The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.

com/researchregister

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

TLO 11,3

244

The link between self-managed work teams and learning organisations using performance indicators
Joe Power
Formerly of Edith Cowan University, Churchlands Campus, Perth, Australia, and

Di Waddell
Graduate Management Programs, Edith Cowan University, Churchlands Campus, Perth, Australia
Keywords Learning organizations, Self managing teams, Team performance Abstract Both the learning organization literature and the self-managed work team literature have alluded to the potential links between teamwork and learning. However, as yet the link between these two concepts remains undeveloped. This study uses a survey of a random sample of 200 Australian organizations to empirically examine the relationships between self-managed work teams and the learning organization using performance indicators as a medium. It was found that the learning organization concept displays a moderate to strong link with three measures of performance used in this study: knowledge performance, nancial performance and customer satisfaction. Although the self-managed work team concept did not display any signicant relationship with performance, the qualitative component of the survey did emphasize that there is a common belief that self-managed teams can increase performance in the right setting. While an insignicant relationship between self-managed teams and the learning organization was also found, this study suggests some methodological concerns for future research into the relationship between self-managed teams and the learning organization.

The Learning Organization Vol. 11 No. 3, 2004 pp. 244-259 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/09696470410533003

Introduction Given todays increasingly turbulent and competitive global environment, organizations have turned to a variety of new management techniques and alternate ways of structuring to obtain a competitive advantage. Two of these work designs are the self-managed work team and the learning organization. The widespread use of self-managed work teams (SMWTs) has been reported in the US (Elmuti, 1997) and in Australia. Accordingly, assessing the relationship between self-managed work teams and performance has been a popular topic. Numerous empirical studies have linked the self-managed work team concept to various types of performance (Glassop, 2002). However, more recent empirical studies have suggested that the promise of self-managed work teams may be oversold in the literature (Godard, 2001). Resolving the ongoing debate about self-managed work teams contribution to performance is important to make certain that managers are knowledgeable of the impact that self-managed work teams have on various performance outcomes. Over the last decade or so, study has also proliferated on the learning organization concept (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1999). Most work in the area has been purely descriptive and focused on the theoretical signicance of the learning organization

(Watkins and Marsick, 1996, 1999). More recently, empirical studies have begun to assess the learning organizations relationship to various measures of performance (Ellinger et al., 2002). While these studies have conrmed some positive links between the learning organization and performance, they both conclude that more research is needed in the area. This research is needed to convince managers of the practical signicance of the learning organization. Both the learning organization literature (Senge, 1990) and the self-managed work team literature (Wageman, 1997) have alluded to the potential links between teamwork and learning. However, as yet the link between these two concepts remains undeveloped. Empirical research by Edmondson (1996, 2002) in particular has attempted to bridge the relationship between teams and learning, concluding in both of these papers that more research is needed in the area. Despite some descriptive insight into the relationship between teams and the learning organization (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1996), the dearth of empirical research in the eld has left the relationship between self-managed teams and the learning organization untouched and in need of development. This study answers repeated calls by scholars for more empirical research linking self-managed work teams (Glassop, 2002) and the learning organization (Ellinger et al., 2002) to various performance indicators. In doing so, this study takes a broad range of indicators into account to assess their relationship to self-managed teams and the learning organization. Self-managed teams and the learning organization The learning organization literature emphasizes that learning is essential at each of three levels: (1) the individual; (2) team; and (3) organizational level (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1996, 1999). While each of these levels is essential, this review will focus on the relationship between the team level of the learning organization and its relationship to SMWTs and performance. Although the importance of the team level in the learning organization has been noted widely (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1996, 1999), Senge (1990) pays particular tribute to its role in the learning organization. Senge (1990) denes team learning as reecting on action as a team and transforming collective thinking skill so that the team can develop intelligence and ability greater than the sum of individual members talents. This denition particularly notes the importance of synergy in team learning. It has been shown that teams typically progress through developmental stages and that team learning is a gradual process. Kasl et al. (1997) explain that performance gradually improves as teams move from a fragmented stage to pooled and synergistic stages, nally arriving at the continuous team learning stage. Neck et al. (1997) similarly note the developmental process of the self-managed team, identifying the numerous phases that the team progresses through until they nally reach the pinnacle of a team think team, which features constructive synergistic thinking and the highest levels of performance. These two models identify that SMWTs relationship to learning is a gradual one. A well-developed SMWT will eventually, but not always,

Performance indicators

245

TLO 11,3

246

arrive at the continuous team learning stage or team think stage. At this stage the SMWT experiences high levels of learning and a strong contribution to the overall success of the learning organization. It has been noted that innovative organizations have been moving from a traditional learning model to a more learner-centered, self-managed model (Watkins and Marsick, 1993). In Statas (1989) review of Analog Devices Incorporated, the move toward becoming an innovative learning organization through the use of a self-managed model is clearly stated:
We have found the best way to introduce knowledge and modify behaviour is by working with small teams that have the power and resources to enact change (p. 70).

This study found that the use of empowered teams with knowledge showed important links with innovation. Wageman (1997, p. 49) furthers the links between SMWTs and learning, stating that self-managing teams enhance organizational learning and adaptability, because members of self-managing teams have the latitude to experiment with their work and to develop strategies that are uniquely suited to tasks. While both of these comments provide insight into the relationship between SMWTs and the learning organization, the descriptive nature of their reports do not identify conclusive evidence of any clear link. Team learning and performance Some empirical studies can be identied that assess the relationship between team learning and performance. However, there is a lack of study in the area, as most recently observed by Edmondson (2002, p. 129) who states that:
The proposition that teams are the unit of organization learning has remained largely underdeveloped, with limited empirical research on team learning in real organizations and a lack of theoretical work on how different kinds of teams and team processes affect organizational adaptation.

Despite this apparent lack of research, numerous scholars still note that team level learning activities are expected to lead to better performance (Isaacs, 1993). Liebeskind (1996) has similarly noted that competitive advantage can be generated from the rms ability to support and foster team knowledge. The empirical studies in the area generally agree that the relationship between teams and learning is not as harmonious as many descriptive pieces tell us (e.g. Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1996, 1999). Edmondsons (1996) study into norms for detecting and correcting medication errors in hospitals found that team norm characteristics have the potential to limit organizational learning about how to prevent medication errors in the future. More recently, a study of 12 organization teams also conducted by Edmondson (2002) found that team members perceptions of power and interpersonal risk affect the quality of team reection and organizational learning. In concluding, Edmondson (2002) notes that while some teams contribute to organizational learning and overall effectiveness, much can go wrong in the process (p. 144). This nding is congruent with that of Ancona and Caldwell (1992) of performance in organizational teams, which concluded that team learning does not necessarily translate to organizational learning, as groups often fail to communicate with other levels of the organization.

While no specic studies have assessed SMWTs relationship to learning, some studies have assessed the relationship between team empowerment, which has been synonymous with the SMWT (Manz and Sims, 1993), and organizational learning. In an interesting example, Edmondson et al. (2001) provide details of a rigorous qualitative eld study of 16 hospitals implementing new cardiac surgery to assess team learning. Results from the study suggest that team empowerment and managing a learning process matter greatly for an organizations ability to learn in response to innovation. Spreitzers (1995) study has assessed the links between team empowerment and organizational learning among mid-level employees in large corporations. In her study, Spreitzer (1995) argues that empowerment leads to a proactive orientation towards jobs, management and organizations. The proactive orientation caused by employee empowerment is the key link in this research to team learning, because teams have been considered to be proactive when they seek continuous improvement, revise work processes, and seek innovative solutions to work problems. One of these items, continuous improvement, has been linked to the learning organization concept (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1999). Kim (1998) has also noted that proactive change is associated with increased levels of innovation. McGraths (2001) study of 56 exploratory business development projects found that organizational learning was more effective when the business developments operated autonomously with respect to goals. McGrath (2001) also found that as the degree of exploration decreased, better results were associated with decreased autonomy. Thus, higher levels of autonomy (i.e. SMWT) within exploratory business developments were found as being linked to improved organizational effectiveness. The evidence linking SMWTs to the learning organization concept tend to suggest that there is a relationship, but that it is contingent upon numerous characteristics (Edmondson, 2002, 1996; Edmondson et al., 2001; McGrath, 2001). However, more quality research is clearly needed to assess the links between various types of teams (e.g. SMWT) and organizational learning. Research questions The primary question that needs to be addressed here is: what is the relationship between self-managed work teams and organizational learning? The relationship between SMWTs and performance has been identied as rather conclusive (Castka et al., 2001, p. 123) and inconclusive (Cappelli and Neumark, 2001, p. 738). These ndings in themselves identify the rather controversial views on the relationship. The fact that there is a lack of high quality empirical studies (Glassop, 2002) especially in areas other than manufacturing (Spreitzer et al., 1999) identies the need for more research into this relationship. Thus, another question to be addressed here is: what is the relationship between self-managed work teams and performance? Finally, the relationship between the learning organization and performance has been subject to very little research. Although the organizational learning literature has identied links to innovation (Hargadon, 1998) and general performance (Bontis et al., 2002), the learning organization has only established tentative links with nancial performance (Ellinger et al., 2002) and job satisfaction (Goh and Richards, 1997). The limited generalisability of these results suggests the need to answer the following question: what is the relationship between organizational learning and performance?

Performance indicators

247

TLO 11,3

248

Research methodology Given that the link between self-managed work teams and organizational learning has not been previously assessed empirically in the literature, an exploratory research design was adopted. The predominantly quantitative method took the form of a questionnaire, where the variables were measured along a seven point Likert scale. This also was followed by open-ended questions that were used to validate the quantitative ndings and provide additional insights into questionnaire responses. The questionnaire used in this study was designed for human resource managers (HRMs) across multiple Australian industries. HRMs were targeted given their noted role as a coach/counselor/advisor in SMWTs (Brewster et al., 2000, p. 9), and their role as a facilitator in the learning organization (Watkins and Marsick, 1992, p. 115). The questionnaire consisted of ve distinct sections relating to: (1) demographics (six questions); (2) organizational learning (sixteen questions); (3) self-managed work teams (sixteen questions); (4) performance (seven questions); and (5) personal comments (ve open-ended questions). Questions pertaining to section two, the learning organization, were adapted from the DLOQ: dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire (Watkins et al., 1997). SMWTs were measured by the amount of autonomy that work teams possess over tasks traditionally maintained by managers (Rogers et al., 1995). The degree of autonomy that work teams possessed in organizations was measured in Section three over 16 task related decisions adapted from Metlay and Kaplan (1992, p. 186), who cite numerous traditional managerial functions that are now frequently associated with SMWTs. In section four there were four measures of performance: (1) knowledge performance; (2) customer satisfaction; (3) nancial performance; and (4) turnover. The rationale for choosing these measures of performance was based on Spreitzers et al. (1999) belief that SMWT effectiveness can be measured in terms of nancial performance, turnover and customer satisfaction, and Watkins and Marsicks (1999) suggestion that learning organization performance can be measured by knowledge performance and nancial performance. The target population for this study included 200 randomly selected public and private organizations across multiple Australian industries found in the Business Review Weekly top 1,000 list (BRW, 2001). Both public and private companies were included in the research to answer calls by SMWT scholars (Spreitzer et al., 1999) and learning organization scholars (Ellinger et al., 2002) for more inclusive sampling strategies when analyzing performance. Data analysis A total of 62 responses were obtained at a response rate of 31 percent for this research. The data was analyzed with version 11 of the SPSS for Windows program. Numerous

techniques, including univariate, bivariate, multivariate and reliability analysis were employed in assessing the research questions. Demographics Respondents were found to be rather equal in terms of gender (30 males, 32 females). 58 percent of the respondents classied themselves as HR managers, with another 32 percent indicating they were HR assistants/ofcers. Thus, 90 percent of the respondents were from the HR department, which is particularly encouraging given the focus of the study on HR activities. Interestingly, the respondents length of time with the company was found to be rather low (mean 4 years), as well as length of time in the current position (mean 2 years). The nal demographic variable assessed, highest level of education, indicated that 64 percent of those who returned surveys had completed a Bachelor degree or higher level of education, which perhaps is not surprising due to the number of HR managers in the sample. Prior to conducting analysis that specically addresses the research questions a preliminary overview of the responses was undertaken. This univariate analysis was carried out for each of the three major variables being assessed: SMWTs, the learning organization and performance. Self-managed work teams Table I shows the mean scores and standard deviations for each of the 16 work-related decisions. It can be seen that the degree of team control over work-related tasks is low to moderate. An overall mean score of the degree of self-management in work teams is also presented, which is found to be low to moderate at 3.17. Some large differences between the decisions were identied. Decisions pertaining to equipment maintenance checks (M 4.29, SD 1.45) and occupational health and safety issues (OH&S) (M 4.00, SD 1.30) were both found to hold mean scores over the mean value. The high team control over OH&S issues is congruent with Blewett
Mean score (M) 2.57 2.62 2.76 1.82 1.93 4.00 3.03 3.76 3.96 4.29 3.87 3.91 3.80 3.80 2.70 1.83 Standard deviation (SD) 1.22 1.14 1.61 1.28 1.23 1.30 1.41 1.30 1.53 1.45 1.25 1.73 1.46 1.54 1.25 1.11 Overall mean score

Performance indicators

249

Work related decisions Team performance/appraisals Individual performance problems Selection decisions Termination decisions Compensation decisions Occupational health and safety decisions Setting production goals Determining work methods The assignment of daily tasks Equipment maintenance checks Implementing process improvements Scheduling of work, breaks and vacations Group goals decisions Organizing team meetings Purchasing decisions Management of work budgets

3.17

Table I. Mean and overall scores for team control over work related decisions

TLO 11,3

250

and Shaws (1995) contention that SMWTs can be seen as a mechanism for integrating OH&S into an organization. At the other end of the scale, termination decisions (M 1.82, SD 1.28), management of budgets (M 1.83, SD 1.11) and compensation decisions (M 1.93, SD 1.23) were found to reect a low degree of SMWT control. The low mean for compensation decisions was especially interesting, given that McGraths (2001) study identied that the most valued compensation programs are designed by team involvement in plan design and implementation. Generally, the results indicate that these three tasks are less likely to be managed by work teams. The learning organization Preliminary results were also assessed for the questions relating to the learning organization. A brief examination of Table II suggests that the majority of the responses on the learning organization concept were positive. The dimension creating continuous opportunities displayed the most positive response and the lowest standard deviation (M 5.13, SD 0.97). The item empowering people towards a collective vision was identied as the least positive response (M 4.21, SD 1.24). Overall, the extent to which the learning organization concept is used across the 62 organizations was found to be positive, with an overall mean of 4.55, indicating that learning organization use is rather widespread. Performance Consideration was also given to the mean, standard deviation and overall mean for each of the performance indicators being assessed. Table III indicates that employee turnover obtained the lowest score among the performance indicators (M 3.78, SD 1.44). The remaining three indicators were identied as positive. The overall mean was also positive at 4.68. This skewness was expected, given that the organizations assessed were among the top 1,000 companies in Australia. Analysis specically addressing the research questions was then undertaken. Self-managed work teams and organizational learning The relationship between these two variables was found not to be signicant. Despite the literature highlighting the strong relationship between teams and learning, this study found an insignicant weak-mild positive relationship between the two variables. A scatter plot of these two variables is shown in Figure 1 (note: higher scores on a variable indicate higher levels of that variable in an organization). Self-managed work teams and performance Again, despite much of the literature stating a positive relationship between self-managed work teams and performance indicators, analysis thus far has not conrmed this relationship. Although further analysis still needs to be done, initial results have highlighted an insignicant weak positive relationship between performance and self-managed work teams. A scatter plot of this relationship is shown in Figure 2 (note: higher scores on a variable indicate higher levels of that variable in an organization).

Variables Create continuous opportunities

Items

Mean scores

Standard deviation

Overall mean

Performance indicators

Work is designed so that employees learn on job. Opportunities for ongoing education and growth are provided at work Promote inquiry and Our organizational culture supports dialogue questioning, feedback and experimentation. Our organization helps employees increase their capacity to listen and inquire into views of others Encourage collaboration and Work is designed to use groups to team learning access different modes of thinking. Groups are expected to learn and work together. Collaboration is valued by our organizations culture and is rewarded Establish systems to capture Technology systems that share and share learning learning have been created and integrated with work. Employees are able to access systems that share learning and these systems are maintained Empower people to a Employees are involved in setting, collective vision owning and implementing a collective vision at work. Responsibility is distributed closely to decision making to promote accountability Connect the organization to Employees are helped to see the its environment impact of their work on the company. Our organization is linked to the community. Employees scan the environment to adjust work practices as required Leaders model and support Our organizations leaders use learning learning strategically to drive business results. The leaders of our organization champion and support learning

5.13

0.97

251

4.52

1.20

4.60

1.21

4.32

1.39

4.21

1.24

4.53

1.04 Table II. Overall mean scores for the seven dimensions of the learning organization

4.52

1.28

4.55

Organizational learning and performance A signicant, moderately-strong, positive relationship was found between organizational learning and performance. This result conrms previous literature on the topic, nding that 39 percent of the variance in performance could be explained in terms of organizational learning variables. A scatter plot is provided (Figure 3) of this relationship (note: higher scores on a variable indicate higher levels of that variable in an organization).

TLO 11,3

Performance indicators Knowledge performance

Items Knowledge initiatives at my company have led to the enhancement of products and services to customers. Knowledge is leveraged effectively by my company as a tool for enhancing products and services for customers Employees are committed to satisfying customers and reaching organizational goals. Employees put in a great deal of extra effort to ensure that customer satisfaction is attained The market share of our organization has increased. Our organizations prots have improved Employee turnover has decreased

Mean scores

Standard deviation

Overall mean

252
Customer satisfaction

4.79

1.07

Financial performance Table III. Overall mean scores for performance indicators Employee turnover

5.23 4.91 3.78

1.12 1.38 1.44

4.68

Figure 1. Self-managed work teams and organizational learning scatter plot

Multivariate analysis of variables Multivariate analysis was considered to assess the relationship between self-managed work teams and the learning organization (independent variables) and performance (dependent variable). Although the previous section has shown a weak relationship exists between self-managed work teams and performance, it was considered useful to reassess this relationship through multiple regression to identify whether both

Performance indicators

253

Figure 2. Self-managed work teams and performance scatterplot

self-managed work teams and the learning organization have a joint affect on performance. The results of the standard multiple regression are shown in Table IV. These results indicate that overall the regression model is moderately-strongly signicant (F 15.076, p , 0.001) and that the independent variables have a signicant effect on the dependent variable. The R square value of 0.358 indicates two ndings. First, it shows that the degree of SMWTs and learning organization concept account for 35.8 percent of the variability in performance. Second, it identies that the addition of SMWTs into the equation as a predictor of performance muddies the water. The standardized beta values also provide insight into the relative importance of each independent variable to the overall model. The self-managed work team beta value (B 0.20, p . 0.05) suggests that this predictors value to the model is positive, weak and not signicant. The organizational learning beta value (B 0.594, p , 0.001) suggests that this predictors value to the model is positive, strong and highly signicant. Open-ended questions Although quantitative analysis so far has only conrmed a signicant relationship between organizational learning and performance, the qualitative aspects of the study are rather promising. In terms of learning, 53 of the 62 respondents indicated that learning was an important part of work design at their organization. Furthermore, not one respondent stated that learning was not an important part of their work design. On teams, 35 of the 62 organizations that responded stated that self-managed work teams role is more than likely going to increase in the future, with only eight of the 62 organizations reporting that self-managed work teams role would decrease. Finally, despite quantitative analysis indicating an insignicant weak-mild relationship between self-managed work teams and organizational learning, an open-ended question aimed at assessing this question has revealed that 44 percent of the respondents have found a strong link between teams and learning in their

TLO 11,3

254

Figure 3. The learning organization and performance scatter plot

Model summary R R square Adjusted R square Standard Error ANOVA Regression Residual Total Coefcients Variable 1 (self-man. team) Variable 2 (org. learning)

0.599 0.358 0.335 0.742 Sum of square 16.597 29.725 46.322 Standardized beta 0.020 0.594 df 2 54 56 t 0.179 5.305 Mean square 8.299 0.550 Sig. 0.859 0.000 F 15.076 Sig. 0.000

Table IV. Multiple regression results

Notes: Independent variables: self-managed work teams and the learning organization; Dependent variable: performance

organization. Subsequent analysis of data, especially through the use of follow-up interviews with willing respondents may add further signicance and value to these preliminary ndings. Conclusions The following conclusions have been drawn from the study: . With the scaled questions, the relationship between SMWTs and the learning organization concept is statistically insignicant.

With the open-ended questions, the qualitative data suggested that there is a positive and signicant relationship between SMWTs and the learning organization. The majority of survey respondents believed that there is a relationship between SMWTs and the learning organization, and that this relationship is dependent on numerous variables. With the quantitative data, the relationship between SMWTs and performance (i.e. knowledge performance, nancial performance, customer satisfaction and turnover) is statistically insignicant. The qualitative data, however, suggested a positive and signicant relationship between SMWTs and performance (i.e. knowledge performance, nancial performance, customer satisfaction and turnover). Respondents believed that SMWTs relationship to performance indicators is especially dependent on organizational context and that in the right situation this relationship does exist. The learning organizations relationship to knowledge performance, nancial performance and customer satisfaction was found to be statistically signicant. But the relationship between the learning organization and turnover was not statistically signicant. Most survey respondents agreed that more responsibilities are expected to be given to teams (43.5 percent) and that learning is an important part of work design (85.5 percent). Both the learning organization, and to a lesser extent SMWTs, should continue to be important work designs in the future.

Performance indicators

255

Implications for managers This research has raised three main implications for managers. First, because the learning organization concept was identied as being positively related to performance outcomes, the results indicate that it is imperative for managers to strive towards creating and maintaining a learning organization. Manager support was perceived to be an important indicator of learning organization success. Organizations that had a greater level of managerial support in their learning programs were identied as achieving a higher level of overall performance. The literature has also considered leadership support to be important to the learning organization (Senge, 1990). If managers are attempting to establish or encourage learning, the ndings of this study indicate that it must start at the top in terms of support and resources. Second, results suggest that the SMWT concept is related to performance outcomes at a specic rather than general level. SMWTs should only be applied in work contexts that are deemed to be advantageous for their use. This proposition has certainly been recognized in recent times (Glassop, 2002). Managers must be select and wise in their decision to increase the amount of responsibility delegated to teams. Third, although the quantitative results identied that SMWT use is not signicantly related to learning organization principles at a general level, the anecdotal data suggested that the two variables are associated in specic circumstances. If SMWTs are used it is essential to ensure that mechanisms are in place to spread the team-based learning generated from SMWTs throughout the organization. These systems need to be in place to protect learning from deteriorating throughout the organization and to ensure that higher levels of performance are achieved.

TLO 11,3

Limitations of the research Despite attempts by the researcher to use multiple data collection techniques (i.e. method triangulation), the conclusions are restricted by numerous limitations. Subjective measures of performance A major constraint imposed on the study was that performance was measured based on respondents perceptions. Although past research has identied that perceived measures of performance have a signicant correlation with objective measures of nancial performance (Bontis et al., 2002), some caution must be attributed to assessing links with performance in this study. Furthermore, perceptions of performance were solicited only from middle to upper managers. This may be a limitation given that perspectives of performance may vary at different levels of the organization. Small sample size The small sample size used in this research (n 62) can be seen to be a weakness of the study, because it reduces the power of the study. The low power of the study may have led to a type two error, which Tharenou (2002) explains is the notion that a signicant relationship may exist between variables that was not identied in the study. Response rate With a response rate of 31 percent it could be argued that the research ndings are not representative of the wider study population and that response bias may have inuenced responses. Although the responses rate of this study was deemed to be a weakness, Neuman (1997, p. 247) has stated that responses rates between 10 to 50 percent are common. Although the response rate was considered to be adequate, it was by no means excellent. A larger response rate would have led to more accurate results across industry. Cross-sectional study This studys ndings are limited because a cross-sectional study was employed that explored managerial perceptions at one particular point in time. Although it would have been interesting to track the relationship between the variables over time, this was not possible given the cost and time constraints imposed on the study. Generalizability The sample chosen for this study was randomly selected from the Business Review Weeklys top 1,000 companies list (BRW, 2001). The companies on this list are all large corporations, which are different in nature to smaller companies. Recent empirical research by Anderson and Boocock (2002) found that learning differs between small and large rms. Accordingly, this studys ndings on learning only relate to large rms. The sample is also predominantly composed of Australian companies. Yang et al. (1998) have identied that the learning organization concept may vary between populations. Therefore, the results of this study are limited purely to the Australian context.

256

Recommendations for future research This study has raised a number of important issues that warrant further investigation. Firstly, written responses have raised some important methodological considerations that could guide future research into the relationship between SMWTs and the learning organization. Numerous characteristics were highlighted that could mediate the relationship between SMWTs and the learning organization including team characteristics, job task and supervisor/employee competence and experience. Future research could aim at examining the affect of these mediating variables on the relationship between SMWTs and the learning organization concept. If future research can determine the effect of these variables, it is possible that they could be controlled for in the future to assess the general link between SMWTs and the learning organization. Secondly, the study identied that SMWT effectiveness is rather organization-specic. Future research could focus in on those organizations that use and support self-managed work team across a broad range of industries. Empirical literature regarding the effectiveness of SMWTs is lacking across industries (Glassop, 2002; Spreitzer et al., 1999). Finally, the performance indicators used in this research are subjective. Research in the future could use objective measures of performance to more accurately assess the relationship between the learning organization, SMWTs and performance. Overall, this study should be viewed as a contribution to the SMWT and learning organization literature. While all ndings of the research have contributed to management research, perhaps the most signicant nding of the study is that the learning organization concept was found as being signicantly related to perceived measures of knowledge and nancial performance and customer satisfaction. This is a signicant nding given that it extends Ellingers et al. (2002) seminal work on learning organization performance to a broader range of performance indictors and industry settings.

Performance indicators

257

References Ancona, D. and Caldwell, D. (1992), Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 634-55. Anderson, V. and Boocock, G. (2002), Small rms and internationalisation: learning to manage and managing to learn, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 5-24. Blewett, V. and Shaw, A. (1995), Integrating OHS through self-managed work teams, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 15-19. Bontis, N., Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2002), Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and ows, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 437-69. Brewster, C., Dowling, P., Grobler, P., Holland, P. and Warnick, S. (2000), Contemporary Issues in Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage, Oxford University Press, Cape Town. BRW (2001), BRW one thousand, Business Review Weekly, pp. 56-139, 15-21 November. Cappelli, P. and Neumark, D. (2001), Do high-performance work practices improve establishment-level outcomes?, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 737-75.

TLO 11,3

Castka, P., Bamber, C., Sharp, J. and Belohoubek, P. (2001), Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 123-34. Edmondson, A. (1996), Learning from mistakes in easier said than done: group and organizational inuences on the detection and correction of human error, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 5-28.

258

Edmondson, A. (2002), The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: a group-level perspective, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 128-46. Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R. and Pisano, G. (2001), Disrupted routines: team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46, pp. 685-716. Ellinger, A., Ellinger, A., Yang, B. and Howton, S. (2002), The relationship between the learning organization concept and rms nancial performance: an empirical assessment, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-21. Elmuti, D. (1997), The perceived impact of team-based management systems on organizational effectiveness, Team Performance Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 179-92. Glassop, L. (2002), The organizational benets of teams, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 225-49. Godard, J. (2001), High performance and the transformation of work? The implications of alternative work practices for the experience and outcomes of work, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 776-805. Goh, S. and Richards, G. (1997), Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations, European Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 575-83. Hargadon, A. (1998), Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursuing continuous innovation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 209-29, Spring special issue. Isaacs, W. (1993), Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 24-39. Kasl, E., Marsick, V. and Dechant, K. (1997), Teams as learners a research based model of team learning, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 227-46. Kim, D. (1998), Crisis construction and organizational learning: capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor, Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 506-21. Liebeskind, J. (1996), Knowledge, strategy and the theory of the rm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, Winter special issue. Manz, C. and Sims, H. (1993), Business without Bosses: How Self-Managing Teams are Building High Performance Companies, Wiley, New York, NY. McGrath, R. (2001), Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 118-31. Metlay, W. and Kaplan, I. (1992), Characteristics and consequences of self-management, Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Self-Managed Work Teams, Vol. 3, pp. 184-90. Neck, C., Connerley, M. and Manz, C. (1997), Toward a continuum of self-managing team development, in Beyerlein, M., Johnson, D. and Beyerlein, S. (Eds), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 4, pp. 193-216. Neuman, W. (1997), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3rd ed., Allen & Bacon, Old Tappan, NJ.

Rogers, E., Metlay, W., Kaplan, I. and Shapiro, T. (1995), Self-managing work teams: do they really work?, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 53-8. Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY. Spreitzer, G. (1995), Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement and validation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-65. Spreitzer, G., Cohen, S. and Ledford, G. (1999), Developing effective self-managing work teams in service organizations, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 340-66. Stata, R. (1989), Organizational learning the key to management innovation, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 63-74. Tharenou, P. (2002), Book of Readings, Monash University, Melbourne. Wageman, R. (1997), Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 49-62. Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1992), Building the learning organization: a new role for human resource developers, Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 115-29. Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization, Jossey Bass Publishing, San Francisco, CA. Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1996), In Action: Creating the Learning Organization, American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA. Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1999), Facilitating Learning Organizations: Making Learning Count, Gower Publishing Limited, Aldershot. Watkins, K., Marsick, V. and ONeil, J. (1997), Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire: Participants Guide for Interpreting Results, Partners for the Learning Organization, Warwick. Yang, B., Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1998), Examining the construct validity of the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire, in Torraco, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, pp. 83-90.

Performance indicators

259