Linking organisational learning to organisational
performance and success: Singapore case studies
Keywords
Interviewing, Learning,
Performance indicators
Abstract
This paper addresses the
development of organisational
learning, which involves various
groups of people and different
stages. It further explores the link
between organisational learning
and performance outcomes,
providing an insight into the
various interpretations of
organisational success associated
with learning. The study was
conducted through in-depth
interviews and data were
collected from four Singapore
organisations from the private and
public sectors. Data were
subsequently analysed using
qualitative techniques of content
analysis, particularly within-case
analysis, cross-case analysis,
matrix displays and pattern
matching. Findings addressed
most of these issues adequately
but revealed that there were
several aspects on the linkage
between learning and performance
that had not been mentioned in
the literature. The main
contribution of this theory-building
study is the development of an
empirically confirmed, theoretical
and practical model of the
influences of organisational
learning on organisational
performance and success.
Received: April 2002
Revised: October 2002
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 70-83
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0143-7739]
[DOI 10.1108/01437730310463260]
[ 70 ]
Roland Yeo
Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore
Introduction
The concept of organisational learning has,
in the past decade or so, begun to make an
important contribution in organisational
studies and management practice. It was in
the 1980s that a few companies started
realising the potential power of corporate
learning for increasing organisational
performance, competitiveness and success. It
has been asserted that there is a need for
organisations to learn faster and respond to
the rapid change in the environment;
otherwise, they simply will not survive
(Heaton and Harung, 1999; Harung et al., 1999;
Garratt, 1999). Owen (1991) goes so far as to
term learning the business of business. In
this backdrop, this paper addresses the
following research problem (RP) and
research issues (RI):
RP: How and why does organisational
learning influence organisational
performance?
RI1: How is organisational learning
developed?
RI2: How appropriate are the three stages
of learning (i.e. single-loop, double-
loop and triple-loop learning)?
RI3: What factors influence learning
during the three stages?
RI4: How does organisational learning
influence organisational
performance?
The above questions are based on a
theoretical framework on organisational
learning and development, acting as a prior
theory for this research (Yeo, 2002).
The theoretical framework is essentially
founded on two significantly distinct, yet a
common set of, principles for learning, that
is, the perspectives of cognitive and
behavioural learning (Cherrington, 1991).
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
This is motivated by the belief that
organisational learning results from the
understanding of changes that occur in the
external environment and then the
adaptation of beliefs and behaviour that are
compatible with those changes. Inherent in
the process are a new way of thinking, new
attitudes and consequently a new pattern of
behaviour brought about by organisational
learning (Schein, 1999). Besides, there is a
constant interaction between adaptive and
generative trends that are characteristic of
the behavioural and cognitive learning
approach respectively. At the core of these
approaches is the importance of promoting
creative individualism within organisations
so as to make people feel empowered. In turn,
employees will be challenged to find better
ways of meeting organisational goals and
values (Schein, 1999; Robbins, 1994).
Behavioural perspective
In the behavioural perspective, learning is
regarded as a process of modifying current
behavioural patterns to respond to some
immediate situation or experience. This
perspective is associated with adaptive
learning in that action is an expected
outcome from some form of learning. There
needs to be a change in the way an individual
does something. Because learning takes place
on the job as well as prior to it,
organisational leaders are often concerned
with the way they teach their employees to
behave in ways that are most beneficial to the
organisation. Leaders often attempt to mould
individuals by guiding their learning process
in gradual stages (Robbins, 1994). The
behavioural learning perspective is derived
from the behaviourist theory, suggesting that
learning necessarily leads to the shaping of
behaviour. According to prominent
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Roland Yeo behaviourist theorist Skinner (1972), this
Linking organisational behavioural change is a relatively permanent
learning to organisational change that occurs as a result of experience
performance and success:
Singapore case studies or practice. This belief is based on the
Leadership & Organization stimulus and response in learning where
Development Journal learning objectives need to be prescribed to
24/2 [2003] 70-83 bring about specific behavioural outcomes.
Unlike the cognitive learning perspective
which will be discussed next, the behavioural
perspective does not take into consideration
the processes of motivation, thinking and
emotional development of individuals (Cole,
1995; March and Simon, 1994).
Cognitive perspective
Cognitive learning theory suggests that
learning occurs largely through vicarious
experience as opposed to direct experience
set out by behavioural learning theory. In
this cognitive perspective, people learn by
imitating and observing others, and through
symbolic associations using mental images,
symbols and ideas (Cherrington, 1991).
Learning is regarded as a complex process
which involves mental-mapping, the use of
intuition and imagination, and problem
solving. It is more than responding to minute
details and solving minor problems.
Cognitive learning is the ability to make
sense of the environment, develop new
understanding and see things in perspective
(Cole, 1995; Sadler, 1994). In contrast with
behavioural learning, cognitive learning is
concerned with the motivational, thinking
and emotional aspects of learning. This
perspective is closely linked to generative
learning as it requires a fresh way of looking
at things such as a better process of
managing something or a creative way of
responding to something. According to Senge
(1990), generative learning is a means of
creating rather than coping, the latter being
part of adaptive learning. In order to create
appropriately, one needs to understand the
systems and observe a shared vision. One of
the main contributors of cognitive learning is
Rogers (1969) who believes that such learning
should give rise to insight. This is when links
between issues are understood and problems
are solved creatively.
Gaps in the linkage between
organisational learning and
performance measures
From the literature, knowledge acquisition is
very much associated with organisational
learning, leading to competence. Because the
process of learning is volatile and knowledge
acquisition occurs at several levels, any
attempt to measure intangibles can be
problematic. Organisations already employ a
mix of performance measures and what
needs to be explored is a broader spectrum
which takes into account non-traditional,
especially non-financial approaches to
performance measurement (Martin, 2000;
Oakland, 1999). Even so, very little
conceptual and empirical attention has been
given to the relationships that may exist
between organisational learning and
performance (Chaston et al., 1999; Hedges,
1997).
The difficulty could be due to the fact that
such cause-and-effect relationships are not
necessarily straightforward and hardly
clearly defined. It must be realised that the
effects occur over many steps and
interventions to create the learning
organisation may be complex. To make
claims that certain elements result in
improved organisational performance
requires taking into account several layers of
causal relationships. Fundamentally,
interventions may change many aspects of an
organisation where learning outcomes are
not immediately apparent. One of the most
obvious factors is that systems theory has
made it apparent that many factors affect
organisational outcomes. This is an example
of multiple causation. Perhaps, the full
effects on outcomes will only be realised after
a long period of time as organisational
outcomes are both time- and space-delayed.
In addition, there are many intervening
variables involved such as factors like
environment, leadership and organisational
structure, which may influence outcomes.
Furthermore, the scope is wide as
interventions are likely to involve all levels
of employees, embracing a huge set of
competencies (Swanson and Holton, 1999;
Dixon, 1999).
Another factor for the weak linkage
between organisational learning and
performance could be due to a phenomenon
known as myopia of learning. This is when
organisations tend to ignore the long run,
ignore the larger picture and overlook
failures (Levinthal and March, 1993). These
problems impede learning and restrict
performance outcomes. For instance, if a
management development initiative focuses
merely on an isolated dimension of
managerial work, it is likely to produce a
narrow outcome. Hence, it is important to
examine the personality of the individual,
his/her professional competence at specific
tasks and competence in dealing with the
organisation's culture and environment. The
appropriate management of knowledge and
intellectual capital is also vital in sustaining
an organisation's competitive advantage and
[ 71 ]
Roland Yeo performance (Marquardt, 2000). Sometimes,
Linking organisational the problem lies in the misalignment of goals
learning to organisational
performance and success: between individuals, teams and the
Singapore case studies organisation. This is when the three levels of
Leadership & Organization goal are not unified by a shared vision,
Development Journal resulting in independently unrelated goals.
24/2 [2003] 70-83
Such a situation frequently disintegrates
collective performance, reducing the
organisation's competitive advantage (Coad
and Berry, 1999; McKenna, 1999).
In summary, this paper is predicated on a
view that current approaches to evaluation
are inadequate. First, this is due to the
understanding that organisational
performance can be assessed both objectively
(formally) and subjectively (informally)
depending on the context in which learning
variables are examined (Hedges, 1997).
Second, the impact of individual learning on
performance standards across the entire
organisation is complex, requiring a
longitudinal approach through a
combination of qualitative and quantitative
methodologies which are at present not
adequately investigated (Swanson and
Holton, 1999; Dixon, 1999). After all, the
process of learning is dynamic and the pace
at which learning takes place is not
necessarily incremental or linear.
Furthermore, the level at which learning
operates is often complicated by different
groups of people in different circumstances
and at different times. For this reason,
current approaches attempting to measure
learning outcomes fail to account for this
complexity and dynamism (Chaston et al.,
1999; Coad and Berry, 1998). Perhaps one way
of examining learning outcomes is to
investigate the interaction processes between
individuals (characterised by experiences
and skills), teams (characterised by
composition and structure) and finally
organisation (characterised by business
situation, culture and physical conditions)
(Hacker, 2000). Only then can a more logical
explanation of the linkage between
organisational learning and performance be
achieved. Considering the complexity of
explicating this link empirically due to, for
instance, multiple causation, this study has
adopted a qualitative approach involving in-
depth interviews to seek possible answers to
the research problem and issues.
Research design
This study utilised case study as a method of
confirming or disconfirming the above
research issues. The use of case studies as a
research tool, as exemplified by Yin (1994),
should investigate a contemporary
[ 72 ]
phenomenon within its real-life context when
boundaries between phenomenon and
context are not clearly evident and in which
multiple sources of evidence are used. Case
study research not only should be looked
upon as a data collection tactic or solely as a
design feature; it also should serve as part of
a comprehensive research strategy. In-depth
interviewing and evidentiary documents
were used as primary and secondary sources
of data collection from the four case
organisations respectively. These
organisations were classified in two
dimensions: type (public or private) and size
(medium or large). Further, this study
satisfies Yin's exemplification of case study
research in that there has been a lack of
empirical exploration in the relationship
between learning and organisational success.
It investigates a contemporary phenomenon
but the boundaries between the phenomenon
(organisational learning) and context
(organisational performance) are not clearly
evident (Yin, 1994). Besides, despite the
limited attempts in explaining the
performance outcomes of organisational
learning, few have adopted a more
qualitative approach in accounting for the
behavioural aspect of learning (Swanson and
Holton, 1999; Chaston et al., 1999; Levinthal
and March, 1993; Dixon, 1999). Hence, this
study aims to provide an insight into the
various interpretations of organisational
success associated with learning, bridging
the gap between the two (phenomenon and
context). The findings can then be used to
further develop a more in-depth study or case
analysis of potential or successful learning
organisations, satisfying Yin's (1994)
definition of case study as part of a
comprehensive research strategy.
This study was not totally inductive as
deduction based on prior theory forms part of
this research. Therefore, this research lies
somewhere between a purely exploratory or
inductive approach (Eisenhardt, 1989) and a
deductive or explanatory approach (Yin,
1993). Data triangulation was achieved in this
research through the use of multiple sources
of data collection, consisting of in-depth
interviews and documents. This research
also used evaluator triangulation by
discussing the data with colleagues and
academics in order to identify unclear or
ambiguous descriptions. These triangulation
methods resulted in this research achieving
construct validity. This is when results
obtained from the use of measures fit the
theories around which the test is designed
(Yin, 1994). Second, two academics reviewed
the draft case analysis, satisfying
investigator triangulation, during the data
analysis and report-writing phase. By
Roland Yeo adopting this technique, ambiguous
Linking organisational descriptions were detected and clarified,
learning to organisational
performance and success: thereby addressing construct validity and
Singapore case studies increasing the overall quality of case study
Leadership & Organization research (Yin, 1994). Third, internal validity
Development Journal was achieved through the tactics of within-
24/2 [2003] 70-83
case analysis, cross-case analysis and pattern
matching. Fourth, the findings of this
research developed analytical generalisation
by the application of replication logic
through the use of multiple case studies,
satisfying external validity in its research
design.
The qualitative orientation of this study is
an attempt to balance the otherwise
quantitative research on organisational
learning apparent in the existing literature
(see, for example, Goh and Richards, 1997;
Zairi, 1999; Van Deusen and Mueller, 1999).
That said, some form of quantitative analysis
was utilised in this study as a means of
providing a more objective evaluation of the
thematic patterns of the rich qualitative data.
This largely occurred at the data codification
stage where simple numeric figures were
assigned to represent the number of
mentions apparent in the interviewees'
responses. More importantly, the relevance
of an intangible notion like organisational
learning can only be realised through insight
gained from understanding both the
cognitive and behavioural patterns of
individuals. These two aspects of learning
are the underlying theories that govern this
research.
Research execution
In this research, 12 interviews were
conducted in a total of four cases of two
dimensions. They are private-big, private-
medium, public-big, and public-medium.
``Big'' refers to over 1,000 employees while
``medium'' refers to between 500 and 1,000
employees. The reason why small
organisations were not considered was that
the internal organisational structure is often
less apparent, roles less defined and the level
of group interaction less dynamic. With too
narrow a structure, the notion of individual,
team or organisation goal is likely to be
unclear, weakening the validation of the
theoretical framework and, subsequently, the
research issues. For each case, three
interviews were conducted with both male
and female interviewees, all within the
supervisory or management level. One of the
criteria used to select interviewees was that
they have to be in the position of reviewing,
deciding and endorsing organisational
policies to some extent.
For this research, evidence was drawn
mainly from in-depth interviews and
documents. For instance, company
newsletters and Web site information were of
particular importance to this research as
these documents provided confirmatory/
disconfirmatory evidence for the statements
made by interviewees. In addition,
documents enabled the researcher to make
inferences, providing relevant clues for
investigation.
This research also used two pilot case
studies as a pilot test of the intended data
collection instrument and to provide some
conceptual clarification of the research
design. These dual sources of information
helped to ensure that this research reflected
significant issues and questions relevant to
contemporary cases (Yin, 1994). All field
notes, interview protocols, interview
transcripts, collected documents and
materials were coded. The coding technique
was carried out for both positive and
negative incidents relating to each category
of the topic of interest.
Case background information
The cases will be referred to as case A
through to case D in order to facilitate
discussion and satisfy ethical considerations.
The interviewees within each case will be
identified as, for example, A1 (case A, first
interviewee) and D4 (case D, fourth
interviewee). Respondents from all four cases
claimed that their organisations were
aspiring to be learning organisations with
some preliminary efforts in place to promote
strategic learning. These organisations were
committed to people development with such
policies as reviewing human resources
practices, developing staff, improving the
effectiveness of training and achieving better
business results. As learning organization
was a relatively new concept in Asia,
particularly Singapore, none of these
organizations could justifiably claim that
they were high performers. However, the
respondents would regard their
organisations as moderate performers as
some of the learning initiatives implemented
had led to an increase in employees'
professional competency and a decrease in
employee turnovers. Their assertions were
verified through company reports and
corporate Web sites.
The first set of two cases was from the
private sector. Case A represents a large
organisation in the media industry. Case B
represents a medium-sized organisation in
the management and information technology
consulting industry. The next two cases were
[ 73 ]
 Roland Yeo
Linking organisational
learning to organisational
performance and success:
Singapore case studies
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 70-83
Table I
Background information and coding cases and interviews used in this
research
Type Big
Private A (Media)
A1: human resources
A2: editorial
A3: training
Public C (Quality and productivity)
C1: planning and corporate development D1: public communications
C2: human resources
C3: corporate planning
[ 74 ]
from the public or government sector. Case C
represents a large organisation in the
productivity and quality management
industry. Finally, case D represents a
medium-sized organisation in the
information industry. All interviewees
selected were senior management personnel
with adequate experience in making policy
decisions with regard to organisational
learning and development. Table I presents a
summary of their professional backgrounds.
Findings
The findings are mainly presented in two
forms: quantitative data evident in Tables II
to IX and qualitative data evident in
interview excerpts to confirm or disconfirm
the research issues. As a means of
quantifying qualitative data, two different
techniques were used in the process of cross-
case analysis, namely: putting information in
different arrays to make a matrix of
categories; and tabulating the frequency of
different events and putting information in
chronological order (according to Yin, 1994).
The numbers in each cell in the Tables
represent the number of mentions given by
the interviewees and indicate the level of
importance for each factor. In presenting the
qualitative data, quotations from the
interviewees are presented in quotation
marks identified by its case alphabet. During
the analysis of each case, reference is made to
the level of importance given to each factor.
This level was determined using the scale
presented in Table II.
Comments provided by all respondents
were largely based on their experience
implementing actual learning policies and
programmes; in which case they had to
provide evidence by means of policy
statements, newsletters or company reports.
All of them were able to provide evidentiary
support despite the confidentiality of the
information in some cases. However, there
Size
Medium
B (Consulting)
B1: human resources
B2: customer relationship marketing
B3: management consulting
D (Information)
D2: human resources
D3: research and planning
Table II
Level of importance given to each factor
Number of mentions Level of importance
1-4 Minor
5-6 Somewhat
7-9 Very
10-11 Highly
12 Critically
Note: 12 is the maximum number of interviews
were comments that were based on the
desired expectations of the respondents; in
which case they had to provide examples
and/or analogies to support their views.
Some of the quotations presented in this
paper were based on desired expectations
rather than actual practices as some of the
issues discussed involved a variety of other
factors. As an example, the findings in Table
X present a list of possible learning outcomes
and these were views that were based on
desired expectations more than actual
practices.
Discussion of findings
How is organisational learning developed?
The opening question was a broad and
general question designed to establish
rapport and asked the interviewees to share
their views or experiences on organisational
learning. From the responses, several
common themes emerged in the following
ways. First, there was a general observation
that a learning organisation promotes
sharing and learning of information and
experience from one another in an open and
flexible manner. Second, the direction and
contents of learning are influenced by the
organisation's mission and vision to a large
extent. This perspective is further reinforced
by the belief that systems thinking is key to
the development of organisational learning.
Third, the extent and capacity of learning
should be driven by top management with a
strong commitment to develop learning
initiatives. Fourth, learning prepares the
organisation for competition with the
external environment, helping it gain
competitive advantage over time. Fifth, there
is a time factor associated with
organisational learning such that the
learning organisation is a future state or
event.
The next question asked the interviewees
to rate a range of activities involved in
organisational learning and the findings are
presented in Table III. Based on the number
of responses for ``5'' (most important) and ``4''
(very important), it can be seen that learning
Roland Yeo
Linking organisational
learning to organisational
performance and success:
Singapore case studies
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 70-83
climate was rated as the most important
consideration in the development of
organisational learning, followed by a
flexible reward system, and inquiry and
dialogue. To substantiate the view on
learning climate, interviewee A1 commented:
``People need to learn in a safe environment
and it is acceptable to fail and learn from
those failures''. In response to a flexible
reward system, interviewee D1 felt that
rewards satisfy the needs of individuals,
while interviewee C3 emphasised that
inquiry and dialogue are an integral part of
the learning process where ``questions and
feedback help to clarify issues and offer
solutions efficiently''. Participatory policy
making was viewed as one of the least
important considerations as ``it is the job of
the top management who should be able to
communicate the organisation's vision
clearly to all employees'' (interviewee B2).
Table IV presents a number of factors that
strengthen, weaken, recover and terminate
learning. The term ``recover'' is taken to
mean revive learning. The responses listed
were based on common mentions by all 12
interviewees. With reference to the level-of-
importance scale in Table II, the two highly
important factors that strengthen learning
are strong management commitment to
learning (11 mentions) and clear
communication of vision, mission and
outcomes (ten mentions). These are
consistent with the earlier views that
strategic direction of top management is of
utmost importance to organisational
learning. On the other hand, the two very
important factors that weaken learning were
observed to be an absence of concerted effort
(nine mentions), and the lack of reward and
recognition (9 mentions). The first factor is in
line with a common perspective discussed
earlier that organisational learning operates
by systems thinking through a collective
effort. The second factor on reward was
earlier rated as one of the key considerations
of organisational learning. As for factors that
recover learning, a supportive environment
(6 mentions) was regarded as somewhat
important. This is further reinforced by the
observation that a lack of commitment and
support from top management (6 mentions) is
somewhat an important factor that
terminates learning. These two perspectives
complement each other, reinforcing the
earlier point that strong management
commitment to learning (11 mentions) is
essential to the development of a learning
organisation.
As can be seen in Table V, the key
personnel that direct organisational learning
would be the chief executive officer, senior
management and supervisors (11 mentions,
highly important).
The next significant group of personnel
perceived to be very important in driving
learning would be the human resource
department (8 mentions). As interviewee C2
commented: ``Learning programmes are part
of human resource (HR) functions. More
importantly, HR designs reward and
recognition systems, is responsible for
communicating corporate values and
mission, and helps promote an open culture''.
This comment clearly summarises the key
characteristics of organisational learning
discussed in this section. Two very important
benefits of learning were observed to be
better financial performance and increased
knowledge creation and innovation (8
mentions each), the latter being associated
with the cognitive development of

Table III
Level of importance of organisational learning activities in each of the four cases
Cases
A (Private) B (Private) C (Public) D (Public) Grand totals
Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
Activities 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
Learning climate 3 ± ± ± ± 2 1 ± ± ± 3 ± ± ± ± 1 2 ± ± ± 9 3 ± ± ±
Self-development 2 ± 1 ± ± 2 ± 1 ± ± 1 ± 2 ± ± 1 1 1 ± ± 6 1 5 ± ±
Inquiry and dialogue 1 1 ± ± 1 1 2 ± ± ± 1 1 ± ± 1 1 ± 2 ± ± 4 4 2 ± 2
Flexible organisational
structure 1 ± 1 1 ± 2 ± 1 ± ± ± ± 1 2 ± 1 ± 2 ± ± 4 ± 5 3 ±
Team-building 1 ± 2 ± ± 1 1 1 ± ± ± 1 1 1 ± ± 3 ± ± ± 2 5 4 1 ±
Flexible reward system 2 1 ± ± ± 3 ± ± ± ± ± 2 1 ± ± 1 2 ± ± ± 6 5 1 ± ±
Participatory policy making 1 2 ± ± ± 1 2 ± ± ± ± ± 1 1 1 1 ± ± 2 ± 3 4 1 3 1
Systems thinking 1 ± 2 ± ± 1 1 1 ± ± 2 1 ± ± ± 1 1 1 ± ± 5 3 4 ± ±
Learning strategies 1 1 1 ± ± ± 2 1 ± ± ± 1 1 1 ± ± ± 1 2 ± 1 4 4 3 ±
Case totals 13 5 7 1 1 13 9 5 ± ± 7 6 7 5 2 7 9 7 4 ± 40 29 26 10 3
Notes: 5 = most importamt, 4 = very important, 3 = important, 2 = fairly important, 1 = least important

[ 75 ]
Roland Yeo Table IV
Linking organisational
learning to organisational Factors that strengthen, weaken, recover and terminate learning
performance and success:
Singapore case studies Cases
Leadership & Organization Rows Factors A B C D Grand totals Mean
Development Journal Factors that strengthen learning
24/2 [2003] 70-83
1 Strong interface between training programmmes and work 2 2 1 ± 5 1.25
2 Strong management commitment to learning 3 3 3 2 11 2.75
3 Staff empowerment 1 ± 1 ± 2 0.5
4 Strong team spirit 2 1 ± 1 4 1.0
5 Open culture promoting trust and respect for one another 1 1 1 3 6 1.5
6 Clear vision, mission and outcomes communicated 2 3 2 3 10 2.5
Factors that weaken learning
7 Absence of concerted effort 2 3 2 2 9 2.25
8 Lack of reward and recognition 1 3 2 3 9 2.25
9 Weak leadership 3 1 1 1 6 1.5
10 Information overload ± 3 1 ± 4 1.0
11 Narrow/myopic human resource policies 2 1 ± 2 5 1.25
Factors that recover (revive) learning
12 Frank assessment and sincerity to change for the better 1 ± ± 1 2 0.5
13 Supportive environment 2 ± 2 2 6 1.5
14 Strong leadership and clear directions 1 2 ± 1 4 1.0
15 Recognition that learning is a competitive advantage 2 1 1 ± 4 1.0
16 Assistance from external consultants 1 1 ± ± 2 0.5
Factors that terminate learning
17 No commitment and support from the top management 2 1 2 1 6 1.5
18 Lack of need ± 1 1 ± 2 0.5
19 Getting punished or penalised unnecessarily 2 ± 1 2 5 1.25
20 Entrenched habits 1 2 ± 1 4 1.0
21 Poor incentives 1 1 ± ± 2 0.5
22 Case totals 32 30 21 25 108 27.0
Note: Cell numbers represent number of mentions; ``mean'' indicates the average number of mentions in each
case organisation

Table V
Key personnel that drive organisational learning (OL) and benefits of OL
Cases
Rows Factors A B C D Grand totals Mean
Key personnel
1 Human resource department 3 2 1 2 8 2.0
2 CEO, senior management and managers 3 3 3 2 11 2.75
3 Employees themselves 1 1 ± 1 3 0.75
Benefits of learning
4 Enhance personal development 2 1 1 3 7 1.75
5 Allow organisation to stay ahead of changes 1 1 2 ± 4 1.0
6 Allow organisation to be proactive by introducing
products and services 1 3 2 1 7 1.75
7 Promote new knowledge creation and innovation 2 3 2 1 8 2.0
8 Build more open organisations to attract talent 1 ± ± 1 2 0.5
9 Improve quality of people ± 1 1 1 3 0.75
10 Improve financial results of organisation 2 2 2 2 8 2.0
11 Increase confidence in job functions and work
improvement 1 1 ± 2 4 1.0
12 Case totals 17 18 14 16 65 16.25
Notes: Cell numbers represent number of mentions; ``mean'' indicates the average number of mentions in each
case organisation

[ 76 ]
Roland Yeo individuals. The next two very important
Linking organisational benefits can be seen to be introduction of new
learning to organisational products and services and enhanced personal
performance and success:
Singapore case studies development (seven mentions each), the
Leadership & Organization latter being associated with both the
Development Journal cognitive and the behavioural aspects of
24/2 [2003] 70-83 individuals.
In brief, organisational learning is
developed when every individual adopts a
systems perspective where shared vision is
communicated and practised throughout the
organisation. Three key considerations have
been identified to be important to the
developmental process. They are a conducive
learning climate, a flexible reward system,
and constant enquiry and dialogue among
employees.
How appropriate are the three stages of
learning?
One of the questions asked was ``What are the
characteristics of a learning organisation?''
and prompts relating to individual, team and
organisational learning were used to elicit
response on the existence of the three stages
of learning. A very high percentage of the
interviewees felt that the three stages of
learning do exist in organisations, although
it was generally agreed that the third stage,
namely organisational learning, is a
collective effort. This implies that ``both
individual learning and team learning are
subsets of organisational learning''
(interviewee B3). Further, it was pointed out
by the majority of the interviewees that
learning at the organisational level cannot
occur without the proper institutionalisation
of individual and team learning. It was
generally acknowledged that organisational
learning imbues a systems perspective where
shared understanding of the corporate vision
is essential to the success of learning
initiatives. As commented by interviewee A2:
``Without clear direction from senior
management, learning at the individual or
team level may be truncated as learning goals
become confusing and diverse''. Individual
and team learning goals should be aligned
with those set out by the organisation. This
way, ``organisational learning will be focused
on the overall vision and mission of the
organisation without being distracted by
external circumstances'' (interviewee B3).
There was another consensus that learning
goals are not static; they are in fact
constantly challenged by a variety of factors.
As expressed by the majority, this is largely
due to the dynamic interaction of the three
stages of learning. It was generally agreed
that the relationship between the various
stages is not necessarily straightforward. As
expressed by interviewee D2: ``The
relationship is also not clearly demarcated to
determine when learning becomes
individual, team or organisational''. This is
especially so when learning is associated
with single-loop, double-loop or triple-loop
learning, where learning is taken to be a
problem-solving process. The ways in which
the problem is approached, analysed and
solved all impact on the extent of learning.
There is perceivably a link between the
relevance of different goals to the capacity of
learning. As is apparent in Table VI, all
interviewees converged on the view that
organisational goals are very important to
the development of organisational learning.
Overall, both individual and team goals were
also viewed as important criteria for
influencing the capabilities of learning at the
relevant stages.
In brief, the three stages of learning are
appropriate for the development of learning
organisations. Owing to the flexibility with
which they interact, learning outcomes vary
according to circumstances. However, it has
been discovered that learning capacity is
closely linked to different goals associated
with the various learning stages.
What factors influence learning during the
three stages?
The five factors associated with Senge's
(1990) ``fifth discipline'' prove to be critical in
influencing organisational learning based on
the data collected. However, an additional
factor, teamwork, was identified and allowed
the respondents to rate its importance in this
study. Overall, the level of importance given
to each factor can be seen in the total number
of mentions. As can be seen in Table VII,
teamwork (12 mentions) was regarded as the
most important factor among the five as
``teamwork leads to cross-fertilisation of
ideas and a sense of belonging which
influences learning'' (interviewee B2).
Similarly, both personal skills and vision
(ten mentions each) were also regarded as the
next very important factors, followed by
mindset (nine mentions). As expressed by
interviewee C2: ``Personal skills increase a
person's competence in handling the job well.
Learning will largely be driven by personal
motivation derived from the ability to
achieve more at work''. To interviewee A3,
personal skills should be contributed to areas
in line with the direction of the
organisation's vision ultimately. Her belief
was that ``I learn what appeals to me and I try
to make it work for me first and see how it
can contribute to the company's overall
performance''.
The next important factor is mindset
which ``all boils down to habits, attitude,
beliefs and expectations'', as commented by
[ 77 ]
Roland Yeo Table VI
Linking organisational
learning to organisational Importance of different goals influencing learning capabilities during the three stages of learning
performance and success:
Singapore case studies Cases
Leadership & Organization A B C D Grand totals
Development Journal Rating
24/2 [2003] 70-83 Goals VI I MI VI I MI VI I MI VI I MI VI I MI
Individual 2 ± 1 1 2 ± 2 ± 1 1 1 1 6 3 3
Team 1 2 ± 3 ± ± 2 1 ± 2 1 ± 8 4 ±
Organisational 3 ± ± 3 ± ± 3 ± ± 3 ± ± 12 ± ±
Case totals 6 2 1 7 2 ± 7 1 1 6 2 1 26 7 3
Notes: VI = very important; I = important; MI = moderately important

Table VII
Importance of factors influencing organisational learning
Cases
A B C D Grand totals
Rating
Factors VI I MI VI I MI VI I MI VI I MI VI I MI
Personal skills 3 ± ± 2 1 ± 3 ± ± 2 1 ± 10 2 ±
Mindset 2 ± 1 3 ± ± 2 ± 1 2 1 ± 9 1 2
Working environment 1 2 ± 2 1 ± 2 1 ± 1 2 ± 6 6 ±
Teamwork 3 ± ± 3 ± ± 3 ± ± 3 ± ± 12 ± ±
Job scope 2 ± 1 1 1 1 ± 1 2 ± 2 1 3 4 5
Vision 2 ± 1 3 ± ± 2 1 ± 3 ± ± 10 1 1
Case totals 13 2 3 14 3 1 12 3 3 10 6 1 50 14 8
Notes: VI = very important; I = important; MI = moderately important

interviewee D2. It is the cognitive state of
every individual, which subsequently
governs a specific set of behavioural pattern.
Mindset is central to the development of
organisational learning theory as it deals
with both the social psychology (cognitive)
and social science (behavioural) perspectives
(Yeo, 2002). Next, working environment was
also regarded as essential to organisational
learning such that ``an employee may be
motivated to learn if his or her peers are all
doing well and learning at a fast pace due to
some social factor. The need to keep up with
the Joneses is apparent among employees''
(interviewee B1). A healthy environment
promotes team learning where members
learn and influence one another to bring
about positive outcomes. Further, ``there are
two elements associated with working
environment, psychological and physical. It
also depends on whether they are supportive
or detrimental. It can either foster learning
or make it more difficult. For example, a
supportive team environment can help
ameliorate a difficult job, while a destructive
team environment can make it more
difficult'', as expressed by interviewee A1. On
the other hand, job scope was seen as the
least important of the six with five
respondents rating it only moderately
important. According to interviewee D1:
[ 78 ]
``What is more important is the clarity of job
scope which in turn affects how the
department learns in relation to the rest of
the organisation''. As interpreted by several
respondents, job scope does not necessarily
determine an individual's capacity to learn.
For instance, ``job scope is important for the
higher level employees rather than lower
ones as their jobs may be routine and
repetitive'' (interviewee B2). Hence, it can be
seen that job scope does not play a significant
role in influencing organisational learning.
These factors motivated by Senge's (1990)
``fifth discipline'' relate to Argyris and
Schon's (1978 and 1996) learning-loop theory
in the following ways. First, organisational
learning occurs when engaging individuals
reflect upon and develop their own thinking
processes as characterised by individual
mindset (rated ``very important'' by nine
respondents, third highest among the six
factors). Second, organisational learning is a
process when members actively use data to
guide their behaviour in such a way as to
promote the ongoing adaptation of the
organisation (Edmonson and Moingeon,
1998). Using data is to seek and attend to task-
relevant information, particularly for
assessing the collective performance and
progress against goals. Here, two factors,
teamwork (rated ``very important'' by 12
Roland Yeo respondents) and corporate vision (rated
Linking organisational ``very important'' by ten) relate to collective
learning to organisational
performance and success: performance and goals respectively. Guiding
Singapore case studies behaviour involves choosing actions based
Leadership & Organization on data-driven observations as well as
Development Journal actions designed for testing inferences. In the
24/2 [2003] 70-83
data presented in Table VII, personal skills
which guide these actions, are rated ``very
important'' by ten respondents. Adaptation
refers to change by an organisation in
response to external changes, including both
problems and opportunities. Working
environment, rated ``very important'' by six
respondents, is concerned with such an
adaptation. In essence, these factors relate to
an iterative cycle of action and reflection,
described by Argyris and Schon (1978 and
1996), as integral to effective organisational
learning processes.
In brief, there is a general perception that
all six factors discussed here influence
learning at the three levels to a large extent.
None felt that there are factors that apply
specifically to any particular stage of
learning. A quick cross-case analysis also
reveals a high level of consistency in the
number of responses across the four case
organisations. For instance, the total number
of response rated as very important for all six
factors is 13 for case A, 14 for case B, 12 for
case C and ten for case D. Most importantly,
the data analysed here have contributed to
the body of knowledge to a certain extent as
the priority of these factors is essential to the
implementation of learning strategies in any
organisation.
How does organisational learning influence
organisational performance?
As is apparent in Table VIII, organisational
performance has been defined as involving
both financial and non-financial outcomes.
At the core are bottom-line, targets and
turnover, being the main concern of all
organisations. This financial aspect of
performance was rated critically important
(12 mentions) to organisations. Other very
important financial indicators include
productivity and efficiency (nine mentions)
and customer satisfaction (eight mentions),
which are linked to quantity, quality and sale
of products, in turn affecting market share.
Two very important non-financial indicators
indicated are employee satisfaction and skills
level (seven mentions each).
In essence, organisational performance can
be defined at several levels. At the highest
level, it refers to how well the organisation
has performed through goals or targets set in
relation to its vision and mission. For
example, it can be the productivity growth of
the manufacturing sector. At the lower
levels, organisational performance can be
measured against operational targets such as
defect rate, turnaround time, skills level and
satisfaction of employees.
The relevance and importance of both
financial and non-financial outcomes are also
reflected in Table IX, indicating the ratings of
a variety of performance measures.
As can be seen in columns ``5'' and ``4'' of
the grand totals (indicating most and very
important respectively), financial measure
was rated by all 12 interviewees, while
products and services, and human resources
both recorded ten responses. The next very
important indicator rated with nine
responses is markets, relating closely with
products and services leading to financial
outcomes. Human resources can be
measured by attrition rates, although
employee satisfaction is harder to quantify.
Even then, this is a highly important non-
financial performance indicator as ``happy

Table VIII
Definitions of organisational performance
Cases
Rows Definitions A B C D Grand totals Mean
1 Bottom-line, performance targets, turnover 3 3 3 3 12 3.0
2 Productivity and efficiency, turnaround time, defect rate 2 3 2 2 9 2.25
3 Public image and perception of organisation 1 ± 1 ± 2 0.5
4 Employee attrition ± ± 1 1 2 0.5
5 Employee satisfaction 2 2 2 1 7 1.75
6 Skills levels of employees 2 2 1 2 7 1.75
7 Management of resources 1 2 2 ± 5 1.25
8 Customer satisfaction 1 3 1 3 8 2.0
9 Creative and innovative products and services 1 3 1 1 6 1.5
10 Internal capabilities, e.g. agile teams 1 ± ± 1 2 0.5
11 Case totals 14 18 14 14 60 15.0
Notes: Cell numbers represent number of mentions; ``mean'' indicates the average number of mentions in each
case organisation

[ 79 ]
Roland Yeo
Linking organisational
learning to organisational
performance and success:
Singapore case studies
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
24/2 [2003] 70-83
staff are infectious and will be motivated to
perform even better,'' as remarked by
interviewee B1.
As perceived by the majority of the
interviewees, the way that organisational
learning influences performance is not
necessarily straightforward. For instance,
interviewee A3 commented that ``learning
leads to excitement and excitement will boost
energy and performance to do the job well
above expectations,'' suggesting how non-
financial aspects of learning lead to financial
outcomes in the end. This is so when ``the
ability of an organisation to deliver and delight
its customers, both external and internal, is
crucial to performance success. Aspects
associated with performance include
leadership, culture and values, for example,
whether there are customer focus, creativity
and imagination in the product design, and
management of resources in such areas as
human, financial and information''
(interviewee D3). As reinforced by interviewee
C2, ``organisational learning should not be for
learning's sake. It is for the purpose of
organisational performance; it facilitates the
whole process of pursuit in search of
excellence''.
In brief, organisational learning influences
organisational performance by increasing
employee competence through upgrading of
skills and knowledge to match the job
requirements set out by the corporate vision
and mission. Through a combination of
reward and recognition system, employee
satisfaction can be enhanced to handling
greater responsibilities and challenges. This
will ensure better management of resources
to produce creative and innovative products
and services to face external challenges. With
strong internal capabilities such as agile
teams and motivated individuals,
productivity and efficiency in production and
customer service will be greatly enhanced.
All these will in turn lead to increase in sales
and financial outcomes.
Conclusions and implications of
the study
The four research issues
First, findings relating to the first research
question on the developmental process of
organisational learning reveal that there is
indeed a time factor associated with learning.
It further suggests that learning is preparing
the organisation for the future rather than
meeting immediate needs. Second, findings
relating to the second research issue on the
appropriateness of the three learning stages,
namely individual, team and organisational,
suggest that, although they take place within
organisations, their relationship is complex
and dynamic. Hence, these stages should be
integrative in their approach where learning
is incorporated into the work processes. The
third research issue focuses on the factors
influencing learning and two critical factors
have been identified to motivate learning
significantly. They are the strategic
positioning of the organisation based on its
vision and mission, and effective leadership
in providing clear directions to achieve
organisational goals. Finally, the fourth
research issue is concerned with the
relationship between learning and
performance, and the findings suggest that
non-tangible performance outcomes such as
employee attitude, motivation and
commitment are essential cognitive and
behavioural evidence of organisational
learning.
The research problem
As discussed earlier, organisational learning
impacts on performance in different ways. As
perceived by all 12 interviewees, bottom-line is
crucial to organisational success, which is

Table IX
Level of importance of organisational performance measures in each of the four cases
Cases
A (Private) B (Private) C (Public) D (Public) Grand totals
Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
Measures 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1
Financial 1 2 ± ± ± 3 ± ± ± ± 3 ± ± ± ± 1 2 ± ± ± 8 4 ± ± ±
Budgetary ± ± 3 ± ± 2 1 ± ± ± 1 ± ± 1 1 1 ± 1 1 ± 4 1 4 2 1
Use of assets 2 ± ± ± 1 ± 2 1 ± ± ± 2 1 ± ± 2 1 ± ± ± 4 5 2 ± 1
Operational ± 3 ± ± ± 1 1 1 ± ± ± 1 2 ± ± 3 ± ± ± ± 4 4 4 ± ±
Markets 2 ± 1 ± ± 3 ± ± ± ± 2 1 ± ± ± 2 1 ± ± ± 7 2 2 1 ±
Products and services 2 ± 1 ± ± 3 ± ± ± ± 2 1 ± ± ± ± 1 1 1 ± 7 3 2 ± ±
Human resources 2 ± ± 1 ± 2 1 ± ± ± 1 1 1 ± ± 1 2 ± ± ± 6 4 1 1 ±
Case totals 9 5 5 1 1 14 5 2 ± ± 7 7 6 1 1 10 7 2 2 ± 40 23 15 4 2
Notes: 5 = most important, 4 = very important, 3 = important, 2 = fairly important, 1 = least important

[ 80 ]
Roland Yeo often evaluated on the basis that the
Linking organisational organisation has a sound and viable business
learning to organisational plan. An alternative view was expressed by
performance and success:
Singapore case studies interviewee A2: ``Financial performance also
Leadership & Organization depends on whether the organisation can get
Development Journal the best value out of every individual
24/2 [2003] 70-83 employee to think and function as if he is in
the business himself or herself. For instance,
the Ritz Carlton hotel was reputed to have that
kind of a corporate culture of empowerment,
which accounts for their consistent financial
success''. Organisations with strong financial
performance and cultural diversity seek to be
the choice of talented employees. An example
is Bill Gates who attracts the best brains for
Microsoft. Through constant learning and
innovation, the organisation is able to produce
a series of competitive products which in turn
impact on its financial outcomes.
Organisational learning also leads to
competitive advantage such that organisations
will be ``doing the right thing at the right time.
Organisations must be constantly on their toes
to strike when the iron is hot'' (interviewee
C2). This requires learning from competitors
and other external environments to continue
developing new innovative products and
services to meet market demands. In this
sense, performance determines the perceived
value of the organisation's products measured
in terms of creativity, quality and reliability
compared with products of competitors.
As can be seen in Table X, there are
proportionate returns between
organisational learning and performance.
Valuable lessons learned should translate
into results, whether tangible or intangible.
For instance, one of the perceived highly
important outcomes associated with
organisational learning is a change in
mindset (ten mentions). This refers to the
cognitive aspect of individuals where
learning leads to a change in attitude,
enabling the ability to transform knowledge
and experience into competitive edge (nine
mentions, very important). As an example,
translating knowledge into specific outcomes
involves new ways of doing things (seven
mentions), thereby producing the right
products and performing better than the
competitors (six mentions). Further,
individuals will also react quicker to
business changes (seven mentions) and think
of strategies to manage the changes. With
collective effort and a shared vision of the
corporate goals, greater commitment will be
enhanced from the employees (six mentions).
These various cognitive and behavioural
patterns exhibited by individuals work
towards the achievement of financial results
for the organisation (eight mentions), which
will in turn benefit them financially as
bonuses and other incentives.
In line with the definition that
organisational learning is a process which
requires individual cognition and supports
organisational adaptiveness (Edmonson and
Moingeon, 1998), the data presented in Table
X lend importance to this assertion in the
following ways. At a glance, the five learning
outcomes given the highest number of
mentions relate to both the cognitive and
behavioural aspects of human development.
First, the two highest rated outcomes,
namely ``change in mindset'' (ten mentions)
and ``the ability to transform knowledge and
experience into competitive edge'' (nine
mentions), deal primarily with the cognitive
development of individuals in facilitating
organisational learning. Second, the next two

Table X
Relationship between organisational learning and performance
Cases
Rows Learning outcomes A B C D Grand totals Mean
1 Able to transform knowledge and experience into
competitive edge 2 1 3 3 9 2.25
2 Better ways of doing things 2 2 2 1 7 1.75
3 Able to produce the right products and do better than the
competitors 1 3 1 1 6 1.5
4 Better financial results 3 2 2 1 8 2.0
5 Faster learning curve and fewer mistakes 2 1 1 2 6 1.5
6 Change in mindset 2 3 2 3 10 2.5
7 Learned responses and quicker response to business
changes 2 1 2 2 7 1.75
8 Greater commitment from employees 1 2 1 2 6 1.5
9 Greater commitment from management ± 2 2 ± 4 1.0
10 Organisation becomes more agile and responsive to
external challenges 2 2 1 ± 5 1.25
11 Case totals 17 19 17 15 68 17.0
Notes: Cell numbers represent number of mentions; ``means'' indicates the average number of mentions in each
case organisation

[ 81 ]
Roland Yeo highest rated outcomes, namely ``better ways
Linking organisational of doing things'' and ``learned responses and
learning to organisational quicker response to business changes'' (both
performance and success:
Singapore case studies seven mentions each) are concerned with the
Leadership & Organization behavioural changes of individuals as a
Development Journal result of cognitive input. Third, ``faster
24/2 [2003] 70-83 learning curve and fewer mistakes'' (six
mentions) is a combination of cognitive and
behavioural outcomes as a result of
organisational learning. In essence,
organisational learning is a process of acting,
assessing and acting again in the form of an
ongoing cycle of reflection and action that
cannot be taken for granted, a common theme
proposed by Senge (1990) and Argyris and
Schon (1978 and 1996).
In summary, the relationship between
organisational learning and performance is
intimate in that individuals learn to enhance
their job processes which impact on team
goals and organisational goals in return. As
pointed out by interviewee B3, ``assuming the
job requires new technology, naturally those
who are quick to pick up new skills related to
the technology will be at an advantage,
improving work efficiency and producing
greater outputs''. The way learning leads to
performance is through collective effort with
employees willing to apply knowledge and
experience gained to their work to enhance
outcomes. The main aim is to allow the
organisation to be more agile and responsive
to external changes. Overall, this study has
successfully demonstrated the link between
organisational learning and performance
through the primary use of qualitative
technique in the form of case study
methodology and the secondary use of
quantitative technique in the way rich
textual data were codified in simple numeric
form to enhance the objective outcomes of
this research.
References
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1978), Organisational
Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1996), Organisational
Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Chaston, I., Badger, B. and Sadler-Smith, E. (1999)
``Small firm organisational learning:
comparing the perceptions of need and style
among UK support service advisers and small
firm managers'', Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 36-43.
Cherrington, D.J. (1991), The Management of
Human Resources, 3rd ed., Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Coad, A.F. and Berry, A.J. (1998),
``Transformational leadership and learning
orientation'', Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 164-72.
[ 82 ]
Cole, G.A. (1995), Organisational Behaviour:
Theory and Practice, DP Publications,
London.
Dixon, N.M. (1999), The Organisational Learning
Cycle: How We Can Learn Collectively, 2nd ed.,
Gower, Aldershot.
Edmonson, A. and Moingeon, B. (1998), ``From
organisational learning to the learning
organisation'', Management Learning, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Garratt, B. (1999), ``The learning organisation 15
years on: some personal reflections'', The
Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 202-6.
Goh, S. and Richards, G. (1997), ``Benchmarking
the learning capability of organisations'',
European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 575-83.
Hacker, M. (2000), ``The impact of top performers
on project teams'', Team Performance
Management, Vol. 6 Nos 5/6, pp. 85-9.
Harung, H.S., Heaton, D.P. and Alexander, C.N.
(1999), ``Evolution of organisations in the new
millennium'', Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 198-207.
Heaton, D.P. and Harung, H.S. (1999), ``The
conscious organisation'', The Learning
Organisation, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 157-62.
Hedges, P. (1997), Increasing Profitability by the
Effective Use of Learning, Kogan Page,
London.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), ``The
myopia of learning'', Strategic Management
Journal, No. 14, pp. 95-112.
McKenna, S.D. (1999), ``Maps of complexity and
organisational learning'', The Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 9,
pp. 772-93.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1994),
Organisations, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Malden,
MA.
Marquardt, M.J. (2000), ``Action learning and
leadership'', The Learning Organization,
Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 233-40.
Martin, B. (2000), ``Knowledge management
within the context of management: an
evolving relationship'', Singapore
Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 17-36.
Oakland, J.S. (1999), Total Organisational
Excellence: Achieving World-class
Performance, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Owen, H. (1991), Riding the Tiger: Doing Business
in a Transforming World, Abbott, MD.
Robbins, S.P. (1994), Management, 4th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Rogers, C.R. (1969), Freedom to Learn: A View of
What Education Might Become, C.E. Merrill,
Columbus, OH.
Sadler, P. (1994), Designing Organisations: The
Foundation for Excellence, 2nd ed., Kogan
Page, London.
Schein, E.H. (1999), ``Empowerment, coercive
persuasion and organisational learning: do
Roland Yeo they connect?'', The Learning Organization,
Linking organisational Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 163-72.
learning to organisational Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art
performance and success:
Singapore case studies and Practice of the Learning Organisation,
Century Business, London.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal Skinner, B.F. (1972), Beyond Freedom and Dignity,
24/2 [2003] 70-83 Cape, London.
Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. III (1999), Results:
How to Assess Performance, Learning, and
Perceptions in Organisations, Berrett Koehler,
San Francisco, CA.
Van Deusen, C.A. and Mueller, C.B. (1999),
``Learning in acquisitions: understanding the
relationship between exploration,
exploitation and performance'', The Learning
Organization, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp 186-93.
Yeo, R. (2002), ``From individual to team learning:
practical perspectives on the learning
organisation'', Team Performance
Management, Vol. 8 No. 7/8, pp. 146-56.
Yin, R.K. (1993), Applications of Case Study
Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and
Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Zairi, M. (1999), ``The learning organisation:
results of a benchmarking study", The
Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 76-81.
Further reading
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), ``Building theory from case
study research'', Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
[ 83 ]