|
S.M. ShafiulAlam Assistant Professor Ahsanullah University of Science and Technology |
K.M. Zahidul Islam Professor Jahangirnagar University |
The main purpose this study is to explain various behavioural aspects related to the intentions of the managers to rip the benefits of implanting organisational learning in the firms by applying the theory of planned behaviour (TPB).Data have been collected from the apparel industry of Bangladesh to conduct an empirical research. In order to address the objectives of the study as many as six research hypotheses have been devised and they have been eventually validated using structural equation modeling (SEM).The results of the analyses found that the research model has attained good-fit based on pre-established fit indices. The results revealed that the salient determinants of organizational learning based on TPB together with an additional construct empowerment positively affect behavioural intentions of managers. While devising strategies for establishing organisational learning, managers are expected to utilize the findings of the research. The additional construct empowerment is expected to provide substantial insight regarding the interplay among the concerned constructs. To the best of the knowledge of the authors, this analysis is to be considered as the first attempt of applying TPB in implanting organisational learning in the apparel sector of Bangladesh.
Key Words:: Organisational learning; theory of planned behavior; Employee empowerment.
Fast technological advancement as well as the advent of market globalization exerted immense impact upon firms’ competitive settings and crafting new potentials for strengthening the progress of successful venture. Contemporary knowledge-based economy is well thought-out as comprised of a broad assortment of economic and manufacturing methods, creativeness and improvement, proficiency and elevated competence of human capital (Ahmedova, 2015). Upon this backdrop, the intentions of management to implant organisational learning have been considered one of the salient challenges in the textile and clothing industry of Bangladesh. Textile and clothing industry are being considered immensely imperative part of the economy of Bangladesh over the last few decades. This sector has made significant yield from international trade and commerce, employment generation, mitigation of poverty, and especially empowerment of the women. It has been found that almost 82 percent of the export yield has been received from textile and clothing sector of Bangladesh (BBS, 2017). Thus, Sustainable action plan has become a necessity in order to ascertain future steady advancement of this sector which requires creating and maintaining effective learning atmosphere at the firm level. In the context of forceful, complex and dynamic market conditions, businesses tend to transform virtually immediately. Amongst all these turbulences, organisations’ learning capability can serve as the means for devising sustainable strategies of competitiveness (Stata, 1989). Learning organisations survive the troubles related to balancing of challenging objectives of creating novel knowledge set commensurate with existing capacity of the organisation (Levinthal and March, 1993). The understanding of organisational learning is built on the concept of behavioural research of firms. Most of the time, organisational learning is founded in the routines of the organisations which attempts to synchronize processes to contexts (Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, Winter, 2005).It is found that the learning initiatives are generally dependent on history. Learning routines are essentially grounded on the past over the prospective applications. It has been recognized that organisational learning adjusts to knowledge building incrementally while responding to feedback regarding consequences (Steinbruner, 1974). Organisational learning has been treated as a procedure that allows firms to act in response to an immediate means to market potentials (Ismail, 2005; Thomas and Allen, 2006). Both SMEs and large enterprises started to build the optimal innovative surroundings with a view to encouraging elevated performance and long lasting competitiveness for the firms. Many of the firms have decided on inducing the conception of organisational learning to cope with the challenges of innovation. Among others, Salim and Sulaiman (2011) had an investigation on small and medium size firms about the contribution of organisational learning to innovative capacity. Their study attempted to explore the effects of innovation upon firm’s achievement in relation to information, communication and telecommunications Industry (ICT) of Malaysia. Empirical evidence revealed strong positive association between organisational learning and innovative capacity and that of the organisational performance. The effect of organisational learning upon the development of scholarly resources has been discovered by Amiri, Jandghi, Alvani, Hosnavi, and Ramezan (2010). Particularly, scholars revealed that organisational learning at individual level has also positive influence on human resource development. At the group level, organisational learning positively impacts on both relational resources and structural resources. These studies have been found imperative in developing new industrial countries regarding how organisational learning influences to create innovative competence and how it helps establish firms’ competitiveness and operational efficiency.
Generally in dynamic and multifaceted decision contexts, managers are to be relied upon sharing direct experiences and the experiences of others by exchanging views and opinions. In order to access more knowledge, organisations are supposed to implant organisational learning (Quigley, Tesluk, Locke, and Bartol, 2007).Various studies conducted earlier, focused their studies in relation to direct experience (Lines, 2005), others’ experience (Hakansson, 2015), Knowledge flows (Ordonez, 2006), and organisational memory (Hult, KetchenJr, and Nichols, 2003) in the explanation of selection and preferences with regard to determining the status of the organisational learning in the firms’ operation. These explanations are applied to broad classes of behaviour and whose explanatory power was not significant. So far various studies focused their concentration on the theoretical implication of organisational learning issues rather than on measuring practical intention of implementing in the organisation. Thus, this study seeks to explain the intentions of the management practitioners to rip the benefits of implanting organisational learning in the firms by applying the theory of planned behaviour (TPB).The theory of planned Behaviour describes that the intention is explained by attitude, perceived behavioural control, and subjective norms. It has been identified by the scholars that the theoretical delineation of TPB is very elaborate and reliable. Thus, TPB has been attracted by various studies in wide variety of fields of studies (Fayolle, Gailly, and Lassas-Clerc, 2006; Shook, Priem, and McGee, 2003). Further, in order to evaluate the research objectives, TPB model has been considered since it has the capacity of explaining organisation’s behavioural aspects (Millar and Shevlin, 2003). Moreover, this study considered the TPB for investigating the behavioural intentions of implanting organisational learning because it has the capacity of offering framework which permits the study of attitudinal, individual and social factors to assess the behavioural intention of the organisation. Figuratively, the TPB model is depicted in the figure1. Beside the other constructs, the additional construct ‘empowerment’ has been inserted which has been mentioned by a number of research works. Empowerment has substantial impact on behaviour in relation to implanting organisational learning in the firms. It has been argued by Armistead and Meakins (2002) that both tacit and explicit knowledge formation and dissemination would be encouraged by empowering of workforce at individual and societal level. Armistead and Meakins (2002) claimed that the empowered people come up with self-determination that encourages them to be responsible in exerting contribution towards the process of learning and sharing. The job is generally perceived more meaningful by the empowered employees. Managers feel more confident and show higher level of sincerity as they possess greater autonomy which is considered essential for creating an atmosphere conducive to implanting organisational learning at the workplace (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). These attributes provide them the capability and readiness to acquire, communicate, and absorb knowledge. In this connection, top management holds trust upon the capabilities of the empowered workforce in taking autonomous decisions in relation to acquirement and diffusion of knowledge (Benton, Magnier-Watanabe, 2014). Hence, this study included the additional construct of empowerment which is expected to have substantial impact on behaviour in relation to organisational learning in the firm. Based on the theoretical support five research hypotheses have been devised and tested through structural equation modeling (SEM).
Organisational learning has been considered as one of the key procedure based on which innovation in the organisation can be ensured. If the organisation intends to attain sustainable competitiveness by becoming knowledge-focused, it is supposed to be dependent on the rate at which the firm warrants learning atmosphere (Stata and Almond, 1989).It is recognized that organisational learning is capable of being a significant aid to organisational change which is considered as a form of intelligence. Besides, it can play a critical role for establishing intelligence in the organisation. Studies revealed that OL can enhance performance by forming intelligence (Duncan, 1979).Slater and Narver (1995) found that OL can provide the basis for shaping and creating novel set of knowledge. In addition, OL is capable of offering new insights that might have potentials to exert influence on behaviour. In the learning organization, collaborative aims are established. People are engaged in learning constantly together (Senge, 1990). By means of successful implementation of learning environment, an organisation is supposed to transform itself positively where effective management and usage of knowledge are possible (Marquardt, 1996).
H1: Attitudes of managers regarding organisational learning positively affect learning intentions
Cavaleri and Fearon (1996) revealed that organization learning is considered as the focused development of collective meanings about the pattern of the learning process resulting from the shared understanding of the workforce in the firm. It has been found by Daft and Weick (1984) that the learning organisation is interpreted in the form of knowledge focused association linked to accomplishment. Organisations learn by grasping others’ experience by means of transmission of coded experiences in the form of procedure, technology, code, etc. (Siemens, 2005). The understanding of diffusion of experiences of others and application of technology is considered instrumental to the enhancement of organisational learning (Hakansson, 2015). In turn, the learning outcomes contribute to the derivation of competitive strategies for the firm (Hilke and Nelson, 1987).Organizational learning has been recognized as transmuting and understanding of experiences in the form of collaborative information which is used to achieve the core drives of the firm (Meyer-Dohm, 1992).A performing organization resembles an orchestra where the symphony of the performance can’t be credited by the individuals only. The collective group conscience can effectively be attributed to the learning performance of the organisation. This collective competence is rooted in the common understanding of the group (Cook and Yanow, 1990).
H2: Subjective norms of managers regarding organisational learning positively affect learning intentions
Availability of longitudinal data relating to organisational learning helps control the facilitation of the establishment of learning environment in the firm. The establishment of methods linked to studying organisational learning is considered essential in this respect (Miner and Mezias, 1996). The networks of workforce and tools form the basis for organisational learning in the firms through which the firm creates, retains, and transfers knowledge. Capable members in the organisation are considered as the means through which learning is sustained and eventually they form knowledge depositories (Kane,Argote, and Levine, 2005). Besides, transfer of tools from one organisational unit to another is expected to embed and transfer knowledge. Likewise, configuration of tasks can create repository and be a basis for establishing mechanisms of creating a learning organisation (Darr, Argote, and Epple, 1995). Another research suggested that culture amicable to learning atmosphere is instrumental to the establishment of learning organisation. The core values and beliefs of the corporate cultural characteristics eventually shape up the context for the corporation based onorganisation learning (Weber, and Camerer, 2003).
H3: Perceived behavioural controls of managers regarding organisational learning positively affect learning intentions
The establishment of pro-active structures and strategies are sought to be influential in creating environment where learning effectively takes place in the firm. Management must set the firm’s atmosphere in such a way that it should be pro-active rather than reactive from the perspective of response attitude towards changes (Peler, Boydell, and Burgoyne, 1989). Organisations are sought to develop coordinating climate which is considered as the manifestation of intention for establishing learning organisation. Coordination is one of the mechanisms that can play a pivotal role in modeling organisational learning process progression and also in setting its outcomes (Lam, 2000). Besides, integrated ICT structures and compact communications networks can contribute to the encouragement of learning in the firm (Aoki, 1990). An important attribute of learning schemes is the way the resources of the organisation are set to creating the learning climate. The research and development sector of the organisation tempts to provide significant source of learning initiatives for continuous prosperity of the firm. The issue of commitment of management towards resource allocation is substantially manifested in the form of budget intention regarding the development of learning atmosphere (Twiss, 1986).Some authors argued that effectiveness of the organisation has to be augmented so as to assert that organisational learning in deed took place in the firm (Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Argyris, and Schön, 1978).
H4: Learning intentions of managers positively affect learning intentions
This study utilizes the measures regarding empowerment which has been adapted from measurement instrument devised by Pardo del and Lloyd (2003). The instrument was devised to examine the multi-level measures of empowerment of employees which evaluates the degree of empowerment practice from the perspective of four dimensions: cooperation, formalizing, directness, and extent of impact. Cooperation indicates the degree of employee participation in the process of decision making. In this connection, cooperation is denoted by the degree of participation where the employees are involved in the decision making process; formalizing means the establishment of the formal communication channels by which empowerment takes place thus guaranteeing employee participation (Pardodel Val and Lloyd, 2003). The extent of impact on the autonomy of the system stems from the possession of the authority that the employees have in making and implementing decisions and performing activities.
H5: Empowerment of managers positively affects learning behaviour in the organisation
Learning behaviour is the eventual outcome of the proposed research frame work. From the perspective of behavioural explanation, the proof of learning relies on the fact that whether the potential behahavior is changed or not. Thus if the expected organisational effectiveness is enhanced, it can be conferred that the learning outcome has been reflected in information processing (Levitt and March, 1988). In connection with the existence of organisational learning, it has been recognized that the organisation is learning if the units of the firm attain knowledge and find it actually worthwhile for the firm. Knowledge acquisition is said to be the course in which knowledge is acquired. Distribution of information is meant to be the process by means of which the firm attempts to share knowledge among various sources that in turn contribute to creation of new understanding. Information interpretation is considered as the scheme where the disseminated information is reflected with shared and meaningful interpretation. Creating organisational memory is considered as the scheme by which the firm accumulates knowledge for using in the future (Huber, 1996).
The population of the study comprises the higher-level personnel of the apparel industry of Bangladesh since it is assumed that they have clear understanding of the operational and outcome related issues of organisational learning and they are the key decision makers of the organisation. Furthermore, This study relies on the senior executives of the firms because it is conceived that they have certain level of understanding about organisational learning and are able to take initiatives to implant a learning environment. These executives work as enablers who apply their own understanding and interactive skill set for encouraging opportunities for learning by means of sharing knowledge (Macneil, 2001). Survey has been conducted upon the firms which were the full members of Bangladesh garments manufacturers and exporters association (BGMEA) around February, 2019. 50 member firms were selected randomly among 4372 member firms. After selecting the target firms, the study considered every ith senior manager as the sample unit in order to ensure randomness in data. Finally, 361 usable questionnaires were collected and utilized for data analysis. About 83% of the respondents of the study were mostly the representation of chief executive officer or chief information officers.
|
Measure |
Literature support |
|
Attitudes toward Organisational Learning |
Stata and Almond (1989); Duncan (1979); Slater and Narver (1995); Senge (1990); Marquardt, 1996 |
|
Subjective norms in relation to organisational learning |
Cavaleri and Fearon (1996); Daft and Weick (1984); Siemens (2005); Hakansson(2015); Hilke and Nelson (1987); Meyer-Dohm(1992); Cook and Yanow(1990)
|
|
Perceived behavioural control of organisational learning |
Miner and Mezias, 1996; Kane, Argote, and Levine, 2005; Darr, Argote, and Epple, 1995; Weber, and Camerer, 2003 |
|
Intentions to implant organisational learning |
Huber (1996); Peler, Boydell, and Burgoyne (1989); Lam (2000); Aoki (1990); Twiss(1986); Fiol and Lyles (1985); Argyris, and Schön(1978) |
|
Learning behaviour |
Levitt and March (1988); Huber (1996) |
|
Employee empowerment influencing learning behaviour |
Pardo del and Lloyd (2003) |
In order to ensure the validity of content, the questionnaire finally used went through sincere pre-testing. During the pre-testing process, clarity, wording, and validity of the instrument were checked. Both academicians and management practitioners were involved in the process of pre-testing the questionnaire.
The study model depicted in figure 1 is analyzed by means of SEM using AMOS-23. A number of researchers advocated in favor of the two-stage process of SEM (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996; Hair et al., 1998) where the measurement model was first evaluated beforehand examining the structural model. The measurement model states how the proposed constructs are evaluated by means of the indicator variables whereas; the structural model reveals the underlying associations among the latent factors. The current study has attempted to delineate the causal links among the relationships among the constructs specified by TPB and the additional construct–employee empowerment which is expected to have impact on determining the learning behaviour in the organisation.
The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been utilized to evaluate the validity and reliability of the study instrument. The measurement model included twenty five items explaining six constructs. Table 2 reveals the findings of the measurement model (CFA). Internal consistency has been examined by composite reliability (CR). The construct reliability considers the real factor loadings. It is revealed from the table 2 that the CR values of each construct safely surpassed the cut-off point of 0.6 suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Since the latent constructs have been measured by multi-items, corresponding validity tests for each factor was carried out (Straub, 1989). Convergent validity signifies the degree to which manifold measures of every construct comply with each other. According to Bagozzi and Yi (1988), low level of sign of convergent validity is existent when factor loadings of items are not significant. Substantial credentials are existent in favour of convergent validity if factor loadings exceed the value of 0.7. Table 2 depicts that factor loading of each indicator variable for every construct are more than the cutoff point of 0.7, besides, they have been found statistically significant at p-value<0.001.Average variance Extracted (AVE) is also considered in the study to determine convergent validity. Adequate level of convergent validity could be obtained if values of AVE are no less than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The table 2 depicts that the AVEs of all of the constructs range from 0.543 to 0.776 which are safely more than the recommended threshold value of 0.5. Thus, in terms of convergent validity, the model is satisfactory. Discriminant validity of the measurement model is evaluated by Fornell and Larcher’s criterion (1981). The measurement model is supposed to pass the discriminant validity test if the AVE is more than the correlations between the corresponding measure and all other measures. According to the results depicted in the table 3, every squared roots of average variance extracted is found to exceed the values on off-diagonal position in corresponding row and column. Elements in bold font exhibit squared roots of AVE. the results signify that the required criterion for establishing discriminant validity is adequately met. Six fit indices have been utilized to determine the overall fitness of the model: chi-square/degree of freedom, comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI). All the fitness indices safely surpass the corresponding cut-off points as suggested by previous studies (Chau and Hu, 2001), which indicates that the CFA model has demonstrated good fit with data. Table 4 depicts the fit indices.
|
Construct |
Item |
Factor Loading |
Composite reliability |
|
|
Learning behaviour |
Creating organisational memory |
BH1 |
0.813 |
0.780 |
|
Knowledge acquisition |
BH2 |
0.811 |
||
|
Organisational effectiveness is enhanced |
BH3 |
0.791 |
||
|
Employee empowerment influencing learning behaviour |
Cooperation among managers |
EM1 |
0.866 |
0.926 |
|
Formalizing decision structures |
EM2 |
0.841 |
||
|
Directness of implementing decision |
EM3 |
0.860 |
||
|
Extent of impact of empowerment |
EM4 |
0.859 |
||
|
Intentions to implant organisational learning |
Purposeful adoption of structures and strategies to encourage learning |
IN1 |
0.837 |
0.836 |
|
The firm is seen as a coordinating institution |
IN2 |
0.857 |
||
|
Direction of resources devoted to learning |
IN3 |
0.769 |
||
|
Attitudes toward Organisational Learning |
New knowledge creation |
AT1 |
0.875 |
0.912 |
|
Learning as form of intelligence |
AT2 |
0.857 |
||
|
New capacity development |
AT3 |
0.866 |
||
|
Subjective norms in relation to organisational learning |
Purposeful creation of shared meaning |
SN1 |
0.871 |
0.901 |
|
Relationship in the diffusion of experience |
SN2 |
0.891 |
||
|
Continuous transformation of shared experience |
SN3 |
0.891 |
||
|
Perceived behavioural control of organisational learning |
Availability of experience data |
BC1 |
0.842 |
0.872 |
|
Networks of members, tools, and tasks |
BC2 |
0.873 |
||
|
Organisational Culture |
BC3 |
0.827 |
||
|
CR |
AVE |
IN |
EM |
AT |
SN |
BC |
BH |
|
|
IN |
0.838 |
0.635 |
0.797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EM |
0.926 |
0.758 |
0.325 |
0.871 |
|
|
|
|
|
AT |
0.912 |
0.776 |
0.463 |
0.488 |
0.881 |
|
|
|
|
SN |
0.901 |
0.753 |
0.392 |
0.222 |
0.207 |
0.867 |
|
|
|
BC |
0.872 |
0.694 |
0.280 |
0.545 |
0.394 |
0.214 |
0.833 |
|
|
BH |
0.780 |
0.543 |
0.367 |
0.297 |
0.312 |
0.398 |
0.116 |
0.737 |
The research framework has been evaluated by utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM). The fitness of the structural model has also been examined by overall fit indices. Table 5 depicts the fit indices of the structural model. The model fit indices listed in the table reveal adequate fitting of the model as the fit index values are up to the acceptable cut-off points. The structural model parameters’ statistical significance has been evaluated in order to ascertain the legitimacy of the hypothesized association among the constructs. The estimates of the parameters and the inference about the results of the hypothesis tests are depicted in table 6. Research hypothesis H1 advocates in favor of the positive association between implanting learning intention and managers and expected learning behaviour. H1 is supported having statistically significant coefficient 0.439 (p-value, <0.001). The hypothesisH2 seems to predict the expected positive association between empowerment of the managers and learning behaviour outcomes having statistical significant coefficient of 0.269 with p-value of less than 0.001. The hypothesis H3 shows positive association between managers’ attitudes toward organizational learning and intentions to implant organisational learning with the path coefficient 0.379 (p-value < .001).Thus, it has been revealed that the analysis is supportive of H3. The association between subjective norms in relation to organisational learning and intentions to implant organisational learning has got expected path coefficient of 0.314 with the p-value of less than 0.001 revealing statistically significant result in favor of H4. The hypothesis H5 is also supported by data analysis having statistically significant path coefficient with p-value< 0.01.Table 6 represents the summary of the results of the hypothesis tests and figure 2 depicts the structural model with corresponding path coefficients and their standard errors.
|
Fit indices |
Scores |
Recommended value |
|
Chi-square/degree of freedom |
1.459 |
≤ 3.00 |
|
Comparative fit index (CFI) |
0.987 |
≥ 0.95 |
|
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) |
0.033 |
≤ 0.05 |
|
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) |
0.936 |
≥ 0.90 |
|
Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) |
0.954 |
≥ 0.90 |
|
Non-normed fit index (NNFI) |
0.960 |
≥ 0.90 |
|
Fit indices |
Scores |
Recommended value |
|
Chi-square/degree of freedom |
1.432 |
≤ 3.00 |
|
Comparative fit index (CFI) |
0.987 |
≥ 0.95 |
|
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) |
0.031 |
≤ 0.05 |
|
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) |
0.931 |
≥ 0.90 |
|
Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) |
0.954 |
≥ 0.90 |
|
Non-normed fit index (NNFI) |
0.960 |
≥ 0.90 |
|
Hypothesis |
Path |
Path coefficient |
Standard error |
Remarks |
|
H1: |
Intentions to implant organisational learning àLearning behaviour |
0.439*** |
0.058 |
Supported |
|
H2: |
Employee empowerment influencing learning behaviourà Learning behaviour |
0.269*** |
0.066 |
Supported |
|
H3: |
Attitudes toward Organisational Learning à Intentions to implant organisational learning |
0.379*** |
0.051 |
Supported |
|
H4: |
Subjective norms in relation to organisational learning à Intentions to implant organisational learning |
0.314*** |
0.055 |
Supported |
|
H5: |
Perceived behavioural control of organisational learning àIntentions to implant organisational learning |
0.361** |
0.068 |
Supported |
This study attempted to examine the connection of managers’ perception regarding organisational learning and applicability of theory of planned behaviour in the context of apparel sector of Bangladesh. The research framework has been identified where the indicators of managers’ intention to implant organisational learning lead to learning behaviour. The results of data analysis revealed that the data collected had very good model fit. Attitudes, perceived behavioural control, and subjective norms positively influence the intentions of managers for implanting organisational learning in the firms. It has also been revealed that empowered managers have positive impact on learning behaviour for implanting organisational learning. The research findings recognize the applicability of theory of planned behaviour while implanting organisational learning in the firms. The theory of reasoned action predicted the association of beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviour which is in line with the findings of the current study. It has been recognized that intentions to implant organisational learning is significantly influenced by the potential attitudes of the managers (Fishbein an Ajzen, 1977).The influence of subjective norms and perceived behaviour control on learning behavior has been found instrumental in previous research outcomes (Lin and Lee, 2004).Strong behavioural intents are manifested by means of decision making attitudes of the management practitioners in the context of organisation (Millar and Shevlin, 2003). Prior studies suggest that managers play a very critical role in establishing and promoting organisational learning atmosphere in the organisations (Macneil, 2001). Empowerment in relation to learning initiative in the organisation for forming knowledge base has been considered by a number of previous studies. It has been discovered that empowered leadership is considered as an impelling cause in creating learning behaviour in the firms (Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke, 2006; Xue, Bradley, and Liang, 2011). Studies also revealed that the role of empowered managers play a very vital role in the modern and decentralized forms of business while establishing effective learning atmosphere (Schneckenberg, 2009). Goh (2003) revealed that both empowered and committed workers have been recognized two of some building blocks of learning organisations.
The Organisational learning literature is widespread (Dodgson, 1993; Wang and Ahmed, 2003). However, empirical research is scant focusing managers’ behavioural intentions. The study evaluated the fittingness of TPB while interpreting managers’ behavioural intentions introducing an additional construct – employee empowerment. The results of data analysis hold that the research framework achieved good-fit with data. The major determinants along with employee empowerment of implanting organisational learning significantly and positively influence the behavioural intentions of managers. Thus management practitioners may consider the findings of the study in order to devise strategies towards implanting learning atmosphere in the organisation. Future studies may be carried out considering more factors related to behavioural aspects in the field of organisational learning. Besides, longitudinal data could be utilized covering multiple characteristics regarding learning behaviour.
Ahmedova, S. (2015).Factors for increasing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Bulgaria.Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 195, 1104-1112. Amiri, A. N., Jandghi, G., Alvani, S. M., Hosnavi, R., &Ramezan, M. (2010).Increasing the intellectual capital in organisation: Examining the role of organisational learning. European Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), 98-108. Anderson, J. C., &Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411. Aoki, M. (1990).Information, incentives and bargaining in the Japanese economy: a microtheory of the Japanese Economy. Cambridge University Press. Argyris, C., &Schön, D. (1978).Organisational Learning, Addison & Wesley.Reading, MA. Armistead, C., &Meakins, M. (2002).A framework for practising knowledge management.Long range planning, 35(1), 49-71. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988).On the evaluation of structural equation models.Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2007) Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., &Winter, S. G. (2005). Applying organisational routines in understanding organisational change.Industrial and corporate change, 14(5), 775-791. Benton, C. F., &Magnier-Watanabe, R. (2014).The impact of commitment, empowerment, embeddedness on knowledge management in domestic and foreign-affiliated firms in Japan.Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 12(2), 161-174. Cavaleri, S., &Fearon, D. S. (1996).Managing in organisations that learn.Blackwell Business. Chau, P. Y., & Hu, P. J. H. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decision sciences, 32(4), 699-719. Cook, S., &Yanow, D. (1990, April). What does it mean for a culture to learn? Organisational learning from a culture perspective.In Third National Symposium of Public Administration Theory Network, Los Angeles, CA. Darr, E. D., Argote, L., &Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organisations: Productivity in franchises. Management science, 41(11), 1750-1762. Daft, R. L., &Weick, K. E. (1984).Toward a model of organisations as interpretation systems.Academy of management review, 9(2), 284-295. Dodgson, M. (1993).Organisational learning: a review of some literatures. Organisation studies, 14(3), 375-394. Duncan, R. (1979). Organisational learning: Implications for organisational design. Research in organisationalbehaviour, 1, 75-123. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., &Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European industrial training, 30(9), 701-720. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985).Organisational learning.Academy of management review, 10(4), 803-813. Fishbein, M., &Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981).Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of marketing research, 39-50. Goh, S. C. (2003). Improving organisational learning capability: lessons from two case studies.The learning organisation, 10(4), 216-227. Hakansson, H. (Ed.). (2015). Industrial Technological Development (Routledge Revivals): A Network Approach. Routledge. Huber, G. P. (1996). Organisational learning.Organisational learning. CA. Hilke, J. C., & Nelson, P. B. (1987). Caveat innovator: Strategic and structural characteristics of new product introductions. Journal of Economic Behaviour&Organisation, 8(2), 213-229. Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda.Employee relations, 25(2), 182-202. Hult, G. T. M., KetchenJr, D. J., & Nichols Jr, E. L. (2003). Organisational learning as a strategic resource in supply management.Journal of operations management, 21(5), 541-556. Ismail, M. (2005). "Creative climate and learning organisation factors: their contribution towards innovation." Leadership &Organisation Development Journal 26(8): 639-654. Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organisationalbehaviour and human decision processes, 96(1), 56-71. Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organisational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organisation studies, 21(3), 487-513. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988).Organisational learning.Annual review of sociology, 14(1), 319-338. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning.Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95-112. Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2004).Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour.Management decision, 42(1), 108-125. Lines, R. (2005). How social accounts and participation during change affect organisational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(3), 157-177. Macneil, C. (2001). The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams.Journal of workplace learning, 13(6), 246-253. Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organisation: A systems approach to quantum improvement and global success. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Meyer-Dohm, E. (1992). Human resources 2020: structures of the learning company. In Proceedings of the Human Resources in Europe at the Dawn of the 21st Century Conference (pp. 37-44). Millar, R., &Shevlin, M. (2003).Predicting career information-seeking behaviour of school pupils using the theory of planned behaviour.Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 62(1), 26-42. Miner, A. S., &Mezias, S. J. (1996). Ugly duckling no more: Pasts and futures of organisational learning research. Organisation science, 7(1), 88-99. Ordonez De Pablos, P. (2006). Knowledge flows and learning at interorganisational level: implications for management in multinational corporations. International journal of knowledge and learning, 2(1-2), 58-72. Pardo Del Val, M., & Lloyd, B. (2003).Measuring empowerment.Leadership &organisation development journal, 24(2), 102-108. Peler, M., Boydell, T., & Burgoyne, J. (1989).Towards the learning company.Management Education and Development, 20(1), 1-8. Quigley, N. R., Tesluk, P. E., Locke, E. A., &Bartol, K. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance.Organisation science, 18(1), 71-88. Salim, I. M. and M. Sulaiman (2011). "Organisational learning, innovation and performance: a study of Malaysian small and medium sized enterprises." International Journal of Business and Management 6(12): p118. Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Web 2.0 and the shift in corporate governance from control to democracy.Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 7(3), 234-248. Senge, P. (1990). The art and practice of the learning organisation.The new paradigm in business: Emerging strategies for leadership and organisational change, 126-138. Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of management, 29(3), 379-399. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10. Slater, S. F., &Narver, J. C. (1995).Market orientation and the learning organisation.Journal of marketing, 59(3), 63-74. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of management journal, 49(6), 1239-1251. Stata, R. (1989). Organisational Learning—The Key to Management Innovation, Sloan Mgmt. Rev., Spring. Stata, R., & Almond, P. (1989).Organisational learning: The key to management innovation. The training and development sourcebook, 2, 31-42. Steinbruner, J. D. (1974). The Cybernetic Theory of Decision Princeton.NJ: Princeton. Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research.MIS quarterly, 147-169. Thomas, K. and S. Allen (2006). "The learning organisation: a meta-analysis of themes in literature." The Learning Organisation13(2): 123-139. Thomas, K. W., &Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of management review, 15(4), 666-681. Twiss, B. C. (1986). Managing technological innovation. Longman Publishing Group. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2003). Organisational learning: a critical review. The learning organisation, 10(1), 8-17. Weber, R. A., &Camerer, C. F. (2003). Cultural conflict and merger failure: An experimental approach. Management science, 49(4), 400-415. Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011).Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing.Journal of knowledge management, 15(2), 299-312.>
