Department of Management Sciences IQRA University...
356
LINKING LEARNING ORGANIZATION PRACTICES WITH EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE Malik Faisal Azeem 051-12-116401 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Human Resource Management Department of Management Sciences IQRA University, Islamabad Campus 2016
Transcript of Department of Management Sciences IQRA University...
LINKING LEARNING ORGANIZATION PRACTICES WITH
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
Malik Faisal Azeem
051-12-116401
A Thesis Submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Human Resource Management
Department of Management Sciences
IQRA University, Islamabad Campus
2016
LINKING LEARNING ORGANIZATION PRACTICES WITH
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
Malik Faisal Azeem
051-12-116401
A Thesis Submitted in
Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Human Resource Management
Department of Management Sciences
IQRA University, Islamabad Campus
2016
I
Department Of Management Sciences
Thesis Approval Sheet
Viva-Voce Examination
Date: 20/01/2016
Title of Research: Linking Learning Organization Practices with Employee
Performance
Student Name: Malik Faisal Azeem Registration No: 051-12-116401
The evaluation jury hereby approves this thesis in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Human Resource
Management.
Dr. Robina Yasmin, Thesis Supervisor Date:
Dr. Samina Nawab, External Examiner Date:
Dr. Amir Gulzar, External Examiner Date:
Dr Kashi fur Rehman, Director Research Date:
Dr. Muhammad Islam, Dean/Director IUIC Date:
II
CERTIFICATE
It is certified that PhD dissertation titled “Linking Learning Organization
Practices with Employee Performance” prepared by Malik Faisal Azeem,
Enrollment No. 051-12-116401 has been approved and submitted after
incorporating the necessary changes suggested by foreign/external examiners.
_______________________
Dr. Robina Yasmin
(Thesis Supervisor)
III
DEDICATION
This humble effort
The fruit of studies and thoughts
Dedicated To The Holy Prophet,
my loving parents and my better half.
IV
COPY RIGHTS
© Faisal Azeem (2016). All rights reserved. No part of the Thesis may be reproduced without the
permission of the copyright holder
V
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the thesis titled “Linking Learning Organization Practices
with Employee Performance”, submitted by me in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy in Human Resource
Management neither as a whole nor as a part thereof has been copied out from
any source. It is further declared that I have prepared this thesis entirely on the
basis of my personal effort made under the sincere guidance of my supervisor at
Iqra University Islamabad Campus. The observations and viewpoints expressed in
the thesis are the sole responsibility of the author. It doesn’t necessarily represent
the position of Iqra University or its faculty. I also understand that if evidence of
plagiarism is found in my thesis at any stage, even after the award of the degree,
the degree may be revoked.
Malik Faisal Azeem
REG NO: 051-12-116401
VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the name of Allah, The Most Affectionate, The Merciful.
All praise unto Allah, Lord of all the worlds.
The most Affectionate, The Merciful.
Master of the Day of Requital.
We worship You alone, and beg You alone for help.
Guide us in the straight path.
The path of those whom You have favored. Not of those who have earned Your
anger and nor of those who have gone astray.
I bestow all praises, acclamations and appreciation to almighty Allah, the most
merciful and compassionate, the gracious and beneficent, whose bounteous
blessing enabled me to perceive and pursue higher ideas of life. All praises and
respects are for His Holy Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H) who enabled me to
recognize about creator.
At the outset, I would consider it a proud privilege to express my cordial
gratitude and deep sense of obligation to my reverend supervisor Dr. Robina
Yasmin, Assistant Professor, IQRA University, Islamabad for her dexterous
guidance, inspiring attitude, untiring help and consolatory behavior during the
course of my thesis.
Furthermore I pay my gratitude to the support provided by Mr. Mohsin Zahid,
who has been sharing his deep knowledge base and providing guidance during the
course of thesis construction. I am also grateful to my friends Mr. Adil Tahir
Paracha, my sister Mrs. Summera Malik and all my colleagues and friends who
stood by me during the course of my thesis completion. I am also grateful to the
individuals of PTSOs for providing me the required information about their
organizations required to complete my thesis and for facilitating me in data
collection from other employees in their organizations.
I will not be out of place to express my profound admiration for my parents, wife
and my brothers for their pray to Allah for my success.
Malik Faisal Azeem
VII
ABSTRACT
The study primarily explored the impact of Learning Organization’s
Practices (LOPs) on Employee Performance (EP) by examining the mediating
roles of Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) in
Pakistan’s Telecommunication Sector Organizations (PTSOs). It also examined
the moderating role of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) between the
relationships of LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED in PTSOs. The study addressed
the four research questions on PTSOs, covering; the impact of LOPs upon EP,
impact of LOP’s on EP mediated through the path of ED and EE, Performance
Appraisal Justice moderating the relationship between LOPs and Employee
Engagement, and Performance Appraisal Justice moderating the relationship
between LOPs and Employee Development. The hypotheses of the study included
the significant impact of Learning Organization Practices on Employee
Performance, Employee Engagement, and Employee Development. They also
included the significant impact of Employee Engagement on Employee
Performance, the significant impact of Employee Development on Employee
Performance, the Relationship between LOPs and Employee Performance
mediated through Employee Development and Employee Engagement,
Performance Appraisal Justice moderating the relationship between Learning
Organization Practices and Employee Engagement, and Performance Appraisal
Justice moderating the relationship between Learning Organization Practices and
Employee Development.
VIII
The study used quantitative approach using self-administered
questionnaires. The questionnaire was built on the eight existing standardized
questionnaires taken from; DLOQ, Marsick and Watkins (2003), CIPD (2006),
Oreg and Nov (2008), Pinchuk (2010), Medlin and Green (2009), Muhammed
(2006) and Gupta and Kumar (2013). Eight demographic questions have also been
included in the second section of the study questionnaire. Instruments of the study
were validated by factor analysis. The study included the data collected from
1228 respondents in PTSOs. All the relationships were tested using correlation
and Structure Equation Modeling (SEM).
The SEM indicated multiple confirmations like; LOPs had a strong impact
on EP and on EE (Fig 7), LOPs did have a strong impact on ED, EE had an
impact on EP, ED had a strong impact on EP. All of these indicated a significant
path coefficient. Results also confirmed that Employee Engagement and
Employee Development mediated the relationship between Learning Organization
Practices and Employee Performance. Results drawn from SEM using the
extracted significant path coefficient confirmed that the relationship between
LOPs and Employee Performance was also mediated by both EE and ED
together. Finally the moderation results extracted from SEM indicated that PAJ
moderated the relationships between LOPs and EE, and LOPs and ED.
The study divulged a new track for the researchers and practitioners of
LOs. The sequence of measures have to be taken into consideration by the LOs,
revealed from the current study i.e. 1) the provision of LOs first have to be
ensured in the organizations to LOs in the right manner, 2) looking at the impact
IX
of LOPs upon their employees’ engagement states, 3) analyzing the impact of
implemented LOPs on ED states, and 3) checking their performance appraisal
system is bias- free performance appraisal system which should possess the said
four justice types.
Keywords: Learning Organizations, Learning Organization Practices, Employee
Engagement, Employee Development, Performance Appraisal Justice, Employee
Performance
X
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LOs Learning Organizations
OL Organization Learning
LOPs Learning Organization Practices
EE Employee Engagement
ED Employee Development
PAJ Performance Appraisal Justice
EP Employee Performance
PTSOs Pakistan’s Telecommunication Sector Organizations
CL Continuous Learning
DI Dialogue and Inquiry
CTL Collaboration and Team Learning
ES Embedded Systems
SC System Connections
EEM Employee Empowerment
SL Strategic Leadership
DLOQ Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire
EME Emotional Engagement
CE Cognitive Engagement
BE Behavioral Engagement
SD Self-Development
SDL Self-Directed Learning
DJ Distributive Justice
PJ Procedural Justice
IJ Interactional Justice
InfoJ Informative Justice
SET Social Exchange Theory
HRD Human Resource Development
SEM Structural Equation Modeling
PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication Ltd
NGMS Next Generation Mobile Services
KSAs Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
ST Systems Thinking
PM Personal Mastery
MM Mental Models
SV Shared Vision
TL Team Learning
KM Knowledge Management
POS Perceived Organizational Support
XI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Pakistan’s Telecom Sector at a Glance ..................................................... 3 1.2 Telecommunication Organizations as Learning Organizations ................ 7 1.3 Research Gap ............................................................................................ 9 1.4 Problem Statement .................................................................................. 14 1.5 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................... 15
1.6 Research Questions ................................................................................. 16 1.7 Significance of the study ......................................................................... 16 1.8 Contribution towards Research and Management Practices ................... 19 1.9 Importance of the study in Pakistani Context ......................................... 21
1.10 Importance of the study in HRD Context ............................................... 24 1.11 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................... 26
1.12 Definitions............................................................................................... 27 1.12.1 Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) ........................................ 27
1.12.2 Employee Engagement (EE) ........................................................... 28 1.12.3 Employee Development (ED) ......................................................... 28 1.12.4 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) ............................................. 28
1.12.5 Employee Performance (EP)........................................................... 29 1.12.6 Human Resource Development (HRD) .......................................... 29
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 30 2.1 Learning Organization (LO) ................................................................... 31
2.1.1 Understanding Learning, Organization Learning (OL) Learning
Organization (LO) ....................................................................................... 31
2.1.2 Concept Evolution of LO ................................................................ 35 2.1.3 Defining Learning Organization (LO) ............................................ 41 2.1.4 Learning Organizations (LO) Paradigm ......................................... 45
2.1.5 Key Antecedents and Outcomes of Learning Organizations (LOs) 50 2.1.6 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) Constructs ................... 56
2.1.6.1 Continuous Learning (CL) ...................................................................... 60 2.1.6.2 Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) ...................................................................... 64
2.1.6.3 Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL) ............................................... 67 2.1.6.4 Embedded Systems (ES) ......................................................................... 69 2.1.6.5 Employee Empowerment (EEM) ............................................................ 70 2.1.6.6 Strategic Leadership (SL) ....................................................................... 72
2.1.7 Learning Organization (LO) Measurement Tools .........................76
2.2 Employee Engagement (EE) ................................................................... 79 2.2.1 Key Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Engagement (EE) .. 87
2.2.1.1 Perceived Organizational Support .......................................................... 91 2.2.1.2 Trust ........................................................................................................ 91 2.2.1.3 Culture..................................................................................................... 93 2.2.1.4 Justice ...................................................................................................... 93 2.2.1.5 Communication System .......................................................................... 94 2.2.1.6 Individual Characteristics ....................................................................... 94
XII
2.2.2 Types of Employee Engagement (EE) ............................................ 95
2.2.2.1 Emotional Engagement (EME) ............................................................... 95 2.2.2.2 Cognitive Engagement (CE) ................................................................... 98 2.2.2.3 Behavioral Engagement (BE) ................................................................. 99
2.2.3 Mediation: LOPs, Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee
Performance (EP)...................................................................................... 100 2.2.4 Measurement of Employee Engagement (EE) Measurement Tools101
2.3 Employee Development (ED) ............................................................... 103 2.3.1 Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Development (ED) ...... 106
2.3.2 Dimensions of Employee Development ....................................... 108 2.3.2.1 Self-Development (SD) ........................................................................ 108 2.3.2.2 Self-directed Learning (SDL) ............................................................... 111
2.3.3 Mediation: LOPs, Employee Development (ED) and Employee
Performance (EP) ...................................................................................... 114 2.3.4 Employee Development (ED) Measurement Tools ...................... 115
2.4 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) ................................................... 116 2.4.1 Types of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) ............................ 119
2.4.1.1 Distributive Justice (DJ) ....................................................................... 119 2.4.1.2 Procedural Justice (PJ) .......................................................................... 120 2.4.1.3 Interactional Justice (IJ) ........................................................................ 123
2.4.1.4 Informational Justice (InfoJ) ................................................................. 124 2.4.2 Moderation: PAJ between the relationship of LOPs & EE and
LOPs & ED ............................................................................................... 126 2.4.3 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) measurement tools ............ 128
2.5 Employee Performance (EP)................................................................. 128
2.5.1 Antecedents of Employee Performance (EP) ............................... 131
2.5.1.1 Continuous Learning (CL) .................................................................... 131 2.5.1.2 Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) .................................................................... 131 2.5.1.3 Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL) ............................................. 132
2.5.1.4 Embedded Systems (ES) ....................................................................... 132 2.5.1.5 System Connections (SC) ..................................................................... 133
2.5.1.6 Employee Empowerment (EEM) .......................................................... 133 2.5.1.7 Strategic Leadership (SL) ..................................................................... 133
2.5.1.8 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) ................................................... 134 2.5.1.9 Employee Development (ED) ............................................................... 135 2.5.1.10 Employee Engagement (EE) ................................................................. 135
2.5.2 Employee Performance (EP) Measurement Tools ........................ 137 2.6 Conceptualization of the Relationships ................................................ 137
2.6.1 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) and Employee
Performance (EP) ...................................................................................... 137
2.6.2 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs), Employee Engagement
(EE) and Employee Performance (EP) ..................................................... 139 2.6.3 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs), Employee
Development (ED) and Employee Performance (EP) .............................. 141
XIII
2.6.4 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) Performance Appraisal
Justice (PAJ), Employee Development (ED), Employee Engagement (EE)
and Employee Performance ...................................................................... 143 2.7 Theoretical Foundation ......................................................................... 147
2.7.1 Theoretical Foundation for Learning, Learning Organization (LO)147 2.7.2 Theoretical Foundation for Engagement (EE) .............................. 149 2.7.3 Theoretical Foundation for Employee Development (SD and SDL)151 2.7.4 Theoretical Foundation for Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) 152 2.7.5 Theoretical Foundation for Employee Performance (EP) ............ 152
2.8 Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis ............................................... 153 2.8.1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................. 153 2.8.2 Hypotheses .................................................................................... 153
3. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 155
3.1 Type of Study, analysis and techniques ................................................ 155 3.2 Industry Setting ..................................................................................... 157
3.3 Extent of researcher interference .......................................................... 158
3.4 Description of the Instrument ............................................................... 159 3.4.1 DLOQ (Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire)159 3.4.2 Employee Engagement (EE) Questionnaire ................................. 161
3.4.3 Employee Development (ED) Questionnaire: .............................. 161 3.4.4 Employee Performance (EP) Questionnaire: ................................ 162
3.4.5 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) Questionnaire .................... 162 3.5 Pilot Study and Questionnaire Confirmation: ....................................... 163 3.6 Data Reliability and Validity (Construct and Convergent): ................. 167
3.7 Common Method Bias (CMB) ............................................................. 170 3.7.1 Population and Sampling .............................................................. 171
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION ........................................... 177
4.1 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................. 186 4.2 Correlations ........................................................................................... 193
4.3 Difference of perceptions ...................................................................... 197 4.4 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ................................................... 237
4.4.1 Path Analysis ................................................................................ 240 4.5 Testing of the hypotheses...................................................................... 241 4.6 Summary ............................................................................................... 245
5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. ...248
5.1 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ...................................... 248 5.2 Design and Method ............................................................................... 260
5.3 Results ................................................................................................... 262 5.4 Discussion ............................................................................................. 264 5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 266
5.6 Recommendations and Future Research ............................................... 269
Reference ............................................................................................................. 271 Appendix III ........................................................................................................ 324 Appendix V .......................................................................................................... 329 Appendix VI ........................................................................................................ 334
XIV
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Three organizational paradigms .............................................................. 36 Figure 2 Research Framework and expected outcomes .......................................... 49
Figure 3 Relationships among research constructs ................................................. 49 Figure 4: Post bureaucratic organizations’ characteristics ...................................... 57 Figure 5 The EE concept and internal corporate communication: a conceptual
model....................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 6 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................... 153 Figure 7 Path Analysis .......................................................................................... 240
XV
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Cell Phone Subscribers in Pakistan ............................................................ 5
Table 2 Sample Progressive Evolution of Learning Organization (LO) Concept .. 37 Table 3 Sample definitions of Learning Organization (LO) .................................. 42 Table 4: Learning Organization Practices ............................................................... 55 Table 4: Learning Organization Practices ............................................................... 56 Table 5: Initial Items of Job Engagement Scale ................................................... 102
Table 7: Contents of the Instrument...................................................................... 164 Table 7: Contents of the Instrument...................................................................... 165 Table 8: Dimension-wise reliability estimates using Cronbach alpha (α) ............ 166 Table 9: Population and Sampling ........................................................................ 172 Table 10: Survey Response Rate .......................................................................... 173
Table 10: Survey Response Rate .......................................................................... 174 Table 11: Frequencies on organizations (n=1228) ............................................... 178
Table 12: Frequencies of Education (n=1228)...................................................... 179 Table 13: Frequencies of Gender (n=1228) .......................................................... 179
Table 14: Frequencies of Designation (Actual Designation wise) (n=1228) ....... 180 Table 15: Frequencies of Designation (Top, Middle and Low) (n=1228) ............ 181 Table 16: Frequencies of Age (n=1228) ............................................................... 183
Table 17: Frequencies of Experience (n=1228) .................................................... 185 Table 18: Reliablity of the five measurement scales ............................................ 186
Table 19: Descriptive Statistics on Variables and Dimensions wise in the PTSO
Context (N=1228) ................................................................................................. 187 Table 20: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Learning Organization Practices
(LOPs) Scale ......................................................................................................... 189
Table 21: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Engagement (EE)
Scale ...................................................................................................................... 190 Table 22: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Development (ED)
Scale ...................................................................................................................... 191 Table 23: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Performance Appraisal Justice
(PAJ) Scale............................................................................................................ 192
Table 24: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Performance (EP)
Scale ...................................................................................................................... 193 Table 25: Correlation among All the dimensions of five scales (n-1228) ............ 195 Table 26: Correlations among Scales of Five Measurements (n = 1228) ............. 196 Table 27: Difference of perception (between Organizations) regarding LOP’s in
Five PTSOs ........................................................................................................... 198
Table 27b: Difference of perception (between Organizations) regarding LOP’s in
Five PTSOs ........................................................................................................... 199 Table 28a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in
selected PTSOs ..................................................................................................... 209 Table 28b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in
selected PTSOs ..................................................................................................... 209 Table 29a: Gender-wise mean differences regarding LOP’s in selected PTSOs.. 214 Table 29b: Gender-wise mean differences regarding LOP’s in selected PTSOs . 215
XVI
Table 30a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in
Zong - ANOVA (where n= 273) ........................................................................... 217 Table 30b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in
Zong - ANOVA (where n= 273) ........................................................................... 218
Table 31a ............................................................................................................... 219 Table 31b .............................................................................................................. 220 Table 38: Fit Indices for the Path Models of the Five Scales ............................... 240 Table 39 ................................................................................................................ 243
XVII
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The concept of Learning Organizations (LO) has been used as adaptive
organizations. In today’s highly competitive world, organizations have to be ready for
any change for their existence. In order to be adaptive, organizations put their prime
focus upon continuous up-gradation of their knowledge, skills and abilities. An inevitable
need of up-gradation or re-engineering to have a competitive edge in any specific market
has steered the organizations towards following proactive approaches and taking
preemptive measures for rapid transformation to cope up with the upcoming challenges.
Any such measure for organizational growth is not possible without understanding and
upgrading individuals that surely depends upon their acceptance. Acceptance from the
employees is considered as the pre-requisite for Employee Engagement (EE). The
importance of the employees, as true drivers of any organization, is considered as an
opportunity for the employers in today’s information age. It has become quite evident
from the studies that the importance of HR improvement along with the technological
improvements has always been the focus of Learning Organizations (LOs) (Chaisiri,
1998). Moreover employees always need to be trained and groomed by their organization
to be effective and efficient on their job (Irfan, Mohsin, & Yousaf, 2009). However in
developing countries like ‘Pakistan’, most of the employees don’t show a flexible
behavior towards change as they are required by their employers due to the missing factor
of ‘mutual buy-in’. Learning Organizations (LOs) should promote self-directed learning
and self-development culture among its employees by applying the right practices in the
right manner to enhance their performance. Literature (Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Power
& Waddell, 2004) highlighted the need of digging out the practical significance of LO.
2
Focus of the current study is to examine Learning Organizations’ Practices
(LOPs) connections with EP, by assimilating Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ),
Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) in a holistic model
because of its importance in current competitive scenario. The study also analyzed the
difference of perception of employees at different managerial level regarding LOP’s with
inter and intra-organizational comparisons. The study has broadly examined the link
among the theories used, the conceptualizations and constructs. The proposed links and
the role of the said factors are missing, multidimensional constructs and varying contexts
have somewhat doubted the old conventional antecedents of Employee Performance
(EP). Although the relationships among the said study variables have been examined in
bits and pieces in the past studies, they have been brought at one place in the current
study. One study (Dymock & McCarthy, 2006) stated that the criticism warns Learning
Organizations (LOs) to handle the potential threats to their employees regarding the
process of continuous learning. These threats could ultimately put continuous stress upon
employee while being involved in the process of continuous learning. This continuous
stress may affect Employee Engagement (EE) which ultimately results in discrepant
performance outcomes. The study linked seven LOPs (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) with
Employee performance in general and telecommunication sector of Pakistan in particular.
A study (Khasawneh, 2011) also concluded that LO disciplines in different institutions
must be researched further. Further perspectives have been explored in the light of
literature of current study.
3
1.1 Pakistan’s Telecom Sector at a Glance
The available data about LOs as a management approach reveals little or is
inconclusive (Alam, 2009). MNCs, particularly Pakistan’s telecommunication sector
organizations (PTSOs), are the referred MNCs which are considered to be LOs and
practice LO as a management approach. Telecommunication industry now has been
declared as an active service industry because of high competition and vertical growth in
last three decades (Graack, 1999; Hassan, Hassan, Nawaz, & Aksel, 2013) same is in the
case of Asian telecom growth (Fink, Mattoo, & Rathindran, 2003). The said vertical
revenue growth and expansion reveals a great attraction for both businesses and
academicians (Hassan et al., 2013). Pakistan’s telecom sector has been in the process of
rapid development in order to secure its status in today’s rapidly developing scenario of
new technologies in the year 2004. The first cellular mobile policy was initiated and
introduced open and competitive bidding process for the new licenses in Pakistan which
resulted in the issuance of licenses for 15 years (Akhtar, 2009).
According to Hashim, Munir, and Khan (2006), Telecom sector of Pakistan
contributes a major chunk in economic growth of the country. Since the establishment of
Pakistan Telephone and Telegraph (PT&T) Department in 1962 till date, Pakistan
telecom industry has been passing through various evolutionary stages.
Telecommunication Industry enjoyed exponential growth with the huge investment in its
fixed line, mobile networks, fiber optics system since the last decade (Wilson, 2008).
Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC) under ‘Pakistan Telecommunication
Corporation Act 1991’ took charge of PT&T and became PTCL which is the first public
sector telecommunication organization of Pakistan. A company named ‘Paktel’ was
awarded a license for the first time to carry out cellular phone services in Pakistan in
4
1989. Paktel was initially set up by the joint ownership of M/s Arfeen and Millicom
International (Luxemburg) which later on was acquired by China Mobile Pakistan
(CMPak) in the year 2007. Instaphone, another cellular service provider was also
awarded license by the Government of Pakistan in 1989 for 15 years. Instaphone was a
brand name of first ever cellular mobile communication services launched by M/s
Pakcom Ltd., i.e. a PTSO which is considered as pioneer of cellular industry in Pakistan.
On January 11, 1994 ‘Pakistan Mobile Communications Ltd., i.e. ‘Mobilink’, a
subsidiary of Orascom Telecom Holding, was launched with a new GSM technology for
the first time in Pakistan and grabbed a large pool of customers. Pak Telecom Mobile
Limited / Ufone which was a subsidiary of PTCL as a 3rd entering mobile operator in
Pakistan with GSM technology started its operations on 29th January, 2001 which later in
2006 went into the ownership of Etisalat because of the privatization of PTCL. Another
new entrant named Telenor acquired GSM services license in April 2004 and officially
launched its operation on March 15, 2005. The last cell phone services provider that
entered the Pakistani market was ‘Warid Telecom’ under the umbrella of ‘Abu Dhabi
Group’ in May 2005. In the year 2007 China Mobile Pakistan (CMPak), as China Mobile
subsidiary, acquired Paktel by having a GSM network license to operate in Pakistan. As
such, Paktel was renamed as Zong and upgraded with GSM technology.
The role of regulator has been quite effective since the telecommunication re-
organization Act No. XVII was disseminated in 1996 with an objective of telecom
industry re-organization. As a result of re-organization, Pakistan Telecommunication
Authority (PTA) was established in the year 1997 as a regulator for the monitoring and
management of telecom services in Pakistan. The role of the regulator was paced up in
5
the year 2004 with the launch of the first ever cellular mobile policy through an
announcement of license attainment through an open bidding process with tenure of 15
years countrywide services (Akhtar, 2009).
Cell Phone Subscribers
Years Mobilink Ufone CMPak Telenor Warid Total
2007-2008 32,032,363 18,100,440 3,950, 758 18,125,189 15,489,858 88,019,742
2008-2009 29,236,839 20,004,707 6,386,571 20,893,129 17,886,736 94,342,030
2009-2010 32,202,547 19,549,100 6,704,288 23,798,221 16,931,687 99,185,843
2010-2011 33,378,161 20,533,787 10,927,693 26,667,079 17,387,798 108,894,518
2011-2012 35,953,434 23,897,261 16,836,983 29,963,723 13,499,836 120,151,237
2012-2013 37,121,871 24,547,986 21,044,319 33,513,133 12,706,353 128,933,662
2013-2014 38,768,346 24,352,717 27,197,048 36,571,820 13,084,823 139,974,754
Table 1: Cell Phone Subscribers in Pakistan
Source: (PTA, 2014)
Pakistan’s telecom industry is one of the key contributors in the significant fiscal,
social and economic benefits for Pakistan, particularly in last decade (Imtiaz, Khan, &
Shakir, 2015). Akhtar (2009) gives credit of mobile phone industry’s vertical growth to
the advanced cellular technology and the entry of new competitors (i.e. mobile phone
operators) due to the openness of mobile services market in Pakistan. PTA reported that
in November 2014, the total number of cell phone subscribers has touched 140 million
from the total subscribers (Table 1). These cellular operators approximately cover 92% of
the total land area through approximately 37,576 cell sites throughout Pakistan. PTSOs
have shown rapid growth as compared to the other sectors. Cell phone infiltration in
Pakistan is approximately 76.6% with approximately 140 million total cell phone
subscribers at the end of June 2014 with the growth rate of 9.1% during FY2014 (PTA,
6
2014). The market share of the PTSOs, keeping in view their subscribers varies as
Mobilink possesses 27.7%, Telenor, 26.1%, Zong (CMPAK) 19.4%, Ufone 17.4% and
Warid Telecom possesses 9.3% (PTA, 2014).
According to PTA (2007), on October, 07, 2013 Government of Pakistan (GoP)
issued policy directives for ‘Next Generation Mobile Services’ (NGMS), i.e. 3G and 4G
cell phone technologies. GoP involved Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA)
and a consultant named 'Value Partners Management Consulting Limited' in the process
of NGMS policy directives. Thus on April 23, 2014, following a predefined procedure,
auction was successfully made which produced a total of US$ 1,112,820,000 for
Pakistan’s economy. Warid was the only cell phone company which did not participate in
the bidding. After winning the bid, Ufone practically started its 3G services on 24th
May,
2014, Mobilink on 23rd
April 2014, Telenor on 30th
May, 2014 and Zong started its 3G
services on 12th
June and started 4G on 27th
September, 2014 (PTA, 2014). A recent
development in Pakistan’s telecommunication sector is the official announcement of the
merger of Warid telecom into Mobilink on 26th
November 2015. After this merger, the
company will address a pool of 45 million combined customers and will have synergies
of $500m. Now after the merger, the new set-up will have to more wisely address LOPs
in order to focus upon its employees’ performance by addressing their employee’s
engagement and development issues.
Out of the total telecommunication investments of US$1,815 million in FY2014,
with marginal growth rate, cellular investments in FY 2008-2009 were US$ 1229.75
million, in FY 2009-2010 were US$ 908.8 million, in FY 2010-2011 were US$ 358.6
million, in FY 2011-2012 were US$ 211.8 million, in FY 2012-2013 were US$ 570.4
7
million and in FY 2013-2014 were US$ 1789.7 million (PTA, 2014). According to
Shoaib, Noor, Tirmizi, and Bashir (2009), Pakistan’s telecom industry has been facing
the issue of employee retention. Employees in telecom concerns seem emotionally,
cognitively and behaviorally dissatisfied which result in their turnover or decreased
performance. The said PTSOs have been striving their best in overcoming these issues by
focusing upon their employees’ performance, but they are still unsuccessful because of
unidentified factors towards employee performance. They put significant money upon
training and development of their employees but they are quite slow in developing self-
development and self-directed learning mechanism in their employees. Moreover many
of their employees leave them or switch to other organization(s) due to the lack of trust
upon the performance appraisal system’s poor implementation. Thus the study
highlighted the mediating roles of EE and ED in the relationship of these organizations’
LOPs and EP and moderating role of PAJ between the relationships of LOPs and EE and
between the relationships of LOPs and ED.
1.2 Telecommunication Organizations as Learning Organizations
The telecommunication sector organizations in Pakistan are encountering
employee retention problem because of their hiking employee turnover rate (Rana,
Salaria, Herani, & Amin, 2009). Employees can be retained if their engagement attributes
are positively addressed by their organization. Addressing the engagement states of the
employees in a right manner not only make them stay with their organization for a longer
time but also enhance their performance.
Nesse (2009) stated that a Norwegian Telecom Operator, i.e. Telenor collaborated
with other organizations due to the innovation growth in telecom sector. Sato (2009) also
8
found that European Telecom Operators (ETOs) in general and the British
Telecommunications (BT) in particular, are putting their endeavors towards re-organizing
themselves and capability development to be ahead in the competition. Due to the
infrastructural and service technology innovation, telecom organizations of Pakistan have
also responded promptly to cope with such challenges. In such a volatile industry
conditions, such flexibility can only be possible if the organizations are proactive in
nature and have incorporated the approach of continuous learning within them. Until a
positive feedback system is implemented, inquiry and dialogue approach is in place,
collaboration and team learning environment is in practice, Systems are flexible enough,
leadership mindset is long term, Interactive processes with the environment exist,
Employee empowerment has been ensured, Commitment and motivation of individuals to
do their work is encouraged, Knowledge management approach is envisioned and Team
work spirit is mobilized, no telecom organization can survive and proceed further in an
environment of cut-throat competition. Now since the 3G and 4G licenses have been
awarded to the PTSOs, they have to be more competitive in terms of successful adoption
of the said practices. These practices cannot be positively executed until employees are
behaviorally, emotionally and cognitively willing. According to Garvin (1993), enhanced
pressure to change, learn and adapt to the new situations becomes the reason for an
organization’s continuous improvement and advantage over its competitors.
Organizations that incorporate learning using technology into its processes and
practices (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997) are considered as LOs. In the journey of adoption
of LO approach, at the first stage, the initial rate of progress is modest at best
(Dervitsiotis, 1998). Dervitsiotis (1998) further stated that in the second stage progress
9
becomes moderate as the employees learn to perform their job with enhanced creative
and innovative skills and carry a shared vision of their organization. The third stage of
LO approach includes fast pace of improvement, which enhanced the number of
individuals chasing a shared vision and operating at their extreme potential. Because of
the shared vision, employees bear stakes and in this case, their probability to achieve the
objective of shared vision is enhanced (Jones & Hendry, 1992). Thus the
telecommunication organizations in today’s highly competitive global environment, with
a highly innovative infrastructure and hi-tech services where employees are considered as
an investment are by all means the Learning Organizations (LOs) whether partially or
fully. Organization may not be fully LOs if not practicing ideal LOPs but can be
considered as an LO as Örtenblad (2004) narrated the LOs where LOPs were partially
practiced, as “partial learning organization”. The telecom sector of Pakistan must
implement novel HR practices in order to stay competitive due to the vertical growth
patterns (Marwat, Qureshi, & Ramay, 2006).
1.3 Research Gap
The study has broadly examined the link among the theories used, the
conceptualizations, research paradigms, frameworks and constructs in order to confirm
literature gaps. On one side where the proposed links and the role of the said factors are
missing, varying contexts have also somewhat doubted the old conventional antecedents
of Employee Performance (EP). The relationships among the said study variables have
been though examined in bits and pieces which were brought at one place. As Dymock
and McCarthy (2006) stated that the criticism warns learning organizations to handle the
potential threats for the employees associated with the process of continuous learning like
10
job insecurity etc. which by all means force them to be involved in continuous learning
process always and could create continuous stress upon them. This continuous stress
affects EE which may lead towards varied performance outcomes. The study found the
literature gap of linking seven LOPs (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) with employee
performance in general and telecommunication sector of Pakistan in particular. A study
(Khasawneh, 2011) also concluded that LO disciplines in different institutions must be
researched further.
Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) have not been much focused in the past
studies in the context of EE and ED as learning of an organization is initiated at
individual level which later on became organizational learning (Argyris, 1999). LOPs
though have been studied in the past but in bits and pieces and in different other contexts.
According to Tjepkema, Horst, Mulder, & Scheerens (2000), LOs always be benefited
from the learning of its employees. The current study identified that LOPs though directly
affect EP but in order to get better performance outcomes, have to follow the path of ED
and/or EE to reach the desired EP outcomes.
The relationship of LOPs and Employee Engagement (EE) types was required to
be tested though its importance has been verified from the literature in the context of HR
improvement. Allocation of huge budget for employee performance doesn’t get required
performance results because of the absence of the focus upon EE. This is due to the
factors affecting EE may vary in employees (Bernthal, 2004) which is because of three
states of EE i.e. emotional, cognitive and physical. May, Gilson, & Harter (2004)
interpreted engagement as “Flow” which is associated with cognitive, emotional and
physical (Kahn, 2004) types of engagement. This flow was required to be addressed
11
towards individual performance outcomes. Zhang, Avery, Bergsteiner, & More (2014)
stated that there is much to be explored taking engagement constructs as engagement
characteristics are needed to be investigated in future studies. A study i.e. (Keeble-
Ramsay & Armitage, 2014) also stated that according to Sparrow (2013) more research is
needed upon engagement strategies. Another study i.e. Rana, Ardichvili, & Tkachenko,
(2014) stated that due the observed low employee engagement levels in different
countries, it has been analyzed that engagement counts a lot for the organization and
major factors that may affect EE should be researched in future. More studies are
required upon the roles of attitudinal and behavioral engagement (Guest, 2014a). Another
study (Choo, Mat, & Al-Omari, 2013) also examined that there is a knowledge gap in EE
which requires empirical studies.
In addition to the literature gap, there were many reasons to choose the Employee
Engagement (EE) as a milestone for the organizations to be addressed by LOs because 1)
EE in relation with other said variable though have been studied but in bits and piece but
these variables have been set together for the first time in current study, 2)
telecommunication sector of Pakistan has a huge contribution towards economy and has a
wide gap to be explored in the LOPs, EE and EP context.
In such a competitive world, Learning Organizations (LOs) are required to
respond quickly against change, they have to be proactive especially in Employee
Development (ED) context. LOPs have though been studied in relation with commitment,
culture, environment and a few other such factors but there was serious need to conduct a
study upon the relationship of LOPs and ED. Despite of the need for professional self-
development, very less has been empirically researched in the past (Boyce, Zaccaro, &
12
Wisecarver , 2010). Thus the study explored the mediating role of ED between the
relationship of LOPs and EP for the industry practitioners in order to strategize in the
long run in the best interest of both employees and the organization. In addition to the
literature gap, some other reasons of selecting ED as a milestone for EP are 1) ED in
relation with other said variable though have been studied but in bits and piece, 2)
telecommunication sector of Pakistan has a huge contribution towards economy and has a
wide gap to be explored in the LOPs, ED and EP context and 3) this relationship of
LOPs, Employee Development (ED) and Employee Performance (EP) was required to be
established in research paradigm.
As Performance Appraisal System (PAS) has been passing through various
developmental stages from mere evaluating employee behavior for measuring the
performance to the creation of learning environment for employee performance
improvement. Performance appraisal is considered as a planned interaction between
employees and their supervisors during which the former examine the performance of the
latter to identify strengths and weaknesses with the view to improving future
performance. Performance appraisal has been in hot discussion for very long due to its
importance of decisions which ensure employees’ actions and reactions towards their job
roles (Jawahar, 2007). Performance appraisal validity and reliability has always been a
challenging task for the managers/employers because of the employees’ concerns
(Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995). The moderating role of Performance
Appraisal Justice (PAJ) has been found missing in the relationships between LOPs and
EE and between LOPs and ED in the literature. Gupta and Kumar (2013) stated that PAJ
is a smaller part of a broader construct organizational justice which is evaluated through
13
its four dimensions i.e. Distributive justice (DJ), Procedural justice (PJ), Interactional
justice (IJ) and Informational Justice (InfoJ). They also specified that ratees’ perception
of HR system’s fairness heavily depends upon the said four levels of PA justice.
According to Purcell (2012), it has been analyzed that EE is the result of managerial
activities to develop trust, fairness and justice. Engagement if is required to be addressed
positively, these PAJ activities do need attention as stated in a study i.e. (Rowland &
Hall, 2013) that appraisals do behave as a medium for learning and the development of
relationships i.e. ‘learning and performance’ need to be researched. Until Performance
Appraisal system is perceived as fair (Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore, 2005),
employee engagement cannot be maximized as (Kahn, 1990) expressed that engagement
is verily changed due to the changing perceptions of organizational members. A study
(William H. Macey & Schineider, 2008) describe that EE is closely associated with the
extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. Moreover, it was ensured (Spell & Arnold, 2007) that the
association of justice perception with employee contributions and their performance
outcomes. Research need in justice has been identified by Moliner, Martínez-Tur, Ramos,
Peiro, and Cropanzano (2008) in performance management and engagement literature
which has also been investigated in the current study. Later on in last two years, the
studies (Biron & Reuver, 2013; A. Cohen, 2013; Otaye & Wong, 2014) also emphasize
upon the need of more research upon alternative concepts.
Employees’ psychological empowerment is considered as an intrinsic
motivational factor and cognitive appraisal (Stander & Rothmann, 2010). The
psychological empowerment turns into employees’ self-efficacy and engagement towards
his/her job (Gretchen M. Spreitzer, 1995). Employer support for individual development
14
drives employee positive response in terms of engagement and performance. ED
opportunities pave the way for employee satisfaction which leads towards better
performance outcomes. By putting forth the literature gap, the study investigated the
moderating role of PAJ between the relationships of LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED to
become a guide the researchers and practitioners to take remedial measures for extracting
the ultimate employee performance outcomes.
1.4 Problem Statement
In view of fastest growth of 2.9 percent from the last year and the revenues of Rs.
323 billion (Wasti, 2013) of Telecommunication Industry of Pakistan with more than 3%
contribution in GDP along with nearly 128.93 million cell phone subscribers in FY13,
includes five major players. These telecom players in a cut-throat competition need to
focus upon their HRD activities to enhance performance of their employees. Engagement
and ED (i.e. Self-development and Self-directed learning) mechanisms are required to be
placed rightly to reap maximum employee performance. Simply LO practices in a rush or
following the general trends cannot provide the organizations an ultimate solution to
draw the required performance from their employees.
PTSOs face the issue of employee turnover despite putting a handsome amount of
resources on their employees as Marsick and Watkins (2003) draw attention of the
researchers and practitioners towards a dilemma of employee turnover in today’s
organizations which are quite weak in retaining their employees and making them willful
in knowledge exchange positively for better performance outcomes. Pakistan telecom
industry is currently encountering the challenge of employee retention as employee
turnover rate in telecom organizations is hiking (Akhtar, 2009; Shoaib et al., 2009). The
15
factors that are associated with the Employee Performance (EP) have been investigated in
the current study. These factors are also interlinked with each other as EE, ED and PAJ,
highlighted in the past literature in relation with each other and with Employee
Performance.
Dynamics of technology and knowledge dissemination based on hyper business
competition has made these Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and Employee
Performance (EP) even more important generally for every organization and especially
for the knowledge-based organizations. Although the LOPs and EP have been
significantly studied but the actual dynamics of translation of LOPs into the EP are far
more complex. It is argued that the mediating role of Employee Engagement (EE) and
Employee Development in the relationship between Learning Organization Practices
LOPs and Employee Performance (EP) has not been tested yet. This lack of
understanding of roles of ED and EE may leave the LOPs of organization stranded and
ineffective. Thus, after the holistic understanding of LOPs towards EP, with mediation of
ED and EE as well as moderation of PAJ, organizations will be able to better plan and
implement the LOPs encompassing the ED, EE and PAJ for the sake of enhanced EP.
1.5 Objectives of the Study
The current study is perception based and puts forth four main objectives, i.e.
1) to examine the holistic relationships between LOP’s and EP in the Telecom Sector of
Pakistan.
2) to analyze the impact of LOPs on EP when mediated by Employee Engagement (EE)
and Employee Development (ED).
16
3) to examine the moderating role of PAJ between the relationships of LOPs and EE and
LOPs and ED.
4) to analyze the perceptual differences at various managerial levels and between both the
genders regarding LOP’s.
The study was conducted upon perceptual data. This model is a pathway for
employers/managers to rightly focus upon the right LOPs to maximize the overall
performance of their employees. Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee
Development (ED) as mediators will pave the way to help the mangers of the LOs in
taking proactive measures to enhance their performance by initiating the right LOP at the
right time with a right approach using the right strategy.
1.6 Research Questions
The following research questions are proposed for this study:
1. What is the impact of LOPs upon EP?
2. Does the impact of LOP’s on EP is mediated through the path of ED and EE?
3. Does Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderate the relationship between
LOPs and Employee Engagement (EE)?
4. Does Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderate the relationship between
LOPs and Employee Development (ED)?
1.7 Significance of the study
First of all, limited research has been made on investigation of the impact of
Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) on Employee Performance (EP) not only in
Pakistani Telecommunication Industry but also in telecom industries at global level.
Distinctive from the past studies, the current study focused on the telecommunication
17
sector of a developing country, i.e. Pakistan. The current study is the first attempt to
examine Learning Organizations’ Practices (LOPs) connections with Employee
Performance (EP), by assimilating Employee Engagement (EE), Employee Development
(ED) and Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) in a holistic model because of its
importance in current competitive scenario.
Second, although the concept of LOPs as a critical HR issue is being researched
in various environments, the existing research lacks the context and the relationships with
the factors selected in the current study. The current study offers a different and an
innovative view by testing a unique combination of variables which are still untested in a
single model for the purpose of enhancing employee performance. This unique
conceptual model serves as a structure for implementing focused and effective LOPs,
using the path of EE and/or ED to achieve employee performance objectives.
Third, the current study extends and builds on the existing theoretical frameworks
of LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and performance theories, and proposes new ways of
understanding the relationship of LOPs and Employee Performance. The direct
relationship between Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) with
Employee Performance (EP) though has been examined as stated above by different
studies in bits and pieces, the mediating role of EE and ED in the relationship between
LOPs and Employee Performance has been explored for the first time in the current
study. The capacity of individual for their performance objectives if not positively
achieved, organizations cannot have the status of LO and capacity to achieve desired
goals can’t be positively developed without addressing Employee Engagement (EE) and
18
Employee Development (ED) states. Peter Senge (1990) also focused upon the
continuous capacity building for the ultimate performance objectives.
The study highlights the most effective path for the managers of LOs to reap
maximum in terms of Employee Performance out of LOPs, keeping in view their level of
significance, by rightly strategizing EE and ED characteristics. Finally, the study tries to
bring forth the issues and problems faced by the managers of selected LOs regarding their
employee performance in the context of engagement and their self-behavior. An
employee perception helps practitioners and researchers to rightly focus upon the LOPs,
with the right approach and with the right engagement and development characteristics to
reap the desired employee performance outcomes.
The significance of the relationships in the current study has also been confirmed
by various studies as Song, Jeung, and Cho (2011) referred to these LOPs as Learning
Organization Culture (LOC), which were tested upon individual, team and organizational
learning process. Tseng (2010) also ensured LOPs and adopted seven LOP from DLOQ
(Marsick & Watkins, 2003) which were ensured by different empirical studies (Ellinger,
Ellinger, Yang, & Howton, 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Wang, 2005). Previous
literature also exposed the LO practices in different contexts. LOPs according to Fallon
and Brinkerhoff (1996), facilitate organizations to cope up with the environmental and
future challenges to enhance employee commitment (Bhatnagar, 2007) and employee
satisfaction. Employee commitment and satisfaction are basically the prerequisites of
employee performance. Organizational goals heavily depend upon the employees’
learning which is facilitated by LOPs (Burgoyne, & Boydell, 1991a). According to
Tarabishy, Solomon, Fernald Jr, and Sashkin (2005), leaders also increase their
19
professional and personal skills for themselves and their organization. In this regard,
Berson, Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin, and Keller (2006) narrated that LOPs at all levels
in the organizations pave way for better organizational outcomes. Thus by ensuring the
importance of LOPs from the literature, the current study tried to provide a guide to reap
maximum benefits out of their employees. Moreover, the use of instruments in the
current study is a useful addition to the body of research in the Pakistani
telecommunication context.
1.8 Contribution towards Research and Management Practices
The study focuses upon the analysis of a model for the researchers and
practitioners in Telecom Industry of Pakistan. The study investigates the relationship of
different LO practices with three employee engagement types i.e. emotional, cognitive
and behavioral (Peter Senge, 1990) in PTSOs. The current study includes five major
points. First, there is a dire need of a single study that ensures a link between LO
practices (LOPs) and Employee Performance (EP) with Employee Engagement (EE) and
Employee Development (ED) playing a mediating role. This would be a useful addition
to research paradigm and will become a guide for the employers/managers to proactively
take measures for positive employee engagement for employee performance
enhancement. Second, The Moderating role of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ)
between the relationship of LOPs and EE & ED must be established because of its dire
need highlighted in various studies. PAJ as a moderator will contribute in the research
arena and will help managers to pay heed upon PAJ elements for engagement
maximization, ED effectiveness (self-directed learning & self-development) and
employee performance. Third, the research framework has been tested in the
20
telecommunication industry of Pakistan for the first time. Hence this is a sound
contribution in research world and for telecommunication practitioners of the developing
countries. The study, therefore, paves the way for the telecom managements to maximize
the performance of their employees by ensuring the right LOPs with the mediating role of
EE and ED.
It is believed that the outcomes of the current study is a sound addition towards
the role of LOs in addressing EE and ED issues to reap maximum employee
performance. In today’s competitive world where organizations have to respond in a real
time manner, employees need to be fully engaged and developed so that the desired
performance levels can be achieved. HRD is defined as an OL experience in a predefined
time span with an objective of job performance improvement (Nadler & Nadler, 1990) by
following the philosophy of trust for employee performance improvement. HR activities
affect employee trust development (Kuzua & Ozilhan, 2014) which leads the
organizations towards the required performance outcomes. The study offers direction to
the managers and employers of LOs in telecommunication industry to positively plan,
strategize and execute the right moves to engage and develop the employees to be in line
with this fast paced industry dynamics. These organizations being part of a highly volatile
industry have to be part of a continuous up-gradation process (i.e. Technology
Infrastructure, Processes and Knowledge Skills & Abilities (KSAs) of the employees). In
order to cope with such diverse challenges, these organizations first need to focus on how
to successfully manage and upgrade employees KSAs. Unlike the traditional view of
handling employees, organizations now need to be sure of the significance of the
relationship between LOPs, Employee Engagement (EE), Employee Development (ED)
21
which should lead to maximum performance outcomes. While investigating the
relationship between LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED, the role of PAJ has been found
quite critical as it leads the organizations towards taking different instant measures. The
current study explains the significance of the role of EE and ED between the relationship
of LOPs and EP. The purpose is to identify the unaddressed areas in effective LOPs
implementation towards drawing maximum Employee Performance (EP) which is one of
the core reasons of organizations’ competitiveness.
1.9 Importance of the study in Pakistani Context
The importance of the study in the context of Pakistan has been ensured by having
various brainstorming sessions with the employees of the said organizations. The selected
organizations in Pakistan intensively put a lot of money on their employees to be ahead in
a cut-throat competitive environment. Their survival requires the employees to be agile or
adaptive by embracing new challenges proactively. They are bound to be responsive
against sudden changes. The recent move of heaving 3G and 4G licenses have made their
business role tougher than ever. Competitive forces have to be taken care of by each
organization which is possible only through maximization of employee performance. In
the race of continuous improvement, employees regarding their three engagement states
are required to be focused which in general are unattended. They needed to be developed
in a way which should pave way for their self-directed learning and self-development.
Their expectations regarding justice may lead them towards low self-directed behavior
and engagement deterioration.
Being part of a high tech industry, these organizations are forced to be ahead of
time using advanced and state of the art technologies which is possible through readiness
22
of their employees’ KSAs’ up-gradation and productive execution. Employees are often
demotivated due to injustice in their performance evaluation process. They may also
become demoralized due to their unaddressed emotional, cognitive and behavioral
engagement states or absence of the focus on their self-directed learning and self-
development by their employers.
In order to ensure the significance of the study in Pakistani context, different
informal brainstorming sessions were conducted in selected telecommunication
organizations. In these brain storming session various line professionals, middle level and
top level employees were asked about the real learning practices in their respective
organizations, i.e. dialogue and inquiry, employee-environment connectivity, strategic
leadership, collaboration and team learning, embedded systems, availability of
information and interactive processes with the environment where it exists, open
communication, creativity and innovation and management style. Moreover, these
employees were asked about the relationship among the said LOPs with their Employee
Development (ED), Performance Appraisal justice (PAJ) and their Engagement (EE).
Almost all of the employees from the said PTSOs confirmed that their organizations do
claim to practice all of these partly or fully which ensured that these organizations can be
considered as Learning organizations because the literature (Tseng, 2010) confirmed that
these are the most common Learning Organizations’ practices. Randomly selected
employees (8-10 from each selected organization) of the said organizations then were
asked about these practices in their organizations. Although the response was not
satisfactory by the employees but they did ensure that these organizations claim to
practice most of the said practices, i.e. continuous learning, collaboration and team
23
learning, creation of systems, employee-environment connectivity, strategic leadership,
availability of information, process interaction with the environment, feedback
mechanism, employee empowerment, employee commitment, team work spirit, open
communication, creativity and innovation and management style.
Moreover, when these employees from telecom sector were asked about their
engagement as Peter Senge (1990) and Frese (2008) considered Employee Engagement
(EE) as a new construct including physical, cognitive and emotional side of the
employees, they expressed conflicting views taking especially emotional and rational
types of engagement and behavioral in general. May, Gilson, and Harter (2004b) also
supported the arguments of Kahn (1990) which associated the said three engagement
types with job roles. As Ram and Prabhakar (2011) narrated, the degree of engagement of
the employees in any organization can be assessed through employee involvement with
their job tasks, their commitment, zeal and their emotional attachment with job roles.
In order to have a basic assessment of the said factors, when the employees from
PTSOs were asked, their response was a mix of both negative and positive opinions.
Those who even had positive responses regarding all three types of engagement had a
strong belief that this can drastically fluctuate when the performance appraisal injustice
occurs by the management. They believed that Continuous Learning (CL), Dialogue and
Inquiry (DI), Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL), Embedded Systems (ES), System
Connections (SC), Employee Empowerment (EEM) and Strategic Leadership (SL) affect
their engagement in either way. However the role of performance appraisal can topple
down the wholesome effect of these LO practices upon Employee Engagement (EE). So
the people, working in the said organizations who claim to be a partial or full LO,
24
mentioned the Performance Appraisal injustice as a major barrier in the way of their
engagement, development and performance.
When the said group of employees was also asked about the impact of these LO
practices upon employee overall performance, they believed that without ensuring
employee total engagement (Kahn, 1990) these practices cannot have positive impact on
the EP. Most of them claimed that their organizations do the same mistake by not filling
the gap of Employee Engagement towards Employee Performance (EP).
The initial brain storming session also included a few questions about the link
between LO practices and Employee Development (Self-development & Self-directed
learning). The average response was, if an employee is required to be perform better,
Employee Development (ED) must also be addressed which will lead the employee to
perform to his best. On the other hand, many of them stated that Employee Development
(ED) can be greatly affected by the Performance Appraisal practices which, if not
performed justly, can spoil the Employee Development (ED) outcomes. Thus an
assumption was created that LO practices do not have a marginal affect upon Employee
Development heaving Performance Appraisal injustice in the organization. They clearly
see the importance of Employee Development (ED) for the required effects of LO
practices on individuals’ performance. As such the conclusion drawn here is that in order
to lead the LO practices towards employee performance, Employee Development (ED)
must be addressed.
1.10 Importance of the study in HRD Context
Outcomes of the current study are considered as productive addition towards the
role of LOs in addressing EE and ED issues to reap maximum employee performance. In
25
today’s competitive world where organizations have to respond in a real time manner,
employees need to be fully engaged and developed so that the desired performance levels
can be achieved. HRD is defined as an OL experience in a predefined time span with an
objective of job performance improvement (Nadler & Nadler, 1990; Wilson, 2005) by
following the philosophy of employee performance improvement with the feel of trust.
Chalofsky (1992) outlined HRD as,
“a study and practice of enhancing learning capacity of individuals, groups and
the organizations through the development and application of learning involvement in
order to maximize the growth and effectiveness of individuals and the organization”.
Weinberger (1998) referred to two main HRD constructs in a range of definitions.
Studies (Ruona, 2000; Swanson, 1996; Watkins & Marsick, 1996) stated that ‘individual
and organizational learning’ and ‘individual and organizational performance’ are the
main constructs of HRD in the learning context.
Pakistan is in the queue of countries that are positively responding to the
increasingly growing needs and challenges and prevailing opportunities due to
globalization (Shami & Khawaja, 2006). Shami and Khawaja (2006) further identified
that HRD is connected with national economic growth which can only be attained
through individual’s creativity. HRD, according to Azhar (2004) is considered as a pre-
requisite for individual and collective success. Studies (Drew & Smith, 1995;
Edmondson, 2002) emphasized upon the need of incorporation of change for LOs
because of their agility. Thus the study provides sound direction to managers and
employers of LOs in telecommunication industry to positively plan, strategize and
execute the right moves to engage and develop the employees to be in line with this fast
26
paced industry dynamics. These organizations being part of a highly volatile industry and
market have to be part of a continuous up-gradation process (i.e. Technology
Infrastructure, Processes and Knowledge Skills and Abilities (KSAs) of the employees.
In order to cope with such diverse challenges, these organizations first need to put their
focus upon how to successfully manage and upgrade employees KSAs. Brad Shuck,
Reio, and Rocco (2011) stated that enhancement of EE through employee learning and
development should be the focus of organizations who seek change which is confirmed
by the study CIPD (2012) which concluded that there are less than 20% managers who
are trained to do so. Millar (2012) proposed the creation of right climate and conditions
along with training practices that should be focused using coaching, mentoring and
empowerment as strategies by the organization which would ultimately lead towards
better performance outcomes. The development of positive attitudes may become an
effective tool for engagement enhancement in order to go for positive change (Avey,
Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Rumbles & Rees, 2013). Organizations, especially PTSOs,
need to follow the route of PAJ, EE and ED towards objective attainment regarding
employee performance.
1.11 Limitations of the Study
Learning organizations (LOs) are known for their flexibility and bears flat
structures. The senior managers were few in numbers in Pakistan telecom sector
organizations as compared to their middle and lower level employees. Top level
management of the selected telecom concerns, due to their head offices in different cities
of Pakistan, were quite difficult to be approached. So the study included only a few
senior managers due to the accessibility issue. However, this did not create any difference
27
in the current study results because the study objectives have been generalized upon all
the employees. Employees initially refused to fill the survey questionnaires until they
were shown the permission letters provided by their company and the IQRA University.
The employees were quite reluctant in providing survey information due to their
workload and busy schedules so they were approached in lunch breaks and at the time
they were free from their job in the evening with the permission of their bosses. In the
pilot study non-seriousness of the employees regarding the data provision was observed
so the researcher faced difficulties and spent a lot of time in ensuring the seriousness of
the respondents by briefing them the purpose and importance of the study before starting
filling the questionnaire.
1.12 Definitions
The study includes six major concepts that have been addressed in relation with
each other. These concepts include 1) Learning Organization Practices (LOPs), 2)
Employee Engagement (EE), 3) Employee Development (ED), 4) Performance Appraisal
Justice (PAJ), 5) Employee Performance (EP) and 6) Human Resource Development
(HRD). These concepts have been defined as under:
1.12.1 Learning Organization Practices (LOPs)
The term LO is defined as a type of organization which aligns its objectives,
goals, strategies and actions with their employee learning (Jafari & Kalanaki, 2012), and
Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) are necessary actions of LOs that according to
Pedler et al. (1991a), accelerate employee learning for continuous transformation of
themselves and their organization for the achievement of their goals.
28
1.12.2 Employee Engagement (EE)
Employee Engagement (EE) in general is defined as the degree of commitment
and involvement of the employee towards his organizational values (Anitha, 2014) and/or
EE is the cognitive, emotional and behavioral states of an employee that leads towards
organizations goals (Kahn, 1990).
1.12.3 Employee Development (ED)
ED is generally defined as it is constituted from skill growth, employee learning
(Dixon, 1999), self-direction and employee attitude and behavior by considering
coaching, training and development, empowerment, participation and delegation of
authority. Employee Development (ED), in order to have desired performance outcomes
of the employees, carries two different dimensions which include self-development and
self-directed learning (Hameed & Waheed, 2011).
1.12.4 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ)
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) according to Gupta & Kumar (2013a), is
known as the fairness of the whole procedure which may include performance standards,
raters’ behavior regarding PA process and communication with the rates within the
context of Performance Appraisal. They further explain that Performance Appraisal
Justice (PAJ) is a smaller part of a broader construct organizational justice which is
evaluated through its four dimensions, i.e. Distributive justice (DJ), Procedural justice
(PJ), Interactional justice (IJ) and the Informational Justice (InfoJ).
29
1.12.5 Employee Performance (EP)
Performance has been defined in terms of its dependence upon the employees’
motivation and their willingness to perform their job roles with the clear solutions (Fox,
2006). When Oxford (2012) was looked up, the term performance is “the triumph,
execution and/or working out of anything ordered or undertaken”. Employee
Performance is the driver of the organizational performance which is attained through
creativity, innovation and employee commitment (Ramlall, 2008).
1.12.6 Human Resource Development (HRD)
As HRD refers to an OL experience in a predefined timespan with an objective of
job performance improvement (Nadler & Nadler, 1990; Wilson, 2005) by following the
philosophy of employee performance improvement with the feel of trust. Moreover, HRD
can be broadly defined as a process of developing job related knowledge, expertise and
productivity in adults individually and collectively, both in short and long run (McLean
& McLean, 2001).
30
CHAPTER 2
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 2 puts forth the literature regarding Organization Learning (OL),
Learning Organizations (LOs), Learning Organization Practices (LOPs), Employee
Engagement (EE), Employee Development (ED), Performance Appraisal Justices (PAJ),
Employee Performance (EP), their relationships with each other, their measurement tools,
their antecedents and outcomes, Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire
(DLOQ), and the telecommunication sector of Pakistan. A sizeable amount of literature
has been written in various perspectives of LOPs in relation with organization and
employee performance in bits and pieces but the current study focused upon the practices
of telecommunication organizations as Learning Organizations (LOPs) in Pakistani
context in relation with Employee Performance thus taking Employee Engagement (EE)
and Employee Development (ED) as mediators. Performance Appraisal Justice has been
used as Moderator in the relationships between LOPs and EE and LOP and ED applying
HRD perspective.
LOs cannot be restricted to a specific type or size in both private or public sector
organizations but in an organization with employees performing their jobs in an
integrated manner instead of working in isolation (Dowd, 1999). Moreover Peter Senge,
Kleiner, Roberts, Roth, and Smith (2004) have put forth five disciplines to identify LOs
in any region of the world, therefore telecommunication industry of Pakistan with
Senge’s view of LOs has been selected for the current study.
31
2.1 Learning Organization (LO)
2.1.1 Understanding Learning, Organization Learning (OL) Learning Organization
(LO)
The concepts of learning, organization learning, and learning organization, have
been widely explained in the past studies in the context of performance, more specifically
organizational and individual performance. Human beings carry their learning abilities
with them which make them able to adapt to the changing environment (Liao, Fei, & Liu,
2008). Since its ab-initio, learning has been variably used in the literature with
multidimensional constructs, sub-constructs and dimensions. Learning as a process
reveals itself in a rapidly changing focus of the organizations, i.e. taken as modernization,
collaboration, and culture shifts especially when the change is inevitable Bennet and
Tomblin (2006).
Learning as an intrinsic feature of the employees, has been massively studied in
the field of psychology and has gained massive importance because of the growing
organizational needs for its human system (Kolb, 1984; Rebelo & Gomes, 2008).
Salehzadeh, Asadi, Pool, Ansari, and Haroni (2014) stated that knowledge, potencies,
attitudes and behaviors (Bennet & Tomblin, 2006) are the learning outcomes. They
further explained that learning occurs in individuals, teams, organizations and societies
with an organizational interaction. Bennet (2006) differentiated individual learning and
organizational learning as, the former is accomplished by studying, cognition, practice,
experience and developing effective mental models whereas later is a social practice as a
cognitive activity that takes place during the course of group interactions, knowledge
sharing, collective capacity maximization.
32
Learning in different organizational contexts have been studied as ‘learning by
doing’ (Arrow, 1962), learning for organizational development (Mirvis, 1996) and
employee learning at varied organizational levels (Rebelo & Gomes, 2008). According to
Jerez-Gomez, Cespedes-Lorente, and Valle-Cabrera (2007), the prescriptive literature
describes that learning can be carried forward by ensuring some characteristics as these
characteristics establish organizational learning capacity (DiBella, 2001). Jerez-Gomez et
al. (2007) explored through the previous studies that key conditions for OL include
learning commitment, openness, experimentation, and transfer of knowledge transfer.
Human beings naturally have the learning ability to adapt in the changing environments
(Liao et al., 2008; Sony & Naik, 2012).
Learning is carried differently by the organizations, therefore the term
Organizational Learning (OL) (Rebelo & Gomes, 2008) since its introduction is still
being researched upon due to the rapidly changing business dynamics. According to Lee
and Cassell (2009), studies noted that learning facilitation by the employers brings
mutual benefits for both, i.e. the employee and the employers. Organizational Learning
(OL) and Learning Organization (LO) have been variably used in the literature (Mulili &
Wong, 2011; Ortenblad, 2001; West & Burnes, 2000) which need to be clearly
differentiated before going into the depth of LO practices (Tseng & McLean, 2008). LO
and OL literature provides multi-contextual definitions and perspectives (Wang &
Ahmed, 2003). Probst and Buchel (1998) defined OL by highlighting individuals in
organizations as the variation process of organizational knowledge base along with the
competence in problem solving.
33
According to Yeo (2005), LO is a collective entity of its members whereas OL is
a process which addresses how learning is developed. Organization Learning (OL) holds
its position somewhere in between individual and collective learning (Bennet, 2006). As
a study Argyris and Schon (1978) powered learning concept few decades back but it
gained real prominence in the year 1990 with clear bifurcation of Learning Organization
(LO) and Organizational Learning (OL). Argyris and Schon (1978) introduced ‘theory-
in-use’ for OL as:
“OL happens when organizational members perform their jobs as learning agents
for their organization … organizational theory-in-use … private images and shared maps
of organization” (p. 29).
Organization Learning (OL) is a part of globalization process (O'Grady & Lane,
1996) and/or a set of activities (Ortenblad, 2001) whereas Learning Organization (LO) is
basically a type of organization (Tsang, 1997), that purposely and proactively formulate
strategies for learning adoption (Peter Senge, 1990). Tsang (1997) stated OL as a concept
to illustrate activities that happens in any organization while the LO is a type of
organization in and of itself.
On the contrary, LOs are platforms where individuals have expanded capacity to
produce results in a continuous manner, innovative thinking is cultivated, collective aims
and objectives are set free and where continuous learning becomes a unified whole
(Senge, 1990; Smith, 2001). LO includes the participatory management and quality
control system backed by a sound communication system from both employee and
employer ends (Gilley, Maycunich, & Gilley, 2000). According to Salehzadeh et al.
34
(2014), Basim, Sesen, and Korkmazyurek (2007) stated that past researchers considered
LO established with the individual learning back-up.
Organizations learn like individuals but they are not individuals thus need
different methods of learning (Popper & Lipshitz, 1998) because of their varied cognitive
nature (Cook & Yanow, 1996; Rebelo & Gomes, 2008). Thus individuals and
organizations should be given different treatment. OL as a process with the focus on
Individuals, paves a way for the organizations to become Learning Organizations (LOs)
(Finger & Brand, 1999). Moreover, OL is required to be a knowledge accumulation
process (Cross & Baird, 2000), knowledge sharing process (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney,
1999), and knowledge conversion process (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). OL focuses upon
individuals whereas LO additionally includes groups and organizational levels. OL
includes knowledge in individuals whereas LO additionally includes organization for
knowledge storage (Kontoghiorghes, Awbre, & Feurig, 2005).
LO requires OL to be occurred in spirit. Studies stated that LO concept has been
derived from OL but LO includes prescriptive view whereas OL involves descriptive
view (Vera & Crossan, 2003). Richter (1998) stated that recent literature upon OL
doesn’t cover the relationships between individual and organizational learning at micro
level and is making the probable value of organizational learning (OL) theory ambiguous.
Ortenblad (2002) narrated LO concept with four views as 1) knowledge storage at
different organization levels (knowledge storage in organizational mind), 2) individuals
on the job learning (learning at work perspective), 3) organization as a learning platform
for its employees (learning climate perspective), and 4) the flexible learning structure
35
(learning structure perspective). According to Yang, Watkins, and Marsick (2004), the
said four perspectives have also been addressed by Watkins and Marsick (1993).
Park, Song, Yoon, & Kim (2014) concluded after the collection of 200 cases from
SMEs in Korea using SEM that LO is made up of the system-related environmental
aspects whereas OL is basically a process-oriented aspect. They further analyzed that LO
as a type significantly and strongly affects OL (more specifically individuals learning
process) which ultimately leads to a significant team and organizational learning process.
This difference of treatment to both the terms (OL and LO) examined in the literature,
draws conclusion that OL primarily focuses upon individual learning whereas LO
additionally concentrates upon teams and organizations as well (Cook & Yanow, 1996;
M. Jones, 1995). Thus concluded that OL is a process (Dodgson, 1993) unlike LO which
is a type of organization (Tsang, 1997) and is intentionally developed (Dodgson, 1993;
Easterby-Smith, 1997). For the purpose of real benefits to be reaped from the Senge’s
book, an effort was made in the form of publishing ‘The Fifth Discipline Field book’,
which clearly stated that perusal of change is a prerequisite for being an active member of
an LO (Peter Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994).
2.1.2 Concept Evolution of LO
LO concept has been around since 20th century but gained momentum by adding
interest of the researchers and practitioners for its role in Twenty-first century’s highly
competitive business scenario (Jamali, Sidani, & Zouein, 2009). Learning Organizations
(LOs) have been evolved from traditional organizations with the incorporation of new
perspectives like their functioning and management (Hitt, 1995). Hitt (1995) further
referred three organizational paradigms (Fig 1). The figure expresses first, the
36
bureaucratic organizations with a clear focus on rationality and efficiency (doing things
right) (Weber, 1947), secondly the performance based organization with a focus on
effectiveness (doing the right things) (Drucker, 1964) and the third approach which is
now in practice, i.e. Learning Organization (LO), initiated by (Peter Senge, 1990) that
addressed continuous adaptation.
Figure 1: Three organizational paradigms
Source: (William D. Hitt, 1995)
Since the origin of LO by John Dewey (See table 2) to Yoonjeong & Sang-Il,
multiple academic and practical additions have been made with the prime focus of
Individual and organizational learning.
37
Progressive Evolution of Learning Organization (LO) Concept
Author Contribution
Dewey (1938) Introduced experiential learning in an organization preceded by mental
models.
Craik (1940) Introduced the term of “mental models” - expose your ideas openly, from
inward to the outward.
Lewin (1946) Introduced a new term i.e. ‘creative tension’ (there is something which
exists between a person’s vision and sense of reality and that must be
exposed in the organizations).
Mead and Kubie (1947) Introduced "systems thinking" for cross-disciplinary group of key
intellectuals.
McGregor (1960) Explored the ‘Human’ context of an organization was explored in order to
develop individuals and the organization as a whole.
Developed the concept of ‘system dynamics’ which further extended and
codified as "Shifting the Burden" archetype.
Randel (1973)
Extended the concept of ‘organizational learning’ which paved the way for
the organizations creative tensions i.e. personal mastery, mental models
and their practical implementation.
ERICSON (1975) Interpreted system dynamics complexities into a comparatively simple
conversation.
Geus (1988) Established organizational ability to learn’ as a competitive advantage has
been made.
Peter Senge (1990) Presented five novel disciplines were introduced in a book “The fifth
discipline”.
Pedler et al. (1991a) Focused upon the organizations’ employees who learn positively mainly
because of rightly implemented LOPs.
D. A. Garvin (1993) Examined that learning until is measured cannot be useful for the
employers.
Fallon and Brinkerhoff
(1996)
Examined that LOPs also facilitate the organizations to adapt strategies as
the environmental change arises.
(Marsick & Watkins, 1999b,
2003)
Confirmed that LO concept revolves around people and structure and can
be measured through Continuous Learning (CL), Dialogue and Inquiry
(DI), Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL), Embedded Systems (ES),
System Connections (SC), Employee Empowerment (EEM) and Strategic
Leadership (SL).
Paul and Anantharaman
(2004)
Confirmed that LO practices do have an impact on employee development
and employee willingness to perform their job roles i.e. EE, which leads
them towards enhance performance outcomes.
Spell and Arnold (2007)
Ensured association among justice perception with employee contributions
and their performance outcomes.
Song et al. (2011) Made an examination for the clarity of the theoretical considerations in 50
SMEs in central Korea which resulted in success of LO practices on
Individual learning.
Awasthy and Gupta (2012)
Examined that LOPs increase employee commitment levels which make
employee able to perform their job roles in a better manner.
Salehzadeh et al. (2014) Examined the link between DLOQ (LOPs) and perceived organizational
support
Yoonjeong and Sang-Il
(2015)
Provided a framework regarding LOPs by confirming their positive impact
on financial performance and employee satisfaction in Korean NPOs.
Table 2 Sample Progressive Evolution of Learning Organization (LO) Concept
38
Dewey (1938) for the very first time initiated the experiential learning in an
organization preceded by mental models (Craik, 1940) and led the concept to system
dynamics (Forrester 1961). Later on McGregor (1960) explored the human context of an
organization in order to develop individuals and the organization as a whole. Randel
(1973) came up with his book, ‘Learning to Plan and Plan to learn’ powering the concept
of organizational learning which paved way for the organizations’ creative tensions, i.e.
personal mastery, mental models and their practical implementation. ERICSON (1975)
interpreted system dynamics complexities into a comparatively simple conversation-
starter technique. In the year 1987, De Geus established organizations’ ability to learn as
a key competitive advantage. Then Senge contributed in revolutionizing the concept of
LO by his remarkable piece of writing, i.e. ‘The fifth discipline’. Later on multiple
studies came forth in extending the concept of LO as the right implementation of LOs
(Pedler et al., 1991a), learning measurement (Garvin, 1993), LOPs’ measurement and
their association with people and structure (Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Marsick &
Watkins, 2003), association among justice perception with employee contributions and
their performance outcomes (Spell & Arnold, 2007), LO practices and Individual
learning (Song et al., 2011), LOPs and employee commitment levels (Awasthy & Gupta,
2012), DLOQ (LOPs), perceived organizational support (Salehzadeh et al., 2014) and
LOPs’ framework, financial and employee satisfaction (EP) (Yoonjeong & Sang-Il,
2015). Senge, (1990) defined LOs as the organizations where individuals increase their
learning capacity in a continuous manner by creating results they want, where new and
quite expansive thinking models are brought up, where the collective objectives are
positively allowed, and where the members are learning by being together.
39
The concept of LO was formally initiated by (Senge, 1990) addressing five
disciplines: Systems Thinking (ST), Personal Mastery (PM), Mental Models (MM),
Building a Shared Vision (SV), and Team Learning (TL). System Thinking (ST) focuses
on the knowledge integration in relation with the inter-connectedness across the whole
organization. Personal Mastery (PM) steers individuals to enhance their abilities to
pursuit their goals as, organizations learn only through individuals who learn (Peter
Senge, 1990). PM can also be narrated as, spiritual foundation of LO (Senge, 1990) was
originated from self-actualization concept leading to learning and growth. Continuous
learning opportunities must be provided by the organizations and long term learning of
individuals should be prioritized. Mental Models (MM) refer to the unintentional beliefs
which could limit thinking about how the world works. Moreover, it determines the
people’s actions and perceptions which should be re-examined putting forth the
upcoming change. Team Learning (TL) has been considered a bit critical discipline
because of the modern organizational approach for teams as learning units, are the
fundamental learning component (Senge, 1990).
Individuals with focus on their job duties are considered clear about their own
vision and can determine the collective vision (vision of all). Peter Senge puts ‘shared
vision’ as a driver of the organization in the times of stress. LOs are distinguished by
valuing and developing the said disciplines (Peter Senge, 1990). Learning Organizations
(LOs) can be differentiated from traditional ones by their abilities to learn and their
transformation into the new required state (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). LOs have also
been categorized as an environment where employee involvement is ensured in collective
processes towards shared values (Smith, 2001; Watkins & Marsick, 1992).
40
LO disciplines have been further elaborated into two major categories, i.e.
Individuals and Groups (Park, 2008). Personal Mastery (PM), Mental Models (MM), and
Systems Thinking (ST) fall into the first category i.e. individuals, because PM focus on
energy through patience development and putting forth the real objectives that focus upon
personal commitment to vision and long-term learning, MM is related to deep rooted
assumptions on the basis of which actions are taken by individuals through maintaining
inquiry and advocacy balance and ST due to its focus upon interconnectedness (Park,
2008). Shared Vision (SV) and Team Learning (TL) being different from the rest three
being collective in nature (Senge, 1990) fall in the second category i.e. groups. SV
addresses the integration of individual goals with organizational vision. Moreover, teams
contributes towards organizational vision as Senge, (1990) stated that organizations learn
only when the teams learn. Addressing the question of ultimate shape of LOs and how
they differ from the past traditional organizations, Hitt (1995) explained the
characteristics of traditional and the Learning Organization (LO). He concluded that LO
is a new paradigm and is vitally different from the traditional types of organizations as
LO is the one that is ‘on the way’. LO is a never ending journey with an approach of
learning by avoiding the traditional approach of the managers.
The era i.e. 70s, addressed the deficiencies and limitations of the previously
proposed planning based approach and incorporated the approach of implementation into
it. Unlike the previous one in which leaders only were the main consideration and middle
managers were taken into account for strategic planning process (Rowden, 2001). In late
80s researchers diverted towards employee involvement and the need of continuous
improvement because of the rapidly changing dynamics of the business (readiness for
41
change) (Rowden, 2001). After the inclusion of continuous improvement, studies started
exploring the newly identified term, i.e. Learning Organization (LO) which was powered
significantly by Peter M. Senge in 1990 in his book, ‘The Fifth Discipline: The art and
practice of learning organization’, which in its crux, highlighted the need of human side
of the modern organizational environment, culture, structure in association with
innovation and agility.
2.1.3 Defining Learning Organization (LO)
Definitions of LO have been presented by various researchers in different
contexts using multiple constructs. The concept of LO has formally been established by
Peter Senge in the year 1990 and rest followed the same using different constructs. Jamali
and Sidani (2008) put forth sample definitions of LO till 2005.
Author
Definition of Learning Organization (LO)
Peter Senge (1990) An organization which persistently expands its ability to make its future,
where Individuals continually increase their result producing capacity, they
actually want, where new thinking patterns are supported, and where
individuals are in a continuous process of learning the methods of learning.
Pedler et al. (1991a) An organization which supports learning of all its the members and is involved
in transformation process in a continuous manner.
Garvin (1993) An organization with a focus on creation, acquisition and transformation of
knowledge, and the modification of its behavior in relation with the new
knowledge.
Nevis, DiBella, and
Gould (1995)
An organization which has associated learning capacity with adaptability and
change with a focus on its values, practices, systems and structures support.
Gephart, Marsick, Buren,
and Spiro (1996)
An organization which includes analysis, monitoring, development,
management and alignment of learning processes with an objective of
improvement and innovation.
M. Pedler, J. G.
Burgoyne, and T. Boydell
(1991b)
An organization which that supports individual learning through continuous
transformation.
Dowd (1999) A group of individuals committed to continuously learn.
Griego, Geroy, and
Wright (2000)
An organization with an approach of continuous improvement and
performance enhancement due to its growth.
Rowden (2001) LO is an organization which includes all individuals to be fully engaged in
problem solving, making their organization to experiment, change and
improve in a continuous manner, and enhancing its growth and learning
capacity to attain its objectives.
Lewis (2002)
An organization that encourage its members to acquire and share knowledge in
42
a continuous manner and enables them to positively apply their knowledge in
job.
Armstrong and Foley
(2003)
An organization that has appropriate cultural features i.e. visions, assumptions,
values and the behaviors which provide support for learning environment (e.g.
processes which nurture learning and development of individual through the
identification of their learning needs and support for learning) and the
structural aspects that drive learning activities in the workplace.
M. Marquardt,
Marquardt, Berger, and
Loan (2004)
An organization that acquires, creates, stores, transfers, applies and tests
knowledge”.
Moilanen (2005) A ‘consciously managed organization’ with embedded learning feature in its
goals, and values and in its day-to-day actions and their evaluation.
Jamali, Khoury, and
Sahyoun (2006)
An organization type which promotes consistent organizational renewal by
implanting core processes and develop learning and change capability.
Velazquez, Esquer,
Munguía, and Eraso
(2011)
An organization that in several processes befall to establish learning.
Jafari and Kalanaki
(2012)
A type of organization in which all Aims, objectives, strategies and activities
are in accordance with individual and organizational learning.
Fahim, Ali, Amir, and
Butt (2013)
An organization which construct knowledge and persuade learning among
people and its environment.
Pokharel and Choi (2015) Organic entities which do have a capacity to learn by having continuous
learning and adaptive characteristics at individual, group or organization level.
Table 3 Sample definitions of Learning Organization (LO)
Source: Adapted from (Jamali, 2005)
Learning Organization (LO) as an organization includes; objectives, strategies,
aims, and activities corresponding to learning of both employees and the organization
(Jafari & Kalanaki, 2012). Dixon (1992) stated that LO definitions incorporate many
different and common themes. Such common themes found in a variety of definitions of
LO are Continuous Learning (CL) (Senge, 1990), up-gradation (Gephart et al., 1996;
Rowden, 2001), individual, team, and organizational learning (Moilanen, 2005; Peter
Senge, 1990), transformation (Pedler et al., 1991a), change (Nevis et al., 1995), cultural
facets (Armstrong & Foley, 2003; Nevis et al., 1995) leadership, strategy, CL, D&I, TL,
Employee Empowerment (EEM), and processes and structures’ facilitation (Gardiner &
Whiting, 1997; Griego et al., 2000; Holt, Love, & Li, 2000; Rowden, 2001; Thomsen,
2001). Though there has been no concrete definition of Learning Organization (LO) and
43
its practices (LOPs) in literature but most have agreed upon on a few (Kofman & Senge,
1993; Thomas & Allen, 2006).
LO is a platform with full knowledge utilization, expended capacity, changed
behavior, and attained competence (Peter Senge, 1990; Swieringa & Wierdsma, 1992).
Awasthy and Gupta (2012) found some commonalities in LO definitions, i.e. continuous
learning, employee empowerment, knowledge creation, acquisition and its successful
transfer and individual, team and organizational learning. Some other studies defined LO
as a focal point in relation with the management styles Watkins and Marsik, (1992), i.e.
individuals’ contributions towards team and environment that enable people to create the
desired results by going through a collective learning process. The commonly acceptable
definition of LO includes, continuous learning through its members both in their
individual capacities and collectively to create competitive edge through proactive and
effective change management strategies (Gephart et al., 1996; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000;
Porth, McCall, & Bausch, 1999). According to Senge (1990), learning can be used in
terms of the expansion of abilities of the people to produce their desired results.
Literature regarding LO primarily characterized it as it improves individual learning
(Campbell & Cairns, 1994) by addressing knowledge management. LOs have the ability
of continuous development to create a future. Efforts have also been made to define LOs
in the context of learning process for individuals and the organizations (Ahmad & Yunus,
2012; Mayo & Lank, 1994). They further highlighted that there are different definitions
of LO (Daniels, 1994) and different theories for LOs (Levitt & March, 1988) in the past
studies. For better understanding of LOs, Garratt (1990) acknowledged three of its
characteristics, i.e. encouragement of rigor and regularity for the people at all
44
organizational levels, having a systems for encapsulating and utilization of learning and
ensuring the learning significance for continuous transformation. Pedler et al. (1991a)
narrated LO as a learning company which supports learning for all of its members and
make them able to continuously transform. Ulrich, Jick, and Glinow (1993) expressed LO
as progressive and evolutionary instead of radical and revolutionary. Tobin (1993)
highlighted its three characteristics of LOs, i.e. openness to new ideas, culture in
association with learning opportunity provision, and extensive knowledge about
organizational goals and objectives in relation with individuals’ contributions. On the
contrary Gravin (1993) defined LO as an organization which has a focus upon knowledge
management and behavioral modification to reflect new knowledge and insights. Toft and
Reynolds (1994) defined LOs in another context as these include, cumulative, reflective
and saturating process which facilitates individual learning with the view of
interpretation.
Gravin (2000) found that LOs have a defined agenda of being open regarding all
types of information, sidestepping repeated mistakes and taking care of the critical
knowledge at the time of key individuals leaving the organization. Johnston and Hawke
(2002) by reffering the work of Mabey and Salaman (1995) stated that LOs refer to the
organizations that create working reality of its attributes, i.e. flexibility, teamwork,
continuous learning and participation and development of the employees. Tjepkema,
Horst, Mulder, & Scheerens (2000) described LOs as the one making use of employee
learning. Yeo (2005) examined LOs as they reside on collective learning belief of their
members resulting in improved organizational performance.
45
According to Serrat (2010), LOs require individuals with intellectual curiosity for
what they do, quick application of their experience and ability to develop, test the
experience based theories of change and self-motivated with regard to knowledge
development. Filstad and Gottschalk (2010) specified four milestones for an organization
to be an LO, i.e. activity organization, problem organization, value organization, and LO
itself. Benest (2000) stated that LOs are about increasing their members' ability to learn
in a collaborative manner, for their better accomplishments, higher performance and their
hope to change their organization in an effective manner. Peters (1996) analyzed that
organizations learn only through individuals who learn. According to Peter Senge et al.
(1994), individual learning may not be the guarantee of OL, but it is inevitable for OL.
Sawa, Wildaya, and Harteb (2010) analyzed LO as an organization adaptive to the
external environment, promoter of creativity and innovation, possesses skills of capability
enhancement, has learning environment for both individuals and the organization,
possesses management processes for encouragement of interactions, making its members
a source of knowledge, make use of the outcomes from learning for continuous
improvement and uses tools and techniques for learning facilitation of both individual
and the group.
2.1.4 Learning Organizations (LO) Paradigm
LO literature includes different modes of conceptualization of constructs which
produced diverse models and a variety of characteristics (Ali, 2012). Most of the
Organization Learning (OL) scholars provided basis for the concept of LO (Song et al.,
2011) as studies ensured that LO concept carries an effective OL base for the scholars
46
and practitioners in 1990s (Marquardt, 1996, 2002; Peter Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1994;
Watkins & Victoria J Marsick, 1993a).
Organizations today are facing the pressure of being adaptable and wise (Rowley
& Gibbs, 2008). The new performance challenges in the current age have compelled the
organizations to carve their management processes by positively dealing with changing
dynamics in relation with the knowledge workers (Drucker, 1999) and the performance
of the employees is affected by their perception in LOs (Joo, 2012). Workplace learning
is gaining attraction day by day due to its importance (Tynjala, 2009) and individuals are
focused by workplace learning researchers instead of the organizations (Milligan,
Littlejohn, & Margaryan, 2013) which is a matter of great concern. Learning in any
organization can be attained at individual, team and organization levels (Watkins and
Marsick 1993). According to Atak and Erturgut (2010), most of the organizations are
objectively clear about being LO. Learning Organization (LO) concept meaningfully
emphasizes, individual, individual development and active learning, with an objective of
being competitive (Somunoglu, Erdem, & Erdem, 2012). LOs not only get, create and
distribute performance enhancing information forgoals achievement (Juceviciene &
Leonaviciene, 2007) but also have improvement structure by making learning easier for
its employees. Although LOs have been researched in various contexts in the past but still
much more is required in relation with existence and practicality of LO concept in many
organizations (Ali, 2012).
Past studies pointed out that many of the change initiatives to become LO reside
upon the inaccurate dichotomy between the individual and collective theorized as polar
opposites (Child & Heavens, 2001; Huysman, 1999). Leading theorists in the discipline
47
have distinguished learning, i.e. individual and collective in LOs (Matlay, 2000). The
previous studies (Salehzadeh et al., 2014; Zacher & Winter, 2011), have repeatedly
pointed out the significance of potential role of the perception of employees regarding
organizational support. Literature regarding LOs includes multiple ways of
conceptualization of the construct which resulted in a number of LO characteristics and
models (Ali, 2012). LO paradigm, when investigated in the light of the past studies,
shared multiple gaps and (Tsang, 1997) highlighted the gaps by identifying that there are
limited empirical studies on LO.
According to Ortenblad (2001), LO literature describes individuals as learning
entities. Individuals’ attained knowledge can be transformed into collective
organizational knowledge which leads towards ultimate organizational performance and
this individual knowledge depends upon the socialization at team level (Song, Song, &
Lim, 2009). Schon (1983) stated that individual learning is ensured in an organization
when its members apply their knowledge during their job performance and extract some
extraordinary outcomes. LOs confirm individuals to create knowledge synergy by
collaborating and practicing all levels in addition to ensuring individuals’ personal and
professional learning. Schon (1983) further analyzed that an LO is, 1) knowledge
organization, 2) broader context of individual learning, and 3) in the continuous change
process for maximum efficiency (Bennet & Tomblin, 2006). Schon further excavated that
in relation with individual learning, observation, cognition, experience, practice and
mental model effectiveness is required unlike organization learning which involves
primarily a social activity i.e. learning through interaction, knowledge sharing and
combined understanding. People flow through their organizations, for which they have to
48
learn how to act for their competencies and their organization (Bennet, 2006). Enhanced
learning capacity and knowledge base drives continuous success for individuals and the
organizations (Allee, 1997; Bennet, 2006).
Rebelo and Gomes (2008) mentioned researchers who contended LO concept as
‘there is no shared meaning of what makes LO’ (Daniels, 1994), and ‘there is no true LO
but a few of its attributes’ (Calvert, Mobley, & Marshall, 1994). Nair (2001) pointed out
the gap of empirical investigations of LO interventions. Multiple studies have been made
on the link between LO and organizational performance (S. Akhtar, Arif, Rubi, &
Naveed, 2011; Dunphy & Griffiths, 1998; Khandekar & Sharma, 2006) but they are still
limited in number regarding the association between LOPs and Employee Performance.
McGill and Slocum (1993) proposed, learning disadvantaged model exposing
high level of control, conformity, routine and risk avoidance as the barriers in the success
of an organization especially when these are run in a static environment and lack the
learning needs. The said model was powered by Rowden (2001) with the addition of
planning of strategic change which could not bring much for these organizations. Marsick
and Watkins (2003) derived their attention towards a dilemma of employee turnover over
in today’s organizations which are quite weak in retaining their employees and making
them willful in knowledge exchange positively for better performance outcomes. Song et
al. (2011) examined the clear theoretical considerations in 50 SMEs in central Korea
which resulted in the strongest of LO practices on Individual learning.
49
Adopted from Song et al. (2011)
In continuity of the explanation of Senge’s proposed LO practices, Peter F.
Drucker (1999) stated that because of the rapid knowledge transformation, organizations
have to go for the paradigm shift from their traditional models to the more sophisticated
models to meet performance challenges.
Though the benefits of LOs have been widely accepted in the past studies, there
are gaps requiring further investigation. The contributions of Watkins and Marsick (1993)
though gained popularity among researchers and practitioners, but still required to be
validated for LOPs assessment in general and in Pakistani context in particular.
Controversies related to LO concept have been highlighted as Bratton and Gold (2003),
proposed that it is an intelligent way of forming the values, beliefs and behavior of the
workers. According to Nyhan, Cressey, Tomassini, Kelleher, and Poell (2004) critics
took it as gloomy phrase of modern management which focuses upon benefits
maximization for the organization without paying attention upon confirming personal
learning benefits for the employees.
Figure 2 Research Framework and expected
outcomes
Source: Song, Jeung and Cho (2011)
Figure 3 Relationships among research constructs
50
Studies (McHugh et al., 1998; Stewart, 2001) duly identified the shortcomings of
the managers of many organizations who focus upon short term provisions or outcomes
instead of developing their focus on learning to create LO. In case of Pakistan
telecommunication sector, the same dilemma was has been identified by many managers
due to not giving recognition of the importance of LOPs. Such employers have been
noticed as least concerned with investment on employees at lower level as studies
(Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Lloyd, 2002; McHugh, Groves, & Alker, 1998)
highlighted such concerns. Due to the absence of the necessary skills (Bryson et al.,
2006), employees become one of the major barriers for an organization to become LO.
Song et al. (2011) also ensured the need for actions that may positively reinforce learning
orientation in the organizations. Even though sufficient literature is available on the links
between LOs and different outcomes Song, Chermack, & Kim (2013) but the links
presented in the study have not been presented before using a holistic model.
2.1.5 Key Antecedents and Outcomes of Learning Organizations (LOs)
Jamali et al. (2006) put forth a value creating activities as dimensions in post
bureaucratic model. Post bureaucratic organizations’ characteristics include: flexibility
(Anell & Wilson, 2000; Englehardt & Simmons, 2002; Kropf, 1999), empowerment
(Claydon & Doyle, 1996; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Siegall & Gardner, 2000), commitment
(King & Ehrhard, 1997; Nijhof, Jong, & Beukhof, 1998), communication (Kitchen &
Daly, 2002), trust Gilbert & Tang, 1998; Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995; Webber,
2002), and team work (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Engwall & Svensson, 2004). They
identified that these dimensions are basically the rout towards Seng’s defined five LO
disciplines. Watkins and Golembiewski (1995) explored that the concept of learning may
51
be applied on individuals which may lead them towards teams, organization and then
communities. Griego et al. (2000) worked on predictive practices that may help
organizations to be LO. Association of LO with perceived financial and knowledge
performance using DLOQ (Yang et al., 2004), job satisfaction, motivation to transfer, and
retention cultures (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004) has been confirmed. Garvin,
Edmondson, & Gino (2008) proposed three features; environmental support, Learning
process and practice focus and behavior of the leadership as LO dimensions. Denton
(1998) highlighted main LOs’ characteristics as; a learning strategy, flexible structure and
a blame-free organizational culture.
Bui and Baruch (2010) highlighted, noteworthy interdependences and interactions
among the developed constructs related to Senge's five LO disciplines. Tseng (2010)
studied LOPs by examining their impact on organization commitment and organizational
effectiveness which concluded a strong correlation among the said factors in Taiwan’s
SME sector organizations. Rebelo and Gomes (2008) identified the dire need of research
for researchers and practitioners regarding exploration of, how an organization can raise
individual learning and its benefits by avoiding anxiety, resistance and feel of
exploitation. The key antecedents and outcomes of LOs are Organization Culture (OC)
(Khasawneh & Bates, 2005; M. J. Marquardt, 1996), Knowledge Management (Grey,
1996) and Employee Development (Mallon, Clarey, & Vickers., 2012).
LO literature has highlighted the gap regarding chaos for its comprehensive
conceptualization (Heraty & Morley, 1995), insufficient empirical basis (Altman & Iles,
1998; Boyle, 2002; Jashapara, 2003; Tsang, 1997) and dependence of the concept upon
subjective evidences of success and the overindulging in non-rigorous case studies
52
(Easterby-Smith, 1997). The study in addition to the rest of the objectives also addressed
the gap by addition more into the empirical research.
LOs evolved by creating alternative models of leadership and organizational
change (Bass, 1990; Bersona, Nemanichb, Waldmanb, Galvinc, & Kellerd, 2006; Peter
Senge, 1990). Studies criticized Senge’s concept of LO primarily as OL theory in relation
with leadership (Driver, 2002; Easterby-Smith, 1997). Senge’s concept has been
criticized for its multiple facets in the literature as vague link definition of learning and
the organization (Friedman, Lipshitz, & Popper, 2005; Ortenblad, 2007), learning
criticality in relation with its rationality and effectiveness (Argyris, 2004), learning as
individual behavioral facet instead of taking it as a double-loop cognitive learning
process which should be shared at all levels, feedback confounded to the narrow
boundaries stated by Senge (2001) with the short term mindset by Senge, & Sterman
(1992), absence of learning as an ongoing social practice (Giddens, 1984) and absence of
power and control system, resource allocation, and differing interests in organizational
context (Driver, 2002).
According to Orlikowski (2002), learning as potentially collective process is still
questionable as it does not pay heed upon learning as a continuous social practice.
Caldwell (2012) concluded that connection between distributed learning and distributed
leadership for the successful organizational change management is missing in Senge’s
propositions. Tsoukas (2004) also highlighted a flaw as simple distribution of formal and
explicit knowledge which is not enough as knowledge creation.
Nyhan et al. (2004) concluded the past criticism upon LO concept as
“organizational befits are addressed as a management tool without the focus upon
53
personal learning benefits for the employees. According to Smith and Saint-Onge (1996),
LO concept is full of ambiguous points. Despite all the said ambiguities which are being
and will be addressed in future regarding LOs, LOs primarily put their emphasis on
frequent experimentation, performance measures and information collection, up gradation
and transformation regarding their employees and the organization at large (Govaerts,
Kyndt, Dochy, & Baert, 2011). Individual learning may not promise organization
learning but may be considered as prerequisite of it. LOs do encourage their people to
learn within the organization. Learning Organization characteristics and practices (LOPs)
have been a debatable subject in the past studies but on a few, most have agreed upon
with the acceptance of their complex associations. Weldy and Gillis (2010) pointed
toward deviation in the perceptions of employees regarding adoption of the dimensions of
LOs. According to Song et al. (2011), seven dimensions (LOPs) serve at both people and
structure levels of an LO which add into the its learning process.
Studies have put emphasis upon identification of characteristics, i.e. practices in
the current study (LOPs) (Armstrong & Foley, 2003; Phillips, 2003). The characteristics
of LOs have widely been studied in the past in bits and pieces as Pedler et al. (1991a)
investigated continuous improvement in association with experimentation and feedback
positively. McGill & Slocum (1993) accentuated on the need to learn through which
organizations can positively handle the change whether in people or in process,
considering these a temporary ones. Pedler et al. (1991a) put forth eight characteristics of
LOs which included: learning approach and strategy, participative policy making, people
empowerment through sound information distribution system, formative accounting and
control system, internal exchange as if customers and suppliers behave, reward
54
flexibility, flexible structure in order to cope up the challenges of change, consideration
of boundary workers to be considered as environmental scanners, Inter-company
learning, over all learning climate with the flexibility of making mistakes and self-
development opportunities. Watkins and Marsick (1993) also put their focus on six
attributes of LOs which have been taken in the study. Individuals’ opportunities for their
knowledge base enhancement, their work collaboration and sharing of new knowledge
and the need of mechanism that ensures their value, are set as prerequisites for LOs
(Confessore, 1997). Porth et al. (1999) then pointed out three common practices of LOs;
Employee Development (ED) and Continuous Learning (CL) within the organization,
Information sharing and collaboration, Team building and shared vision. Pedler et al.
(1991a) also put their focus upon the organizations employees who learn positively
mainly because of LOPs. LOPs if applied positively may facilitate the organizations to
enhance their Employees’ Engagement (EE).
Kontoghiorghes et al. (2005) identified some important LO characteristics (LOPs)
from the past studies as open communications (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1998; Gardiner &
Whiting, 1997), risk taking (Appelbaum & Reichart, 1998; Rowden, 2001)
encouragement and recognition for learning (Bennett & O'Brien, 1994; Griego et al.,
2000), resources to perform the job (Pedler et al., 1991a), Teams (Appelbaum &
Reichart, 1997; Peter Senge, 1990), rewards for learning (Griego et al., 2000; Phillips,
2003), training and learning environment (Gephart et al., 1996; Goh, 1998) and
knowledge management (Loermans, 2002; Selen, 2000).
Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) accelerate employee learning for the
continuous transformation of themselves and their organization for goal’s achievement
55
(Pedler et al., 1991a). LOs have an environment which is continuous and harmonious (S.
Akhtar et al., 2011). LOPs also facilitate the organizations to adapt strategies as the
environmental change arises (Fallon & Brinkerhoff, 1996). These practices uncover the
opportunities at individuals, teams and organizational levels for organizational effective
role (Berson et al., 2006).
Weldy and Gillis (2010) suggested that, for many dimensions, managers must be
aware of the supervisors’ and employees’ perception. CL, D&I, TL and EEM are
included in human (members) side where as the rest cover the structure side of an LO
(Song et al., 2011). Study (Tseng, 2010) also ensured LOPs and adopted seven LOPs
from DLOQ (Marsick & Watkins, 2003) which revolve around people and structure and
can be measured through Continuous Learning (CL), Dialogue and Inquiry (DI),
Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL), Embedded Systems (ES), System Connections
(SC), Employee Empowerment (EEM) and Strategic Leadership (SL).
Table 4: Learning Organization Practices
Component Definition
Continuous Learning
(CL)
Learning is designed into work to ensure people’s on the
job learning: opportunities to the people are provided for
continuous education and growth
Dialogue and Inquiry
(DI)
People express their views and listen & inquire others’;
support for questioning, feedback and experimentation is
provided
Collaboration and Team
Learning (CTL)
Work is designed for groups by encouraging them access
different modes of thinking; groups collaborate in both
learning and work and are rewarded for that collaboration.
Embedded Systems (ES) Learning is shared by creation of high and low-technology
systems and integrated with work; provision of access is
provided to all the employees and system maintenance is
ensured.
Empowerment (EEM) People involvement in setting, owning and implementing a
joint vision is ensured; responsibility is distributed close to
decision making in order to motivate people to learn for
56
which they would be held responsible.
System Connections (SC) People are supported for examination of the effect of their
work practices on their organization; people scan
environment and use information to adjust their work
practices; organization is linked to its community
Strategic Leadership
(SL)
Leaders model, champion and support learning; Strategic
use of learning for business results is ensured Table 5: Learning Organization Practices
Source: Adapted from Marsick and Watkins (2003)
LOPs have also been confirmed by different empirical studies (Ellinger, Ellinger,
Yang, & Howton, 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 2003). Previous literature also exposed the
selected LOPs in different contexts. LOPs facilitate organizations to cope up with the
environmental and future challenges (Fallon & Brinkerhoff, 1996) for the purpose of
enhancing employee commitment (Bhatnagar, 2007) and employee satisfaction.
Importance of LOPs has been confirmed by various studies like Song et al., (2011)
referred these LOPs as Learning Organization Culture (LOC) which were tested upon
Individual, team and organizational learning process. Employee commitment and
satisfaction are basically the prerequisites of employee performance. Organizational goals
heavily depend upon the employees’ learning which is facilitated by LOPs (Pedler et al.,
1991a; Ulrich et al., 1993). Berson et al., (2006) are of the view that LOPs, at all levels in
the organizations pave the way for better organizational outcomes.
2.1.6 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) Constructs
LOPs have been studied in different contexts and in bits and pieces by various
past researchers. Post bureaucratic organizations’ characteristics (Jamali et al., 2006)
include flexibility (Anell & Wilson, 2000; Englehardt & Simmons, 2000), empowerment
(Claydon & Doyle, 1996; Erstad, 1997; Siegall & Gardner, 2000), commitment (King &
Ehrhard, 1997; Nijhof et al., 1998), communication (Kitchen & Daly., 2002), trust
57
(Gilbert & Tang, 1998; Mayer et al., 1995; Webber, 2002) and team work (Cohen &
Bailey, 1997; Engwall & Svensson, 2004).
Figure 4: Post bureaucratic organizations’ characteristics
Source: (Jamali et al., 2006)
Jamali et al. (2006) analyzed that these dimensions are basically the rout towards
five LO disciplines proposed by Senge (1990). Watkins and Golembiewski (1995)
explored the concept of learning that may be applied on individual, teams, organizations
and then communities.
Sudharatna and Li (2004b) verified the link between LO characteristics and
organization’s readiness to change. Sudharatna and Li (2004b) by invetigating telecom
sector organizations (mobile service providers) in Thailand verified that there is a
significant relationship between LOPs and the cultural values, readiness to change,
leaderships’ dedication and empowerment, communication, transfer of knowledge,
characteristics of the employees, and performance up-gradation. The study concluded that
LO characteristics have strong correlation with readiness to change, with the
recommendations to the organizations to develop into LOs to be competitive in today’s
rapidly changing business world.
58
Innovation as an LO characteristic has been studied in relation with change
adaptation in order to make the organizations more competitive (Gardiner & Whiting,
1997). Innovation as an outcome of LOs (Porth et al., 1999) has also been studied in the
past. Some other studies, according to Cully (1998), worked on perceptual differences
among managers and the employees in relation with their work lives and with job fairness
and / or justice (Mollica, 2004).
Weldy and Gillis (2010) highlighted the gap in previous studies by identifying
their focus on varied perceptions but none has put effort on organizational levels in
relation with DLOQ (i.e. LOPs) and organizational performance. Although the studies
e.g. (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, & Howton, 2002; Jashapara, 2003) ensured the positivity
of links between LO characteristics and organizational performance, Kontoghiorghes et
al. (2005) excavated the shortage of evidences in literature regarding the impact of LO
characteristics on organizational outcomes (Jashapara, 2003) by providing the empirical
evidence regarding LO characteristics and organizational outcomes connections.
Watkins and Marsick (1996) connected people and structure using a survey
instrument (DLOQ) which examined seven Learning Organization (LO) dimensions at all
three levels of the organization. The examined LO dimensions though covered the gist of
various constructs but there are very few empirical studies that focused DLOQs’
implementation and measured employee perceptions at different organizational levels
(Weldy & Gillis, 2010).
Paul and Anantharaman (2004) stated that LO practices do have an impact of
employee development and employee willingness to perform their job roles. According to
Sofo (2007), learning acquired from training sessions is though practically applied and
59
maintained on job tasks in order to enhance the performance and productivity but even
than just approximately 10 percent of the total gain is positively applied on the job tasks.
Employer support for personal development may lead employees to positive response
which results in his engagement and commitment towards their job (Maurer & Lippstreu,
2008). Past studies e.g. Tharenou (2001) paved way for the support provision by the
organization for employee development programs.
Weldy and Gillis (2010) examined the perceptions of 143 employees at different
organizational levels in relation with the seven LO dimensions along with knowledge and
financial performance in four organizations using DLOQ. They concluded after the said
examination that there is a significant difference across organizational levels for two
dimensions, i.e. empowerment and system connections, and six across the whole
organizations except continuous learning. Weldy and Gillis (2010) also analyzed the top
heads' perceptions with reference to the four dimensions of organizational learning by
highlighting two financial performance indicators. Tabatabaei and Ghorbi (2014)
concluded that DLOQ (LOPs) in all three levels, i.e. individual, group and the
organization, have a positive influence on EP in which CL, CTL and EME affects the
most as compared to the rest.
According to DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010), EE mediates the
relationship between LO culture and EP. Employee retention is a critical issue which is
linked to the opportunity of growth and development to the employees (Benson, 2006).
EE and employee retention are closely associated with each other as one decreases the
other increases (Council, 2004). EE can be addressed through various organization
practices for example total rewards (Rumpel & Medcof, 2006), willingness of the
60
organization to address personal and family issues, provision of job recognition,
provision of career advancement opportunities, handsome salary (Smith and Rupp, 2002)
and personal growth, career opportunities, high independence, opportunities to develop
careers, performance based rewards and challenging work assignments (Sutherland,
2004). Thus LOPs cannot fully create positive impact upon employee performance until
EE is addressed positively.
Chawla and Joshi (2011) concluded by taking a sample of 51 respondents, (i.e.
manufacturing IT, IT based services and the services related to the power generation and
distribution) that said industries pointed maximum scores regarding the LOPs. They also
confirmed that the Knowledge Management (KM) dimensions also positively influence
LOs.
Salehzadeh et al. (2014) concluded that Perceived Organizational Support (POS)
carry a strong influence on LOs. They further added by using a random sample of 336
valid employees from SME sector of Nowshahr in Iran, that POS also influence CL,
D&I,TL, ES, EEM, SC and SL. According to Weldy and Gillis (2010), Journey towards
LO for an organization, needs its members at all levels to have an access to information.
He also stated that there is a difference in the perception of organizational members
regarding DLOQ adoption in many organizations.
2.1.6.1 Continuous Learning (CL)
Rosow and Zager (1988) defined CL as evolution in training, following a
continuously learning philosophy where employees put their endeavors from shifting
from formal training to day to day training. Ulrich et al. (1993) stated that the importance
of learning has been enhanced now as compared to the past mindset due to the need of
61
competent workforce, rapid and concurrent changes in the global business environment
and the need for cooperation to be adaptable and competitive. CL defined by
Tannenbaum (1997) as the process by which individual and/or organizational learning is
fostered on an ongoing basis. Ormoneit and White (1999) defined learning as ‘a situation
in which learning occurs uninterrupted’ during the whole operation by addressing the
changes occur in the environment.
Continuous Learning (CL) at individual level is considered as a continuous
changing behavior based on expansion of one’s skills, knowledge, and worldview” (Sessa
& London, 2006). According to Tannenbaum (1997), CL is a process of encouragement
of learning (Individual and Organizational) on an ongoing basis. Another view of CL is
organizational efforts in order to establish CL opportunities for all its members
(Salehzadeh et al., 2014). Learning organizations (LOs) enable managers’ learning
through new experiences instead of making the past experiences their point of
concentration (Ayupp & Perumal, 2008).
Marvin and Flora (2014) provided a description of the organizations as
‘yesterday’s organizations as machine like, today’s as systems like, and the future’s as
brain like’. LOs being brain like organizations must be involved in learning practices.
Continuous Learning (CL) of the employees is becoming more and more critical in this
rapidly changing world of business (Maurer, 2001). Continuous Learning (CL) is said to
be an ongoing (Tannenbaum, 1997) changing behavior of individuals with the mind set
of enhancement of their KSAs (Sessa & London, 2006) to reap better performance
outcomes. Song et al. (2011) examined the clear theoretical considerations in 50 SMEs in
central Korea which resulted in the strongest impact of LOPs on Individual learning.
62
LOs are required to have a capability to connect people and structure following
the track of CL and change (Egan et al., 2004). Importance of CL has been firmly
highlighted by various studies (Addleson, 2000; Porth et al., 1999; Teare & Dealtry,
1998) as a core capability of Learning Organizations (LOs). Continuous Learning (CL)
has become equally important for the employees and the organization in the short and the
long term. Individuals by acquisition of knowledge, potentially lead their organization
towards being competitive in the market. Organizations after understanding the
importance of CL, have put their prime focus upon creation of learning opportunities for
employees while they fulfill their job responsibilities (Rus, Chirica, Ratiu, & Baban,
2014).
Continuous up-gradation in individuals’ KSAs has become necessity for the
organizations’’ success (Maurer & Weiss, 2010). These KSAs are also required to be
focused by the LOs for the performance enhancement of their employees. Managers
agree that learning has become inevitable for the survival of any organization in future
(Berson et al., 2006). Individual interest and acceptance has become the primary drivers
of their learning and this learning may be negatively affected if the issues of fear and
anxiety are not addressed properly (Smith & Tosey, 1999). In order to cope with the
change and ensure employee learning, LOs take multiple proactive measures. LOs create
continuous education opportunities as its primary practice by, 1) considering it as a value
for its employees and the organization itself, 2) practicing knowledge management
approaches, and 3) promoting education in a structured manner (Chinowsky, Molenaar,
& Realph, 2007). Individual learning is confirmed by the organizations when employees
63
apply their knowledge while performing their job duties and come up with some
unexpected positive outcomes (Schon, 1983).
All LO members are required to be involved in CL practices in order to improve
their performance (Gephart et al., 1996; Nadler & Nadler, 1994; Weldy & Gillis, 2010).
Employees’ learning ability is a source of increase in absorption and assimilation of
internal information (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Continuous Learning (CL) is considered
as most critical in order to survive and passively move forward in today’s highly
competitive environments (Adler, 1999; London & Smither, 1999). An LO can
progressively move forward only if its members learn and grow. Rapid changes in the
business world and industry force the LOs to go for updated knowledge and to upgrade
skills set of their employees, considering CL as necessity for them (Gibb, 2001; Hall &
Mirvis, 1995). Skills obsolescence can also be positively handled by LOs only if the CL
mechanism is in place.
More engaged employees bring goodness for their organizations and they use
their discretionary efforts in scrutinizing their organizational goals (Kruse, 2012).
Organizations need to provide due support and importance to their employees to make
them more engaged in their job tasks (Kular, Gatenby, Rees, Soane, & Truss, 2008). A
few empirical study has been made on usefulness of self-learning techniques (Boyce,
Zaccaro, & Wisecarver, 2010) and Self Development (SD), thus need to be explored
further.
For the purpose of analyzing the link between Continuous Learning (CL) and
Employee Performance (EP), the study found various literary evidences as Spreitzer and
Porath (2012) established ongoing learning at job as the most essential factor to create
64
sustainable performance. Mone and London (2009) analyzed that effective coaching is a
sound method and tool for the to provide a support to the employees for their learning
and growth by the managers. They further proposed that the prime areas focused by
coaching are assisting employees in adaptation, improving their performance and
developing their potential. According to Tabatabaei and Ghorbi (2014), EP can be
improved by creating an infrastructure of CL using an integrated system to create an easy
access of information and a mechanism for learning transfer.
2.1.6.2 Dialogue and Inquiry (DI)
Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) is known as the organizational efforts for establishing a
culture of questioning and feedback (Salehzadeh et al., 2014). Learning Organizations
(LOs) focus upon designing the strategies for inquiry and feedback culture within
themselves and doing experimentations (Rus et al., 2014). Deci and Ryan (1987)
suggested the employers/management need to create and uplift a supportive environment
which must show concerns for employee feelings and needs by encouraging them
through a constructive feedback with the solutions of work-related problems. Individuals
attain productive reasoning skills for expression of their views, develop the ability to
listen and inquire into others’ views, i.e. the culture in which organizations encourage
dialogue, feedback and the experimentation (Marvin, 2014). Shand (1999) stated that
dialogue refers to the nitration of team members with each other for the exploration of
possibilities through their existing experiences. Senge (1990) stated,
“Dialogue is a way of helping people ‘see the representative and participatory
nature of thought … to become more sensitive to and make it safe to acknowledge the
65
incoherence in our thought.’ In dialogue, people become observers of their own
thinking”.
According to Pedler and Aspinwall (1996), dialogue is required for the purpose of
maintaining the learning edge. Dialogue can be effective in an environment where
individuals may positively raise their voice regarding their concerns, their respect is
ensured and their contributions are acknowledged and have a facilitator who should
moderate and lead the dialogue session (O’Driscoll, 1999).
Dialogue results in an unbiased feedback and helps in evaluating individuals’ own
opinion along with the opinion of others. According to Hitt (1996), dialogue refers to the
sharing of mental models by the employees. These employees discuss the assumptions
openly taking their mental models. Dialogue according to Senge (1990) is the intended
action for sharing the views with others. Dialogue may be one of the reasons of
organizational activity enhancement (Smith, 2001) and facilitate in taking right decision.
Employees get themselves involved in dialogue and Inquiry to be more productive in
pursuing their vision and so for their organization.
Stamps (1997) stated that communication significantly contributes in establishing
LOs in accordance with the views of Barker and Camarata (1998). Dialogue and Inquiry
(DI) are closely associated with knowledge sharing which is done by reducing
communication barriers and ultimately clear the passage for individuals and organization
for achieving success (Chinowsky et al., 2007). Employee participation in decision
making is provided using D&I and is very much needed in Learning Organization (LO)
creation.
66
According to Sudharatna and Li (2004b), LOs ensure communication, i.e. forward
and backward flow of information (Beck, 1989) among the organizational members in
order to confirm learning. Page-West-III and Dale-Meyer (1997) suggested that a sound
communication network in an organization encourages learning by giving its member
access to the existing tacit knowledge and enable them to create new one. Two way
communication between bosses/ and employees and among employees, allows advanced
knowledge development and its meaning within the organization (Nesan & Holt, 2002;
Stambaugh, 1995).
Feedback is known as the backbone of individual or group learning. In LOs the
communication mechanism is established keeping in view the vertical and horizontal
feedback. Tyson (2003) specified the importance of open dialogue with the team
members which could be quite helpful for the managers. The investigations made to
consider the relationship between D&I and EE, found many evidences. Guest (2014a)
stated that one of the points in engagement agenda is to be sure about extensive and
effective communication because of the proven fact of the association of communication
with engagement. Guest further stated that steps should be taken to encourage self-
efficacy through careful feedback, guidance and coaching for effective work engagement.
(Mone, Eisinger, Guggenheim, Price, & Stine, 2011) found that constructive feedback
brings more in terms of engagement to the employees (Maslach & Leiter, 1997).
Keeping in view the critical nature of communication Wyatt (2006) analyzed EE
and its drivers and found that, the communication creates a clear difference in EE. Highly
engaged employees communicate with their bosses more frequently as compared to the
low engaged employees. Past studies suggested that consistent feedback from the
67
supervisors and recurrent recognition and acknowledgement enable employees to be
more engaged by building up trust and loyalty (Lockwood, 2007). Studies (Mone,
Eisinger, et al., 2011; Mulvey & Jr., 2002) stated that managers are required to provide
timely feedback to their employees which is positive and constructive for getting
enhanced performance objectives. Feedback and coworkers’ support if is useful, can
increase employee creativity (Lasrado, Arif, & Rizvi, 2015) which ultimately leads to an
enhanced employee performance.
2.1.6.3 Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL)
CTL occurs where common purpose and shared vision are in place. Teamwork as
one of the dimensions of LOs includes teamwork and co-operation skills that ensure the
effective use of teams (Awasthy & Gupta, 2012). Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, (2008)
referred LOs as platform for knowledge creation to its management fit for its employees.
Team Learning (TL) refers to the incorporation of the wholesome synergy into
organization learning (Amidon, 2005) by broadening the canvas of looking beyond
individual perspectives. Individuals with positive interpersonal communications with
their fellows on the job, experience better sense in their work (Locke & Taylor, 1990.
Rus et al. (2014) also ensured that Learning Organizations (LOs) encourage teamwork
culture by providing opportunities for collaboration and learning.
Importance of teams in LOs has been recognized in past studies (Watkins and
Marsick, 1993, 1996) as Senge (1990) put Team Learning (TL) as highly required for
transformation of collective thinking skills to develop a synergized intelligence and
capabilities. Marvin (2014) stated that work role is designed to employ teams to gauge
diverse thinking modes by learning and working together. Watkins and Marsick (1993)
68
confirmed that collaboration is considered very important by organizational culture and
rewarded.
Collaboration and team learning (CTL) is of grave importance for achieving
Employee Engagement (EE) objectives. Team and co-worker relationship accentuates the
‘interpersonal harmony’ aspect of Employee Engagement (EE) (Anitha, 2014).
According to Cho, Song, Yun, and Lee (2013), to be an adaptive organization, employees
should develop creative capabilities and HRM systems of the organization is required to
facilitate collaborative activities and should promote knowledge transfer opportunities
within the workplace (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Workplace relationships influence
significantly the meaningfulness which is considered as one of the components of
engagement (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). In order to get maximum employee
satisfaction, engagement and performance outcomes, collaboration and team learning is
ensured in LOs as Anitha (2014) stated that if employees are in good terms with their co-
workers, their engagement would be possibly high. In a work environment employees
should be encouraged to interact with one emotionally for the purpose of achieving high
levels of engagement. Tharenou (1997) stated that support from the managers/supervisors
and peers, is the most contributing factor for individuals’ motivation to make them look
for the developmental opportunities. According to MacLeod and Clarke (2009),
communication is considered as a critical factor for EP using the route of EE by
highlighting the internal communication necessary for enhanced engagement and
Employee Performance.
69
2.1.6.4 Embedded Systems (ES)
Fiol and Lyles (1985) stated that organizations develop and maintain their
learning systems which create impact upon their immediate members and transmitted to
others. They further analyzed that like human beings, organizations don not possess
brains but they have their own cognitive systems. Organizations are taken as a goal
driven adaptive system, if learning as an adaptive process is in place (Levitt & March,
1988).
LOs always need a system that should capture and share learning for the purpose
of creating, maintaining, and integrating new information (Tippins & Sohi, 2003) or a
system that takes and share learning for better organizational performance through
people’s access to relevant important information and critical knowledge (Song et al.,
2009). Embedded Systems (ES) highlight the efforts for system establishment to its
acquisition (Salehzadeh et al., 2014). Learning Organizations (LOs) keenly build
innovative systems to capture shared learning within them (Rus et al., 2014). Marvin
(2014) observed that even if OL is supported by individual learning, it is the way the
organizations do business, the systems put in place that favor learning.
According to Kim and Callahan (2013), Embedded System (ES) refers to a
systems that captures and shares learning in which technological systems are developed
for the collection, sharing, and preserving whatever is learned for integrating learning
with work in the organizations.
2.1.6.5 System Connections (SC)
Kim and Callahan (2013) described SC as organizational connections to its
environment in which employees are facilitated to develop an understanding regarding
70
the impact of their work role on the environment, i.e. internal and external, and in which
organizations adjust their work practices as the environment changes. Learning
Organizations (LOs) behave as they are capable enough to examine and link their both
internal and external environment (Rus et al., 2014). System Connections (SC) refers to
the global thinking and organizational moves of connection between internal and external
environmental conditions (Salehzadeh et al., 2014). Studies (Gravin, 1993; Song et al.,
2009) revealed that organizations, for the purpose of surviving in a highly competitive
market, need to have a system in place for learning (capture and share) for the purpose of
increasing their adaptability.
2.1.6.5 Employee Empowerment (EEM)
Empowerment is defined as assigning authority to someone for doing something
by his own. Conger and Kanungo (1988) stated that empowerment generally leads the
employees to produce better behavioral outcomes. Importance of EEM cannot be avoided
due to its potential effects on the outcomes which undoubtedly benefit both individuals
and the organizations (Han, Moon, & Yun, 2009). Due to the enhancing interest of
practitioners and theorists (Moye & Henkin, 2006; Moye, Henkin, & Egley, 2005),
studies focused empowerment for effective decision making and enriching employees’
work experience (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000).
Empowerment, enables the organizations to create a commonly shared vision and
to get feedback from its employees (Salehzadeh et al., 2014). Learning Organizations
(LOs) involve individuals in setting and implementing collective vision in order to
achieve its overall goals by making them part of their decision making process (Rus et
al., 2014). Being trusted while performing their job roles, gives a sense of pride (Chow,
71
Lo, Sha, & Hong, 2006) may also lead the employees to perform better. Watkins and
Marsick (1993) contended that in an LO, individuals focus upon their joint vision.
People are given responsibilities close to the decision making for the purpose of
motivation to learn what they are accountable for. Marvin (2014) examined that LOs rely
upon the participation of many individuals in a collective vision and on the release of the
potential locked within them. Empowered employees positively connect the system with
its environment since they can build authentic and lasting relationships (Argyris. &
Schon, 1996; Lipshitz, Friedman, & Popper, 2007)
According to Jamali et al. (2006), Duvall (1999) narrated that the planned and
organized efforts are being put and empowerment programs are being introduced by
many organizations to introduce to be competitive in the market. Employee
Empowerment (EEM) though is claimed by all LO and the organizations in transition
phase of becoming LOs, but in spirit is not done especially in the third world countries
like Pakistan. Dymock and McCarthy (2006) proposed that EEM may be a reason of
tension for the organization because at the same time describing to them about their
future employment rely on their continuous learning capacity which either would go for
their aspirations or organizational profitability. Employees are empowered and are
provided with tools to be on track by the effective and efficient managers.
Employee Empowerment (EEM) has been studied in the past in diverse
perspectives like organizational attribute and individual psychological attributes. Thomas
and Velthouse (1990) identified that though the interest of the researchers increased in
empowerment, there is still need to work upon the psychological measures of
empowerment in a work environment. He states that Psychological empowerment
72
stimulates internally to the employees and makes them feel confident and ultimately
brings job satisfaction and work effectiveness. Spreitzer (2007) found that employees
having experience of empowerment are known as psychologically empowered
(Vacharakiat, 2008). Spreitzer (1995) interpreted in his study that psychological
empowerment is a motivational construct and can be revealed in four cognitions:
meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Chow et al., 2006; Moye &
Henkin, 2006). These cognitions suggest employees' orientation in their work and are
linked with positivity of the results (Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2009; G. M. Spreitzer,
Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). According to Conger and Kanungo (1988), empowerment
directs employees moving towards the execution of their important behavioral outcomes
as it improves self-efficacy and adaptability (Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Employee Empowerment if promoted by the organizations positively, is believed
to increase employee satisfaction (Berlowitz et al., 2003). According to Relf (1995),
employees with active participation in decision making feel more engaged which result in
increased satisfaction and decreased turnover rates. EEM is a driver of increasing
employees’ self-efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1998) which leads them to enhanced
performance outcomes. Moreover, it also leads the employees to be more adaptive (Scott
& Bruce, 1994) as the LOs have to embrace change in a continuous manner.
2.1.6.6 Strategic Leadership (SL)
Leadership is one of the characteristics of the LO which can be defined as the
ability to lead the organizations which should incorporate new knowledge into the
organization, encourage experimentation and provide shared vision to the employees
proactively (Chinowsky et al., 2007). Leadership is considered as one of the most vital
73
feature of LOs. According to Somerville and McConnell-Imbriotis (2004), leadership is
highly emphasized in LOs and the link between leadership and LOs is quite complex.
Leaders are required to support their employees or followers in an organization regarding
their learning. Systems thinking and system dynamics are primarily focused by the
leaders for individual and organizational facilitation (Stata, 1989). Strategic Leadership
(SL), refers to the long term thinking of the leaders regarding learning for the purpose of
establishing changes and organizational advancement towards new direction (Awasthy &
Gupta, 2012; Salehzadeh et al., 2014).
According to Burns (1978), leaders view and perform on their own along with the
values and aspirations of their followers. Leaders are the real drivers of LOs as they bear
with the change, environmental complexities, process reviews and equal opportunity
challenges for the employees (Rebelo & Gomes, 2008). Leadership performs a variety of
actions which may take the organization on LO track, i.e. teamwork (Ulrich et al., 1993),
employee empowerment and risk taking (Locke & Jain, 1995). Starkey (1996)
highlighted the role of leadership in relation to learning. A top down approach has been
found in past studies of LOs which provide basis for the importance of the leadership role
in LOs.
Senge (1996) also pointed out the role of leadership in LOs to create and
accomplish its vision. Learning Organizations (LOs) do have a plans to meet future
changes regarding strategic leadership for the learning (Rus et al., 2014). Leadership
mindset of providing incentives and Training and Development opportunities to their
employees and ensuring quality services to the clients is enough to be a LO (Govaerts et
al., 2011) but the overall leadership behavior influences employees (Guri-Rosenblit,
74
2005) with the strategic mindset. Leadership of an LO is also required to provide
direction and shared understanding to their employees to support learning environment
there (Hannah & Lester, 2009).
According to Montuori (2000), leader should be an influential decision maker as
Senge (1990) stated that leaders in an LO should act like a teacher, a designer and a
change agent. Leaders in LOs infuse among employees a transparent and shared sense of
the objectives to persuade teamwork, empowerment investigation and risk taking (Locke
& Jain, 1995). Leader in LOs provide role model for the learning of their employees to
improve and encourage experimental culture (Gephart et al., 1996; Goh, 1998; Popper &
Lipshitz, 2000). Leaders in LOs develop employees by positively scanning organizational
environment (Johnson, 1998) and empower their employees (Nesan & Holt, 2002).
Sudharatna and Li (2004a) stated that leadership commitment and empowerment plays
pivotal role in the development of LOs. They are liable to communicate organizational
missions and goals to all the members to ensure their direction. Kim and Callahan (2013)
put emphasis on examination of the dynamic relationship between Leadership for
Learning and dimensions of LO.
Anitha (2014) analyzed that studies like Wallace and Trinka (2009) confirmed the
relationship of inspiring leadership with EE. Garvin et al., (2008), narrated three features;
environmental support, Learning process and practice focus and behavior of the
leadership as LO dimensions. SL can create a learning environment by promoting D&I
within an organization (Carter & Greer, 2013; Vera & Crossan, 2004). Transformational
leadership increases performance of the employees addressing his work engagement and
engaged employees in response perform better towards their own and organizational
75
goals (Babcock-Roberson, Elaine, & Strickland, 2010; Zhang, Avery, Bergsteiner, &
More, 2014). Guest (2014a) stated that supportive leadership leads towards enhanced
engagement as one of its antecedents. Importance of leadership has been recognized in
terms of their treatment with the individuals by Farmery (2013) who stated that any
organization can announce its people as its important asset, however great leaders truly
understand that companies succeed through people”.
Zhang et al. (2014) concluded by using questionnaire survey from 439 retail sales
assistants in Sydney, Australia that visionary and organic leadership paradigms contribute
towards enhanced EE unlike traditional (e.g. classical and transactional) leadership styles
negatively affect EE.
According to Phillips (2002), HR scholars and practitioners have emphasized
upon the engagement of human resource professionals in organizational change. Lisa A
Boyce et al. (2010) suggested the need of more related studies to evaluate the
contribution of self-help activities towards leadership competency development and the
associated conditions. Boyce et al., (2010) assessed organizational support levels in the
garb of the leader self-development guidance tool supposedly offered by the organization.
Organizations that create opportunities for employee learning can be considered as
learning oriented organization.
In today’s volatile environment where change is inevitable, a successful leader is
the one who transforms himself (Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001). According to
Agarwal, Angst, and Magni (2009), a coach (leader) if is flexible, will surely increase
individuals’ Job Performance.
76
2.1.7 Learning Organization (LO) Measurement Tools
Garvin (1993) expressed that learning until is measured cannot be useful for the
employers. According to Kontoghiorghes et al. (2005), instruments regarding
identification of LO characteristics have been developed in different studies (M. J.
Marquardt, 1996; V. J. Marsick & K. E. Watkins, 1999; Mayo & Lank, 1994; Pedler,
Boydell, & Burgoyne, 1988; Pedler et al., 1991a; Scott I Tannenbaum, 1997) to examine
LOs along with their dimensions. Kontoghiorghes et al. (2005) further stated that there is
still dearth of such tools which have been recognized through scientific testing and
ensured as reliable and valid (Nonaka, Byosiere, Borucki, & Konno, 1994). Many
instruments have been used in the past studies for measurement of LOs as LO Survey
(LOS) by Garvin et al. (2008), Learning Environment Questionnaire (LEQ) (Armstrong
& Foley, 2003), Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ)
(Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Nthurubele, 2011; O’Neil, 2003), Learning Company
Questionnaire (LCQ) (Watkins & Marsick, 1997), Learning Climate Questionnaire
(LCQ) by (Pearn, Mulrooney, & Roderick., 1995), Learning Performance Index (LPI) by
Conference Board of Canada. The said Instruments measure LO practices and use likert-
type scale. LO studies can be facilitated to great extend using these tools.
Watkins and Golembiewski (1995) explored that the concept of learning may be
applied in individual and can be expanded to teams, organizations and then communities.
Marsick and Watkins (2003) explained that LO concept revolves around people and
structure and can be measured through Continuous Learning (CL), Inquiry and Dialogue
(ID), Collaboration and Team learning (CTL), People Empowerment (PE),
Environmental Connection (EC) and Strategic Leadership (SL). Griego et al. (2000) have
77
put two diagnostic tools to expound key practices as predictor of an LO (Marquardt,
1996), i.e. LO profile and LOPs profile. LO in relation with LO profile, includes five
subsystems which are learning dynamics, organization transformation, people
empowerment, knowledge management processes and information systems (Marah,
Khadra, & Rawabdeh, 2006).
Moilanen (2001) developed instrument for LOs’ assessment and evaluated eight
existing diagnostic tools. The LO diamond tool was founded on LO as a structure of
interrelated elements at both individual and the organizational level. When compared
other instruments with DLOQ developed by Watkins and Marsick (1998), the study
found it most comprehensive to be applied in telecommunication sector organizations of
Pakistan.
Rao (2011) analyzed that the adaptable organizations are capable enough to create
a sustainable competitive advantage. LOs ensure its members’ learning and transform
itself in a continuous manner. LO related empirical studies in the past focused upon
individuals, teams, and organization-level issues, workplace learning, novel management
practices, measurement systems, and LO characteristics. The said study was conducted in
three Indian organizations with their presence globally by using a diagnostic tool to
identify their LO related strengths and weaknesses for developing an improvement action
plans. Rao (2011) proposed the process of LO construct development using the
Diagnostic Tool for Learning Organization (DTLO). Validation of DTLO has been
confirmed empirically and the said tool has been proposed to other Indian organizations.
The study also highlighted the need for implementation of LO Characteristics.
78
Many theories and diagnostic tools in relation with DLOQ have been developed
in the past (Moilanen, 2001). The first diagnostic tool developed by Pedler et al. (1991a),
hypothesized eleven practices of the learning organization in British companies.
Characteristics incorporated in the model of the learning organization except for learning
management and leadership (Moilanen, 2001). Some models in the studies mainly
included leadership or managerial function as a prime LO characteristic (Marsick &
Watkins, 2003; Moilanen, 2005; Preskill & Torres, 1999). Later on many LO
characteristics were identified in the past studies which were linked with DLOQ.
Various past studies have tested predictive validity (Hernandez & Watkins, 2003)
and the construct validity (Egan et al., 2004; Yang et al., 2004; Zhang, et al, 2014) of the
DLOQ in different cultures i.e. USA, China, Colombia and Taiwan etc. According to
Song & Chermack, (2008), many constructs have been measured with DLOQ to confirm
its applicability. (Salehzadeh et al., 2014) relate that DLOQ had a proper validity for LO
measurement. Watkins and Dirani (2013) analyzed that what has been learned in the past
decade using DLOQ in connection with cultures, ranks, and industries. DLOQ Watkins &
Marsick, (1993) can be employed to assess the organizations’ adoption of practices and
actions associated with the seven action imperatives (Lien et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2004).
DLOQ model primarily focus upon the enhanced learning capacity by
transforming its proposed seven practices. Watkins and Marsick (1997) narrated DLOQ
as a diagnostic tool to measure the learning practices and culture of the organizations.
DLOQ addressed financial and knowledge performance in relation with the flexibility of
the organizations. Yang et al. (2004) investigated and found it a valid and reliable tool for
LOs because of its extensive testability by dozens of past researchers.
79
2.2 Employee Engagement (EE)
According to a study (Keeble-Ramsay & Armitage, 2014), EE studies were quite
limited prior to 2000 but EE has many faces now (Truss, Shantz, Soane, Alfes, &
Delbridge, 2013) and the term has been broadened in its meanings and significance.
Johnson (2004) prediction about ability of development of EE as a core reason of tackling
competition in coming 10 years has been proved true. EE concept is gaining momentum
in research especially in the areas of business management, psychology and
organizational behavioral (Xu & Thomas, 2011). Employee Engagement (EE) is a
popular concept among practitioners (William H. Macey & Schineider, 2008; Malinen,
Wright, & Cammock, 2013; Saks, 2006; Van, L., Whitman, Hart, & Caleo, 2011) and
refers to the degree of employee commitment and involvement for its organizational
values (Anitha, 2014).
Operationalization of EE construct has been made in two contexts, i.e. Kahn’s
(1990) view of engagement and the view of Schaufeli, Martínez, Pinto, Salanova, &
Bakker (2002). Kahn views EE as concurrent employment and individual's preferred self-
expression in task behaviors which promotes associations with the job and with others,
personal presence (physical, cognitive and emotional), and the role performance whereas
Schaufeli et al. views EE as conceptual opposite of burnout and as a state of mind with
positive fulfilment and is categorized by vigor, dedication and absorption. According to
Coffman, Gonzalez-Molina, and Gopal (2002), EE is something which is changeable and
can be differentiated broadly from one place to another.
Nelson and Simmons (2003) defined EE as a situation in which employees feel
positive emotions towards their job roles, considering it personally meaningful,
80
manageable and secure in future. (Baumruk, 2004; Richman, 2006; Shaw, 2005) defined
EE as the emotional or intellectual commitment of an employee to his organization. EE
can contribute to the company’s survival (Song, Kolb, Lee, & Kim, 2012) . According to
Jelena (2007), future’s best organizations will be segregated considering engagement
support knowledge base and learning potential development on different organizational
levels.
According to Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) engagement can be
bifurcated into three states, i.e. cognitive, behavioral and emotional. Macey & Schineider
(2008) stated EE as a combination of trait, state and behavior aspects along with the
situational facets. According to Development-Dimensions-International (2005),
engagement is the degree of people’s enjoyment and believing in whatever they do and
feel valued for doing it. EE can also be considered as one of the measure of job
involvement (James K Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Albrecht (2010) took EE as a
positive psychological state at work which is categorized by a willingness to add to the
success of an organization. Fearon, McLaughlin, and Morris (2013) referred Wildermuth
and Pauken (2008) who ensured EE investigation as a driver of performance. In the
context of HRD, Brad Shuck and Wollard (2010) defined engagement as an individual’s
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state heading to the required outcomes of the
organization.
People are considered as the most un-imitable and valuable assets if managed and
engaged positively. Studies (Anitha, 2014; Loehr & Schwartz, 2005) declared wholly
engaged workers are physically energized, emotionally linked, mentally focused, and
associated with agency purpose. Report presented by UK Government in the year 2011
81
states that Employee Engagement (EE) has gained visible popularity among practitioners
and HR professional bodies especially in UK and USA and is reasonably supported by
their governments. EE as an enormously appealing process (Kahn, 2010) for Learning
Organizations play the role of mediator for employee performance outcomes. Employee
Engagement (EE) gained popularity among practitioners between the era 1999-2005 and
gained importance in research in last 8 years due to the extension in it with its potential
forms (Welch, 2011). Rumbles and Rees (2013) stated that studies have identified that
not more than 20 percent of managers be given training about how to engage with and
bring out the best in people.
According to Gallup (2012), it is quite rare to achieve high levels of engagement
though EE is linked with broad benefits to the organizations (Harter, Schmidt, Killham,
& Agarwal, 2009). There is no universally accepted definition of EE (Truss et al., 2013).
Conceptualization of Employee Engagement (EE) has been initiated by Kahn (1990) by
decomposing it into three parts i.e. employees’ physical, cognitive, and emotional
involvement in his work role. Ferrer (2005) further elaborated these as engaged
employees are those who physically do their job tasks, are attentive cognitively and
emotionally driven towards their job tasks and people in their surroundings. Engagement
then has been studied by Maslach and Leiter (1997) and Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter
(2001) with a different approach, i.e. Burnout. This side of engagement conceptualization
came up with three burnout dimensions, i.e. exhaustion, cynicism and sense of inefficacy.
This approach pointed out the scores on the said dimensions which are low for exhaustion
and criticism and high for efficacy would result in three job engagement characteristics
like energy, involvement, and efficacy (Leea & Ok, 2015).
82
Schaufeli, et al. (2002) presented another view of Employee Engagement (EE) i.e.
Job Engagement and Burnout are inversely related to each other. Schaufeli, Taris, &
Rhenen (2008) stated that work engagement concept evolved from the concept burnout as
an effort of investigating employees’ unwell-being and well-being. They characterized
engagement by Vigor (Physical energy, emotional strength & will of putting efforts),
dedication (sense of significance, pride & challenge) and absorption (deep job
involvement from which detachment is not easy) (Leea & Ok, 2015). Schaufeli, et al.
(2008) studied engagement in organizational behavior context. Xu and Thomas (2010)
highlighted two main approaches of EE, i.e. 1) (Kahn, 1990, 1992) psychological
conditions of engagement, and 2) Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R) which states
consecutive job resources lead towards engagement (Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen,
2007). Inadequate literature on EE still creates confusion about its conceptualization. EE
concept overlaps past studies into organization citizenship, satisfaction, commitment and
emotions yet it relates to job related attitude (Keeble-Ramsay & Armitage, 2014; Wilmar
B Schaufeli, 2013).
Gruman and Saks (2011) described another recent approach, i.e. Job Demands–
Resources (JD-R) model in which they stated that JD addressed physical, psychological
and social sides of job in relation with physiological or psychological costs to achieve
work goals. Job resources become the reason of motivational process which can be
derived from interpersonal and social relations among supervisors, colleagues, and teams,
organization of work and from the task itself (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Gruman &
Saks, 2011). Job Resource (JR) being intrinsic (due to the features of growth, learning,
83
and development) and extrinsic (due to external work goals focus) can lead to
motivational potential of the employee (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Past studies investigated that engaged employees are more motivated to work
safely unlike non-engage employees who are inclined towards burnout (Gonzalez-Roma,
Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011). According
to Taleo-Research (2009) more engaged employee perform 100% more than the less
engaged employee and Harter et al., (2009) stated that those organizations are expected to
be more successful that are above average in EE. Moreover, the teams that have low
engagement left behind from highly engaged teams in relation with the performance
related cost which was in excess (Lockwood, 2007) and due to high EE with more job
focus, cost of production decreases (Perrin, 2003). Devi (2009) stated that an
organization which attracts, engages and builds long term loyalty among the talented
members is a prime factor of success in today’s modern globalized world. Management
these days, is increasing its focus on Employee Engagement (EE) due to its role in
attaining varied objectives (Jenkins & Delbridge, 2013; Purcell, 2012). Engagement at
work primarily need physical, emotional and psychological resources (Kahn, 1990;
Sonnentag, 2003). Sambrook, Jones, and Doloriert (2014) mentioned studies that invite
researchers to dig out organizational internal activities to improve EE (Christian, Garza,
& Slaughter, 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; Kular et al., 2008). Truss et al. (2013) confirmed
that now studies are being conducted upon the said gap.
Studies present varied views regarding importance of EE as Schaufeli & Salanova
(2007) put it as it is needed for contemporary organizations for meeting the challenges.
Macey, Schneider, & Barbera (2009) proposed it for real competitive advantage for the
84
organizations. EE as a reason of individual performance and then organization
performance has been mainly focused in research paradigm (Richman, 2006). EE is
deteriorating (Bates, 2004; Richman, 2006) in totality because of not being addressed
positively by the organizations. Studies (Bates, 2004; Johnson, 2004) also pointed out the
engagement gaps in USA business world. EE being relatively new phenomena is defined
differently by the researchers with a single commonality in all i.e. its desirability. As
(Harter et al., 2002) phrased EE as involvement and satisfaction and enthusiasm of
individuals in their job tasks. Others defined it as opposite pole of burnout (Leiter &
Maslach, 2000), conceptual opposite of burnout with independent consideration (Wilmar
B. Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Roma, & Bakker, 2002), absorption in job roles
(Rothbard, 2001), investment of self in work activities Schaufeli & Salanova (2007),
harnessing of employees selves to their job roles in which they perform physically,
cognitively, and emotionally by themselves (Kahn, 1990) and psychological presence of
individuals in their work roles focusing upon their selves (Kahn, 1992).
Three dimensions proposed by Kahn (1990) are same like Physical engagement as
vigor, emotional engagement as dedication and cognitive engagement as absorption
presented in a conceptual model as under.
85
Figure 5 The EE concept and internal corporate communication: a conceptual model
Source: Welch (2011)
However, overlapping of engagement constructs and differential relationships
(Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Newman & Harrison, 2008; Wefald
& Downey, 2009) make this concept more chaotic but broad. Study found inconsistency
among EE definitions and its measurement (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014; James K Harter et
al., 2002; Kahn, 1990; William H Macey & Schneider, 2008; Maslach et al., 2001;
Masson, Royal, Agnew, & Fine, 2008) and tried to put these in line with Kahn’s (1990)
concept as base line which states categorically that EE is a state in which people adjust
themselves in their work activities’ performance (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, &
Schaufeli, 2009). The difference must be addressed before researching on EE whether to
take it as a trait or state as Schaufeli et al. (2002) addressed it as a trait and Kahn (1992)
put it as a behavioral and psychological state.
86
Gruman and Saks (2011) analyzed that some recent studies also quoted EE as a
state-like phenomenon e.g. (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). The study conceptualized
Engagement as a state with Psychological expression using its three dimensions, i.e.
Physical, cognitive and emotional (Kahn, 1990). Kahn (1990) addressed the provided
psychological states by their scale development and assessment. Following Kahn’s
(1990) approach, strong correlation among meaningfulness, safety and engagement has
been found (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004).
A related study adopted Kahn’s (1990) concept of engagement because of the
provision of conceptually strong basis of EE. EE was found significant and successfully
operationalized in a large survey with 2000 participants in UK in the year 2006 (Welch,
2011). Brad Shuck and Wollard (2010) following Kahn’s 1990 view of engagement
stated that the option to stating one’s authentic self has been admitted as the emotional,
social and physical act of engagement. Sambrook et al. (2014) concluded that various
engagement studies followed the track of William Kahn and cited his proposed
characteristics of engagement and factors (personal and organizational) facilitating it but
a few went for the implications of his recommendations of research approaches that are
able to get at the depth of engagement.
Employee Engagement concepts Roof (2013) gained prime importance for HR
consulting firms with their practitioner focus but were deficient with theoretical
foundation and empirical evidence (William H. Macey & Schineider, 2008; Saks, 2006).
Roof (2013) also exemplified Gallup Workplace Audit despite being the most recognized
engagement surveys encountered with intense criticism due to the missing factors of its
outcomes measurement. According to Soni (2013), the ability to achieve high
87
performance levels with enhanced business outcomes is strongly associated with
organizations’ capacity to manage employee engagement. She further stated that a highly
engaged employee is highly expected to progressively deliver more than the expectations.
Gallup (2006), defined three types of employees using the context of engagement
i.e. engaged (working with passion and feel), not engaged (sleepwalking without energy
and passion) and actively disengaged (being unhappy at work and negatively affect other
engaged co-workers). Some other studies (Lockwood, 2006; Woodruffe, 2006) also
confirmed the link of EE with employee performance and organizational commitment.
They also stated that links of EE with performance, (whether Individual or
organizational) have been established in the past studies.
2.2.1 Key Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Engagement (EE)
According to Nishii and Wright (2008), employee perceptions regarding
organizational HR practices greatly affect employee behavior which lead them towards
varying attitudes and behaviors. Engagement in association with employees' behavior,
attitude, can enhance the success in their job outcomes (Andrew & Sufian, 2012). EE
primarily deals with the attitudes and behaviors in performance context. Engagement
concept has been brought in the lime light around two decades ago (Simpson, 2009) and
is being extensively worked upon by HRD scholars currently (Kim, Kolb, & Kim, 2012;
Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012; Soane et al., 2012). HRD studies highlighted cognitive,
emotional and behavioral engagement (Song et al., 2012).
Multiple antecedents and outcomes have been analyzed in meta-analysis studies
(Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010). Peccei (2013) analyzed the findings of the
meta-analyses with the conclusion that Engagement carry a wide range of antecedents
88
and a narrower set of outcomes. Peccei (2013) divided EE antecedents into resources,
demands and individual factors. Rana, Ardichvili, and Tkachenko (2014) stated that
Engagement has been recognized in the literature (Kim et al., 2012; Brad Shuck &
Wollard, 2010) but still consensus is required about the antecedents and outcomes of the
construct. Rana et al. (2014) could not be able to point out studies upon the association of
antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of engagement in single holistic model.
Individual analyses of Engagement drivers differ in research paradigm (Kahn,
1990; Parkes & Langford, 2008). Bhattacharya (2014) stated that the antecedents of
engagement are almost identical in all findings with some marginal differences. Gibbons
(2006) identified 26 factors as antecedents of engagement which ascertain the degree to
which individuals are engaged. These factors have also been analyzed in different studies
(Hewitt-Associates, 2004; White, 2006) out of which the individuals with growth in their
career, learning and development opportunities, working with great people, getting
justifiable pay, having management support, and heaving recognition and respect
(Gibbons, 2008) have been considered as challenging (Choo et al., 2013). Out of the 26
key antecedents (Gibbons, 2008), eight common ones in the related studies were
highlighted, i.e. trust and integrity, line-of-sight between individual and organizational
performance, personal relationship with one’s manager, opportunities for career growth,
organization's pride and employee development.
Cho, Laschinger, and Wong (2006) stated that the provision of better work life
conditions enable the employees to have an enhanced level of commitment and to be
more engaged. According to Bhattacharya (2014), the most common antecedents of
engagement are management practices (Branham & Hirschfeld, 2010; Hewitt-Associates,
89
2004), the immediate manager or supervisor Gibbons (2006), career development and
advancement (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004), recognition and appreciation of
employee contributions (Branham & Hirschfeld, 2010; Perrin, 2003), teamwork and a
supportive working environment (Gibbons, 2006), the nature of the work (Gibbson, 2006;
Mercer 2007), pay, rewards, and benefits (Hewitt, 2013; Mercer, 2007).
Bhattacharya (2014) also highlighted some more drivers of EE that include input
in decision making, constructive feedback, receiving formal appraisals, the
implementation of performance development plans (Dilys Robinson et al., 2004) and
availability of necessary work resources (White, 2011). Moreover, EE antecedents vary
in different countries of the world (ISR, 2004).
Rana et al. (2014) reported low level of EE in many countries Gallup (2013) and
Gallup (2013) exposed a low percentage of employees, (i.e. 13%) in the world engaged
on their job. Figures of disengaged employees quoted in the survey were US 52%
reportedly disengaged and 18% actively disengaged and China 68% reportedly
disengaged and 18% actively disengaged. According to Park et al. (2014), some studies
have been conducted with an objective of investigating the mediating role of work
engagement between LOs and innovative behavior bringing an outcome of positivity with
the recommendation of addressing work engagement for employees’ innovative behavior.
Employee Engagement (EE) in relation with stress has also been explored
(Halbesleben, RB, & Buckley, 2004) which affects employee job involvement (Harter et
al., 2002). Bhatnagar (2007) stated that the role of emotional and cognitive engagement
towards total engagement has also been signified in the previous investigations.
Cognitive Engagement (CE) includes worker’s awareness about his role and Emotional
90
Engagement (EE) involves the intensity of employee understanding of meaningful
connections with his peers (Kahn, 1990, 1992; Luthans & Peterson, 2002) and both of the
said dimensions lead to high overall engagement (Lockwood, 2006; Woodruffe, 2006).
Studies also confirmed the relationship of EE with performance (Lado & Wilson, 1994)
and EE drives productivity and talent retention of the employees.
Highly engaged employees are expected to perform almost double and achieve
their targets (Perrin, 2003; Wyatt, 2006), have lesser absenteeism (Gallup, 2008), and
have higher productivity and profitability and higher bonding with their organization
(Gallup, 2008; Vance, 2006). Links between EE with employee retention (Harter,
Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003; Vance, 2006), employee productivity (Council, 2004), greater
profitability (Harter et al., 2003) has also been confirmed.
David and Barclay (2012) found that feeling of fair treatment can build
individuals’ resources and ability to manage with job demands so the justice perceptions
is closely linked with emotional exhaustion due to the fact that justice fulfills
psychological needs (e.g., control, belonging, and self-esteem) of the employees, which
can enhance their ability to meet the required job objectives (Cropanzano & Wright,
2011). Injustice leads towards psychological withdrawal which is known as the cognitive
disengagement from the work situation (e.g. daydreaming) and physical withdrawal
which refers to behavioral disengagement from the work situation (e.g. leaving work
early) (Lehman & Simpson, 1992). A study concluded that EE is affected by
organizational practices (Choo et al., 2013) which leads towards enhanced employee
performance.
91
Choo et al. (2013) further proposed that organizational characteristics may be
involved as possible antecedents of EE which should be investigated in future. Past
studies proposed that positive attitudes and beliefs in association with EE can be the
outcomes of high involvement in job roles and directs towards enhanced employee
performance (Konrad, 2006).
Some major antecedents and outcomes of Employee Engagement (EE) are as
under:
2.2.1.1 Perceived Organizational Support
Purcell (2012) found that perceived organizational support is a significant
predictor of engagement which leads positively to its antecedents, i.e. fairness, justice and
perception. He further explored that in order to attain fairness, consistent and bias free
procedures, collection of accurate information, mistakes correction mechanism, ethical
standards conformity and affected groups, viewpoint is required. Blader and Tyler (2009)
stated that peoples’ rating about procedures as fair depends heavily upon; if they had a
voice, even if they knew that what they said had little or no influence on the decisions
made. The concept of justice in the organizations according to Folger & Cropanzano
(2001) has been expanded after the introduction of its four types: distributive, procedural,
interactional and informational.
2.2.1.2 Trust
Trust is an individual's expectations, assumptions or beliefs about the probability
of the effects of another’s future actions which may be favorable or at least not harmful
individual's interests’ (Robinson, 1996). Trust upon management has been theorized as a
significant resource for supporting employee performance (Chughtai & Buckley, 2008).
92
Low trust level in management is linked with higher levels of turnover (Aryee, Budhwar,
& Chen, 2002; Y. Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Connell, Ferres, & Travaglione,
2003; Hopkins & Weathington, 2006; G. W. Watson & Papamarcos, 2002). According to
Malinen et al. (2013) employee trust upon management, at the time of uncertainty, affects
EE in an organization. High employee trust in management enables employees expect
wise business decisions (Malinen et al., 2013). High trust levels make employees to pay
more heed upon their daily job tasks (Mayer & Gavin, 2005) which is assumed to
increase work engagement (Kahn, 1990).
Trust is the key for linking four forms of justice together in order to meet the
expectations of the employees (Purcell, 2012). The factor of; trust in management, should
be considered important for each of the eight major occupations in occupational analysis
studied (Purcell, Kinnie, Swart, Rayton, & Hutchinson, 2009). Trust is required to be
created by the leaders who must have the abilities to treat people with respect and
honesty (Hope-Hailey, Searle, & Dietz, 2012).
Arkin (2011) stated that trust deficit between people at the bottom and the top of
organizations is hiking which is identified as an engagement gap (Saks, 2006). In order to
enhance Employee Engagement, the factor of trusting upon management plays a vital
role in forming an overall organizational climate (Rees, Alfes, Gatenby, Soane, & Truss,
2013). Chughtai, Byrne, & Flood, (2014) explored that positive trust in supervisor may
increase work engagement as employees invest their time, energy and resources into their
jobs and expect to be recognized and rewarded justly (William H. Macey & Schineider,
2008).
93
2.2.1.3 Culture
According to Lockwood (2007) bureaucratic behavior in the organizations
becomes one of the major reason of stress among employees and decrease their
engagement. Identical engagement techniques (Kular et al., 2008) are required to be
tested first in varied cultures due to their importance as a critical antecedent for
engagement. The organizational culture and climate may affect levels of engagement in
an organization. The organizational culture, according to McBain (2007) acts as a driver
of EE. Suharti and Suliyanto (2012) emphasized the importance of organizational culture
that ideally should include: openness, supportive attitude, sound and communication
mechanism between the organizations and its employees. Corporate culture has also been
emphasized for the creation of employee loyalty. The enhanced loyalty leads the
employees towards high engagement in their job tasks.
2.2.1.4 Justice
According to Anitha (2014), Saks (2006) pointed out procedural justice and
distributive justice as antecedents of EE along with characteristics of the job, perceived
support of the supervisor and the organization and rewards and recognition. Employees’
perception regarding PJ (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004) drives engagement. The
link of fairness, perceptions and engagement is also confirmed (Inoue et al., 2010) as well
as the difference in justice perception types related to engagement (Saks, 2006). Saks
(2006) also stated that the employees with greater justice are expected to have more
organizational engagement. Organizational justice refers to the fairness at work
(Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001; Rasheed, Khan, & Ramzan, 2013) which
94
ultimately leads to more engagement by the employees towards their job roles and their
organizations.
2.2.1.5 Communication System
EE is determined (CIPD, 2007) by the opportunities for upwards feedback,
effective consultation and communication systems and the commitment of the mangers.
Open communication along with the skills to influence decision making process have
been said as prime factors to drive EE (Robinson et al., 2004). Organizational
communication primarily emphasize upon involving individual employees, groups and
organization in totality to create a common interest and cooperation (Clampitt & Downs,
1987). The organization communication mechanism (Ridder, 2004) acts as an important
tool for employees’ facilitation. As organizations should be considered as communicating
entities, Clegg, Kornberger, and Pitsis (2011), and Trahant (2008) have shown strong
correlation between employee communication and organizational performance.
2.2.1.6 Individual Characteristics
Individual characteristics may also have an impact on EE as (Kahn, 1990) the
individual differences may affect their job role or job performance by being personally
engaged or disengaged. Employees carry varying assumptions along with different
characteristics which result in carried behavioral outcomes (Brad Shuck & Wollard,
2010). These characteristics may heavily create an influence upon employee engagement
(B Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2010). Various studies proposed different characteristics
that may influence EE as proactive personality (William H. Macey & Schineider, 2008)
like: the drive for self-actualization (B Shuck et al., 2010), self-efficacy, high
achievement orientation, and proactivity (Fleck & Inceoglu, 2010), self-efficacy, self-
95
esteem, positivity, (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) and self-efficacy, self-esteem, and
resilience (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). The engagement is viewed as something driven
by the organization instead of considering it as something which is under employees’
control (Francis, Holbeche, & Reddington, 2012).
Inoue et al. (2010), found a positive link between procedural justice perceptions
and work engagement. A study by the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development
found that perceived managerial fairness in dealing with problems was not related to
engagement. EE literature has practitioners’ influence (V. Gupta & S. Kumar, 2013) and
past studies lack this area of investigation (Bhatnagar, 2007). Due to the availability of
limited literature on EE, its conceptualization faces the dilemma of chaos. Another
critique highlighted (V. Gupta & S. Kumar, 2013) EE research overlapped with some
other related constructs e.g. job involvement, commitment and motivation though past
studies have confirmed EE different from the construct of commitment, involvement and
motivation conceptually (Bhatnagar, 2007; Saks, 2006). Some studies have started
exploring the dark side of engagement (Bakker & Leiter, 2010). Halbesleben, Harvey, &
Bolino (2009) confirmed the association of engagement interference with life outside
work which is moderated by conscientiousness. High engagement levels may affect
recovery times (Sonnentag, 2012).
2.2.2 Types of Employee Engagement (EE)
2.2.2.1 Emotional Engagement (EME)
Employee Engagement (EE) has been extended from mere focusing upon the
tangible employee needs to their emotional bonding with their organization. Bindiya
Sandip Soni (2013) stated that "Employee Engagement (EE) is a measurable degree of
96
the positive or a negative attitude of an employee to his job, colleagues and the
organization which has a great influence on his willingness to learn and perform at job".
Low level employees suffer with negative emotions (Langner & Keltner, 2008), perform
their job tasks in a constrained manner (Galinsky, Wang, & Ku, 2008), develop less
hopes especially in risk calculation while interacting with others (Anderson & Galinsky,
2006; Magee, Galinsky, & Gruenfeld, 2007), and show reluctance in taking initiatives
(Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003). More engaged people feel positive emotions that
lead to more productivity (Fredrickson, 2003). According to Buhler (2006) engaged
employees happily achieve agency goals by being emotionally involved in their
organizational task. Buhler (2006) further provided explanation regarding importance of
engaged workforce for organizational success along with a reason from the past studies
that engaged employees help their organizations to reap benefits regarding enhanced
efficiency, high customer satisfaction, high productivity, and decreased turnover rates.
Engagement involves active use of emotions along with the use of cognition
during the course of their task accomplishment (May et al., 2004). Past studies revealed
that individuals with positive emotional conditions are expected to be more agile,
efficient, and integrative (Fredrickson, 2001). Hakanen, Schaufeli, and Ahola (2008)
established that individual work engagement supports personal initiative. Positive
emotional affect brings diverse thinking, cognitive augmentation, and interpersonal
understanding (Isen, 2001). He further stated that positive emotions affect individuals in a
manner that they are expected to go beyond what is expected from them in their job role
without being asked. The more employees are engaged, the more they display proactive
behaviors (Sonnentag, 2003) and discretionary efforts (Nimon, Zigarmi, Houson, Witt, &
97
Diehl, 2011). Various past EE studies analyzed that organizational moves and resources
do have a significant impact on work engagement of the employees (Saks, 2006).
Guest (2014b) analyzed Kahn’s (1990) view of engagement and presented it as a
novel approach in a behavioral perspective, consisted of its three dimensions (physical,
emotional and cognitive). The attitudinal engagement measure i.e. Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES) was designed and validated by Utrecht University team
(Schaufeli et al., 2002) which was later on used as EE in various countries. Schaufeli and
Taris (2014) analyzed that the EE concept fame was due to two basic themes, i.e.
individualization of work and the growth of interest among psychologists in general.
(Keeble-Ramsay & Armitage, 2014) argued that emotional responses to the work
environment do have a crucial impact on performance improvement.
EE is closely associated with emotional experiences and wellbeing of the
employees (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). Engagement objectives can only be
accomplished in a workplace if the shared sense of purpose is prevailed that links
individuals at emotional level and enhances their personal aspirations. In order to achieve
full potential, organizations have to focus upon emotional engagement with enhanced
employee performance (Holbeche & Springett, 2003).
Violet, Wong, and Lee (2011) examined that preoccupied passion drives the
employees towards burnout, mental and emotional exhaustion (Maslach et al., 2001) that
deviates employee focus from his job roles. Self-esteem as a trait also influences EE
(Janssen, Schaufeli, & Houkes, 1999) and high self-esteem drives the employees to avoid
from being emotionally drained and exhausted because self-esteem facilitate individuals
to be more optimistic.
98
2.2.2.2 Cognitive Engagement (CE)
Learning becomes quite critical when individuals need to identify their learning
gaps or needs. Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, and persistent cognitive state in which
employees’ focus and psychological presence on the job and other related activities is
ensured (Schaufeli, Salanova, et al., 2002). Ellis et al. (2003) ensured that individuals
with high cognitive ability are expected to positively increase their own learning along
with their positive influence on team learning. Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas (1992) dug
out that considering other factor constant, individuals in groups possessing high cognitive
abilities and positive personality characteristics, more effectively learn and perform.
Violet et al. (2011) stated that engaged workers cognitively connect and invest in their
job performance and on the contrary disengaged workers probably mentally detached
themselves from the job.
CE includes two factors i.e. absorption and attention (Rothbard, 2001) in which
the former is the intensity of focus and involvement in the job role and the later is the
amount of cognitive resources which individuals spend in thinking about their work
(Gardner, Dunham, L, & Pierce, 1989; Kahneman, 1973).
Studies in cognitive psychology proposed that the cognitive state in comparison
with general attitudes, is considered as more influential predictor of performance
outcomes (Ackerman & Beier, 2003). Violet et al. (2011) proposed that the relationship
between the job passion and employees’ job performance is mediated by the CE. The
theoretical basis confirmed the direct link between cognitive capacity of the employee
dedicated to a job task, and employee performance due to the fact of bringing more ideas
and innovative solutions (Violet et al., 2011). More cognitively engaged employees are
99
expected to find more performance enhancement opportunities which is derived through
proactive employee behaviors and pursuing opportunities to develop (Sonnentag, 2003).
2.2.2.3 Behavioral Engagement (BE)
For the purpose of getting enhanced performance levels in telecom industry of
Pakistan, the employers have to focus upon the behavioral facets of performance
appraisal (Malik & Aslam, 2013). Bunderson and Reagans (2011) supported the idea that
individuals possessing superior powers and enjoying good status can create healthy
environment attributed with psychological safety which helps in learning promotion. This
ultimately results in enhanced individual performance.
Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday (2004) explored multiple behaviors as a critical
factor of EE including: belief in the organization, desire to work for betterment, business
contexts, understanding in the broad canvas, environment of respect and cooperation,
willingness to put more efforts and being updated. Kular et al. (2008) discovered
engagement as highly associated with the perceptions and feelings of being valued and
involved. The key drivers of engagement explored were: effective leadership, two-way
communication, high internal cooperation, employee development and employee
wellbeing focus, accessible HR policies and practices by the organization. Bedarkar and
Pandita (2014) investigated employee engagement taking its drivers, and its impact on
employee performance by considering it a powerful source of competitive advantage in
todays’ global village. EE should be a continuous process of learning, improvement and
action and the organization in this information age should pay heed on employee`s
expectations to reap maximum out of them.
100
2.2.3 Mediation: LOPs, Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Performance (EP)
Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) have not been much focused in the past
studies in the context of EE and ED as learning of an organization is initiated at
individual level which later on becomes organizational learning (Argyris, 1999).
Tjepkema, Horst, & M. & Scheerens (2000) related that LOs should always be benefited
from the learning of its employees. Past studies ensure that the Employee Performance is
the desired outcomes of LOPs. The current study tried to identify that LOPs though
directly affect EP but in order to get better performance outcomes, they have to follow
the path of ED or EE for achieving the desired EP outcomes. The study also linked seven
LOPs proposed by Marsick and Watkins (2003) with Employee performance in
telecommunication sector of Pakistan.
The relationship of LOPs and Employee Engagement (EE) types need to be tested
though its importance has been verified from the past studies in the context of HR
improvement. Allocation of huge budget for employee performance doesn’t get required
performance results because of the absence of the focus upon EE. This is due to the
factors affecting EE may vary in employees (Bernthal, 2004) which is because of three
states of EE i.e. emotional, cognitive and physical. Engagement as Flow is associated
with cognitive, emotional and physical types of engagement. This flow is required to be
addressed towards individual performance outcomes (May et al., 2004). There is much to
be explored taking Engagement constructs as Engagement characteristics (Zhang et al.,
2014. Keeble-Ramsay and Armitage (2014) also referred Hassan et al. (2013) for
engagement strategies that require more research investigation. Due to the observed low
employee engagement levels in different countries, it has been analyzed that engagement
101
counts a lot for the organization and major factors that may affect EE, should be further
investigated (Rana et al., 2014). It tried to fill the knowledge gaps identified by Guest
(2014a) and Choo et al., (2013).
2.2.4 Measurement of Employee Engagement (EE) Measurement Tools
Gupta & Kumar (2013) stated that Luthans and Peterson (2002) following the rout
of Kahn (1990), worked on personal engagement and developed Gallup’s empirically
derived EE scale. Questions were derived from focus groups of more than 2,500 business,
healthcare and educational units. Rich, Lepine, and Crawford (2010) also developed on
Kahn’s (1990) dimensions of physical, emotional and cognitive engagement but
suggested a different scale to measure it. Moreover, Thomas (2007) developed a uni-
dimensional conceptualization of engagement by relating three EE states and preceding
these behaviors is essentially uni-dimensional. The instrument used in the study has been
developed by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
Prior to this work, Rich (2006) played fundamental role in initial development of
job engagement scale by taking Kahn (1990) theorized three states of job engagement i.e.
Physical Engagement in our case, Behavioral Engagement which was described as the
exertion of effort on one’s job, Emotional Engagement distinguished as a positive
affective reaction to one’s job, and Cognitive Engagement illustrated as an attention to
and absorption in one’s job.
Initial Measure Items Dimension Source on which
item is based
I work with intensity in my job Physical Brown & Leigh (1996)
I exert my full effort in my job Physical Brown & Leigh (1996)
I devote a lot of energy to my job Physical Brown & Leigh (1996)
102
I try my hardest to perform well on my job Physical Brown & Leigh (1996)
I strive as hard as I can to complete my job Physical Brown & Leigh (1996)
I exert a lot of energy on my job Physical Brown & Leigh (1996)
I am enthusiastic about my job Emotional Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988)
I feel energetic about my job Emotional Watson et al. (1988)
I am interested in my job Emotional Watson et al. (1988)
I am proud of my job Emotional Watson et al. (1988)
I feel positive about my job Emotional Watson et al. (1988)
I am excited about my job Emotional Watson et al. (1988)
At work, my mind is focused on my job Cognitive Rothbard (2001)
At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job Cognitive Rothbard (2001)
At work, time passes quickly when I am performing my
job
Cognitive Rothbard (2001)
At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job Cognitive Rothbard (2001)
At work, I am absorbed in my job Cognitive Rothbard (2001)
At work, I devote a lot of attention to my job Cognitive Rothbard (2001)
Table 6: Initial Items of Job Engagement Scale
Adopted from Rich (2006)
Rich (2006) developed and tested Job Engagement Scale (JES) and refined it for
the purpose of having items which clearly represent JE construct. CIPD (2006) used these
items for three said engagement states concluding what feelings employees in UK
possess regarding their job role and the role of their employers can play for the purpose
of raising their engagement levels.
103
2.3 Employee Development (ED)
LOs are necessarily required to strategically emphasize on its learning needs in
relation to the ability of self-management of its employees’ own learning (McHugh et al.,
1998; Stewart, 2001). Employee development programs are generally meant for general
education of the employees instead of simple vocational trainings (Forrester, Payne, &
Ward, 1995; Holden & Hamblett, 1998). Employers should instigate the learning quest
among their employees for their future skills up-gradation (DFEE, 1996; Vallely, 1992).
Individual self-development (Starkey, 1996) and self-directed learning has also been
prioritized in LOs. An integrated system of LOs may be connected with almost all areas
of HRM functions. Lahteenmaki, Toivonen, and Mattila (2001) associated LOs with the
change management concept due to their nature of continuous learning. ED broadly
involves activities i.e. voluntary and mandatory, formal and informal and the activities
which are associated with individual’s current job and career development (Noe, Wilk,
Mullen, & Wanek (2014) cited in Hurtz and Williams (2009).
Development activities have been conceptualized as continuing education using
various formal professional activities e.g. (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Noe & Wilk, 1993)
job activities for broadening individuals’ skills in their profession (Kozlowski & Farr,
1988; Raymond A Noe, 1996; Phyllis Tharenou, 2001) and employees’ self-initiated
follow up of voluntary activities (Birdi, Allan, & Warr, 1997; Maurer, 2001; Maurer &
Tarulli, 1994).
Organizational leadership should focus upon the development of the employee as
a whole person (Bierema, 1996) and the primary Organizational Learning (OL) task is
Individual workers’ development. Instead of being passive worker, employees should be
104
aware of what they already know and how this knowledge can be used for further
learning and development (Dirkx, Swanson, Watkins, & Cseh, 2002).
Past literature about ED has recognized the behavioral constructs (being involved
in development), situational constructs (support for employee development in an
organization) and stable individual difference variables as predictors (Major, Turner, &
Fletcher, 2006; Maurer, Weiss, & Barbeite, 2003). Situational support includes
development of the situation in which employees are surrounded and supported by others
(e.g. supervisors and coworkers etc.) with learning and development resources’ provision
at work (Kozlowski & Farr, 1988; Mathieu & Martineau, 1997; Maurer et al., 2003).
ED constructs show high participation of individuals in different types of
development activities (Maurer et al., 2003), and the said behavior is one of the main
constructs in ED literature. ED literature focuses upon employee T&D opportunities as
situational and organizational variable which can affect developmental behavior (Maurer
et al., 2003; Maurer, Lippstreu, & Judge, 2008), and the individual difference variables
that affect development behavior, including wide-ranging dispositional and demographic
constructs (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Major et al., 2006; Maurer, Lippstreu, &
Judge, 2008).
Investment in training & development by the organizations is made in order to
enhance performance of both organization and employees (Burke & Hutchins, 2008; Kim
& Callahan). Elena (2000) described ED incorporates Self-development (SD) and Self-
directed Learning (SDL) which should be employee driven. Analysis made by Elena
(2000) is strongly backed by past studies (Cunningham, 1999) that concludes as forced
105
learning and without employees’ acceptance cannot drive ED. SD as a self-initiated
process includes self-awareness, reflection and experimentation (Elena, 2000).
Difference between learning and development has been explained in the literature
(Velsor & Drath, 2004) as development, is a process of skills acquisition with the in-
depth understanding of individual’s operating environment and his self as leader whereas
learning occurs as an individual frame his experience, by making sense of things in a
generalized manner. Literature proposed that ED support and promotion can bring
enhanced positive outcomes for both i.e. organizations and employees (Birdi et al., 1997;
Craig, Kimberly, & Bouchikhi, 2002; Davenport & Prusak, 1997; Hall & Mirvis, 1995;
Hurtz & Williams, 2009; Koster, de Grip, & Fourage, 2011; Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne,
Liden, & Bravo., 2011; Paul & Anantharaman, 2004; Peter Senge, 1990; Tansky &
Cohen, 2001).
LO’s strategic learning needs seem to limit its employees’ ability of self-
management regarding learning, which is truly required for themselves (McHugh et al.,
1998). Past studies stated that the empirical verifications pronounce that the employers
seem reluctant to invest in lower level employees in their organization (Bryson et al.,
2006; Lloyd, 2002) due to which they find it complicated to access learning, It is because
of the lack of necessary skills and confidence (Hamblett & Holden, 2000). Self-
perceptions is known as an outcome of individuals’ efforts of gauging personal
capabilities (Albert Bandura, 1982) and is extracted from self-assessment process which
ultimately influence the behavior of individuals.
ED schemes most of the times are under-resourced, give priority to different
levels of manager, are focused by the non-traditional learners and are sources of
106
employee cynicism due to embedded link between the schemes and broader employment
relations (Holden & Hamblett, 1998). Maurer (2001) found that employees willingly
change themselves if that change is directly for their benefits. Furthermore, learning
oriented individuals possess higher post-training self-efficacy regarding learning goals in
relation with the training context (Martocchio & Hertenstein, 2003). Human capital
intensive organizations should encourage their employees to stay with them in the long
run because of making them the intellectual property related to the ideas generated by
these employees (Liebeskind, 2000).
Training is considered as learning tool and learning effects performance (Gephart
et al., 1996). Maurer & Chapman (2013) concluded that past studies suggest
organizational support for ED may become influential on employee attitudes and
behavior in the short run. They further report that though supporting employee
development can be effective for enhancement in employee attitudes and can affect
recruitment and retention in a positive manner (George S Benson, Finegold, & Mohrman,
2004; Kraimer et al., 2011).
Maurer (2002) draws attention of the researchers on the need of learning and
development relevance to the self, and states that general development activities may be
insufficient for employee learning and development.
2.3.1 Antecedents and Outcomes of Employee Development (ED)
Maurer et al. (2003) proposed that HRD may be influential upon competitive
advantage by developing employees to make them more capable work force, through the
reduction of absenteeism and turnover rates (Kaye and Jordan-Evans, 2000; Lam and
107
White, 1998), and possibly through supporting recruitment process to have good
employees who need to be developed (Barbeite & Maurer, 2002).
Maurer and Lippstreu (2008) regarding ED spotted out two main sources of
employees’ perceived development support from the organization i.e. the supervisors and
the organization itself. The former behaves as an organizational agent yet may exhibit
employee’s emphasis on developing the subordinates (Maurer et al., 2003) and the later,
i.e. organization, does provide learning and development support using different methods
by making the resources available for skills, task or job assignments’ improvement.
Moreover, a supervisor may become compassionate for endeavors regarding employees’
skills improvement, assisting employees develop their career plans, make available the
concurrent feedback, facilitating in learning activities participation, and making them feel
trusted upon their learning capabilities.
Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver (2010) analyzed organizational support for SD as
an antecedent heaving influencing tendency of SD activities initiation. Moreover, a few
studies have put emphasis on organizational support as an antecedent of self-directed
development (Birdi et al., 1997; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994) as a perceptual variable for
learning motivation prediction.
ED theories presume that participatory role of employees enable them to respond
with positive attitudes towards their organization (R. Noe, Wilk, Mullen, & Wanek,
1997). Past studies have derived links between ED and employee attitude in other words
development has an impact on employee attitudes (Birdi et al., 1997; Galunic &
Anderson, 2000; Tansky & Cohen, 2001). Boyce et al., (2010) stated that undoubtedly
very few empirical studies have been made on self-development in general. Benson
108
(2004) has highlighted from the literature that ED leads to positive employee attitudes.
ED support within the organization may positively be contributing in employee
recruitment and retention process (Craig et al., 2002). Maurer (2002) model puts its prime
focus on the relevance of employees self and the learning, moreover he states that simple
development activities will not be enough in engendering learning and development of
the employee rather than counterproductive.
Maurer and Lippstreu (2008) exhibited by using a 651 employees' sample from
the US workforce adopting a sampling method i.e. two-wave internet survey that
perceived developmental support has differential impacts on commitment of employees
depending upon employees’ goal orientations. One HR function which facilitates in
changing employee behavior is employer support for personal development which leads
employees towards positive responses as being more engaged (Latif, 2012; Maurer &
Lippstreu, 2008). In order to achieve EE, ED is considered as one of its driving
components (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). Wyatt (2007) stated that
organization with their prime focus on their strategic goals, take quick initiatives
regarding ED processes and engage employees to have competitive edge. EE may
negatively be affected if employees are not rewarded and recognized by their
organization.
2.3.2 Dimensions of Employee Development
2.3.2.1 Self-Development (SD)
The continuous change is inevitable in today’s competitive business scenario,
Self-development is adopted as a vital and effective strategy for Employee Development
(ED) (Megginson & Whitaker, 1998). Elena (2000) observed that ED measures regarding
109
SD are quite insufficient in the organizations despite having its importance vitally known
and recognized. Megginson, Joy-Matthews, and Banfield (1999) also emphasized upon
the importance of communication, employee involvement and their participation and
states that these should be prioritized in taking HRD measures. It is quite common in
employees to positively persuade the continuously learning and self-development
activities (Elena, 2000; Hamblett & Holden, 2000). Human capital processes are closely
associated with improvement and SD activities that ultimately lead to more effective and
capable employees with enhanced performance outcomes.
Self-development (SD) refers to the personal development which is considered as
the prime responsibility of individuals themselves for their learning by managing how to
do it (Burgoyne & Pedler, 1994). Self-confidence being an outcome of SD, leads
individuals to enhanced performance. Self-directed learners though look for the
information from their surrounding but plan and organize their routine learning by their
own (Tough, 1979). Very less in terms of empirical studies has been investigated about
individual characteristics as antecedents of self-initiated development forms (Birdi et al.,
1997; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Maurer et al., 2003; Noe & Wilk, 1993). Boyce et al.
(2010) state that SD includes; learning activities with a focus on skill acquisition,
activities and experiences which enable the expansion of one's conceptual frame of
meaning. SD may involve mentors for work engagement with the desire to widen
leadership perspectives (Ohlott, 2004).
Employees involved in SD activities are considered as co-productive
comparatively more productive (Gould & Penley, 1984) and effective. Employee
participation in self-development activities has been testified with an outcome of
110
productivity (Gould & Penley, 1984) and effectiveness. There is a dearth of examination
between actual and perceptual effects, organizational support provision for enhancing EP,
and professional self-development (Birdi et al., 1997; Lisa A Boyce et al., 2010; Maurer
et al., 2003; Phyllis Tharenou, 2001).
Studies (Pedler & Boydell, 1980, 1981; Pedler et al., 1988) elaborate SD by
analyzing its dimensions, i.e. development concept, whole person concept and personal
responsibility. Development concept includes the real sense of SD which is basically
associated with development concept like the social structural changes affecting
individual's life span (Haareven & Adams, 1982). Whole person mean development of
self which is supported by the perusal of personally significant goals (Haareven &
Adams, 1982). They defined SD as the integration of the individual and his job role. Past
practices regarding SD used to treat individuals as passive recipients which have been
changed now by considering them quite critical for development process. Development
doesn’t mean expertise but personal willingness and perseverance to the process that
individuals value and believe in. (Megginson & Whitaker, 1998) stated that individuals
should be allowed to freely decide about their goals, the way to achieve them, their
actions for goals achievement and success evaluation.
Herriot (1992) highlighted that SD required individuals to help each other in
addition to other organization’s supplementary activities i.e. learning facilities, SD plans
etc. SD involves flexibility and supports a prompt response against the volatile needs of
individuals and the organizations. Temporal (1984) put individual's view ahead as SD is a
source of self-confidence enhancement and helps individuals develop their latent abilities
for their performance.
111
2.3.2.2 Self-directed Learning (SDL)
SDL has not been defined clearly in the literature in the context of LOs. Brockett
and Hiemstra (1991) defined it as a process in which learner bears the responsibility to
plan, implement, and evaluate the learning process. Conceptualizations of SDL
commonly point out what and how of learning resources, feedback, and role of leaders,
time and the learners decisions about varying learning situations are taken. SDL has been
initially known in the area of adult education in 1960s (Heimstra & Judd, 1978) and is
being studied since then (Guglielmino, 2008) .
Fleming, Artis, and Hawes (2014) referred Knowles (1975) regarding SDL who
stated it as it is learner centric and gives the crux on the employees’ way of adapting their
attitudes, behaviors and efforts of necessary learning for their goals attainment and
whatever else is important to them. SDL with a mature and sound literature base
(Ellinger, 2004; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007) has also been expressed as
an effective method in the adult education literature (Ellinger, 2004). Knowles, (1990)
expressed SDL as a process of individuals’ initiatives towards identifying their learning
needs in which others may or may not be involved. Self-direction refers to the
assumption of individuals regarding personal responsibility for learning related decisions
and actions. SDL was also described as an independent activity with personal autonomy,
and the philosophy of self-management (Candy, 1991) psychological processes of
learners for knowledge attainment, problem solving, and skill development (Long, 1994).
SDL also involves a training design in which trainees move forward without heaving a
support of instructor with their own pace (Piskurich, 1993).
112
Past studies about SDL staed that SD learners are individuals who carry out their
learning for their personal growth (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999) and take planning,
implementing, and evaluating the learning process as these are their own responsibilities
(Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991). Raemdonck, Leeden, Valcke, Segers, and Thijssen (2012)
identified that need for employees’ bearing with their own responsibility and taking
learning initiatives has been developed. Jones and Bergmann Lichtenstein (2000)
suggested the involvement of both high and low level employees in SDL. Employees
being self-directed learners, not only identify, assess, and select appropriate learning
resources and strategies but keep an eye on their own progress (Candy, 1991; Lieberman
& Linn, 1991).
Varying schools of thought about SDL have provided different views related to
LOs. SDL is defined by the studies i.e. (Boyce et al., 2010; Knowles, 1975) as a process
of initiative by individuals, for their learning needs identification, learning goals
preparation, learning resource identification whether human or material, selection and
implementation of suitable learning strategies, and outcome evaluation. According to
Mocker and Spear (1982), the parameters of Self-Directed Learning (SDL) are set up by
the environmental conditions. They defined learning as formal (zero control of the learner
on what & how), non-formal (control on what but not on the how), informal (no control
on what but on the how) and self-directed (control of the learner on both what & how of
learning) which have been differentiated by the control of the learner over what and how
of the learning.
SDL activities do have a positive influence on both individuals and the
organizations (Long & Morris, 1995). Impression can be drawn from the past literature
113
that SDL is more likely to happen successfully in true LOs where LO practices are rightly
implemented. SDL for leaders have been focused in the past studies as the studies
(McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1989; Vaill, 1996) also declared it for the leaders but it
is equally critical for the organizational members. In addition to the relationship of SDL
with individuals, it is also linked to the teams (Guglielmino, 1992) as they focus upon the
group interaction and feedback of the self-directed learners to know the quality of
learning and the value of the learning networks. Collaboration is necessarily required for
SDL in any organization (Brown & Duguid, 1991) as the importance of learning in an
environment where informal information exchange among employees takes place. Links
between LOs and SDL as employee development practice are there in the researches as a
learning climate (Knowles, 1975), and learning environment (Spear & Mocker, 1984)
have vitally affected past SDL projects. Pedler (1990) successfully created the link
between LOs and SDL by declaring it the most critical element for LOs. Boyce et al
(2010) recounted that it is the prime responsibility of self-developer to identify the focus
of development and resources and to specify the developmental processes.
Individual learning practices, i.e. self-learning enhances organizational innovation
by broadening the knowledge base of employees (Sung & Choi, 2012). Investment on
training and development develops learning culture (Noe, Tews, & Dachner, 2010),
which ultimately enhances employee willingness to build up their capabilities and enable
them to be engaged in a variety of self-learning activities. Young and Choi (2014)
provided justification regarding method which positively leads organizations towards
investment in their employees that brings increased innovative performance. Individual
learning practices promote personal development and employees’ proactive involvement
114
in their job tasks which enhances employees’ ability solve their job issues, develop and
apply inventive solutions on their job. Boyce et al. (2010) stated that SDL activities
concentrate upon reasonably characterize knowledge and behavioral domains.
Mitlacher, Beitler, and Faller (2005) related empirical studies highlighting the fact
that individuals with high SDL skills are expected to act in a better manner in jobs
requiring better ability to solve problems, creativity, and change (Guglielmino, 1992).
Many empirical studies have validated many positive SDL effects in the workplaces
including enhanced performance (Artis & Harris, 2007). Raemdonck et al. (2012) also
emphasized the research gap by identifying the shortage of SDL studies for low qualified
employees.
2.3.3 Mediation: LOPs, Employee Development (ED) and Employee Performance (EP)
In such a competitive world, Learning Organizations (LOs) are required to
respond quickly against change, they have to be proactive especially in employee
development context. LOPs have though been studied in relation with commitment,
culture, environment and a few other such a factors but there is serious need to conduct a
study upon the relationship of LOPs and ED.
Stickland (1996) proposed two views of Self-Development (SD) i.e. The
organizational view which states that SD is necessary for survival for the rapidly
changing environment by putting forth the change oriented employees and by developing
their change oriented mentality. The second proposed view is self-motivating or the
personal view in which employees look for the sense of fulfillment along with the job
role. These feelings of accomplishment lead the employees towards Self-Directed
Learning (SDL) as employees learn to be flexible and adaptable in order to enhance their
115
experience of self-fulfillment and their growth which ultimately lead those towards
producing enhanced performance form both themselves and their organization.
LOPs using both (organizational and personal) contexts should be compatible
with each other, and are required to be applied for SD and SDL mindset development in
order to reap maximum in a rapidly changing and dynamic environment. SDL by all
means is required in today’s complex environment where both managers or employers
and employees need to know about their personal responsibility for their learning.
Importance and incorporation of SDL in LOs is inevitable because of its importance for
its employees (Tobin, 2000) as despite having sound learning strategy, these are the
employees who know best about what knowledge they need most and know how to apply
this knowledge for their performance improvement.
The present study will become a guide for the researchers and practitioners to
establish the relationship of LOPs with ED and device the ways to how these LOPs
should be addressed in relation with ED (self-development and self-directed learning).
Despite heaving need for professional self-development, very less has been empirically
researched in the past (Boyce et al., 2010). Thus the study explores whether ED mediates
the relationship of LOPs and ED so that the industry practitioners may follow a long term
approach in the best interest of both employees and the organization.
2.3.4 Employee Development (ED) Measurement Tools
ED in the current study has been measured using its two dimensions i.e. SD and
SDL. Items for SD have been adopted from Oreg and Nov (2008) which has been tested
through confirmation of their Cronbach’s alphas and with CFA, where N=300 with the
significant item loadings and satisfactory model fitness assurance. Item used for SDL in
116
the current study have been adopted from the study Pinchuk (2010) by using 5 point
likert scale (i.e. 1 – Strongly Disagree to 5 - Strongly Agree).
2.4 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ)
Performance appraisal (PA) as a critical HR function is closely connected with
various other HR actions and outcomes (Jawahar, 2007; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995;
Steensma & Visser, 2007). Meta-analysis extracted four factors for justice
conceptualization, i.e. Distributive Justice (DJ), Performance Appraisal Justice (PJ),
Interpersonal Justice (IJ) and Informational Justice (Info J) (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,
Porter, & Ng, 2001). Farndale and Kelliher (2013) identified PAJ encompassing
employees’ perceptions of how they feel about the treatment given by their line manager
in the performance appraisal process. Gupta and Kumar (2013) by quoting Kahn (1990)
stated that individual perception in varied situations may lead towards changed multiple
engagement perceptions. Frank, Finnegan, and Taylor (2004) also narrated that fairness is
one of the major factors that influence Employee Engagement (EE). Fair treatment with
the employees by the organizations gets enhanced emotional and physical engagement in
return (Insightlink, 2005). Saks (2006) associated EE with the fairness and justice and
appropriate employee recognition.
Fairness (Beugre, 1998) is necessary for getting trust which leads towards EE.
Performance appraisal (PA) is inevitable connected with various HR actions and
outcomes (Jawahar, 2007; Steensma & Visser, 2007). The outcome of PA process and
activities are generally associated with effectiveness of the whole Performance Appraisal
System (PAS) (Jawahar, 2007). It has a close bonding with engagement of the employees
117
and their performance (Gruman & Saks, 2011; Rich et al., 2010; Robinson, 2006;
Welbourne, 2007).
Relationship between fairness by the employer and employee response is quite
obvious and critical in producing required performance results (Erdogan, 2002).
Employee perception regarding PAJ is closely linked with employee satisfaction and
Engagement which ultimately affect his performance (Thurston, Paul, & McNall, 2010).
Due to the reality that PAJ affects EE, Moliner et al. (2008) put emphasis upon the need
of more studies on examining the potential impact of PAJ on EE.
Devi (2009) underlined the importance of the organizational policies and
procedures in relation to flexible work arrangements and work-life balance focus produce
more engaged employees. There is a positive and significant relationship between PAJ
perception and EE (Gupta & Kumar, 2013) in Indian context. Rowland and Hall (2013)
found that Pay-led and development-led performance management systems have been
differentiated (Armstrong & Baron, 1997). Former results in enhanced pay and other
rewards whereas the later is associated with employees’ performance enhancement
through education and training. ED practices include development led moves by the
organizations.
Rowland and Hall (2012) concluded using the organizational justice concept for
the exploration of outcomes, procedures and implementation of appraisal in modern
organizations. Appraisal may become a main reason of actual and perceived injustice in
any organization and may be a cause of stress between managing performance and
encouraging engagement that depends upon the perceptions of fairness. Farndale and
Kelliher (2013) stated that literature suggested the positive attitudes (adoption of the
118
organizational goals) towards the organization, will be associated with fairness
perceptions of the employees (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Otaye and Wong (2014)
referred Ambrose and Schminke (2009) who emphasized on the need of in-depth
exploration of global perception regarding organizational fairness in organizational
settings. They further excavated that organizational justice studies have traditionally
spotlighted the direct relationship between different aspects of justice and employee-level
outcomes. See meta-analyses (Colquitt et al., 2001; Nowakowski & Conlon, 2005).
Beyond traditional mindset, one part of the study by looking into the highlighted
gaps regarding additional or alternative concepts of justice (Biron & Reuver, 2013; A.
Cohen, 2013) analyzed the mediating role of PAJ between the relationships of LOPs and
EE and LOPs and ED. Byrne, Pitts, Wilson, and Steiner (2012) reflected that justice
perceptions during the course of performance appraisal process add much to the high
trust levels in the supervisors (Mayer & Davis, 1999; Murphy & Cleveland, 1991) and
are the prime factors that judge appraisals’ effectiveness within the organizations (Jacobs,
1980). Byrne et al. (2012) found interpersonal (Interactional) (IJ) and Informational
Justices (InfoJ) given least attention regarding trust in supervisor which is quite
unexpected because both IJ and InfoJ are conceptualized as being under the direct control
of the supervisor (Colquitt et al., 2001; Moorman, 1991).
All four PAJ dimensions have been investigated in research paradigm (Byrne et
al. 2012), as justice carry varying relationships with different outcomes as PJ with work
performance (Cohen-Charash, Yochi, & Spector, 2001), PJ and DJ with job satisfaction,
IJ with organization citizenship behavior. Ghosh, Rai, and Sinha (2014) concluded that
DJ, PJ and IJ are inter related with each other and DJ and IJ have greater impact on
119
determining job engagement as compared to PJ after a survey analysis of 210 public
sector employees. Rewarding positively transmit a message among employees of being
accomplished through their efforts recognition (Tews, John Michel, & Drost, 2015). They
also highlighted the productive fitness of their perception with their organization through
positive rewards and appreciation.
2.4.1 Types of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ)
2.4.1.1 Distributive Justice (DJ)
Distributive Justice (DJ) is known as the fairly allocation of resources and
outcomes of the decisions (Saks, 2006). Colquitt et al. (2001) defined it as fairness of the
outcome in assessment of what employees receive. DJ is the perceived fairness of the
outcome of a decision, (Purcell, 2012) like the distribution of performance related pay.
McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) and Schappe (1998) deeply analyzed and ensured the
correlation between DJ, job satisfaction and pay satisfaction which lead to changed EE
outcomes. Mitchell, Gagne, Beaudry, and Dyer (2012) reported the link between
perceived organizational support and DJ with intrinsic motivation for using the new
technology. Gupta & S. Kumar (2013) confirmed high impact of DJ on employee
wellbeing health and reported levels of burnout.
Organizational Justice initially included DJ with theoretical support of equity
theory (Adams, 1965) before the year 1975 with the prime focus on individual fairness
related to their outcomes i.e. reward, performance appraisal or pay (Deutsch, 1975).
Adams (1965) highlighted DJ as subjective not objective. Moreover Leventhal (1976)
highlighted equality and need in addition to Adam’s (1965) proposed rule. DJ is
associated with the outcomes as in case unfair treatment is made with the employees, it
120
may affect employees’ emotions and intent e.g. guilt, happiness, pride or anger (Weiss &
Suckow, 1999).
DJ perceptions primarily address the fairness of outcome distributions
(Greenberg, 1990). Said outcomes may be positive (Pay, fringe benefits and job status) or
negative (monotony and poor working conditions) and depend upon employees
perception as a consequence of their work (Adams, 1965). DJ if not rightly addressed,
may lead employees towards inequity and negative response (Biron & Reuver, 2013; J.
Greenberg, 1990; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993).
2.4.1.2 Procedural Justice (PJ)
The relationship between PJ and employee’s job-related performance and attitude
has become a critical management concern (Hongwei, Zhu, & Zheng, 2014) due to which
academicians are attracted towards it (Akremi, Vandenberghe, & Camerman, 2010;
Bernerth & Walker, 2012; Fortin & Fellenz, 2008; Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Hartnell,
2009; Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, & Livingston, 2009). Second dimension of PAJ, i.e.
PJ is defined as employee perception of fairness about resource allocation & distribution
(Saks, 2006). Procedural Justice (PJ) is the procedural fairness or the measures used to
determine outcome distributions (Greenberg, 1990b). Procedural Justice can also be
referred as employee perceptions regarding organizational policies and procedures
(Konovsky, 2000; Loi, Lam, & Chan, 2012). Folger (1977) stated that PJ is the perceived
fairness of the decision making procedures in relation with resource distribution. The
terms justice, fairness and equity are used interchangeably in the past studies (Ghosh et
al., 2014; Moorman, 1991). Fairness is considered as central part in any organization
(Konovsky, 2000) in the case of promotion related decision, tasks’ assignment or
121
rewards’ allocation (Coetzee, 2005). According to Yang, Treadway, and Stepina (2013),
PJ concept (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) was concluded with initial evidence. PJ importance
lies in people’s judgment regarding outcome satisfaction. In order to broaden the said
initial evidence, Yang et al., (2013) stated that Leventhal (1980) suggested six rules best
illustrating PJ i.e.
Allocation procedures consistency should be ensured for individuals and
overtime.
Neutrality of the decision makers in allocation process is required to be ensured
which should not be determined by self-interests.
Information sufficiency for decision making should be ensured.
Corrections should be permitted in case of unfair decisions.
Decision affectees are ensured to be heard in the process.
The process should endorse the fundamental moral and ethical rules.
The perception of employees regarding PJ is connected with the
supervisors’ evaluation made the employee (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Colquitt et al.
(2001) described PJ as fairness of processes which lead towards decision or outcomes.
Procedural Justice (PJ) is comparatively more critical and important than other forms of
justice (Greenberg, 2002). Farndale and Kelliher (2013) by referring Thibaut and Walker
(1975) defined PJ as ‘it refers to employee perceptions of the fairness of a process as it is
carried out’.
According to Purcell (2012), PJ is related to the manner, decision occurs, the
information collected, openness of the process and the extent to which people’s views
were considered. Moreover, PJ is linked to IJ which is the interpersonal characteristic of
122
interaction among peers, bosses and their subordinate (John Purcell, 2012). PJ judgments
contribute much in shaping people’s reactions to their personal experience (Purcell, 2012;
Tyler & Blader, 2003).
Past studies about PJ addressed pro-social outcomes i.e. trust building,
encouragement for responsibilities and obligations, intrinsic motivation and creativity and
voluntary cooperation. Employees rely mainly upon PJ because of their social identity
preferences in group or teams. Thus PJ is closely linked to IJ which provides identity
security. Fuchs and Edwards (2012) reported IJ perceptions are shaped through
Managements’ explanation about the selection of certain procedures and distribution of
outcomes in a particular manner. IJ is considered influential upon employees’ attitudes
and behavior in change initiatives. PJ leads towards IJ if accounts and explanations are
there for the employees by managers.
Farndale and Kelliher (2013) analyzed the social side of justice i.e. Interactional
Justice (IJ), which concentrates on employee perceptions of fairness of interpersonal
treatment received and suggested to be a subset of PJ (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen,
2002). High PJ symbolizes a strong situation because procedural fairness positively
increase people’s trust and confidence which reciprocate their self-interest in the form of
their performance (P. Blau, 1964; Konovsky, 2000). PJ can also be used as a measure of
reducing uncertainty (Loi et al., 2012; Martha, Kacmar, & Kacmar, 2015).
PJ refers to the fairness perception of individuals (Hongwei et al., 2014) regarding
the procedures in order to determine received workplace results (Austin & Tobiasen,
1984; Kressel & Pruitt, 1989; Piyali, Rai, & Sinha, 2014; Suliman & Kathairi, 2013;
Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Studies (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) state
123
that perceived procedural fairness has strong influence on procedural satisfaction,
independent of their outcomes. PJ encourages the self-esteem and confirms the
employees about the attention provided to them for what they do on their job (Colquitt &
Chertkoff, 2002). PJ has also been described as one of the sturdy situational determinant
of employee performance (Andrews, Kacmar, & Harris, 2009). Leventhal (1980)
recognized seven procedural categories for individuals to establish organizational
processes’ fairness i.e. agents selection procedure, ground rules establishment,
information collection, decision making, appealing decisions, employee rights’ safeguard,
and the changing procedures. According to Thurston et al. (2010), individual’s awareness
about unfair practices regarding said seven factors may lead towards injustice
perceptions. Past studies have confirmed the link between PJ and satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and performance (Nowakowski & Conlon, 2005). PJ has been
analyzed for its interactive impact on influencing important outcomes (Loi et al., 2012;
Martha et al., 2015).
Employee perception regarding procedural fairness of their organization (Lind &
Tyler, 1988), establishes their value or worth within the organization. PJ has to be given a
significant value and ensured by the organization in order to retain employee trust upon
the organization (Colquitt et al., 2001; Folger & Cropanzano, 1998).
2.4.1.3 Interactional Justice (IJ)
Interactional Justice (IJ) is said to be the interpersonal treatment associated
justification, respect given to the employees, suitability and correctness, received at the
time of procedures implementation by the employees (Colquitt et al., 2001). Bies and
Moag (1986) for the very first time derived the importance of researchers upon the
124
quality of interpersonal treatment an employee gets at the time of procedures’
implementation and put forth the term Interactional Justice as a type of PAJ. Later on
Jerald Greenberg (1993) dugout IJ further by addressing it as Interpersonal (IJ) and
Informational Justice (InfoJ) which analyzed the degree of treatment with politeness and
the information provided to the employee regarding methods of procedure
implementation respectively. IJ perceptions are associated with the behaviors of the
supervisor (Malatesta & Byrne, 1997). IJ addresses the fairness in the manner in which
procedures are carried out (Moorman, 1991).
IJ mainly includes interpersonal treatment which is further elaborated in the form
of interpersonal justice and informational justice (Colquitt et al., 2001). Later on
Informational Justice (InfoJ) has been declared as an independent dimension of PAJ.
Individuals in an organization show their prime concern by evaluating others’ treatment
with them in relation with respect and dignity (Crow, Lee, & Joo, 2012). Moreover Chou
(2009) stated it as how individuals take care of resource allocation and rewards behave
towards the recipients
2.4.1.4 Informational Justice (InfoJ)
Informational Justice (IJ) includes, information details regarding procedures and
outcomes to be provided to the employees by the employer (Colquitt et al., 2001). Gupta
& S. Kumar (2013) confirmed high impact of informational justice dimensions on
employee well- being, health and reported levels of burnout. Studies (Cropanzana,
Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997) proposed that InfoJ, if is truthful
even the things are in the wrong direction, fair treatment with interpersonal dignity,
allows individuals to agree to take an unfavorable result.
125
InfoJ should create an impact on long-term outcomes due to the fact that open
communication provides individuals with information required to gauge systemic bases
of current procedures (Jerald Greenberg, 1993). InfoJ deals mainly with the reactions to
the procedures in which explanations are provided about the information required for
structure evaluation (i.e. organizational defined) facets of the process (Colquitt et al.,
2001).
Performance Appraisals (PAs) should be recognized as just and fair by the
individuals in an organization (Latham et al., 2005). Kahn (1990) narrated that the
variation in personal engagements of individuals due to their perceptions about benefits
they perceive in situations support is linked with justice fairness. Gupta & Kumar (2013)
confirmed the association of employees’ psychological safety and elements of social
systems (i.e. non-threatening, predictable and consistent) with reference to engagement.
PAJ supports the creation of such sense of safety in employees’ minds due to the
assumption to not to be penalized if come across failure rather they will get appreciation
for their endeavors (Gupta & Kumar, 2013). Better justice perceptions may lead
employees to perform more effectively and they will more likely to contribute more
towards performance outcomes (Cropanzana et al., 2007; Elicker, Levy, & Hall, 2006).
According to Spell and Arnold (2007), justice perceptions in appraisal process reduces
psychological issues.
Gupta & Kumar (2013) analyzed that only a few studies have analyzed the
association between justice and engagement with varying outcomes, sales so as in
Pakistani context. Saks (2006) tested the perceptual effect of PJ and DJ on engagement
(i.e. job and organizational) using his self-developed scale. Moliner et al. (2008) tested
126
the link between DJ, PJ and IJ and engagement in the Spanish hospitality Industry. Gupta
& Kumar (2013) identified that there is not a single study which established the link
between engagement and justice by employing their established measures. According to
Korsgaard, Sapienza, and Schweiger (2002), Procedural Justice (PJ) moderates the affect
of planning change on employees’ obligations, trusting the management, and intention to
stay in the organization which suggest that PJ may also moderates the impact of LOPs on
EE types.
2.4.2 Moderation: PAJ between the relationship of LOPs & EE and LOPs & ED
As Performance Appraisal System (PAS) has been passing through several states
of development from sheer evaluating employee behavior for performance measurement
to the learning environment creation for employee performance enhancement.
Performance appraisal is considered as an organized interaction between the employees
and their bosses in order to examine employee performance for identification of his
strengths and weaknesses with the view to improving future performance. Performance
appraisal has been in hot discussion for very long due to its importance of decisions
which ensure employees’ actions and reactions towards their job roles (Jawahar, 2007).
Performance appraisal validity and reliability has always been a challenging task
for the managers or employers because of the employees’ concerns (Taylor, Tracy,
Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995). After a thorough literature review, the moderating
role of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) has been found missing in the relationships
between LOPs and EE and between LOPs and ED. Gupta & Kumar (2013) stated that
PAJ is a smaller part of a broader construct organizational justice which is evaluated
through its four dimensions. They also stated that rates’ perception of HR system’s
127
fairness heavily depends upon the said four levels of PA justice. It has been analyzed that
EE is the result of managerial activities to develop trust, fairness and justice (Purcell,
2012).
Engagement if is required to be addressed positively, these PAJ activities do need
attention as stated in a study Rowland and Hall (2013) that appraisals do behave as a
medium for learning and the development of relationships i.e. learning and performance
need to be researched. Until performance appraisal system is perceived as fair (Latham et
al., 2005), employee engagement cannot be maximized as Kahn (1990) stated that
engagement is verily changed due to the changed perceptions of organizational members.
Macey and Schineider (2008) described that EE is closely associated with the extrinsic
and intrinsic rewards. Moreover, it was ensured (Spell & Arnold, 2007) that the
association of justice perception with employee contributions and their performance
outcomes. Research need in justice has been identified (Moliner et al., 2008) in
performance management and engagement literature which has been be investigated in
the current study. Later on in last two years, the studies (Biron & Reuver, 2013; A.
Cohen, 2013; Otaye & Wong, 2014) also emphasize the need of more research upon
alternative concepts. Employees’ psychological empowerment is considered as an
intrinsic motivational factor and cognitive appraisal (Stander & Rothmann, 2010).
The psychological empowerment turns into employees’ self-efficacy and
engagement towards his job (Gretchen M. Spreitzer, 1995). Employer support for
individual development drives employee positive response in terms of engagement and
performance. ED opportunities pave the way for employee satisfaction which leads
towards better performance outcomes. By putting forth the current learning
128
organizational needs, the study investigates the moderating role of PAJ between the
relationships of LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED which guides the researchers and
practitioners to take the remedial measures to extract ultimate employee performance
outcomes.
2.4.3 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) measurement tools
PAJ i.e. Procedural Justice (PJ), Distributive Justice (DJ), Interpersonal Justice
(IJ) and Informational Justice have been adapted from Colquitt (2001) which later on
used in a study by Gupta & Kumar (2013). Total 20 items (i.e. DJ 4 items, PJ 7 items, IJ
4 items and InfoJ 5 items) used by Gupta & Kumar (2013) were reduced to 12 items for
PAJ (i.e. DJ 3 items, PJ 3 items, IJ 3 items and InfoJ 3 items) due to their factor loading
(< 0.4) in the pilot testing for the current study. The responses for the current study in the
questionnaire have been measured using a five-point Likert scale that ranged from
strongly disagree – (1) to strongly agree – (5).
2.5 Employee Performance (EP)
Performance is defined as the productive output of a system in the form of goods
or services (Rana et al., 2014). Performance is basically the employee’s total achievement
during the time provided to him, considering his attitude and behavior into account. EP
incorporates specific employee behavior to perform certain tasks and turns out with some
specific results in alignment with organizational goals. Huselid (1995) considered
individual employee performance as a route towards firm level performance.
Performance is about carrying the plans positively for targeted results achievements and
Employee performance (EP) refers to the outcomes achieved and accomplishments made
during the course of job performance. The organizational policies, practices and design
129
features do drive performance of the both i.e. individuals and the organizations (Anitha,
2014).
Taylor in the year 1911, was one of the most primitive highlighters of employee
performance drivers who provided the idea of economic man with a view of income level
and reward system within the organization in relation with EP. Since then hundreds of
studies contributed towards EP like those of (Arthur, 1994; Huselid, 1995; Pfeffer, 1994).
Performance is to let an employee do what the employer wants him to do
(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Employee Performance (EP) depends upon
individual factors, i.e. personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities (Vroom,
1964). These factor have treated in the past as job performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).
Past studies agree that job performance can be categorized into these five factors (Hunter
& Hunter, 1984). They also revealed that person’s personality does have specific role in
job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Herzberg et al. (1959) and Lindner (1998) indicated that job performance can be
referred as it is the managerial side of performance. EP can be perceived further as
obtaining external funds (Lindner, 1998). Job performance includes the issue of
measurement of performance associated with it (Bishop, 1989).
Breaugh (1981) proposed four performance dimensions i.e. quality, quantity,
dependability and job knowledge to measure individual performance. Learning on the job
is further found acting as a key for job performance, moreover general cognitive ability is
considered as the main predictor of learning (Hunter, 1986). Employees with good
abilities and enough experience are comparatively more productive (Kostiuk &
Follmann, 1989).
130
Employee motivation and Employee Performance (EP) in the organization are
closely associated with each other. Rummler and Brache (1995) proposed a model in
order to be competitive through learning about the management of individuals, processes
and the organizations more effectively. Employees’ job satisfaction is known the most
significant predictor of performance (Campbell & Lee, 1988). Job satisfaction is also
considered as an important performance indicator for the organizations. Thus
performance measurement in a subjective manner is quite common and the study also
measure employee performance subjectively (Brown and Michell, (1993).
Performances can be categorized as organizational and employee performance
(Otley, 1999). Employee Performance (job performance) has been found subjectively
measured in organizations with a few alternative options in the past studies. Otley (1999)
related that organizational performance primarily depends upon employee performance,
(i.e. job performance) along with some other factors (i.e. organizational environment).
Successful goal attainment with appropriate implementation of strategy is known as
organizational performance (Otley, 1999) whereas job performance is the outcome
derived from the work of an employee (Hunter, 1986). Need of EP is quite evident for
any organization because the success of any organization heavily rely upon individual’s
creativity, innovation and commitment (Ramlall, 2008). Employees’ ability to perform is
important to get required job performance (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).
Mone, Price, and Eisinger (2011) viewed that taking EE context Mone and
London (2009) found sufficient training and support opportunities by the managers
regarding employee career development efforts, they did not only address EE but ED.
Employees require motivational support and the resources in order to achieve their
131
development goals in addition to the learning opportunities (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, &
Taris, 2008) and deliver enhanced performance outcomes. Bhatla (2011) by analyzing the
EE drivers examined the impact of EE on EP in Indian banking industry.
Bedarkar and Pandita (2014) also positively examined the impact of three
engagement drivers (i.e. leadership, communication and work life balance) on
engagement and performance. Swanson and Holton (2001) presented the performance
improvement strategy model as a Learning Organization (LO) improvement strategy.
Swanson (1994) proposed a performance model at said three levels to gauge productivity
by focusing quantity, time, and quality features.
2.5.1 Antecedents of Employee Performance (EP)
2.5.1.1 Continuous Learning (CL)
Learning as one of the prime components of HRD for the purpose of system
development within the organization and paves the way for enhanced individual
performance (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Learning interventions by the organizations do
enhance individual learning as their prime objective is to enhance individual performance
(Bontis, Crossan, & Hulland, 2002).
2.5.1.2 Dialogue and Inquiry (DI)
Crossan, Lane, and White (1999), view of the employee is quite critical which
should be addressed to complete the feedback loop from the employees to the top level
management and back to the employees. Learning Organizations without having strong
feedback system cannot be able to address their employees’ concerns, issues, or problems
which could result in decreased employee trust, satisfaction and performance. Dialogue
132
promotes knowledge transfer from employee to group and the organization (Edwards,
Edwards, Ferner, Marginson, & Tregaskis, 2010).
2.5.1.3 Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL)
In order to reap maximum employee performance, collaboration and team
learning is required to be incorporated positively in LOs. Bontis et al. (2002), reported
that Individuals’ learning capacity may result in group or team level learning. Clark
(2003) stated that individuals when be in teams, face the issues of perception of KSAs of
the other team members whether enough to achieve team objectives and their
collaboration expectations from the other members. Thus each one in the team has to be
viewed independently and in combination with the KSAs of the other team member.
These concerns affect employee motivation which leads to changes performance
outcomes so has to be critically addressed.
2.5.1.4 Embedded Systems (ES)
Marah et al. (2006) found that LOs do have systems, mechanisms and processes
in place with continuous up-gradation and enhance individual capabilities. Moreover,
organizations are required to put their focus on establishing systems which should
incorporate Knowledge Management (KM) components. KM components as it is an
inevitable feature of LOs, if are incorporated into the organizational system may lead the
organization towards maximum productivity of their employees (Dymock & McCarthy,
2006).
133
2.5.1.5 System Connections (SC)
Otley (1999) reported that the pre requisite for organizational performance is
primarily the Employee Performance and the environmental factors. The organizations
instead of treating these factors in isolation need to connect them with each other and
with learning. Organizations always look for learning opportunities in order to meet the
challenges of new regulations by following the changes in political leadership (Godkin &
Montano, 1991) considering these as external factor that may affect them. These internal
and external factors are required to be integrated in order to ensure system connections to
be an effective LO reaping enhanced performance of the employees.
2.5.1.6 Employee Empowerment (EEM)
Petter, Byrnes, Choi, Fegan, and Miller (2002) proposed power, information,
Decision Making (DM), initiative and creativity, autonomy, knowledge, skills and
abilities, and the responsibility (Boudrias, Gaudreau, Savoie, & Morin, 2009) as
dimensions of empowerment. The relationship of EEM with EP and Employee
commitment has been confirmed by Meyerson and Dewettinck (2012). It is also found
that EEM facilitate organizations to be more adaptive ensure EP and on the other hand
EEM is quite critical for the organizations to be managed. Baird and Wang (2010)
described that EEM is more concerned in today’s competitive world with the need of
knowledge workers and decentralization has to be addressed.
2.5.1.7 Strategic Leadership (SL)
Learning objective can be achieved when leadership is broadly distributed and
shared with the emphasis upon creating a shared vision, cater for individual mental
models challenges with an approach of engaging them in systems thinking (Peter Senge,
134
1990) not only for the current organizational needs but for the future. Strategic leadership
plays a vital role in enhancing EP by incorporating a learning culture in the organization.
Link between SL is EP has been confirmed as both direct and indirect (Vigoda-Gadot,
2007). Leadership development in order to ensure experiential, vicarious and
transformational learning, is always needed to influence organizational members’
motivation (MichaPopper, 2005).
For the purpose of the strategic initiatives implementation, leaders particularly at
middle levels must allocate resources and convince employees about these initiatives’
importance for the employees and the organization (Cannella & Monroe, 1997;
Rotemberg & Saloner, 1993). Past studies have confirmed the successful implementation
of a new strategic initiative by the leaders supporting the change (Burgelman, 1983). If
strategy is not supported by the leaders at middle level, may drive it towards failure. So
the Employee Performance (EP) can only be ensured if it’s leaders adopt positive
communication and implementation strategy as narrated by Guth and MacMillan (1986).
2.5.1.8 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ)
Whiteside and Barclay (2012) specified that justice is linked with the behaviors in
several ways theoretically as individuals may encounter increased withdrawal and
reduced performance as a way to manage their resources (Hobfoll, 1989). However,
justice may increase individuals’ resources to perform job tasks which may lead towards
increase in their ability to perform. Hobfoll (1989) further stated that individuals who
possess the feeling of fair treatment, respond with enhanced positive behaviors
(performance) and fewer negative behaviors (withdrawal) (Cropanzano et al., 2001).
Developmental appraisal highlights the gaps in employee KSAs which can be filled with
135
ED initiatives leading towards enhanced EP (Kirkpatrick, 2006). Rewards and
recognition are considered as most critical to EE due to the fact they positively contribute
to employee satisfaction, motivation, and morale (Mone & London, 2009). In addition to
the encouragement to the employees, past studies confirmed that recognition provided to
the employees is closely associated with their engagement and performance (Maslach &
Leiter, 1997).
2.5.1.9 Employee Development (ED)
ED in enhancing its importance by being critical as a strategic imperative for
organizations in the current business scenario (Sheri-Lynne & Singh, 2007). For their
survival, organizations by all means have to support and promote well-being of their
employees which ultimately result in their enhanced performance (Currie, 2001). Hameed
and Waheed (2011) confirmed that ED is directly linked with EP as ED leads towards
enhanced job satisfaction, commitment and the performance which ultimately leads
towards increased organization effectiveness (Champathes, 2006). Chay and Bruvold
(2003) are of the view that if perceived developmental activities are focused, will surely
result in gaining competitive advantage by the LOs. Tahir, Yousafzai, Jan, and Hashim
(2014) concluded after quantitative analysis that T&D does affect EP in banking industry
of Pakistan.
2.5.1.10 Employee Engagement (EE)
Employee Performance (of doing something fruitfully) can be described as an
event in which individuals alone or in a group act in a particular way for others
(Chaudhary & Sharma, 2012). Previous studies reveal that Employee Engagement (EE) is
the real driver of enhanced employee performance (Macey, Schneider, Barbera, &
136
Young, 2009). ensured the link between EE and enhanced Employee Performance (EP)
(Anitha, 2014).
Gruman and Saks (2011) disclosed EE as a driver of enhanced performance which
plays a pivotal role in the performance management process. They further quoted (Macey
et al., 2009) regarding declaring EE a prime determinant of EP. Moreover, human sigma
(i.e. an approach for performance improvement and reducing variability) toils in the
presence of employee engagement (Fleming, Coffman, & Harter, 2005).
Past studies have revealed that the employees who are engaged are expected to
perform better than their disengaged counterparts (Fleck & Inceoglu, 2010; Saks, 2006;
Brad Shuck et al., 2011). May et al., (2004a) stated that psychological meaningfulness
conditions (Kahn, 1990) as prime antecedent of EE, have been linked to attitudinal
outcomes (i.e. satisfaction, motivation, and turnover cognitions) and different behavioral
outcomes (i.e. performance and absenteeism). Saks (2006) proposed that engaged
employees have been found more committed, satisfied, and productive. According to
Kim et al. (2012), It is also reported that the positive relationship between work
engagement on employee performance within organization.
EE has a significant impact on employee performance (Anitha, 2014). Heaving
gone through the past theories (Gruman and Saks (2011) reveal Demerouti, Cropanzano,
Bakker, and Leiter (2010) views that engagement acts like a driver for performance
enhancement as an outcome of various mechanisms and this argument is supported by
various past studies which confirm a positive association between engagement and
individual performance (Xanthopoulou, Baker, Heuven, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2008).
Halbesleben (2010) also confirmed the significance of the link between EE and
137
commitment, health, turnover intentions, and performance of the employees. Gruman and
Saks (2011) concluded that association between engagement and performance is in
harmony with the engagement research.
2.5.2 Employee Performance (EP) Measurement Tools
Employee Performance (EP) measurement scale was previously developed and
assessed by Green, Medlin, and Whitten (2004) which was later on used by Medlin and
Green (2009) for Individual performance construct measurement. Three items have been
adopted from the work of Green et al. (2004) for Individual performance and two items
from the work of Muhammed (2006) for EP measurement in the current study which later
on reduced to four items after the confirmation of their reliability and factor analysis. The
scale used for the selected items was 5 points likert scale (i.e. strongly disagree – 1 to
strongly agree – 5)
2.6 Conceptualization of the Relationships
2.6.1 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) and Employee Performance (EP)
LOPs have been studied in different contexts and in bits and pieces by various
past researchers. Post bureaucratic organizations’ characteristics (Jamali et al., 2006)
include flexibility (Anell & Wilson, 2000; Englehardt & P.R. Simmons, 2000),
empowerment (Claydon & Doyle, 1996; Erstad, 1997; Siegall & Gardner, 2000),
commitment (King & Ehrhard, 1997; Nijhof et al., 1998), communication (Kitchen &
Daly., 2002), trust (Gilbert & Tang, 1998; R. C. Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995;
Webber, 2002) and team work (S. G. Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Engwall & Svensson,
138
2004). Jamali et al. (2006) stated that these dimensions are basically the rout towards five
LO disciplines proposed by Peter Senge (1990). Watkins and Golembiewski (1995)
explored the concept of learning that may be applied on individual, teams, organizations
and then communities. LO concept revolves around people and structure (V. J. Marsick
& K. E. Watkins, 1999; Marsick & Watkins, 2003) and can be measured through:
Continuous Learning (CL), Dialogue and Inquiry (DI), Collaboration and Team Learning
(CTL), Embedded Systems (ES), System Connections (SC), Employee Empowerment
(EEM) and Strategic Leadership (SL).
Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) reported three features i.e. environmental
support, Learning process and practice focus and behavior of the leadership as LO
dimensions. It is also found that LO as platform for knowledge creation to its
management fit for its employees (Garvin et al., 2008). Tseng (2010) worked on Learning
Organization’s Practices (LOPs) by examining their impact on organization commitment
and organizational effectiveness which concluded a strong correlation among all three, in
Taiwan’s SME sector organizations. Dekouloua and Trivellasb (2015) confirmed the
positive relationship of organization learning with EP (Rose, Kumar, & Pak, 2009) with
the mediating role of job satisfaction. The significant and positive association of LOPSC,
LOPEEM, LOPDI, with individual performance is also confirmed. When an organization
supports its employees regarding their professional and individual well-being and making
them feel and behave as parts of their employees’ job satisfaction, the performance gets
enhanced.
139
2.6.2 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs), Employee Engagement (EE) and
Employee Performance (EP)
Marsick and Watkins (2003) derived practitioners’ and researchers’ attention
towards a dilemma of employee turnover in today’s organizations which are quite weak
in retaining their employees and making them willful in knowledge exchange positively
for better performance outcomes. The said dilemma can vitally be seen in Pakistan’s
telecommunication Industry. Paul and Anantharaman (2004) specified that LO practices
have an impact on employee development and employee willingness to perform their job
roles, i.e. EE, which leads them to enhance performance outcomes. Pedler et al. (1991a)
focused upon the organizations employees who learn positively mainly because of rightly
implemented LOPs. LOPs if applied positively may facilitate the organizations to
enhance their employees’ engagement. An examination by Song et al. (2011) has been
made for the clarity of the theoretical considerations in 50 SMEs in central Korea which
resulted in the success of LO practices on Individual learning.
The need of Employee Engagement (EE) worldwide has been recognized, but
when explored, studies, i.e. (Bates, 2004; White, 2006) found a constant deterioration in
it. It is mainly because of measurement of gaps between actual and perceived level of
engagement (Czarnowsky, 2008). Kahn (1990) explained engagement as the way people
are involved at work. Brad Shuck and Wollard (2010) defined EE as employee’s
‘cognitive, emotional and behavioral state’ towards organizations’ goals. Thus EE is
required to be addressed if EP is desired in any organizational settings.
Wagner and Harter (2006) explored that engaged employees are those who are
emotionally attached with their work. A company that prioritize to facilitate employee
140
learning in a continuous manner with an objective of transformation for its better and
secure future, always look for the positive change in employee attitude and behavior
(Pedler et al., 1991a; S. Sambrook & Stewart, 2000). Interest, psychological and
emotional attachment in work, is required to be ensured and developed if not there in the
employees by LOs. Anitha (2014), explained meaningful workplace settings which
facilitate employees for their dedicated job role performance and interpersonal harmony
as a key determinant of EE.
According to Saks (2006), Engagement is the degree of employee attentiveness to
their work and their performance. Moreover, Shaw (2005) identified that EE transforms
the potential of the employees into performance. Deci and Ryan (1987) suggested the
employers or management to create and uplift a supportive environment which must
show concerns for employee feelings and needs by encouraging them through a
constructive feedback with the solutions of work-related problems.
Vance (2006) also confirms the direct link of employee engagement and their
performance which ultimately leads to organizational performance. Open communication
(Inquiry and Dialogue) and sharing mechanism are considered as the key attributes of LO
(Garvin, 2000) which cannot be achieved without creating employee engagement. These
attributes are directly associated with employee attitude towards work so the true
Learning Organizations are known for the practicality of such attributes whether for the
individuals, teams or for the organization (Johnston & Hawke, 2002; Mabey & Salaman,
1995). Learning Organizations truly ensure the learning of all the employees (Tjepkema
et al., 2000) no matter what methodology they use. The common and most critical
components of all the definitions of LO revolve around employee performance.
141
Johnston and Hawke (2002) raised a concern of individual and organization’s
continuous learning needs along with its association with the knowledge sharing
economy. They put all their focus upon individual learning. Competitive business
environment has made the business community realize that the rapid change cannot be
encountered without adopting learning organization strategies (Farago & Skyrme, 1995).
Competitive performance cannot be achieved without intense role of all the employees in
organization’s processes (Gilley, Boughton, & Maycunich, 1999). So the employees, if
are not fully engaged physically, emotionally and cognitively, desired performance
cannot be achieved. The emotional side of engagement (Hochschild, 1983; Morris &
Feldman, 1996) may affect negatively if employees are stressed due to emotional labor.
This negative effect may result in affected performance outcomes. The study examines
the mediating role of Employee Engagement (EE) in the relationship between LOPs and
Employee Performance.
2.6.3 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs), Employee Development (ED) and
Employee Performance (EP)
Hameed and Waheed (2011) found that the concept of Employee Development
(ED) carries two different dimensions which include self-development and self-directed
learning. They further excavate that the importance of ED activities and Human Capital
Investment (HCI) brings increased employee performance which leads the organizations
towards better performance outcomes. Due to the shift of the traditional organization to
the Learning Organizations (LO), the ED focus has also been upgraded from mere
promotions to the skill development (Feldman, 2000).
142
Starkey (1996) emphasized on the strategy formulation for upholding SD for the
individuals within the organization along with a self-transforming approach. Learning
organizations are required to be a self-transforming organization which required
employee development in a continuous manner. Keeping in view the need for the
learning organizations to respond quickly against changes, they have to be proactive
especially in employee development context. Meister (1998) stated that knowledge
alterations are quick, and individuals have to retain. Enhanced Employee Performance
(EP) according to Elena (2000), could be the possible outcome of employee development.
Development activities can be applied at the employees at all three levels
(Antonacopoulou & FitzGerald, 1996) and surely result in enhanced employees’ and
ultimately organization’s performance. Employee development programs have always
been a reason of provision of importance to the employees. Organizations’ in today’s
competitive world should ensure the provision of the environment in which employees
learning is a continuous activity (Garger, 1999) which ultimately affect employee and
organizational performance.
Hamblett and Holden (2000) stated that patterns of LOs and ED schemes
resemble greatly. Furthermore the relationship between commitment and self-
development (a component of Employee Development) leads to an increased
performance (King and Ehrhard 1997). Support for ED does bring positive outcomes for
the employees and for the organizations (Hurtz & Williams, 2009; Kraimer et al., 2011;
Maurer & Chapman, 2013). It is also pointed out by Song, (1999, 2000) that there is a
need of research on linking learning practices and performance improvement. Awasthy
143
and Gupta (2012) also worked upon the learning dimensions and performance outcomes
with the mediating role of structural-level learning dimensions.
Maurer and Lippstreu (2008) stated that the employer support for individual
development drives employee positive response in terms of performance. King and
Ehrhard (1997) linked commitment and motivation with SD and EP. ED opportunities
pave way for employee satisfaction (Garcia-Bernal, Gargallo-Castel, Marzo-Navarro, &
Rivera-Torres, 2005) which leads to their productivity enhancement. The study tested the
mediating role of Employee Development (ED) in the context of self-directed learning
and self-development between the relationship of LOPs and Employee performance.
2.6.4 Learning Organization’s Practices (LOPs) Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ),
Employee Development (ED), Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee
Performance
Performance appraisal has been a part of organizational discussions for very long
period of time due to its importance of decisions which ensure employees’ actions and
reactions towards their job roles (Jawahar, 2007). Importance of justice to retain the
competent employees has been highlighted in the past literature (Zhao, 2013).
Performance appraisal validity and reliability has always been a challenging task for the
managers or employers because of the employees’ concerns (Taylor, Tracy, Renard,
Harrison, & Carroll, 1995).
Gupta and S. Kumar (2013) found PAJ as a smaller part of a broader construct
‘organizational justice’ which is evaluated through its four dimensions i.e. Distributive
justice (DJ), Procedural justice (PJ), Interactional justice (IJ) and Informational Justice
(InfoJ). They also state that ratees’ perception of HR system’s fairness heavily depends
144
upon the said three levels of PA justice. Ghosh et al. (2014) There highlighted the need of
linking other factors with engagement prediction taking dimensions of justice in future.
Until performance appraisal system is perceived as fair (Latham et al., 2005),
employee engagement cannot be maximized as Kahn (1990) expressed that engagement
is verily changed due to the changed perceptions of organizational members. Individual
appraisal Interviews console their development needs the best and are needed to be
focused upon (Rowland & Hall, 2012). EE is closely associated with the extrinsic and
intrinsic rewards which motivate the employees if PAJ is ensured as fair (William H.
Macey and Schineider (2008). Engagement has also become a prime focus of
performance improvement along with the fairness of the procedures in any organization
(Rowland & Hall, 2013). Appraisal injustice can create demotivation for the employees
which may lead to employee’s emotional, cognitive and behavioral downturn. In addition
to this, Spell and Arnold (2007) the association of justice perception with employee
contributions and their performance outcomes. It Moliner et al. (2008) also needs PAJ
and EE if filled positively, and adds to the understanding of justice or fairness.
Furthermore, Hongwei et al. (2014) signify justice, employee engagement and their
outcomes. In the current study, by putting forth the need, the moderating role of PAJ has
been investigated between the relationships of LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED which
may guide the researchers and practitioners to take the remedial measures for extracting
ultimate employee performance outcomes.
A wrong perception of various traditional employers has been identified that mere
incentive and excessive training can transform a conventional organization into a learning
organization (LO) (Govaerts et al., 2011). Such perception has to be changed because of
145
the importance of the engagement and ED construct covered in this study. Without
addressing EE and ED practices ultimate performance objectives cannot be achieved.
The current study has been classified into four steps. The first step focuses upon
identifying the level of intensity of the impact of selected LOPs upon Employee
Performance (EP). Moreover, it identifies the intensity of the LOPs upon the three types
of EE i.e. emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and ED i.e. Self-development (SD) & Self-
directed learning (SDL). The outcomes surely guide the managers or corporate heads to
deal with the three said EE dimensions and ED dimensions with due focus. Knowing the
intensity of the impact of each LO practice upon EE and ED, helps them plan and
strategize the engagement each has with the right approach to maximize their
engagement.
The second phase followed the examination of the relationships of Employee’s
(EE) and Employee Development (ED) with Employee performance. This phase ensured
the significance of the relationships the selected factors with EP. It ensured the intensity
of the relationship of employee’s emotional, cognitive and behavioral engagement with
his performance and the employee’s self-development and self-directed behavior with his
performance. It paves way for the practitioners for getting their desired employee’s
performance outcomes. Employee Development (ED) attributes, i.e. Self-Development
(SD) and Self-Directed Behavior (SDB), if are focused with the right course of action
may lead to the employee performance maximization.
In the third phase, investigation regarding the mediating role of Employee
Engagement (EE) in the relationship between LOPs and Employee Performance (EP) and
the mediating role of ED in LOPs and EP relationship has been tested. In the last phase,
146
the study tested the moderating role of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) in the
relationship between LOPs and EE. This testified the intensity of PAJ to be catered for,
while LOPs affected the EE and ED states. This study investigated these relationships in
the context of Learning Organizations. The current study also considers the difference in
the significance attached with LOPs, EE, ED Individual performance and their role in
Learning Organizations’ decision making process. There is a strong association between
compensation (i.e. financial and non-financial), recognition and Employee Engagement
(EE) which is a source of motivation for him to achieve more in terms of his work
performance and personal development (Anitha, 2014).
EE can be determined by the organizational policies, procedures, structures and
systems (Anitha, 2014). Past studies have provided the sound support for the link
between Organizational policies and procedures (flexi-timing, aid in balancing work and
life, and fair promotional policies) and EE.
Performance Appraisal’s fairness perception is associated with physical,
emotional and cognitive engagements of the employee while his job performance
(Latham et al., 2005). This strong association has also been confirmed (Kahn (1990) with
the argument that individuals differ in their engagement depending upon their outcomes
perceptions. Recognition will be provided by their employer for the outcomes or efforts
they made. Justice perception of the employees is closely associated with anxiety and
depression (Spell & Arnold, 2007). The significance and positivity of the relationship is
confirmed (V. Gupta and S. Kumar (2013) between PAJ perceptions and EE in Indian
context claiming the first with such a study. They also concluded Distributive Justice
(DJ) and Informative Justice (InfoJ) closely linked to employee’s well-being.
147
2.7 Theoretical Foundation
2.7.1 Theoretical Foundation for Learning, Learning Organization (LO)
Though past studies have proposed theories for LOs but all have their limitations
due to which they have been criticized, also indicating that the field, i.e. LO, is still
young and has a lot of capacity to be mature with the requirements of more research.
When theoretical basis were explored for LO and OL constructs, study found a wide gap
in OL theory with no concrete theory confirming the view of Probst and Buchel (1998).
Learning Organizations have been conceptualized by varying theoretical concepts
(Kontoghiorghes et al., 2005). Theories are broadly categorized in two types i.e. Micro
and Macro level theories. Micro level theories focus upon individuals or small scale
structures and processes in the society whereas Macro level theories spotlight social side
(structure, processes & problems) and their inter-relationships. In order to integrate
different theories related to the selected constructs, a conceptual integration is required by
identifying similarities (Akers & Sellers, 2004).
The study explored two macro level theories i.e. System theory and Learning
Theories in order to address the variables. System theory provides basis for the open and
dynamic organizations’ system (Senge, 1990) whereas learning theories describe the
treatment with the information for learning purpose. Cognitive, emotional, and
environmental effects, as well as prior experience, all play a part in how to develop the
understanding and how to retain the knowledge, Skills and abilities. Psychological
Learning theory provides a link with different levels of learning which have been
confirmed in LO characteristics (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Argyris. & Schon, 1996;
Swierinaga & Wierdsama, 1992).
148
Learning Organizations (LOs) do have a sound base of the referred theories but
when the LOs characteristics are taken into consideration, a strong link is derived from
the Social Exchange Theory (SET) facilitating the employees to act for other employees’
benefits especially for their welfare instead of their economic calculations (Barker &
Camarata, 1998). SET ensures an unlimited positive nature of the employees by focusing
the welfare of the other employees (Barker & Camarata, 1998; P. Blau, 1964).
Deduced form various OL definitions, it is obvious that no consistent OL theory
exists (Probst & Buchel, 1998). A model consisting of three learning levels developed by
Argyris and Schon (1978) stated that single-loop learning is the first level. which befalls
when employees detect and correct errors but maintaining the organizational theory-in
use. The second level i.e. the double-loop learning occurs at the time of changing
organizational norms and thus the theories-in-use. The third level includes the reflection
of previous learning by the learning members which can be interpreted as the
organization learns to develop its learning process. Modification of the values of the
theories-in-use, the strategies and expectations can be exercised at this level. Learning
theories that are associated with organizational development and that has been a focused
in the organizational literature since 90s (Garvin, 1993; Marquardt, 1996; Senge, 1990;
Watkins & Marsick, 1993).
Altman and Iles (1998) proposed theories for LO concept (Kontoghiorghes et al.,
2005), i.e. system theory and psychological learning theory. System theory context states
organizations as open systems which keep changing (Kontoghiorghes et al., 2005; Peter
Senge, 1990) whereas psychological learning theory context regarding LO states about
149
the learning levels in an LO (Kontoghiorghes et al., 2005; Swierinaga & Wierdsama,
1992).
Moreover Rational Choice Theory (RCT) addressed the widely the employee-
organization relationships (Barker & Camarata, 1998). RCT resides upon the assumption
of trade-off between the parties on the bases of ‘what individuals expect in return for
their efforts or choices. Residing upon RCT, employees lose their bonding with their job
roles and show least concerns about what is not directly related with them or assigned to
them. LOs can handle such issues of Employee Engagement (whether Emotional,
Psychological or Behavioral) by using Social Exchange Theory (SET) with which
employees act for other instead of economic calculation (Barker & Camarata, 1998). Blau
(1964) reported that SET includes future exchange of an positive nature (Barker &
Camarata, 1998). According to SET, employee perception about his organization is
developed upon the behavior of his/her organization with him. If the organization cares
for his well-being, their overall engagement moves vertically upward and they put all
their efforts towards the well-being of their organization and those working with them.
This aspect of an LO is quite critical in relation with LOPs, PAJ, ED and their
performance
2.7.2 Theoretical Foundation for Engagement (EE)
Past studies have verily used different theories for Employee Engagement (EE)
but majority confirmed Social Exchange Theory (SET) with valid rationale for it
(Andrew & Sofian, 2012). SET explains the work relationships which evolve over time
into loyalty, mutual trust and commitments (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Employees
feel obliged for their organizations due to any of the incentive or likewise treatment and
150
repay the organization by being more engaged as Saks (2006) explained it one way for
the employees to repay their organizations.
Kahn (1990) defined engagement as to bring deep concerns into their role
performances in response of what they get from the organization. SET gauges the
intrinsic nature of the EE (Saks, 2006) which has been supported by Kahn’s (2006) view
of being obliged employees and more contribution are made towards the job roles if
treated well. Hakanen, Bakker, and Schaufeli (2006) addressed it with burnout as an
outcome if the organization gets failed in providing resources to its employees which
would also be in exchange of what employees get from their organization and respond
accordingly.
Engagement includes the two-way relationship i.e. between employee and the
employer (Dilys Robinson et al., 2004; Saks, 2006). According to (Singhal, 2004),
Employee Engagement is also theoretically backed by Social Learning Theory (SLT). As
SET focus the nature of relationships in which they tend to be more engaged (Mills &
Clark, 1982; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Organ, 1990). The social exchange relationship
do assist employer to motivate employees which results in the benefit of both i.e.
employee and the organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001).
Social Exchange psychological contracts involves shared obligation and
relationship for each party (Cropanzano & Byrne, 2000) and few variables like: job
attitude, stress, abnormal behaviors, commitment, involvement, turnover, job satisfaction,
employee engagement and employee performance (Islam, Aamir, Khan, NorulKamar, &
Ahmad, 2013).
151
2.7.3 Theoretical Foundation for Employee Development (SD and SDL)
Self-Directed Learning includes generally a great deal of knowledge and skills by
identifying employees’ own learning objectives, how these objectives are met. Employee
need of self-expression and self-employment (Kahn, 1990) are associated with
motivation theories. In today’s rapidly changing market self-development bears some
common attributes of experiential and action learning theories. These attributes in general
include; reflection, experimentation and a meta level of understanding (Mumford, 1988;
Revans, 1980).
Employee Development (ED) includes; Self-Development and Self-directed
Learning (Hameed & Waheed, 2011). According to Armstrong-Stassen and Ursel (2009),
SET supports employees’ sense of heaving support by an organization’s HR practices
leading them to work hard and put all their endeavors to pay off the organization they
serve for (Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009; Fulei, Long, & Ming, 2014). It enhances
employee performance with organizational support (Fulei et al., 2014; Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002). Support from the supervisor for the development is established in
SET as it can also be considered as a method of substituting development opportunities
for good performance (Pierce & Maurer, 2009).
SD and SDL are the initiatives taken by the individuals and are concerned with,
what it is that self-directed learners do, and it (Bouchard, 2009) will surely be in return of
the support from their organization or employer. Thus SET also covers the said variable
and its link with LOPs.
152
2.7.4 Theoretical Foundation for Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ)
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) is intensively required by all the employees
intentionally or unintentionally. According to Erdogan (2002), SET and accountability
theories can be used as a basis for Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) in relation with
its outcomes. He further stated that SET describes justice perceptions effects for future
interactions between the individuals and the organization they serve for, while
accountability theory supports fair performance appraisal mechanism to be established in
order to enhance accountability for performance improvement.
2.7.5 Theoretical Foundation for Employee Performance (EP)
Motivation theories have mostly been quoted in the past studies as expectancy
theory (Vroom, 1964) predicts future behaviors. This theory estimates the intensity of the
individual perception regarding the level of performance attainment. Moreover, various
studies have suggested classical theories regarding employee performance (Arthur,
1994). Psychological theories provide a comparatively valid explanation of Performance
measurement effects (Groen, Wouters, & Wilderom, 2012). The point of employees
reciprocation of positive behavior in a positive relationship with each other and with their
organization is consistent with Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Vidyarthi, Anand, &
Liden, 2014). SET has also been confirmed by a Kuzua and Ozilhan (2014) which states
HR activities affect employee trust development which leads to organizational
effectiveness. In order to address performance appraisal and Employee Performance
(EP), Sanyala and Biswas (2014) specified two factor theory established, i.e. the
motivator’s hygiene factors to influence EP.
153
Performance is known as a multi-dimensional construct. The performance theory
being more recent than learning theory (Richard A Swanson & Holton, 2001) can address
the complex organizational system. Various HRD scholars and the scholars from other
disciplines suggested various performance models with individual, group, and
organizational level analysis (Langdon, 1995).
As examined above, though learning theories, motivational theories and
accountability theories are involved in the study variables but Social Exchange Theory
(SET) has been proposed as the theoretical basis to analyze the relationships among the
variables in the study.
2.8 Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis
2.8.1 Conceptual Framework
Figure 6 Conceptual Framework
2.8.2 Hypotheses
The following research hypotheses have been tested in this research. The study
first focused upon H1-H3 of the model, the relationships of LOPs with Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED). The second phase of hypotheses i.e.
154
H4-H5 has been examined the relationships of EE with Employee Performance (EP) and
ED with Employee Performance (EP). In the third phase, hypotheses H6 has been tested
i.e. the mediating role of Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED)
in the relationship of LOPs and Employee Performance. Finally, the study has tested H7
and H8 i.e. the moderating role of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) in the relationship
between LOPs and Employee Engagement (EE) and the relationship between LOPs and
Employee Development (ED).
H1: There is a significant impact of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) on
Employee Performance (EP).
H2: There is a significant impact of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) on
Employee Engagement (EE).
H3: There is a significant impact of Learning Organization Practices (LOP) on Employee
Development (ED).
H4: There is a significant impact of Employee Engagement (EE) on Employee
Performance (EP).
H5: There is a significant impact of Employee Development (ED) on Employee
Performance (EP).
H6: Relationship between LOPs and Employee Performance (EP) is mediated through
Employee Development (ED) and Employee Engagement (EE).
H7: Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderates the relationship between Learning
Orgaenization Practices (LOP) and Employee Engagement (EE).
H8: Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderates the relationship between Learning
Organization Practices (LOP) and Employee Development (ED).
155
CHAPTER 3
3 METHODOLOGY
As the study’s prime objective was to examine the holistic relationships between the
LOP’s, EE, ED, PAJ and EP in the Telecom Sector of Pakistan through moderated
mediation, the design and methods of the study were first critically analyzed then
adopted. The study was perception based and followed a quantitative methodology with
the philosophy of positivism. The positivist philosophy states that there is one objective
reality. Consequently, as an outcome, substantial exploration show just by the level of
evidence that could be related to the phenomena that study tried to uncover. Extraction of
the links among the selected variables i.e. LOPs, PAJ, EE, ED and EP required empirical
analysis which was followed by a self-administered questionnaire survey method to
answer the research questions of the study. The description of the Research design,
population, sample, Instruments and data analysis techniques used for the study is as
under:
3.1 Type of Study, analysis and techniques
A scientific method is the application of techniques and procedures to analyze
empirical evidence in order to approve or disapprove previously held conception
(Zikmund, 2003). The current study used the quantitative methods in order to test and
confirm the theorized relationships. As the proposed model stated that the Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) are the reason of variation in the
outcome variable and are generally caused by the predictor variable. The mediation, in
the study model was tested through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). SEM covered
156
two facets, i.e. the study model should be characterized by a chain of structural equations
and these structural relations should be modeled pictorially to enable a refined
conceptualization of the theories under study as confirmed by Byrne (1998). After the
model has been ensured, its plausibility has been tested using sample data which has
included all the observed variables. In order to establish goodness of fit between the
hypothesized model and the data, model-testing procedure has been completed.
Hypothesized model structure was imposed on sample data, and then tested to examine
observed data fitness with the restricted structure. SEM primarily has a capacity to
estimate a series of separate multiple regression equations simultaneously by specifying
the structural model (Hair Jr., Joseph, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). As required in
the study, SEM has been quite valuable technique in a situation where one dependent
variable becomes an independent variable in succeeding relationships. Another reason for
using SEM in the current study is that it uses variance/covariance or correlation matrix as
its input data unlike other multivariate techniques. SEM mainly focuses upon the pattern
of relationships across respondents (Hair Jr. et al., 1995) in addition to the focus on
individual observations. According to Hoyle (1995), SEM is known as statistical
approach that tests the hypotheses about relationships among observed and latent
variables.
The current study ensured that the LOPs (IVs) are related with EE and ED
(Mediators), EE and ED (Mediators) are related with Performance (DV) and the
significance of the relationship (for partial or full mediation) between IVs i.e. LOPs and
DVs i.e. Employee Performance (EP) has theoretically been ensured thorough literature
and empirically in the brain storming session has been tested though with non-validated
157
results and has been positively ensured in the final analysis stage. Thus the strength of the
relationship between LOPs and EP was affected by incorporating EE and ED as
mediators significantly. Moreover, the moderating effect of PAJ has also been examined
in the current study for the first time in the relationship of LOPs and EE and LOPs and
ED in PTSOs. With regard to the hypotheses, i.e. 7 and 8, analysis of moderation has
been persuaded which as a moderating variable that changes relationship strength
between an independent variable i.e. LOPs and dependent variables i.e. Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED).
The study has utilized the quantitative research method in order to test the
theorized relationships. The quantitative examination outlined is suitable because of the
reason that respondents’ data has been assigned numerical values to ensure relationships.
Data analysis has been performed through SPSS version 20.0. EFA and CFA for the
validity and reliability assurance and the internal consistency measurement has been
assessed by using Cronbach’s alpha (a).
3.2 Industry Setting
The industry setting for the current study is the Telecommunication industry of
Pakistan. For the purpose of selecting the industry, various brainstorming sessions were
conducted in the selected organizations. Organizations included from telecommunication
sector, i.e. Mobilink, Telenor, U-fone, Zong and Warid. In the said brain storming
sessions various line professionals, middle level and top level employees have been asked
about the real learning practices in their respective organizations (details stated in chapter
2). Moreover, these employees were asked about the relationships among the said LO
158
practices with their Engagement (EE), Development (ED) and Performance Appraisal
Justice (PAJ) and their Engagement (EE). Almost all the employees from the selected
PTSOs confirmed that their organizations claim to practice all of these partly or fully,
which ensured that these organizations can be considered as Learning Organizations
(LOs) because the literature (Tseng, 2010) confirmed that these are the most common LO
practices.
The telecommunication Industry of Pakistan though includes Cellular operators,
Long Distance International (LDI) operators, Fixed Local Loop (FLL) operators and
Wireless Local Loop (WLL) operators (PTA, 2012-2013) but the scope of the study was
kept limited to only five cellular operators, i.e. Zong, Mobilink, Ufone, Telenore and
Warid. Being operated by a Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), working
situation of the selected organizations is quite comparable because, 1) All five selected
organizations follow the same regulations, 2) Products of all the organizations are almost
same, 3) there cultures are almost identical, 4) their performance appraisal systems are
quite comparable because of the being in the same industry, 5) their Employee
Development (ED) measures are quite competitive and 6) their compensation practices
are almost identical because of facing the cut throat competition.
3.3 Extent of researcher interference
The study has been conducted in a natural environment of the organizations with
minimum interference by the researcher in their routine activities and the data has been
collected from the employees from all three levels of the management thus the study
setting was non-contrived.
159
3.4 Description of the Instrument
The study used self-administered questionnaire to test the impact of LOPs on EP
with the mediating role of EE and ED and the moderating role of PAJ upon the
relationship of LOPs with EE and LOPs with ED. The study used eight existing
questionnaires, i.e. DLOQ from Marsick and Watkins (2003), Three types of Employee
Engagement (EE) from CIPD (2006), Employee Development (ED) which includes Self-
Development (SD) from Oreg and Nov (2008) and Self-Directed Learning (SDL) from
Pinchuk (2010), Employee Performance questionnaire from Medlin and Green (2009)
and Muhammed (2006) and Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) questionnaire from
Gupta and Kumar (2013).
3.4.1 DLOQ (Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire)
The development of DLOQ (Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Watkins & Marsick, 1997; Karen
E Watkins & Victoria J Marsick, 1993) previously considered as a diagnostic tool (Yang,
2003) for change and learning measurement, has spotlighted seven dimensions
commonly known as LO practices or action imperatives for the purpose of assessing the
degree of assurance to consider a company as Learning Organization (Watkins &
Marsick, 1996). Marsick and Watkins (2003) explained these seven practices, i.e.
continuous learning (as learning opportunities cater for concurrent education and
growth), Inquiry & dialogue (as employees gain productive reasoning skills for
knowledge sharing), Collaboration and team learning (as collaborative thinking is valued
& rewarded), Create system (as systems must be integrated to share learning), Empower
people (as people should be motivated), Connect the environment and Strategic Learning
(as learning should be used strategically for business outcomes). The current study
160
selected the said seven LOPs to find out the significance of their link with EE, ED and EP
which have not yet been investigated. 21 items DLOQ was validated for the constructs in
PTSOs. Short form of DLOQ was used taking ‘goodness of fit index’ into consideration
from the past studies (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004; Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, & Howton,
2002; Ya-Hui Lien, Yu-Yuan Hung, Yang, & Li, 200). The seven dimensions of DLOQ,
i.e. seven learning organization practices (LOPs) were measured with 21 items on a 5
point likert-type scale from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree.
Independent Variable (IV), i.e. LOPs was addressed with 21 items, i.e. 1)
Continuous Learning (CL) using 3 items (LOPCL1, LOPCL2, LOPCL3), 2) Dialogue
and Inquiry (D&I) using 3 items (LOPDI1, LOPDI3, LOPDI3), 3) Collaboration and
Team Learning (CTL) using 3 items (LOPCTL1, LOPCTL2, LOPCTL3), 4) Embedded
Systems (ES) using 3 items (LOPES1, LOPES2, LOPES3), 5) System Connections (SC)
using 3 items (LOPSC1, LOPSC2, LOPSC3), 6) Employee Empowerment (EEM) using
3 items (LOPEEM1, LOPEEM2, LOPEEM3) and 7) Strategic Leadership (SL) using 3
items (LOPSL1, LOPSL2, LOPSL3). 5 point likert-type scale established the degree of
the response for the items ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (i.e. 1 - 5).
DLOQ has been verified in various contexts as English e.g. (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, &
Howton, 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 200), Chinese e.g. (X. Wang, 2005; Ya-Hui Lien,
Yu-Yuan Hung, Yang, & Li, 2006; D. Zhang, Zhang, & yang, 2004), and Korean
contexts (Joo, 2007; Lim, 2003). These studies have confirmed reliable estimates
regarding DLOQ.
161
3.4.2 Employee Engagement (EE) Questionnaire
In CIPD (2006), a comparison was made between men under and above 35 years
of age, managers and non-managers taking three states of EE which have been proposed
by Kahn (1990). The study reported that emotional engagement levels are the highest,
with approximately six in ten employees as compared to the five in ten cognitively
engaged and four in ten physically engaged. Item used in the survey questionnaire
regarding EE in the current study have been checked initially in the pilot study
confirming their reliability and factor analysis. Nine items were left after excluding four
items due to their loading values (< 4), Kurtosis (>3 & < -3) and KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) (< 6). The results of the excluded items of
Employee Engagement i.e. “EEEME4 - I often feel emotionally detached from my job”,
“EECE4 - Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else”,
“EEBE4 - I avoid working overtime whenever possible” and “EEBE5 - I avoid working
too hard” have been placed in table 10b in Appendix V.
3.4.3 Employee Development (ED) Questionnaire:
ED in the current study has been measured using its two dimensions i.e. SD and
SDL. Items for SD have been adopted from Oreg and Nov (2008) with five points likert-
type scale and have been tested through confirmation of their Cronbach’s alphas and with
the EFA with the significant item loadings. Item used in the current study for SDL
adapted from the study Pinchuk (2010) which used 5 point likert-type scale. The said
study confirmed the validity characteristics of the said scale using Cronbach’s alpha i.e.
0.825. Item used in the survey questionnaire regarding ED in the current study have been
checked initially in the pilot study confirming their reliability and factor analysis. 6 items
162
were left after excluding one item due to their loading values (< 4), Kurtosis (>3 & < -3)
and KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) (< 6). The results of the
excluded item of Employee Development i.e. “EDSDL4 - In my organization, Self-
directed learning is not systematic enough and must be enriched with other forms of
learning.” has been placed in table 11b in Appendix V.
3.4.4 Employee Performance (EP) Questionnaire:
Employee Performance (EP) measurement scale was previously developed and
assessed by Green et al. (2004) which later on used by Medlin and Green (2009) for
Individual performance construct measurement. Three items have been adopted from
Green et al. (2004) work for Individual performance and two items from the work of
Muhammed (2006) for EP measurement in the current study which later on reduced to
four items after the confirmation of their reliability and factor analysis. The two items
have been excluded due to their loading values (< 4), Kurtosis (> 3 & < -3) and KMO
(Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) (< 6). Medlin and Green (2009)
confirmed the proposition of Garver and Mentzer (1999) regarding convergent validity
assessment in case of individual measurement items by estimating statistical significance
equal to or greater than 0.70. The results of the excluded items of Employee Performance
i.e. “EP1 – “The level of my individual performance last year was excellent.” and “EP6 -
I am very efficient and effective at my work.” have been placed in table 13b in Appendix
V.
3.4.5 Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) Questionnaire
PAJ, i.e. Procedural Justice (PJ), Distributive Justice (DJ), Interpersonal Justice
(IJ) and Informational Justice have been adapted from the work of J. A. Colquitt (2001)
163
which have also been used in a study by Gupta and Kumar (2013). The study included 15
items regarding PAJ initially but after checking their reliability and factor analysis, three
items have been excluded due to their loading values (< 4), Kurtosis (> 3 & < -3) and
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) (< 6). The responses were
measured using a five-point likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree – (1)” to
“strongly agree – (5).” The results of the excluded items of Performance Appraisal
Justice i.e. “PAPJ3 – “The procedures followed during performance appraisal process are
free of bias.”, “PAPJ5 - I can appeal against the outcomes arrived at by the PA
procedures.” and PAIJ3 - My supervisor treated me with respect during the performance
appraisal meeting.” have been placed in table in Appendix V.
3.5 Pilot Study and Questionnaire Confirmation:
In order to have a psychometric equivalence of the instrument a pilot study was planned
to be conducted in the five selected telecommunication organizations of Pakistan.
Table 6: Data Collection (Frequency of the questionnaires)
Table 6 Data Collection (Frequency of the questionnaires)
After defining the target population, the study selected a sample of 127 respondents from
all five selected organizations using a simple random sampling technique (Note: Simple
Organizations Mobilink CMPAK Telenor Ufone Warid TOTAL
Questionnaires
Distributed
50 50 50 50 50 250
Questionnaires
Received (fit for
analysis)
22 25 24 27 29 127
Questionnaires
Unanswered
28 25 26 23 21 123
164
random sampling was used only in pilot study), and the said questionnaires were
distributed to the randomly selected employees of the selected organizations.
Respondents were contacted personally during their break-time and got the
questionnaires filled in researcher’s presence by addressing their concerns regarding the
purpose and confidentiality of the responses.
Table 6 exhibited that out of total 250 targeted questionnaires, 127 responses have
been obtained from the pilot test. Some minor reservations regarding the a few words,
format of the questionnaire, questions regarding their identity information and
information of their financial gains from their company came across which were
addressed later on in the draft for the final study survey. Principal Component Analysis
(PCA) was conducted in which items were reduced based on their loadings. The
questionnaire included total 63 items addressing LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP initially
which later on were reduced to 52 items after confirming their reliability and factor
analysis in pilot testing process because of their loading values (< 4), Kurtosis (>3 & < -
3) and KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) (< 6). The response
rate in pilot study was 50.8%. Overall response of the pilot study was good because of the
fact that 1) it was permitted by the organization and 2) the survey addressed their prime
concerns in their company.
Table 7: Contents of the Instrument
Variable Dimension No. of the item and coding Total
Items
SECTION A
Scale: 5 point lickert scale
Learning
Organization
Practices (LOPs)
Continuous Learning (CL) 1, 2, 3 (LOPCL1, LOPCL2,
LOPCL3) 3
Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) 3, 4, 5 (LOPDI1, LOPDI2,
LOPDI3) 3
Collaboration and Team Learning 7,8,9 (LOPCTL1, LOPCTL2, 3
165
(CTL) LOPCTL3)
Embedded Systems (ES) 10, 11, 12 (LOPES1, LOPES2,
LOPES3)
3
System Connections (SC) 13, 14, 15 (LOPSC1, LOPSC2,
LOPSC3)
3
Employee Empowerment (EEM) 16, 17, 18 (LOPEEM1, LOPEEM2,
LOPEEM3)
3
Strategic Leadership (SL) 19, 20, 21 (LOPSL1, LOPSL2,
LOPSL3)
3
Employee
Engagement (EE)
Emotional Engagement (EM)
22, 23, 24 (EEME1, EEME2,
EEME3)
3
Cognitive Engagement (CE) 25, 26, 27 (ECE1, ECE2, ECE3) 3
Behavioral Engagement (BE) 28, 29, 30 (EBE1, EBE2, EBE3) 3
Employee
Development (ED)
Self-Development (SD) 31, 32, 33 (EDSD1, EDSD2,
EDSD3)
3
Self-Directed Learning (SDL) 34, 35, 36 (EDSDL1, EDSDL2,
EDSDL3)
3
Performance
Appraisal Justice
(PAJ)
Distributive Justice (DJ) 37, 38, 39 (PAPJ1, PAPJ2, PAPJ3) 3
Procedural Justice (PJ) 40, 41, 42 (PADJ1, PADJ2,
PADJ3)
3
Interactional Justice (IJ) 43, 44, 45 (PAIJ1, PAIJ2, PAIJ3) 3
Informational Justice (InfoJ) 46, 47, 48 (PAInfoJ1, PAInfoJ2,
PAInfoJ3)
3
Employee
Performance (EP)
Employee Performance 49, 50, 51, 52 (EP1, EP2, EP3,
EP4)
4
Total number of
Items
52
SECTION B
Demographic
Information
Gender 1 1
Organization 2 1
Education 3 1
Designation 4 1
Age 5 1
Total Experience 6 1
Email (optional) 7 1
Total number of
Items
7
Table 8: Contents of the Instrument
Table 7 summarizes the instrument’s contents which includes two sections,
Section A includes the original scales of the variables measured on 5 point likert-type
scale, i.e. DLOQ, EE, ED, PAJ and EP, their dimensions, their numbers and number of
166
items in the questionnaire and Section B includes demographic information of the
respondents.
Table 9: Dimension-wise reliability estimates using Cronbach alpha (α)
SECTION A
Scale: 5 point lickert scale
Variable Dimension Total Items
Cronbach’s
Alpha (α)
Learning
Organization
Practices (LOPs)
LOPCL: Continuous Learning (CL) 3 .943
LOPDI : Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) 3 .895
LOPCTL: Collaboration and Team
Learning (CTL) 3 .908
LOPES: Embedded Systems (ES) 3 .855
LOPSC: System Connections (SC) 3 .876
LOPEEM: Employee Empowerment (EEM) 3 .829
LOPSL: Strategic Leadership (SL) 3 .695
Total Scale
21
.827
Employee
Engagement (EE)
EEM: Emotional Engagement (EM)
3
.715
ECE: Cognitive Engagement (CE) 3 .785
EBE: Behavioral Engagement (BE) 3 .715
Total Scale 9 .841
Employee
Development (ED)
EDSD: Self Development (SD) 3 .713
EDSDL: Self Directed Learning (SDL) 3 .704
Total Scale 6 .601
Performance
Appraisal Justice
(PAJ)
PAJDJ: Distributive Justice (DJ) 3 .797
PAJPJ: Procedural Justice (PJ) 3 .734
PAJIJ: Interactional Justice (IJ) 3 .747
PAJInfoJ: Informational Justice (InfoJ) 3 .661
Total Scale 12 .799
Employee
Performance (EP)
EP: Employee Performance 4 .834
Total number of
Items
52
.840
Table 8: Dimension-wise reliability estimates using Cronbach alpha (α)
167
3.6 Data Reliability and Validity (Construct and Convergent):
Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) stated that Cronbach’s alpha (α) (a coefficient of reliability)
as an internal consistency measure of test holding items which are not scored
dichotomously. Christmann and Aelst (2006) stated that the value of Cronbach’s Alpha
(α) i.e. 0.7 or higher is considered as highly reliable. Moreover, Garver and Mentzer
(1999) proposed that in order to analyze the parameters’ magnitude estimates for the
purpose of individual measurement items for the assessment of convergent validity, with
a strong validity conditions, the estimates to be considered statistically significant should
be greater than or equal to 0.70.
Since the questionnaire was being tested in Pakistan’s telecommunication Industry,
questionnaire’s reliability with internal consistency was required to be examined using
cronbach’s alpha (α). Thus the study examined Cronbach’s alpha (α) first, then the
construct validity using factor analysis for the purpose of establishing whether the factor
structure is suitable in the context of Pakistan’s telecommunication sector.
Pilot study results derived from the data showed that most of the LOPs dimensions had
satisfactory reliability estimates (i.e. >0.7 or >70%). The overall reliability of LOPs scale
was also .827 which is considered highly reliable. EE and ED and PAJ also demonstrated
acceptable reliability with α of .686, .601 and .812 respectively. Their coefficient alphas
ranged from .6 to .812. Overall reliability of LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP is .840.
Reliabilities of Employee Engagement (EE), i.e. .686 and Employee Development (ED),
i.e. .601 are though low but in the acceptable range as it is closer to 0.7. Only one
subscale i.e. Informational Justice (InfoJ) has a low reliability, i.e. .619 which is also
acceptable whereas the rest are above .70 or 70%.
168
J C Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) defined validity as scientific utility of the instrument
with the view of how well it measures what is desired to be measured. The current study
objective was to design a holistic model and to test it in telecommunication sector of
Pakistan in an explicitly reliable and valid manner. Current study examined a range of
multiple variables associated with LOs. The LOPs with concrete and pragmatic view in
relation with EE, ED, PAJ and EP was not an easy job to do by making it valid and
reliable. Due to inadequate psychometric properties demonstrable construct validity (B.
Yang et al., 2004), it was necessary to determine it first due to which Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to measure the construct validity for the selected
constructs i.e. DLOQ (LOPs), EE, ED, PAJ and EP in Pakistani Telecommunication
context. DLOQ validity and reliability has already been established in the past studies
e.g. (Ellinger et al., 2002; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Wang, 2005; Yang, 2003; Baiyin
Yang et al., 2004). According to Yang et al. (2004), DLOQ have justifiable reliability
estimates.
Need for the construct validity (Conway & Lance, 2010) has also been taken into
consideration in current study taking the evidence into account (Putka & Sackett, 2010),
the study included appropriate reliability evidence. According to Shalley, Gilson, and
Blum (2009), the construct validity can also be justified by referring the self-ratings in
other studies to correlate substantially (r = .62) with manager/supervisor ratings.
Moreover as MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Ahearne (1998) used instruments, i.e. the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and cited multiple studies using it. The current
study also cited multiple studies that used instruments of the DLOQ, EE, ED, PAJ and EP
in the past as construct validity evidence. The questionnaire has also been checked
169
regarding its face validity getting the questionnaire examined by some of the practitioners
in the said organizations. Since the items were adopted from already developed tools,
they were acknowledged with the little changes in the wording of the items for its right
application in Pakistani context.
According to Gall et al. (2007), factor analysis by combining variables with medium or
high correlation with each other provides empirical basis of reduction in the items into
few factors. Factor Analysis in the current study reduced 21 items of Learning
Organization Practices (LOPs) into seven factors, 9 item of Employee Engagement (EE)
into three factors, 6 items of ED into two, 12 items of Performance Appraisal Justice
(PAJ) into four and 4 items of Employee Performance (EP) into one factor. Factor
loadings have been conducted as shown in the Appendix V against the dimensions of
LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP
EFA tables (Appendix V) displayed Exploratory Factor Analysis solution for the
seven factors of LOPs, three factors of EE, two factors of ED, four factors of PAJ and
one factor of EP after PCA analysis. Eigenvalues greater than one of all and the % of
variance of LOPs, i.e. 80.5, EE i.e. 68.4, ED, i.e. 63.3, PAJ, i.e. 68.5 and EP, i.e. 39.7
determined the solution for all the said scales and their dimensions. Factor analysis as
reported in the said tables enabled the study to draw a view that loadings of the measure
on each factor in all five selected scales are above the minimum required level. Thus the
dimensions of LOPs (DLOQ), EE, ED, PAJ and EP have been established as fit and
suitable factors for the current study.
170
3.7 Common Method Bias (CMB)
According to Conway and Lance (2010), the reviewers in general reported a few
misconceptions about Common Method Bias (CMB) in self-report measures i.e.
“associations between self-reported variables are necessarily and routinely upwardly
biased, other methods are comparatively superior to self-reports, and lastly rating sources
(e.g., self and others) constitute measurement methods”. They came up with some
recommendations for the reviewers regarding their expectations from the authors
regarding CMB. Reviewers should reasonably expect an argument for why self-reports
are appropriate, evidence for construct validity, lack of overlapping in items for
distinctive constructs, and in the last the evidence using which authors took proactive
design steps to mitigate threats of method effects. Studies while developing the data
sources must be careful regarding CMB because of the fact that it can inflate the
estimates of structural parameters in the model and may become the reason of incorrect
data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). SEM doesn’t inherently cater for
CMB that is why auxiliary analysis was required for its assessment. Gefen, Straub, and
Rigdon (2011) stated that there may be many measures to be taken at the time of
designing the data collection mechanism for the purpose of reducing CMB, i.e. data
collection using different methods/sources or ‘at different points in time’. According to
Kumar, Stern, and Anderson (1993), different sources may be referred as multiple
informants so the current study developed and used two questionnaires i.e. one from the
employees about themselves and the other from their managers about them, using the
same items with a little modification of the pronouns in the pilot study. The respondents
in the pilot study were 127 with 254 responses. Once the study constructs have been put
171
together in the Employees’ and Managers’ questionnaires, the biggest challenge was to
confirm it as an effective and valid measure in Pakistani context. Common Method Bias
(CMB) or Common Method Variance (CMV) issue may arise and overstate the variables
relationships if the data source is single respondent (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).
Mossholder, Bennett, and Martin (1998) proposed single factor Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) as its remedy. This analysis along with all the items loadings (employees
and supervisors) on one factor and did not fit the data well with a relative 2 value i.e.
5800.1, 2 / df value i.e. 4.55, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) value i.e. 0.5, Non-Normed
Fit Index (NNFI) value of 0.138 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) value i.e. 0.119. The analyzed lack of model fitness specified that the CMB
was not significant apprehension with the data set.
3.7.1 Population and Sampling
The targeted population for the study included the permanent/contractual employees at all
three levels of the selected organizations excluding indirect employees (employees who
are not on the payroll of the selected organizations) due to the fact that they don’t directly
serve these organizations rather they serve the sub-contractors and franchises of the
selected organizations. Moreover these employees don’t directly share their stakes with
these organizations and are governed by the policies of these selected organizations.
Through a survey instrument, data was collected from the employees in five
telecommunication sector organizations of Pakistan. Telecommunication industry of
Pakistan though includes Cellular operators, Long Distance International (LDI) operators,
Fixed Local Loop (FLL) operators and Wireless Local Loop (WLL) operators (PTA,
2012-2013) but the study population was employees of the five cellular operators i.e.
172
Zong, Mobilink, Ufone, Telenore and Warid. PTA (2007) stated that the mobile operators
had 9500 direct employees. When Explored, the population of the said
telecommunication organizations company-wise is as under:
Table 10: Population and Sampling
Company Permanent Employees
(Population) N
Employees’
Categories
Sample Size Response
Mobilink
2902 Apx
Top 63
234 Middle 426 341
Lower 2413
U-fone
2400 Apx
Top 55
264 Middle 550 331
Lower 1795
Telenor
2296 Apx
Top 52
274 Middle 523 331
Lower 1721
Warid
997 Apx
Top 05
183 Middle 415 278
Lower 577
ZONG
2420 Apx
Top 43
273 Middle 316 331
Lower 2061
Total 11015 Apx 1612 1228
Table 11: Population and Sampling
Note: All these figures are approximate and have been acquired from the selected organizations.
3.8.1. Sample Selection and Sample Frame
Targeted population for the current study was the employees of all three layers of the said
PTSOs. The study used ‘stratified random sampling’ technique. Sekaran (2003) stated
173
that Krejcie and Morgan (1970) to a great extent abridged sample decisions by providing
a table which shows different sample sizes for different population sizes. Since the study
used stratified random sampling technique, so the sample sizes (n) included in this study
was drawn from the same table for each organization as for Mobilink where N= 2902, the
sample size (n) was 234, for Ufone where N= 2400, the sample size (n) was 264, for
Telenor where N= 2296, the sample size (n) was 274, for Warid where N= 997, the
sample size (n) was 183 and for Zong where N= 2420, the sample size (n) was 273.
According to Bentler and Chou (1987), sample size for parameters estimation may also
include the ratios between 5:1 and 10:1. Therefore the study included a sample of 1228
(Table 15) from all the selected PTSOs by meeting the minimum sample size
requirements. Despite designing and administering the questionnaire quite carefully the
overall response rate was 64.6 %. The study received total 1228 questionnaires which
were considered fit for analysis out of total distributed, i.e. 1900. The questionnaires
unanswered or defected were 672 (35.4%). Response rate details have been provided in
the table 9. The 127 responses received in the pilot study were excluded as these were
already used for the purpose of finalizing the questionnaire.
3.8.2. Response Rates for the Survey
Table 12: Survey Response Rate
Organization
Questionnaires
Distributed
Questionnaires
Received (fit for
analysis)
Questionnaires
Unanswered
Response
Rate (%)
Mobilink 400 234 166 58.50
Ufone 400 264 136 66.00
Telenor 400 274 126 68.50
Warid 300 183 117 61.00
Zong (CMPAK) 400 273 127 68.25
174
Total
1900
1228
672
64.6
Table 13: Survey Response Rate
Table 10 shows the questionnaire response rates of five selected telecom organizations.
3.8.3 Study Ethics
Study ethics have been kept on the top priority during the curse of conducting
current study. The selected organizations have been approached following an ethical
process of taking prior permission and appointment for meeting HR high-ups using
university’s permission letter which included the confidentiality of the respondents’
identity and purpose of the study (sample attached at the annexure). A copy of
questionnaire had also been provided to the HR department prior to the distribution. A
randomized list of the employees (cadre-wise) have been provided by the HR
departments of the selected organizations using which employees from different
departments were approached to fill the questionnaires.
3.8.4. Data Screening / Descriptive Statistics
Before initiating the analysis upon the data file, data was carefully screened for
the missing values, outliers, normality, and multi-collinearity. Missing values were
handled using list-wise and pair-wise deletion and imputation (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). There were few missing values for most of the items. Outliers were also positively
addressed in the data. Skewness and kurtosis (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & William, 1998;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) were used to describe non-normality. Tabachnick and Fidell
(2001) suggested that skewness and kurtosis values should be within the range of -2 to 2
with normal data distribution. Thus the data was ensured to be in the acceptable range.
175
3.9. Data Analysis
The data collected from the questionnaire was put for analysis by computing
descriptive statistics which included group means, standard deviations, and frequencies,
were employed to illustrate variables and dimensions wise statistics of LOPs, EE, ED,
PAJ and EP in the PTSOs where n=1228. Then Correlations among all the dimensions of
five scales and five measurements have been conducted which indicated the associations
among them. Difference of perception (between and within organizations) regarding
LOP’s in five PTSOs have also been analyzed. ANOVA for the selected PTSOs was
conducted separately for each organization regarding LOPs. ANOVA and t-tests was
conducted for the purpose of exploring the differences among the demographic groups
regarding LOPs and to identify differences between PTSOs. In the last, Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) using path analysis was conducted in order to validate
hypothesized relationships among the constructs.
3.10 Summary
Chapter 3 explains the research design, type of study, analysis and techniques,
industry setting, extent of researcher interference, Instrument, Population and Sampling,
Data Reliability and Validity measures, Common Method Bias (CMB) and data analysis
techniques. Data analysis in the study was performed in SPSS and AMOS. All the scales
of the LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP were found acceptable due to their reliability i.e.
Cronbach’s alphas (α). The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) ensured the construct validity of the measures for said instruments. The
results from EFA and CFA provided with the acceptable construct validity for the
selected scales. The questionnaire included 52 items in total in section ‘A’ i.e. 21 item of
176
LOPs, 9 items of EE, 6 items of ED, 12 items of PAJ and 4 items of EP. Section ‘B’
included 7 items regarding respondents’ demographics. Questionnaire was revised and
finalized after the pilot study and then the issue of CMB was positively addressed. The
relationships among the selected variables were determined by going through the
correlation and SEM process. The data collected in the study using stratified random
sampling heaving a total sample of 1228 employees from all three layers of the selected
five telecommunication organizations of Pakistan. The overall response rate of the survey
was 64.6%, This study used self-administered survey for data collection. Prior permission
was taken from the said selected organization for data collection from their employees.
177
Chapter 4
4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Chapter 4 puts forward the results in the form of tabulated presentation derived
from the data analyses. As described in chapter 3, that the study used quantitative
approach, so initially differences among demographic groups and among Pakistan
Telecommunication Sector Organizations (PTSOs) were determined. Secondly, the
descriptive statistics for the scales have been reported in the chapter. Then correlations
among the dimensions of five scales and five measurements have been conducted which
indicated the associations among them. Difference of perception (between and within
organizations), at three managerial levels regarding LOP’s in five PTSOs have been
analyzed. ANOVA and t-test for the selected PTSOs has been conducted separately for
analyzing the differences among the demographic groups and between PTSOs regarding
LOPs. Finally, the relationships among Learning Organization Practices (LOPs), EE, ED,
PAJ and EP were investigated with correlation analysis and Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) using SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 21. Lastly the chapter covers quantitative
analysis followed by the discussion on the findings of the study.
178
Demographic Groups in PTSOs
Table 11
Frequencies on organizations (n=1228)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
ZONG 273 22.2 22.2 22.2
Mobilink 234 19.1 19.1 41.3
Telenor 274 22.3 22.3 63.6
Ufone 264 21.5 21.5 85.1
Warid 183 14.9 14.9 100.0
Total 1228 100.0 100.0 Table 14: Frequencies on organizations (n=1228)
The frequency of the questionnaires filled in by the employees of the respective
organizations demonstrated in Table 11. As shown in the table, distribution of the total
questionnaires used in the study, collected from PTSOs i.e. 273 (22.2%) from Zong
(CMPAK), 234 (19.1%) from Mobilink, 274 (22.3%) from Telenor, 264 (21.3%) from
Ufone and 183 (14.9%) from Warid Telecom. 400 questionnaires were distributed in each
organization except Warid Telecom in which 300 questionnaires were distributed due to
lesser availability of its employees. Its employees were less in numbers and were
scattered all over Pakistan out of which most were residing in Lahore because of its head
office location was in Lahore.
The education-wise bifurcation of the study respondents has been shown in Table 18. As
shown in the table, out of total 1228 respondents, 85 (6.9%) were heaving the degrees of
MS and PhD, 835 (68%) were heaving Masters Degrees, 238 (23%) were heaving
Bachelors Degrees, 17 (1.4%) had Intermediate degrees whereas 8 (.7%) did not mention
their qualification in the questionnaires. Frequencies of education show that the people
with Master degree were in majority who provided input (data) in the study.
179
Table 12
Frequencies of Education (n=1228)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
MS and PhD 85 6.9 6.9 6.9
Masters 835 68.0 68.0 74.9
Bachlors 283 23.0 23.0 98.0
NP 8 .7 .7 98.6
Intermediate 17 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 1228 100.0 100.0
Table 15: Frequencies of Education (n=1228)
Table 13
Frequencies of Gender (n=1228)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Male 865 70.4 70.4 70.4
Female 363 29.6 29.6 100.0
Total 1228 100.0 100.0
Table 16: Frequencies of Gender (n=1228)
Table 13 includes the distribution of the respondents in both the genders. It shows
that out of the total 1228 respondents 865 (70.4%) were males whereas 263 (29.6%) were
female. The study put its utmost endeavors to incorporate the views of both the genders
especially female because of the fact of their importance in the success of an organization
and avoidance of biasness.
Table 14
180
Frequencies of Designation (Actual Designation wise) (n=1228)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
Assistant 264 21.5 21.5 21.5
Eng 95 7.7 7.7 29.2
Eng/BIS 1 .1 .1 29.3
Eng/BO 3 .2 .2 29.6
Eng/BSS 5 .4 .4 30.0
Eng/Fuel 3 .2 .2 30.2
Eng/Jr. 1 .1 .1 30.3
Eng/MW 1 .1 .1 30.4
Eng/NOC 10 .8 .8 31.2
Eng/OSS 5 .4 .4 31.6
Eng/RAN 1 .1 .1 31.7
Eng/RE 1 .1 .1 31.8
Eng/RF 5 .4 .4 32.2
Eng/SE 1 .1 .1 32.2
Eng/Sr 5 .4 .4 32.7
Lower 40 3.3 3.3 35.9
Lower/In 40 3.3 3.3 39.2
Lower/JE 5 .4 .4 39.6
Lower/Ri 2 .2 .2 39.7
Lower/Te 1 .1 .1 39.8
Lower/Tr 29 2.4 2.4 42.2
Manager 217 17.7 17.7 59.9
Manager/ 31 2.5 2.5 62.4
NP 106 8.6 8.6 71.0
Officer 278 22.6 22.6 93.6
Officer/ 73 5.9 5.9 99.6
TOP/G.M 1 .1 .1 99.7
Top/HoD 1 .1 .1 99.8
TOP/HoD 1 .1 .1 99.8
TOP/OG 1 .1 .1 99.9
TOP/R&D 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1228 100.0 100.0
Table 17: Frequencies of Designation (Actual Designation wise) (n=1228)
181
Table 15
Frequencies of Designation (Top, Middle and Low) (n=1228)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid
NP 106 8.6 8.6 8.6
Lower 732 59.6 59.6 68.2
Middle 385 31.4 31.4 99.6
Top 5 .4 .4 100.0
Total 1228 100.0 100.0
Table 18: Frequencies of Designation (Top, Middle and Low) (n=1228)
Table 14 and 15 reveal the frequencies of designation (actual designation-wise)
and frequencies of designation (Top, Middle and Low) where n=1228. Table 20 included
the details of the respondents with their actual designations in which officers and
assistants (i.e. 278 & 264) were in majority and the minimum involvement has been
shown of the top level management. 106 (8.6%) were those questionnaire in which
information of the designation was not provided.
Table 15 was developed by summing up these broad designations of the
respondents into three categories i.e. Lower, Middle and Upper which shows that
majority was from the lower level i.e. 732 (59%) which includes a wide range of
designations in which officers at the top and trainees at the bottom. Middle level i.e. 385
(31.4%) also included mainly managers and engineers and Top level i.e.5 (.4%) includes
departmental heads. Incorporation of middle and lower level employees in the study
respondents show that these are the people in majority in any LO and should be the
focused as their performance objectives should be positively addressed taking LOPs into
account.
182
Table 16
Frequencies of Age (n=1228)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
0 109 8.9 8.9 8.9
20 1 .1 .1 9.0
21 10 .8 .8 9.8
22 9 .7 .7 10.5
23 36 2.9 2.9 13.4
24 76 6.2 6.2 19.6
25 112 9.1 9.1 28.7
26 111 9.0 9.0 37.8
27 114 9.3 9.3 47.1
28 79 6.4 6.4 53.5
29 69 5.6 5.6 59.1
30 57 4.6 4.6 63.8
31 36 2.9 2.9 66.7
32 54 4.4 4.4 71.1
33 55 4.5 4.5 75.6
34 54 4.4 4.4 80.0
35 53 4.3 4.3 84.3
36 37 3.0 3.0 87.3
37 25 2.0 2.0 89.3
38 20 1.6 1.6 91.0
39 15 1.2 1.2 92.2
40 10 .8 .8 93.0
183
41 14 1.1 1.1 94.1
42 8 .7 .7 94.8
43 12 1.0 1.0 95.8
44 21 1.7 1.7 97.5
45 6 .5 .5 98.0
46 7 .6 .6 98.5
47 2 .2 .2 98.7
48 5 .4 .4 99.1
49 2 .2 .2 99.3
51 6 .5 .5 99.8
55 1 .1 .1 99.8
57 1 .1 .1 99.9
58 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1228 100.0 100.0
Table 19: Frequencies of Age (n=1228)
Table 16 indicated the frequencies of Age (n=1228) which elaborated that the
range of the age of the respondents was 20 - 58 years. The table showed that the majority
of individuals who responded in the study were between 20 - 40 years. Majority of the
respondents between the age of 20 - 40 can be interpreted as they are the people who are
mostly concerned about their performance, on whom organizations invest mostly, who
are more concerned with their engagement which can be affected by organizational
practices, who are more concerned with the performance appraisal justice practices and
who should be primarily focused by the organization to reap maximum out of them. They
184
mostly look for their career growth opportunities within and outside their organizations
which must be addressed by their employers.
Table 17
Frequencies of Experience (n=1228)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid
0 123 10.0 10.0 10.0
1 227 18.5 18.5 28.5
2 144 11.7 11.7 40.2
3 85 6.9 6.9 47.1
4 86 7.0 7.0 54.2
5 69 5.6 5.6 59.8
6 44 3.6 3.6 63.4
7 52 4.2 4.2 67.6
8 70 5.7 5.7 73.3
9 45 3.7 3.7 77.0
10 27 2.2 2.2 79.2
11 47 3.8 3.8 83.0
12 34 2.8 2.8 85.7
13 21 1.7 1.7 87.5
14 30 2.4 2.4 89.9
15 25 2.0 2.0 91.9
16 16 1.3 1.3 93.2
17 16 1.3 1.3 94.5
185
18 4 .3 .3 94.9
19 14 1.1 1.1 96.0
20 7 .6 .6 96.6
21 14 1.1 1.1 97.7
22 6 .5 .5 98.2
23 6 .5 .5 98.7
24 4 .3 .3 99.0
25 1 .1 .1 99.1
26 1 .1 .1 99.2
27 6 .5 .5 99.7
28 1 .1 .1 99.8
33 2 .2 .2 99.9
46 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 1228 100.0 100.0
Table 20: Frequencies of Experience (n=1228)
Table 17 shows the frequencies of experience (n=1228), which bifurcated the
study respondents into experience ranging from 1 year to 46 years. A large number of
respondents in the study were heaving 1-10 years of experience. People heaving 1-10
years of experience are required to be focused by PTSOs because of the fact that they
contribute much in organizational success because of being more energetic and more in
numbers in PTSOs.
186
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics upon Variables and their dimensions in Pakistan
Telecommunication Sector Organizations (PTSO) Context (n=1228).
Table 18
Reliability of the five measurement scales
Code Variable Total No of
Items
Cronbach’s Alpha
(α)
LOPs Learning Organization Practices 21 .742
EE Employee Engagement 9 .703
ED Employee Development 6 .588
PAJ Performance Appraisal Justice 12 .733
EP Employee Performance 4 .505
Total 52 .873
Table 21: Reliablity of the five measurement scales
Table 18 exhibits that the coefficient alphas for all the scales are in acceptable
range. As Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) which included 7 dimensions and 21
items, Employee Engagement (EE) that included 3 dimensions and 9 items and
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) with 4 dimensions and 12 items have coefficient
alphas .742, .703 and .733 respectively which is in highly acceptable range. Two scales
i.e. Employee Development (ED) and Employee Performance (EP) have relatively low
values of coefficient alphas. Coefficient alpha for ED and EP are .588 and .505 which
could be due to the number of items in the said constructs (Jum C. Nunnally, Bernstein,
& Berge, 1967). Coefficient alphas are though comparatively low but still are in the
acceptable range and can positively be considered as reliable. The total coefficient alpha
score for all the items and dimensions was found .873 which ensured reliability of the
questionnaire.
187
Table 19
Descriptive Statistics on Variables and Dimensions in the PTSO Context (N=1228)
Variable / Dimension Mean
Standard
Deviation
Skewness Kurtosis
Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) Statistic Std.
Error
Statistic Std.
Error
LOPCL: Continuous Learning (CL) 3.96 .65210 -.550 .070 .138 .140
LOPDI : Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) 3.91 .66712 -.229 .070 -.465 .140
LOPCTL: Collaboration and Team
Learning (CTL)
3.73 .68720 -.365 .070 .194 .140
LOPES: Embedded Systems (ES) 4.07 .57079 -.523 .070 .559 .140
LOPSC: System Connections (SC) 3.84 .60694 -.401 .070 .109 .140
LOPEEM: Employee Empowerment (EEM) 3.91 .60046 -.685 .070 .745 .140
LOPSL: Strategic Leadership (SL) 4.00 .59739 -.585 .070 .120 .140
Total Scale 3.9210 .62600
Employee Engagement (EE)
EEEM: Emotional Engagement (EM) 3.6650 .74965 -.576 .070 .008 .140
EECE: Cognitive Engagement (CE) 3.8127 .61761 -.482 .070 .016 .140
EEBE: Behavioral Engagement (BE) 3.8724 .58615 -.565 .070 .668 .140
Total Scale 3.7834 .65114
Employee Development (ED)
EDSD: Self Development (SD) 3.7934 .66920 -.761 .070 .623 .140
EDSDL: Self Directed Learning (SDL) 3.7462 .65482 -.517 .070 .178 .140
Total Scale 3.7698 .66201
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ)
PADJ: Distributive Justice (DJ) 3.7511 .77345 -.731 .070 .582 .140
PAPJ: Procedural Justice (PJ) 3.7296 .74385 -.759 .070 .495 .140
PAIJ: Interactional Justice (IJ) 3.7676 .74647 -.821 .070 .622 .140
PAInfoJ: Informational Justice (InfoJ) 3.8423 .68885 -.984 .070 1.358 .140
Total Scale 3.7727 .73815
Employee Performance (EP)
EP: Employee Performance 3.9982 .50198 -.582 .070 .528 .140
Total 3.8487 0.63582
Table 22: Descriptive Statistics on Variables and Dimensions wise in the PTSO Context (N=1228)
188
Table 19 indicates that the respondents in the selected PTSOs included in the
sample had the higher score (Total scale taking Mean) on Employee Performance, and
lower score (Total scale taking Mean) on Employee Development (ED). Dimensions i.e.,
Embedded Systems (ES) carry the highest Mean score among all and Emotional
Engagement (EM) carry the lowest score with regard to the Mean. The overall Mean
results shown in the table 19 were quite good and acceptable as the respondents were
more towards satisfaction regarding in the selected PSTOs. The deviation of the
responses of Distributive Justice (DJ) among all the dimensions was comparatively
highest and lowest in Employee Performance (EP). Skewness and kurtosis of variables
stipulate a view about whether the data is normal or not (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001).
Analysis of PP plots is used to assess normality of the data. Data normality has been
checked in the study for which PP plots have been put in appendix-3. Table 25 presents
the skewness and kurtosis details of the scales and sub scales which fulfill the basic
assumptions of normality of the data. Values of all the scales and sub scales are between
2 and -2 which indicate that the data collected from PTSOs is in acceptable range and
normal.
Table 19 presents the skewness and kurtosis details of the items of Learning Organization
Practices (LOPs) which fulfill the basic assumptions of normality of the data at items
level. Kurtosis values on all the items of LOPs reside between 2 and -2 which indicate
that the data collected from PTSOs regarding LOPs is in acceptable range and normal.
Among the 21 items of LOPs, item 11 (i.e. LOPES2) had the highest mean score (4.12)
with the least S. D (.734). Moreover other four items – 10, 12, 20 & 21 (i.e. LOPES1,
LOPES3, LOPSL2 and LOPSL3) had high Mean scores above 4.00. Table shows that
189
item 09 (i.e. LOPCTL3) had comparatively lowest Mean score (i.e. 3.71). Overall for
LOPs, most of the respondents in selected PSTOs were residing upon the ‘agreed’ or
closer to the ‘agreed’ option.
Table 20
Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) Scale
Items No of
Responses
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Std.
Error
Statistic Std.
Error
1 LOPCL1 1228 3.96 .866 -.470 .070 -.393 .140
2 LOPCL2 1228 3.93 .805 -.381 .070 -.264 .140
3 LOPCL3 1228 3.99 .866 -.627 .070 .080 .140
4 LOPDI1 1228 3.93 .901 -.504 .070 -.320 .140
5 LOPDI2 1228 3.92 .778 -.168 .070 -.609 .140
6 LOPDI3 1228 3.91 .781 -.179 .070 -.523 .140
7 LOPCTL1 1228 3.73 .954 -.390 .070 -.368 .140
8 LOPCTL2 1228 3.77 .857 -.291 .070 -.318 .140
9 LOPCTL3 1228 3.71 .888 -.226 .070 -.269 .140
10 LOPES1 1228 4.03 .863 -.610 .070 -.039 .140
11 LOPES2 1228 4.12 .734 -.543 .070 .057 .140
12 LOPES3 1228 4.07 .803 -.544 .070 -.141 .140
13 LOPSC1 1228 3.84 .890 -.302 .070 -.495 .140
14 LOPSC2 1228 3.83 .822 -.159 .070 -.589 .140
15 LOPSC3 1228 3.86 .872 -.203 .070 -.691 .140
16 LOPEEM1 1228 3.89 .936 -.399 .070 -.637 .140
17 LOPEEM2 1228 3.96 .806 -.458 .070 -.103 .140
18 LOPEEM3 1228 3.89 .902 -.424 .070 -.230 .140
19 LOPSL1 1228 3.98 .816 -.462 .070 -.178 .140
20 LOPSL2 1228 4.00 .764 -.464 .070 -.011 .140
21 LOPSL3 1228 4.03 .844 -.597 .070 .002 .140
Table 23: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) Scale
190
Table 21
Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Engagement (EE) Scale
Items No of
Responses
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Skewness Kurtosis
No. ID Statistic Std.
Error
Statistic Std.
Error
22 EEME1 1228 3.63 1.057 -.487 .070 -.354 .140
23 EEME2 1228 3.68 1.026 -.557 .070 -.339 .140
24 EEME3 1228 3.69 .985 -.446 .070 -.322 .140
25 ECE1 1228 3.85 .894 -.402 .070 -.246 .140
26 ECE2 1228 3.76 .971 -.628 .070 -.042 .140
27 ECE3 1228 3.83 .887 -.388 .070 -.148 .140
28 EBE1 1228 3.90 .832 -.331 .070 -.318 .140
29 EBE2 1228 3.86 .818 -.425 .070 -.022 .140
30 EBE3 1228 3.86 .816 -.237 .070 -.347 .140
Table 24: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Engagement (EE) Scale
Table 21 presents the skewness and kurtosis details of the items of “Employee
Engagement (EE)” which also qualifies for the basic assumptions of normality tests at
items level. Kurtosis values on all the items of EE are in the range of 2 and -2 which
signify that the data collected from PTSOs regarding EE is in acceptable range and
normal. Out of all 09 items of EE, two items - 29 & 30 (i.e. EBE2 and EBE3) had the
highest mean score (3.86) with the S. D (.818 & .816). Almost all the items of EE are
approaching towards 04 which means that responses on the items of EE are more towards
‘agreed’ Two items - EEME1 & EEME2 have the highest S.D (i.e. 1.057 & 1.026) which
shows that taking Employee Emotional Engagement (EME), on the said items
respondents responded with the highest deviation. Thus the overall responses regarding
EE in selected PSTOs were between Neutral to ‘agreed’ and closer to the ‘agreed’ option.
191
Table 22
Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Development (ED) Scale
Items No of
Responses
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Skewness Kurtosis
No. ID Statistic Std.
Error
Statistic Std.
Error
31 EDSD1 1228 3.76 1.042 -.741 .070 .241 .140
32 EDSD2 1228 3.78 .888 -.489 .070 .162 .140
33 EDSD3 1228 3.84 .940 -.432 .070 -.345 .140
34 EDSDL1 1228 3.69 .935 -.231 .070 -.458 .140
35 EDSDL2 1228 3.76 .902 -.358 .070 -.285 .140
36 EDSDL3 1228 3.79 .917 -.413 .070 -.250 .140
Table 25: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Development (ED) Scale
In the Table 22, the skewness and kurtosis details of the items of “Employee
Development (ED)” which also proves the qualification of the assumptions of normality
tests at items level. Kurtosis values on all the items of ED were found in the range of 2
and -2 which indicates that the data collected from PTSOs regarding ED is in acceptable
range and normal. Out of all 06 items of ED, almost all the items have mean with the
little differences i.e. EDSD3 – 3.84 highest and EDSDL1 – 3.69. The highest S.D found
among all the items of ED was in EDSD1 i.e. 1.042 and lowest EDSD2 i.e. .888. Almost
all the items of ED are closer to 04 which represent that responses on the items of ED are
more towards ‘agreed’ in PTSOs.
192
Table 23
Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) Scale
Items No of
Responses
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Skewness Kurtosis
No. ID Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
37 PAPJ1 1228 3.64 1.089 -.551 .070 -.302 .140
38 PAPJ2 1228 3.79 .968 -.777 .070 .345 .140
39 PAPJ3 1228 3.76 .968 -.573 .070 .004 .140
40 PADJ1 1228 3.75 1.034 -.660 .070 -.073 .140
41 PADJ2 1228 3.79 .972 -.607 .070 -.013 .140
42 PADJ3 1228 3.71 1.063 -.486 .070 -.484 .140
43 PAIJ1 1228 3.67 1.164 -.660 .070 -.313 .140
44 PAIJ2 1228 3.74 .889 -.789 .070 .758 .140
45 PAIJ3 1228 3.89 .977 -.554 .070 -.392 .140
46 PAInfoJ1 1228 3.80 1.035 -.764 .070 .289 .140
47 PAInfoJ2 1228 3.88 .925 -.919 .070 1.028 .140
48 PAInfoJ3 1228 3.85 .971 -.660 .070 .054 .140
Table 26: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) Scale
In the Table 23, the skewness and kurtosis details in the items of “Performance
Appraisal Justice (PAJ)” which indicate that the assumptions of normality tests at items
level in PAJ has been met. Kurtosis values on all the items of PAJ were found in the
range of 2 and -2 which indicates that the data collected from PTSOs regarding PAJ is in
acceptable range and normal. All the 12 items of PAJ have their Mean values with the
minor differences Item 47 i.e. PAInfoJ2 has the highest Mean score i.e. 3.88. Five items
have S.D more than one and rest 07 items have S.D above .9 which shows that
respondents vary in their responses taking the items of PAJ. Almost all the items on PAJ
are between 3-4 i.e. neutral to agreed and are closer to 04 which represent that responses
on the items of ED are more towards ‘agreed’ in PTSOs.
193
Table 24
Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Performance (EP) Scale
Items No of
Responses
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Skewness Kurtosis
No. ID Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
49 EP1 1228 3.97 .829 -.413 .070 -.356 .140
50 EP2 1228 4.02 .742 -.375 .070 -.228 .140
51 EP3 1228 4.05 .826 -.459 .070 -.424 .140
52 EP4 1228 3.95 .765 -.368 .070 .022 .140
Table 27: Descriptive Statistics on Items in the Employee Performance (EP) Scale
Table 24 shows that the skewness and kurtosis details in the items of “Employee
Performance (EP)” fulfill the assumptions of normality tests at items level. Kurtosis
values on all the items of EP were found in the range of 2 and -2 which indicate that the
data collected from PTSOs regarding EP is in acceptable range and normal. Two of the
EP items have their mean values above 04 and two are less than 04. Item - 51 i.e. EP3 has
the highest Mean score i.e. 4.05 with the S.D .826 and lowest Mean score i.e. 3.95 is of
EP4. EP1 has the highest S.D value of .829. Two items on EP range from 4-5 i.e.
‘Agreed’ to ‘Strongly Agreed’ which represent that responses on the items of ED are
either ‘agreed’ or closer to ‘agreed’ in PTSOs.
4.2 Correlations
Tian & Wilding, (2008) stated that the correlation values i.e. between 0.10 - 0.30
are considered as weak positive relationships, 0.40 - 0.60 as moderate and values > 0.70
as high positive relationships. Table 25 demonstrates the correlation matrix of all the
dimensions of the five constructs undertaken in the study i.e. Learning Organization
194
Practices (LOPs), Employee Engagement (EE), Employee Development (EP),
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) and Employee Performance.
Table 25 exhibits that the correlations among four subscales (dimensions) of Performance
Appraisal Justice (PAJ) ranging from .272 to .327 and are considered as moderate
positive relationships with each other. In the same manner correlation values of the
dimensions of LOPs (i.e. LOPCL, LOPDI, LOPCTL and LOPES, LOPSC, LOPEEM and
LOPSL) range from .071 to .266 which can be interpreted as low correlation among
them. The correlations among the two dimensions of Employee Engagement (EE) (i.e.
EME and ECE) was .228 and .227 interpreted as low correlation between them and the
correlation between EBE and ECE was found high i.e. .798. Moreover the correlation
between the dimensions of ED i.e. EDSD and EDSDL has been found moderate i.e. .315.
The correlation between EP and all the dimensions of the four constructs (i.e. LOPs, EE,
ED and PAJ) (range from 1.52 to 4.69) are the mix of low and moderate relations. All the
values drawn from the table 25 were positive and significant at .05 level (2-tailed) which
indicate that the constructs have a moderate relationships with each other.
195
Table 25
Correlation among All the dimensions of five scales (n-1228)
Table 28: Correlation among All the dimensions of five scales (n-1228)
*Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Note: LOPCL, Continuous Learning, LOPDI, Dialogue and Inquiry, LOPCTL, Collaboration and Teal
Learning, LOPES, Embedded Systems, LOPSC, System Connections, LOPEEM, Employee
Empowerment and LOPSL, Strategic Leadership;
EEME, Employee Emotional Engagement, ECE, Employee Cognitive Engagement and EBE,
Employee Behavioral Engagement;
EDSD, Employee Self Development and EDSDL Employee Self-directed Learning;
PAPJ, Performance Appraisal Procedural Justice, PADJ, Performance Appraisal Distributed Justice,
PAIJ, Performance Appraisal Interactional Justice and PAInfoJ, Performance Appraisal Information
Justice;
EP, Employee Performance.
196
Table 26
Correlations among Scales of Five Measurements (n = 1228)
PAJ LOPs EE ED EP
PAJ Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
LOPs Pearson Correlation .417** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
EE Pearson Correlation .402** .388** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
ED Pearson Correlation .486** .433** .595** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
EP Pearson Correlation .368** .454** .420** .503** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000
Table 29: Correlations among Scales of Five Measurements (n = 1228)
*Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Note: PAJ: Performance Appraisal Justice
LOPs: Learning Organization Practices
EE: Employee Engagement
ED: Employee Development
EP: Employee Performance
Table 26 reflects the correlations among five main constructs (scales) which
indicated correlations (ranging from .368 to .595) among five scales of LOPs, EE, ED,
PAJ and EP. The table shows that LOPs have moderate significant positive relationships
with PAJ i.e. .417, with EE i.e. .388 (low), with ED i.e. .433 and with EP i.e. .454. The
correlation between EE and PAJ was moderate i.e. .402 and between EE and ED highest
among all i.e. .595. The relationship of ED with PAJ was .486 and with EP was .503
which is considered as moderate positive relationships. The correlation between EP and
PAJ drawn from the table 26 was .368 which is also considered as moderate. All the
values drawn from the table 26 were positive and significant at .01 level (2-tailed) which
197
indicate that the constructs have a moderate relationship with each other except the one
between EP and PAJ which is comparatively low but still it is significant. Statistical
results drawn from Table 26 confirmed the support for the hypotheses of the study i.e. all
the relationships are significant with each other.
4.3 Difference of perceptions
Table 27a
Difference of perception (between Organizations) regarding LOP’s in Five PTSOs
Organization
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error 95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOP
CL
ZONG 273 3.9866 .65758 .03980 3.9082 4.0649 2.00 5.00
Mobilink 234 3.9117 .66221 .04329 3.8264 3.9970 1.67 5.00
Telenor 274 3.9830 .58026 .03505 3.9140 4.0520 2.00 5.00
Ufone 264 4.0240 .71072 .04374 3.9379 4.1101 1.67 5.00
Warid 183 3.8597 .63506 .04694 3.7671 3.9524 2.33 5.00
Total 1228 3.9606 .65210 .01861 3.9241 3.9971 1.67 5.00
LOP
DI
ZONG 273 3.9377 .70290 .04254 3.8540 4.0215 2.00 5.00
Mobilink 234 3.8846 .64447 .04213 3.8016 3.9676 2.00 5.00
Telenor 274 3.8954 .67546 .04081 3.8150 3.9757 2.00 5.00
Ufone 264 3.9785 .69579 .04282 3.8942 4.0629 2.00 5.00
Warid 183 3.8889 .58086 .04294 3.8042 3.9736 2.00 5.00
Total 1228 3.9197 .66712 .01904 3.8823 3.9570 2.00 5.00
LOP
CTL
ZONG 273 3.7070 .72056 .04361 3.6211 3.7928 1.00 5.00
Mobilink 234 3.7664 .71867 .04698 3.6738 3.8589 1.67 5.00
Telenor 274 3.7433 .64763 .03912 3.6663 3.8203 2.00 5.00
Ufone 264 3.6654 .71113 .04377 3.5792 3.7516 1.00 5.00
Warid 183 3.8397 .60507 .04473 3.7515 3.9280 1.67 5.00
Total 1228 3.7372 .68720 .01961 3.6988 3.7757 1.00 5.00
LOP
ES
ZONG 273 4.1746 .59618 .03608 4.1036 4.2456 2.33 5.00
Mobilink
234 3.9986 .51815 .03387 3.9318 4.0653 1.67 5.00
198
Telenor 274 3.8710 .51868 .03133 3.8094 3.9327 2.00 5.00
Ufone 264 4.2449 .54901 .03379 4.1784 4.3115 2.00 5.00
Warid 183 4.0638 .59624 .04408 3.9768 4.1507 2.00 5.00
Total 1228 4.0719 .57079 .01629 4.0400 4.1039 1.67 5.00
LOP
SC
ZONG 273 3.7851 .56394 .03413 3.7179 3.8523 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 234 3.8903 .61520 .04022 3.8111 3.9695 1.67 5.00
Telenor 274 3.8990 .55758 .03368 3.8327 3.9653 2.33 5.00
Ufone 264 3.7929 .66923 .04119 3.7118 3.8740 1.33 5.00
Warid 183 3.8579 .62739 .04638 3.7664 3.9494 2.00 5.00
Total 1228 3.8431 .60694 .01732 3.8091 3.8771 1.33 5.00
LOP
EEM
ZONG 273 3.8987 .51915 .03142 3.8368 3.9605 2.00 5.00
Mobilink 234 3.9658 .61360 .04011 3.8868 4.0448 1.00 5.00
Telenor 274 3.9221 .60289 .03642 3.8504 3.9938 2.00 5.00
Ufone 264 3.8434 .63544 .03911 3.7664 3.9204 2.00 5.00
Warid 183 3.9508 .63622 .04703 3.8580 4.0436 2.00 5.00
Total 1228 3.9126 .60046 .01714 3.8790 3.9462 1.00 5.00
LOP
SL
ZONG 273 4.0305 .62319 .03772 3.9563 4.1048 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 234 3.9858 .53649 .03507 3.9167 4.0549 2.33 5.00
Telenor 274 3.9623 .52897 .03196 3.8994 4.0252 2.33 5.00
Ufone 264 4.0215 .69942 .04305 3.9367 4.1062 1.67 5.00
Warid 183 4.0109 .57087 .04220 3.9277 4.0942 2.00 5.00
Total 1228 4.0019 .59739 .01705 3.9685 4.0353 1.67 5.00
Table 30: Difference of perception (between Organizations) regarding LOP’s in Five PTSOs
Table 27b
Difference of perception (between organizations) regarding LOP’s in Five PTSOs ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
LOPCL
Between Groups 3.803 4 .951 2.245 .062
Within Groups 517.961 1223 .424
Total 521.764 1227
LOPDI
Between Groups 1.626 4 .407 .913 .455
Within Groups 544.446 1223 .445
Total 546.072 1227
LOPCTL
Between Groups 3.743 4 .936 1.988 .094
Within Groups 575.696 1223 .471
Total 579.439 1227
199
LOPES
Between Groups 23.109 4 5.777 18.759 .000
Within Groups 376.648 1223 .308
Total 399.757 1227
LOPSC
Between Groups 3.002 4 .750 2.044 .086
Within Groups 448.992 1223 .367
Total 451.994 1227
LOPEEM
Between Groups 2.271 4 .568 1.578 .178
Within Groups 440.125 1223 .360
Total 442.396 1227
LOPSL
Between Groups .831 4 .208 .581 .676
Within Groups 437.054 1223 .357
Total 437.884 1227
Table 31b: Difference of perception (between Organizations) regarding LOP’s in Five PTSOs
Table 27a demonstrates the difference of perception regarding LOPs in Five
PTSOs. LOPCL when examined in Zong, its mean score states that 273 employees
(respondents) agreed upon the three items of LOPCL i.e. LOPCL1 (i.e. In my
organization, people help each other learn), LOPCL2 (i.e. In my organization, people are
rewarded for learning) and LOPCL3 (i.e. In my organization, people are given time to
support learning). Overall responses for LOPCL ranged from 2 - 5 with SD .657. It shows
that employees in Zong are on average agreeing upon the presence of the Continuous
Learning (CL) as LOP in their organization. It also indicates that Zong follows the
LOPCL which confirms its identity as Learning Organization (LO) for the first LOP i.e.
LOPCL.
In Mobilink, when LOPCL was examined, the table 27a shows that its mean score
by 234 employees (respondents) was 3.911 with the SD of .662. The total responses
ranged from 1.67-5. Mean score shows that average responses for the three items of
LOPCL i.e. LOPCL1 (i.e. In my organization, people help each other learn), LOPCL2
(i.e. In my organization, people are rewarded for learning) and LOPCL3 (i.e. In my
200
organization, people are given time to support learning) in Mobilink were almost ‘agree’.
The minimum and maximum values show that the minimum response in 5 point likert
scale was 1.67 which means that respondents also have conflicting opinions unlike
average response rate i.e. ‘disagree’. And maximum value i.e. 5 shows that people in
Mobilink also ‘strongly agreed’ upon the said LOPCL items. The statistics reflect as
employees in Mobilink agreeing upon the presence of the Continuous Learning (CL)
practices in their organization. It also confirms that Mobilink does practice LOPCL as a
Learning Organization.
Table 27a shows that In Telenor, mean score for LOPCL by 274 employees
(respondents) was 3.98 with the S D of .580. The total responses ranged from 2 to 5.
Mean score shows that average responses for the three items of LOPCL i.e. LOPCL1 (i.e.
In my organization, people help each other learn), LOPCL2 (i.e. In my organization,
people are rewarded for learning) and LOPCL3 (i.e. In my organization, people are given
time to support learning) in Telenor were almost ‘agreed’. The minimum and maximum
values show that the minimum response in 5 point likert scale was 2 which means that
respondents also have a view of ‘disagreement’ unlike average response rate. And
maximum value i.e. 5 shows that people in Telenor ‘strongly agree’ upon the said
LOPCL dimension of LOPs. The statistics show that employees in Telenor agree upon
the presence of the Continuous Learning (CL) practices in their organization. It further
confirms that Telenor practice LOPCL being an LO (Learning Organization).
In Ufone, mean score for LOPCL by 264 employees (respondents) was 4.02 with
the SD of .710 and the total responses ranged from 1.67 - 5. Mean score shows that
average responses for the three items of LOPCL i.e. LOPCL1 (i.e. In my organization,
201
people help each other learn), LOPCL2 (i.e. In my organization, people are rewarded for
learning) and LOPCL3 (i.e. In my organization, people are given time to support
learning) in Ufone were ‘agree’ by their employees. The minimum and maximum values
show that the minimum response on 5 point likert scale was 1.67 which means that
respondents also opined with a view of ‘disagreement’ unlike average response rate.
Maximum value i.e. 5 shows that people in Ufone ‘strongly agree’ upon the said LOPCL
items. The mean statistics exhibited that Ufone employees agree upon the presence of the
Continuous Learning (CL) practices in their organization which also confirms it to be an
LO (Learning Organization).
In Warid, mean score for LOPCL by 183 employees (respondents) was 3.85
which was (lowest among all five PTSOs) with the SD of .635 and the total responses
ranged from 2.33 – 5. Mean score shows that average responses for the three items of
LOPCL i.e. LOPCL1 (i.e. In my organization, people help each other learn), LOPCL2
(i.e. In my organization, people are rewarded for learning) and LOPCL3 (i.e. In my
organization, people are given time to support learning) in Warid were between “Neutral”
to ‘Agree’ but closer to the agreement by their employees. The minimum and maximum
values show for LOPCL in Warid that the minimum response on 5 point Likert scale was
2.33 which means that respondents in Warid unlike the respondents in other PTSOs are
between ‘disagreement’ to the ‘neutral’. The maximum value i.e. 5 shows that people in
Warid as in other PTSOs ‘strongly agree’ upon the said LOPCL items. Mean statistics
showed that WARID employees disagreed or were neutral about the presence of the
Continuous Learning (CL) practices in their organization.
202
Second LOP i.e. Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) shown in the table 27a for Zong
provides the mean score for LOPDI by 273 respondents was 3.89 with the SD of .702
with the range of total responses i.e. 2 to 5. Mean score shows that average responses for
the three items of LOPDI (i.e. In my organization, people spend time building trust with
each other), LOPDI2 (i.e. In my organization, people give open and honest feedback to
each other) and LOPDI3 (i.e. In my organization, whenever people state their view, they
also ask what others think) in Zong were almost ‘agree’. The minimum and maximum
values show that the minimum response in 5 point likert-type scale was 2 ‘disagreement’
unlike average response rate and the maximum value was 5 which shows that the
employees in Zong ranged from ‘disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ upon the LOPDI.
LOPDI i.e. Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) shown in the table 27a for Mobilink
provides the mean score for LOPDI by 234 respondents was 3.88 with the SD of .644
with the range of total responses i.e. 2 to 5. Mean score shows that average responses for
the three items of LOPDI stated above in Mobilink were closer to ‘agree’. The minimum
and maximum values show that the minimum response in 5 point likert scale was 2
‘disagreement’ unlike average response rate and the maximum value was 5 which
indicate that the employees in Mobilink ‘strongly agreed’ upon the LOPDI i.e. second
dimension of LOPs. The statistics show that employees in Mobilink agree upon the
presence of the Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) practices in their organization and moreover
confirms that Mobilink practice LOPDI being an LO (Learning Organization).
LOPDI i.e. Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) the table 27a for Telenor provides the mean
score for LOPDI by 274 respondents was 3.89 with the SD of .675 with the range of total
responses i.e. 2 to 5. Mean score shows that average responses for the three said items of
203
LOPDI in Telenor were almost also found ‘agreed’. The minimum and maximum values
show that the minimum response in 5 point likert scale was 2 ‘disagreement’ unlike
average response rate and the maximum value was 5 which show that the employees in
Telenor ‘strongly agreed’ upon the said LOPDI. The mean statistics show that employees
in Telenor agree upon the presence of the Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) practices in their
organization and also confirm that Telenor practice LOPDI being an LO (Learning
Organization).
Table 27a demonstrates the LOPDI i.e. Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) for Ufone with
the mean score for LOPDI by 264 respondents was 3.79 with the SD of .702 with the
range of total responses i.e. 2 to 5. Mean score shows that average responses for the three
items of LOPDI. Table 27a shows LOPDI for Warid provides with the mean score for
LOPDI by 183 respondents was 3.88 with the S.D of .580 with the range of total
responses i.e. 2 to 5. Mean score for LOPDI in both the organizations shows that average
responses for the three items of LOPDI in Warid were almost ‘agree’. The minimum and
maximum values show that the minimum response in 5 point likert scale was 2
‘disagreement’ unlike average response rate and the maximum value was 5 which shows
that the employees in Ufone and Warid ‘strongly agree’ upon the LOPDI. Employees in
both the said organizations agree upon the presence of the Dialogue and Inquiry (DI)
practices in their organization.
LOPCTL i.e. Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL) shown in the table 27a for
Zong, Mobilink, Telenor, Ufone and Warid provides the mean scores for Collaboration
and Team Learning (CTL) by 273, 234, 274, 264 and 182 respondents was 3.70, 3.76,
3.74, 3.66 and 3.83 with the SD of .720, .718, .647, .711 and .605 respectively. The
204
range of total responses is 1 - 5 in Zong, 1.67 - 5 in Mobilink, 2 – 5 in Telenor, 1 - 5 in
Ufone and 1.67 - 5 in Warid. Mean scores show that average responses for the three items
of Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL) i.e. LOPCTL1 (i.e. In my organization,
teams/groups have the freedom to adapt their goals as needed), LOPCTL2 (i.e. In my
organization, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of group discussion or
information collected) and LOPCTL3 (i.e. In my organization, teams/groups are
confident that the organization will act on their recommendations) in almost all five
PTSOs were almost ‘agree’. The minimum and maximum values show that the minimum
response in 5 point likert scale was 1 ‘high disagreement’ in Zong and in Ufone which
indicate that responses started from disagreement for the stated items in the said PTSOs.
Responses between ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ as a minimum score given by the
respondents came from Warid and Mobilink whereas the minimum response value for
LOPCTL in Telenor was 2 which means that minimum response value is disagreement.
The maximum value in all the PTSOs regarding LOPCTL was 5 which shows that the
employees in all PTSOs ‘strongly agree’ upon Collaboration and Team Learning
(LOPCTL). The statistics show that employees in all five selected PTSOs agree upon the
presence of the Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL) practices in their organization
and confirms that these PTSOs’ practice LOPCTL.
LOPES i.e. Embedded System (ES) shown in the table 27a for Zong, Mobilink, Telenor,
Ufone and Warid provides the mean scores for Embedded System (ES) by 273, 234, 274,
264 and 182 respondents was 4.17, 3.99, 3.87, 4.24 and 4.06 with SD of .596, .518,
.518, .549 and .596 respectively. The range of total responses is 2.33 – 5 in Zong, 1.67 - 5
in Mobilink, 2 - 5 in Telenor, Ufone and Warid. Mean scores show that average
205
responses for the three items of Embedded System (ES) i.e. LOPES1 (i.e. My
organization makes its lessons learned available to all employees), LOPES2 (i.e. My
organization measures the results of the time and resources spent on training) and
LOPES3 (i.e. My organization creates systems to measure gaps between current and
expected performance) in almost all five PTSOs were ‘agree’. The minimum and
maximum values show that the minimum response in 5 point likert scale was 2.33 ‘
between disagreement and neutral’ in Zong and between ‘high disagreement and
‘disagreement’ in Mobilink. Minimum responses for the rest three PTSOs are 2 i.e.
‘disagreement’. Maximum value in all the PTSOs regarding LOPES was 5 which shows
that the employees in all PTSOs ‘strongly agree’ upon Embedded System (ES). The
statistics confirm that employees in all five selected PTSOs agree upon the presence of
Embedded System (ES) practices in their organization and it confirms that these PTSOs’
practice LOPES.
LOPSC i.e. System Connection (SC) presented in the table 27a for Zong,
Mobilink, Telenor, Ufone and Warid provides the mean scores for System Connection
(SC) by 273, 234, 274, 264 and 182 respondents was 3.78, 3.89, 3.89, 3.79 and 3.85
with SD of .563, .615, .557, .669 and .627 respectively. The range of total responses is
2.33 - 5 in Zong, 1.67 - 5 in Mobilink, 2.33 - 5 in Telenor, 1.33 - 5 in Ufone and 2 - 5 in
Warid. Mean scores show that average responses for the three items of System
Connection (SC) i.e. LOPSC1 (i.e. My organization works together with the outside
community to meet mutual needs), LOPSC2 (i.e. My organization encourages people to
get answers from across the organization when solving problems) and LOPSC3 (i.e. My
organization encourages people to think from a global perspective) in all five PTSOs
206
were almost ‘agree’. The minimum and maximum values show that the minimum
response on 5 point likert scale was 2.33 (between disagreement and neutral) in Zong and
Telenor, between ‘high disagreement and ‘disagreement’ in Mobilink and Ufone and for
Warid it is on ‘disagreement’. Maximum value in all the PTSOs regarding LOPES is 5
which shows that the employees in all PTSOs ‘strongly agree’ upon Embedded System
(ES). Employees in all five selected PTSOs agree upon the presence of Embedded
System (ES) practices in their organization and it confirms that these PTSOs’ practice
LOPSC.
LOPEEM i.e. Employee Empowerment (EEM) in the table 27a for Zong,
Mobilink, Telenor, Ufone and Warid provides the mean scores for Employee
Empowerment (EEM) by 273, 234, 274, 264 and 182 respondents was 3.89, 3.96, 3.92,
3.84 and 3.95 with SD of .519, .613, .602, .635 and .636 respectively. The range of total
responses is 2 – 5 (between disagree to strongly agree) in Zong, 1 – 5 (between strongly
disagree to strongly agree) in Mobilink, 2 - 5 (between disagreed to strongly agreed) in
rest of the three PTSOs. Mean scores exhibited that average responses for the three items
of Employee Empowerment (EEM) i.e. LOPEEM1 (i.e. My organization recognizes
people for taking initiative), LOPEEM2 (i.e. My organization gives people control over
the resources they need to accomplish their work) and LOPEEM3 (i.e. My organization
supports employees who take calculated risks) in all five PTSOs were almost ‘agree’.
Employees in all five selected PTSOs agree upon the presence of Employee
Empowerment (EEM) practices in their organization and it confirms that these PTSOs’
practice LOPEEM.
207
LOPSL i.e. Strategic Leadership (SL) in the table 27a for Zong, Mobilink,
Telenor, Ufone and Warid provides the mean scores for Strategic Leadership (SL) by
273, 234, 274, 264 and 182 respondents was 4.03, 3.98, 3.96, 4.02 and 4.01 with S D of
.623, .536, .528, .699 and .570 respectively. The range of total responses is 2.33 – 5
(between disagree to strongly agree) in Zong, Mobilink, and Telenor and 1.67 - 5
(between highly disagree to strongly agree) in Ufone and 2 - 5 (between disagree to
strongly agree) in Warid. Mean scores show that average responses for the three items of
Strategic Leadership (SL) i.e. LOPEEM1 (i.e. In my organization, leader mentors and
coaches those he or she leads), LOPEEM2 (i.e. In my organization, leader continually
look for opportunities to learn) and LOPEEM3 (i.e. In my organization, leader ensures
that the organization’s actions are consistent with its values) in all five PTSOs were
almost ‘agree’. Employees in all five selected PTSOs agree upon the presence of
Strategic Leadership (SL) practices in their organization and it confirms that these
PTSOs’ practice LOPSL.
Difference of perception (between organization) regarding LOP’s in Five PTSOs
has been analyzed using ANOVA. Among all seven selected LOPs as presented in table
27b, a significant difference (.000 i.e. p < .05) was found in ‘Embedded Systems’
(LOPES) which means that significantly different responses have been received for
LOPES among all LOPs. Rest of the six LOPs carried insignificant differences in all five
selected PTSOs.
Table 28a
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in selected
PTSOs
208
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOPCL NP 106 3.9780 .64286 .06244 3.8542 4.1018 2.33 5.00
Lower 732 3.9599 .66592 .02461 3.9116 4.0082 1.67 5.00
Middle 385 3.9567 .63134 .03218 3.8934 4.0200 2.00 5.00
Top 5 4.0000 .52705 .23570 3.3456 4.6544 3.33 4.67
Total 1228 3.9606 .65210 .01861 3.9241 3.9971 1.67 5.00
LOPDI NP 106 3.8585 .71558 .06950 3.7207 3.9963 2.33 5.00
Lower 732 3.9490 .64827 .02396 3.9020 3.9960 2.00 5.00
Middle 385 3.8840 .68789 .03506 3.8151 3.9529 2.00 5.00
Top 5 3.6667 .62361 .27889 2.8924 4.4410 3.00 4.33
Total 1228 3.9197 .66712 .01904 3.8823 3.9570 2.00 5.00
LOPCTL NP 106 3.6918 .69723 .06772 3.5575 3.8261 2.00 5.00
Lower 732 3.7468 .69433 .02566 3.6964 3.7972 1.00 5.00
Middle 385 3.7368 .66926 .03411 3.6697 3.8039 1.00 5.00
Top 5 3.3333 .84984 .38006 2.2781 4.3885 2.00 4.00
Total 1228 3.7372 .68720 .01961 3.6988 3.7757 1.00 5.00
LOPES NP 106 4.1352 .59943 .05822 4.0198 4.2507 2.67 5.00
Lower 732 4.0615 .57353 .02120 4.0199 4.1031 1.67 5.00
Middle 385 4.0753 .55781 .02843 4.0194 4.1312 2.00 5.00
Top 5 4.0000 .62361 .27889 3.2257 4.7743 3.00 4.67
Total 1228 4.0719 .57079 .01629 4.0400 4.1039 1.67 5.00
LOPSC NP 106 3.6981 .63667 .06184 3.5755 3.8207 1.67 5.00
Lower 732 3.8402 .62095 .02295 3.7951 3.8852 1.33 5.00
Middle 385 3.8848 .56649 .02887 3.8281 3.9416 2.00 5.00
Top 5 4.1333 .50553 .22608 3.5056 4.7610 3.67 5.00
Total 1228 3.8431 .60694 .01732 3.8091 3.8771 1.33 5.00
LOPEEM NP 106 3.8994 .63939 .06210 3.7762 4.0225 2.00 5.00
Lower 732 3.9321 .59749 .02208 3.8888 3.9755 2.00 5.00
Middle 385 3.8779 .59350 .03025 3.8185 3.9374 1.00 5.00
Top 5 4.0000 .78174 .34960 3.0293 4.9707 2.67 4.67
Total 1228 3.9126 .60046 .01714 3.8790 3.9462 1.00 5.00
LOPSL NP 106 4.0566 .64647 .06279 3.9321 4.1811 2.33 5.00
Lower 732 3.9973 .60824 .02248 3.9531 4.0414 1.67 5.00
Middle 385 3.9991 .56443 .02877 3.9426 4.0557 2.33 5.00
209
Top 5 3.7333 .36515 .16330 3.2799 4.1867 3.33 4.33
Total 1228 4.0019 .59739 .01705 3.9685 4.0353 1.67 5.00
Table 32a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in selected PTSOs
Table 28b
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in selected
PTSOs
ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
LOPCL
Between Groups .046 3 .015 .036 .991
Within Groups 521.718 1224 .426
Total 521.764 1227
LOPDI
Between Groups 1.837 3 .612 1.377 .248
Within Groups 544.236 1224 .445
Total 546.072 1227
LOPCTL
Between Groups 1.101 3 .367 .777 .507
Within Groups 578.338 1224 .472
Total 579.439 1227
LOPES
Between Groups .535 3 .178 .547 .650
Within Groups 399.222 1224 .326
Total 399.757 1227
LOPSC
Between Groups 3.327 3 1.109 3.025 .029
Within Groups 448.667 1224 .367
Total 451.994 1227
LOPEEM
Between Groups .799 3 .266 .739 .529
Within Groups 441.597 1224 .361
Total 442.396 1227
LOPSL
Between Groups .696 3 .232 .650 .583
Within Groups 437.188 1224 .357
Total 437.884 1227
Table 33b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in selected PTSOs
Table 28a exhibits the difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three
managerial levels in selected PTSOs. Mean responses by three management levels (Low,
210
Middle & Top) for the first dimension i.e. Continuous Learning (LOPCL) shown in the
table can be interpreted as employees at all three levels responded as ‘agree’ on average
with the minor difference on LOPCL items. SD among the responses by the employees of
the selected PTSOs at all three levels was almost same with minor differences which
show that the perception of employees at all three levels regarding LOPCL in their
organizations is almost same and they all agree upon the items of LOPCL. The
difference in their opinions was extracted from the range i.e. maximum and minimum.
Minimum value of the responses at lower level presented in the table 28a was 1.67
(between strongly disagree and disagree) at the middle level was 2 (disagree) and at the
top level was 3.33 (between neutral and agree). Maximum value from the responses at
lower and middle levels was 5 whereas at the top level i.e. 4.67 was between ‘agree’ to
‘strongly agree’. Lower level employees provided a mixed response from disagreement to
strong agreement. Responses from the middle level employees were a bit better in terms
of agreement with the items of LOPCL and the responses from top level management
were above neutral and towards agreement with the items of LOPCL.
Mean responses by three management levels (Low, Middle & Top) for the second
dimension i.e. Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) shown in the table 28a can be interpreted as
employees at all three levels responded in between neutral to agreed but more towards
‘agree’ on average with the minor difference regarding Dialogue and Inquiry (LOPDI).
SD among the responses by the employees at all three levels were almost same with
minor differences which indicate that the perception of the employees at all three levels
regarding LOPDI in their organizations is almost same and they all agreed upon the items
of LOPDI. The difference in their opinions extracted from the range of responses at all
211
three levels i.e. maximum and minimum provided in the table. Minimum value responses
at the lower and the middle levels i.e. 2.0 (disagree) and was (neutral) at the top level.
Maximum value from the responses at lower and middle levels was 5 whereas at the top
level it was 4.33 i.e. between ‘agree’ to ‘strongly agree’ but more towards ‘agree’. Lower
and middle level employees provided a mixed response from disagreement to strong
agreement for LOPDI.
Mean responses by three management levels (Low, Middle & Top) for the third
dimension i.e. Collaboration and Team Learning (LOPCTL) derived from the table 28a
provides a view as employees at all three levels responded in between neutral to agreed
but lower and middle level employees responded more towards ‘agree’ on average with
the minor difference regarding Collaboration and Team Learning (LOPCTL) whereas top
level employees responded closer to ‘neutral’ on average. SD among the responses by the
employees at lower and middle levels were almost same with minor differences i.e. .694
and .669 which indicate the perception of the employees at lower and middle levels
regarding LOPCTL whereas .849 in the responses of top level management. Minimum
value responses at the lower and the middle levels i.e. 1.0 (strongly disagree) and was 2
(disagree) at the top level. Maximum value from the responses at lower and middle levels
is 5 whereas at the top level is 4 which is ‘agree’. Lower and middle level employees
provided a mixed response from disagreement to strong agreement. Whereas the top level
management maximum opted 4 (agree) on 5 point likert scale.
Mean responses at Low, Middle & Top level management for the fourth
dimension i.e. Embedded System (LOPES) presented in table 28a can be interpreted as
employees at all three levels responded as ‘agreed’ regarding LOPES. SD among the
212
responses by the employees at lower and middle levels were almost same with minor
differences i.e. .573 and .557 and comparatively higher in responses of top level
management i.e. .623. Minimum value of the responses at lower level was 1.67 (strongly
disagree to agree), at middle level was 2 (disagree) and was 3 (neutral) at the top level.
Maximum value from the responses at lower and middle levels was 5 whereas at the top
level is 4.67 i.e. between ‘agree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
Mean responses at Low, Middle & Top level management for the fourth
dimension i.e. System Connections (LOPSC) exhibited in table 28 can be interpreted as
employees at all three levels responded as closer to ‘agree’ and ‘agree’ regarding LOPSC.
SD among the responses by the employees at all three levels was almost same with minor
differences i.e. .620 and .566 and .505. Minimum value responses at the lower level was
1.33 (strongly disagree to agree), at the middle level was 2 (disagree) and was 3.67
(between neutral to agree) at the top level. Maximum value from the responses at lower
and middle levels is 5.
Mean responses at Low, Middle & Top level management for the sixth
dimension i.e. Employee Empowerment (LOPEEM) derived from table 28a can be
interpreted as employees at all three levels responded as closer to ‘agree’ regarding
LOPEEM in PTSOs. SD among the responses by the employees at lower and middle
levels were almost same with minor differences i.e. .595 and .593 but comparatively high
by the top level management i.e. .781. Minimum value responses at the lower level i.e. 2
(disagree), at the middle level 1 (strongly disagree) and is 2.67 (between disagree to
neutral) at the top level. Maximum value of the responses by lower and middle level
employees was 5 and 4.67 by the top level management.
213
Mean responses at Low, Middle & Top level management for the seventh
dimension i.e. Strategic Leadership (LOPSL) shown in table 28a can be interpreted as
employees responded as ‘agree’ by lower and middle level employees in PTSOs and
between ‘neutral’ to ‘agree’ but more towards ‘agree’ by the top level employees
regarding LOPSL. SD among the responses by the employees at lower and middle levels
was almost same with minor differences i.e. .608 and .564 but comparatively lowest most
among all by the top level management i.e. .365. Minimum value responses at the lower
level was 1.67 (between strongly disagree to disagree), at the middle level was 2.33
(between disagree to neutral) and is 3.33 (between neutral to agree) at the top level.
Maximum value of the responses by lower and middle level employees is 5 and 4.33 by
the top level management. 106 respondents did not provide their designations regarding
LOPs.
Difference in perception (among three management levels) regarding LOP’s in
Five PTSOs was analyzed using ANOVA. Difference in the responses of all LOPs at
three organizational levels, were found insignificant except ‘System Connection’ (SC)
which was presented in the (table 28a & 28b) as (.029 i.e. p < .05). It is interpreted as
significantly different responses were received for LOPSC among all LOPs. Rest of the
six LOPs carried insignificant differences in all five selected PTSOs.
Table 29a
Gender-wise mean differences
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
LOPCL Male 865 3.9649 .65238 .02218
Female 363 3.9504 .65223 .03423
214
LOPDI Male 865 3.9010 .66150 .02249
Female 363 3.9642 .67917 .03565
LOPCTL Male 865 3.7399 .68515 .02330
Female 363 3.7309 .69297 .03637
LOPES Male 865 4.0593 .56481 .01920
Female 363 4.1019 .58450 .03068
LOPSC Male 865 3.8644 .60570 .02059
Female 363 3.7925 .60773 .03190
LOPEEM Male 865 3.9214 .60411 .02054
Female 363 3.8916 .59196 .03107
LOPSL Male 865 4.0015 .60773 .02066
Female 363 4.0028 .57281 .03006
Table 34a: Gender-wise mean differences regarding LOP’s in selected PTSOs
Table 29b
T-Test for Gender Comparison - Gender wise mean differences
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. T df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
LOP
CL
Equal variances
assumed .222 .637 .356 1226 .722 .01452 .04080 -.06552 .09456
Equal variances not
assumed
.356 679.585 .722 .01452 .04079 -.06557 .09461
LOP
DI
Equal variances
assumed .005 .944 -1.516 1226 .130 -.06322 .04170 -.14503 .01858
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.500 663.539 .134 -.06322 .04215 -.14599 .01954
LOP
CTL
Equal variances
assumed .028 .866 .208 1226 .835 .00894 .04299 -.07541 .09328
215
Equal variances not
assumed
.207 672.513 .836 .00894 .04319 -.07587 .09375
LOP
ES
Equal variances
assumed .003 .955 -1.193 1226 .233 -.04258 .03569 -.11260 .02744
Equal variances not
assumed
-1.177 658.895 .240 -.04258 .03619 -.11365 .02848
LOP
SC
Equal variances
assumed .093 .760 1.896 1226 .058 .07188 .03792 -.00250 .14627
Equal variances not
assumed
1.893 677.385 .059 .07188 .03797 -.00266 .14643
LOPE
EM
Equal variances
assumed .325 .569 .792 1226 .429 .02974 .03756 -.04394 .10343
Equal variances not
assumed
.799 692.190 .425 .02974 .03725 -.04338 .10287
LOP
SL
Equal variances
assumed 3.719 .054 -.032 1226 .974 -.00121 .03737 -.07454 .07211
Equal variances not
assumed
-.033 717.689 .973 -.00121 .03648 -.07284 .07041
Table 35b: Gender-wise mean differences regarding LOP’s in selected PTSOs
Gender-wise mean differences regarding LOP’s in selected PTSOs were derived from the
table 29a which provides the range of mean score (i.e. 3.73 - 4.10) with the range of SD
i.e. (.56 - .69). From the mean scores presented in the table, the average response of both
the genders can be derived which states that there is no marginal difference among the
responses received from males and females. Both the genders in all five PTSOs scored
almost same on all the LOPs. Difference of perception (between Male and Female)
regarding LOP’s in five selected PTSOs was also analyzed using t-test. Among all seven
selected LOPs as presented in table 29b. All the Seven LOPs carried insignificant
differences i.e. p > .05) in all five selected PTSOs.
216
Table 30a
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Zong -
ANOVA (where n= 273)
Descriptives
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOP
CL
NP 31 4.2258 .66881 .1201
2
3.9805 4.4711 2.33 5.00
Lower 166 3.9980 .61573 .0477
9
3.9036 4.0924 2.00 5.00
Middle 75 3.8711 .72055 .0832
0
3.7053 4.0369 2.00 5.00
Top 1 3.3333 . . . . 3.33 3.33
Total 273 3.9866 .65758 .0398
0
3.9082 4.0649 2.00 5.00
LOP
DI
NP 31 4.0430 .70312 .1262
8
3.7851 4.3009 2.33 5.00
Lower 166 3.9558 .69876 .0542
3
3.8487 4.0629 2.33 5.00
Middle 75 3.8533 .71710 .0828
0
3.6883 4.0183 2.00 5.00
Top 1 4.0000 . . . . 4.00 4.00
Total 273 3.9377 .70290 .0425
4
3.8540 4.0215 2.00 5.00
LOP
CTL
NP 31 3.5376 .74375 .1335
8
3.2648 3.8104 2.00 5.00
Lower 166 3.6747 .69433 .0538
9
3.5683 3.7811 2.00 5.00
Middle 75 3.8444 .75801 .0875
3
3.6700 4.0188 1.00 5.00
Top 1 4.0000 . . . . 4.00 4.00
Total 273 3.7070 .72056 .0436
1
3.6211 3.7928 1.00 5.00
LOP NP 31 4.2903 .51454 .0924 4.1016 4.4791 3.33 5.00
217
ES 1
Lower 166 4.2028 .57767 .0448
4
4.1143 4.2913 2.33 5.00
Middle 75 4.0800 .64803 .0748
3
3.9309 4.2291 2.33 5.00
Top 1 3.0000 . . . . 3.00 3.00
Total 273 4.1746 .59618 .0360
8
4.1036 4.2456 2.33 5.00
LOP
SC
NP 31 3.5269 .55627 .0999
1
3.3228 3.7309 2.33 4.33
Lower 166 3.8112 .57488 .0446
2
3.7231 3.8993 2.33 5.00
Middle 75 3.8311 .52383 .0604
9
3.7106 3.9516 2.67 4.67
Top 1 4.0000 . . . . 4.00 4.00
Total 273 3.7851 .56394 .0341
3
3.7179 3.8523 2.33 5.00
LOP
EEM
NP 31 3.9677 .59226 .1063
7
3.7505 4.1850 2.00 4.67
Lower 166 3.8835 .50701 .0393
5
3.8058 3.9612 2.33 5.00
Middle 75 3.9200 .50177 .0579
4
3.8046 4.0354 2.00 4.67
Top 1 2.6667 . . . . 2.67 2.67
Total 273 3.8987 .51915 .0314
2
3.8368 3.9605 2.00 5.00
LOP
SL
NP 31 4.2043 .55563 .0997
9
4.0005 4.4081 3.00 5.00
Lower 166 4.0241 .62341 .0483
9
3.9286 4.1196 2.33 5.00
Middle 75 3.9778 .64685 .0746
9
3.8290 4.1266 2.33 5.00
Top 1 3.6667 . . . . 3.67 3.67
Total 273 4.0305 .62319 .0377
2
3.9563 4.1048 2.33 5.00
Table 36a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Zong - ANOVA (where n=
273)
218
Table 30b
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Zong -
ANOVA (where n= 273)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
LOPCL
Between Groups 3.222 3 1.074 2.526 .058
Within Groups 114.395 269 .425
Total 117.617 272
LOPDI
Between Groups .936 3 .312 .629 .597
Within Groups 133.450 269 .496
Total 134.386 272
LOPCTL
Between Groups 2.565 3 .855 1.659 .176
Within Groups 138.658 269 .515
Total 141.223 272
LOPES
Between Groups 2.598 3 .866 2.476 .062
Within Groups 94.079 269 .350
Total 96.677 272
LOPSC
Between Groups 2.385 3 .795 2.543 .057
Within Groups 84.118 269 .313
Total 86.504 272
LOPEEM
Between Groups 1.738 3 .579 2.177 .091
Within Groups 71.569 269 .266
Total 73.307 272
LOPSL
Between Groups 1.284 3 .428 1.103 .348
Within Groups 104.350 269 .388
Total 105.635 272
Table 37b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Zong - ANOVA (where n=
273)
Table 30a shows that the difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three
managerial levels in Zong. Mean responses by lower level ranged from 3.6 (LOPDI) to
4.2 (LOPCTL), by the middle level ranged from 3.97 (LOPSL) to 4.08 (LOPES), and by
the top level ranged from 2.66 (LOPEEM) to 4 (LOPDI and LOPSC). The range of SD
219
derived from the table 36a was from .507 (LOPSC) to .698 (LOPDI) by Lower cadre and
from .501 (LOPEEM) to .758 (LOPCTL) by middle cadre. SD for the top cadre was not
available due the sample size constraint at the top level. The difference in the opinions at
the three organizational cadres was extracted from the range i.e. maximum and minimum.
Minimum values by the lower level cadre on LOPs ranged from 2 to 2.33, by middle
cadre ranged from 1 to 2.67 and by the top cadre ranged from 2.67 to 4. The maximum
value scored for LOPs by all the cadres was 5.
Difference of perception (at Top, Middle and Lower levels) regarding LOP’s
within Zong was analyzed using ANOVA. All seven selected LOPs as presented in table
30b, have insignificant difference (p > .05) which means that within Zong, there was not
a significant difference among the responses for selected LOPs at thee three managerial
levels.
Table 38a
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Mobilink - ANOVA (where n= 234)
Descriptives
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOP
CL
NP 12 3.8056 .54045 .15601 3.4622 4.1489 2.67 4.67
Lower 177 3.9077 .67860 .05101 3.8071 4.0084 1.67 5.00
Middle 44 3.9621 .63983 .09646 3.7676 4.1566 2.67 5.00
Top 1 3.6667 . . . . 3.67 3.67
Total 234 3.9117 .66221 .04329 3.8264 3.9970 1.67 5.00
LOP
DI
NP 12 3.7778 .65649 .18951 3.3607 4.1949 3.00 4.67
Lower 177 3.8606 .65572 .04929 3.7634 3.9579 2.00 5.00
Middle 44 4.0303 .57877 .08725 3.8543 4.2063 2.67 5.00
220
Top 1 3.0000 . . . . 3.00 3.00
Total 234 3.8846 .64447 .04213 3.8016 3.9676 2.00 5.00
LOP
CTL
NP 12 3.6389 .41337 .11933 3.3762 3.9015 3.00 4.67
Lower 177 3.8004 .71885 .05403 3.6937 3.9070 1.67 5.00
Middle 44 3.6818 .78076 .11770 3.4444 3.9192 1.67 5.00
Top 1 3.0000 . . . . 3.00 3.00
Total 234 3.7664 .71867 .04698 3.6738 3.8589 1.67 5.00
LOP
ES
NP 12 4.0278 .26432 .07630 3.8598 4.1957 3.67 4.33
Lower 177 3.9981 .54297 .04081 3.9176 4.0787 1.67 5.00
Middle 44 3.9773 .46809 .07057 3.8350 4.1196 2.33 5.00
Top 1 4.6667 . . . . 4.67 4.67
Total 234 3.9986 .51815 .03387 3.9318 4.0653 1.67 5.00
LOP
SC
NP 12 3.6667 .37605 .10856 3.4277 3.9056 3.00 4.33
Lower 177 3.8757 .64813 .04872 3.7796 3.9718 1.67 5.00
Middle 44 4.0076 .51584 .07777 3.8507 4.1644 2.67 5.00
Top 1 4.0000 . . . . 4.00 4.00
Total 234 3.8903 .61520 .04022 3.8111 3.9695 1.67 5.00
LOP
EEM
NP 12 4.3333 .44947 .12975 4.0478 4.6189 3.67 5.00
Lower 177 3.9247 .59191 .04449 3.8369 4.0125 2.00 5.00
Middle 44 4.0152 .70419 .10616 3.8011 4.2292 1.00 5.00
Top 1 4.6667 . . . . 4.67 4.67
Total 234 3.9658 .61360 .04011 3.8868 4.0448 1.00 5.00
LOP
SL
NP 12 4.1111 .38490 .11111 3.8666 4.3557 3.33 4.67
Lower 177 3.9699 .54965 .04131 3.8883 4.0514 2.33 5.00
Middle 44 4.0076 .52576 .07926 3.8477 4.1674 3.00 5.00
Top 1 4.3333 . . . . 4.33 4.33
Total 234 3.9858 .53649 .03507 3.9167 4.0549 2.33 5.00
Table 31a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Mobilink - ANOVA (where
n= 234)
Table 39b
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Mobilink - ANOVA (where n= 234)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
221
LOPCL
Between Groups .310 3 .103 .233 .873
Within Groups 101.865 230 .443
Total 102.175 233
LOPDI
Between Groups 1.955 3 .652 1.581 .195
Within Groups 94.818 230 .412
Total 96.774 233
LOPCTL
Between Groups 1.302 3 .434 .838 .474
Within Groups 119.038 230 .518
Total 120.340 233
LOPES
Between Groups .477 3 .159 .589 .623
Within Groups 62.078 230 .270
Total 62.555 233
LOPSC
Between Groups 1.255 3 .418 1.107 .347
Within Groups 86.930 230 .378
Total 88.185 233
LOPEEM
Between Groups 2.519 3 .840 2.266 .082
Within Groups 85.208 230 .370
Total 87.726 233
LOPSL
Between Groups .375 3 .125 .431 .731
Within Groups 66.689 230 .290
Total 67.064 233
Table 31b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Mobilink - ANOVA (where
n= 234)
Table 31a presents the difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three
managerial levels in Mobilink. Mean responses by lower level ranged from 3.80
(LOPCTL) - 3.99 (LOPES), by the middle level 3.68 (LOPCTL) - 4.03 (LOPDI), and by
the top level ranged from 3 (LOPCTL) - 4.66 (LOPEEM). The range of SD derived from
the table 37a was from .542 (LOPES) to .718 (LOPCTL) by the lower cadre and from
.468 (LOPES) to .780 (LOPCTL) by middle cadre. SD for the top cadre was not available
due the sample size constraint at the top level cadre. The difference in the opinions at the
three organizational cadres has been extracted from the range i.e. maximum and
minimum. Minimum values by the lower level cadre on LOPs ranged from 1.67 - 2.33,
222
by middle cadre ranged from 1 - 3 and by the top cadre ranged from 3 - 4.67. The
maximum value scored for LOPs by lower and middle cadres was 5 whereas top level
varied with the range from 3 - 4.67.
When difference of perception (at Top, Middle and Lower levels) regarding
LOP’s within Mobilink was analyzed using ANOVA, all seven selected LOPs as
presented in table 31a and 31b, were found with insignificant difference (p > .05) which
can be interpreted as within Mobilink there was not a significant difference among the
responses for selected LOPs at thee three managerial levels.
Table 32a
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Telenor -
ANOVA (where n= 274)
Descriptives
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOP
CL
NP 20 3.9000 .66754 .14927 3.5876 4.2124 2.67 5.00
Lower 137 3.9708 .62029 .05300 3.8660 4.0756 2.33 5.00
Middle 114 4.0029 .51810 .04852 3.9068 4.0991 2.00 5.00
Top 3 4.3333 .33333 .19245 3.5053 5.1614 4.00 4.67
Total 274 3.9830 .58026 .03505 3.9140 4.0520 2.00 5.00
LOP
DI
NP 20 3.8667 .72869 .16294 3.5256 4.2077 2.67 5.00
Lower 137 3.9635 .65514 .05597 3.8528 4.0742 2.33 5.00
Middle 114 3.8216 .69012 .06464 3.6936 3.9497 2.00 5.00
Top 3 3.7778 .69389 .40062 2.0541 5.5015 3.00 4.33
Total 274 3.8954 .67546 .04081 3.8150 3.9757 2.00 5.00
LOP
CTL
NP 20 4.2500 .63867 .14281 3.9511 4.5489 3.33 5.00
Lower 137 3.7494 .65776 .05620 3.6383 3.8605 2.00 5.00
Middle 114 3.6608 .58661 .05494 3.5520 3.7697 2.00 5.00
223
Top 3 3.2222 1.07152 .61864 .5604 5.8840 2.00 4.00
Total 274 3.7433 .64763 .03912 3.6663 3.8203 2.00 5.00
LOP
ES
NP 20 3.9167 .57098 .12768 3.6494 4.1839 3.00 5.00
Lower 137 3.8321 .56320 .04812 3.7370 3.9273 2.00 5.00
Middle 114 3.9035 .45597 .04271 3.8189 3.9881 2.67 5.00
Top 3 4.1111 .19245 .11111 3.6330 4.5892 4.00 4.33
Total 274 3.8710 .51868 .03133 3.8094 3.9327 2.00 5.00
LOP
SC
NP 20 3.8667 .55567 .12425 3.6066 4.1267 3.00 5.00
Lower 137 3.9294 .56654 .04840 3.8337 4.0252 2.33 5.00
Middle 114 3.8596 .54654 .05119 3.7582 3.9611 2.33 5.00
Top 3 4.2222 .69389 .40062 2.4985 5.9459 3.67 5.00
Total 274 3.8990 .55758 .03368 3.8327 3.9653 2.33 5.00
LOP
EEM
NP 20 4.0333 .56091 .12542 3.7708 4.2958 3.00 5.00
Lower 137 3.9927 .62160 .05311 3.8877 4.0977 2.00 5.00
Middle 114 3.8099 .57985 .05431 3.7023 3.9175 2.00 5.00
Top 3 4.2222 .19245 .11111 3.7441 4.7003 4.00 4.33
Total 274 3.9221 .60289 .03642 3.8504 3.9938 2.00 5.00
LOP
SL
NP 20 3.9333 .60794 .13594 3.6488 4.2179 2.33 5.00
Lower 137 4.0097 .51915 .04435 3.9220 4.0974 2.67 5.00
Middle 114 3.9211 .52901 .04955 3.8229 4.0192 2.33 5.00
Top 3 3.5556 .19245 .11111 3.0775 4.0336 3.33 3.67
Total 274 3.9623 .52897 .03196 3.8994 4.0252 2.33 5.00
Table 32a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Telenor - ANOVA (where n=
274)
Table 32b
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in
Telenor - ANOVA (where n= 274)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
LOPCL
Between Groups .572 3 .191 .563 .640
Within Groups 91.349 270 .338
Total 91.921 273
LOPDI Between Groups 1.314 3 .438 .959 .412
Within Groups 123.243 270 .456
224
Total 124.556 273
LOPCTL
Between Groups 6.730 3 2.243 5.620 .001
Within Groups 107.772 270 .399
Total 114.502 273
LOPES
Between Groups .542 3 .181 .669 .571
Within Groups 72.901 270 .270
Total 73.444 273
LOPSC
Between Groups .638 3 .213 .681 .564
Within Groups 84.235 270 .312
Total 84.873 273
LOPEEM
Between Groups 2.635 3 .878 2.455 .064
Within Groups 96.593 270 .358
Total 99.228 273
LOPSL
Between Groups 1.015 3 .338 1.212 .306
Within Groups 75.373 270 .279
Total 76.388 273
Table 32b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Telenor - ANOVA (where n=
274)
Table 32a presents the difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three
managerial levels in Telenor. Mean responses by lower level ranged from 3.74
(LOPCTL) - 4 (LOPSL), by the middle level 4 (LOPCL) - 3.6 (LOPCTL), and by the top
level ranged from 3.2 (LOPCTL) - 4.3 (LOPCL). The range of SD shown in the table 38a
was from .519 (LOPSL) to .657 (LOPCTL) by the lower cadre, from .455 (LOPES) to
.69 (LOPDI) by middle cadre and from .192 to .69 by the top cadre. The difference in the
opinions at three organizational cadres was extracted from the range i.e. maximum and
minimum. Minimum values by the lower level cadre on LOPs ranged from 2 - 2.67, by
middle cadre ranged from 2 - 2.67 and by the top cadre ranged from 3.33 - 4. The
maximum value scored for LOPs by lower and middle cadres was 5 whereas top level
varied with the range from 4 - 4.67.
225
The difference of perception (at Top, Middle and Lower levels) regarding LOP’s
within Telenor was analyzed using ANOVA in which all the selected LOPs as presented
in table 32b, have insignificant difference (p > .05) except one i.e. Collaboration and
Team Learning (LOPCTL) which was found significantly different (i.e. .001, p<.05). For
the rest six LOPs within Telenor, there was not a significant difference among the
responses for selected LOPs at thee three managerial levels.
Table 33a
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in UFone -
ANOVA (where n= 264)
Descriptives
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOP
CL
NP 25 3.8400 .60949 .12190 3.5884 4.0916 2.33 5.00
Lower 164 4.0224 .76310 .05959 3.9047 4.1400 1.67 5.00
Middle 75 4.0889 .61350 .07084 3.9477 4.2300 2.00 5.00
Total 264 4.0240 .71072 .04374 3.9379 4.1101 1.67 5.00
LOP
DI
NP 25 3.8800 .82709 .16542 3.5386 4.2214 2.33 5.00
Lower 164 3.9959 .65009 .05076 3.8957 4.0962 2.00 5.00
Middle 75 3.9733 .75090 .08671 3.8006 4.1461 2.33 5.00
Total 264 3.9785 .69579 .04282 3.8942 4.0629 2.00 5.00
LOP
CTL
NP 25 3.6000 .64550 .12910 3.3336 3.8664 2.33 4.67
Lower 164 3.6748 .75032 .05859 3.5591 3.7905 1.00 5.00
Middle 75 3.6667 .64840 .07487 3.5175 3.8158 2.00 5.00
Total 264 3.6654 .71113 .04377 3.5792 3.7516 1.00 5.00
LOP
ES
NP 25 3.9733 .73862 .14772 3.6684 4.2782 2.67 5.00
Lower 164 4.2236 .52751 .04119 4.1422 4.3049 2.00 5.00
Middle 75 4.3822 .48612 .05613 4.2704 4.4941 2.00 5.00
226
Total 264 4.2449 .54901 .03379 4.1784 4.3115 2.00 5.00
LOP
SC
NP 25 3.8000 .84437 .16887 3.4515 4.1485 1.67 5.00
Lower 164 3.7541 .65933 .05148 3.6524 3.8557 1.33 5.00
Middle 75 3.8756 .62667 .07236 3.7314 4.0197 2.00 5.00
Total 264 3.7929 .66923 .04119 3.7118 3.8740 1.33 5.00
LOP
EEM
NP 25 3.7200 .62123 .12425 3.4636 3.9764 2.67 4.67
Lower 164 3.8537 .66174 .05167 3.7516 3.9557 2.00 5.00
Middle 75 3.8622 .58277 .06729 3.7281 3.9963 2.33 5.00
Total 264 3.8434 .63544 .03911 3.7664 3.9204 2.00 5.00
LOP
SL
NP 25 3.8533 .83378 .16676 3.5092 4.1975 2.33 5.00
Lower 164 3.9980 .73057 .05705 3.8853 4.1106 1.67 5.00
Middle 75 4.1289 .56124 .06481 3.9998 4.2580 3.00 5.00
Total 264 4.0215 .69942 .04305 3.9367 4.1062 1.67 5.00
Table 33a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in UFone - ANOVA (where n=
264)
Table 33b
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in UFone -
ANOVA (where n= 264)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
LOPCL
Between Groups 1.163 2 .581 1.152 .318
Within Groups 131.685 261 .505
Total 132.848 263
LOPDI
Between Groups .294 2 .147 .302 .739
Within Groups 127.028 261 .487
Total 127.323 263
LOPCTL
Between Groups .122 2 .061 .119 .888
Within Groups 132.878 261 .509
Total 133.000 263
LOPES
Between Groups 3.333 2 1.666 5.727 .004
Within Groups 75.938 261 .291
Total 79.271 263
LOPSC
Between Groups .761 2 .380 .849 .429
Within Groups 117.030 261 .448
Total 117.791 263
227
LOPEEM
Between Groups .425 2 .212 .524 .593
Within Groups 105.771 261 .405
Total 106.195 263
LOPSL
Between Groups 1.663 2 .831 1.709 .183
Within Groups 126.993 261 .487
Total 128.656 263
Table 33b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in UFone - ANOVA (where n=
264)
Table 33a presents the difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three
managerial levels in Ufone. Mean responses by lower level ranged from 3.67 (LOPCTL)
- 4.02 (LOPCL and by the middle level 3.66 (LOPCTL) - 4.12 (LOPSL). The range of
SD shown in the table 33a was from .52 (LOPES) to .76 (LOPCL) by the lower cadre and
from .486 (LOPES) to .75 (LOPDI) by middle cadre. The difference in the opinions at the
two organizational cadres has been extracted from the range i.e. maximum and minimum.
Minimum values by the lower level cadre on LOPs ranged from 1 - 2 and by middle
cadre the responses ranged from 2 to 3. No top level employee participated in this regard
from Ufone.
Using ANOVA, in order to measure the difference of perception (at Top, Middle and
Lower levels) regarding selected LOP’s within Ufone, all the LOPs as presented in table
33b, have insignificant difference (p > .05) except one i.e. “Embedded Systems”
(LOPES) which was found significantly different (i.e. .004, p<.05). For the rest six LOPs
within Ufone, there was not a significant difference among the responses at thee three
managerial levels.
228
Table 34a
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Warid -
ANOVA (where n= 183)
Descriptives
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOP
CL
NP 18 3.9444 .61835 .14575 3.6369 4.2519 2.33 5.00
Lower 88 3.8598 .59740 .06368 3.7333 3.9864 2.33 5.00
Middle 77 3.8398 .68529 .07810 3.6843 3.9954 2.33 5.00
Total 183 3.8597 .63506 .04694 3.7671 3.9524 2.33 5.00
LOP
DI
NP 18 3.5556 .53627 .12640 3.2889 3.8222 2.33 4.33
Lower 88 4.0038 .49903 .05320 3.8981 4.1095 2.67 5.00
Middle 77 3.8355 .64351 .07333 3.6894 3.9816 2.00 5.00
Total 183 3.8889 .58086 .04294 3.8042 3.9736 2.00 5.00
LOP
CTL
NP 18 3.5000 .63914 .15065 3.1822 3.8178 2.00 4.33
Lower 88 3.9053 .55582 .05925 3.7875 4.0231 2.00 5.00
Middle 77 3.8442 .63196 .07202 3.7007 3.9876 1.67 5.00
Total 183 3.8397 .60507 .04473 3.7515 3.9280 1.67 5.00
LOP
ES
NP 18 4.4074 .58918 .13887 4.1144 4.7004 3.33 5.00
Lower 88 3.9773 .57579 .06138 3.8553 4.0993 2.00 5.00
Middle 77 4.0823 .59765 .06811 3.9466 4.2179 2.33 5.00
Total 183 4.0638 .59624 .04408 3.9768 4.1507 2.00 5.00
LOP
SC
NP 18 3.6852 .64141 .15118 3.3662 4.0041 2.67 4.67
Lower 88 3.8447 .64515 .06877 3.7080 3.9814 2.00 5.00
Middle 77 3.9134 .60312 .06873 3.7765 4.0503 2.00 5.00
Total 183 3.8579 .62739 .04638 3.7664 3.9494 2.00 5.00
LOP
EEM
NP 18 3.5926 .75456 .17785 3.2174 3.9678 2.33 4.67
Lower 88 4.0909 .57564 .06136 3.9689 4.2129 2.67 5.00
Middle 77 3.8745 .63531 .07240 3.7303 4.0187 2.00 5.00
Total 183 3.9508 .63622 .04703 3.8580 4.0436 2.00 5.00
229
LOP
SL
NP 18 4.1852 .63885 .15058 3.8675 4.5029 3.00 5.00
Lower 88 3.9811 .57925 .06175 3.8583 4.1038 2.00 5.00
Middle 77 4.0043 .54476 .06208 3.8807 4.1280 2.67 5.00
Total 183 4.0109 .57087 .04220 3.9277 4.0942 2.00 5.00
Table 34a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Warid - ANOVA (where n=
183)
Table 34b
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Warid -
ANOVA (where n= 183)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
LOPCL
Between Groups .160 2 .080 .196 .822
Within Groups 73.240 180 .407
Total 73.400 182
LOPDI
Between Groups 3.381 2 1.691 5.244 .006
Within Groups 58.026 180 .322
Total 61.407 182
LOPCTL
Between Groups 2.457 2 1.229 3.446 .034
Within Groups 64.174 180 .357
Total 66.631 182
LOPES
Between Groups 2.810 2 1.405 4.087 .018
Within Groups 61.890 180 .344
Total 64.701 182
LOPSC
Between Groups .790 2 .395 1.003 .369
Within Groups 70.850 180 .394
Total 71.639 182
LOPEEM
Between Groups 4.486 2 2.243 5.836 .004
Within Groups 69.183 180 .384
Total 73.668 182
LOPSL
Between Groups .628 2 .314 .964 .383
Within Groups 58.683 180 .326
Total 59.311 182
Table 34b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in Warid - ANOVA (where n=
183)
230
Table 34a presents the difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three
managerial levels in Warid. Mean scores by lower level ranged from 3.84 (LOPSC) -
4.09 (LOPEEM) and by the middle level 3.83 (LOPCL) - 4.08 (LOPES). The range of
SD shown in the table 40a was from .499 (LOPDI) to .64 (LOPSC) by the lower cadre
and from .544 (LOPSL) to .68 (LOPCL) by middle cadre. The difference in the opinions
at the two organizational cadres was extracted from the range i.e. maximum and
minimum. Minimum values by the lower level cadre on LOPs ranged from 2 - 2.67 and
by middle cadre the responses ranged from 2 - 2.67. No top level employee participated
in this regard from Warid.
When ANOVA was conducted in order to measure the difference of perception
(at Top, Middle and Lower levels) regarding selected LOP’s. The table exhibited that
within Warid LOPDI i.e. .006, LOPCTL i.e. .034, LOPES i.e. .018 and LOPEEM i.e.
.004 were found significantly different (p < .05) at all three management levels as
presented in table 34b. The responses for the rest three LOPs i.e. LOPCL, LOPSC and
LOPSL were found insignificant (p > .05) which can be interpreted as there was not a
significant difference among the responses at thee three managerial levels in Warid.
Table 35a
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at Lower level in selected PTSOs -
ANOVA (where n= 732)
Descriptives
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOP ZONG 166 3.9980 .61573 .04779 3.9036 4.0924 2.00 5.00
231
CL Mobilink 177 3.9077 .67860 .05101 3.8071 4.0084 1.67 5.00
Telenor 137 3.9708 .62029 .05300 3.8660 4.0756 2.33 5.00
Ufone 164 4.0224 .76310 .05959 3.9047 4.1400 1.67 5.00
Warid 88 3.8598 .59740 .06368 3.7333 3.9864 2.33 5.00
Total 732 3.9599 .66592 .02461 3.9116 4.0082 1.67 5.00
LOP
DI
CMPAK-
ZONG
166 3.9558 .69876 .05423 3.8487 4.0629 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 177 3.8606 .65572 .04929 3.7634 3.9579 2.00 5.00
Telenor 137 3.9635 .65514 .05597 3.8528 4.0742 2.33 5.00
Ufone 164 3.9959 .65009 .05076 3.8957 4.0962 2.00 5.00
Warid 88 4.0038 .49903 .05320 3.8981 4.1095 2.67 5.00
Total 732 3.9490 .64827 .02396 3.9020 3.9960 2.00 5.00
LOP
CTL
CMPAK-
ZONG
166 3.6747 .69433 .05389 3.5683 3.7811 2.00 5.00
Mobilink 177 3.8004 .71885 .05403 3.6937 3.9070 1.67 5.00
Telenor 137 3.7494 .65776 .05620 3.6383 3.8605 2.00 5.00
Ufone 164 3.6748 .75032 .05859 3.5591 3.7905 1.00 5.00
Warid 88 3.9053 .55582 .05925 3.7875 4.0231 2.00 5.00
Total 732 3.7468 .69433 .02566 3.6964 3.7972 1.00 5.00
LOP
ES
CMPAK-
ZONG
166 4.2028 .57767 .04484 4.1143 4.2913 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 177 3.9981 .54297 .04081 3.9176 4.0787 1.67 5.00
Telenor 137 3.8321 .56320 .04812 3.7370 3.9273 2.00 5.00
Ufone 164 4.2236 .52751 .04119 4.1422 4.3049 2.00 5.00
Warid 88 3.9773 .57579 .06138 3.8553 4.0993 2.00 5.00
Total 732 4.0615 .57353 .02120 4.0199 4.1031 1.67 5.00
LOP
SC
CMPAK-
ZONG
166 3.8112 .57488 .04462 3.7231 3.8993 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 177 3.8757 .64813 .04872 3.7796 3.9718 1.67 5.00
Telenor 137 3.9294 .56654 .04840 3.8337 4.0252 2.33 5.00
Ufone 164 3.7541 .65933 .05148 3.6524 3.8557 1.33 5.00
Warid 88 3.8447 .64515 .06877 3.7080 3.9814 2.00 5.00
Total 732 3.8402 .62095 .02295 3.7951 3.8852 1.33 5.00
LOP
EEM
CMPAK-
ZONG
166 3.8835 .50701 .03935 3.8058 3.9612 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 177 3.9247 .59191 .04449 3.8369 4.0125 2.00 5.00
Telenor 137 3.9927 .62160 .05311 3.8877 4.0977 2.00 5.00
232
Ufone 164 3.8537 .66174 .05167 3.7516 3.9557 2.00 5.00
Warid 88 4.0909 .57564 .06136 3.9689 4.2129 2.67 5.00
Total 732 3.9321 .59749 .02208 3.8888 3.9755 2.00 5.00
LOP
SL
CMPAK-
ZONG
166 4.0241 .62341 .04839 3.9286 4.1196 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 177 3.9699 .54965 .04131 3.8883 4.0514 2.33 5.00
Telenor 137 4.0097 .51915 .04435 3.9220 4.0974 2.67 5.00
Ufone 164 3.9980 .73057 .05705 3.8853 4.1106 1.67 5.00
Warid 88 3.9811 .57925 .06175 3.8583 4.1038 2.00 5.00
Total 732 3.9973 .60824 .02248 3.9531 4.0414 1.67 5.00
Table 35a: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at Lower level in selected PTSOs - ANOVA (where n= 732)
Table 35b
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at Lower level in selected PTSOs -
ANOVA (where n= 732)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
LOPCL
Between Groups 2.260 4 .565 1.276 .278
Within Groups 321.898 727 .443
Total 324.158 731
LOPDI
Between Groups 2.044 4 .511 1.217 .302
Within Groups 305.163 727 .420
Total 307.207 731
LOPCTL
Between Groups 4.433 4 1.108 2.315 .056
Within Groups 347.976 727 .479
Total 352.409 731
LOPES
Between Groups 16.167 4 4.042 13.101 .000
Within Groups 224.289 727 .309
Total 240.456 731
LOPSC
Between Groups 2.672 4 .668 1.739 .139
Within Groups 279.183 727 .384
Total 281.855 731
LOPEEM
Between Groups 4.133 4 1.033 2.925 .020
Within Groups 256.830 727 .353
Total 260.963 731
233
LOPSL
Between Groups .297 4 .074 .200 .939
Within Groups 270.142 727 .372
Total 270.439 731
Table 35b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at Lower level in selected PTSOs - ANOVA (where n=
732)
Table 35a demonstrates the difference of perception regarding LOPs in Five
PTSOs by the respondents at lower level, there was no major difference in the responses
keeping in view the mean scores. The mean scores for all the LOPs reside around 4 i.e.
‘agree’. The SD in the all the responses for LOPs at lower level in all five PTSOs range
from .499 to .750. The minimum and Maximum values in responses were analyzed as
almost heaving the same range i.e. For LOPCL Zong 2 - 5, Telenor and Warid 2.33 - 5,
Mobilink and Ufone 1.67 - 5, for LOPDI, Zong and Telenor 2.33 - 5, Warid 2.67 - 5 and
Mobilink and Ufone 2 - 5, For LOPCTL, Zong 2.33 - 5, Mobilink 1.67 - 5, Ufone 1.33 - 5
and Warid 2 - 5, for LOPES, ZONG 2.33 - 5, Mobilink 1.67 - 5 and for the rest three
PTSOs i.e. Telenor, Ufone and Warid 2 - 5, for LOPSC Zong and Telenor 2.33 - 5,
Mobilink 1.67 - 5, Ufone 1.33 - 5 and Warid 2 - 5, for LOPEEM, Zong 2.33 - 5,
Mobilink, Telenor and Ufone 2 - 5 and Warid 2.67 - 5 and in the last LOPSL for which
the range of responses in Zong and Mobilink was 2.33 - 5, Telenor 2.67 - 5, Ufone 1.67 -
5 and Warid 2 - 5. The mean scores also indicated that all the selected PTSOs follow the
LOPs which confirm their identity as Learning Organizations (LOs).
Difference of perception (between organization) regarding LOP’s in Five PTSOs
at lower level was also analyzed using ANOVA (table 35b). Among all seven selected
LOPs (table 35a and 35b), a significant difference (.000 and .020 i.e. p < .05) have been
found in ‘Embedded Systems’ (LOPES) and ‘Employee Empowerment’ (LOPEEM)
234
respectively which means that significantly different responses at lower level in all
PTSOs have been received for LOPES and LOPEEM among all LOPs. Rest five LOPs
carried insignificant differences in all five selected PTSOs which reflected as there was
no significant difference among the responses for said five LOPs at lower level in all
PTSOs.
Table 36a
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at Middle level in selected PTSOs - ANOVA (where
n= 385)
Descriptives
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Min Max
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
LOP
CL
ZONG 75 3.8711 .72055 .08320 3.7053 4.0369 2.00 5.00
Mobilink 44 3.9621 .63983 .09646 3.7676 4.1566 2.67 5.00
Telenor 114 4.0029 .51810 .04852 3.9068 4.0991 2.00 5.00
Ufone 75 4.0889 .61350 .07084 3.9477 4.2300 2.00 5.00
Warid 77 3.8398 .68529 .07810 3.6843 3.9954 2.33 5.00
Total 385 3.9567 .63134 .03218 3.8934 4.0200 2.00 5.00
LOP
DI
ZONG 75 3.8533 .71710 .08280 3.6883 4.0183 2.00 5.00
Mobilink 44 4.0303 .57877 .08725 3.8543 4.2063 2.67 5.00
Telenor 114 3.8216 .69012 .06464 3.6936 3.9497 2.00 5.00
Ufone 75 3.9733 .75090 .08671 3.8006 4.1461 2.33 5.00
Warid 77 3.8355 .64351 .07333 3.6894 3.9816 2.00 5.00
Total 385 3.8840 .68789 .03506 3.8151 3.9529 2.00 5.00
LOP
CTL
ZONG 75 3.8444 .75801 .08753 3.6700 4.0188 1.00 5.00
Mobilink 44 3.6818 .78076 .11770 3.4444 3.9192 1.67 5.00
Telenor 114 3.6608 .58661 .05494 3.5520 3.7697 2.00 5.00
Ufone 75 3.6667 .64840 .07487 3.5175 3.8158 2.00 5.00
Warid 77 3.8442 .63196 .07202 3.7007 3.9876 1.67 5.00
Total 385 3.7368 .66926 .03411 3.6697 3.8039 1.00 5.00
LOP
ES
ZONG 75 4.0800 .64803 .07483 3.9309 4.2291 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 44 3.9773 .46809 .07057 3.8350 4.1196 2.33 5.00
Telenor 114 3.9035 .45597 .04271 3.8189 3.9881 2.67 5.00
235
Ufone 75 4.3822 .48612 .05613 4.2704 4.4941 2.00 5.00
Warid 77 4.0823 .59765 .06811 3.9466 4.2179 2.33 5.00
Total 385 4.0753 .55781 .02843 4.0194 4.1312 2.00 5.00
LOP
SC
ZONG 75 3.8311 .52383 .06049 3.7106 3.9516 2.67 4.67
Mobilink 44 4.0076 .51584 .07777 3.8507 4.1644 2.67 5.00
Telenor 114 3.8596 .54654 .05119 3.7582 3.9611 2.33 5.00
Ufone 75 3.8756 .62667 .07236 3.7314 4.0197 2.00 5.00
Warid 77 3.9134 .60312 .06873 3.7765 4.0503 2.00 5.00
Total 385 3.8848 .56649 .02887 3.8281 3.9416 2.00 5.00
LOP
EE
M
ZONG 75 3.9200 .50177 .05794 3.8046 4.0354 2.00 4.67
Mobilink 44 4.0152 .70419 .10616 3.8011 4.2292 1.00 5.00
Telenor 114 3.8099 .57985 .05431 3.7023 3.9175 2.00 5.00
Ufone 75 3.8622 .58277 .06729 3.7281 3.9963 2.33 5.00
Warid 77 3.8745 .63531 .07240 3.7303 4.0187 2.00 5.00
Total 385 3.8779 .59350 .03025 3.8185 3.9374 1.00 5.00
LOP
SL
ZONG 75 3.9778 .64685 .07469 3.8290 4.1266 2.33 5.00
Mobilink 44 4.0076 .52576 .07926 3.8477 4.1674 3.00 5.00
Telenor 114 3.9211 .52901 .04955 3.8229 4.0192 2.33 5.00
Ufone 75 4.1289 .56124 .06481 3.9998 4.2580 3.00 5.00
Warid 77 4.0043 .54476 .06208 3.8807 4.1280 2.67 5.00
Total 385 3.9991 .56443 .02877 3.9426 4.0557 2.33 5.00
Table 36: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at Middle level in selected PTSOs - ANOVA (where n= 385)
Table 36b
Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at Middle level in selected PTSOs - ANOVA (where
n= 385)
ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
LOPCL
Between Groups 3.157 4 .789 2.001 .094
Within Groups 149.900 380 .394
Total 153.056 384
LOPDI
Between Groups 2.235 4 .559 1.183 .318
Within Groups 179.471 380 .472
Total 181.707 384
LOPCTL
Between Groups 2.917 4 .729 1.639 .164
Within Groups 169.079 380 .445
Total 171.995 384
236
LOPES
Between Groups 10.858 4 2.714 9.496 .000
Within Groups 108.625 380 .286
Total 119.482 384
LOPSC
Between Groups 1.021 4 .255 .794 .530
Within Groups 122.207 380 .322
Total 123.228 384
LOPEEM
Between Groups 1.508 4 .377 1.071 .371
Within Groups 133.755 380 .352
Total 135.262 384
LOPSL
Between Groups 1.997 4 .499 1.577 .180
Within Groups 120.336 380 .317
Total 122.333 384
Table 36b: Difference of perception regarding LOP’s at Middle level in selected PTSOs - ANOVA (where n=
385)
Table 36a presents the difference of perception regarding LOPs in five PTSOs by
the respondents at middle level, there was no major difference found in the responses
keeping in view the mean scores. The mean scores for all the LOPs reside around 4
(ranged from 3.73 to 4.3). The SD in the all the responses for LOPs at middle level in all
five PTSOs range from .455 to .780. The minimum and Maximum values in responses
were analyzed as almost heaving the same range i.e. For LOPCL Zong, Telenor and
Ufone 2 - 5, Mobilink 2.67 - 5 and Warid 2.33 - 5, for LOPDI, Zong, Telenor 2.33 and
Warid 2 - 5 and Mobilink 2.67 - 5 and Ufone 2.33 - 5, For LOPCTL, Zong 1 - 5,
Mobilink and Warid 1.67 - 5 and Telenor and Ufone 2 - 5, for LOPES, Zong, Mobilink
and Warid 2.33 - 5, Telenor 2.67 - 5 and Ufone 2 - 5, for LOPSC Zong and Mobilink
2.67 - 5, Telenor 2.33 - 5 and Ufone and Warid 2 - 5, for LOPEEM, Zong, Telenor and
Warid 2 - 5, Mobilink 1 - 5 and Ufone 2.33 - 5, and in the last LOPSL for which the
range of responses in Zong and Telenor 2.33 - 5, Mobilink and Ufone 3 - 5 and Warid
2.67 - 5. The mean scores also indicated that all the selected PTSOs follow the LOP
which also confirmed their identity as Learning Organizations (LOs).
237
Difference of perception (between organization) regarding LOP’s in Five PTSOs at lower
level was analyzed using ANOVA shown in table 36b. A significant difference (.000 i.e.
p < .05) was found in ‘Embedded Systems’ (LOPES) which means that significantly
different responses at middle level in all PTSOs were received for LOPES unlike the
responses on the other LOPs as shown in the table that there was no significant difference
among the responses for rest six LOPs at middle level in all PTSOs. Oneway ANOVA
for top level in the said PTSOs was not conducted due to the sample limitations.
4.4 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a multivariate statistical method which
combines factor analysis technique, path analysis and econometric modeling (Jöreskog,
1973). Westland (2010) conceded “Structural Equational Modeling” as a technique which
is broadly adopted by researchers, social scientists and the practitioners. SEM also caters
for the view of measurement errors which typically contain dormant variables (Raykov &
Marcoulides, 2006). Another reason of using SEM is its ability to measure and test the
cause and effect relationships existing between various constructs in one go. In order to
drill down the true relationships among the five constructs (i.e. LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and
EP), the SEM technique was employed in the study. Kaplan (2000) stated that SEM is a
class of methodologies that represents hypotheses related to means, variances, and
covariances of the observed data as a smaller number of structural parameters in a
hypothesized underlying model. SEM is a wide-ranging statistical method/approach for
hypotheses testing regarding the relationships among the observed and latent variables
(Hoyle, 1995) as relationships are fixed or free. SEM includes two basic components i.e.
238
the measurement model and the structural model. Former includes the components of the
general model with latent variables prescribed and the later includes links between the
latent and observed variables (Hoyle, 1995; Kaplan, 2000). Identification concerns are
addressed as a single unique value for each free parameter obtained from the observed
data (Hoyle, 1995). After specifying the model, estimates from the free parameters are
obtained from the set of observed data.
In order to see the goodness of fit (Model fit), common fit index i.e. x2, goodness-
of-fit test, is derived directly from fitting function value (Hoyle, 1995; Kaplan, 2000).
Kaplan (2000) concluded that the fit index stipulates the fit perspective of SEM. Kaplan
(2000) also specified that Normed Fit Index (NFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are
the indices which are required to be in between zero and one, for the representation of
goodness of fit of the model. He further stated that these indices closer to .9 are
considered as fit in relation to the baseline model. The current study could have used
regression as there are some similarities between regression and SEM but as the study
included a complex and holistic model which could only be tested in a single statistical
model in SEM. According to the studies (e.g. (Hoyle, 1995; Kaplan, 2000), SEM deals
effectively with complex and specific hypotheses. The study used SEM due to the
requirement of conducting Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and the requirement of
testing complex hypotheses included direct and mediated relationships.
4.5.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Table 37
Fit Indices for the Measurement Models of the Five Scales
Goodness-of-fit indices for the proposed structural model (path model) were at the
acceptable level i.e.
239
RFI= Residual-fit index, NFI= Normed fit index, CFI= Comparative fit index, RMSEA=
Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation
Measurement scales’ assessment is conducted for the purpose of ensuring
reliability, validity, and dimensionality. In order to assess the properties of the
measurement model, model data fit indices have been exercised as 2/df which was
meant to calculate that how closely the expected covariance matrix derived from the
estimated model fits. According to (Kline, 1998), the relative 2 values less than 3.00
and according to Marsh and Hocevar (1985) less than 5.00 are considered as acceptable.
As Kenneth and Long (1993) stated that 2/df ratio value (= or < 5) may be treated as
acceptable one. CFI i.e. Comparative Fit Index according to Bentler (1990) needs to be
above 0.90 so as with NNFI i.e. Non-Normed Fit Index which according to Bentler and
Bonett (1980) should also be around 0.9 for appropriate fit. RMSEA i.e. Root Mean
Squared Error of Approximation which according to Browne, Cudeck, Bollen, and Long
(1993) ranges between 0 to 1 is appropriate and is considered as very good if it is less
than 0.05 for model fitness but it is acceptable even if it is more than 0.05. All the scales
i.e. LOPs, EE, ED PAJ and EP presented appropriate fit between the suggested
measurement models and the data shown in table 37. The study after ensuring the
goodness of results, established a reasonably good evidence of construct validity of the
2 2 /df RFI NFI CFI RMSEA
561.91 3.512 .865 .886 .915 .045
Table 37: Fit Indices for the Measurement Models of the Five Scales
240
selected scales. Thus all the five scales i.e. LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP can be acceptable
in Pakistani Telecommunication context.
4.4.1 Path Analysis
The path model in the current study tested the paths from LOPs to EE and EP and
LOPs to ED and EP. Moreover it tested the moderating impact of Performance Appraisal
Justice (PAJ) upon the relationships between LOPs and EE and between LOPs and ED.
Figure 7 Path Analysis
Figure 7: Structural model of relationships among LOPs EE, ED, PAJ and EP
2 2df RFI NFI CFI RMSEA
10.094 5.047 .991 .999 .999 .057
Fig 7 holistically addressed the standardized estimates of structural coefficients
for the proposed structural model (path model) using the SEM approach 1) from LOPs
Table 40: Fit Indices for the Path Models of the Five Scales
241
Employee Engagement (EE) and to Employee Performance (EP), 2) LOPs to Employee
Development (ED) and to Employee Performance (EP) and 3) PAJ to the relationship
between LOPs and EE and between LOPs and ED.
Structuring the equation model explained in the study that five latent variables (i.e. LOPs,
EE, ED, PAJ and EP) have been tested. Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) was put
as an independent latent variable loaded on to seven observed variables i.e. Continuous
Learning (CL), Dialogue and Inquiry (DI), Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL),
Embedded Systems (ES), System Connections (SC), Employee Empowerment (EEM)
and Strategic Leadership (SL). Employee Engagement (EE) was used as dependent latent
variable loaded on to three observed variables i.e. Emotional Engagement (EEME),
Cognitive Engagement (ECE) & Behavioral Engagement (EBE). Another dependent
latent variable i.e. Employee Development (ED) was loaded onto two observed variables
i.e. Self-development (SD) and Self-directed Learning (SDL). Moreover Employee
Performance (EP) another dependent variable was loaded in the path model. The model
was checked for the data fitness first. Goodness-of-fit indices for the proposed structural
model (path model) have been presented in table 38 which confirmed that the data is fit
for analysis in PTSOs. The study used SEM approach in order to test the proposed path
model (structural model) as used in the study (Morrison, Gan, Dubelaar, & Oppewal,
2011).
4.5 Testing of the hypotheses
H1: There is a significant impact of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) on
Employee Performance (EP).
242
As exhibited in Fig 7, Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) have a moderate impact
on Employee Performance (EP) heaving significant and positive path coefficient at .27
(where p < .05). Thus, hypothesis (H1) i.e. “There is a significant impact of Learning
Organization Practices (LOP) on Employee Performance (EP).” in PTSOs has been
accepted.
H2: There is a significant impact of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) on
Employee Engagement (EE).
In order to test the second hypothesis (H2), Fig 7 shows that there is a strong and positive
impact of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) on Employee Engagement (EE)
heaving a significant and positive path coefficient at .60 (where p < .05). Thus H2 is
accepted.
H3: There is a significant impact of Learning Organization Practices (LOP) on Employee
Development (ED).
The third hypothesis (H3), from the figure 7 has also been accepted as Learning
Organization Practices (LOPs) have a strong positive impact on Employee Development
(ED) because of heaving a significant and positive path coefficient at .65 (p< .05).
H4: There is a significant impact of Employee Engagement (EE) on Employee
Performance (EP).
The fourth hypothesis (H4) i.e. “There is a significant impact of Employee Engagement
(EE) on Employee Performance (EP)” exhibited in figure 7, has been confirmed as
Employee Engagement (EE) has weak but significant and positive impact on Employee
Performance (EP) with the path coefficient value at .13 (p< .05).
243
H5: There is a significant impact of Employee Development (SD) on Employee
Performance (EP).
For the purpose of confirming the fifth hypothesis (H5) in the study, Fig 7
confirmed that there is a moderate and positive impact of Employee Development (ED)
on Employee Performance with a significant and positive path coefficient at .31 (where p
< .05). Thus H5 is confirmed.
Table 41
Mediation results for EE and ED between IV (LOPs) and DV (EP)
4.6.1. Mediation
IV Med DV
Direct CMIN/DF CFI RMSEA
LOP EP .454*** 76.345 0.938 0.248
Thru Med CMIN/DF CFI RMSEA
LOP EE EP .342*** 31.009 0.986 0.156
LOP ED EP .291*** 10.46 0.996 0.088
LOP EE, ED EP .269*** 5.047 0.999 0.057
Table 39: Mediation results for EE and ED between IV (LOPs) and DV (EP)
The study in the Fig 7, has confirmed sixth hypothesis (H6) i.e. “Relationship
between LOPs and Employee Performance (EP) is mediated through Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED)”. Fig 7 exhibited that Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) play a significant role between the
relationship of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and Employee Performance (EP).
Inclusion of EE and ED, as mediators, affects the relationship of LOPs and EP
significantly so it is significant mediation. Thus H6 is accepted. The study also analyzed
244
the mediating roles of Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED)
individually using path analysis. Though there is a significant mediating role of
Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) when analyzed separately
in the relationship between Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and Employee
Performance (EP) as shown in table 36 but the fit indicators taking EE and ED as
individual mediators show that the model is not fit. Whereas the mediating role of
Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) between the relationship
of LOPs and EP, when checked together using path analysis It was found significant with
the acceptable goodness of fit indicators. Thus Hypothesis 6 is accepted as Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) both are required as mediators in
order to reap maximum out of the relationship between LOPs and EP. On the contrary,
EE and ED though significantly mediate between the relationship of LOPs and EP
separately but with selected constructs they don’t get fit as mediators in the relationships
between LOPs and EP separately in PTSOs. They will be considered as productive
mediators if taken together between the relationship of Learning Organization Practices
(LOPs) and Employee Performance (EP). Thus the mediation of EE and ED implies that
the impact of LOPs can be translated into EP through EE and ED.
4.6.2. Moderation
Last two hypotheses in the study i.e. H7 and H8, were about testing 1) the
moderating role of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) in the relationships between
LOPs, and EE and 2) the moderating role of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) in the
relationships between LOPs, and ED. The seventh hypothesis (H7) in the study, i.e.
“Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderates the relationship between Learning
245
Organization Practices (LOP) and Employee Engagement (EE)” was also confirmed by
heaving significant and positive path coefficient at .74 (where p < .05). So H7 is accepted.
The last hypothesis (H8) i.e. “Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderates the
relationship between Learning Organization Practices (LOP) and Employee Development
(ED)” has also been confirmed in the study. Fig 7 shows a significant and positive path
coefficient at .81 (where p < .05). Thus H8 is confirmed.
These path analyses prove that Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) strengthens the
relationship between Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and EE by heaving a
significant and positive path coefficient i.e. .74 and Learning Organization Practices
(LOPs) and Employee Development (ED) with the significant and positive path
coefficient i.e. .81. Thus the results indicate that PAJ moderates the relationships between
LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED which can be elaborated as the magnitude of effect of
LOPs on EE and ED is enhanced in the presence of PAJ.
4.6 Summary
Chapter four included the results derived from the data analysis with a sequence of
statistical procedures, and findings were drawn in relation with the research questions and
hypotheses were examined in the light of the analysis. Descriptive statistics illustrated
that the study respondents had the highest overall score on LOPs, and the least overall
score on ED whereas the overall score on LOPs, PAJ, EE and EP was closer to ‘agree’.
The highest score among the dimensions of LOPs was on ‘Embedded Systems’
(LOPES)’ i.e. 4.07 and least was on Collaboration and Team Learning (LOPCTL) i.e.
3.73. Among the dimensions of EE ‘Behavioral Engagement’ (EEBE) had the highest
246
score whereas the least score obtained on ‘Emotional Engagement’ (EEEM).
Respondents scored highest on the dimension of ED i.e. Self-Development (EDSD). On
the PAJ dimensions, ‘Informational Justice’ (PAInfoJ) scored highest and lowest on
Procedural Justice (PAPJ). Respondents’ score on EP was 3.99.
The demographics’ tables drawn in the study showed the percentage of
organizations involved in the study in which Telenore was on highest percentage i.e.
22.3% and Warid was on the lowest response percentage i.e. 14.9%. Frequescies of
education represented that the majority of respondents were Masters Degree holders. As
far as the gender distribution among the respondents is concerned, there were 70.4%
males and 29.6% females participated in the survey. Majority of lower and middle level
employees were the respondents of the survey because of being the real stakeholders of
the said PTSOs.
Organization-wise perceptions of the respondents regarding LOPs have been analyzed
which exhibited that majority of the respondents in all the selected PTSOs were almost
between neutral to ‘agree’ but closer to ‘agree’ and some were between ‘agree to strongly
aggress’ upon the dimensions of LOPs. Respondents in Zong, Ufone and Warid among
the selected PTSOs, had the highest score on LOPSL, Zong, Ufone and Warid, on
LOPES, Zong on LOPCTL and Ufone on LOPCL. Highest standard deviation was found
by the respondents of Zong on LOPDI whereas the lowest was by Mobilink and Telenor
on LOPCTL.
Moreover the difference of perception regarding LOP’s at three managerial levels in
selected PTSOs was analyzed as almost all the three levels scored on ‘between neutral to
247
agree’ with the closeness to the ‘agree’ or between ‘agree to strongly agree’ with the
closeness of ‘agree’ for almost all LOPs.
Difference of perception (at Top, Middle and Lower levels) regarding LOP’s has
been analyzed using ANOVA within PTSOs i.e. Zong (table 30a & 30b), Mobilink (table
31a & 31b), Telenor (table 32a & 32b), Ufone (table 33 a & 33b) and Warid (table 34a &
34b). Except Collaboration and Team Learning (LOPCTL) in Ufone, LOPDI i.e. .006,
LOPCTL i.e. .034, LOPES i.e. .018 and LOPEEM i.e. .004 in Warid, insignificant
difference has been found at all three managerial levels regarding all the LOPs in the
selected PTSOs. In addition to this the difference of perception (between organization)
regarding LOP’s in five PTSOs at all three managerial levels was analyzed using
ANOVA which exhibited that there is a significant difference (.000 and .020 i.e. p < .05)
regarding ‘Embedded Systems’ (LOPES) and ‘Employee Empowerment’ (LOPEEM)
respectively at three managerial levels. Correlation analysis and SEM approach presented
the results for the hypothesized model and hypotheses of the study.
248
CHAPTER 5
5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 5 puts forth a laconic summary of the whole study with regard to its
purpose, the research methods, and the results drawn from the data analysis in its first
section. In the second section the chapter gives detailed discussion upon the results and
draws conclusion. In the third and the last section, recommendations have been put forth
for the directions of the scholars, researchers and practitioners for future research at the
end of the chapter.
The study explored and endeavored to fill the gap in the past literature regarding
the impact of LOPs on Employee Performance, the role of EE and ED as mediators
between the relationship of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and Employee
Performance (EP) and the role of PAJ as moderator between 1) the relationship of LOPs
and EE and 2) the relationship of LOPs and ED. The study also explored that there is a
lack of research on the said perspectives in Pakistani telecom sector’s settings. The said
perspectives are quite critical to be understood i.e. relationship between LOPs and EP via
mediating role of EE and ED and moderating role of PAJ in the relationship of LOPs and
EE and between the relationship of LOPs and ED. Current study was designed for filling
the identified gap.
5.1 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The study objectively was required to develop a research model which should
measure the impact of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) upon Employee
249
Performance (EP) directly and with the mediating role of Employee Engagement (EE)
and Employee Development (ED). Main purpose of the study was to develop a holistic
model for telecommunication industry of Pakistan in order to encounter the issues
associated with employee productivity, engagement, development, retention and
performance. As Pakistan telecom industry is currently encountering the challenge of
employee retention (M. H. Akhtar, 2009; Shoaib et al., 2009) and employee performance
due to the missing factors of Employee Engagement (Emotional, Cognitive and
Behavioral) and Employee Development (i.e. Self-development and Self-directed
learning). Engagement and Development of the employees is required to be placed
rightly to reap maximum Employee Performance (EP). Simply LO practices in a rush or
following the general trends can’t provide the organizations an ultimate solution to draw
the required performance from their employees. Thus the study predominantly addressed
the lack of understanding of the role of ED and EE that may leave the LOPs of
organization stranded and ineffective.
To examine the holistic relationships between the LOP’s and EP in the
Telecom Sector of Pakistan.
The study thoroughly examined the holistic relationships between the Learning
Organization Practices (LOPs) (i.e. Continuous Learning (CL), Dialogue and Inquiry
(DI), Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL), Embedded Systems (ES), System
Connections (SC), Employee Empowerment (EEM) and Strategic Leadership (SL) and
Employee Performance (EP) in Telecom Sector of Pakistan. There is no concrete
definition of LO exist so far but the common and most critical components of all the
definitions of LO revolve around Employee Performance (EP). Employee Performance
250
can be described as an event in which individuals alone or in a group act in a particular
way for others (Chaudhary & Sharma, 2012). Individuals as a key player in LOs have
always been prime focus. LO concept revolves around people and structure and can be
measured through Continuous Learning (CL), Dialogue and Inquiry (DI), Collaboration
and Team Learning (CTL), Embedded Systems (ES), System Connections (SC),
Employee Empowerment (EEM) and Strategic Leadership (SL) (V. J. Marsick & K. E.
Watkins, 1999; Marsick & Watkins, 2003). The connection between LOPs and EP has
been explored in literature in bits and pieces as Otley (1999) stated that organizational
performance primarily depends upon employee performance (i.e. job performance) along
with some other factors (i.e. organizational environment). Furthermore LOs always get
benefits from the learning of its employees (Tjepkema et al., 2000) which paves the way
for their performance maximization. Connection between LOPs and EP has been
recognized in the past because of the fact that Learning Organizations (LOs) focus upon
their employees’ ability to learn in a collaborative manner, for their better
accomplishments, higher performance and their hope to change their organization in an
effective manner (Benest, 2000). LOPs in connection with EP or the antecedents of EP
have been confirmed in the past as Continuous Learning (CL) by Bontis et al. (2002),
Dialogue and Inquiry (DI) by Edwards et al. (2010), Collaboration and Team Learning
(CTL) by Clark (2003), Embedded Systems (ES) by Dymock and McCarthy (2006),
System Connections (SC) by Godkin and Montano (1991), Employee Empowerment
(EEM) by Petter et al. (2002) and Strategic Leadership (SL) by Vigoda-Gadot (2007).
These practices shown in the correlation analysis (table 25 and 26) have a significant
moderate relationship with employee performance. Fig 7 i.e. the path model also
251
confirmed that Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) have a moderately strong impact
on employee performance heaving significant and positive path coefficient at .27 (where
p < .05). Organizations learning is possible due to the individuals who learn (Peters,
1996) thus LOs necessarily need to focus upon employee performance for their existance.
Thus current study examined the holistic relationships between LOPs and EP through
literature and through the empirical investigation in PTSOs.
To analyze the impact of LOPs on EP, when mediated by Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED).
Association between LOPs, EE and EP has been thoroughly reviewed in the
literature review section and multiple studies have highlighted the importance of the role
of EE in relation with the LOPs and EP. As stated in the literature review DeChurch and
Mesmer-Magnus (2010) clearly reported that EE mediates the relationship between LO
culture and Employee Performance (EP). Employee Engagement (EE) and employee
retention are closely associated with each other as one decreases the other increases
(Council, 2004) and the employees can be retained for a longer time in an organization if
there engagement states are positively addressed. As EE can be addressed through
multiple organizations’ practices like total rewards (Rumpel & Medcof, 2006), provision
of job recognition and career advancement opportunities, handsome salary (Smith &
Rupp, 2002), personal growth and career opportunities and high autonomy, career
development opportunities, performance based rewards and challenging work
assignments (Sutherland, 2004), LOPs are also required to be addressed in this regard and
performance maximization.
252
In addition to the link of Employee Engagement (EE) with Learning Organization
Practices (LOPs), its link with Employee Performance (EP) has also been ensured in the
past studies. Literature e.g. (Lockwood, 2006; Woodruffe, 2006) confirmed the link of
EE with Employee Performance (EP). Choo et al. (2013) also concluded that EE is
affected by organizational practices that lead towards enhanced Employee Performance.
Choo et al. (2013) further protruded that organizational characteristics may be involved
as possible antecedents of EE which should be investigated in future. Literature also
confirmed that positive attitudes and beliefs in association with EE can be the outcomes
of high involvement in job roles and directs towards enhanced employee performance
(Konrad, 2006). Moreover studies revealed that Employee Engagement (EE) is the real
driver of enhanced Employee Performance (EP) (Macey et al., 2009). Anitha (2014) also
confirmed that past studies e.g. (Christian et al., 2011; Halbesleben, 2010; William H
Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rich et al., 2010) ensured the link between Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Performance (EP). Moreover many other studies e.g.
(Gruman & Saks, 2011; Kim et al., 2012; Macey et al., 2009; Saks, 2006; Vance, 2006)
have also confirmed the association between EE and EP.
Taking Employee Development as a mediator the literature also positively
addressed the gap its importance in relation with its link with LOPs and EP as there is a
dearth of examination between taking actual effects and perceptions, of organizational
support provision on enhancing employee performance through professional self-
development (Birdi et al., 1997; Lisa A Boyce et al., 2010; Maurer et al., 2003; Phyllis
Tharenou, 2001). Studies confirmed that the focus of ED been upgraded from mere
promotions to the skill development (Feldman, 2000) due to the shift of the traditional
253
organization to the Learning Organizations (LO). Two dimensions suggested by Hameed
and Waheed (2011) i.e. self-development and self-directed learning have been suggested
important for Human Capital Investment (HCI) which leads towards in increased
employee performance. Moreover Elena (2000) affirmed that enhanced Employee
Performance (EP) could be the possible outcome of employee development.
Development activities can be applied on the employees at all three levels
(Antonacopoulou & FitzGerald, 1996) which may result in enhanced employees’ and
ultimately organization’s performance. Many others e.g. (Hurtz & Williams, 2009;
Kraimer et al., 2011; Maurer & Chapman, 2013) suggested that support for ED does
bring positive outcomes for the employees and for the organizations.
The second objective of the study was addressed in the light of past literature and
using Correlation and SEM (Path Model) which ensured that Employee Engagement
(EE) and Employee Development (ED) partially mediate the relationship between LOPs
and EP. Table 38 exhibited that EE and ED significantly mediate the relationship
between LOPs and EP in PTSOs. EE and ED when checked separately as mediator in the
relationship between LOPs and EP though found significant partial mediators but with
the alarming fit indicators which can be interpreted as they both should be incorporated
as a mediators between the relationship of LOPs and EP in order to reap maximum
Employee Performance. Thus organizations need to translate their LOPs by adopting the
path of Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) to enhance their
employees’ performance. Moreover the correlation matrix (table 25 and 26) exhibited
that EE has a moderate but significant positive relationship with LOPs, ED and EP in
254
PTSOs. Thus the second objective was positively addressed as LOPs cannot fully create
positive impact upon employee performance until EE and ED are addressed positively.
To examine the moderating role of PAJ between the relationships of LOPs
and EE.
Until Performance Appraisal system is perceived as fair (Latham et al., 2005),
Employee Engagement (EE) cannot be maximized as Kahn (1990) expressed that
engagement is verily changed due to the changing perceptions of organizational
members. PJ i.e. a component of PAJ, has been designated as one of the strongest
situational determinants of employee performance (Andrews et al., 2009). Importance of
justice to retain the competent employees has been highlighted in the past literature
(Zhao, 2013) and the validity and reliability of Performance appraisal has also been a
challenging task for the managers/employers because of the employees’ concerns (Taylor
et al., 1995). According to Ghosh et al. (2014), there is a need of linking other factors
with engagement prediction taking dimensions of justice in future. The association of
PAJ, LOPs with EE, ED and EP has been confirmed in the literature in bits and pieces.
As William H. Macey and Schineider (2008) stated that EE is closely associated with the
extrinsic and intrinsic rewards which motivate the employees if PAJ is ensured as fair.
Engagement for the purpose of performance improvement must be addressed in relation
with fairness of the procedures in any organization (Rowland & Hall, 2013). Thus
appraisal injustice can create demotivation for the employees which may lead towards
employee’s emotional, cognitive and behavioral downturn along with the deterioration in
their self-directed behavior.
255
Current study positively carried the third objective by analyzing the moderating
role of PAJ between the relationship of LOPs and EE which confirmed that there is a
positive and significant moderating role of PAJ between the relationship of LOPs and EE
and the relationship between LOPs and ED. Path analyses in Fig 7 exhibited that
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) improves the relationship between Learning
Organization Practices (LOPs) and EE by heaving a significant and positive path
coefficient, i.e. .74 and Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and Employee
Development (ED) with the significant and positive path coefficient i.e. .81. Thus the
third objective of the study has positively been addressed as the results indicate that PAJ
significantly moderate the relationships between LOPs and EE, and LOPs and ED.
To analyze the difference of perception at different managerial level
regarding LOP’s.
The study also positively addressed the difference of perception at different
managerial levels of the selected PTSOs within and between PTSOs. Difference in
perception (among three management levels) regarding LOP’s in five PTSOs using
ANOVA has been examined which exhibited that the difference in the responses of all
LOPs at three organizational levels, have been found insignificant except ‘System
Connection’ (SC) (LOPSC i.e. .029 i.e. p < .05) (table 28b) which can be interpreted as
significantly different responses have been received for LOPSC among all LOPs.
Difference of perception was also analyzed separately at three managerial levels of the
selected PTSOs regarding LOPs using ANOVA. In Zong and Mobilink, all the LOPs
(table 30b and 31b), have insignificant difference (p > .05) which means that within
Zong, there was not a significant difference among the responses for selected LOPs at
256
thee three managerial levels in the said LOs. In Telenor and Ufone, ANOVA results
showed that only one LOP in both the organizations have been found significantly
different i.e. Collaboration and Team Learning (LOPCTL i.e. .001, p<.05) in Telenor and
“Embedded Systems” (LOPES i.e. .004, p<.05). In the last in Warid Telecom, ANOVA
results exhibited that LOPDI i.e. .006, LOPCTL i.e. .034, LOPES i.e. .018 and LOPEEM
i.e. .004 have been found significantly different (p < .05) at all three management levels.
Moreover difference of perception (between organizations) in PTSOs at each
managerial level has also been analyzed using ANOVA which stated that at lower level
(table 35b) among the seven selected LOPs, a significant difference (i.e. .000 and .020
i.e. p < .05) has been found in ‘Embedded Systems’ (LOPES) and ‘Employee
Empowerment’ (LOPEEM) respectively which means that significantly different
responses at lower level in all PTSOs have been received for LOPES and LOPEEM
among all LOPs. At middle level (table 36b) a significant difference (.000 i.e. p < .05)
has been found in ‘Embedded Systems’ (LOPES) which means that significantly
different responses at middle level in all PTSOs have been received for LOPES. One-way
ANOVA for top level in the said PTSOs was not conducted due to the sample limitations.
The current model of the study provides basis to facilitate employers/managers to
rightly focus upon the LOPs to maximize the employee’s overall performance. Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) as mediator also provide the basis to
the mangers of the LOs in taking proactive initiatives for EP enhancement by addressing
LOPs at the right time with a right approach using the right strategy.
Current study followed the guidelines of the research questions i.e.
What is the impact of LOPs upon EP?
257
In order to examine the impact of LOPs upon EP, the study positively analyzed
that there is significant impact of LOPs upon EP as exhibited in the path model (Fig 7)
that Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) have a moderate impact on Employee
Performance (EP) which has been derived from the significant and positive path
coefficient at .27 (where p < .05). Literature Song et al. (2011) has also examined the
impact of LOPs on Individual learning by clarifying the theoretical considerations. This
individual learning undoubtedly enhances their job performance. Literature broadly
confirmed the relationship of LOPs with EP in bits and pieces as Continuous Learning
(CL) with individual performance (Swanson & Holton, 2001; Bontis et al., 2002),
Dialogue and Inquiry (DI), i.e. feedback loop in relation with employees concerns
(Crossan et al., 1999), Collaboration and Team Learning (CTL) with individual learning
(Bontis et al., 2002) and individuals’ perception (Clark, 2003), Embedded Systems (ES)
with individual capabilities (Marah et al., 2006), System Connections (SC) with internal
and external factors, Employee Empowerment (EEM) with EP (Meyerson & Dewettinck,
2012), and Strategic Leadership (SL) with shared vision and mental models (Burdett
1993; Senge 1990b) and with EP (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007).
Does the impact of LOP’s on EP is mediated through the path of ED and
EE?
Examination of the roles of EE and ED as mediators in the relationship between
LOPs and EP has been positively conducted in the study as the study in the Fig 7, has
positively addressed the said research question. Fig 7 (see also table 38) exhibited that
Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) act as significant partial
mediators between the relationship of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and
258
Employee Performance (EP). It can be confirmed that the inclusion of EE and ED affects
significantly between the relationships of LOPs on EP. The study also investigated the
mediating roles of Employee Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) by
unlinking them with each other which resulted in their significant positive partial
mediation in the relationship of Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and Employee
Performance (EP) (table 38) but the fit indicators taking EE and ED as mediators
separately illustrated that the model was not fit. Whereas the mediating role of Employee
Engagement (EE) and Employee Development (ED) between the relationship of LOPs
and EP, when checked together using path analysis It was found significant with the
acceptable goodness of fit indicators. Thus EE and ED will be considered as productive
mediators if taken together between the relationship of Learning Organization Practices
(LOPs) and Employee Performance (EP) in PTSOs. Thus the second research question in
the study has been addressed positively.
Does Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderate the relationship
between LOPs and Employee Engagement (EE)?
As Farndale and Kelliher (2013) analyzed PAJ that encompasses employees’
perceptions of how they feel about the treatment given by their line manager in the
performance appraisal process. This particular treatment by the supervisor or boss may
affect his engagement states that may result in varied performance. Fair evaluation of an
employee’s performance can be taken as one of the most important criterion for
measuring Employee Engagement (EE). Organizations with the right and unbiased
performance appraisal technique will surely result in high employee engagement levels
(Vazirani, 2007). Moderation results in the study analysis also expressed the positive role
259
of PAJ as moderator between the relationship of LOPs and EE in PTSOs. The analysis
exhibited that PAJ has a significant and positive path coefficient at .74 (where p < .005)
which can be interpreted as PAJ positively moderates the relationship between LOPs and
EE for the selected PTSOs. Thus the third research question in the study has been
addressed successfully.
Does Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderate the relationship
between LOPs and Employee Development (ED)?
An LO is known as a place where the prime focus is upon its individuals, who
expand their knowledge creation, acquisition, and transfer as supportive learning
environment, established learning processes, practices and leadership behaviors which
ensure learning to improve the performance (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008). Self-
development and Self-directed learning are closely associated with the learning measures
by the leaders and their approach to enforce learning mechanism positively. According to
Margulies and Murphy (2004), out of multiple Performance Appraisal objectives, the one
which is the most important i.e. it serves as an Employee Development and Coaching tool
with the provision of realistic employee performance assessment. PAJ needs to be justly
focused so that ED practices may be conducted productively and may result in enhanced
Employee Performance (EP). Moderating role of PAJ between the relationship of LOPs
and ED has also been analyzed in the study as Fig 7 presents the significant and positive
path coefficient at .81 (where p < .05) between the relationship of LOPs and ED which
can be interpreted as PAJ has to be addressed as a moderator between the relationship of
LOP and ED Thus the last research question of the current study has been confirmed
positively.
260
5.2 Design and Method
The study being empirical included a survey research design using a self-
administered questionnaire for data collection from PTSOs. After data collection,
analysis was conducted using various statistical techniques for the purpose of drawing a
results and conclusions. The study questionnaire included five scales which were
developed for and used in different industrial setting but in Pakistan. The questionnaire
included 52 items included the two main sections i.e. Section A and B. Section A
included the items related to the main five constructs i.e. LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP and
the demographic information were asked in Section B of the questionnaire. The
questionnaire firstly was tested in the selected PTSOs with the objective of confirmation
of its validity and reliability. The instrument was revised and finalized after the pilot test
the selected organizations by putting forth the verbal and written feedback of the
respondents and EFA results. The consolidated questionnaire demonstrated satisfactory
reliability estimates in a wholesome manner. All the scales showed acceptable reliability
with α totaled .742, .703, .588, .733, and .505 for LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP
respectively. Reliabilities of the sub-scales of the all 5 scales were also ensured to be at
satisfactory levels. When Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted, the study
ensured the loadings of the scales and sub scales to be above 0.4 thus the all the subscales
were confirmed to be suitable factors for the research. EFA solution for LOPs was drawn
by ensuring the eigenvalues greater than 1 and explained 80.9% of the variance over the
seven proposed LOPs. EFA for EE with assurance of the eigenvalues greater than 1 with
68.4% of the variance over its three proposed subscales, for ED, eigenvalues greater than
1 with 63.3% of the variance over its two proposed subscales, eigenvalues greater than 1
261
with 68.4% of the variance over its three proposed subscales, for PAJ, eigenvalues
greater than 1 with 68.5% of the variance over its four proposed subscales and for EP,
eigenvalues greater than 1 with 39.71% of the variance confirmed the suitability of the
items to proceed further. Moreover in LOPs subscales “Continuous Learning” possessed
highest eigenvalue (i.e. 5.92) and highest percentage of variance (i.e. 28.1%). Among the
Employee Engagement scales “Employee Emotional Engagement (EEME)” had the
highest eigenvalue (i.e. 2.65) with the variance percentage (i.e. 29.4%). Taking Employee
Development (ED) subscales, “Employee Self Development (EDSD)” had the high
eigenvalue (i.e. 2.01) with the with the variance percentage (i.e. 33.5%). In Performance
Appraisal Justice (PAJ) subscales, “Performance Appraisal Procedural Justice (PAPJ)”
had the high eigenvalue (i.e. 3.78) with the variance percentage (i.e. 31.5%) and in the
last EP was confirmed fit to proceed further with eigenvalue (i.e. 2.78) and the variance
percentage (i.e. 39.71%). The respondents of the study were the direct employees of the
five selected PTSOs. As the study used stratified sampling technique, for which the study
had to collect the data from each selected organization by declaring them the ‘stratas’ and
by taking samples from each strata separately in order to make comparison among all five
organizations. So the samples were drawn from the selected organizations’ populations
with the total of 1612 against which 1228 questionnaires were received fit for analysis
with the response rate of 64.6%.
In addition to the various statistical techniques utilized in the study, descriptive
analysis was exhibited to represent the perspectives of the respondents, and the results
were analyzed and compared among demographic groups using ANOVA and t-test for
the comparison within each organization at all three managerial levels and across all the
262
five organizations. Correlation analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) were
used to analyze the relationships among the constructs (i.e. LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP).
5.3 Results
Results derived from the data analyses were shown taking means and standard
deviations calculated for the selected scales, subscales and their items, the study extracted
that participants in the selected PTSOs had the highest overall score on LOPs, and the
lowest overall score on ED. The demographics of the participants of the sample exhibited
different results. Gender-wise mean differences regarding LOP’s in selected PTSOs
(table 29a) presented the mean scores range (i.e. 3.73 - 4.10) and SD range (i.e. .56 - .69).
Mean score exhibited that there was no marginal differences among the responses from
males and females. Both the genders in all five PTSOs scored almost same on all the
LOPs. Analysis using correlations among the selected LOs i.e. PTSOs by using the
constructs of LOPs, EE, ED, PAJ and EP ranged from weak to moderate; most were
moderate. Correlations among the LOPs’ seven subscales have been found weak to
moderate (ranging from .071 to .353). Moreover the correlations among the five scales
have been found as moderate to strong (ranging from .368 to .595). The SEM indicated
multiple confirmations as firstly it indicated that LOPs have a strong impact on EP with a
significant path coefficient of .27 (p < .05) in Figure 7 and confirmed H1. Secondly
results indicated that LOPs have a strong impact on EE showing a significant path
coefficient of .60 (p < .05) in Figure 7 that verified H2. Thirdly, results exhibited that
LOPs do have a strong impact on ED by drawing a significant path coefficient of .65 (p <
.05) which confirmed H3. Fourthly, the results specified that EE has an impact on EP
263
showing a significant path coefficient of .13 (p < .05) which supports H4. The results also
declared that ED has a strong impact on EP showing a significant path coefficient of .31
(p < .05) confirmed H5.
For the purpose of extracting the mediating role of EE in the relationship of LOPs
and EP, the results confirmed that Employee Engagement (EE) mediates the relationship
between Learning Organization Practices (LOP) and Employee Performance (EP) from
the extracted significant path coefficient or beta of .342 (p < .05) in table 38. Then results
for confirming the mediating role of ED in the relationship of LOPs and EP confirmed
that the mediation of ED exits in the relationship between Learning Organization
Practices (LOP) and Employee Performance (EP) from the extracted significant path
coefficient of .291 (p < .05) in table 38 (p < .05). Results drawn from SEM also
confirmed using the extracted significant path coefficient or beta of .269 (p < .05) in table
38 supporting hypothesis 6 that the relationship between LOPs and Employee
Performance (EP) is also mediated by the both EE and ED together. Finally, the SEM
results revealed that Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderates the relationship
between Learning Organization Practices (LOPs) and Employee Engagement (EE) with a
positive path coefficient at .74 (p < 0.05) and between Learning Organization Practices
(LOPs) and Employee Development with a positive path coefficient at .81 (p < 0.05).
Thus the moderation results indicate that PAJ moderates the relationships between LOPs
and EE and LOPs and ED. There is a wrong perception of various traditional employers
that mere incentive and excessive training can transform a conventional organization into
a ‘learning organization’ (LO) (Govaerts et al., 2011). Such perception has to be changed
because of the importance of the EE and ED constructs addressed in this study. Thus
264
without addressing EE and ED practices ultimate performance objectives cannot be
achieved. Moreover PAJ should also be considered as a moderator between the
relationship of LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED.
5.4 Discussion
The discussion section presents the elaborated discussion upon the results of the
study in association with purpose, objectives and questions of the study. As the evidence
for reliability and other quantitative results has shown that the consolidated
questionnaires addressing all the five selected constructs in the study are moderately
acceptable in its entirety. The data collected using the self-administered questionnaire
was confirmed as reliable and valid for the current study. As stated in chapter 1 and
chapter 3 that the short-form of DLOQ (LOPs) instrument have been tested in Taiwanese
SMEs by ensuring internal consistency evidence and fit indices’ applicability to
Taiwanese companies. Keeping in view the results of the said study, current study
exhibited different results PTSOs setting. The seven subscales/dimensions of LOPs (i.e.
Continuous Learning (CL), Dialogue and Inquiry (DI), Collaboration and Team Learning
(CTL), Embedded Systems (ES), System Connections (SC), Employee Empowerment
(EEM) and Strategic Leadership (SL)) have been analyzed in Pakistan’s Telecom
Organizations (PTSOs) using the same scale i.e. DLOQ. As the DLOQ (LOPs) was
primarily designed for participants in large organizations Marsick and Watkins (2003)
Thus, there was no reason for considering it risky in PTSOs. Item used in the survey
questionnaire in the current study regarding EE forms in the current study have been
checked initially in the pilot study confirming their reliability and factor analysis then
265
used finally in the current study. After confirming through literature ED in the current
study has been measured using its two dimensions i.e. SD and SDL. Items for SD have
been adopted from Oreg and Nov (2008) and for SDL adopted from the study Pinchuk
(2010). Items have been tested through confirmation of their Cronbach’s alphas and with
the factor analysis with the significant item loadings and satisfactory model fitness
assurance. Items for PAJ i.e. Procedural Justice (PJ), Distributive Justice (DJ),
Interpersonal Justice (IJ) and Informational Justice have been adapted from J. A. Colquitt
(2001) which later on used in a study by Gupta and Kumar (2013). In the last EP
measurement scale has been adopted in the current study was initially developed and
assessed by Green et al. (2004) which later on used by Medlin and Green (2009) for
Individual performance construct measurement. Three items have been adopted from
Green et al. (2004) work for Individual performance and two items from the work of
(Muhammed (2006)) for EP measurement in the current study which later on reduced to
four items after the confirmation of their reliability and factor analysis.
The current study examined the association of Learning Organizations’ Practices
(LOPs) with EP, by incorporating Employee Engagement (EE), Employee Development
(ED) and Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) in a holistic model because of its
importance in current competitive scenario in PTSOs. The Learning Organizations
Practices (LOPs) are considered quite critical in HR domain to be rightly implemented.
These LOPs have though been researched in various environments but lacks the context
and the relationships with the factors selected in the current study. Current study provides
a novel empirical examination by analyzing distinctive variable arrangements which are
believed as untested in a single holistic model. The holistic model presented in the study
266
serves as a structure for implementing focused and effective LOPs following a rout of EE
and ED for achieving employee performance objectives. EE and ED as mediators (see fig
7 and table 38) have been confirmed as both are required to be addressed for Employee
Performance (EP) maximization. The current study results described that the Employee
Performance (EP) which has always been a critical focus of LOs, required a deeper
examination of Employee Engagement (EE) states and their self-directed behavior which
ultimately influence their performance. The results exhibited that the productive route for
the Managers of LOs to maximize performance of their employees is to address 1) the
right LOPs, 2) addressing EE and ED and 3) Addressing the appraisal concerns of their
employees. Following the said route will inevitably maximize the performance of their
employees. The current study results evidently pave the way for the LO managers to
focus upon engagement states and self-behavior of their employees instead of focusing
upon the direct performance measures. They need to regard the perception of their
employees which is critically important for them and their employees. Significance of the
relationships in the current study that has been confirmed by various studies in bits and
pieces has also been proved in a holistic model after an empirical investigation in PTSOs.
DLOQ has also been tested in PTSOs for the first time which is a track for the
researchers to apply it in other industries with varied constructs.
5.5 Conclusion
The findings obtained from the study lead to report strong understanding about
the relationships among LOPs in PTSOs, engagement of their employees, development of
their employees, their employees’ perception regarding performance appraisal justice
267
practices and the performance of their employees. The study extracted that LOPs though
has an impact on Employee Performance (EP) but there is a severe need to follow the
rout of Employee Engagement and Employee Development to reap maximum Employee
Performance. The study Proposed and concluded that the relationship between LOPs and
EP is mediated through 1) Employee Engagement 2) Employee Development, and 3)
Employee Engagement and Employee Development. Partial mediation of EE and ED has
been identified in the relationship between LOPs and EP in PTSOs. The study also
concluded that Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) moderates the relationship between
LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED. Theoretically the study proposed associations between
the independent, mediating, moderating and the dependent variables.
Key findings in current study have been demonstrated by analyzing the direct and
indirect association between Learning Organizations’ Practices (LOPs) and EP. In
addition to the mediating role of EE and ED between the relationship of LOPs and EP,
key finding also include that the relationship between LOPs and EE and the relationship
between LOPs and ED is moderated through Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ). The
result extracted from the study clearly rationalized the practical implications of the LOPs’
implementation by the organizations/employers, their impact on getting maximum
Employee Performance (EP) directly and by following the rout of Employee Engagement
(EE) (i.e. Indirect), by following the rout of Employee Development (ED) (i.e. Indirect),
by following the rout of both EE and ED (i.e. Indirect) in PTSOs. The employers (LOs)
in PTSOs are required to give due importance to the selected LOPs in the study keeping
in view the results of the study which showed that all the selected LOPs are required to
be focused by the LOs in PTSOs. Secondly the selected PTSOs instead of directly
268
focusing upon the Employee Performance (EP), taking the impact of LOPs, need to
realize the importance of engagement states (i.e. Emotional Engagement (EME),
Cognitive Engagement (CE) and Behavioral Engagement (BE) of their employees in
order to extract maximum Employee Performance (EP). In continuation with EE, LOs
have to consider, Employee Development (ED) i.e. Employee Self-Development (EDSD)
and Employee Self-Directed Learning (EDSDL), as mediator between the relationship of
LOPs and EP along with incorporating the mediating role of EE. EDSD and EDSDL
behavior is also needed to be focused upon by LOs, when the purpose is to rightly
implement LOPs is required in order to achieve the ultimate objective of enhanced
Employee Performance (EP). LOs also need to critically examine their Performance
Appraisal System (PAS) by ensuring whether they are providing Distributive Justice
(DJ), Procedural Justice (PJ), Interactional Justice (IJ) and Informational Justice (InfoJ)
to their employees or not. They study results ensured that PAJ has a moderating role
between the relationship of LOPs and EE and LOPs and ED. The LOs heaving rightly
implemented LOPs should consider the EE and ED states of their employees to achieve
maximum performance objectives from their employees. Thus in the light of above
mentioned theoretical and practical implications, the study concludes as organizations are
in a fix of managing their employees related issues (e.g. Employee turnover, Employee,
commitment, Employees trust, employee justice perception, employee self-recognition
and employee development etc.) which may be positively addressed by incorporating EE
and ED as mediators between the relationship of LOPs and EP and PAJ as moderator
between the relationships of LOPs and EE and between the relationships of LOPs and
ED. The study results can be generalized in the telecommunication organizations of other
269
developing countries. It has been found out that LOs though have LOPs implemented
partially or fully within them, need to consider the three engagement states, two
development states and four PAJ perception modes of their employees to reap maximum
Employee Performance (EP). If one is missing, the whole will be affected negatively. The
current study has enhanced the need of EE, ED and PAJ for the LOs because of the
importance of these mediating and moderating factors in order to reap enhanced
performance from their employees. More engaged and self-developed workforce with an
impartial or unbiased appraisal system can make the LOs more successful in the current
cut-throat competitive environment. The study also revealed that HRD practitioners
should focus upon EE, ED and PAJ to enhance their Employee Performance (EP) by
putting efforts to create a productive workplace. Moreover the study revealed that LOPs
are not the only factor, that enhance EP but critical considerations are required regarding
EE, ED and PAJ in this regard. Thus Chapter 5 has addressed the research objectives and
research questions in order to fill the knowledge gaps identified in the current study. The
chapter also threw light upon the contributions of the current study for both academicians
and practitioners.
5.6 Recommendations and Future Research
The study divulged a new track for the researchers and practitioners of LOs. The
sequence of measures have to be taken into consideration by the LOs, revealed from the
current study i.e. 1) the provision of LOs first have to be ensured in the organizations to
LOs in the right manner, 2) looking at the impact of LOPs upon their employees’
engagement states, 3) analyzing the impact of implemented LOPs on ED states, and 3)
270
checking their performance appraisal system is bias- free performance appraisal system
which should possess the said four justice types. Current study provides the basis for
future studies to test the developed relationships (study model) in other high-tech
industries, both in private and public sectors in the developing countries like Pakistan,
India, and Bangladesh etc. and in the developed countries as well.
The study variables may be utilized in organizational context in order to get
organizational performance as LOPs, Organizational Engagement, Performance
Appraisal Justice Development strategies and Organizational Performance. The current
study using the same variables, can be tested using different instruments in same or other
industries. Such studies in the developing countries like Pakistan have not been
conducted earlier. The application of these studies paves way for the researchers to
explore assessments of LOPs and the other constructs used in the study. The model may
be further used in various other industries using multiple methodologies in order to
investigate it more deeply and rich manner and to reconfirm the findings derived from the
current empirical study.
271
Reference
Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2003). Intelligence, personality, and interests in the career choice process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 205-218.
Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange, In L. Berkowiz (ed) Advances in Experimental Psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Addleson, M. (2000). What is Good Organization?: Learning Organizations, Community and the rhetoric of the "bottom line. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 233-252.
Adler, P. S. (1999). Building better bureaucracies. Academy Of Management Executive, 13(4), 36-47.
Agarwal, R., Angst, C. M., & Magni, M. (2009). The performance effects of coaching: A multilevel analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(10), 2110-2134.
Ahmad, A. R., & Yunus, N. K. Y. (2012). Understanding Learning Organization in Malaysian Organizational Context. International Journal of Independent Research and Studies, 1(2), 50-56.
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological Theory: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application, 4th Edition: Los Angeles; Roxbury Publishing.
Akhtar, M. H. (2009). The Impact of Macroeconomic Factors and Policy Issues on Telecom Sector Performance in Pakistan: An Econometric Analysis. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 29(2), 163-174.
Akhtar, S., Arif, A., Rubi, E., & Naveed, S. (2011). Impact of Organizational Learning on Organizational Performance: Study of Higher Education Institutes. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(5), 327-331.
Akremi, A. E., Vandenberghe, C., & Camerman, J. (2010). The role of justice and social exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model. Human Relations, 63(11), 1687–1717.
Alam, M. F. (2009). Learning organization and development of woman managers in Pakistan. Human Resource Development International, 12(1), 105-114.
Albrecht, S. L. (2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ali, A. K. (2012). Academic staff's perceptions of characteristics of learning organization in a higher learning institution. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(1), 55-82.
Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence: Routledge.
Altman, Y., & Iles, P. (1998). Learning, leadership, teams: corporate learning and organisational change. Journal of Management Development, 17(1), 44-55.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: a test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491.
272
Amidon, S. R. (2005). Writing the Learning Organization A Framework for Teaching and Research. Business Communication Quarterly, 68(4), 406-428.
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk taking. European journal of social psychology, 36(4), 511-536.
Andrew, O. C., & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual Factors and Work Outcomes of Employee Engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498-508.
Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., & Harris, K. J. (2009). Got political skill? The impact of justice on the importance of political skill for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1427.
Anell, & Wilson. (2000). The flexible firm and the flexible coworker. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12(4), 165-170.
Anitha, J. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308-323.
Antonacopoulou, E. P., & FitzGerald, L. (1996). Reframing competency in management development: a critique. Human Resource Management Journal, 6(1), 27-48.
Appelbaum, S. H., & Reichart, W. (1997). How to measure an organization’s learning ability: A learning orientation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 9(7), 225-239.
Appelbaum, S. H., & Reichart, W. (1998). How to measure an organization's learning ability: The facilitating factors-part II. Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(1), 15-28.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning.Malden. MA: Blackwell. Argyris, C. (2004). Reflection and beyond in research on organizational learning.
Management Learning, 35(4), 507-509. Argyris, C., & Schon. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach.
Reading, MA: Addision Wesley. Argyris., C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice.
In P. A.-W. Reading (Ed.). Arkin, A. (2011). Is engagement working? People Management (Vol. 1). Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Ursel, N. D. (2009). Perceived organizational support, career
satisfaction, and the retention of older workers. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 82(1), 201-220.
Armstrong, A., & Foley, P. (2003). Foundations for a learning organization: organization learning mechanisms. The Learning Organization, 10(2), 74-82.
Arrow, K. J. (1962). The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies 29(3), 155-173.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management journal, 37(3), 670-687.
Artis, A. B., & Harris, E. G. (2007). Self-directed learning and sales force performance: an integrated framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(1), 9-24.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285.
273
Atak, M., & Erturgut, R. (2010). An empirical analysis on the relation between learning organization and organizational commitment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3472-3476.
Austin, W. G., & Tobiasen, J. M. (1984). Legal justice and the psychology of conflict resolution”, in Folger, R. (Ed.), The Sense of Injustice: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 227-274). New York, NY: Plenum.
Avey, J., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 44(1), 48-70.
Awasthy, R., & Gupta, R. K. (2012). Dimensions of the learning organization in an Indian context. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 7(3), 222-244.
Ayupp, K., & Perumal, A. (2008). A Learning Organization: Exploring Employees. Perceptions’, Management and Change, 12(2), 29-46.
Azhar, S., and S. M. Batool. (2004). Education and the HR Challenge. Human Resource Development Network, 3-5.
Baird, K., & Wang, H. (2010). Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and influential factors. Personnel Review, 39(5), 574-599.
Bakker, & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.
Bakker, Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187-200.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development international, 13(3), 209-223.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barbeite, F., & Maurer, T. (2002). Importance of learning and development opportunity
to job choice decisions. Paper presented at the the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Barker, R. T., & Camarata, M. R. (1998). The role of communication in creating and maintaining a learning organization: preconditions, indicators, and disciplines. Journal of Business Communication, 35(4), 443-467.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26.
Basim, H. N., Sesen, H., & Korkmazyurek, H. (2007). A Turkish translation, validity and reliability study of the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. World Applied Sciences Journal, 2(4), 368-374.
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organ Dynamics, 13, 19-31.
Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR magazine, 49(2), 44-51. Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business
success. Workspan, 47(12), 48-52.
274
Beck, M. (1989). Learning Organizations: how to create them. Industrial and Commercial Training, 21(3), 22.
Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement Impacting Employee Performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106-115.
Benest, F. (2000). Commit to learn: Transforming government from the inside out. Tampa, FL: The Innovation Group.
Bennet, A. (2006). THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION:Setting the stage for exploration. The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 36( 1), 7-11.
Bennet, A., & Tomblin, M. S. (2006). A learning network framework for modern organizations: Organizational learning, knowledge management and ICT support. VINE, 36(3), 289 - 303.
Bennett, J. K., & O'Brien, M. J. (1994). The Building Blocks of the Learning Organization. Training & Development, 31(6), 41.
Benson, G. S. (2006). Employee development, commitment and intention to turnover: a test of ‘employability’ policies in action. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(2), 173-192.
Benson, G. S., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. A. (2004). You paid for the skills, now keep them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 315-331.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 78-117.
Berlowitz, D. R., Young, G. J., Hickey, E. C., Saliba, D., Mittman, B. S., Czarnowski, E., . . . Moskowitz, M. A. (2003). Quality improvement implementation in the nursing home. Health Services Research, 38(1), 65-80.
Bernerth, J., & Walker, H. J. (2012). Reexamining the workplace justice to outcome relationship: Does frame of reference matter? Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 945-969.
Bernthal, P. R. (2004). Measuring Employee Engagement. In I. Development Dimensions International, MMIV. (Ed.).
Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 577-594.
Bersona, Y., Nemanichb, L. A., Waldmanb, D. A., Galvinc, B. M., & Kellerd, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 577-594.
Beugre, C. (1998). Managing fairness in organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian
ITES employees: key to retention. Employee Relations, 29(6), 640-663. doi: 10.1108/01425450710826122
275
Bhattacharya, Y. (2014). Employee engagement in the shipping industry: a study of engagement among Indian officers. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 1-26.
Bierema, L. L. (1996). Development of the individual leads to more productive workplaces. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 1996(72), 21-28.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations, 1(1), 43-55.
Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of 4 types of employee development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 845.
Biron, M., & Reuver, R. D. (2013). Restoring balance? Status inconsistency, absenteeism, and HRM practices. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(6), 683-696.
Bishop, J. W. (1989). The recognition and reward of employee performance. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model:
linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bontis, N., Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system
by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 437-469. Bouchard, P. (2009). Pedagogy without a teacher: What are the limits? Journal of Self-
Directed Learning, 6(2), 13-22. Boudrias, J.-S., Gaudreau, P., Savoie, A., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Employee empowerment:
From managerial practices to employees' behavioral empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(7), 625-638.
Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010). Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 159-178.
Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010). Propensity for self-development of leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader self-development. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 159-178.
Boyle, E. (2002). A critical appraisal of the performance of Royal Dutch Shell as a learning organisation in the 1990s. Learning Organization, 9(1), 6-18.
Branham, L., & Hirschfeld, M. (2010). Re-Engage: How America's Best Places To Work Inspire Extra Effort In Extraordinary Times Author: Leigh Branham. Mark Hirsc, 368.
Bratton, J., & Gold, J. (2003). HRM Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 341. Breaugh, J. A. (1981). Relationships between recruiting sources and employee
performance, absenteeism, and work attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 142-147.
Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: Perspectives on theory, research, and practice. London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization science, 2(1), 40-57.
276
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 81(4), 358.
Browne, M. W., Cudeck, R., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 154, 136-136.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of Cross Sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public administration review, 66(1), 44-55.
Buhler, P. (2006). Engaging the workforce: a critical initiative for all organizations. SuperVision, 67(9), 18-20.
Bui, K., & Baruch, Y. (2010). Creating learning organizations in higher education: applying a systems perspective. Learn Organization, 17(3), 208-227.
Bunderson, J. S., & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, Status, and Learning in Organizations. Organization Science, 22(5), 1182–1194.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 223-244.
Burgoyne, J., & Pedler, M. (1994). Learning companies: their significance and characteristics. Paper presented at the Readings from The Learning Company Conference.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL. London. Byrne, Z. S., Pitts, V. E., Wilson, C. M., & Steiner, Z. J. (2012). Trusting the fair supervisor:
the role of supervisory support in performance appraisals. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(2), 129-147.
Caldwell, R. (2012). Leadership and learning: A critical reexamination of Senge’s learning organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 25(1), 39-55.
Calvert, G., Mobley, S., & Marshall, L. (1994). Grasping the learning oganization. Training & Development, 48(6), 38-43.
Campbell, D. J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in performance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 302-314.
Campbell, T., & Cairns, H. (1994). Developing and measuring the learning organization: From buzz words to behaviours. Industrial and Commercial Training, 26(7), 10-15.
Candy, P. C. (1991). Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310: Jossey-Bass.
Cannella, A. A., & Monroe, M. J. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view of top managers. Journal of Management, 23(3), 213-237.
Carter, S. M., & Greer, C. R. (2013). Strategic Leadership: Values, Styles, and Organizational Performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(4), 375-393.
Chaisiri, K. (1998). Human resource development through continuous improvement: a case study of Yasothon hospital, Thailand (1994-1997). HRDJ, 2, 142-151.
277
Chalofsky, N. (1992). A Unifying Definition for the Human Resource Development Profession. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(2), 175-182.
Champathes, M. R. (2006). Coaching for performance improvement: the “COACH” model. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 20(2), 17-18.
Chaudhary, N., & Sharma, D. B. (2012). Impact of Employee Motivation on Performance (Productivity) In Private Organization. International Journal of Business Trends and Technology, 2(4), 29-35.
Chawla, D., & Joshi, H. (2011). Impact of knowledge management on learning organization practices in India: an exploratory analysis. The Learning Organization, 18(6), 501-516.
Chay, H. L., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating value for employees: investment in employee development. Int. J. of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 981–1000.
Child, J., & Heavens, S. J. (2001). The social constitution of organizations and its implications for organizational learning. DIERKES, M.; ANTAL, A.; CHILD, J, 308-326.
Chinowsky, P., Molenaar, K., & Realph, A. (2007). Learning organizations in construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(1), 27-34.
Cho, J., Laschinger, H. S., & Wong, C. (2006). Workplace empowerment, work engagement and organizational commitment of new graduate nurses. Nursing leadership-academy of Canadian executive nurses\, 19(3), 43.
Cho, S. H., Song, J. H., Yun, S. C., & Lee, C. K. (2013). How the Organizational Learning Process Mediates the Impact of Strategic Human Resource Management Practices on Performance in Korean Organizations. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(4), 23-42.
Choo, L. S., Mat, N., & Al-Omari, M. (2013). Organizational practices and employee engagement: a case of Malaysia electronics manufacturing firms. Business Strategy Series, 14(3), 3-10.
Chou, R. J. A. (2009). Organizational justice and turnover intention: a study of direct care workers in assisted living facilities for older adults in the United States. Social Development Issues, 31(1), 69-85.
Chow, I., Lo, T., Sha, Z., & Hong, J. (2006). The impact of developmental experience, empowerment, and organizational support on catering service staff performance. Hospitality Management, 25(6), 478–495. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.03.002
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.
Christmann, A., & Aelst, S. V. (2006). Robust estimation of Cronbach's alpha. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 97(7), 1660-1674.
Chughtai, A., Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2014). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being: The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of business ethics, 1-11.
278
Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2008). Work engagement and its relationship with state and trait trust: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 10(1), 47-71.
CIPD. (2006). Managing diversity: words into actions. In C. I. o. P. a. Development (Ed.), Change Agenda. London.
CIPD. (2007). The changing HR function, Survey report September 2007. CIPD. (2012). Employee engagement in context Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development. Surrey KT2 7LB: Kingston Business School, Kingston University. Clampitt, P., & Downs, C. W. (1987). Communication Satisfaction: A Review of the
literature.University of Kansas. Clark, R. E. (2003). Fostering the work motivation of individuals and teams. Performance
Improvement, 42(3), 21-29. Claydon, T., & Doyle, M. (1996). Trusting me, trusting you? The ethics of employee
empowerment. Personnel Review, 25(6), 13-25. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. (2011). Managing and organizations: an
introduction to theory and practice: Sage Publishing. Coetzee, M. (2005). The fairness of affirmative action: An organisational justice
perspective. (PhD), University of Pretoria. Coffman, C., Gonzalez-Molina, G., & Gopal, A. (2002). Follow this path: How the world's
greatest organizations drive growth by unleashing human potential. Business Plus.
Cohen-Charash, Yochi, & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 278-321.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 278-321.
Cohen, A. (2013). A global evaluation of organizational fairness and its relationship to psychological contracts. Career Development International, 18(6), 589-609.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management 23(3), 239-270.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
Colquitt, Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol, 86(3), 386-400.
Confessore, S. J. (1997). Building a learning organization: communities of practice, self-directed learning, and continuing medical education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 17(1), 1-11.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of management review, 13(3), 471-482.
279
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Sage Publications.
Connell, J., Ferres, N., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Engendering trust in manager-subordinate relationships: Predictors and outcomes. Personnel Review, 32(5), 569-587.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325-334.
Cook, S. D., & Yanow, D. (1996). Culture and organizational learning. Organizational learning, 430-459.
Council, C. L. (2004). Driving performance and retention through employee engagement. Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board.
Craig, E., Kimberly, J., & Bouchikhi, H. (2002). Can loyalty be leased? Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 24.
Craik, K. J. W. (1940). Origin of Visual After-images. AA(Psychological Laboratory, University, Cambridge), 145(3674 ), 512.
Cropanzana, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 34-48.
Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship. Collective problems in modern society: Dilemmas and solutions, 142-161.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164-209.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 12, 317-372.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27(3), 324-351.
Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2011). The impact of organizational justice on occupational health (Vol. 2).
Cross, R., & Baird, L. (2000). Technology is not enough: Improving performance by building organizational memory. Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 69-78.
Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522-537.
Crow, M. S., Lee, C.-B., & Joo, J.-J. (2012). Organizational justice and organizational commitment among South Korean police officers: An investigation of job satisfaction as a mediator. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35(2), 402-423.
Cully, M. (1998). A survey in transition: The design of the 1998 workplace employee relations survey. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
280
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization Development and Change. USA: South Western Cengage Learning.
Cunningham, I. (1999). The Wisdom of Strategic Learning. London: Gower. Currie, D. (2001). Managing Employee Well-Being. Oxford: Chandos Publishing (Oxford)
Limited. Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research
study Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Daniels, S. (1994). The Learning Organization. Work Study, 43(8), 5-6. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1997). Working knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of
effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(6), 1024. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the the control of
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037. Dekouloua, P., & Trivellasb, P. (2015). Measuring the Impact of Learning Organization on
Job Satisfaction and Individual Performance in Greek Advertising Sector Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 367-375.
Demerouti, E., Cropanzano, R., Bakker, A., & Leiter, M. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work engagement and job performance. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research, 147-163.
Dervitsiotis, K. N. (1998). The challenge of managing organizational change: Exploring the relationship of re-engineering, developing learning organizations and total quality management. Total Quality Management, 9(1), 109-122.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social issues, 31(3), 137-149.
Development-Dimensions-International. (2005): Whitepaper – Driving Employee Engagement.
Devi, V. R. (2009). Employee engagement is a two-way street. Human resource management international digest, 17(2), 3-4.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, 1938. 1953, 1-549. DFEE. (1996). Employment Development Schemes: What Impact Do They Have?
Sheffield: DFEE. DiBella, A. J. (2001). Learning Practices:Assessment and Action for Organizational
Improvement. Pearson Higher Education. Dirkx, J. M., Swanson, R. A., Watkins, K. E., & Cseh, M. (2002). Design, demand,
development, and desire. Paper presented at the A symposium on the discourses of workplace learning: Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development, USA.
Dixon, N. M. (1992). Organizational learning: A review of the literature with implications for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3(1), 29-49.
Dixon, N. M. (1999). The changing face of knowledge. The Learning Organization, 6(5), 212-216.
281
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization studies, 14(3), 375-394.
Dowd, J. F. (1999). Learning organizations: an introduction. Managed Care Quarterly, 7(2), 43-50.
Drew, S. A. W., & Smith, P. A. C. (1995). The learning organization: “change proofing” and strategy. The Learning Organization, 2(1), 4-14.
Driver, M. (2002). The learning organization: Foucauldian gloom or utopian sunshine. Hum Relations, 55(1), 33–53.
Drucker, P. F. (1964). Managingfor results. New York: Harper& Row. Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. The
knowledge management yearbook 2000-2001. Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (1998). The sustainable corporation. Allen Unwin, Sydney. Duvall, C. K. (1999). Developing individual freedom to act: Empowerment in the
knowledge organization. Participation and Empowerment: An International Journal, 7(8), 204-212.
Dymock, D., & McCarthy, C. (2006). Towards a learning organization? Employee perceptions. The Learning Organization, 13(5), 525-536. doi: 10.1108/09696470610680017
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Human relations, 50(9), 1985-1113.
Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128-146.
Edwards, T., Edwards, P., Ferner, A., Marginson, P., & Tregaskis, O. (2010). Multinational companies and the diffusion of employment practices from outside the country of origin. Management international review, 50(5), 613-634.
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. E. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 279-301.
Elena, P. A. (2000). Employee development through self-development in three retail banks. Journal of Personnel Review, 29(4), 491-508.
Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader–member exchange in the performance appraisal process. Journal of Management, 32, 531–551.
Ellinger, A. D. (2004). The concept of Self-directed learning and its implications for Human Resource Development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6, 158-177.
Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, J., Pettit, G. S., & Woodward, L. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74(3), 801-821.
Englehardt, C. S., & P.R. Simmons. (2000). Organizational flexibility for a changing world. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 113-121.
Engwall, M., & Svensson, C. (2004). Cheetah teams in product development: the most extreme form of temporary organization? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20(3), 297-317.
282
Erdogan, B. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisal. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 555-578.
ERICSON, K. (1975). Proctor and Gamble on sure. New Republic, 172(21), 32-32. Erstad, M. (1997). Empowerment and organizational change. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(7), 325-333. Fahim, L., Ali, M., Amir, M., & Butt, K. S. (2013). Concrete Learning Process and
Practices: A Comparison between Textile and Banking Sector of Pakistan. 2(1), 60-65.
Fallon, T., & Brinkerhoff. (1996). Framework for organizational effectiveness. Paper presented at the In American Society for Training and Development International Conference.
Farago, J., & Skyrme, D. (1995). The learning organization. Management Insight, 3. Farmery, A. (2013). The Transformative Effect of Social Media: Revolutionizing Business
Models. Organizations and Social Networking: Utilizing Social Media to Engage Consumers, 350.
Farndale, E., & Kelliher, C. (2013). Implementing performance appraisal: Exploring the employee experience. Human Resource Management, 52(6), 879-897.
Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H., & Morris, L. (2013). Conceptualising work engagement: An individual, collective and organisational efficacy perspective. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(3), 244-256.
Feldman, D. C. (2000). The Dilbert Syndrome How Employee Cynicism about Ineffective Management is Changing the Nature of Careers in Organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(8), 1286-1300.
Ferrer, J. (2005). Employee Engagement: Is it organisational commitment renamed? ResearchGate, 1-13.
Filstad, C., & Gottschalk, P. (2010). Creating a learning organization in law enforcement: Maturity levels for police oversight agencies. The Learning Organization, 17(5), 404-418.
Finger, M., & Brand, S. B. (1999). The concept of the" Learning Organization" applied to the transformation of the public sector: conceptual contributions for theory development. Organizational learning and the learning organization: Developments in theory and practice, 130-156.
Fink, C., Mattoo, A., & Rathindran, R. (2003). An Assessment of Telecommunications Reform in Developing Countries. Information Economics and Policy, 15(4), 443- 466.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of management review, 10(4), 803-813.
Fleck, S., & Inceoglu, I. (2010). A comprehensive framework for understanding and predicting engagement. The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research, & Practice,, 31-42.
Fleming, D. E., Artis, A. B., & Hawes, J. M. (2014). Technology perceptions in employees' use of self-directed learning. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(1), 50-59.
Fleming, J. H., Coffman, C., & Harter, J. K. (2005). Manage your human sigma. Harvard Business Review, 83(7), 106.
283
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 108.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. Advances in organizational justice, 1, 1-55.
Folger, R. G., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management (Vol. 7): sage publications.
Forrester, Payne, J., & Ward, K. (1995). Workplace Learning: Perspectives on Education, Training and Work. Aldershot: Avebury.
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. MA Productivity Press. Fortin, M., & Fellenz, M. (2008). Hypocrisies of fairness: Towards a more reflexive ethical
base in organizational justice research and practice. Journal of business ethics, 78(3), 415–433.
Fox, A. (2006). Building employee support for brands. HR magazine, 51, 10-12. Francis, H. M. I., Holbeche, L., & Reddington, M. (2012). People and Organisational
Development: A new agenda for organisational effectiveness: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Frank, F., Finnegan, R., & Taylor, C. (2004). The Race for Talent: Retaining and Engaging Workers in the 21st Century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12 - 26.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218.
Frese, M. (2008). The word is out: we need an active performance concept for modern workplaces. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 67-69.
Friedman, V. J., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2005). The mystification of organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 19-30.
Fuchs, S., & Edwards, M. R. (2012). Predicting pro-change behaviour: the role of perceived organisational justice and organisational identification. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(1), 39-59.
Fulei, C., Long, Y., & Ming, G. (2014). From career competency to skilled employees’ career success in china: the moderating effects of perceived organizational support. Pak. J. Statist., 30(5), 737-750.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(3), 453-466.
Galinsky, A. D., Wang, C. S., & Ku, G. (2008). Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(2), 404.
284
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Collecting research data with questionnaires and interviews. Educational research: An introduction, 227-261.
Gallup. (2006). Gallup Study: Engaged Employees Inspire Company Innovation US. Gallup. (2008). UK retailer – 174 stores over two years. Gallup Management Journal,
19(February edition). Gallup. (2013). The State of the Global Workplace – Employee engagement insights for
business leaders worldwide. Gallup corporate website. Retrieved, 9., 9. Gallup, I. (2012). Employee engagement: a leading indicator of financial performance. Galunic, D. C., & Anderson, E. (2000). From security to mobility: generalized investments
in human capital and agent commitment. Organization Science, 11(1), 1-20. Garcia-Bernal, J., Gargallo-Castel, A., Marzo-Navarro, M., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2005). Job
satisfaction: empirical evidence of gender differences. Women in Management Review, 20(4), 279-288.
Gardiner, P., & Whiting, P. (1997). Success factors in learning organizations: an empirical study. Industrial and Commercial Training, 29(2), 41-48.
Gardner, D., Dunham, R., L, C., & Pierce, J. (1989). Focus of attention at work: Construct definition and empirical validation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 61–77.
Garger, E. M. (1999). Holding on to high performers: A strategic approach to retention. Compensation and benefits Management, 15, 10-17.
Garratt, B. (1990). Creating a learning organization: A guide to leadership, learning and development. Cambridge: Institute of Directors.
Garver, M. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of business logistics, 20(1), 33.
Garvin, A. D., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard business review, 86(3), 109.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Hawad Business Review, 71(4), 78-91.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109.
Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J.-M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of marketing research, 77-90.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Rigdon, E. E. (2011). An update and extension to SEM guidelines for admnistrative and social science research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35(2), iii-xiv.
Gephart, M. A., Marsick, V. J., Buren, M. E. V., & Spiro, M. S. (1996). Learning organizations come alive. Training & Development, 50(12), 34-45.
Ghosh, P., Rai, A., & Sinha, A. (2014). Organizational justice and employee engagement: Exploring the linkage in public sector banks in India. Personnel Review, 43(4), 628-652.
Gibb, S. (2001). The state of human resource management: evidence from employees' views of HRM systems and staff. Employee Relations, 23(4/5), 318.
285
Gibbons, J. (2006). Employee engagement: a review of current research and its implications. Paper presented at the The Conference Board, New York, NY.
Gibbons, P. (2008). It Was Taught Good and I Learned a Lot': Intellectual Practices and ESL Learners in the Middle Years (pp. 155).
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. In P. Press (Ed.): Cambridge. Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L.-P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents.
Public Personnel Management, 27, 321-338. Gilley, J. W., Boughton N. W., & Maycunich, A. (1999). The performance challenge:
Developing management systems to make employees your organization's greatest asset, Basic Books.
Gilley, J. W., Maycunich, A., & Gilley, A. M. (2000). Beyond the learning organization: Creating a culture of continuous growth and development through state-of-the-art human resource practices, Basic books.
Godkin, L., & Montano, C. B. (1991). Organizational learning: Philippine agrarian reform under martial law." Organization Studies, 12(1), 29-47.
Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 63, 15-22.
Gonzalez-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 165-174.
Gould, S., & Penley, L. E. (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: A study of their relationships in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(2), 244-265.
Govaerts, N., Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Baert, H. (2011). Influence of learning and working climate on the retention of talented employees. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(1), 35-55.
Graack, C. (1999). Telecom operators in the European Union: Internationalization strategies and network alliances. Telecommunications Policy, 20(5), 341-355.
Green, K., Medlin, B., & Whitten, D. (2004). Developing optimism to improve performance an approach for the manufacturing sector. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 104(2), 106-114.
Greenberg. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.) (Vol. 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 54(1), 81-103.
Greenberg, J. (2002). The quest for justice on the job: essays and experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Grey, D. (1996). Denham Grey offers the following views on knowledge and knowledge management in B. Newman (Ed.), What is knowledge management
286
Griego, O. V., Geroy, G. D., & Wright, P. C. (2000). Predictors of learning organizations: a human resource development practitioner’s perspective. The Learning Organization, 7(1), 5-12.
Groen, B. A. C., Wouters, M. J. F., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2012). Why do employees take more initiatives to improve their performance after co-developing performance measures? A field study. Management Accounting Research, 23, 120-141.
Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123-136.
Guest, D. (2014a). Employee engagement: a sceptical analysis. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(2), 141-156.
Guest, D. (2014b). Employee engagement: a sceptical analysis” in Journal of Organizational Effectiveness. People and Performance, 1(2), 141-156.
Guglielmino, L. (1992). Understanding and facilitating self-directed learning. In G. Confessore & S. Confessore (Eds.), Guideposts to self-directed learning. Paper presented at the Organization Design and Development, King of Prussia, PA.
Guglielmino, L. M. (2008). Why self-directed learning. International Journal of Self-directed learning, 5(1), 1-14.
Gupta, & Kumar. (2013). Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee engagement: a study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), 61-78.
Gupta, S., & Kumar, V. (2013a). Sustainability as corporate culture of a brand for superior performance. Journal of World Business, 48, 311-320.
Gupta, S., & Kumar, V. (2013b). Sustainability as corporate culture of a brand for superior performance. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 311-320.
Gupta, V., & Kumar, S. (2013). Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee engagement: a study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), 61-78.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Distance education’and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher education, 49(4), 467-493.
Guth, W. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle management self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 313–327.
Haareven, T. K., & Adams, K. J. (1982). Ageing and life course transition: An interdisciplinary perspective. London: Tavistock.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (1998). Black (1998), Multivariate data analysis: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of school psychology, 43(6), 495-513.
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The Job Demands-Resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22(3), 224-241.
Halbesleben. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research, 8.
Halbesleben, RB, J., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of management, 30(6), 859-879.
287
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452-1465.
Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1995). The new career contract: Developing the whole person at midlife and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47(269-289).
Hamblett, J., & Holden, R. (2000). Employee-led development: another piece of left luggage? Personnel Review, 29(4), 509-520.
Hameed, A., & Waheed, A. (2011). Employee Development and Its Affect on Employee Performance A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(13).
Han, S.-S., Moon, S. J., & Yun, E. K. (2009). Empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: Comparison of permanent and temporary nurses in Korea. Applied Nursing Research, 22(4), 15-20.
Hannah, S. T., & Lester, P. B. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 34-48.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? : The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000–2001.
Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Leader–member exchange and empowerment: Direct and interactive effects on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(371-382).
Harter, Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived, A review of the Gallup studies (Vol. 2, pp. 205-224).
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Agarwal, S. (2009). Q12® meta-analysis: the relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes”, Gallup, available at: www.gallup.com/consulting/126806/Q12-Meta-Analysis.aspx
Hashim, S., Munir, A., & Khan, A. (2006). Foreign Direct Investment in Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 3(1), 111-123.
Hassan, M., Hassan, S., Nawaz, M. S., & Aksel, I. (2013). Measuring customer satisfaction and loyalty through service fairness, service quality and price fairness perception: an empirical study of Pakistan Mobile Telecommunication Sector. Sci.Int.(Lahore), 25(4), 971-980.
Heimstra, R., & Judd, R. (1978). Identifying “success” characteristics in self-directed adult learners. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Adult and Extension Education.
Heraty, N., & Morley, M. (1995). Line managers and human resource development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 19(10), 31-37.
Hernandez, M., & Watkins, K. (2003). Translation, validation and adaptation of the Spanish version of the modified Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Human Resource Development International, 6(2), 187-196.
288
Herriot, P. (1992). The career management challenge: Balancing individual and organizational needs: Sage.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hewitt-Associates. (2004). Employee engagement higher at double digit growth companies. In R. Brief (Ed.): Hewitt associates LLC.
Hewitt, A. (2013). Managing engagement during times of change. Hitt, W. D. (1995). The learning organization: some reflections on organizational
renewal. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(8), 17-25. Hitt, W. D. (1996). The learning organization: some reflections on organizational
renewal. Employee Counseling Today, 8(7), 16-25. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.
Berkeley. In U. o. C. Press (Ed.). Holbeche, L., & Springett, N. (2003). In Search of Meaning in the Workplace. In R. Park
(Ed.). Horsham. Holden, R. J., & Hamblett, J. (1998). Learning lessons from non-work related learning.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 10(5), 241-250. Holt, G. D., Love, P. E. D., & Li, H. (2000). The learning organization: toward a paradigm
for mutually beneficial strategic construction alliances. International Journal of Project Management, 18(6), 415-421.
Hongwei, Zhu, W., & Zheng, X. (2014). Procedural Justice and Employee Engagement: Roles of Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Centrality. J Bus Ethics, 122, 681-695.
Hope-Hailey, V., Searle, R., & Dietz, G. (2012). Organisational effectiveness: how trust helps’ People Management.
Hopkins, S. M., & Weathington, B. L. (2006). The relationships between justice perceptions, trust, and employee attitudes in a downsized organization. The Journal of Psychology, 140(5), 477-498.
Hoyle, R. H., (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications: Sage Publications.
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Aptitudes, Job Knowledge, and Job Performance. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 29, 340-362.
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 29(3), 340-362.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological bulletin, 96(1), 72.
Hurtz, & Williams. (2009). Attitudinal and Motivational Antecedents of Participation in Voluntary Employee Development Activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 635–653.
Hurtz, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (2009). Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of participation in voluntary employee development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 635.
289
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 635-672.
Huysman, M. (1999). Balancing biases: a critical review of the literature on organizational learning. Organisational learning and the learning organization, 59-74.
Imtiaz, S. Y., Khan, M. A., & Shakir, M. (2015). Telecom sector of Pakistan: Potential, challenges and business opportunities. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 254–258.
Inoue, S., Ohya, Y., Odagiri, Y., Takamiya, T., Ishii, K., Kitabayashi, M., . . . Shimomitsu, T. (2010). Association between perceived neighborhood environment and walking among adults in 4 cities in Japan. Journal of Epidemiology, 20(4), 277-286.
Insightlink, C. (2005). Employers and Employees - Making the Marriage Work: The Importance of Employee Commitment.
Irfan, S. M., Mohsin, M., & Yousaf, I. (2009). Achieving Service Quality Through its Valuable Human Resources: An Empirical Study of Banking Sector of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal, 7(10), 1222-1230.
Isen, A. M. (2001). An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: Theoretical issues with practical implications. Journal of consumer psychology, 11(2), 75-85.
Islam, T., Aamir, M., Khan, S. u. R., NorulKamar, U., & Ahmad, U. (2013). Organizational Learning Culture, Social Exchange Relations and Multifoci Citizenship Behaviors: A Literature Survey Approach. World Journal of Management and Behavioral Studies, 1(1), 33-40.
ISR. (2004). International Survey Research Available at: www.isrsurveys.com. Jacobs, R. (1980). Expectations of Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales. Personnel
Psychology, 33, 595-640. Jafari, P., & Kalanaki, M. (2012). Relationship between the dimensions of learning
organization and readiness-to-change. Paper presented at the Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Jamali, D. (2005). Changing management paradigms: implications for educational institutions. The Journal of Management Development, 24(2), 104-115.
Jamali, D., Khoury, G., & Sahyoun, H. (2006). From bureaucratic organizations to learning organizations: An evolutionary roadmap. Learning Organization, 13(4), 337-352.
Jamali, D., & Sidani, Y. (2008). Learning organizations: diagnosis and measurement in a developing country context: The case of Lebanon. The Learning Organization, 15(1), 58-74.
Jamali, D., Sidani, Y., & Zouein, C. (2009). The learning organization: tracking progress in a developing country. The Learning Organization, 16(2), 103-121.
Janssen, P. P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & Houkes, I. (1999). Work-related and individual determinants of the three burnout dimensions. Work & Stress, 13, 74–86.
Jashapara, A. (2003). Cognition, culture, and competition: An empirical test of the learning organization. Learning Organization, 10(1), 31-50. doi: 10.1108/09696470310457487
290
Jawahar, I. M. (2007). The Influence of Perceptions of Fairness on Performance Appraisal Reactions. J Labor Res, 28, 735-754.
Jelena, V. (2007). Employee Training And Development And The Learning Organization. Facta Universitatis Series, Economics And Organization, 4(2), 209-216.
Jenkins, S., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Context matters: examining ‘soft’and ‘hard’approaches to employee engagement in two workplaces. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(4), 2670-2691.
Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2007). Organizational learning and compensation strategies: Evidence from the Spanish chemical industry. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 26(3), 51-72.
Johnson, M. (2004). New rules of engagement: life-work balance and employee commitment. In C. Publishing (Ed.).
Johnston, R., & Hawke, G. (2002). Case studies of organisations with established learning cultures. In NCVER (Ed.).
Jones, A. M., & Hendry, C. (1992). The learning organization: A review of literature and practice: University of Warwick, Centre for Corporate Strategy and Change.
Jones, C., & Bergmann Lichtenstein, B. M. (2000). The `Architecture` of careers: How career competences reveal firm dominant logic in professional services. In M.A. Peiperl, M.B. Arthur, R. Goffee, & T. Morris (Eds.), Career frontiers: New conceptions of working lives: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jones, M. (1995). Organizational Learning: Collective mind or Cognivist Metaphor? Accounting Management and Information Technologies, 5(1), 61-77.
Joo, B.-K. B. (2007). The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity in Korean firms. (PhD).
Joo, B.-K. B. (2012). Leader–Member Exchange Quality and In-Role Job Performance The Moderating Role of Learning Organization Culture. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 25-34.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1973). Analysis of covariance structures. Multivariate analysis, 3, 263-285.
Juceviciene, P., & Leonaviciene, R. (2007). The change of human resource development concepts in the process of becoming a learning organisation. Economics & Management, 570.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be full there: psychological presence at work‖. Human Relations, 45, 321-349.
Kahn, W. A. (2010). The essence of employee engagement: Lessons from the field. In S. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundation and extensions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Keeble-Ramsay, D., & Armitage, A. (2014). HRD challenges when faced by disengaged UK
workers. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 217-231.
291
Kenneth, B., & Long, J. S. (1993). Testing structural equation models (Vol. 154): Sage. Khandekar, A., & Sharma, A. (2006). Organizational learning and Performance
Understanding Indian scenario in present global context. Education + Training Emerald, 48(8/9), 682-692.
Khasawneh, S. (2011). Learning Organization Disciplines in Higher Education Institutions: An Approach to Human Resource Development in Jordan. Innov High Educ, 36, 273–285.
Khasawneh, S., & Bates, R. (2005). Organizational Learning Culture, Learning Transfer Climate and Perceived Innovation in Jordanian Organizations. International Journal of Training & Development, 9(2), 96-109.
Kim, & Callahan. (2013). Finding the intersection of the learning organization and learning transfer: The significance of leadership. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(2), 183-200.
Kim, Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2012). The relationship between work engagement and performance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource Development Review. doi: 10.1177/1534484312461635
King, A. S., & Barbara J. Ehrhard. (1997). Empowering the workplace: a commitment cohesion exercise. Empowerment in organizations, 5(3), 139-150.
King, A. S., & Ehrhard, B. J. (1997). Empowering the workplace: a commitment cohesion exercise. Empowerment in organizations, 5(3), 139-150.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Improving Employee Performance Through Appraisal and Coaching: American Management Association Publication.
Kitchen, P. J., & Daly, F. (2002). Internal communication during change management. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(1), 46-53.
Kitchen, P. J., & Daly., F. (2002). Internal communication during change management. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7(1), 46-53.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and
development Prantice-Hall, Inc.,Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersy. Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511. Konrad, A. M. (2006). Engaging employees through high-involvement work practices.
Ivey Business Journal, 70(4), 1-6. Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbre, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005). Examining the relationship
between learning organization characteristics and change adaptation, innovation, and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 185-212.
Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Schweiger, D. M. (2002). Beaten before begun: The role of procedural justice in planning change. Journal of Management, 28(4), 497-516.
292
Koster, F., de Grip, A., & Fourage, D. (2011). Does perceived support in employee development affect personnel turnover? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(11), 2403-2418.
Kostiuk, P. F., & Follmann, D. A. (1989). Learning Curves, Personal Characteristics, and Job Performance. Journal of Labor Economics, 7(2), 129-146.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Farr, J. L. (1988). An integrative model of updating and performance. Human Performance, 1(1), 5-29.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Hults, B. M. (1987). An exploration of climates for technical updating and performance. Personnel psychology, 40(3), 539-563.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo., J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 485.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educ Psychol Meas.
Kressel, K., & Pruitt, D. G. (1989). Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K. (2008). Employee engagement: a literature review: Kingston Business School, Kingston University.
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of management journal, 36(6), 1633-1651.
Kuzua, O. H., & Ozilhan, D. (2014). The Effect of Employee Relationships and Knowledge Sharing on Employees’ Performance:An Empirical Research on Service Industry. Paper presented at the 2nd World Conference On Business, Economics And Management- WCBEM 2013.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive advantage: A competencybased perspective. Academy of Management Review, 19, 699 –727.
Lahteenmaki, S., Toivonen, J., & Mattila, M. (2001). Critical aspects of organizational learning research and proposals for its measurement. British journal of management, 12(2), 113-129.
Langdon, A. J. (1995). Justice and Home Affairs Cooperation with Associated Countries Langner, C. A., & Keltner, D. (2008). Social power and emotional experience. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 848–856. Lasrado, F., Arif, M., & Rizvi, A. (2015). The determinants for sustainability of an
employee suggestion system. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 32(2).
Latham, G. P., Almost, J., Mann, S., & Moore, C. (2005). New Developments in Performance Management. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1), 77-87.
Latif, K. F. (2012). An integrated model of training effectiveness and satisfaction with employee development interventions. Industrial and Commercial Training, 44(4), 211-222.
293
Lee, B., & Cassell, C. (2009). Learning organizations, employee development and learning representative schemes in the UK and New Zealand. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(1), 5-22.
Leea, J. J., & Ok, C. M. (2015). Hotel Employee Work Engagement and Its Consequences. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Accepted Manuscript.
Lehman, W. E. K., & Simpson, D. D. (1992). Employee substance use and on-the-job behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), 309-321.
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2000). Burnout and health. In A. Baum, T.Revenson, & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology: Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Leventhal. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in experimental social psychology, 9, 91–131.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 2755). New York: Plenum.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-338.
Lewis, D. (2002). Five years on – the organizational culture saga revisited. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(5), 280-287.
Liao, S. H., Fei, W. C., & Liu, C. T. (2008). Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational learning and organization innovation. Technovation, 28, 183–195.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407−416.
Lieberman, D. A., & Linn, M. C. (1991). Learning to learn revisited: Computers and the development of self-directed learning skills. Journal of research on computing in education 23(3), 373-395.
Liebeskind, J. P. (2000). Internal capital markets: Benefits, costs, and organizational arrangements. Organization Science, 11(1), 58-76.
Lim, T. J. (2003). Relationships among organizational commitment, learning organization culture, and job satisfaction in one Korean private organization. (PhD), University of Minnesota.
Lind, A. E., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York, NY: Plenum.
Lindner, J. R. (1998). Understanding employee motivation. Journal of Extension, 36(3), 1-8.
Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V. J., & Popper, M. (2007). Demystifying Organizational Learning. In S. Publications (Ed.): Thousand Oaks.
Lloyd, C. (2002). Training and development deficiencies in high skill sectors. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(2), 64-81.
Locke, E. A., & Jain, V. K. (1995). Organizational learning and continuous improvement. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 45-68.
Locke, E. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Stress, coping, and the meaning of work’, in Brief, A. and W.R. Nord (Eds). Lexington: Lexington Books.
294
Lockwood. (2006). Talent management: driver for organizational success HR content program. HR magazine, 51(6), 1-11.
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage. Society for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1, 1-12.
Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. (2005). The power of full engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the key to high performance and renewal: Simon and Schuster.
Loermans, J. (2002). Synergizing the learning organization and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(3), 285-294.
Loi, R., Lam, L., & Chan, K. (2012). Coping with Job Insecurity: The role of procedural justice, ethical leadership and power distance orientation. Journal of business ethics, 108(3), 361–372.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1999). Empowered self-development and continuous learning. Human Resource Management International Digest, 38(1), 3-15.
Long, H. B. (1994). New Ideas about Self-Directed Learning (pp. 1-14). Norman: University of Oklahoma.
Long, H. B., & Morris, S. S. (1995). Self-directed learning in business and industry: A review of the literature. In H.B. Long & Ass. (Eds.), New dimensions in self-directed learning (pp. 367-380). Oklahoma:: Public Managers Center, University of Oklahoma.
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy. Journal of management development, 21(5), 376-387.
Mabey, C., & Salaman, G. (1995). Strategic human resource management. In O. Blackwell (Ed.).
Macey, Schneider, B., Barbera, K., & Young, S. (2009). Employee engagement: tools for analysis: Wiley-Blackwell.
Macey, W., Schneider, B., & Barbera, K. M. (2009). Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage: Chichester, Wiley.
Macey, W. H., & Schineider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 87–98.
MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement: a report to government.
Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 200-212.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927.
295
Malik, M. S., & Aslam, S. (2013). Performance Appraisal and Employee’s Motivation: A Comparative Analysis of Telecom Industry of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) 33(1), 179-189.
Malinen, S., Wright, S., & Cammock, P. (2013). What drives organisational engagement? A case study on trust, justice perceptions and withdrawal attitudes In Evidence-based HRM. A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 1(1), 96-108.
Mallon, D., Clarey, J., & Vickers., M. (2012). The High-Impact Learning Organization maturity model.
Marah, F., Khadra, A., & Rawabdeh, I. A. (2006). Assessment of development of the learning organization concept in Jordanian industrial companies. The Learning Organization, 13(5), 455-474.
Margulies, J., & Murphy, T. (2004). Performance Appraisals. Paper presented at the Paper presented.
Marquardt, M., Marquardt, M., Berger, N., & Loan, P. (2004). HRD in the age of globalization: A practical guide to workplace learning in the third millennium: Basic Books.
Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization: McGraw-Hill Companies. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the
study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological bulletin, 97(3), 562.
Marsick, & Watkins. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations: Making learning count: Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Looking again at learning in the learning organization: a tool that can turn into a weapon. Learning Organization, The,, 6(5), 207-211.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in developing human resources, 5(2), 132-151.
Martha, C. A., Kacmar, K. M., & Kacmar, C. (2015). The Interactive Effects of Behavioral Integrity and Procedural Justice on Employee Job Tension. J Bus Ethics, 126, 371–379.
Martocchio, J. J., & Hertenstein, E. J. (2003). Learning orientation and goal orientation context: Relationships with cognitive and affective learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 413-434.
Marvin, M. E. (2014). An investigation of students’ readiness towards entrepreneurial intentions at Kigali Independent University (ULK). International Journal of Education and Research, 2(10), 263-276.
Marvin, M. E., & Flora, T. P. C. (2014). An investigation of students’ readiness towards entrepreneurial intentions. Kigali Independent University (ULK).
Marwat, Z. A., Qureshi, T. M., & Ramay, M. I. (2006). Impact of human resource management (HRM) practices on employees performance. International Journal.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 397-422.
296
Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T. G., & Fine, S. (2008). Leveraging employee engagement: The practical implications. VINE, 1(1), 56-59.
Mathieu, J. E., & Martineau, J. W. (1997). Individual and situational influences on training motivation (Vol. 193).
Matlay, H. (2000). Organisational learning in small learning organisations: an empirical overview. Education+ Training, 42(4/5), 202-211.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 70, 149-171.
Maurer, T. J. (2001). Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy for development. Journal of management, 27(2), 123-140.
Maurer, T. J. (2002). Employee learning and development orientation: Toward an integrative model of involvement in continuous learning. Human resource development review, 1(1), 9-44.
Maurer, T. J., & Chapman, E. F. (2013). Ten years of career success in relation to individual and situational variables from the employee development literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 450–465.
Maurer, T. J., & Lippstreu, M. (2008). Who will be committed to an organization that provides support for employee development? Journal of Management Development, 27(3), 328-347.
Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 3.
Maurer, T. J., & Weiss, E. M. (2010). Continuous learning skill demands: Associations with managerial job content, age, and experience. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 1-13.
Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in work-related learning and development activity: the effects of individual, situational, motivational, and age variables. Journal of applied psychology, 88(4), 707.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004a). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-37.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 77, 11-37.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004b). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 77(1), 11-37.
Mayer, & Davis, J. H. (1999). The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123-136.
Mayer, & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874-888.
297
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mayo, A., & Lank, E. (1994). The Power of Learning: A Guide to Gaining Competitive Advantage. London: IPD House.
McBain, R. (2007). The practice of engagement: Research into current employee engagement practice. Strategic HR review, 6(6), 16-19.
McCall, M., Lombardo, M., & Morrison, A. (1989). Lessons of experience: How successful executives develop on the job. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of management Journal, 35(3), 626-637.
McGill, M. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1993). Unlearning the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 67-79.
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. Management Review: The American Management Association, New York, 21, 41-49.
McHugh, D., Groves, D., & Alker, A. (1998). Managing learning: what do we learn from a learning organisation? The Learning Organization, 5(5), 209-220.
McLean, G. N., & McLean, L. (2001). If we can't define HRD in one country, how can we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313-326.
Medlin, B., & Green, K. W. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and optimism. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 10(3), 10-15.
Megginson, Joy-Matthews, & Banfield. (1999). Human Resource Development, 2nd edition. London: Kogan Page.
Megginson, & Whitaker, V. (1998). Cultivating Self-development. London: IPD. Meister, J. C. (1998). Corporate universities: Lessons in building a world-class work
force. In N. Y. McGraw-Hill (Ed.). Mercer, N. (2007). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social
mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(2), 137-168.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in Adulthood. (Second Edition ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, T. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Meyerson, G., & Dewettinck, B. (2012). Effect of Empowerment on Employees Performance. Advanced Research in Economic and Management Sciences (AREMS), 2, 40-46.
MichaPopper. (2005). Main principles and practices in leader development. Leadership & organization development journal, 26(1), 62-75.
298
Millar, G. (2012). Employee engagement – a new paradigm. Human Resource Management International Digest, 20(2), 3-5.
Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2).
Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Exchange and communal relationships. Review of personality and social psychology, 3, 121-144.
Mirvis, P. H. (1996). Historical foundations of organization learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(1), 13-31.
Mitchell, J. I., Gagne, M., Beaudry, A., & Dyer, L. (2012). The role of perceived organizational support, distributive justice and motivation in reactions to new information technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 729-738.
Mitlacher, L. W., Beitler, M., & Faller, M. (2005). SDLR and information sharing: the impact of individual learning on organisational knowledge creation and knowledge management in an international comparison. Paper presented at the EURAM 2005, Munich.
Mocker, D. W., & Spear, G. E. (1982). Lifelong Learning: Formal, Nonformal, Informal, and Self-Directed Information Series No. 241.
Moilanen, R. (2001). Diagnostic tools for learning organizations. The learning organization, 8(1), 6-20.
Moilanen, R. (2005). Diagnosing and measuring learning organization. The Learning Organization Science, 12(1), 71-89.
Moliner, C., Martínez-Tur, V., Ramos, J., Peiro, J. M., & Cropanzano, R. (2008). Organizational justice and extrarole customer service: The mediating role of well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 327-348.
Mollica, K. (2004). Perceptions of Fairness Tools to help managers be fair in their employees' eyes. HR Magzine, 49, 169-184.
Mone, Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C. (2011). Performance management at the wheel: Driving employee engagement in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 205-212.
Mone, & London, M. (2009). Employee engagement through effective performance management: a manager’s guide. New York.
Mone, Price, B., & Eisinger, C. (2011). Performance Management: Process Perfection or Process Utility? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 184-187.
Montuori, L. A. (2000). Organizational longevity-Integrating systems thinking, learning and conceptual complexity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(1), 61-73.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of applied psychology, 76(6), 845.
Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (1996). The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of emotional labor. Academy of management review, 21(4), 986-1010.
299
Morrison, M., Gan, S., Dubelaar, C., & Oppewal, H. (2011). In-store music and aroma influences on shopper behavior and satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 64, 558–564.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131-141.
Moye, M. J., & Henkin, A. B. (2006). Exploring associations between employee empowerment and interpersonal trust in managers. Journal of Management Development, 25(2), 101-117.
Moye, M. J., Henkin, A. B., & Egley, R. J. (2005). Teacher-principal relationships: Exploring linkages between empowerment and interpersonal trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(3), 260-277.
Muhammed, S. (2006). Antecedents and impacts of knowledge management practices supported by information technology: An empirical study in manufacturing context. (PhD), The University of Toledo.
Mulili, B. M., & Wong, P. (2011). Corporate Governance Practices in Developing Countries: The Case for Kenya. International Journal of Business Administration, 2(1), 14.
Mulvey, P. W., & Jr., G. E. L. (2002). Implementing organizational interventions: steps, processes, and best practices Implementing reward systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: Pulakos.
Mumford, A. (1988). Developing top managers Aldershot: Gower. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1991). Performance Appraisal: An Organizational
Perspective (3rd Edition ed.): Allyn and Bacon. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal: Social,
Organizational and Goal-based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nadler, L., & Nadler. (1990). The Handbook of Human Resource Development. Second
Editiion, New York: John Wiley and Sons Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: a meta-
analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 71.
Nair, K. U. (2001). Adaptation to creation: progress of organizational learning and increasing complexity of learning systems. Systems research and behavioral science, 18(6), 505-521.
Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A more positive approach.
Nesan, J. L., & Holt, G. D. (2002). Assessment of Organizational Involvement in Implementing Empowerment. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(4), 201-211.
Nesse, P. J. (2009). Open service innovation in telecom industry - case study of partnership models enabling 3’rd party development of novel mobile services: Telenor Research & Innovation, Service Innovation Group.
Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J., & Gould, J. M. (1995). Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review, Winter, 73-85.
300
Newman, D. A., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: are state and behavioral work engagement new and useful construct “wines”? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1(1), 31-35.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management journal, 36(3), 527-556.
Nijhof, W. J., Jong, M. J. d., & Beukhof, G. (1998). Employee commitment in changing organizations: an exploration. Journal of European Industrial Training, 22(6), 243-248.
Nimon, K., Zigarmi, D., Houson, D., Witt, D., & Diehl, J. (2011). The work cognition inventory: Initial evidence of construct validity. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 7-35.
Noe, & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees' participation in development activities. Journal of applied psychology, 78(2), 291.
Noe, R., Wilk, S., Mullen, E., & Wanek, J. (1997). Employee development: Issues in construct definition and investigation of antecedents. In J. Ford & Associates (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Noe, R. A. (1996). Is career management related to employee development and performance? Journal of organizational behavior, 17(2), 119-133.
Noe, R. A., Tews, M. J., & Dachner, A. (2010). Learner engagement: a new perspective for our understanding of learner motivation and workplace learning. Acad. Manag. Ann, 4, 279–315.
Noe, R. A., Wilk, S. L., Mullen, E. J., & Wanek, J. E. (2014). Employee Development: Issues in Construct Definition and Investigation ofAntecedents." Improving Training Effectiveness in WorkOrganizations, ed. JK Ford, SWJ Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, and MS Teachout (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997).
Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. C., & Konno, N. (1994). Organizational knowledge creation theory: a first comprehensive test. International Business Review, 3(4), 337-351.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation: Oxford university press.
Nowakowski, J. M., & Conlon, D. E. (2005). Organizational justice: Looking back, looking forward. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(1), 4-29.
Nthurubele, A. T. (2011). Facilitating a learning organization: The case of a small consulting firm. (Master’s thesis), University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory. Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. H., & Berge, J. M. F. t. (1967). Psychometric theory (Vol.
226): McGraw-Hill New York. Nyhan, B., Cressey, P., Tomassini, M., Kelleher, M., & Poell, R. (2004). European
perspectives on the learning organisation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(1), 67-92.
O'Grady, S., & Lane, H. W. (1996). The psychic distance paradox. Journal of International Business Studies, 309-333.
301
O’Driscoll, T. (1999). Achieving desired business performance: A framework for developing human performance technology in organizations. Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.
O’Neil, J. (2003). Participant’s guide for interpreting results of the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 222–230.
Ohlott, P. J. (2004). Job assignments (Vol. 2). Oreg, S., & Nov, O. (2008). Exploring motivations for contributing to open source
initiatives: The roles of contribution context and personal values. Computers in human behavior, 24(5), 2055-2073.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in organizational behavior, 12(1), 43-72.
Orlikowski, W. (2002). Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organ Sci, 13(2), 49–73.
Ormoneit, D., & White, H. (1999). An efficient algorithm to compute maximum entropy densities. Econometric reviews, 18(2), 127-140.
Ortenblad, A. (2001). On differences between organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organization, 8(3), 125 - 133.
Ortenblad, A. (2002). Organizational Learning: A Radical Perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), 71-85.
Ortenblad, A. (2007). Senge's many faces: problem or opportunity? The Learning Organization, 14(2), 108-122.
Örtenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: towards an integrated model. The Learning Organization, 11(2), 129-144.
Otaye, L., & Wong, W. (2014). Mapping the contours of fairness The impact of unfairness and leadership (in)action on job satisfaction, turnover intention and employer advocacy. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 1(2), 191-204.
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: a framework for management control systems research. Management accounting research, 10(4), 363-382.
Oxford, E. (2012). Compact Oxford English Dictionary. In O. U. Press (Ed.). Page-West-III, & Dale-Meyer, G. (1997). Communicated knowledge as a learning
foundation. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(1), 25-58. Park, J. H. (2008). Validation of Senge’s Learning Organization Model with Teachers of
Vocational High Schools at the Seoul Megalopolis. Asia Pacific Education Review, Education Research Institute, 9(3), 270-284.
Park, Y. K., Song, J. H., Yoon, S. W., & Kim, J. (2014). Learning organization and innovative behavior The mediating effect of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 38(1), 75-94.
Park, Y. K., Song, J. H., Yoon, S. W., & Kim, J. (2014). Learning organization and innovative behavior: The mediating effect of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 38(1-2), 75-94.
302
Parkes, L. P., & Langford, P. H. (2008). Work-life balance or work-life alignment?: a test of the importance of work-life balance for employeee engagement and intention to stay in organisations., 267.
Paul, A. K., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2004). Influence of HRM practices on organizational commitment: A study among software professionals in India. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 77-88.
Pearn, M. A., Mulrooney, C., & Roderick., C. (1995). Learning organizations in practice: McGraw-Hill.
Peccei, R. (2013). Employee engagement at work: An evidence-based review (Vol. Managing human resources, 5th edn): Chichester: Wiley.
Pedler, M. (1990). Self-development in Organizations: McGraw-Hill Book Co Ltd. Pedler, M., & Aspinwall, K. (1996). Personal transformation and organizational learning.
In J. J. Phillips, K. E. Watkins, & V. J. Marsick (Eds.) Creating the learning Organization. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Pedler, M., & Boydell, T. (1980). Is all management development self-development?” In J. Beck & C. Cox (eds.) Advances in Management Education (pp. 165-196). Chichester: Wiley.
Pedler, M., & Boydell, T. (1981). What is self-development?” In T. Boydell & M. Pedler (eds.) Management Self-development Concepts and Practices. Aldershot: Gower.
Pedler, M., Boydell, T., & Burgoyne, J. (1988). Learning company project report Training Agency, Sheffield (Vol. 7).
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, & Boydell, T. (1991a). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. London: McGraw-Hill, 1-6.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. G., & Boydell, T. (1991b). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. London: McGraw-Hill.
Perrin, T. (2003). Working Today: Understanding What Drives - Employee EngagementThe 2003 Towers Perrin Talent Report: US.
Peters, J. (1996). A learning organization's syllabus. The Learning Organization, 3(1), 4-10.
Petter, J., Byrnes, P., Choi, D.-L., Fegan, F., & Miller, R. (2002). Dimensions and patterns in employee empowerment: assessing what matters to street-level bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(3), 377-400.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). The Human Equation: Building profits by putting people first: Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
Phillips, R. (2002). Is Corporate Engagement an Advocacy Strategy for NGOs? The Community Aid Abroad Experience” Non-Profit Management and Leadership, 13(2), 129-156.
Pierce, H. R., & Maurer, T. J. (2009). Linking employee development activity, social exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Training and Development, 13(3), 139-147.
Pinchuk, R. D. A. (2010). Self-Directed Learning in the context of Human Resource Development.
303
Piskurich, G. M. (1993). Self-directed learning: A practical guide to design, development, and implementation. 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Piyali, G., Rai, A., & Sinha, A. (2014). Organizational justice and employee engagement. Personnel Review, 43(4), 628-652.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.
Pokharel, M. P., & Choi, S. O. (2015). Exploring the relationships between the learning organization and organizational performance. Management Research Review, 38(2), 126-148.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms a structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(2), 161-179.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning mechanisms, culture, and feasibility. Management learning, 31(2), 181-196.
Porth, S. J., McCall, J., & Bausch, T. A. (1999). Spiritual themes of the learning organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 211-220.
Power, J., & Waddell, D. (2004). The link between self-managed work teams and learning organisations using performance indicators. The Learning Organization, 11(3), 244-259.
Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. In Sage (Ed.).
Probst, G., & Buchel, B. (1998). Organizational learning: The new competitive advantage of the future. In P. Hall (Ed.). London.
PTA. (2007). Annual Report. PTA. (2012-2013). PTA Annual Report 2012-13. (ISBN: 978-969-8667-54-2). Islamabad:
Pakistan Telecommunication Authority Retrieved from www.pta.gov.pk. PTA. (2014). Annual Report. In PTA (Ed.). Pakistan: Pakistan Tecommunication Authority. Purcell, J. (2012). The limits and possibilities of employee engagement. Waric Papers in
Industrial Relations number 96. Putka, D. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Reliability and validity. Raemdonck, I., Leeden, R. v. d., Valcke, M., Segers, M., & Thijssen, J. (2012). Predictors
of self-directed learning for low-qualified employees: a multi-level analysis. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(6), 572-591.
Ram, P., & Prabhakar, G. V. (2011). The role of employee engagement in work-related outcomes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1(3), 47-61.
Ramlall, S. J. (2008). Enhancing Employee Performance Through Positive Organizational Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1580-1600.
Rana, Ardichvili, A., & Tkachenko, O. (2014). A theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: Dubin’s method. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 249-266.
304
Rana, T. M., Salaria, M. R., Herani, G. M., & Amin, M. (2009). Identifying Factors Playing Important Role in the Increasing Employees’ Turnover Rate: A Case of Telecom Industry in Pakistan. Indus Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 3(2), 80-89.
Randel, D. M. (1973). Index to the Chant of the Mozarabic Rite: Princeton University Press.
Rao, A. V. L. N. (2011). The construct of the learning organization: the dynamics and the diagnostic tool. VINE, 1(8), 470-493.
Rasheed, A., Khan, S., & Ramzan, M. (2013). Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement: The Case of Pakistan. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 4(4), 183-200.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). On multilevel model reliability estimation from the perspective of structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 130-141.
Rebelo, T. M., & Gomes, A. D. (2008). Organizational learning and the learning organization: Reviewing evolution for prospecting the future. The Learning Organization, 15(4), 294-308.
Rees, C., Alfes, K., Gatenby, M., Soane, E., & Truss, C. (2013). Employee voice and engagement: connections and consequences. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2780-2798.
Relf, M. (1995). Increasing job satisfaction and motivation while reducing nursing turnover through the implementation of shared governance. CriticalCare Nursing Quarterly, 18(7), 7-13.
Revans, R. W. (1980). Action learning: New techniques for management Blond and Briggs Ltd.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of applied psychology, 86(5), 825.
Rich, B. L. (2006). Job engagement: Construct validation and relationships with job satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation. (PhD), University of Florida.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. VINE, 53(3), 617-635.
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan, 49, 36-39.
Richter, I. (1998). Individual and Organizational Learning at the Executive Level Towards a Research Agenda. Management learning, 29(3), 299-316.
Ridder, J. A. (2004). Organisational communication and supportive employees. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(3), 20-30.
Robinson. (2006). Care, gender and global social justice: Rethinking ‘ethical globalization. Journal of global ethics, 2(1), 5-25.
305
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement Report-Institute for Employment Studies.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
Robinson, S. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-590.
Roof, R. A. (2013). The Association of Individual Spirituality on Employee Engagement: The Spirit at Work. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
Rose, R. C., Kumar, N., & Pak, O. G. (2009). The effect of organizational learning on organizational commitment, job satisfaction and work performance. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 25(6), 55-65.
Rosow, J., & Zager, R. (1988). Training – The competitive edge. In Jossey-Bass (Ed.). San Francisco, CA.
Rotemberg, J. J., & Saloner, G. (1993). Leadership style and incentives. Management Science, 39(1), 1299-1318.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 655-684.
Rowden, R. W. (2001). The learning organization and strategic change. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66(3), 11-24.
Rowland, C. A., & Hall, R. D. (2012). Organizational justice and performance: is appraisal fair? EuroMed Journal of Business, 7(3), 280-293.
Rowland, C. A., & Hall, R. D. (2013). Perceived unfairness in appraisal: engagement and sustainable organizational performance. EuroMed Journal of Business, 8(3), 195-208.
Rowley, J., & Gibbs, P. (2008). From learning organization to practically wise organization. The learning organization, 15(5), 356-372.
Rumbles, S., & Rees, G. (2013). Continuous changes, organizational burnout and the implications for HRD. Industrial and Commercial Training, 45(4), 236-242.
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart ( 2 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rumpel, S., & Medcof, J. W. (2006). Total rewards: Good fit for tech workers. Research-Technology Management, 49(5), 27-35.
Rurkkhum, S., & Bartlett, K. R. (2012). The relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour in Thailand. Human Resource Development International Business Review, 15(2), 157-174. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2012.664693
Rus, C. L., Chirica, S., Ratiu, L., & Baban, A. (2014). Learning organization and social responsibility in Romanian higher education institutions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 146-153.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Salehzadeh, R., Asadi, A., Pool, J. K., Ansari, M. R., & Haroni, A. (2014). The influence of perceived organizational support on dimensions of learning organization: An empirical study of SMEs in Iran. The Learning Organization, 21(3), 206-219.
306
Sambrook, S., & Stewart, J. (2000). Factors influencing learning in European learning oriented organisations: issues for management. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(2/3/4), 209-219.
Sambrook, S. A., Jones, N., & Doloriert, C. (2014). Employee engagement and autoethnography: being and studying self. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(3/4), 172-187.
Sanyala, M., & Biswas, S. (2014). Employee Motivation from Performance Appraisal Implications: Test of a theory in the Software Industry in West Bengal (India). Paper presented at the Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies Annual Research Conference (SIMSARC13).
Sato, C. E. Y. (2009). Building the Network As a Platform for Integrated Solutions and Service Innovation in the Transition to the Next Generation of Telecommunications: The Case of BT. (PhD), SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex.
Sawa, J. L., Wildaya, J., & Harteb, H. (2010). Learning organisations for major hazards and the role of the regulator. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 88(4), 236-242.
Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 132(3), 277-290.
Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement." Managing social and ethical issues in organizations. 135-177.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). What is engagement?, Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and Engagement in University Students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 464-481.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job Demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hammig, Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Amsterdam: Springer.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Rhenen, W. V. (2008). Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173-203.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126).
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. New York.
307
Selen, W. (2000). Knowledge management in resource-based competitive environments: a roadmap for building learning organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4), 346-353.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Senge, P. (2001). Comments on Illuminating the blind spot: leadership in the context of
emerging worlds. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline:
Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York, London
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (2004). The Dance of Change: The
Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations, 1999. Esther Cameron and Mike Green, Making Sense of Change Management.
Senge, P. M. (1996). Leading learning organizations: The bold, the powerful, and the invisible: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Senge, P. M., & Sterman, J. D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning: Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. European journal of operational research, 59(1), 137-150.
Serrat, O. (2010). Building a learning organization. Washington DC. Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (2006). Continuous learning in organizations: Individual,
group, and organizational perspectives: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Shalley, C., Gilson, L., & Blum, T. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength,
work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 489–505.
Shami, P. A., & Khawaja, S. H. (2006). Development of Education in Pakistan. Academy of Educational Planning and Management, 1-9.
Shand, D. (1999). Making community: Long undervalued, organizations are turning to informal cross-functional communities of practice to help them learn, remember and respond. In K. Management (Ed.).
Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators-From a brand new report on employee engagement, this six-step guide provides a structured approach to developing an engagement strategy for your. Strategic Communication Management, 9(3), 26-29.
Sheri-Lynne, L., & Singh, P. (2007). Leadership development: learning from best practices. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 444-464.
Shoaib, M., Noor, A., Tirmizi, S. R., & Bashir, S. (2009). Determinants of employee retention in telecom sector of Pakistan. Paper presented at the Proceedings 2nd CBRC, Lahore, Pakistan.
Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee Engagement: an examination of antecedent and outcome variables. Human Resource Development International, 14(1), 427-445.
308
Shuck, B., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. A. (2010). Exploring employee engagement from the employee perspective: Implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(4), 300-325.
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.
Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 29(6), 703-722.
Singhal, A. (2004). Entertainment-education as participatory theater: Freirean strategies for empowering the oppressed. In A. Singhal, M.J. Cody, E.M. Rogers, and M. Sabido (Eds.), Entertainment-education and social change: History,research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.
Smith, A. D., & Rupp, W. T. (2002). Communication and loyalty among knowledge workers: a resource of the firm theory view. Journal of knowledge management, 6(3), 250-261.
Smith, M. K. (2001). Peter Senge and the learning organization. The encyclopedia of informal education.
Smith, P. A., & Saint-Onge, H. (1996). The evolutionary organization: avoiding a titanic fate. The Learning Organization, 3(4), 4-21.
Soane, E., Truss, C., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2012). Development and application of a new measure of employee engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale. Human Resource Development International, 15(5), 529-547.
Sofo, F. (2007). Transfer of training: a case study of outsourced training for staff from Bhutan. International Journal of Training and Development, 11(2), 103-120.
Somerville, M., & McConnell-Imbriotis, A. (2004). Applying the learning organisation concept in a resource squeezed service organisation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(4), 237-248.
Somunoglu, S., Erdem, E., & Erdem, U. (2012). A Study on Determining the Perception of Learning Organisation Applications by Health Sector Workers. J Med Syst, 36(3925–3931).
Song, Jeung, & Cho, S. H. (2011). The impact of the learning organization environment on the organizational learning process in the Korean business context. Learning Organization, 18(6), 468-485.
Song, J. H., & Chermack, T. J. (2008). A theoretical approach to the organizational knowledge formation process: Integrating the concepts of individual learning and learning organization culture. Human Resource Development Review, 7(4), 424-442.
Song, J. H., Kolb, J. A., Lee, U. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012). Role of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees' work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 65-101.
Soni, B. S. (2013). Employee Engagement–A Key to Organizational Success in 21st Century. (2013), 5-11.
309
Soni, B. S. (2013). Organizational, Employee Engagement-A. Key To. "Success In 21st Century (Vol. 1). Spu, Gujarat.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of applied psychology, 88(3), 518.
Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological Detachment From Work During Leisure Time The Benefits of Mentally Disengaging From Work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114-118.
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2012). Six Sigma, organizational learning and innovation: An integration and empirical examination. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(8), 915 - 936.
Spear, G. E., & Mocker, D. W. (1984). The organizing circumstance: Environmental determinants in selfdirected learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 1-10.
Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. J. (2007). A multi-level analysis of organizational justice climate, structure, and employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33, 724-751.
Spreitzer, G. (2007). Giving peace a chance: Organizational leadership, empowerment, and peace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1077-1095.
Spreitzer, G., & Porath, C. (2012). Creating sustainable performance. Harvard Business Review, 90(1), 92-99.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 601-629.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management(23), 679−704.
Stambaugh, D. M. (1995). Creating the Learning Organization- an Essential Ingredient for Attaining customer Loyalty. CPCU Journal, 48(1), 35-49.
Stamps, D. (1997). Communities of practice: Learning is social. Training is irrelevant? Training, 34(2), 34-42.
Stander, M. W., & Rothmann, S. (2010). Psychological empowerment, job insecurity and employee engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 36(1), 1-8.
Starkey, K. (1996). How organizations learn. London: International Thomson business press.
Stata, R. (1989). Organizational Learning - The Key to Managment Innovation. Sloan Management Review, 63.
Steensma, H., & Visser, E. (2007). Procedural justice and supervisors’ personal power bases: effects on employees’ perceptions of performance appraisal sessions, commitment, and motivation~. Journal of Collective Negotiations, 31(2), 101-118.
310
Stewart. (2001). Reinterpreting the learning organisation. The Learning Organization, 8(4), 141-152.
Stewart, J. (1991). Managing change through training and development: Kogan Page Publishers.
Stickland, R. (1996). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Career self-management–can we live without it?, 5(4), 583-596.
Sudharatna, Y., & Li, L. (2004a). Learning organization characteristics contributed to its readiness-to-change: a study of the Thai mobile phone service industry. (PhD diss), The university of Adelaide Adelaide, Australia.
Sudharatna, Y., & Li, L. (2004b). Learning organization characteristics contributed to its readiness-to-change: a study of the Thai mobile phone service industry. (PhD diss).
Suharti, L., & Suliyanto, D. (2012). The Effects of Organizational Culture and Leadership Style toward Employee Engagement and Their Impacts toward Employee Loyalty. World Review of Business Research, 2(5), 128-139.
Suliman, A., & Kathairi, M. A. (2013). Organizational justice, commitment and performance in developing countries: the case of the UAE. Employee Relations, 35(1), 98-115.
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process, 118, 4–13.
Sutherland, S. L. (2004). Comparison of Canadian master's programs in public administration, public management and public policy. Canadian Public Administration, 47(3), 379-405.
Swanson, R. A. (1994). Analysis of improving performance: tools for diagnosing organizations and documenting workplace expertise San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2001). Foundations of human resource development: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers' evaluations of the "ends" and the "means": An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40.
Swierinaga, J., & Wierdsama, A. (1992). Becoming a learning organization Beyond the learning curve. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. (1992). Becoming a learning organization: Beyond the learning curve. In W. Addison-Wesley (Ed.).
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Tabatabaei, S. A. N., & Ghorbi, M. (2014). A survey on impact of dimensions of learning
organization on employees’ performance. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(9), 66.
Tahir, N., Yousafzai, I. K., Jan, S., & Hashim, M. (2014). The Impact of Training and Development on Employees Performance and Productivity A case study of United Bank Limited Peshawar City, KPK, Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(4), 86-98.
311
Taleo-Research. (2009). Alignment Drives Employee Engagement And Productivity. Tannenbaum, S. I. (1997). Enhancing continuous learning: diagnostic findings from
multiple companies. Human Resource Management International Digest, 36(4), 437-452.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments: K. Kelley.
Tansky, J., & Cohen, D. (2001). The relationship between organizational support, employee development, and organizational commitment: an empirical study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(3), 285-300.
Tarabishy, A., Solomon, G., Fernald Jr, L. W., & Sashkin, M. (2005). The entrepreneurial leader's impact on the organization's performance in dynamic markets. The Journal of private equity, 8(4), 20-29.
Taylor, M. S., Tracy, K. B., Renard, M. K., Harrison, J. K., & Carroll, S. J. (1995). Due Process in Performance Appraisal: A Quasi-Experiment in Procedural Justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 495-523.
Teare, R., & Dealtry, R. (1998). Building and Sustaining a Learning Organization. The Learning Organization, 5(1), 47-60.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31-52.
Temporal, P. (1984). Helping self-development to happen'', in Cox, C. and Beck, J. (Eds) Management Development: Advances in Practice and Theory. Manchester: Wiley.
Tews, M., John Michel, S. X., & Drost, A. (2015). Workplace fun matters… but what else? Workplace fun matters… but what else? Employee Relations: The International Journal, 37(2).
Tharenou, P. (1997). Explanations of managerial career advancement. Australian Psychologist, 32(1), 19-28.
Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74, 599-621.
Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(5), 599-621.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis: Erlbaum Associates.
Thomas, C. H. (2007). A new measurement scale for employee engagement: scale development, pilot test, and replication. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2007(1).
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.
Thomsen, H. K., and Viggo Hoest. (2001). Employees’ perception of the learning organization. Management Learning, 32(4), 469-491.
312
Thurston, J., Paul, & McNall, L. (2010). Justice perceptions of performance appraisal practices. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(3), 201-228.
Tippins, M. J., & Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745-761.
Tjepkema, S., Horst, H. M. t. M., & M. & Scheerens, J. (2000). Future Challenges for HRD Professionals in Europe, Final Report The European Commission.
Tjepkema, S., Horst, H. t., Mulder, M., & Scheerens, J. (2000). Future challenges for HRD professionals in Europe: Final report. Retrieved February, 15, 2011.
Tobin, D. (2000). All learning is self-directed. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Tobin, D. R. (1993). Re-Educating the Corporation: Foundations for the Learning Organization. Essex Junction, : Oliver Wright.
Toft, B., & Reynolds, S. (1994). Learning from Disasters, London: Butterworth. Tough, A. (1979). The Adult's Learning Projects. A Fresh Approach to Theory and
Practice in Adult Learning. Trahant, B. (2008). Six communication secrets of top-performing organizations. Public
manager, 68. Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement,
organisational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing the theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2657-2669.
Tsang, E. W. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human relations, 50(1), 73-89.
Tseng, C.-C. (2010). The Effects of Learning Organization Practices on Organizational Commitment and Effectiveness for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Taiwan. PhD Dissertation
Tseng, C.-C., & McLean, G. N. (2008). Strategic HRD practices as key factors in organizational learning. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(6), 418 - 432.
Tsoukas, H. (2004). Complex knowledge: Studies in organizational epistemology. In O. U. Press (Ed.).
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and social psychology review, 7(4), 349-361.
Tynjala, P. (2009). Connectivity and transformation in work-related learning–Theoretical foundations, Towards integration of work and learning. Springer Netherlands, 11-37.
Tyson, L. (2003). The Tyson Report on the Recruitment and Development of NonExecutive Directors. London: London Business School.
Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Glinow, M. A. V. (1993). High-impact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 52-66. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(93)90053-4
313
Vacharakiat, M. (2008). The relationships of empowerment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among Filipino and American registered nurses working in the USA. (PhD), George Mason University, Fairfax VA.
Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water: Jossey-Bass San Francisco.
Vallely, I. (1992). How Rover drives its learning message home. Works Management Journal.
Van, R., L., D., Whitman, D. S., Hart, D., & Caleo, S. (2011). Measuring employee engagement during a financial downturn: Business imperative or nuisance? Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 147-152.
Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment. Vazirani, N. (2007). Employee engagement. SIES: College of Management Studies
Working Paper Series. Velazquez, L. E., Esquer, J., Munguía, N. E., & Eraso, R. M. (2011). Sustainable learning
organizations. The Learning Organization, 18(36-44). Velsor, E. V., & Drath, W. H. (2004). A lifelong developmental perspective on leader
development. The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development, 383-414.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2003). Organizational learning and knowledge management: toward an integrative framework.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of management review, 29(2), 222-240.
Vidyarthi, P. R., Anand, S., & Liden, R. C. (2014). Do emotionally perceptive leaders motivate higher employee performance? The moderating role of task interdependence and power distance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 232–244.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees' performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Review, 36(5), 661-683.
Violet, T. H., Wong, S.-S., & Lee, C. H. (2011). A Tale of Passion: Linking Job Passion and Cognitive Engagement to Employee Work Performance. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1).
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). The Elements of Great Managing. Wallace, L., & Trinka, J. (2009). Leadership and employee engagement. Public
Management, 91(5), 10-13. Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational justice,
voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader–member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103–1126.
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2003). Organisational learning: a critical review. The Learning Organization, 10(1), 8-17.
Wang, X. (2005). Relationships among organizational learning culture, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned and privately-owned enterprises. In U. o. Minnesota (Ed.).
314
Wasti, S. E. (2013). PAKISTAN ECONOMIC SURVEY 2012-13. In G. o. P. Minitry of Finance (Ed.). Islamabad.
Watkins, & Marsick. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Watkins, & Marsick. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Partners for the Learning Organization, Warwick, RI.
Watkins, K. E., & Dirani, K. M. (2013). A meta-analysis of the dimensions of a learning organization questionnaire looking across cultures, ranks, and industries. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(2), 148-162.
Watkins, K. E., & Golembiewski, R. T. (1995). Rethinking organization development for the learning organization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(1), 86-101.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change: ERIC.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. First Edition. 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). Adult educators and the challenge of the learning organization. Adult Learning, 7(4), 18-20.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1998). Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Partners for the Learning Organization.
Watkins, R. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization. In P. f. t. L. Organization (Ed.): Partners for the Learning Organization.
Watson, Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Watson, G. W., & Papamarcos, S. D. (2002). Social capital and organizational commitment. Journal of business and psychology, 16(4), 537-552.
Webber, S. S. (2002). Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team success. Journal of management development, 21(3), 201-214.
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. New York: Trans. AM Henderson and Talcott Parsons, Oxford University Press.
Wefald, A. J., & Downey, R. G. (2009). Construct dimensionality of engagement and its relation with satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 91-112.
Weinberger, L. A. (1998). Commonly held theories of human resource development. Human Resource Development International, 1(1), 75-93.
Weiss, H. W., & Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 786-794.
Welbourne, T. M. (2007). Employee engagement: beyond the fad and into the executive suite. Leader to Leader, Spring, 45-51.
Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328-346.
315
Weldy, T. G., & Gillis, W. E. (2010). The learning organization: variations at different organizational levels. The Learning Organization, 17(5), 455-470.
West, P., & Burnes, B. (2000). Applying organizational learning: lessons from the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(10), 1236 - 1252.
Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476-487.
White, B. (2006). Employee Engagement Report 2006 In I. P. BlessingWhite, New Jersey (Ed.).
White, B. (2011). Employee engagement report. Whiteside, & Barclay, L. J. (2012). Echoes of Silence: Employee Silence as a Mediator
BetweenOverall Justice and Employee Outcomes. J Bus Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1467-3
Wildermuth, C., & Pauken, P. D. (2008). A perfect match: decoding employee engagement-Part II: engaging jobs and individuals.
Wilson, J. P. (2005). Learning and Training od Individuals and Organizaions. Woodruffe, C. (2006). The crucial importance of employee engagement. Human
Resource Management International Digest, 14(1), 3-5. Wyatt, W. (2006). Effective communication: a leading indicator of financial
performance. Wyatt, W. (2007). Bridging the Employee Engagement Gap. Xanthopoulou, D., Baker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008).
Working in the sky: a diary study on work engagement among flight attendants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 345.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational behavior, 74(3), 235-244.
Xu, J., & Thomas, H. C. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(4), 399-416.
Ya-Hui Lien, B., Yu-Yuan Hung, R., Yang, B., & Li, M. (2006). Is the learning organization a valid concept in the Taiwanese context? International Journal of Manpower, 27(2), 189-203.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 31-55.
Yang, J., Treadway, D. C., & Stepina, L. P. (2013). Justice and politics: mechanisms for the underlying relationships of role demands to employees' satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(8), 1624-1635.
Yeo, R. K. (2005). Revisiting the roots of learning organization: A synthesis of the learning organization literature. The Learning Organization, 12(4), 368-382.
Yoonjeong, K., & Sang-Il, H. (2015). Assessing the effects of learning organization characteristics in Korean non-profit organizations: Focusing on the association with perceived financial performance and employee satisfaction. International Review of Public Administration ahead-of-print, 1-17.
316
Young, S. S., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior (J. Organiz. Behav), 35, 393–412.
Zacher, H., & Winter, G. (2011). Eldercare demands, strain, and work engagement: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(3), 667-680.
Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 93–105.
Zhang, D., Zhang, Z., & yang, B. (2004). Learning organization in mainland China: Empirical research on its application to Chinese state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Training & Development, 8, 258-273.
Zhang, T., Avery, G. C., Bergsteiner, H., & More, E. (2014). The relationship between leadership paradigms and employee engagement. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1), 4-21.
Zhang, T., Gayle C. Avery, Bergsteiner, H., & More, E. (2014). The relationship between leadership paradigms and employee engagement. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1), 4-21.
Zhao, H. (2013). Turning small business interns into applicants: The mediating role of perceived justice. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 443–457.
Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business research methods. Mason: South Western.
317
Appendix I
QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION STATEMENT
I am a doctoral student at IQRA University Islamabad, intending to do research titled as “Linking Learning
Organization Practices with Employee Performance” in Learning Organization (Telecom) Context, for
which this questionnaire is being distributed. I need your insights and true/sincere opinions by filling this
questionnaire. There is no right or wrong answers to the questions presented. I am simply interested in your
true and sincere opinions. The information provided by you will be kept confidential and be used for
academic purposes only. Results will be reported in an aggregate form without individual identification.
Thank you in anticipation.
SECTION A Keeping in view your organization/supervisor/manager regarding “Continuous Learning” (CL),
Please circle the appropriate response according to the following scale.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly
Agree
LOPCL1 1 In my organization, people help each other learn. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPCL2 2 In my organization, people are rewarded for learning.
1 2 3 4 5
LOPCL3 3 In my organization, people are given time to support learning. 1 2 3 4 5
Now in answering the following questions focus on organization’s approach towards “Dialogue and
Inquiry (DI)” and circle the appropriate choice
LOPDI1 4 In my organization, people spend time building trust with each other. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPDI2 5 In my organization, people give open and honest feedback to each
other. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPDI3 6 In my organization, whenever people state their view, they also ask
what others think. 1 2 3 4 5
Again in answering the following questions focus on Organization characteristics of “Collaboration
and Team Learning (CTL)”. Circle the appropriate response.
LOPCTL1 7 In my organization, teams/groups have the freedom to adapt their
goals as needed. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPCTL2 8 In my organization, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result
of group discussion or information collected. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPCTL3 9 In my organization, teams/groups are confident that the
organization will act on their recommendations. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding the “Embedded Systems (ES)” of your organization. You
are requested to respond the relevant choice.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
LOPES1 10 My organization makes its lessons learned available to all
employees. 1 2 3 4 5
318
LOPES2 11 My organization measures the results of the time and resources
spent on training. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPES3 12 My organization creates systems to measure gaps between current
and expected performance. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding the “System Connections (SC)” (e.g. Connection with
environment). You are requested to respond the relevant choice.
LOPSC1 13 My organization works together with the outside community to
meet mutual needs. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPSC2 14 My organization encourages people to get answers from across
the organization when solving problems. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPSC3 15 My organization encourages people to think from a global
perspective. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding the practices of “Employee Empowerment (EEM)” by your
organization/employer. You are requested to respond the relevant choice.
LOPEEM1 16 My organization recognizes people for taking initiative 1 2 3 4 5
LOPEEM2 17 My organization gives people control over the resources they
need to accomplish their work 1 2 3 4 5
LOPEEM3 18 My organization supports employees who take calculated risks 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding the “Strategic Leadership (SL)” in your organization. You
are requested to respond the relevant choice.
LOPSL1 19 In my organization, leader mentors and coaches those he or she
leads. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPSL2 20 In my organization, leader continually look for opportunities to
learn. 1 2 3 4 5
LOPSL3 21 In my organization, leader ensures that the organization’s actions
are consistent with its values. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding the Employee “Emotional Engagement (EEME)” in your
organization. You are requested to respond the relevant choice.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
EEEME1 22 My own feelings are affected by how well I perform my job. 1 2 3 4 5
EEEME2 23 I really put my heart into my job. 1 2 3 4 5
EEEME3 24 I get excited when I perform well in my job. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding the Employee “Cognitive Engagement (ECE)” (e.g.
mental engagement) in your organization. You are requested to respond the relevant choice.
EECE1 25 Time passes quickly when I perform my job. 1 2 3 4 5
EECE2 26 I often think about other things when performing my job. 1 2 3 4 5
EECE3 I am rarely distracted when performing my job. 1 2 3 4 5
319
27
Below are given the statements regarding the Employee “Behavioral Engagement (EBE)” (e.g.
Physical) in your organization. You are requested to respond the relevant choice.
EEBE1 28 I stay until the job is done. 1 2 3 4 5
EEBE2 29 I exert a lot of energy performing my job. 1 2 3 4 5
EEBE3 30 I take work home to do. 1 2 3 4 5 Below are given the statements regarding “Employee Self Development” which is a characteristic of
Employee Development (ED) measures in your organization. You are requested to respond the
relevant choice.
EDSD1 31 My organization provides me with a means of developing my
skills. 1 2 3 4 5
EDSD2 32 My Organization gives me an opportunity to learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5
EDSD3 33 My organization enables me to become more proficient and
enhance my expertise. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding “Self-Directed Learning (SDL)” which is another
characteristic of Employee Development (ED) measures in your organization. You are requested to
respond the relevant choice.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
EDSDL1 34 Self-directed learning is episodic learning in my organization. 1 2 3 4 5
EDSDL2 35 In my organization, knowledge acquired independently is not
systematic and thorough enough. 1 2 3 4 5
EDSDL3 36 In my organization, Self-directed learning is spontaneous and it
occurs in all activities even without thinking about it. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding “Procedural justice (PJ)” which is a dimension of
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ) in your organization. You are requested to respond the
relevant choice.
PAPJ1 37 I have influence over the outcomes of Performance Appraisal
procedures. 1 2 3 4 5
PAPJ2 38 The procedures followed during Performance Appraisal process
have been applied consistently in my organization. 1 2 3 4 5
PAPJ3 39 The Performance Appraisal procedures are based on accurate
information. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding “Distributive justice (DJ)” which is another dimension of
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ), in your organization. You are requested to respond the
relevant choice.
PADJ1 40 The outcome of Performance Appraisal process is appropriate for
the work I completed. 1 2 3 4 5
PADJ2 41 The outcome of Performance Appraisal process is appropriate for 1 2 3 4 5
320
the work I completed.
PADJ3 42 The outcome of Performance Appraisal process is justified, given
my performance. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding “Interpersonal justice (IJ)” which is a third dimension of
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ), in your organization. You are requested to respond the
relevant choice.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
PAIJ1 43 During the Performance Appraisal meeting, my supervisor treats me
in a polite manner. 1 2 3 4 5
PAIJ2 44 My supervisor treats me with dignity during the Performance
Appraisal meeting. 1 2 3 4 5
PAIJ3 45 My supervisor refrains from improper remarks or comments. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding “Informational justice (InfoJ)” which is a third dimension
of Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ), in your organization. You are requested to respond the
relevant choice.
PAInfoJ1 46 My supervisor is candid in (his/her) communications with me. 1 2 3 4 5
PAInfoJ2 47 My supervisor explains the procedures of the Performance
Appraisal process thoroughly. 1 2 3 4 5
PAInfoJ3 48 My supervisor gives reasonable explanations regarding the
procedures. 1 2 3 4 5
Below are given the statements regarding “Employee Performance” in your organization. You are
requested to respond the relevant choice.
EP1 49 I regularly accomplish my goals. 1 2 3 4 5
EP2 50 My individual goals directly support the goals of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5
EP3 51 My work is of very high quality. 1 2 3 4 5
EP4 52 I usually finish my tasks within the expected time limit. 1 2 3 4 5
SECTION B Please tick “ ” all the relevant values applicable for you.
1. Gender: Male Female
2. Organization: Mobilink U-Fone Telenor Warid CMPak (Zong)
3. Education: F.A/F.Sc Bachelors Masters Doctoral Others
4. Designation: __________________ 5. My age is: __________________ years
6. My total experience is :__________________years
7. Email:_______________________________________
Thank you so very much.
321
Appendix II
Demographics/Respondents’ Information
322
323
324
Appendix III
Normal P-P Plot
Learning Organization Practices (LOPs)
LOPCL
LOPDI
LOPCTL
LOPES
LOPSC
LOPEEM
LOPSL
325
Employee Engagement (EE)
Employee Development (ED) AND Employee Performance
(EP)
EME
ECE
EBE
EDSD
EDSDL
326
Performance Appraisal Justice (PAJ)
PAPJ
PADJ
PAIJ
PAInfoJ
327
PAJ
EE
ED
328
Appendix IV
CFA for the dimensions used in the study
329
Appendix V
LOPs Dimensions’ Factor Loadings
Factors
Item ID Item Description CL DI CTL ES SC EE
M
SL
LOPCL1 In my organization, people help each other learn. .94 - - - - - -
LOPCL2 In my organization, people are rewarded for
learning.
.95 - - - - - -
LOPCL3 In my organization, people are given time to
support learning.
.93 - - - - - -
LOPDI1 In my organization, people spend time building
trust with each other.
- .88 - - - - -
LOPDI2 In my organization, people give open and honest
feedback to each other.
- .87 - - - - -
LOPDI3 In my organization, whenever people state their
view, they also ask what others think.
- .83 - - - - -
LOPCTL1 In my organization, teams/groups have the
freedom to adapt their goals as needed.
- - .84 - - - -
LOPCTL2 In my organization, teams/groups revise their
thinking as a result of group discussion or
information collected.
- - .88 - - - -
LOPCTL3 In my organization, teams/groups are confident
that the organization will act on their
recommendations.
- - .81 - - - -
LOPES1 My organization makes its lessons learned
available to all employees.
- - - .84 - - -
LOPES2 My organization measures the results of the time
and resources spent on training.
- - .30 .78 - - -
LOPES3 My organization creates systems to measure gaps
between current and expected performance.
- - - .83 - - -
LOPSC1 My organization works together with the outside
community to meet mutual needs.
- - - - .76 - -
LOPSC2 My organization encourages people to get
answers from across the organization when
solving problems.
- - .325 - .78 - -
LOPSC3 My organization encourages people to think from
a global perspective.
- - - .34 .73 - -
LOPEEM
1
My organization recognizes people for taking
initiative
- - - - - .81 -
LOPEEM
2
My organization gives people control over the
resources they need to accomplish their work
- - - - - .87 -
LOPEEM
3
My organization supports employees who take
calculated risks
- - - - - .88 -
LOPSL1 In my organization, leader mentors and coaches
those he or she leads.
- - - - .32 - .69
LOPSL2 In my organization, leader continually look for
opportunities to learn.
- - - - - - .88
330
LOPSL3 In my organization, leader ensures that the
organization’s actions are consistent with its
values.
- - - - - - .76
Eigenvalues 5.92 2.81 2.3 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.0
% of Variance 28.1 13.4 11.0 8.7 8.2 6.4 4.7
Cumulative % 28.1 41.6 52.6 61.4 69.7 76.1 80.9
Table: 9. Note: All the Items of LOPs resulted in loadings > .40.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) of Sampling Adequacy is .778
CL - Continuous Learning; D&I - Dialogue and Inquiry; CTL - Collaboration and Team Learning, ES-
Embedded Systems, SC - System Connections, EEM - Employee Empowerment and SL - Strategic
Leadership
EE Dimensions’ Factor Loadings
Factor
Item ID Item Description EEEME EECE EEBE
EEME1 My own feelings are affected by how well I perform my job. .78 - -
EEME2 I really put my heart into my job. .83 - -
EEME3 I get excited when I perform well in my job. .85 - -
ECE1 Time passes quickly when I perform my job. - .86 -
ECE2 I often think about other things when performing my job. - .80 -
ECE3 I am rarely distracted when performing my job. - .79 -
EBE1 I stay until the job is done. - - .83
EBE2 I exert a lot of energy performing my job. - - .81
EBE3 I take work home to do. - - .70
Eigenvalues 2.65 2.02 1.48
% of Variance 29.4 22.4 16.4
Cumulative % 29.4 51.9 68.4
Table: 10.
Note: Items with loadings < .40 have been removed.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) of Sampling Adequacy is .778
EEEME - Emotional Engagement; EECE - Cognitive Engagement; EEBE - Behavioral Engagement
Table: 10b.
Factor loading with removed items < .4
Communalities
Initial Extraction
EEEME1 1.000 .689
EEEME2 1.000 .690
EEEME3 1.000 .741
EEEME4_Excluded 1.000 .291
EECE1 1.000 .650
EECE2 1.000 .687
EECE3 1.000 .677
331
EECE4_Excluded 1.000 .235
EEBE1 1.000 .617
EEBE2 1.000 .630
EEBE3 1.000 .569
EEBE4_Excluded 1.000 .374
EEBE5_Excluded 1.000 .249
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
ED Dimensions’ Factor Loadings
Item ID Item Description EDSD EDSDL
EDSD1 My organization provides me with a means of developing my skills. .78 -
EDSD2 My Organization gives me an opportunity to learn new things. .81 -
EDSD3 My organization enables me to become more proficient and enhance my
expertise.
.79 -
EDSDL1 Self-directed learning is episodic learning in my organization. - .79
EDSDL2 In my organization, knowledge acquired independently is not systematic
and thorough enough.
- .77
EDSDL3 In my organization, Self-directed learning is spontaneous and it occurs in all
activities even without thinking about it.
- .80
Eigenvalues 2.01 1.79
% of Variance 33.5 29.8
Cumulative % 33.5 63.3
Table: 11.
Note: Items with loadings < .40 have been removed.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) of Sampling Adequacy is .623
EDSD - Employee Self Development; EDSDL - Self-Directed Learning
Table: 11b.
Factor loading with removed items < .4
Communalities
Initial Extraction
EDSD1 1.000 .638
EDSD2 1.000 .605
EDSD3 1.000 .669
EDSDL1 1.000 .513
EDSDL2 1.000 .911
EDSDL3 1.000 .909
EDSDL4_Excluded 1.000 .237
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
PAJ Dimensions’ Factor Loadings
332
Factor
Item ID Item Description PAPJ PADJ PAIJ PAInfoJ
PAPJ1 I have influence over the outcomes of Performance
Appraisal procedures.
.76 - - -
PAPJ2 The procedures followed during Performance
Appraisal process have been applied consistently in
my organization.
.72 - - -
PAPJ3 The Performance Appraisal procedures are based on
accurate information.
.77 - - -
PADJ1 The outcome of Performance Appraisal process is
appropriate for the work I completed.
- .86 - -
PADJ2 The outcome of Performance Appraisal process is
appropriate for the work I completed.
- .79 - -
PADJ3 The outcome of Performance Appraisal process is
justified, given my performance.
- .81 - -
PAIJ1 During the Performance Appraisal meeting, my
supervisor treats me in a polite manner.
- - .80 -
PAIJ2 My supervisor treats me with dignity during the
Performance Appraisal meeting.
- - .83 -
PAIJ3 My supervisor refrains from improper remarks or
comments.
- - .69 -
PAInfoJ1 My supervisor is candid in (his/her) communications
with me.
- - - .44
PAInfoJ2 My supervisor explains the procedures of the
Performance Appraisal process thoroughly.
- - - .78
PAInfoJ3 My supervisor gives reasonable explanations
regarding the procedures.
- - - .80
Eigenvalues 3.78 1.81 1.5 1.1
% of Variance 31.5 15.1 12.74 9.17
Cumulative % 31.5 46.6 59.4 68.5
Table: 12.
Note: Items with loadings < .40 have been removed.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) of Sampling Adequacy is .70
PAPJ – Procedural justice; PADJ - Distributive justice: PAIJ - Interpersonal justice; PAInfoJ -
Informational justice
Table: 12b.
Factor loading with removed items < .4
Communalities
Initial Extraction
EPAPJ1 1.000 .589
EPAPJ2 1.000 .623
EPAPJ3 1.000 .671
PAPJ4_Excluded 1.000 .171
PAPJ5_Excluded 1.000 .137
EPADJ1 1.000 .794
EPADJ2 1.000 .626
333
EPADJ3 1.000 .739
EPAIJ1 1.000 .651
EPAIJ2 1.000 .730
EPAIJ3 1.000 .533
PAIJ4_Excluded 1.000 .307
PAInfo1 1.000 .594
PAInfo2 1.000 .683
PAInfo3 1.000 .721
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
EP ’s Factor Loadings Factor
Item ID Item Description EP
EP1 I regularly accomplish my goals. .866
EP2 My individual goals directly support the goals of the organization. .805
EP3 My work is of very high quality. .811
EP4 I usually finish my tasks within the expected time limit. .766
Eigenvalues 2.78
% of Variance 14.64
Cumulative % 39.71
Table: 13. Note: Items with loadings < .40 have been removed.
EP – Employee Performance
Table: 13b.
Factor loading with removed items < .4
Communalities
Initial Extraction
EEP1 1.000 .706
EEP2 1.000 .628
EEP3 1.000 .665
EEP4 1.000 .565
EP5_Excluded 1.000 .320
EP6_Excluded 1.000 .059
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
334
Appendix VI
Measurement and Path Model fit indicators (Details)
Fit Indices for the Measurement Models of the Five Scales
CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
Default model 79 561.916 160 .000 3.512
Saturated model 230 .000 0
Independence model 40 4940.024 190 .000 26.000
Baseline Comparisons
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2 CFI
Default model .886 .865 .916 .900 .915
Saturated model 1.000
1.000
1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Parsimony-Adjusted Measures
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI
Default model .842 .746 .771
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1.000 .000 .000
NCP
Model NCP LO 90 HI 90
Default model 401.916 333.452 477.966
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 4750.024 4524.565 4982.725
FMIN
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Default model .458 .328 .272 .390
335
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000
Independence model 4.026 3.871 3.688 4.061
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model .045 .041 .049 .972
Independence model .143 .139 .146 .000
AIC
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Default model 719.916 722.668
Saturated model 460.000 468.010
Independence model 5020.024 5021.417
ECVI
Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
Default model .587 .531 .649 .589
Saturated model .375 .375 .375 .381
Independence model 4.091 3.908 4.281 4.092
HOELTER
Model HOELTER
.05
HOELTER
.01
Default model 417 447
Independence model 56 60
Fit Indices for the Path Models of the Five Scales
CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
Default model 25 10.094 2 .006 5.047
Saturated model 27 .000 0
Independence model 12 8474.267 15 .000 564.951
336
Baseline Comparisons
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2 CFI
Default model .999 .991 .999 .993 .999
Saturated model 1.000
1.000
1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Parsimony-Adjusted Measures
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI
Default model .133 .133 .133
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1.000 .000 .000
NCP
Model NCP LO 90 HI 90
Default model 8.094 1.646 22.012
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 8459.267 8159.713 8765.099
FMIN
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Default model .008 .007 .001 .018
Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000
Independence model 6.906 6.894 6.650 7.144
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model .057 .026 .095 .302
Independence model .678 .666 .690 .000
AIC
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Default model 60.094 60.381
Saturated model 54.000 54.310
337
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Independence model 8498.267 8498.405
ECVI
Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
Default model .049 .044 .060 .049
Saturated model .044 .044 .044 .044
Independence model 6.926 6.682 7.175 6.926
HOELTER
Model HOELTER
.05
HOELTER
.01
Default model 729 1120
Independence model 4 5
