learning
experiences and improved performance in
public organisations.
slowly to the changes in the external
environment, and can be successful when the
the economic environment remains static. These
organizations do not need to learn. In
order to respond to changes in the environment,
as well as to create new opportunities,
organizations must engage in activities aimed at
both improving their existing
products and services, and innovation.
This dimension is defined as the scope of
relationships with the external
environment. The external environment of an
organization is defined as the factors
that are beyond the organization’s direct
control. It consists of industrial agents such as
competitors, and the economic, social,
monetary and political/legal systems.
Environmental characteristics play an important
role in learning, and their
influence on organizational learning has been
studied by some researchers (Bapuji
and Crossan, 2004).
Hedberg (1981) considered the environment as
the prime mover behind
organizational learning. According to Nevis et
al. (1995), researchers in recent years
have stressed the importance of observing,
opening up to and interacting with the
environment (e.g. Goh and Richards, 1997
Close systems react
slowly to the changes in the external
environment and can be successful when the
economic environment remains static. These
organizations do not need to learn. In
order to respond to changes in the environment,
as well as to create new opportunities,
organizations must engage in activities aimed at
both improving their existing
products and services, and innovation.
This dimension is defined as the scope of
relationships with the external
environment. The external environment of an
organization is defined as the factors
that are beyond the organization’s direct
control. It consists of industrial agents such as
competitors, and the economic, social,
monetary and political/legal systems.
Environmental characteristics play an important
role in learning, and their
influence on organizational learning has been
studied by some researchers (Bapuji
and Crossan, 2004).
Hedberg (1981) considered the environment as
the prime mover behind
organizational learning. According to Nevis et
al. (1995), researchers in recent years
have stressed the importance of observing,
opening up to and interacting with the
environment (e.g. Goh and Richards, 1997

Close systems react
slowly to the changes in the external
environment and can be successful when the
economic environment remains static. These
organizations do not need to learn. In
order to respond to changes in the environment,
as well as to create new opportunities,
organizations must engage in activities aimed at
both improving their existing
products and services, and innovation.
This dimension is defined as the scope of
relationships with the external
environment. The external environment of an
organization is defined as the factors
that are beyond the organization’s direct
control. It consists of industrial agents such as
competitors, and the economic, social,
monetary and political/legal systems.
Environmental characteristics play an important
role in learning, and their
influence on organizational learning has been
studied by some researchers (Bapuji
and Crossan, 2004).
Hedberg (1981) considered the environment as
the prime mover behind
organizational learning. According to Nevis et
al. (1995), researchers in recent years
have stressed on the importance of observing,
opening up to and interacting with the
environment (e.g. Goh and Richards,
1997Teamwork cooperation and group
problem solving: Teams play a crucial role in
organizational learning; they are the focus of
interaction between the individual and the
organisation, and consequently, constitute the
basis of learning and execution. Coherent and
effective teams bring knowledge and experience
together, helping to solve problems effectively
and boost performance.
Coaching learning programs within OLC
environment
The International Coaching Federation
identifies coaching as a “thought-provoking and
creative process that inspires people to
maximize their personal and professional
potential”. Coaching is used to enhance learning
and increase organizational effectiveness
(Kwan, 2015). Swart & Harcup (2013),
identified coaching as a learning &
development approach to generate individual
learning that results in collective learning, to be
transferred to organizational learning.
The coaching learning program process
shown in Figure 5, presents the steps of creating
an effective coaching. The process represents
the stages from the OLC model presented in
Figure 4; plan and design, learning program
delivery and the impact evaluation.
Figure 5 - The coaching learning process
1. Coaching Plan involves:
 Defining goals and objectives
including a program mission statement.
The coaching portal should have a
dedicated section to allow process
managers to enter goals that will be
visible to all stakeholders. Such goals
will be utilised later during the
evaluation process to ensure the
effectiveness of the program.
 Select coaches: Identify and E-certify
the selected coaches by providing an e-
learning course through the coaching
platform.
 Assign a coach: Coaches are assigned
their coachees based on their experience
and ability to create the required effect
and to achieve the set goals.
 Allocate time in the E-portal: the
system should allow for time booking
and schedules creation on both the
coach and coachee calendar.
2. Design Coaching

Organisations should have an inventory
of coaching topics as a result of the learning
needs analysis. Such topics are organised within
the coaching portal. Once coaching goals are set
for an individual, certain topics get selected to
be the focus of coaching. The digitalised portal
offers various ways of communicating such as
emails, video webinars. This also applies to
“face-to-face coaching” as the platform can be
used to keep schedules and book venues for
meetings. The progress can be monitored
regularly and automatically through the digital
portal.
3. Delivering Coaching
The coach should set the coaching plan and
start the coaching. All steps of delivery should
be documented through the digital portal.
Program managers should continuously ensure
the usage of the coaching portal and ensure that
coaching progress is as desired. When the
programme ends reports could be issued and
preparation for the final evaluation stage should
start.
4. Coaching Evaluation:
The evaluation process involves:
I. Evaluation of the employees by the
coach: The coach evaluates coachees
using the coaching management portal
thought a function normally called
progress tracking. Progress tracking will
allow the coach to review the progress
notes and steps and to fill in the required
data electronically.
II. Evaluation of the coach by the
employees: Evaluators via the
digitalised portal should be able to share
the evaluation forms with the coaches.
This data should be analysed to measure
the effectiveness and the performance of
the coach.
III. Measure the impact in performance:
the impact of the programs will be
measured after a set period (for example
3 months) to ensure that the program is
consistent with the set objectives. This
will be done by contacting the coachees’
line mangers and measuring the
improvements in the productivity and
strategic KPIs of their unites.
4 Conclusion
Public sector organisations are keen to improve
the skills of their employees. The traditional
approach of providing mainly training is not
good anymore. Therefore, public sector
organisations are considering different learning
programs such as coaching, mentoring etc. This
study suggests that OLC is the right approach to
boost the learning as OLC facilitates the
learning process. The proposed OLC model
consists of the key elements that represent the
definition of OLC; these are the learning
processes, enablers, influential factors and the
enabling technologies. The OLC model helps to
define all other learning programs where the
coaching learning program is presented in this
paper. A digitised software demonstrator is
being developed based on the tasks of the
coaching learning programme process. The
digitised software demonstrator will be used in
a case study in a public service organisation as a
future work.
References:
[1] Alegre, J. and Chiva, R. (2008) ‘Assessing
the Impact of Organizational Learning
Capability on Product Innovation
Performance: An Empirical Test’.
Technovation 28, 315–326
[2] Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000)
‘Knowledge Transfer: A Basis for
Competitive Advantage in Firms’.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 82 (1), 150–169
[3] Argote, L. and Miron-Spektor, E. (2011)
‘Organizational Learning: From Experience
to Knowledge’. Organization Science 22
(5), 1123–1137
[4] Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E., and Berdahl, J.L.
(2000) Small Groups as Complex Systems:
Formation, Coordination, Development, and
Adaptation. Sage Publications

[5] Bak, O. (2012) ‘Universities: Can They Be
Considered as Learning Organizations?’
The Learning Organization
[6] Bechky, B.A. (2003) ‘Sharing Meaning
across Occupational Communities: The
Transformation of Understanding on a
Production Floor’. Organization Science 14
(3), 312–330
[7] Bontis, N., Crossan, M.M., and Hulland, J.
(2002) ‘Managing an Organizational
Learning System by Aligning Stocks and
Flows’. Journal of Management Studies 4
[8] Caldwell, R. (2012a) ‘Leadership and
Learning: A Critical Reexamination of
Senge’s Learning Organization’. Systemic
Practice and Action Research 25 (1), 39–55
[9] Caldwell, R. (2012b) ‘Systems Thinking,
Organizational Change and Agency: A
Practice Theory Critique of Senge’s
Learning Organization’. Journal of Change
Management 12 (2), 145–164
[10] Camisón, C. and Villar-López, A.
(2014) ‘Organizational Innovation as an
Enabler of Technological Innovation
Capabilities and Firm Performance’. Journal
of Business Research [online] 67 (1), 2891–
2902. available from
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.06
.004>
[11] Caputo, F., Cillo, V., Candelo, E.,
and Liu, Y. (2019) ‘Innovating through
Digital Revolution’. Management Decision
57 (8), 2032–2051
[12] Chiva-Gómez, R. (2004) ‘The
Facilitating Factors for Organizational
Learning in the Ceramic Sector’. Human
Resource Development International 7 (2),
233–249
[13] Chiva, R., Alegre, J., and Lapiedra,
R. (2007) ‘Measuring Organisational
Learning Capability among the Workforce’.
International Journal of Manpower 28, 224–
242
[14] Çömlek, O., Kitapçı, H., Çelik, V.,
and Özşahin, M. (2012) ‘The Effects of
Organizational Learning Capacity on Firm
Innovative Performance’. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 41, 367–374
[15] Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., and
White, R.E. (1999) ‘An Organizational
Learning Framework: From Intuition to
Institution’. Academy of Management
Review 24 (3), 522–537
[16] Deniz, S., Cimen, M., and Kaya, S.
(2017) ‘Determining Organizational
Learning Capability: A Study in Private
Health Care Organizations’. International
Journal of Research Foundation of Hospital
and Health Care Administration 5, 1–7
[17] Edmondson, A.C. (2012) Teaming:
How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and
Compete in the Knowledge Economy. John
Wiley & Sons
[18] García-Morales, V.J., Jiménez-
Barrionuevo, M.M., and Gutiérrez-
Gutiérrez, L. (2012) ‘Transformational
Leadership Influence on Organizational
Performance through Organizational
Learning and Innovation’. Journal of
Business Research [online] 65 (7), 1040–
1050. available from
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03
.005>
[19] Garvin, D. (1993) ‘A (1993).
Building a Learning Organization’. Harvard
Business Review 78–91
[20] Glaveski, S. (2019) ‘Where
Companies Go Wrong with Learning and
Development’. Harvard Business Review
[online] 1–7. available from
<https://hbr.org/2019/10/where-companies-
go-wrong-with-learning-and-development>
[30 April 2020]
[21] Goh, S. and Richards, G. (1997)
‘Benchmarking the Learning Capability of
Organizations’. European Management
Journal 15 (5), 575–583
[22] Goh, S.C. (2003) ‘Improving
Organizational Learning Capability:
Lessons from Two Case Studies’. The
Learning Organization 10 (4), 216–227

[23] Goh, S.C. and Ryan, P.J. (2002)
Learning Capability, Organization Factors
and Firm Performance. 52, 1–5
[24] Gomes, G. and Wojahn, R.M.
(2017) ‘Organizational Learning Capability,
Innovation and Performance: Study in
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
(SMES)’. Revista de Administração 52,
163–175
[25] Haho, P. (2014) Learning Enablers,
Learning Outcomes, Learning Paths, and
Their Relationships in Organizational
Learning and Change.
[26] Hazlett, S.A., McAdam, R., and
Beggs, V. (2008) ‘An Exploratory Study of
Knowledge Flows: A Case Study of Public
Sector Procurement’. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence 19,
57–66
[27] Holweg, M., Davies, J., De Meyer,
A., Lawson, B., and Schmenner, R.W.
(2018) ‘Improving Processes’. in Process
Theory: The Principles of Operations
Management. 167–192
[28] Hult, G.T.M. and Ferrell, O.C.
(1997) ‘Global Organizational Learning
Capacity in Purchasing: Construct and
Measurement’. Journal of Business
Research 40 (2), 97–111
[29] Isaacs, W.N. (1993) ‘Taking Flight:
Dialogue, Collective Thinking, and
Organizational Learning’. Organizational
Dynamics 22 (2), 24–39
[30] Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente,
J., and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005)
‘Organizational Learning Capability: A
Proposal of Measurement’. Journal of
Business Research 58 (6), 715–725
[31] Jerez Gómez, P., Céspedes Lorente,
J.J., and Valle Cabrera, R. (2004) ‘Training
Practices and Organisational Learning
Capability’. Journal of European Industrial
Training 28, 234–256
[32] Jiménez-Jiménez, D. and Sanz-
Valle, R. (2011) ‘Innovation, Organizational
Learning, and Performance’. Journal of
Business Research [online] 64 (4), 408–417.
available from
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09
.010>
[33] Khalib, L.H., Kassim, N.A., and
Ghazali, F.I. (2015) ‘Organizational
Learning Capabilities ( OLC ) toward Job
Satisfaction : A Conceptual Framework’.
Academic Research International 6, 169–
180
[34] Khin, S. and Ho, T.C.F. (2019)
‘Digital Technology, Digital Capability and
Organizational Performance: A Mediating
Role of Digital Innovation’. International
Journal of Innovation Science 11 (2), 177–
195
[35] Knudsen, T. and Levinthal, D.A.
(2007) ‘Two Faces of Search: Alternative
Generation and Alternative Evaluation’.
Organization Science [online] 18 (1), 39–
54. available from
<http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1
287/orsc.1060.0216>
[36] Laurell, C., Sandström, C.,
Eriksson, K., and Nykvist, R. (2020)
‘Digitalization and the Future of
Management Learning: New Technology as
an Enabler of Historical, Practice-Oriented,
and Critical Perspectives in Management
Research and Learning’. Management
Learning 51 (1), 89–108
[37] Lawrence, T.B., Mauws, M.K.,
Dyck, B., and Kleysen, R.F. (2005) ‘The
Politics of Organizational Learning:
Integrating Power into the 4I Framework’.
Academy of Management Review 30 (1),
180–191
[38] Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992) ‘Core
Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox
in Managing New Product Development’.
Strategic Management Journal 13 (S1),
111–125
[39] Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G.
(1993) ‘The Myopia of Learning’. Strategic
Management Journal 14 (2 S), 95–112
[40] Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L.P., and
Neece, O.E. (2004) ‘Knowledge Reuse for

Innovation’. Management Science 50 (2),
174–188
[41] March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1975)
‘The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational
Learning Under Ambiguity’. European
Journal of Political Research 3 (2), 147–171
[42] Mbengue, A. and Sané, S. (2013)
‘Organizational Learning Capability:
Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Study in
the Context of Official Development Aid
Project Teams’. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences 30, 26–39
[43] McGrath, J.E. and Argote, L.
(2001) ‘Group Processes in Organizational
Contexts’. Blackwell Handbook of Social
Psychology: Group Processes 603–627
[44] Moghadam, A., Bakhtiari, M.,
Raadabadi, M., and Bahadori, M. (2013)
‘Organizational Learning and
Empowerment of Nursing Status Tehran
University of Medical Sciences’. Education
Strategies in Medical Sciences 6 (2), 113–
118
[45] Muninger, M.I., Hammedi, W., and
Mahr, D. (2019) ‘The Value of Social
Media for Innovation: A Capability
Perspective’. Journal of Business Research
[online] 95 (October 2018), 116–127.
available from
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.0
12>
[46] Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Konno,
N. (2000) ‘SECI, Ba and Leadership: A
Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge
Creation’. Long Range Planning 33, 5–34
[47] Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V.M.,
Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., and
Rezazadeh, A. (2013) ‘Relations between
Transformational Leadership,
Organizational Learning, Knowledge
Management, Organizational Innovation,
and Organizational Performance: An
Empirical Investigation of Manufacturing
Firms’. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 64 (5–8), 1073–
1085
[48] Onağ, A.O., Tepeci, M., and
Başalp, A.A. (2014) ‘Organizational
Learning Capability and Its Impact on Firm
Innovativeness’. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 150, 708–717
[49] Örtenblad, A. (2007) ‘Senge’s
Many Faces: Problem or Opportunity?’ The
Learning Organization
[50] Oviedo-García, M.Á., Castellanos-
Verdugo, M., García Del Junco, J., and
Riquelme-Miranda, A. (2014)
‘Organizational Learning Capacity and Its
Impact on the Results in a Government
Agency in Chile’. International Public
Management Journal 17, 74–110
[51] Petiz, S., Ramos, F., and Roseiro, P.
(2015) ‘The Use of Information and
Communication Technologies in
Organizational Learning Practices: A
Research Study in an Innovation-Oriented
Portuguese Organization’. International
Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning
(IJAC) 8, 4
[52] Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (1998)
‘Organizational Learning Mechanisms: A
Structural and Cultural Approach to
Organizational Learning’. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 34 (2), 161–
179
[53] Sánchez, J.A., Valle, B.M., Nicolás,
J., De Gea, J.M.C., García-Berná, J.A.,
Toval, A., Fernández-Alemán, J.L.,
Puptsau, A., and Misnevs, B. (2019) ‘Cloud
Service as the Driver for University’s
Software Engineering Programs Digital
Transformation’. Procedia Computer
Science [online] 149, 215–222. available
from
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.12
6>
[54] Schweitzer, F.M., Handrich, M.,
and Heidenreich, S. (2018) ‘Digital
Transformation in the New Product
Development Process: The Role of It-
Enabled PLM Systems For Relational,
Structural, And NPD Performance’.
International Journal of Innovation
Management 1950067, 1–34