The Learning Organization

Creating learning organizations in higher education: applying a systems perspective

Hong Bui Yehuda Baruch

Article information:

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

To cite this document:

Hong Bui Yehuda Baruch, (2010),"Creating learning organizations in higher education: applying a systems
perspective", The Learning Organization, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 228 - 242
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471011034928
Downloaded on: 03 December 2014, At: 05:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 127 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1972 times since 2010*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Hong Bui, Yehuda Baruch, (2010),"Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective", The Learning
Organization, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 208-227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471011034919
Judith Kearney, Ortrun Zuber#Skerritt, (2012),"From learning organization to learning community:
Sustainability through lifelong learning", The Learning Organization, Vol. 19 Iss 5 pp. 400-413 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696471211239703
Anders rtenblad, Riina Koris, (2014),"Is the learning organization idea relevant to higher educational
institutions? A literature review and a multi-stakeholder contingency approach", International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. 173-214 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2013-0010

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540740 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-6474.htm

TLO
17,3

Creating learning organizations in

higher education: applying a
systems perspective

228

Hong Bui
Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Hanoi, Vietnam, and

Yehuda Baruch
Norwich Business School, UEA, Norwich, UK
Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer an application of a system model for Senges five
disciplines in higher education (HE) institutions.
Design/methodology/approach The paper utilizes a conceptual framework for the analysis of
antecedents and outcomes of Senges five disciplines, focusing on specific factors unique to the HE
sector.
Findings The explication of the model manifests its relevance and applicability for the HE sector: it
represent how universities operate as learning organizations and posits the anticipated interactions
among specific constructs associated with Senges five disciplines within the HE sector.
Practical implications The paper manifests a causal model that links variables in the learning
organization, a perspective that would be instrumental for HE institutions to achieve competitive
advantage.
Originality/value The paper provides added value both for academics and executives interested
in the analysis of the complexity of Senges five disciplines for HE institutions.
Keywords Higher education, Systems theory, Learning organizations
Paper type Conceptual paper

The Learning Organization

Vol. 17 No. 3, 2010
pp. 228-242
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-6474
DOI 10.1108/09696471011034928

Introduction
In the previous paper (Bui and Baruch, 2010), we have developed a detailed model of
learning organization (LO) based on Senges (1990, 2006) theoretical framework. The
model comprised of a set of antecedents, moderators and outcomes (Bui and Baruch,
2010). Our purpose was to develop a versatile LO model, which will be relevant and
applicable for various sectors and industries.
In this paper, we critically examine the fit of the general LO model (Hereafter,
referred to as Bui and Baruchs (2010) model) to the HE sector. As shown in Bui and
Baruchs (2010) model, the five disciplines can be carefully examined with a set of
antecedents, moderators and outcomes. In the first part of this paper we highlight the
importance and relevance of the model in the HE context. The main focus of the second
part is to explicate how the model may be tested in actual life settings within the HE
sector. For each discipline we offer possible tools to test the model in HE or in areas
relevant to HE. Such an explication opens the ground for further application of the
model in various sectors, and is presented as an example.
The authors thank the Editor, Professor Deborah Blackman and the four reviewers for their
great contribution and support in revising the manuscript.

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

Like any other sector, the HE is under increasing pressure to improve

competitiveness. The competition is getting more severe within and across national
borders (Marginson, 2007). The global phenomenon of a brain drain stems from such
competition. However, some have pointed out that phenomenon may turn into a brain
circulation (Carr et al., 2005). Management needs to cope with fast social, economic
and political transitions that place demands on the system and its employees. The
western HE sector is enjoying a lucrative market, but the situation may be on a change
track, as many developing countries are catching up and setting up their own high
quality HE system (for example, see Altbach and Selvaratnam, 1989; Marginson, 2007).
Studying HE with regards to Senges learning organization (LO) model, Franklin
et al. conclude that universities are distinctively privileged to explore, apply and
advance the concept of a learning organization in their own ways (Franklin et al., 1998).
At the same time, academic institutions are encouraged to adopt a systems perspective,
to develop strategies and routines for achieving organizational learning (Askling et al.,
2004). Universities may create cross-sectoral alliances, developing more forms of
cooperation with non-university sectors to cope with an increasingly demand-driven
competitive education market (Patterson, 1999). From Senges model it is implied that
in order to succeed, universities must become learning organizations that both learn
and foster learning.
White and Weathersby (2005) list a number of obstacles that may prevent universities
from becoming learning organizations. These include conundrums of strategy, structure
and culture, as well as academic culture clashes (White and Weathersby, 2005). Dill
emphasizes the need for accountability for universities in order to fulfill their aims (Dill,
1999). These are relevant at different levels, for example, academic leadership ought to be
considered a process of social interaction in guiding individuals and groups towards
particular goals (Middlehurst, 1999). Successful application of Senges model was
manifested in changing teacher education and professional development into an institute
for teaching and learning (Reynolds et al., 2006).
Having identified this trend, Bui and Baruchs (2010) model may be instrumental to
HE institutions. The model offers a set of clear antecedents and moderators of the five
disciplines in a systematic approach, from individual level (personal mastery) to team
level (team learning), and organizational level (shared vision). Mental model and
systems thinking cover all these three levels. The aim of this paper is to manifest that
the model is feasible for implementation and is applicable to HE. Further, we will
indicate how the model may be tested in HE.
Testing the LO model in HE
In this section we explain the antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of the five
disciplines that are depicted in Bui and Baruchs model for the specific context of HE
settings. We investigate what we consider to be the main possible antecedents,
moderators, and outcomes of the five disciplines, and for each articulate their relevance
for the HE sector. This relevance may be general, similar to many other sectors, or
unique to the HE sector. We also point out possible constructs and their measurement,
while bearing in mind the difficulty in identifying quantitative constructs for the five
disciplines themselves.
The use of quantitative constructs in testing Senges model is relatively rare, in
particular for the HE context. We are only aware of such quantitative testing of Senges

Creating learning
organizations
in HE
229

TLO
17,3

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

230

model in a banking corporation context (Kiedrowski, 2006) and supermarkets (Reed,

2001). Kiedrowski (2006) findings suggest that Senges LO intervention does not lead to
an improve employee satisfaction. However, evidence provided in that study is rather
slim, as the quantitative data rely on merely seven items for the evaluation of the five
disciplines. Reed (2001) employed quantitative data in his pilot test, yet, covering only
four of the five disciplines (excluding mental models). The above manifests the acute
need for rigorous quantitative research to study Senges LO from a variety of
perspectives.
In the following section we explore the antecedents, outcomes and moderators we
suggested for all the five disciplines, as well as the five disciplines themselves. It
follows the approach as presented in Bui and Baruchs (2010) within the context of
education in general, and higher education in particular.
Antecedents
Personal values were suggested as the first antecedent for personal mastery and
shared vision in Bui and Baruchs (2010) newly-developed LO model. The impact of
values is thought to be of special relevance in educational systems (Haydon, 1997).
Educators are regarded as moral guides and exemplars, whose standards are expected
to be a little above the level of the rest of society (Haydon, 1997, p. 5). People who
aspire to reach personal development may play a significant role in an organization
striving to become a learning organization.
Academics are generally highly individualistic in their work (White and
Weathersby, 2005). They may become those whose primary role is to generate and
transfer knowledge to learners. Universities expect academic staff to develop new
knowledge and publish it in order to share it with a wider audience in the academic
world (Baruch and Hall, 2004; Caplow and McGee, 1958; Taylor, 1999). This personal
attribute of eagerness to widen the boundaries of knowledge is critical for academic
scholars.
Second, motivation was offered as an antecedent for personal mastery and shared
vision. Motivation research has long roots in scholarly work (Deci, 1975; Maslow, 1970;
Siebold, 1994), as well as in educational settings (Miskel, 1973; Pintrich and Schunk,
2002; Vallerand et al., 1992). Most of the work on motivation in educational settings
comprises of studies relating to student motivation rather than to staff motivation.
Nevertheless, Knight et al. (2006) found that personal and professional development is
undertaken in HE partly because of high extrinsic and intrinsic motives of academic
staff. We also recommend looking at this domain outside HE studies, e.g. in
management, organizational behavior, and psychology (Kanfer and Ackerman, 2000;
Osteraker, 1999) to generate a deeper insight of staff motivation, which may be
applicable into HE.
The third suggested antecedent for personal mastery is individual learning.
Academic scholars are highly qualified in terms of formal education, however, much of
their post-degree learning is informal (Knight et al., 2006), and may occur via
conferences, working with PhD students, self learning, learning at work and learning
through peers (Baruch and Hall, 2004). Culture may also have an impact, as individual
learning is under-practiced in Far Eastern academic institutions (Xiaozhou, 2001,
p. 313), and inconsistent in implementation in the West (Rolling-Magnusson, 2001). We
argue that individual learning within academia needs more research, and developing a

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

valid and reliable construct for its measurement would be an important step in this
direction.
Fourth, personal vision is another antecedent for personal mastery and shared
vision. There is an increased confidence in staffs personal vision when universities
develop as learning organizations (Smith, 2003; Wheeler, 2002). If people have the right
personal values, are motivated to work in HE and are committed to life-long learning,
they are likely to acquire personal vision (Senge et al., 1994). This construct needs a
measure to be developed as well.
Next, development and training is an antecedent for personal mastery and team
learning. Universities support staff through various development and training
programs, as training leads to a significant impact on performance at the individual
(Becker, 1965) and the organizational levels (Tharenou et al., 2007). Many countries HE
systems make development and training a top priority (Blackmore and Castley, 2005;
Dalin, 1998; Maslen, 1992). Professional development will benefit from development
and training when these are carried out effectively (Blackmore and Castley, 2005).
Team-skills training to enhance team learning is also paid attention to (Clark, 2002;
Prichard et al., 2006).
Organizational commitment is considered a major construct in behavioral and
management studies (Cohen, 2003), and here it is offered as an antecedent for mental
models. Universities as LOs encourage people, especially researchers, to take risks and
challenge their mental models, as they can be the precursors to innovation and
creation. Research on the commitment of employees in HE has been labeled as
immature when compared with related research focusing on commitment in other
occupations (Park et al., 2005, p. 463). Nevertheless, despite reported increases in
workloads across time, academic staff remain committed to their chosen career and to
the success of their university (Houston et al., 2006, p. 27). There is a danger with
certain kinds of loyal employment in HE that once being granted tenure, many staff
are more likely to act independently rather than interdependently and are usually less
mobile (Freed, 2001, p. 18).
Connected to organizational commitment is team commitment, and thus also
suggested as an antecedent for team learning. Research outside HE shows this relation
(Bui and Baruch, 2010), though we did not find studies on HE team commitment.
However, Park et al. (2005) found that teamwork makes teachers more committed. Once
people are committed to team learning, they will set clear goals for the team and
themselves.
Leadership can be considered an antecedent for mental models, team learning,
shared vision and systems thinking. If universities desire to create meaningful change,
they must challenge traditional mental models (Isaacson and Bamburg, 1992). For a
long time, HE has been regarded as the privatization of teaching (Palmer, 1993, p. 6),
learning has been viewed as the acquisition of knowledge, and students as passive
receivers of instruction. Such mental models prevent universities from learning (Senge
cited in Bell and Harrison, 1998; ONeil, 1995). Thus, leaders should pioneer challenging
these traditional mental models, replacing the teacher-focused model by the
learner-focused one (Banathy, 1999).
In HE, the way that universities are organized into disciplines may create the false
impression that the real world is divided into fragmented parts (Vo et al., 2006, p. 109).
Thus, leaders must realize that education is a thinking system composed of parts with

Creating learning
organizations
in HE
231

TLO
17,3

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

232

free will and minds of educators (Waldman and Schargel, 2006, p. 127). Leadership [in
education] is about culture building that allows educators, students and parents to be a
part of a team that learn together (Sackney and Walker, 2006, p. 355). The reasons can
be explained by understanding that leaders in education (as well as in many other
sectors) tend to be good designers and teachers, but less so in being good stewards
(Gudz, 2004; Tsai and Beverton, 2007). Most of the literature on effective leadership in
HE has tended to focus on transformational leaders (Breakwell and Tytherleigh, 2008).
Like leadership, organizational culture is an antecedent for mental models, team
learning, shared vision and systems thinking. The culture of universities is
distinctively different to other sectors, because academics are generally highly
individualistic in their work (White and Weathersby, 2005). Sharing vision and mental
models are expected to be more effective in universities that are embedded in a high
societal collectivism and future orientation culture (Alavi and McCormmick, 2004).
Though universities do not often have a good reputation of team learning and working,
there is a rapid change at universities across the world, particularly at
research-oriented universities. Studies on the association between organizational
culture and LO are scarce in the HE, thus more studies will be conducted, especially
within the knowledge economy.
Four different academic culture archetypes that reflect any higher education
institution should also be mentioned. They are collegial culture, managerial culture,
developmental culture, and negotiating culture (Bergquist, 1992). The theory has been
tested to find out that cultural archetypes and unique institutional cultures should be
taken into account when analyzing culture-related factors (Kezar and Eckel, 2002).
Goal setting is another major managerial tool, well established and validated (Locke
and Latham, 1984, 1990). Here we add it as an antecedent for team learning. Ivancevich
and McMahon found that the more educated the staff are, the more participative and
effective their goal setting process is (Ivancevich and McMahon, 1977). This is likely to
be the scenario within the HE, where recruitment aims at having highly qualified and
well educated people due to the nature of the role.
Finally, competence is an antecedent for systems thinking. Competence is an
underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective or superior performance
in a job or role (Boyatzis, 1982). Within academia it is important to evaluate not merely
the competence of students, but of staff as well (Otter, 1995).
Outcomes
We consider individual performance and success as the first outcome of personal
mastery and shared vision. Though no research has shown better individual
performance and success are direct outcomes of personal mastery and shared vision,
competent employees often perform better than those who are incompetent (Bloisi et al.,
2007). Measuring performance and defining success in a HE context is often more
complex and multi-dimensional than in a conventional business context (Woodfield
and Kennie, 2008). In HE there are at least three different types of individual
performance that need to be measured: performance for administration staff, and
teaching performance and research performance for academic staff. Teaching and
research are evaluated differently in different types of universities. Performance of
tenured and non-tenured professionals also differ (Emmerik and Sander, 2004).

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

Self-efficacy is suggested as another outcome of personal mastery. People with a

high educational background tend to build up individual self-confidence and
self-efficacy (Baruch et al., 2005; Baruch and Peiperl, 2000). This seems obvious as HE
recruit the most highly qualified staff, especially academic staff.
Work-life balance is another proposed outcome of personal mastery. Personal
mastery can create a balanced work and home life (Baruch, 2004; Doherty and
Manfredi, 2006; Johnson, 2006). With many teachers finding a balance between family
life and personal development is a challenge (Dalin, 1998; Derr, 1986; Ozbilgin and
Healy, 2004).
Knowledge sharing is suggested as an outcome of mental models and team learning.
Few research findings show the direct link between mental models, team learning and
knowledge sharing, particularly in HE. Studies outside HE indicate the relations between
mental model and team learnings antecedents and knowledge sharing such as
organizational commitment, leadership, and development and training (Cabrera et al.,
2006; Han and Anantatmula, 2007; Kang et al., 2008). In HE, scholars develop knowledge
via study and research, and by sharing it with the internal and wider scholarly
community. Knowledge, then, will spread beyond universities boundaries (e.g. to
industry) as an inevitable process of sharing mental models and team learning. Current
educational inspiration call to challenge the traditional mental models where lecturers
takes on a dominant role and the students remain passive (Barker et al., 1998; Marginson,
2007), and the utilization of advanced technology (Means et al., 1997; Rogers, 2000).
Moving from the individual level to aggregate levels of team and organization, we
propose that a better team performance is an outcome of mental models and team
learning. In business, or the military, team performance is improved significantly by
team learning and shared mental models (Chan et al., 2003; Gurtner et al., 2007). Despite
this, team performance in HE has not been studied carefully, except student teamwork
(Johnson, 1998; Millis and Cottell, 1997). Woodfield and Kennie conducted a large scale
study on top management teams in HE (Kennie and Woodfield, 2008; Woodfield and
Kennie, 2007, 2008). They find that team performance gets the benefits from team
commitment, development and training, organizational culture, and leadership, which
are antecedents of mental models and team learning in the model.
Organizational success is an outcome of shared vision and systems thinking. As
mentioned before, it is complex to measure HE organizational performance and
success. In addition, there is a controversial debate on whether universities are
for-profit organizations or non-profit ones (Hansmann, 1987; Morey, 2004). Thus, in
order to measure it properly, it should be made clear that certain universities are for
profit or non-profit because one dimension which may become very important to
indicate success is financial performance. Other organizational performance indicators
are efficiency-productivity, growth and/or market share, and quality (Baruch and
Ramalho, 2006).
Strategic planning for and in HE has attracted attention from scholars as well as
from practitioners. Some provide a model for strategic planning process (Kotler and
Murphy, 1981). The process starts from environmental and resource analyses to goal
formulation, then to strategy formulation, after that to organization design which
finally lead to systems design (Kotler and Murphy, 1981). Others examined strategic
planning from the perspective of the customers of HE (Conway et al., 1994). Strategic
planning was also considered under specific national contexts (Ogasawara, 2002;

Creating learning
organizations
in HE
233

TLO
17,3

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

234

Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis, 2002). A meta-analysis conducted in educational context

have identified positive relationship between systems thinking and strategic planning
(Anderson et al., 2006).
The five disciplines
The first discipline is personal mastery. Freidson views scholars and scientists as
among those occupations that resemble an ideal model of professionalism (Freidson,
1994). Academics own many qualities of personal mastery (Kolsaker, 2008). The
reasons may be that they are often well-qualified and have a clear sense of direction for
their career development.
The second discipline is mental models. The development of mental models is the
underlying driving force that forms the basis for all teaching and learning activities
(Barker et al., 1998, p. 310). In education in general, HE in particular, there is a
significant challenge of changing from teacher-centered mental models to
learner-centered mental models. The models related to teaching that a teacher has
must be for and fit with the models that students have about learning (Barker et al.,
1998).
The third one is team learning. Team learning studies in HE mainly focus on either
students (Fiechtner and Davis, 1992; Karp and Yoels, 1987; Rassuli and Manzer, 2005),
or top management (Bensimon and Neumann, 1993; Katzenbach, 1998; Woodfield and
Kennie, 2008), not many focus on staff team learning. This shows the fact that team
learning is a real challenge for HE:
Academics recognize no boss, choosing to see themselves as individual entrepreneurs, albeit
on a steady salary. Like rich peasants, they till their own patch but display little desire for
collective action and little interest in the large university, to which they are limply attached
. . . (Dearlove, 2002, p. 267).

The next discipline is shared vision. In HE, to obtain their own shared vision,
universities should aim to mobilize the hearts and minds of all their staff. Until
educators can describe the ideal school they are trying to create, it is impossible to
develop policies, procedures, or programs that will help make that ideal a reality
(Dufour and Eaker, 1998, p. 64).
The fifth discipline, the overarching one, is systems thinking. Despite the findings
that systems thinking is a missing component in HE planning (Galbraith, 1999), some
other scholars confirm that it has been applied successfully into HE in some countries
(Austin, 2000; Wright, 1999). Practitioners and scholars come to a conclusion that
becoming a learning organization requires a change in organizational culture
throughout long-term commitment (Garvin, 2000; Lei et al., 1999). Systems thinking
can help administrative and teaching staff to better understand the dynamic
relationships among various components of educational systems (Betts, 1992).
In addition, there is a trend in HE to create interdisciplinary courses to match needs
and preferences of prospective students (Gurtner et al., 2007; Petrina, 1998; Stengers et al.,
2000). This trend helps those in HE set up teamwork and team learning more easily. An
and Reigeluth state that interdisciplinary teams have the potential to facilitate
organizational learning by fostering team learning, knowledge sharing, and systems
thinking and by creating a change-friendly culture (An and Reigeluth, 2005, p. 37).

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

Moderators
HR policies are suggested the first moderator for personal mastery and systems
thinking. Universities policies play an important role in promoting personal
development. However, many universities still do not invest sufficiently in staff
development activities (Din and Shanmugam, 1999; Garavan et al., 1999).
Consequently, when the universities wish to restructure they may lack competent
human resources to deal with the proposed changes.
Universities have certain control over policies regarding personal development.
Universities invest substantially in staff development, for example, in training for new
technologies (Ellis and Phelps, 2000). Staff of research universities have more
opportunities to learn and reflect than in purely teaching universities (Taylor, 1999).
The former are more likely to have the elements available to allow their roles to
develop: singularity of purpose, time, resources, contacts and relationships with others
in similar exploratory fields. These elements can be then brought into the practice of
teaching students, whereas in institutions without research facilities, the knowledge is
passed on by staff who seem to have fewer chances to learn and reflect. This is
particularly true in countries where mass-graduation prevails (World-Bank, 2000).
Many organizations provide systems thinking training for their staff to improve the
quality of their performance, including within the HE sector (Austin, 2000).
We believe that size (university size on this case) is an important is a moderator for
shared vision. The ability to gain shared vision is subjected to size the larger the
organization, the more complex and difficult it is to reach and maintain a shared vision
(Hage, 1980) while small organizations have more flexibility and ability to adjust and
adapt a shared vision (Nord and Tucker, 1987). In other words, size would mean that
the associations discussed above will be weaker in large institutions and stronger for
small ones.
Sector is another moderator for personal mastery and shared vision. Universities
sector affiliation can also produce side effects to the types of associations between the
antecedents, the five disciplines, and the outcomes. The private sector is likely to
consider profit as its first priority, whereas universities in the public sector may be
subjected to a higher level of regulations. Private universities would probably have
better outcomes in terms of profitability, whereas the public sector might have over
administration and bureaucracy in place (Farnham, 1999). On the other hand, the
literature also suggests that the distinction between private and public universities is
diminishing as public universities model themselves on private enterprise, competing
for students and funds (Pusser and Doane, 2001).
Communication systems are a moderator for mental models, team learning and
shared vision. Knowledge sharing requires appropriate communication systems
(Cabrera et al., 2006; Kang et al., 2008). With the aid of technology, universities can
create effective and efficient communication systems, producing a new mental model of
e-communication, via which they can share their mental models, i.e. share their ideas,
experience, and their vision.
Supportive learning environment is another possible moderator for mental models
and team learning. A supportive learning environment encourages professional
learning in HE (Merrienboer and Paas, 2003; Roberts et al., 2007). Other environments
tend not to do so, and people become stuck and professionally obsolescent (Knight,
1998). Supportive environments are also found to affect knowledge sharing (Cabrera

Creating learning
organizations
in HE
235

TLO
17,3

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

236

et al., 2006). Belsheim describes learning environments within HE education settings in

terms of culture, politics, economics, technological know-how, and geographical areas
served (Belsheim, 1988). Psychosocial environment (Fraser and Treagust, 1986), or
attempt to build more effective learning environments (Hiemstra, 1991a, b).
Discussion and conclusions
In this conceptual paper, which follows the general systemic presentation of Senges
five disciplines (Bui and Baruch, 2010), we offer a methodological approach to
interpret, test and evaluate the model of LO within the HE environment. We focus on
the specific set of antecedents and outcomes of Senges five disciplines, as prevail in the
HE sector, manifesting the relevance of the model to this sector.
We believe that learning from this model would be instrumental for the leadership
of HE institutions in achieving competitive advantage over other players, at national
and global levels. The academic sector is one that grows steadily and this growth is set
to continue (Blaxter et al., 1998). There is an increasing demand for education,
prompted by both industry and governments, especially due to the current world
economic crisis, as they understand that a knowledge economy is a key factor in
restoring world markets, and setting a new foundation for growth. Improving its
competitiveness by making it a fertile ground for the LO concept is plausible.
Managerial implications for leaders of HE institutions relate to the realization of the
requirements of effectively developing their HE organizations as LOs. With the
provided framework, managers can even test the degree to which their organizations
can be LOs; or what else should be done to become LOs.
Theoretically, this model can serve as an anchor for scholars interested in
conducting research into universities, colleges and other HE institutions as LOs.
Though LOs in HE has been studied, its theorizing has not been synthesized
systematically. With appropriate methodologies and wise translation of relevant
constructs into measurable variables, further studies can be conducted, utilizing
Senges systems thinking perspective.
References
Alavi, S.B. and McCormmick, J. (2004), A cross-cultural analysis of the effectiveness of the
learning organization model in school contexts, The International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 18 Nos 6/7, pp. 408-16.
Altbach, P.G. and Selvaratnam, V. (1989), From Dependence to Autonomy. The Development of
Asian Universities, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
An, Y.-Y. and Reigeluth, C.M. (2005), A study of organizational learning at Smalltown hospital,
Performance Improvement, Vol. 44 No. 10, pp. 34-9.
Anderson, D.F., Bryson, J.M., Richardson, G.P., Ackermann, F., Eden, C. and Finn, C.B. (2006),
Integrating modes of systems thinking into strategic planning and practice: thinking
persons institute approach, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 265-94.
Askling, B., Lycke, K.H. and Stave, O. (2004), Institutional leadership and leeway important
elements in a national system of quality assurance and accreditation: experience from a
pilot study, Tertiary Education & Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 107-20.
Austin, W.J. (2000), A Heterarchical Systems Thinking Approach to the Development of Individual
Planning and Evaluation to Synergize Strategic Planning in Higher Education Practice,
Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Banathy, B.H. (1999), Systems thinking in higher education: learning comes to focus, Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 133-45.
Barker, P., Schaik, P.V. and Hudson, S. (1998), Mental models and lifelong learning, Innovations
in Education and Training International, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 310-8.

Creating learning
organizations
in HE

Baruch, Y. (2004), Managing Careers, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.

Baruch, Y. and Hall, D.T. (2004), The academic career: a model for future careers in other
sectors?, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 2004, pp. 241-62.
Baruch, Y. and Peiperl, M.A. (2000), The impact of an MBA on graduates career, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 60-90.

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

Baruch, Y. and Ramalho, N. (2006), Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of

organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors,
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 39-65.
Baruch, Y., Bell, M.P. and Gray, D. (2005), Generalist and specialist graduate business degrees:
tangible and intangible value, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67, pp. 51-68.
Becker, G.S. (1965), Human Capital, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, NY.
Bell, J. and Harrison, B.T. (1998), Leading People: Learning from People, Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Belsheim, D.J. (1988), Environmental determinants for organizing continuing education
professional education, Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 63-74.
Bensimon, E.S. and Neumann, A. (1993), Redesigning Collegiate Leadership: Teams and
Teamwork in Higher Education, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Bergquist, W. (1992), The Four Cultures of the Academy, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Betts, F. (1992), How systems thinking applies to education, Educational Leadership, Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 38-41.
Blackmore, P. and Castley, A. (2005), Developing Capability in the University, Staff Development
Forum/ILRT: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (1998), The Academic Career Handbook, Open University
Press, Buckingham.
Bloisi, W., Cook, C.W. and Hunsaker, P.L. (2007), Management and Organizational Behavior,
2nd European ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The Competent Manager, Wiley, New York, NY.
Breakwell, G.M. and Tytherleigh, M.Y. (2008), The Characteristics, Roles, and Selection of Vice
Chancellors: Summary Report, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, London.
Bui, H. and Baruch, Y. (2010), Creating learning organizations: a systems perspective, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 17 No. 3.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C. and Salgado, J.F. (2006), Determinants of individual engagement in
knowledge sharing, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 245-64.
Caplow, T. and McGee, R. (1958), The Academic Market, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Carr, S.C., Inkson, K. and Thorn, K. (2005), From global careers to talent flow: reinterpreting
brain drain, Journal of World Business, Vol. 40, pp. 386-98.
Chan, C.C.A., Lim, L. and Keasberry, S.K. (2003), Examining the linkage between team learning
behavior and team performance, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. 228-36.

237

TLO
17,3

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

238

Clark, P.G. (2002), Evaluating an interdisciplinary team training institute in geriatrics:

implications for teaching teamwork theory and practice, Educational Gerontology, Vol. 28,
pp. 511-28.
Cohen, A. (2003), Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Conway, T., Mackay, A. and Yorke, D. (1994), Strategic planning in higher education: who are
the customers?, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 6 No. 8, pp. 29-36.
Dalin, P. (1998), School Development Theories and Strategies, Cassell, London.
Dearlove, J. (2002), A continuing role for academics: the governance of UK universities in the
post-Dearing era, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 257-75.
Deci, A.L. (1975), Intrinsic Motivation, 3rd ed., Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Derr, C.B. (1986), Managing the New Careerists: The Diverse Career Success Orientations of
Todays Workers, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Dill, D.D. (1999), Academic accountability and university adaptation: the architecture of an
academic learning organization, Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 127-54.
Din, M.S.H. and Shanmugam, B. (1999), Malaysia: an emerging professional group,
in Farnham, D. (Ed.), Managing Academic Staff in Changing University Systems, RSHE
and Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 324-40.
Doherty, L. and Manfredi, S. (2006), Action research to develop work-life balance in a UK
university, Women in Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 241-59.
Dufour, R. and Eaker, R. (1998), Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for
Enhancing Student Achievement, National Educational Service, Bloomington, IN.
Ellis, E. and Phelps, R. (2000), Staff development for online delivery: a collaborative, team based
action learning model, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 26-44.
Emmerik, H.V. and Sander, K. (2004), Social embeddedness and job performance of tenured and
non-tenured professionals, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 40-54.
Farnham, D. (1999), Managing universities and regulating academic labour market,
in Farnham, D. (Ed.), Managing Academic Staff in Changing University Systems, SRHE
and Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 3-32.
Fiechtner, S.B. and Davis, E.A. (1992), Why some groups fail: a survey of students experiences
with learning groups, in Goodsell, A., Maher, M. and Tinto, V. (Eds), Collaborative
Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education, National Center on Post-Secondary
Teaching, Learning & Assessment, University Park, PA, pp. 59-74.
Franklin, P., Hodgkinson, M. and Stewart, J. (1998), Towards universities as learning
organizations, The Learning Organization, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 228-38.
Fraser, B.J. and Treagust, D.F. (1986), Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom
psychosocial environment in higher education, Higher Education, Vol. 15, pp. 37-57.
Freed, J.E. (2001), Why become a learning organization?, About Campus, January-February,
pp. 16-21.
Freidson, E. (1994), Professionalism Reborn: Theory, Prophecy, and Policy, Polity Press, Oxford.
Galbraith, P.L. (1999), Systems thinking: a missing component in higher educational planning,
Higher Education Policy, Vol. 12, pp. 141-57.
Garavan, T., Gunnigle, P. and Morley, M. (1999), Ireland: a two-tier structure, in Farnham, D.
(Ed.), Managing Academic Staff in Changing University Systems, RSHE and Open
University Press, Buckingham, pp. 115-38.

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

Garvin, D.A. (2000), Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Gudz, N.A. (2004), Implementing the sustainable development policy at the University of British
Columbia, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 156-68.
Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N.K. and Nagele, C. (2007), Getting groups to develop good
strategies: effects of reflexivity intervention on team process, team performance, and
shared mental models, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 102,
pp. 127-42.
Hage, J. (1980), Theories of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Han, B.M. and Anantatmula, V.S. (2007), Knowledge sharing in large IT organizations: a case
study, The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 421-39.
Hansmann, H. (1987), Economic theories of non-profit sector, in Powell, W. (Ed.), The
Non-Profit Sector: A Research Handbook, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 27-42.
Haydon, G. (1997), Teaching About Values: A New Approach, Cassell, London.
Hiemstra, R. (1991a), Toward building more effective learning environments, New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 50, pp. 93-7.
Hiemstra, R. (1991b), Aspects of effective learning environment, New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, Vol. 50, pp. 5-12.
Houston, D., Meyer, L.H. and Paewai, S. (2006), Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction:
expectations and values in academe, Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Isaacson, N. and Bamburg, J. (1992), Can schools become learning organizations?, Educational
Leadership, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 42-4.
Ivancevich, J.M. and McMahon, J.T. (1977), Education as a moderator of goal setting
effectiveness, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 11, pp. 83-94.
Johnson, D.W. (1998), Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom, Interaction Book
Company, Edina, Edinburgh.
Johnson, V. (2006), A Journey to Personal Mastery, Royal Roads University, Victoria.
Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P. (2000), Individual differences in work motivation: further
explorations of a trait framework, Applied Psychology: an International Review, Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 470-82.
Kang, Y.-J., Kim, S.-E. and Chang, G.-W. (2008), The impacts of knowledge sharing on work
performance: an empirical analysis of the public employees perceptions in South Korea,
International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 31, pp. 1548-68.
Karp, D. and Yoels, W. (1987), The college classroom: some observations on the meaning of
student participation, Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 60, pp. 421-39.
Katzenbach, J.R. (1998), Teams at the Top, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kennie, T. and Woodfield, S. (2008), The Composition, Challenges and Changes in the Top Team
Structure of UK Higher Education Institutions, Leadership Foundation for Higher
Education, London.
Kezar, A. and Eckel, P.D. (2002), The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher
education, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 435-60.
Kiedrowski, F. (2006), Quantitative assessment of a Senge learning organization intervention,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 369-83.

Creating learning
organizations
in HE
239

TLO
17,3

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

240

Knight, P., Tait, J. and Yorke, M. (2006), The professional learning of teacher in higher
education, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 319-39.
Knight, P.T. (1998), Professional obsolescence and continuing professional development in
higher education, Innovation in Education and Training International, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 241-8.
Kolsaker, A. (2008), Academic professionalism in the managerialist era: a study of English
universities, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 513-25.
Kotler, P. and Murphy, P.E. (1981), Strategic planning for higher education, Journal of Higher
Education, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 470-89.
Lei, D., Slocum, J.W. and Pitts, R.A. (1999), Designing organizations for competitive advantage:
the power of unlearning and learning, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 24-38.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1984), Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Marginson, S. (2007), Globalization, the idea of a university and its ethical regimes, Higher
Education Management and Policy, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Maslen, G. (1992), Renewed focus on job training expected as Australia battles recession, The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 22, pp. A41-2.
Maslow, A.H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Means, B., Olson, K. and Ruskus, J.A. (1997), Technology and Education Reform, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Merrienboer, J. and Paas, F. (2003), Powerful learning and the many faces of instructional
design, in Merrienboer, J. and Paas, F. (Eds), Learning Environment: Unravelling Basic
Components and Dimensions, Elsevier, Dordrecht, pp. 3-24.
Middlehurst, R. (1999), New realities for leadership and governance in higher education?,
Tertiary Education & Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 307-28.
Millis, B.J. and Cottell, P.G. (1997), Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty, Series on
Higher Education, Oryx Press, Phoenix, AZ.
Miskel, C. (1973), The motivation of educators to work, Educational Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 42-53.
Morey, A.I. (2004), Globalization and emergence of for-profit higher education, Higher
Education, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 131-50.
Nord, W. and Tucker, S. (1987), Implementing Routine and Radical Innovation, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
ONeil, J. (1995), On schools as learning organizations: a conversation with Peter Senge,
Educational Leadership, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 20-7.
Ogasawara, M. (2002), Strategic planning of the graduate and undergraduate education in a
research university in Japan, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 55-60.
Osteraker, M.C. (1999), Measuring motivation in a learning organization, Journal of Workplace
Learning, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 73-7.
Otter, S. (1995), Learning outcomes in higher education, in Burke, J. (Ed.), Outcomes, Learning
and the Curriculum: Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and other Qualifications, Falmer
Press, London, pp. 273-86.
Ozbilgin, M. and Healy, G. (2004), The gendered nature of career development of university
professors: the case of Turkey, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64, pp. 358-71.

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

Palmer, P. (1993), Good talk about good teaching: improving teaching through conversation and
community, Change, pp. 6-14.
Park, S., Henkin, A.B. and Egley, R. (2005), Teacher team commitment, teamwork and trust:
exploring associations, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 462-79.
Patterson, G. (1999), The learning university, The Learning Organization, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Petrina, S. (1998), Multidisciplinary technology education, International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, Vol. 8, pp. 103-38.
Pintrich, P.R. and Schunk, D.H. (2002), Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and
Applications, Merrill, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Prichard, J.S., Stratford, R.J. and Bizo, L.A. (2006), Team-skills training enhances collaborative
learning, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 16, pp. 256-65.
Pusser, B. and Doane, D.J. (2001), Public purpose and private enterprise: the contemporary
organization of postsecondary education, Change, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 18-23.
Rassuli, A. and Manzer, J.P. (2005), Teach us to learn: Multivariate analysis of perception of
success in team learning, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 21-7.
Reed, H.A. (2001), Ukrops as a Learning Organization: Senges Five Disciplines Realized in a
Medium-sized Company, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Reynolds, T., Murrill, L.D. and Whitt, G.L. (2006), Learning from organizations: mobilizing and
sustaining teacher change, The Education Forum, Vol. 70, pp. 123-33.
Roberts, C., Oakey, D. and Hanstock, J. (2007), Developing a supportive environment for
teaching and learning: a case study in a pre-1992 UK university, Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 289-302.
Rogers, D.L. (2000), A paradigm shift: technology integration for higher education in the new
millennium, Educational Technology Review, Spring/Summer, pp. 17-27.
Rolling-Magnusson, S. (2001), Legislation and lifelong learning in Canada: inconsistencies in
implementation, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 23-31.
Sackney, L. and Walker, K. (2006), Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: their role in
building capacity for learning communities, Journal of Educational Administration,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 341-58.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Random House Australia, Sydney.
Senge, P.M. (2006), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
2nd ed., Random House, London.
Senge, P.M., Ross, R., Smith, B., Robert, C. and Kleiner, A. (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:
Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization, Doubleday Currency, New
York, NY.
Siebold, G.L. (1994), The relation between soldier motivation, leadership, and small unit
performance, in ONeil, H.F. and Drillings, J.M. (Eds), Motivation Theory and Research,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hove, pp. 171-90.
Smith, B.H. (2003), The University as a Learning Organization: Developing a Conceptual Model,
Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.
Stengers, I., Mathieu, N. and Verstraeten, P. (2000), Discipline and interdiscipline: questions to a
philosopher part 2, Natures Sciences Societies, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 57-63.
Taylor, P. (1999), Making Sense of Academic Life: Academics, Universities and Change, Open
University Press, Buckingham.

Creating learning
organizations
in HE
241

TLO
17,3

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

242

Tharenou, P., Saks, A.M. and Moore, C. (2007), A review and critique of research on training and
organizational-level outcomes, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 251-73.
Tsai, Y. and Beverton, S. (2007), Top-down management: an effective tool in higher education?,
International Journal of Education Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 6-16.
Tsiakkiros, A. and Pashiardis, P. (2002), Strategic planning and education: the case of Cyprus,
The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R. and Briere, N.M. (1992), The academic motivation
scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic and motivation in education, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 1003-17.
Vo, H.V., Chae, B. and Olson, D.L. (2006), Integrating systems thinking into IS education,
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 23, pp. 107-21.
Waldman, J.D. and Schargel, F.P. (2006), Twins in trouble (II): systems thinking in healthcare
and education, Total Quality Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 117-30.
Wheeler, L.L. (2002), Building a Learning Organization: A Native American Experience, Fielding
Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.
White, J. and Weathersby, R. (2005), Can universities become true learning organizations?, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 292-8.
Woodfield, S. and Kennie, T. (2007), Top team structure in UK higher education institutions:
composition, challenges and changes, Tertiary Education & Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 331-48.
Woodfield, S. and Kennie, T. (2008), Teamwork or working as a team? The theory and
practice of top team working in UK Higher Education, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 62
No. 4, pp. 397-415.
World-Bank (2000), Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise, T.T.F.o.H. E.a.
Society (Ed.), Vol. 138, The World Bank, New York, NY.
Wright, T. (1999), Systems thinking and systems practice: working in the fifth dimension,
Systems Practice and Action Research, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 607-31.
Xiaozhou, X. (2001), The role of the university in life-long learning: perspectives from the
Peoples Republic of China, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 14, pp. 313-24.
Corresponding author
Yehuda Baruch can be contacted at: y.baruch@uea.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by SEGi University At 05:06 03 December 2014 (PT)

1. Anders rtenblad, Riina Koris. 2014. Is the learning organization idea relevant to higher educational
institutions? A literature review and a multi-stakeholder contingency approach. International Journal of
Educational Management 28:2, 173-214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Ozlem Bak. 2012. Universities: can they be considered as learning organizations?. The Learning
Organization 19:2, 163-172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Kala S. Retna. 2011. The relevance of personal mastery to leadership: the case of school principals in
Singapore. School Leadership & Management 31:5, 451-470. [CrossRef]