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

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

The purpose of this study is to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement scores of the learning organization culture, the Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ), in a Korean context. A total of 1,529 cases from 11 rms in two major Korean conglomerates were analyzed. Rigorous translation procedures, including both forward and backward processes, have been applied to ensure the relevance of this instrumentation in different cultural contexts. As the results of conrmatory factor analysis, simple item-internal consistency estimates, and item intercorrelation analysis show, the Korean version of the DLOQ has produced reliable measurement scores with a construct validity adequate to measure the learning organization culture in the Korean context. To survive and thrive in a world characterized by turbulent change and erce competition due to technological advancement and the knowledgebased economy (Dodgson, 1993; Kim & Mauborgne, 2005; Joo, 2007), an organization must always be ready to adapt. Thus many organizations strive to have a learning organization culture of creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge and modifying its behavior to reect new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1993). There has been growing awareness of the importance of individual knowledge, or human capital, created in an organization that plays a key role in
Note: An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the 2008 annual conference of the Academy of Human Resource Development in Panama City, Florida.

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

43

44

Song, Joo, Chermack

many functions (Drucker, 1992; Thurow, 2003; von Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000). However, human capital cannot be created in a vacuum. The spark is indispensable, but without air there can be no ame. Likewise, human capital is contingent on learning organization culture and organizational learning process. Without such a culture supporting learning in the organization, the efforts invested in individual learning and development would not produce the expected outcomes (Joo & Yang, 2007). Thus organizations have an incentive to create an environment conducive to high individual learning and development by encouraging organizational learning culture. The concept of the learning organization culture and the organizational learning process has received increasing attention in the elds of human resource development (HRD) and organization development (OD). One of the most critical issues, however, has been the lack of practical and validated measurement tools (Holton, Bates, & Ruona, 2000; Lim & Morris, 2006; Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004). As a matter of fact, little has been known about how to adequately measure the learning organization culture as a supportive system for organizational learning process until the dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ) came into being (Yang et al., 2004). For an instrument to be generalizable, it needs to be assessed in various cultural settings. There have been studies of the validation of the DLOQ in the contexts of the United States, Colombia, China, and Taiwan (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang & Howton, 2002; Hernandez, 2000; Lien, Hung, Yang, & Li, 2006; Yang et al., 2004; Zhang, Zhang, & Yang, 2004) to verify its applicability in different cultures. Although Korea has little in terms of natural resources, it has the most important resource: human capital. Thanks to human capital and investment in education, Korea has achieved one of the highest rates of economic growth in the world in the past several decades. However, to meet challenges such as globalization, technology advancement, and the knowledge-based economy, learning at the individual level will not sufce. Thus the priority of most large Korean companies has been on transforming organizational culture as well as the individual performance management system. More specically, since the early 1990s a number of Korean organizations have competitively introduced the concept of the learning organization as an ideal model that could allow collaborative learning to occur continuously (Yoo, 2005). Even though Korean companies have focused enormous effort on planning and implementing various strategic choices to become learning organizations, it has not been an easy task to measure how successful the process and the outcomes of their efforts have been. Organizational learning in the international context needs indigenous research, a type of design in which the researchers focus their attention on identifying and uncovering unique organizational learning enhancing or restraining factors that are embedded in a non-Western context. This research is one such effort to respond to this issue. One of the most critical issues for Korean organizations
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

45

is to have culturally and systematically acceptable measurement tools to evaluate their status in the individuals learning process, team-based approach, and system-related organizational structure. From this perspective, the DLOQ would be the suitable measurement tool to assess learning organization climate and organizational learning processes. As mentioned above, however, because organizational learning theories and learning organization models are developed primarily in Western cultures, there has been increasing need for validated measurement of the learning organization culture in Korean context. There have been several studies using the DLOQ in the Korean culture (Joo, 2007; Lim, 2003), but no such effort for validation of the DLOQ in the Korean context has been made. We believe this study can respond to the issue. The purpose of this research is to assess the validity and applicability of the DLOQ in a Korean cultural context. In this way, survey questions are able to measure the intended characteristics accurately and consistently given a different cultural context from that in which they may have been developed. Therefore, the research question for this inquiry was, Is the Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) developed by Watkins and Marsick (1996) an appropriate measure of the learning organization climate in Korean business organizations?

Literature Review
To address the suggested research question, two realms of literature were reviewed: the concept of the learning organization and the distinction between learning organization and organizational learning. The Concept of Learning Organization. The concept of the learning organization is an increasing area of interest in the elds of HRD, management, and even school systems (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004; Marquardt, 1996, 2002; Wang, Yang, & McLean, 2007). Interest in the learning organization as the source of organizational success and competitive advantage has been a strong focus in these elds in past decades (Ellinger et al., 2002; Gilley & Maycunich, 2000; Leonard, 1998; Tsang, 1997). Three efforts have been hailed as landmark works on the learning organization: Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective Reading (Argyris & Schn, 1978); The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (Senge, 1990); and Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systematic Change (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). Argyris and Schn (1977, 1978, 1996) proposed the concept of double loop learning and theories-in-use based on the reective organizational learning process. With regard to organizational learning, they stressed the supremacy of collective learning and the continuous reection process in order to achieve high performance in an organization. The focus on the continuous and collaborative learning practice became the groundwork of the concept of the learning organization. In brief, it placed more emphasis
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

46

Song, Joo, Chermack

on the process-oriented concept (organizational learning) that underpins the learning practices that could occur in all the entities of an organization. Senge (1990) modied the basic assumptions about the learning organization by proposing a fth discipline, consisting of ve fundamental elements for the successful learning organization: (1) systems thinking, (2) personal mastery, (3) mental models, (4) shared vision, and (5) team learning. Senge (1990) dened the learning organization as the organization that is continuously expanding its capacity to create its future (p. 14). Furthermore, he insisted that the learning organization is where people could expand their competency to lead desirable results, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are persistently learning how to learn together (p. 3). In brief, the proposed ve components are the basis of building a learning organization. According to Watkins and Marsick (1993), the concept of the learning organization could be explained as one that learns continuously and transforms itself. . . Learning is a continuous, strategically used processintegrated with and running parallel to work . . . Learning also enhanced organizational capacity for innovation and growth. The learning organization has embedded systems to capture and share learning (p. 8). They focused more on the system approach regarding the workplace applications and supportive environmental factors that promote persistent learning processes. Three commonalities were drawn from the literature study: (1) the key of the learning organization is the organizational learning process; (2) the bases of the successful learning organization are collective thinking, togetherness of people, and human competency; and (3) a learning organization is the systematic environment in which continuous learning could take place by way of connections with organizational components (e.g., Argyris & Schn, 1996; Garvin, 1993, 2000; Leonard, 1998; Senge, 1990; Watkins & Marsick, 1996). This study is theoretically based on Watkins and Marsicks framework of the learning organization (1997), which will be elaborated later. Learning Organization vs. Organizational Learning. In many cases, the terms learning organization and organizational learning are used interchangeably. However, we agree that there should be a distinction between the two concepts ( Jensen, 2005). As various authors argued, there is a growing dichotomy between the two streams of research: the learning organization stream and the organizational learning stream (Huysman, 2000, p. 134). Vera and Crossan (2005) dened organizational learning as the process of collective learning activities through shared thoughts and actions, which is affected by the institutionalized climate on the basis of the integrative analysis of previous literatures of Argyris and Schn (1978) and Duncan and Weiss (1979). In contrast, Senge (1990) dened a learning organization as a place where people continually expand their capacity of creating results, where patterns of thinking are broadened and nurtured, where collective aspiration is free and where people are continually learning to learn (p. 1).
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

47

Considering these perspectives, we view organizational learning as the collaborative learning process of individuals, and the learning organization as the nature and/or characteristics of organization that could promote continuous organizational learning process (Lahteenmaki, Toivonen, & Mattila, 2001). Organizational learning analyzes learning processes without paying much attention to the outcomes; learning organization is mainly prescriptive, linking to improvement (Huysman, 2000). Thus, whereas the learning organization has to do with the contextual mechanism that transforms external knowledge into internal knowledge, organizational learning is all about learning processes that transform local or individual knowledge into collective knowledge (Huysman, 2000). Marsick and Watkins (2003) argued that climate and cultural aspects are built by complicated components, among them leadership, learning process, and other supportive systematic factors. To be more specic, the DLOQ contains seven dimensions of the positive nature and cultural aspects of a supportive learning organization, which encourage dynamic organizational learning process at two levels: organizational structure and peoples collaborative learning. As for the theoretical framework of the DLOQ, it integrates both concepts or streams: learning organization and organizational learning. Regarding the subdimensions of the DLOQ, we believe that continuous learning, system connection, and embedded systems are closely associated with contextual mechanism, which leads to learning organization, whereas dialogue and inquiry, team learning, empowerment, and strategic leadership are more related to organizational learning process. Therefore we suggest that the DLOQ be a measure for learning organization culture, which plays a pivotal role as an antecedent for many dependent variables of HRD.

Theoretical Framework
This study is based on Watkins and Marsicks framework of learning organization (1997): the Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaire. First, we review the development of the DLOQ. Then, the related empirical studies on the DLOQ in different cultural settings are described. Finally, we discuss the need for this validated measurement tool for the learning organization in the Korean cultural context. The Development of the DLOQ. One of the most severe but common critiques of HRD practices is the lack of measures to assess applications empirically in the workplace (Holton, 1996, 2005; Holton et al., 2000; Tsang, 1997; Yang et al., 2004). To date, numerous studies have been conducted to examine the substantial concept of the learning organization. However, little regard was given to how to measure the conceptualized learning organization in the workplace empirically until the 1990s. The endeavors of Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996, 1997) are of great importance in constructing the basic notions of the measurement factors of
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

48

Song, Joo, Chermack

the learning organization. Their approach encompassed comprehensive components of the learning organization construct; in turn, in order to dene the construct of the learning organization, Watkins and Marsick provided an integrative concept of the learning organization based on three approaches: (1) for systems thinking, organizational generativity (Senge, 1990); (2) for a learning perspective, comprehensive aspects of learning (Pedler, Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1991); and (3) for strategic perspective, managerial practices (Garvin, 1993; Goh, 1998). From a broader theoretical standpoint, Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996, 1997) proposed the DLOQ, a constructive concept of learning organization measures that has seven dimensions of learning-related factors in both people-oriented and structure-oriented components. The model of an effective learning organization is considered one that has the capability to integrate people and organizational structures in order to facilitate continuous learning and encourage organizational changes (Yang et al., 2004). Through integration of the aforementioned dimensions of the learning organization, Watkins and Marsick (1997) proposed an integrated model. The specic seven dimensions of a learning organization culture are described here in Table 1.

Table 1. Watkins and Marsicks Model (1997) of the Seven Dimensions of the Learning Organization
Dimension Continuous learning Description Opportunities for ongoing education and growth are provided; learning is designed into work so that people can learn on the job. The organizational culture supports questioning, feedback, and experimentation; people gain productive reasoning skills to express their views and the capacity to listen and inquire into the views of others. Work is designed to use teams to access different modes of thinking; collaboration is valued by the culture and rewarded; teams are expected to learn by working together. Necessary systems to share learning are created, maintained, and integrated with work; employees have access to these high- and low-technology systems. People are involved in setting and implementing a shared vision; responsibility is distributed so that people are motivated to learn what they are held accountable to do. The organization is linked to its communities; people understand the overall environment and use information to adjust work practices; people are helped to see the effect of their work on the entire organization. Leadership uses learning strategically for business results; leaders model, champion, and support learning.

Inquiry and dialogue

Team learning

Embedded system

Empowerment

System connection

Strategic leadership

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

49

The original version of the DLOQ consisted of 43 items to measure the seven dimensions; later on, throughout empirical validation of the instruments, Yang et al. (2004) rened the DLOQ and fabricated an abbreviated version of it, which consisted of 21 items that did not depreciate the original theoretical structure. From the given approaches, through empirical validation procedures, the abbreviated version of the DLOQ has been assimilated as an instrument applicable to measuring the concept of the learning organization (Yang et al., 2004). Furthermore, to emphasize practical applications in actual organization settings, 12 items have been added for measuring the level of performance improvement in both nancial and knowledge domains. Consequently, an instrument that consists of seven dimensions of the learning organization and two measures of performance improvement was developed in two forms (43 items and 21 items) and was named DLOQ: Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaires (Yang et al., 2004). Validation Studies of the DLOQ. To date, several studies have been done to examine the validity and reliability of measures of the learning organization in several cultural contexts: the United States, Colombia, China, and Taiwan (Ellinger et al., 2002; Lien et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2004; Hernandez, 2000). The results of these studies have veried the applicability of the DLOQ in different cultures, providing internal consistency of each items reliability (coefcient alpha range from .71 to .91) and reliable factor structure of the dimensions of the learning organization (Lien et al., 2006). Furthermore, several types of subjects have participated in research with the DLOQ, to address applicability to the overall organizational circumstances that lend valid factor constructs of measures including leadership, organizational commitment, organizational creativity, job satisfaction, learning transfer, and so on, in both educational and business settings, both prot and nonprot (Hernandez, 2000; Joo, 2007; Lim, 2003; McHargue, 1999; Wang, 2005). Table 2 summarizes the cross-cultural validation studies in terms of the scale reliability of the measurement items. The comparison of the item internal consistency estimates of cross-cultural studies revealed useful suggestions for further revision on the developing Korean version of the DLOQ. The reliability estimates for Team Learning ( .78) and System Connection ( .79) were slightly lower than those in most of the previous studies. Even though more careful examination of item-by-item analysis was included, no particularly inadequate subitems were found. Those results may be due to the differences of culture or contextual understanding of the translated questionnaires. However, those slightly lower coefcient estimates could not decrease the overall reliability of the scales ( ranges from .74 to .84, and overall a .95, respectively). The Need for the Validated DLOQ in Korea. Since the early 1990s, Korean society has undergone enormous changes. Human resources (HR) is
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

50

Song, Joo, Chermack Table 2. Summary of the Scale Reliability Estimates of the Previous Validation Studies
Previous Studies Korean Chinese Taiwan Lien et al. (2006) n 679 .72 .89 .86 .71 .75 .89 .91 Latin Hernandez (2000) n 906 .80 .81 .79 .81 .81 .80 .84 U.S. Yang et al. (2003) n 469 .79 .85 .84 .80 .75 .82 .86 Ellinger et al. (2002) n 208 .81 .86 .85 .85 .84 .87 .89

Zhang et al. Dimensions of Current (2004) Learning Organization n 1529 n 477 Continuous Learning Inquiry & Dialogue Team Learning Embedded System Empowerment System Connection Providing Leadership .74 .80 .78 .76 .78 .79 .84 .80 .78 .78 .82 .82 .84 .85

one of the areas that have experienced dramatic change. For example, the traditional HR system in Korea focused on cultivating long-term loyalty and organizational attachment on the part of employees by providing job security and various seniority-based HR policies (Yu, Park, & Kim, 2001). However, globalization, erce international competition, and economic distressespecially the 1997 international monetary fund (IMF) bailoutdemanded more efcient and exible human resources with lower labor costs. In such a situation, many organizations in Korea introduced so-called best practices to HR policies, mainly based on the U.S. practices (Bae & Rowley, 2001). Since 1997, a number of large organizations in the private sector have tried to promote various change efforts such as downsizing, restructurings, mergers and acquisitions, changing business strategies, and cultural transformations. One of them was the concept of the learning organization, which later transitioned into knowledge management. Korean companies eventually began to introduce more strategic applications of the learning organization (Song, 2000; Yoo, 2005). Korean organizations had a critical need to catch up with global and innovative economic trends, specically regarding the strategic implications of the learning organization for practical continuous learning (Kim, 1997, 1998; Yoo, 2005). Furthermore, Korean organizations needed to learn how to link learning practices with continuous performance improvement (Song, 1999, 2000). Because Korean organizations have their own cultures and hierarchical decision-making structures, applications of numerous types of measurement tools in the Korean context without strict processes of validation have the potential of producing negative side effects (Jang, Kim, & Kim, 2001; Sin, O, & Park, 1999; Song, 2000). Some even argued that application of learning
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

51

organization approaches to many Korean organizations failed because of the absence of culturally validated instruments and the unconditional introduction of Western best practices (Jang et al., 2001; Yoo, 2005). From an academic perspective, even though several studies on the concept of the learning organization and application of the DLOQ have been conducted in Korea, only a few have resulted in structural validation processes to measure acceptability and applicability of the instruments in the Korean culture (Joo, 2007; Lim, 2003). This study can therefore contribute to the organizational learning research in Korea by examining the validity and reliability of the DLOQ as well as the applicability of the instrument in a Korean cultural context. We believe that the results of this study will be benecial for many Korean organizations in successfully applying learning organization strategies with standardized measures of the learning organization characteristics.

Methods
In this section, we rst describe sample and data collection procedures. Then we elaborate information about the instrument and translation procedure. Finally, we briey discuss the analytical strategy. Sample and Data Collection. We chose two Korean conglomerates that have invested a huge amount of time and effort in the learning organization and organizational learning. That is, the two are known as exemplary organizations for learning organizations in the Korean context, with a number of best practices. The two conglomerates have more than 20 subsidiaries, representing diverse industries: electronics, telecommunication, IT solutions, construction, heavy industry, oil and gas, chemical, international trading, insurance, and nance. Three among them were Fortune Global 500 companies. We approached two senior managers in the HR headquarters and strategic planning ofces of each conglomerate. The managers suggested ve and six subsidiaries for the sampling. Selection of the respondents was based on the experience of learning organization interventions and the level of understanding about the concept of learning organization cultural aspects of selected organizations. As alternative methods for data collection, Internetand intranet-based surveys were used as well. As a result, approximately 5,000 employees were randomly selected and received an invitation letter via company e-mail. Approximately 3,000 employees who indicated their intention to participate received survey questionnaires. A total of 1,545 participants nally served as voluntary participants. Through an appropriate data screening process, 16 incomplete cases and extreme outliers were deleted. Consequently, we collected 1,529 completed cases from 11 forprot organizations. Therefore, the response rate was approximately 33%. With regard to sample size, Kline (2005) suggested that determination could be considered on the basis of the ratio of cases to free parameters
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

52

Song, Joo, Chermack

(10:1 or, even better, 20:1). Bentler and Chou (1987) also suggested that the sample-to-parameters ratio for structural equation modeling should be between 5:1 and 10:1. Because the rate in this study was 73:1, which is well over the guideline, there is no potential issue regarding the number of participants. As a matter of fact, this study has the largest sample among validation studies of the DLOQ. As for the missing data treatment, a complete case approach was used, based on listwise deletion (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Because this study has used a comparably large number of cases, a complete case approach could be acceptable, showing little bias of chi-square (Hair et al., 2006). Regarding the sample frame, almost 87% were male, indicating masculine dominance in Korean organizations. In terms of position levels, approximately 32% were senior managers or higher, almost 53% were middle managers, and the remaining 15% were nonmanagers. As for the type of job or function, approximately 25% were in R&D functions, another 25% were in general or supporting management functions (which include planning, human resources, nance, and so forth), and 21% were in marketing and sales. In terms of the industry, approximately 62% were in electronic, IT, and communication-related areas; 18% were in nance and trading businesses; and 17% were in oil and gas, chemical, and heavy industrial areas. We assume that this diversity of the collected data in terms of the positions of the participants, functions of work, and types of business could grant general reliability to the sample selection procedures. Instrumentation. For the current research, the abbreviated 21-item DLOQ was validated in terms of item internal consistency and psychometric properties of the constructs from the data collected in Korean for-prot organizations. The rationale for using the shortened version of the DLOQ came from the empirical literature in terms of the goodness-of-t-index (Ellinger et al., 2002; Lien et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004). The seven dimensions of the DLOQ were measured with 21 items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree). The rst version of the Korean DLOQ was translated using literal combinations of two doctoral dissertations of Korean colleagues and one conference research article (Joo, 2007; Lim, 2003). The DLOQ (Watkins & Marsick, 1997) has been adapted and translated into Korean through the four steps of scrupulous translation: forward translation, assessment, backward translation, and assessment based on the criteria of clarity, common language, and cultural adequacy (Harkness, van de Vijver, & Mohler, 2003; Presser, Rothgeb, Couper, Lessler, Martin, & Singer, 2004). More specically, the translation process is as follows. First, to ensure face validity for the DLOQ within the Korean context, three experts (one practitioner and two academics) in the Korean HRD eld reviewed the instrument in English. These experts offered suggestions for renement of statements and for format of the survey instrument. In addition, to ensure validity in
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

53

the process of translation, the researcher had a bilingual expert translate this section of the instrument and the instructions into Korean, and another bilingual expert translated it back into English to establish accurate translation of the questionnaire. Differences were reviewed, and inappropriate Korean wordings and translations were revised. Data Analysis Technique. The primary concern of this research was assessing the applicability of the DLOQ to the Korean cultural context. Whereas explorative factor analysis (EFA) is used to explore underlying factors when there is little previous theoretical guidance for a domain of interest, conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to conrm or disconrm a hypothesized factor structure of interest (Yang, 2005). Because a number of studies have already used the DLOQ, this validation study is based on CFA and reliability tests as for the analysis techniques. As suggested by Hinkin (2005), following the CFA descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities were conducted. Data analyses were performed with SPSS 16.0 and LISREL 8.80. First, a CFA was employed to examine validity and applicability of the hypothesized constructs of measurement in the Korean culture. According to Kline (2005), the technique of CFA analyzes a priori measurement models in which both the number of factors and their correspondence to the indicators are explicitly specied (p. 71). Analysis of CFA is the appropriate method to validate the hypothesized measurement for three reasons: (1) measurement of the DLOQ has been developed on a theoretical basis; (2) it veries the adequacy of the item-to-factor associations; and (3) it examines the construct validity of theoretically proposed measurement (Hair et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004; Thompson, 2004; Thompson & Daniel, 1996). Second, to assess item internal consistency, zero-order correlation analysis and scale reliability tests were used. Item intercorrelation and Cronbachs coefcient alpha estimations are the initial steps to examine the proposed items reliability in terms of internal consistency of the measures (Yang et al., 2004). This study included perceptions of inuence at several levels: organizational, group, and individual. Thus, there can be a concern about what selfreport responses on perceptions of the contextual characteristics really measure. That is, one of the potential issues in this study is the unit of analysis. However, what matter are the perceptions themselves and their relation to organizational learning and learning organization. Like much social science research, we believe the levels of analysis for some subdimensions in this study can be justied in that it is the psychological meaning of environmental events that largely inuences individual behavior (Amabile, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Grifn, 1993).

Results
To ensure that theoretical measurement of the learning organization is valid and reliable in the Korean context, several analyses were conducted. In order
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

54

Song, Joo, Chermack

to underpin the given research purpose, several CFAs were conducted to examine construct validity of the proposed measurement. In addition, various assumptions, among them normal distribution, general item internal consistency, and item internal correlation, were positively identied. Conrmatory Factor Analysis. To conrm the construct validity of the Korean version of the DLOQ, rst CFA was used. To examine the level of the goodness-of-t of the specied measurement model, several measurement indices were interpreted. The absolute t measures included chi-square (2), the most fundamental absolute t index, which is respectively sensitive to sample size; Jreskog & Srboms goodness-of-t index or GFI (2001), which is less sensitive to sample size; adjusted goodness-of-t (AGFI), which tries to take into account differing degrees of model complexity (Hair et al., 2006); Jreskog & Srboms root mean square residual or RMR (2001), which measures an average of the residuals between individual observed and estimated covariance and variance terms; and Steigers root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; 1990), which represents the model t in a population. The incremental t indices were Bentlers comparative t index or CFI (1990), which measures the degree of t between the hypothesized and null measurement; and Bentler and Bonetts nonnormed t index or NNFI (1980), which is the relative t index that compares the model being tested to a null measurement. The hypothesized measurement model of the DLOQ has seven dimensions consisting of 21 subitems, and in turn those seven dimensions represent the single circumstance of the learning organization culture. From a statistical standpoint, this means that the DLOQ is a second-order factor structure that contains two layers of latent construct (Hair et al., 2006). Thus two separate simple CFA and a higher-order CFA were analyzed (see Table 3).

Table 3. Fit Indices for Measurement Models of the DLOQ

Fit Indices 2(df) Current study Zhang et al. (2004) Lien et al. (2006) Yang et al. (2003) Ellinger et al. (2002)

920.13 (168) 632.57 (167) 830.21 (168) 2031.88(778)/ 328.54 (157) 2746.29 (778) RMSEA .054 .077 .076 .06/.08 .073 RMR .023 .056 .042 .05/.06 .053 GFI .95 .89 .89 .82/.75 .87 AGFI .93 .85 .85 .79/.71 .81 NNFI (TLI) .99 .85 .92 .87/.81 .91 CFI .99 .88 .93 .88/.83 .94
Note: RMSEA root mean square error of approximation; RMR root mean square residual; GFI goodness-of-t index; AGFI adjusted GFI; NNFI nonnormed t index; CFI comparative t index.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) Table 4. Assessment of Model Fit of the Hypothesized Measurement Models
Model 21 Items 7-Factors 7 Factors - 1 Construct
Note: **p .001.

55

df 168 182

x2 920.13** 1189.85**

x 2/df 5.47 6.53

RMR .023 0.26

RMSEA 0.54 0.60

GFI .95 .93

AGFI .93 .91

CFI .99 .99

NNFI .99 .99

First, the chi square (x 2 (1529) 920.13/1189.85) of both CFAs was statistically signicant ( p .001), conrming the lack of a close model t with the data. Nevertheless, these results were not pervasive in the current research, because chi square analysis is sensitive to sample size (Hair et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004). Holistic evaluation of the model t of the measurement needs to consider other several model t indices. Table 4 indicates that the Korean measurement model of the DLOQ demonstrated a better t to the data in all indices, compared with the results in other studies. Figure 1 shows the factor loadings as a result of CFA. For the rst-order CFA, all estimates of comparative t indices (GFI, AGFI, CFI, NNFI) were well above .93, indicating a statistically signicant data-model t. Furthermore, in terms of the general model t, a great portion of the covariance and variance of the learning organization culture in the Korean context could be represented by the proposed seven dimensions of the DLOQ (GFI .95). Moreover, the small magnitude of residuals (RMR .023, RMSEA .054) also indicated an appropriate model-data t. With regard to these t statistics, more evidence of construct validity in a Korean cultural context has been provided. Thus, this research conrmed that the DLOQ produces a reliable and valid measure in the Korean cultural setting and that the cultural differences between the United States and Korea do not seem to affect accuracy or consistency. The results of the higher-order CFA, furthermore, produced a statistically acceptable model t (RMR .026; RMSEA .060; GFI .93; CFI .99) as well. These results hold that the seven dimensions of the DLOQ are a one-factor structure measuring the learning organization culture in the Korean context. Finally, the factor loadings of each item on the seven dimensions lent supplemental evidence of the measurement model t of the DLOQ in the Korean context. All factor loadings of each item of the DLOQ on the seven dimensions were greater than .67. Thus these factor loadings also indicate that the translated version of DLOQ is a valid and applicable measurement in the Korean context. In addition, to improve the reliability of the previous CFA analysis, data were categorized according to their demographic nature (participants position
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

56

Song, Joo, Chermack Figure 1. Factor Loadings of the DLOQ

Help each other learn Take time to support learning Being rewarded for learning Provide open feedback Ask what others think Spend time building trust Have freedom to adapt goals Revise thinking with information Act on our recommendations Create measurement system Make its lessons learned available Measure the results of training Recognize for taking initiative .70 .73 .69 .76 .75 .76 .76 .67 .79 .72 .75 .67 .71 .77 .73 .74 .76 .74 .76 .82 .81 Strategic Leadership .90 System Connection .89 Empowerment .93 Embedded System .94 Learning Organization Culture Team Learning .95 Inquiry and Dialogue .91 Continuous Learning .90

Give people control over resource Support calculated risk-taking Encourage global perspectives Work with outside/resources Encourage diverse perspectives Provide mentoring/coaching Provide opportunities to learn Ensure the consistent actions

and unit of business). Then separate CFA analyses were conducted. This approach may increase a certain level of reliability of the construct validation of the DLOQ in the Korean context. First of all, four models were tested according to the four levels of participant position (nonmanager-level employees, associate and middle managers, senior managers, and executive managers). Based on the results of separate CFA analyses (see Table 5), regardless of participant position in the organization, the DLOQ was found to be an applicable and valid concept in terms of the construct validity. Second, separate CFAs were considered to compare the model t to data depending on type of business unit (see Table 6). Although all of the
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

57

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

Levels Nonmanager Middle Manager Senior Manager Executive Manager
Note: *p .05.

df 168 168 168 168

x2 319.91* 345.67* 640.18* 334.41*

x 2/df 1.9 2.05 3.81 1.99

RMR .038 .027 .025 .033

RMSEA .074 .055 .059 .073

GFI .85 .91 .93 .85

CFI .98 .99 .99 .98

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

Business Units Electronic Finance/Trading IT/Communication Heavy Industry-related
Note: *p .05.

df 168 168 168 168

x2 452.60* 358.81* 474.96* 471.36*

x 2/df 2.69 2.13 2.82 2.8

RMR .027 .023 .043 .034

RMSEA .056 .050 .089 .074

GFI .93 .93 .84 .87

CFI .99 .99 .97 .98

models showed a fairly acceptable level of model t to the data, IT and communication-related business units demonstrated a bit higher error variance in terms of the RMSEA and RMR. We suppose that this phenomenon could result from the independent nature of job characteristics of the IT-oriented employees. However, further research is needed to investigate the specic characteristics of each business unit. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities. According to the central limit theorem, the collected data could be assumed to have a normally distributed shape (Urdan, 2005). The collected 1,529 cases were larger than any sample in other validation studies. Furthermore, the variance ination factor (VIF) shows that there is no severe multicollinearity among the collected data for the seven dimensions (VIF ranges from 2.43 to 2.98; Kutner, Nachtsheim, & Neter, 2004). All of the correlation coefcients were statistically signicant (p .001). According to Yang et al. (2004), signicantly correlated factors suggest the satised convergent validity of the hypothesized measures, ranging from .59 to .73. No extremely high correlation coefcients, which might result in the constraints of factor discrimination, were found among the subfactors (Byrne, 1998; Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005). In addition, Cronbachs coefcient alphas were reasonably acceptable, ranging from .74 to .84 (see Table 7). According to those initial steps for examination of item reliabilities, the overall reliability estimates were satisfactory (Yang et al., 2004). In summary, according to separate CFA analyses from the nature of demographic information, the DLOQ is a fairly acceptable t to the data and
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

58

Song, Joo, Chermack Table 7. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

Dimensions 1. Continuous Learning 2. Inquiry & Dialogue 3. Team Learning 4. Embedded System 5. Empowerment 6. System Connection 7. Providing Leadership

M 3.68 3.70 3.65 3.61 3.55 3.75 3.76

SD .72 .72 .75 .73 .73 .72 .74

1 (.74) .69** .62** .65** .61** .62** .65**

(.80) .72** .66** .65** .59** .66**

(.78) .69** (.76) .71** .69** (.78) .65** .62** .66** (.79) .67** .65** .66** .73** (.84)

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

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

Discussion
The ndings of this study and the implications for research and practice in the eld of HRD are discussed. Then we identify the limitations of this study and make recommendations for future research. Finally, some conclusions follow. Theoretical Implications. This study found that, in terms of rigor and relevance, the shortened 21-item DLOQ is an appropriate measure for learning organization culture in Korean context. The theoretical implication is that this is the rst study validating the DLOQ in Korean context, integrating previous studies. In addition, this research serves as evidence establishing further generalizability and robustness for the DLOQ itself. From a theory development perspective, we also argue that this research contributes to the growing body of assessments that generally indicate the overall accuracy and validity of the theory of the learning organization developed by Watkins and Marsick (1996). That is, the DLOQ is gaining evidence in a variety of contexts that conrm its measurement accuracy and validity. Using Lynhams general method of theory building in applied disciplines (2002), the DLOQ is one of the rare examples that a theory has been conceptually developed, operationalized, conrmed, and applied in the discipline of HRD. Implications to the Practices of HRD. As for practical implications, this research would enable the theory of the learning organization or organizational learning to be applied in HRD practices. The primary goal of establishing the reliability and validity of the measure from an academic standpoint is that the measure should be used in practice with condence that the practice is based on sound theory. The results of this study indicate that the DLOQ is a useful measure of perceived learning organization characteristics in Korean organizations.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

59

This indicates that the DLOQ is an appropriate tool for a quick snapshot of learning organization culture. For instance, HRD professionals in Korean organizations can use the DLOQ to assess the learning culture of an organization as part of their organizational analysis before implementing an organizational change effort. Although no instances of severe multicollinearity were found among the subdimensions (Byrne, 1998; Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005), the correlation coefcients were similar, ranging from .59 to .73. Cronbachs coefcient alphas were reasonably acceptable, ranging from .74 to .84. It may be difcult to analyze not only the relationships among the subdimensions of the DLOQ but also the relationships between the subdimensions and other variables. Thus it is an imperative issue to increase the utility of the DLOQ. This study has successfully validated the Korean version of the DLOQ, but some previous studies (Egan, 2005; Joo, 2007) reported a nonpositive denite matrix when there is a relatively small sample (n 250). As suggested by Yang (2005) and Marsick and Watkins (2003), therefore, instead of the 21-item model a unidimensional 7-item model that represents each subconstruct could be an alternative choice. In this way, the measurement model could have a better t to relatively limited data, satisfying the sample-to-parameter ratio (5:1 to 10:1) and increasing the utility of the measure. Limitations. In terms of methodology, this study has several potential limitations. First, the study relies on self-reported and reective recollection of the indicators of the constructs in this study by employees who volunteered their participation. Because of the perceptual nature of the data, there is the possibility of a percept-percept bias. Second, this empirical study connes itself to a cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room for speculation with regard to causality among the variables. Longitudinal research would substantiate the conclusions of this study. In addition, the sample of this study, consisting mostly of highly educated male managers in a large organization, is likely restricted to a certain group with similar demographic characteristics (males of relatively high cognitive ability, or employees in a small organization). Last, as discussed earlier, there can be a concern about the unit of analysis issue. Though some subdimensions (continuous learning, system connection, and embedded system) are organization-level, others (team learning, empowerment, and dialogue and inquiry) are group-level. Recommendations for Future Research. As mentioned in the previous sections, time and effort have been put into developing reliable instruments to measure effective learning organization climate. This research focused on the DLOQ, which considered both individual and group-level learning process and systematic organizational structure. Many critical points in terms of the reliability and construct validity of the DLOQ have been positively dened in the Korean context. However, to assess more comprehensive applicability of the DLOQ in various contexts, a multiple-aspect-oriented approach needs
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

60

Song, Joo, Chermack

to be considered. As one of the examples, the Multi-Traits-Multi-Method (MTMM) approach could be implied by the cross-culturally collected data for more solid evaluation on psychometric consistency and cross-culturally acceptable construct validity. In addition, as one of the limitations of this research, we collected data from fairly large organizations, with more than 1,000 employees. However, even small or medium-size organizations may have experienced some features of a learning organization climate in their own way, although it has not been publicized or ofcially recognized. For future research, more in-depth investigation on the activities and efforts of small and medium-size organizations learning organization climate should be considered, which could present a blinded chance for benchmarking; comparison research on the types of activities and perceptional differences depending on the size of the organization could pull out practical, interesting, and worthy results. In line with this, qualitative studies that actually consider indigenous perspectives rather than simply translations of Western concepts should be deemed an additional way forward. Finally, the use of the DLOQ is conned to four HRD journals. Little research using the DLOQ has been found in management or organizational psychology journals. It is hoped that more research with rigor and relevance would make this instrument more prevalent in diverse elds of research. Conclusion. Traditionally, human resource development (HRD) has mainly focused on individual training: HRD practitioners need to pay more attention to employee development programs, such as on-the-job experience, coaching, mentoring, management development, and career development (Joo & McLean, 2006, p. 253). That is, greater emphasis is needed on organizational learning and development, which includes organizational culture transformation and change management. Thus organizational learning culture plays an important role as an antecedent for many dependent variables of HRD: learning, performance, satisfaction, change, creativity, productivity, and effectiveness (Joo, 2007). We have found that the DLOQ is a valid and reliable measure of perceptions of learning organization culture in Korean organizations. Next steps will involve linking the perceptions of that culture to some of the dependent variables we have mentioned, such as performance, satisfaction, change, productivity, and effectiveness to name a few. These will be complex studies, no doubt, but what we are poised to learn about the relationships between learning culture and these dependent variables is exciting for organizational researchers indeed. Research such as this reects the fact that the learning organization is a concept that is growing in popularity and use, but we are only beginning to set a theoretically grounded foundation in place that is veried through rigorous research. Additional studies in a variety of cultural and international contexts will add to the stability of this foundation, or point out weak spots
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

61

that can be addressed through renement and development of the research, theory, and practice of the learning organization. References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115125. Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective reading. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schn, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice (Vol. 1). Boston: Addison-Wesley. Bae, J., & Rowley, C. (2001). The impact of globalization on HRM: The case of South Korea. Journal of World Business, 36(4), 402428. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative t indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238246. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signicance tests and goodness of t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78117. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literature. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375394. Drucker, P. (1992, SeptemberOctober). The new society of organizations. Harvard Business Review, 95104. Duncan, R., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational design. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 75124). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Egan, T. M. (2005). Factors inuencing individual creativity in the workplace: An examination of quantitative empirical research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(2), 160181. Egan, T., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 279302. Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and rms nancial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 521. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 7891. Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Organizational learning, performance and change: An introduction to strategic human resource development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 63(2), 1520. Hair, J. F ., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Harkness, J. A., van de Vijver, F ., & Mohler, P. P. (2003). Cross cultural survey methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hernandez, M. (2000). The impact of the dimensions of the learning organization on the transfer of tacit knowledge process and performance improvement within private manufacturing rms in Colombia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

62

Song, Joo, Chermack

Hinkin, T. R. (2005). Scale development principles and practices. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 161179). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Holton, E. F . (1996). The awed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5. Holton, E. F. (2005). Holtons evaluation model: New evidence and construct elaborations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(1), 3754. Holton, E. F ., Bates, R. A., & Ruona, W.E.A. (2000). Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 333360. Huysman, M. (2000). An organizational learning approach to the learning organization. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 133145. Jang, J. A., Kim, S., & Kim, D. J. (2001). Case study of learning organization in bencher business organizations. Business Education Research, 3(1), 7798. Jensen, P. E. (2005). A contextual theory of learning and the learning organization. Knowledge and Process Management, 12(1), 5364. Joo, B. (2007) The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity in Korean rms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database (publication no. AAT 3263468). Joo, B., & McLean, G. N. (2006). Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literature review and a case study. Human Resource Development Review, 5(2), 228257. Joo, B., & Yang, B. (2007). The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity. Philadelphia: Academy of Management Conference Proceedings. Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: Users reference guide (2nd ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientic Software International. Kim, L. (1997). The dynamic of Samsungs technological learning in semiconductors. California Management Review, 39(3), 86100. Kim, L. (1998). Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catchingup at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9(4), 506521. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue ocean strategy: From theory to practice. California Management Review, 47(3), 105121. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Lahteenmaki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organizational learning research and proposals for its measurement. British Journal of Management, 12 , 113129. Leonard, D. (1998). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Lien, B. Y., Hung, R. Y., Yang, B., & Li, M. (2006). Is the learning organization a valid concept in the Taiwanese context? International Journal of Manpower, 27(2), 189203. Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Inuence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), 85115. Lim, T. J. (2003). Relationships among organizational commitment, learning organization culture, and job satisfaction in one Korean private organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221242. Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization. New York: McGraw-Hill. Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Building the learning organization: Master the ve elements for corporate learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)

63

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organizations learning culture: The dimensions of learning organizations questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132151. McHargue, S. K. (1999). Dimensions of the learning organization as determinants of organizational performance in nonprot organizations. Unpublished Ed.D. thesis, University of Georgia. Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Sin, S. M., O, H. S., & Park, Y. T. (1999). An empirical study on organizational learning style and performance: Case of Korean rms. Korean Knowledge Management Associations, 2, 331364. Song, Y. S. (1999, August). The directions and strategies of HRD in era of knowledge management. Industrial Education, 2831. Song, Y. S. (2000). Directions and strategies for the corporate HRD organization to meet the information and knowledge era of the 21st century. Business Education Research, 2(1), 5369. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modication: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173180. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and conrmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of score: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197208. Thurow, L. (2003). Fortune favors the bold: What we must do to build a new and lasting global prosperity. New York,: HarperCollins. Tsang, E.W.K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 7389. Urdan, T. C. (2005). Statistics in plain English (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Organizational learning in knowledge management: Toward an integrative framework. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 123141). Malden, MA: Blackwell. von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mastery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Wang, X. (2005). Relationships among organizational learning culture, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned and privately owned enterprises. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Wang, X., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2007). Inuence of demographic factors and ownership type upon organizational learning culture in Chinese enterprises. International Journal of Training & Development, 11(3), 154165. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). In action: Creating the learning organization. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. (Eds.). (2003). Make learning count! Diagnosing the learning culture in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2). Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Grifn, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293321.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq

64

Song, Joo, Chermack

Yang, B. (2005). Factor analysis methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F . Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 181199). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Yang, B., Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 3155. Yoo, J. (2005). Knowledge management and learning organization in real-time enterprise. Korean Knowledge Management Associations, 14, 355375. Yu, G. C., Park, W. S., & Kim, D. O. (2001). Changing patterns of human resource management systems in Korea: Evidence from 19982000 panel data. Proceedings of the Korean Association of Personnel Administration International Conference. Seoul, Korea. Zhang, D., Zhang, Z., & Yang, B. (2004). Learning organization in mainland China: Empirical research on its application to Chinese state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Training and Development, 8(4), 258273.

Ji Hoon Song is assistant professor of occupational education studies in the School of Teaching and Curriculum Leadership College of Education at Oklahoma State University. Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is assistant professor of business administration in the College of Business at Winona State University. Thomas J. Chermack is assistant professor of organizational performance and change in the College of Education at Colorado State University.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY DOI: 10.1002/hrdq