CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. CONCEPT OF LEARNING ORGANISATION

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. CONCEPT OF LEARNING ORGANISATION The three critical concepts of the learning organization adopted in this chapter,in consonant with systems theory (Senge, 1990; Bertallanfy, 1950; Ashby, 1970) are individual learning, team learning and organizational learning (Watkins &Marsick, 1993, 1996). The Learning Organization (LO) concept is an offspring of the fields of organizational change and development (OD) and organizational behaviour (OB) in management (Senge, 1990; Popper &Lipshitz, 1998; Garvin, 1993; Watkins &Marsick, 1993). The literature on learning organization culls and pulls knowledge from various disciplines and fields of study such as education (Hertz-Lazarowitz& Miller, 1992), management (Edmondson, 1999), adult learning (Kasl, Marsick and Dechant, 1997), sociology and psychology(Moreland, 1999; Wegner, 1986). Learning organization entails an overall change in the organization climate and culture to propagate and encourage learning with a view to achieving organizational objectives (Phillips, 2003; Kerka, 1995; Slater &Narver, 1995; Pedlar, Burgoyne &Boydell, 1991, Senge, 1990; Huber, 1991; Marquardt, 1996). Peter Senge; in the year 1990, formulated and popularized the concept of learning organization in his book - the fifth discipline. Prior to Senge’s work, the concept was muddled up and seen as a part of organizational learning (Agryris&Schon, 1975, 1977, 1978). Learning organization as a concept, over the past two decades has attracted the interest of several scholars and consultants with its appealing theories and seemingly near perfect postulations as described by some critics(Argyris&Schon, 1978; Edmondson, 2002; Watkins &Marsick 1996; Wilson, Goodman & Cronin, 1997). The appeal of the learning organization concept stems from the fact that it deals with human capital development in a systematic continuous manner – a process which cannot be easily replicated by competitors and it prescribes rapid continuous learning which leads to innovation that puts companies ahead of the pack. (Popper &Lipshitz, 1998; Stata, 2003) Since its introduction and popularization till date, many scholars ( e.g; Klob, 1996; Valerie, 1992; Wang, Yang &McLeon, 2007; Kerka, 1995; Sugarman, 2002; Storm &Savelsbergh, 2005; Watkins &Marsick, 1993; Hernandez, 2000; Fiol& Lyles, 1985; Goh, 1998 etc.) have beamed their investigative and analytical focus on the concept, trying to model this popular yet premature concept into a generally acceptable management theory. On a fair analysis, the learning organization concept is very relevant to businesses as it is to man because embedded in the fabric of its construct is the recognition and focus on the very key element vital to our existence and development as humans, as members of an organization and parts of a society -which is learning. The Learning Organization (LO) concept carries in its genes two broad fundamental concepts namely “learning” and “organization” 2.1.2. Definition of the concept:Peter Senge (1990) defined learning organization as “a place where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.” Watkins &Marsick (1996) also defined LO as “organizations characterized by total employee involvement in a process of collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared values or principles……learning [in such organizations] is a continuous, strategically used process integrated with – and running parallel to work.” Jamal, Khoury&Shavoun (2006) sees it as” a type of organization that promotes continual organizational renewal by weaving/embedding a set of core processes that nurture a positive propensity to learn, adapt, and change”. To Garvin (1993), a learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights.” A common agreement among these definitions is the recognition that the learning organization involves a series of processes, deals with people and also pays attention to the structures within the organization (Garvin, 1993). The learning organization basically, is the application of methods of continuous learning in an organization (Ortenbald, 2002). It is a concatenation of both personal/individual learning and team learning harnessed together to achieve organizational objectives (Senge, 1990; Kerka, 1995; Edmondson, 2002). 2.1.3. Personal/ Individual Learning The personal or individual level of learning, which can simply be referred to as learning, is the aspect of learning that is peculiar to the individual in an organization. Learning is the process and outcome of gathering, analyzing and classifying, storing and utilizing information which has the potential to alter behaviour towards the achievement of a particular purpose.” It is the process of creating knowledge through the transformation of experience”. (Kolb, 1984). Klein (2002) defines learning as “an exponential process resulting in a relatively permanent change in behaviour that cannot be explained by temporary states, maturation or innate response tendencies.” From Kiln’s definition, several vital points worth noting that characterize learning are; (1) Learning only reflects a change in the potential for behaviour. It does not necessarily change behaviour automatically rather sufficient motivation is the central ingredient to transform learning into behaviour. (2) Changes in behaviour as a result of learning are not cast on stone – the temporary nature of change in behaviour is usually as a result of the introduction of new experience that tend to hinder, eliminate or displace previously learned behaviour. (3) Learning is not only the sole cause of behaviour change, motivation and maturation can also be responsible for change in behaviour (though this can be considerably argued to the extent to which both maturation and motivation becomes as a product of learning). (4) Learning can be blocked by beliefs about self, frame of reference and reluctance to change because learning itself involves change and change is quite uncomfortable. There are several ways individuals perceive process and assimilate knowledge. Such knowledge when effectively communicated and understood can be useful to an organization to get the best out of its employees. Learning individually,can be seen as aprocess(Edmondson, 1999; Argyris&Schon, 1995; Kolb, 1984) because it involves a series of steps to be taken and methods to be continuously employed that is seen as learning. Learning is also an outcome(Huber, 1991; Wilson, Goodman& Cronin, 2007) because the change in behaviour or the potential for behaviour as a result of processes and methods put together is an outcome. Outcomes of learning may include mental models, procedural skills and propositional knowledge (Valerie, 1992) Information to be learnt is first acquired/ gathered either in a systematic way or an uncontrolled arbitrary manner, analyzed and classified (to establish any correlation with previous knowledge and compatibility with a person’s frame of reference – attitudes, beliefs, traditions and culture) and then stored either temporarily (when such knowledge has not been imbibed in behaviour) or permanently, (when knowledge has become a part of behaviour) in the memory of the individual. (Klein, 2002) 2.1.3.1. Stages of Learning. According to Broadwell (1969); Burch (1970),every individual, group and organization in its quest for information and learning usually begins at a level where they have no idea what information is out there and how much the knowledge and utilization of such information can improve their operations. This is known as the Unconscious incompetence stage. As soon as this information is known, it behooves on the individual, group or organization to act upon it to their advantage. The mere knowledge of the information connotes conscious incompetence and a step towards learning and internalizing such knowledge helps the individual, group or organization attain conscious competence. Only when such information has been effectively internalized within the individual, group or organization can it be said to be unconsciously competent. However, for any individual, group or organization to progress from one level of competency to another there has to be ways in which the relevant information is presented so it can be accepted, inculcated and utilized (Klob, 1974) these ways are called the learning styles, (Klob, 1974) 2.1.3.2. Learning Styles. There are as much learning styles as there are humans, but these styles distinctive as it may seem, interrelate and interconnect in places of relative similarity. An understanding of an individual’s learning style can help improve the individuals learning responsiveness, ability and overall competence which can be very much beneficial to the individual and the organization. Klob (1974) propositions may suffice useful, to determine an individual learning style. Klob (1974) classified learning styles into four main spectrums as follows: the Diverging Learnerwhich classifies those types of individuals who are divergent thinkers that learn best by experiencing and experimenting; the Assimilating Learner which describes those types of individuals that enjoy traditional class rooms, readings and exploration and excel in concepts and models; the Converging Learner being those type of individuals that are more interested in technical tasks and problems than social or interpersonal issues (e.g. core technical science persons) and The AccommodatingLearner who are those type of individuals given to intuition, risk, and trial and error approaches than logic. Accommodating learners consist a large constituent of the general population. In reality however, the learning styles as proposed by Klob have no clear cut boundary. An individual may require a combination of two or three learning styles to be able to assimilate effectively. However,Klob’s theory proves undoubtedly useful for understanding the best method to communicate information and structure learning programs for individuals and groups in an organization. An individual learning style no doubt, goes a long way to determine how best the immediate elements of learning may be tweaked to achieve a relatively unique and successful learning method and outcome. The elements of learning are those elements encountered directly in the process of learning. (Klein, 2002) they include the way and manner of presentation of information, sorting and analyzing of information, recording and recollecting/replication of information. (Klein, 2002) Summarily, learning from an individual perspective, entails the gathering, analyzing, classifying, storing and utilization of information that possesses the potential to change behaviour and is usually directed towards the achievement of a set goal. This set goal or objective is usually the motivation behind learning, it also helps to guide in the selection of relevant information to be learnt. Learning can be vicarious or personal and an individual can only be said to have attained the apex of learning in a particular area, when such a person has risen through the ranks from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence, conscious competence and then ultimately unconscious competence. However, for an individual to even embark on the journey of learning he must first discover the pattern of learning most suitable and most effective to him- this is his/her learning style. The learning style helps to ascertain the way in which the elements of learning will be prepared and prescribed for the individual and thus aid learning. 2.1.4. Team Learning In learning organization, teams are the platform the organization uses to harvest the knowledge gained from individual learning. Individuals proficient in their various disciplines and working in isolation do not make for an effective organization; these individuals have to be grouped into temporary or relatively permanent sub units with specific characteristics and objectives that are in line with that of that of organization to be effective. These sub units can be referred to as teams and can range from a committee, to a panel, a functional unit or even a delegation within an organization. The team is a crucial sub system of a learning organization. A team can be defined as a group of individuals who work collectively to achieve the similar purpose and goals (Shouvik& Mohammed,2018). It is a distinguishable set of two or more people assigned specific roles or functions to perform dynamically, interdependently and adaptively towards a shared objective. (Salas, Dickinson, Converse &Tannenbaum, 1992). Borrowing from the systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1950; Ashby, 1970; Senge, 1990), a team is the intermediate system between the individuals (smaller system) that work in the organization and the organization itself (larger system), meaning that teams consist of individuals and in turn a combination of teams (consisting of individuals) makes up an organization. Teams can be classified and distinguished from another on several basis; (1) Team characteristics which has to do with the size, composition, expertise level and diversity of the team. (2) Team psychological safety which is the extent to which there is freedom within the team for interpersonal risk taking and expression of self without prejudice or discrimination (3) Team stability which explains the degree to which the team is permanent or temporary, open or closed and the rate of turn over within the team. (4)Team leader behaviour which is a crucial factor in determining the climate of rapport and relationship within the team, the manner and rate at which the team learns and the identity of the team in the larger organization and (5) the nature of the task to be done by the team, which is largely dependent on the organization and can either be one of incremental learning (which has to do with improvement) or radical learning (which entails innovation). These features can also be used to distinguish one team type from another, the type of processes most suitable as well as the outcome expected in teams (Edmondson, Dillon &Roloff, 2007) Team learning also referred to as Group learning, is the process through which a group creates knowledge for its members, for itself as a system and for others (Kasl, Marsick, &Denchant, 1997). Argote, Gruenfeld&Nauqin (2001) defines group learning as the activities through which individuals acquire, share and combine knowledge through experience with one another to provide solutions to organizational problems (Sole & Edmondson (2002:S18) Team learning is important to any organization because an organization’s ability to learn – that is, to improve its outcomes through better knowledge and insight (Fiol& Lyles, 1985)—is dependent on the ability of its teams to learn (Senge, 1990; Edmonton, 2002). Research also suggests that team learning impacts organizational learning (Chan, Lin &Keasberry, 2003), the speed of technology implementation (Edmondson, 2003), and new product development (Sarin& McDermott, 2003). The fewdefinitions highlighted show that team learning just like individual learning, can be viewed as a process, an outcome or a combination of both. (Edmondson 1999; Argyis&Schon, 1995; Senge, 1990; Huber, 1991;Kayes, Kayes& Kolb, 2005). There is hardly a research consensus on the various activities that may be carried out within these teams which can be broadly classified as the “processes” leading to team learning. (Valerie, 1992) This paper carefully adopts a mediate on both stances, stating that team learning upon close observation, is both a process and an outcome because as a process is to its results, as acquiring is to a possession, as painting is to a picture”… so is team learning process to its outcome. (Bower &Hilgard, 1981; cited in Valerie, 1992) It and cannot be defined independent of another, in fact it is a continuous process that generates several specific outcome over time. (Valerie, 1992) From the perspective of an outcome, team learning can be defined as a change in the range of the team’s potential behaviour (Huber, 1991). It is an outcome of the communication and coordination that builds shared knowledge among team members about their team, task resources and context.(Savelsbergh, 2010; Salas, Cannon-Bowers & Johnson, 1997). The outcomes of team learning may not always be positive due to insufficient resources or volatile unstable business environment and the desired change in behaviour may need to be driven by motivation (Senge, 1990; Argyris&Schon, 1996; Huber, 1991; Van-Offenbeek, 2001) From the process perspective, team learning is defined as the process through which a group creates knowledge for its members, for itself as a system and for others (Kasl, Marsick&Dechant, 1993). It is the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results truly desired by its members (Senge, 1990). Edmondson (2002) see it as the process in which a team takes action, obtains and reflects on feedback and make changes to adapt or improve. Team learning processes involves the ability to interact, share and reflect on the knowledge together so that everyone gets to know and understand what everyone knows and that everyone knows. The process can be broadly classified as that of sharing, storage and retrieval. (Wilson et al., 2007) Edmondson (1999) further breaks down these three processes into exploring and co-construction of meaning, collective reflection, error management, feedback behaviour and experimenting (Van Woerkom., 2003; Van den Boosche, 2006; Campion, 1993; Edmondson, 1993;Schippers, 2003; Van de Bossche, 2006; Van Dyck, 2003;Gladstein, 1984; Kozlowski, 1998; Kozlowski &Ilgen, 2006; Salas, Stagl& Burke, 2004; Schippers et al., 2003; Tannenbaum et al., 1998; West, 1996.). A diagrammatic representation of group process in teams Fig 3.(Reprinted with permission from Edmondson, Dillon &Roloff, 2007) 2.1.4.1. Team learning and individual learning. Team learning can be distinguished from individual learning in area of interaction which exists in the former and is exhibited in the gathering, sharing, processing and acting on knowledge. Team learning requires a level of agreement among team members about acceptable patterns of behaviour for knowledge sharing, such is not necessary in individual learning. (Edmondson, 1996; Agryris&Schon, 1996) 2.1.4.2. Team learning and team performance: team learning does not necessarily translate into improved team performance. This is because what is learned may not have been put into practice or action by the team due to factors such as insufficient time and resources. Team performance shows a scorecard of the outcome of team learning whereas team learning questions the methods of obtaining the result and the opportunities for improvement. However there is a positive correlation between effective team learning and improved team performance when factors highly influential both within and outside the control of the team are in favour of the team. A few factors that may affect team performance are the composition of the team, goal and role clarity among team members, level of interdependence, the design of the job, the leadership of the team, team spirit/supportiveness, level of organizational support, empowerment etc.(Valerie, 2002; Edmondson, 2002; Van-Offenbeek, 2001) 2.1.4.3.Limitations. Many scholars in the past have attempted to contribute to team learning in general while using narrow measures. Some fail to build upon antecedent research making the research field more confusing (Edmondson, Dillon &Roloff, 2007; Van Offenbeek, 2001, Watkins &Marsick, 1996). The issue of time and its effect in the process and outcome of learning is also understudied. Nevertheless, the concept of team learning is of great importance to the understanding of a learning organization because in every organization where teams are formed for a specific purpose, be it a team of surgeons in hospitals, university councils, technical crew, space shuttle football teams etc. there is always a unique underlying pattern of behaviour worth studying which is shared among members that leads to the achievement of desired results. 2.2. DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING ORGANISATION It is necessary to state at this point that while learning is the core ingredient of the learning organization, it is not all that is required. There are other equally important structures that need to be put in place to aid effective learning and to achieve the desired results from learning. These are the dimensions of learning organization. Since the crystallization of the Learning Organization concept a number of scholars have proposed dimensions underpinning the concept that can be used to understand it. Senge(1990) proposed five dimensions which he referred to as disciplines of the learning organization namely: (1) personal mastery (2) mental models (3) team learning (4) shared vision and (5) systems thinking Garvin (1993) postulated(1) supportive learning environment, (2) concrete learning processes and practices, and (3) leadership behaviour as dimensions which he termed “learning organization building blocks; Goh (1998) believes rather that a learning organization dimension consists of(1) clarity and support for vision and mission, (2) shared leadership and involvement, (3) a culture that encourages experimentation, (4) inter-boundary knowledge transfer, (5) teamwork and (6) cooperation. Fiol and Lyles (1985) enumerated four contextual factors that influence organizational learning (1)corporate culture (2) strategy (3) organizational structure and the (5) environment. Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1997) identified seven distinct yet interrelated dimensions of a learning organization. (1) Continuous learning, (2) inquiry and dialogue, (3) team learning, (4) empowerment, (5) embedded systems, (6) system connection and (7) strategic leadership. Other scholars who equally have proposed models for the learning organization are kerka (1995), Slater &Narver (1995), Marquardt (1996), and Huber (1991) amongst others. This study adopts Leadership (Garvin, 1993; Senge, 1990; Watkins &Marsick, 1997), Team learning (Senge, 1993; Goh, 1998; Watkins &Marsick, 1997) and Empowerment (Garvin, 1993; Goh, 1998; Watkins &Marsick 1997) as its dimensions and the basis of its theoretical and operational framework, based on its proven construct and content validity, reliability (Hernandez, 2000; Joo 2007; Lim, 2003; McHargue, 1999, Wang, 2005; Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang & Houston, 2002), relevance and the emphasis on people and structure, (Wang, 2005) as well as its critical relevance within theenvironment under study. 2.2.1. Leadership: Our first and most important dimension for creating a learning organization is Leadership. Various research works aimed at improving organizational performance over time have roots and nodes that point to the role of leadership in achieving such desired results. (Kurland, Perez &Lazarowitz, 2010; Fullan, 2002; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978; House, 1977; Lipshitz& Popper, 2007) The modern day organization is no exception, as the importance of transformational leaders has become more evident in the face of rapid change and development (Stewart, 2006; Avoilo, 1997; Atonakis, 2003; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Leadership according to Bass (1985, 1999) is the ability of people, using minimum coercion, to influence and motivate others to perform at a high level of commitment. The adoption of Leadership as a critical dimension of the learning organization is hinged on the transformational leadership theory postulated in Bass and Avolio (1990, 1994, and 1997) Full Range of Leadership model (FRL) andMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The transformational leadership theory as established by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) is a theoretical discovery that is highly and positively related to learning organization. 2.2.1.1. Transformational Leadership Burns (1978) defines transformational leadership as the process of pursuing collective goals through the mutual achievement of the leaders’ and followers’ motives. Thereby [implying that both] leader and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation. Bennis and Nanus (1985) defined such leaders as those who are able to achieve significant change by their capacity to understand the aspiration of the followers and encourage them to achieve common goal by raising the level of motivation of both leaders and followers Transformational leaders are those who are able to motivate followers to perform beyond their current level of performance for the achievement of higher level needs. (Bass, 1985, Maslow, 1970) they create intellectual stimulation, have individual consideration, inspire and motivate employees and have a strong idealized influence on their employees. Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003) Leadership in our proposed dimension, is constructed to encompass the responsibility of creating the organization’s shared vision as the basis of the organizational culture, it also entails fostering systems thinking in the organization, motivating and empowering workers towards personal mastery and reorganizing the organization’s mental models to be in line with its goals and objectives. The leader also is believed in this model to be responsible for creating a continuous learning environment that has structures in place for effective communication, storage and retrieval of information. 2.2.2. Empowerment: this is the second dimension we propose for this research. The choice of empowerment amongst other equally important dimensions is based on the belief that providing a learning environment, lofty visions, improved mental models that support systems thinking without actually equipping individuals with meaningful jobs to do and the required resources to carry them out effectively in consonant with their goals towards personal mastery is at best futile. Empowerment has been strongly linked by various research studies to learning organization. (Goh, 1998; Hill, 1996; Watkins &Marsick, 1996; Burdett, 1991). The whole essence of the learning organization is to reshape peoples’ thinking and environment in a way that makes them perform their jobs better. Where there are no meaningful jobs to perform or the provisions that enable such, it terminates the effort abruptly. According to the World Bank definition, empowerment is the act of providing individuals or groups with enough knowledge to allow them to make educated choices so that the result of those choices leads to responsible decision making that benefits the individuals that make them in particular and the organization in general. Empowerment is usually aimed at increasing motivation, increasing effectiveness or a combination of both. This is achieved as a result of the increased sense of competence, purposefulness, organization and trust, the employee feels when empowered.(Babaei, 2002; Mohammadi, 2003; Mishra, 1992; Spritzer, 1992). An employee empowerment plan holistically drafted would specify explicitly, the role of the empowered individual, the limits to the roles and the authority for the individual, the required skills and set time duration within which the empowerment is legitimate. (Veten, David, Cameron & Kim, 2004). 2.2.3. Team learning Team learning is the third dimension proposed. It is a key factor and a fulcrum point upon which a learning organization is ultimately achieved in combination with other dimensions.(Kayes, 2004; Kayes, 2014; Savelsbergh, 2010) Individual learning and personal mastery must be recruited, developed and harnessed within teams before it can be to an organization’s advantage. (Edmondson et al., 2007; Senge, 1990: Salas et al, 2004; Hackman, 1978) Kayes (2014) dimensions for team learning sees team learning as contingent upon the degree of change brought about by the team, the nature of knowledge generated within teams, how much influential the knowledge generated in teams affect the individuals that comprise them, its level of variability and its orientation. Continuous learning is central to teams in a learning organization. (Senge, 1990) The shared visions and organization mental models initiated by the leader and communicated to organization members are best tested and internalized within teams than as individuals. Moreover, the ultimate goal of team learning is to combine and generate knowledge for the organization that is greater them the aggregate of individual knowledge and can be applied to move the organization towards its goals (Garvin, 1993; Klob, 1985; Kayes, 2004; Kayes, 2014, Senge, 1990) Our model of team learning encompasses individual learning, personal mastery, communication, openness, continuous learning, shared vision and mental models. . Fig 4: proposed dimension of learning organization. 2.3. EMPLOYEE EFFECTIVENESS Effectiveness is one of the two major ingredients to productivity in any organization-the other is efficiency. Effectiveness, which simply means ‘doing the right things’; is relative and contextual specific in nature. There are no universally acceptable specifications of the “right things” for which all organizations must do. This is because organizations differ and so do their operations, goals, objectives, stakeholder composition and general environment, which all have an impact on their output. The measures the organization takes towards ensuring that the goods and/or services it produces and the methods it uses in production meets the identified need for which it exists to satisfy is the effectiveness measures of the organization – it is simply the way the organization seeks to do things right, how it seeks to accomplish its objectives (Robbins, 2000; Mouzas, 2006; Chavan, 2009). This is a useful convergence borrowed from the Universalistic theories of Comparative management (Carla, 2005) which can be used to simplify the understanding of effectiveness. Effectiveness measures outcome, which is the effect of the output on the target market in comparison with the envisaged effect. Effectiveness can be defined as a measure of how well the outputs of a program, process or service achieve the stated objectives of that program, process or service (Zheng, Yang & McLean, 2010). However, it should be noted that outcomes do not solely depend on outputs as it is influenced by other environmental factors. Effective Ineffective Efficient Excellent company that achieves its objectives with costs under control Costs are under control but it fails to attain its objective. Company gradually goes bankrupt. Inefficient Achieves its target with high cost. The company survives but does not make as much profit as it should. A total and expensive failure. Company heads into bankruptcy. Effectiveness and efficiency go hand in gloves for an overall successful organization. While organizations seek to achieve its desired outcome, employing measures that helps it achieve them with the least possible cost is the most desirable. Conversely, achieving a tremendous reduction in cost without achieving the desired outcome is at best, far from ideal and at worst, futile ( Bartuševičienė & Šakalytė, 2013). Fig 5: Relationship between Efficiency and Effectiveness Source: adopted from Zoakei& Simons (2006). Having highlighted the relationship between effectiveness and efficiency in achieving a competitive high performance organization, our choice of selecting effectiveness as a dependent variable and our exclusion of efficiency (though in reality elements of efficiency exists in the mechanics for ensuring effectiveness) stems from the belief that in a quest to set any organization on the part towards becoming a learning organization which is the focus of this literature, the early signs of improvement usually gathered are those that relate to the goals of effectiveness, subsequent improvements may then be that of discovering efficient ways of being effective. We believe that an organization which has developed and communicated a shared vision, empowered its employees with the aim of improving performance and has capable leaders that drive the spirit and enthusiasm towards the shared vision will reap a positive step in the right direction from its employees as the first noticeable changes before it subsequently begins to develop better ways of attaining its goals. Employee effectiveness is the degree to which the outcome of an employee’s efforts or output meets the objectives of the organization. Teo& Low (2016) defined employee effectiveness from the perspective of goal setting theory to be the enhanced level of employee performance that leads to higher productivity. Upon training and development of an employee and empowering such employee for greater effectiveness, it is expected that given a consciousness of the organization-wide shared vision and mental models that such an employee will yield outcomes that are consonant with the expected outcomes of the organization and so it is the duty of the organization to specify its expectations towards an employee. The one way to determine a positive investment in human capital is by measuring its output and contribution to the organization’s objectives. However, the standards for measuring employee effectiveness differs among organizations just as their operations differ, but a common attribute and factor that can be used to measure the effectiveness of any performance across every organization is the yardstick of cost and time. Cost is the value placed on the efforts or resources expended in achieving an output or outcome. The choice of the word “value” is intentional seeing that cost is not only restricted to monetary quantifications but also includes the value of the best alternative choices forgone (which is known as opportunity cost) in pursuing and achieving a certain outcome. Time is a universally uniformed scarce commodity. Every organization, team and individual is subjected to the same amount of time and it is a widely acceptable yardstick for assessing performance. The objectives and goals of every organization are usually time bound and as such an organization is adjudged effective partly by how much time it expends in achieving its objectives in comparison with the set time frame. Having established this, we proceed to measure the effectiveness of employees in terms of cost effectiveness and time effectiveness. 2.4. Measures of Employee Effectiveness In this study we adopt two measures-cost effectiveness and time effectiveness- which are generally utilized for ascertaining employee effectiveness as our yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of employees in a learning organization. Our choice of both measures stems from its general applicability to all organizations, its simplicity and readily ascertainable methods. In a learning organization which is characterized by empowerment, open information sharing and learning, employees will tend to have an idea of the cost of decisions and alternatives, will be empowered to carry out their job functions with full responsibility and will be better informed to make cost effective decisions. These decisions once made are adjudged effective or ineffective when they are achieved not just at any time but within a specified time frame – thus making it time effective. Other scholars such as Erdem, Ilgan&Ucar (2014), Lee-Kelley, Blackman & Hurst (2007), Mirkamali, Tham i& Alami (2011), Rose, Kumar & Pak (2009) Rowden & Conine, (2005), Nasiopoulos, Sakas & Vlachos (2014), Chang & Lee (2007), Goh (2003), propose measures such as job satisfaction, job engagement, increased motivation etc. as employee effectiveness measures, while we equally agree to these measures as useful predictors of employee effectiveness; we believe that these are only mediators seeing that they do not directly result in the outcomes anticipated by the organization. In a learning organization, a satisfied, engaged or motivated worker reflects may not necessarily translate to an effective worker but a continuously time effective and cost effective worker most certainly is engaged, motivated and satisfied.- this in the end is the outcome that matter most to keep the organization alive and running. We now proceed to expatiate on the measures chosen. 2.4.1. Cost Effectiveness: this is the measure of the extent to which the cost of resources, used to produce a specified output or outcome, has been minimized comparatively. Cost effectiveness involves comparisons of the cost of alternative ways of producing the same or a very similar effect, or the comparisons of the effect of alternative production methods with the same or very similar cost (IEG evaluation criteria). An option or action is cost effective if it has the lowest comparable cost amongst all other similar options or actions. The most suitable fulcrum for assessing cost effectiveness is from the economic view of opportunity cost which means assessing the value of a decision or action in the light of the value of other decisions or actions that would have been undertaken with the same resources. From the viewpoint of the employee, cost effectiveness can be viewed from the point of the resources used in developing human capital through trainings, empowerment, continuous and team learning. This can be measured, though not accurately, by the value of the decisions, actions and output and the value of the resultant outcome as a result of an investment in the human capital by the organization. Cost effectiveness is sometimes confused with efficiency which means attaining maximum output with minimum input, however the major difference is that a cost effective analysis takes the outcome as given while comparing it against the cost of other alternative ways whereas, efficiency focuses on the outcome to know if it is indeed the best possible outcome amongst other alternatives, given the same amount of resources. Simply put, cost effectiveness takes output or outcome as given and compares only cost whereas efficiency takes cost as given and compares outcome with alternatives (DAC glossary/ IEG evaluation criteria). It is however difficult practically to determine how cost effective an action is in reality because all the possible range of nearly infinite alternatives are not expressly known to the decision maker to be able to rationally ascertain if the chosen option or action is the best amongst all others. Secondly, some actions or decisions may seem cost effective in the short run when compared to others however it would be ineffective in the long run. E.g.: Organizational activities that endanger nature and wildlife. Thirdly, not every alternative can be measured or x-rayed through the lens of monetary valuation, not all alternatives can be reduced to Naira and Kobo for a uniformed unit of comparison. Regardless of these difficulties, cost effectiveness has proven itself a readily available useful tool in assessment in todays’ organizations. For a learning organization, cost effectiveness can be ascertained tangibly, on an employee level by the quality of decisions, actions, output and outcomes of the employee’s direct involvement in his job. It can also be roughly ascertained intangibly, from the increased job satisfaction, motivation, reduced turn over, tardiness and absenteeism, increased empowerment, increased psychological safety, improved organizational climate and working environment which have a direct effect on the perceivable output of the worker. An organization that invests in the learning and empowerment of its employees (which is the goal) will most likely reap the benefits which exceed costs in folds in the long run as employees will learn overtime to get ahead and stay ahead. Investing in the attainment of a learning organization also yields two major types of benefit amongst others which are financial improvement and human capital development (Watkins & Marsick, 1996). Hence, learning organizations are typically effective organizations (Garvin, 1993). This we hope to ascertain in this study 2.4.2. Time Effectiveness: Another handy measure of employee effectiveness is using the yardstick of time. Time is the yardstick for measuring change and change is the goal of the learning organization. The uniqueness of time as an appropriate tool for measuring effectiveness stems from its uniformity and universality.(Hisrich & Peters, 2002; cited in Adeyinka, 2012).Time according to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary is a period either short or long, during which you do something witness something being done. Time is irrecoverable. It cannot be replaced or pausedneither can it be accumulated nor stocked as in money and materials; it is the scarcest resource equally available to every man and can only be managed seeing that it, in itself, defines man (Ojo & Olaniyan, 2008). Time effectiveness is the investment of time in ways that ensures the achievement of specific objectives within a specified time range (Adeyinka, 2012). Amongst employees, it involves creativity and innovation-discovering newer and better ways of doing most relevant tasks and activities with less time. Time effectiveness succinctly put, is a product of effective time management (Allen, 2001). Randall (1979) defines time management as the process of accomplishing tasks and goals that helps one to be effective in their career. To Allen (2001) it is the practice individuals engage in to make better use of their available time. Time management, once developed, becomes a pervasive part of an employee’s life and by extension, the organization (Adeyinka, 2012). Several identifiable benefits accrue to employees who best manage their time and are time effective; such employees are usually in control, they record increases in productivity, are more organized and are almost never caught in the web of multiple deadlines amongst others. A number of principles and procedures have been posited by numerous scholars as ways of achieving time management for time effectiveness: The European Journal for Scientific Research (2008) describes the principle of time management as planning, organizing, assuming full responsibility and accountability as well as developing integrity; another is the 80/20 or ‘pareto- principle’ which implies that 20% of an employees’ activities are the most important to do and account for over 80% of the value of their activities (Vilfredo, 1957) Other theories are the principle of planning which involves the ‘rule of indispensability’ that sates that a 10% use of time to plan will save up to 90% of the efforts used in achieving goals later (Hisrich& Peters, 2002; cited in Adeyinka, 2012) , the principle of behaviour which sees time management as a mental model to be imbibed.(Macaan, 1996; Cleessens, Roe & Rutte, 2009; cited in Adeyinka, 2012); the principle of analysis, amongst others. Time and time effectiveness can never be over studied; with all the present breakthrough in information and technological advancements all aimed at aiding productivity which is a function of time and effort, time management will continue to occupy its relevant position as a critical life factor far beyond the foreseeable future . However, the pertinent question is; what position does the concept of time occupy in the learning organization? The whole idea of systems thinking is the ability to perceive the degree of interrelatedness and interdependence we have with the environment and better ascertain how our actions and decisions affects others within a specific time frame. A striking point made by Senge (1990)in his identification of a number of behaviors exhibitedby employees in organizations (that tend to characterize them as time irresponsive and ineffective) is ‘the parable of the boiling frog’ which teaches that an organization that is highly sensitive and responsive to its environment and is conscious of how event changes gradually with time will hardly be caught off guard or unprepared when the gentle breeze turns into a storm. The learning organization recognizes extensively the importance of time and is all not just about mastering the art of beating deadlines and staying ahead of others, but ensuring that everyday activities are geared towards continuously being time effective in the long run as time is the yardstick for measuring the rate of change. Proposed Operational framework showing the relationship between Learning Organization (Independent Variable) and Employee Effectiveness (Dependent Variable). EMPLOYEE EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES Cost effectiveness Time effectiveness LEARNING ORGANISATION DIMENSIONS Leadership (transformational) Empowerment Team Learning 2.5. Learning Organization and Employee Effectiveness. Watkins & Marsick (1996), in their study of the dimensions of the learning organization, highlighted financial performance and knowledge performance as the outcomes of a learning organization. Achieving these two outcomes primarily depend on the effectiveness of organization and specifically, the employees that exist in them (Teo& Lowe, 2015). On an extensive literature review of the existing relationship between learning organization and employee effectiveness, a large number of research works (in Erdem, Ilgan&Ucar, 2014; Lee-Kelley, Blackman & Hurst 2007; Mirkamali, Thami&Alami 2011; Rose, Kumar & Pak2009; Rowden&Conine, 2005; Garvin, 1993; Edmondson, 2000; Argyris&Schon, 1978Nasiopoulos, Sakas& Vlachos, 2014 etc.) were discovered to have established a positive relationship and correlation between the two concepts. Outcomes such as job satisfaction, high job engagement, and improved employee performance have been linked to learning organizations in these studies. For example, Luna-Arocas (2012), Kontoghiorghes, Aubrey &Feurig(2005), and Yang et al (2004) have found out that learning in organizations is a crucial and important factor in determining staff effectiveness and productivity. Chang & Lee (2007), Egan et al, (2004), Goh ( 2003), Rose, Kumar & Pak (2009) also have established empirical relationships between Learning Organization and job satisfaction which is a factor highly linked to employee effectiveness seeing that a satisfied worker is a productive worker (Dekoulou&Trivellas, 2014; Goh, 2003; Chang & Lee, 2007; Dirani, 2009). Davis & Daley (2008), Ellingeret al., (2002) and Weldy (2009) also in their study of business organizations established a correlational compatibility between learning organization and individual performance while Goh (2003) highlights a statistically significant positive association of job satisfaction and transformational leadership-a dimension of the learning organization. Elyon & Bamberger (2000) research works confirmed that increase in job satisfaction is closely linked to empowerment and systems thinking. As regards employee performance, the research works by Dekoulou & Trivellas (2014) found out that system connection, strategic leadership, empowerment, inquiry and dialogue (Senge, 1990) are the learning organization components most significantly and directly associated with employee performance. Scholars such as Kirkman (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), Speitzer (Spreitzer, 1995, 1997) as cited in Mehrabani &Shajari (2015) affirms a positive relationship amongst employee empowerment, employee performance and employee satisfaction (Laschinger, 2001; Seiber, 2004). As have been observed, several elements of the learning organization points to the direction of improving effectiveness in employees, however this is determined citerus peribus by the type and quality of the leader (Nadaee, Alavi & Ramezani, 2012) on whose shoulder rests the onus to structure the organization in a manner that encompasses all the characteristics of the learning organization. (Avolio& Bass, 2004; Briggs, 2008; Duerr, 2009) Transformational leaders do best in this role because they possess the ability to motivate and empower the employees towards improved performance (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Betram & Casimir, 2004). The various literatures reviewed, affirms the existence of a strong relationship between learning organization and employee effectiveness in various countries, organizations and groups. 2.6. Learning Organization and other related concepts Learning Organization and Traditional Organization some critics of the theory of learning organization have labeled it as the latest management fad (Padaki, ????) others believe that everybody; not just people in a learning organization, naturally adjust and adapt their attitude and action to their environment and as such they learn. Some others label the concept as a-tool-box-fix-all concept propagated by consultants rather than scientists who do not mind selling ice to the Eskimos to enrich their pockets. It is of a truth however, that learning can be undertaken by just about any other person and that share-holders wealth and welfare maximization remains still an important objective of today’s organization but on a closer observation, there exists salient features that distinguish a learning organization and thus lend credence to its usefulness as a concept. Intraditional organizations, productive organizations are generally viewed as centre of work; the management focuses on the functions of planning, organizing, coordinating, directing and controlling of work, this to the manager is primary and all other activities secondary. Training and development is carried out only when it does not interfere with functional duties and is relegated to the back seat when there are not enough resources to foot the bill. A traditional organization views doing work and learning as two separate activities and as such there is time for everything. The learning organization on the other hand, sees a productive organization as not only centre of work but centre of learning. It seeks to interlace learning with work and describes learning not just as a skill or ability needed to fit the job but as the job itself. Secondly, the traditional organization no doubt engages in one form of learning or the other but this is only for the sole purpose of applying knowledge and adjusting behaviour to improve performance and output. This type of learning is termed‘single loop learning’ or maintenance learning (Argyris & Schon 1974, 1996; Hawkins, 1991,994; Tobert, 1994; cited in Robin & Man-Kuen, 1998) while this type of learning is good for improving performance it has only a short term focus and tends to ignore the gradual changes in the environment; Conversely, in learning organization, learning goes beyond single loop learning to double loop learning (which involves questioning and investigating the efficiency and effectiveness of the method already in use in the organization and its relevance in relation to changes in the environment and reframing it) and even ‘triple loop’ or ‘deutero-learning’(which involves investigating the root and foundation of such knowledge, method or practice in the organization and restructuring from the root those built on faulty foundation). Hence, whilst traditional organizations myopically tend to survive by improving its output and remaining competitive, learning organization seeks to reinvent, reshape and restructure the organization for better fit as a system within a larger system. In traditional organizations, the structure of the hierarchy is such that the top thinks and the lower levels acts but alearning organization merges thinking and acting in every individual through ingrained mental models, shared vision, systems thinking and empowerment.The learning organization, unlike the traditional organization, does not just relaxand hope that learning is achieved as a by-product of normal work it actively promotes, facilitates and rewards collective learning. Learning Organization and Organizational Learning: as mentioned earlier, the concept of learning organization and organizational learning is sometimes taken to mean the same thing however there is a difference in both concepts, the learning organization is a continuous state while organizational learning are the processes that are put in place to attain that state in organizations (Finger &Woolis, 1994; Finger & Brand, 1999). Jones & Henry (2006) refers to organizational learning as the process that is on-going in learning organization. Organizational learning is an area of knowledge within the organizational theory that studies models and theories about the way an organization learns and adapts, it is the process by which an organization transforms individual knowledge into social knowledge (Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996). The key aspect of organizational learning is the interaction that takes place amongst individuals in the organization(Huber, 1991; De Geus, 1988) Research works on organizational learning are mostly products of academic researchers whereas that of learning organization stems mostly from consultants and professionals in the field of human resources and organizational development (Tsang, 1997). Learning Organization and Organizational Development: A lot of critics who have questioned the theoretical relevance of the learning organization have roots in the concept of organizational development (OD). To them, the theory of organizational development (OD) encompasses all that is preached in learning organization and as such there is no newness to the LO concept or need for the buzz and hype it receives. Of a truth both concepts share a common foundation in that they both proffer solutions to dealing with and adapting to change. Another similarity is the fact that both concepts are usually administered with the aid of consultants and practitioners and both concepts involves addressing the structure and learning better ways of managing change however a few differences exist. The learning organization (LO) concept has an upper hand in the area of its strong emphasis on not just the people and the structure within the organization, but the environment within which the business exists-something not well pronounced in OD (Kaplan, 1996; Eade, 1997). OD theories are usually prescriptive in nature, usually close ended and tend to lack continual reinforcement upon implementation, whereas the LO concept is of a continuously experimental nature, never ending and relatively open ended to perceive and adjust to changes in real time. There is never really a state called learning organization, it is a continuous process but this is not so in OD as change models once administered in a system,is frozen so operations can continue on the new state. OD change models lack continuous synchronization with the environment that causes these changes in the first place. In this chapter so far, this study has highlighted the concept of the learning organization. It mentioned its sub-classifications and their features and also proposed leadership, empowerment and team learning as dimensions of learning organization. For employee effectiveness, cost and time effectiveness was selected as the specific measures of employee effectiveness in a learning organization. It should however be noted that from all that has been discussed that there are still impediments to achieving the learning organization in reality. Power and politics, rigid mental models, apathy, lethargy, insecurity and corruption are observed factors that can riddle all efforts to become a learning organization. A learning organization can be likened to an organic organization. Just like organisms perform the primary and necessary task of respiration-continuously circulating the air round the system, the learning organization must learn continuously and circulate what is learnt around the organization for toensure survival, growth and development. REFERENCES Alexandra, L.G, (2013).Organizational Learning and Performance: A Conceptual Model.Proceedings of the 7th International Management Conference "New Management for the New Economy", November, 2013, Bucharest, Romania. Amitay, M., Popper, M. &Lipshitz, R. (2005), “The Effects of Leadership Style on Organizational Learning in Community Clinics”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No.1, pp. 57-70. Argyris, C. &Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., &Schon, D. (1995).Organizational Learning: Theory, Method and Practice.New York: Addison-Wesley Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. &Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and Leadership: An Examination of the Nine-Factor Full-range Leadership Theory Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-95. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. &Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the Components of Transformational and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-62 Bartuševičienė, I.&Šakalytė, E. (2013) Organisational Assessment: Effectiveness Vs. Efficiency, Social Transformation In Corporate Society (STICS) 2013 (1) Abstract, Lithuania. Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B. M. (1999), “Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32. Bass, B.M. (2000), “The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 18-40. Bass, B. M &Avolio, B. J. (1990), “The Implications of Transactional and Transformational Leadership for Individual, Team, and Organizational Development”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 4, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 231-72. Bass, B.M. &Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Sage, New York, NY. Bass, B. M .&Avolio, B. J (1997). Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire; Mind Garden: Palo Alto, CA, USA.. Burdett, J.O. (1991). What is Empowerment Anyway? Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(6), 23–30. Claessens, B. Roe, R. &Rutte, (2009). ‘Time Management: Logic, Effectiveness & Challenges, In: Roe, R., Waller, M. & Clegg, S. (Eds), Time in Organizational Research, London, Routledge, UK, pp. 23-41 American Management Association Journal (2007), pp 8-19.  Castells, M. (1999). The Information Age, Volumes 1-3: Economy, Society and Culture. Cambridge (Mass.); Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Workteams.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. Edmondson, A. (2002). The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations.Organization Science, 13, 128-146. Edmondson, A.C., Dillon, J. R. &Roloff, K. S. (2007). Three Perspectives on Team Learning: Outcome Improvement, Task Mastery, and Group Process. In A Brief and J. Walsh (Eds.), The Academy of Management Annals, Volume 1. Eylon, D., & Bamberger, P. (2000) Empowerment cognitions and empowerment acts: Recognizing the importance of gender. Group andOrganization Management, 25, 354–373. Ellinger, A. D. Ellinger, A. E. Yang, B.&Howton, S. W. (2002). The Relationship between the Learning Organization Concept and Firms’ Financial Performance: An Empirical Assessment.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(1), 5–21. Fiol, M. C. & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational Learning, Academy of Management Review, 10, 803-813. Finger, M., & Brand, S., (1999). The Concept of the Learning Organization, Applied To The Transformation of The Public Sector, In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo and J. Burgoyne, Organizational Learning and The Learning Organization, London: Sage, P.2. Finger, M., &Woolis, D. (1994). Organizational Learning, The Learning Organization, and Adult Education.Paper presentation at the proceedings of the Adult Education Research Conference. Fang, S. C. & Wang, J. F. (2006) Effects of Organizational Culture and Learning on Manufacturing Strategy Selection: An Empirical Study, International Journal of Management, 23, 503-514. Giesecke, J. & McNeil, B.(2004). Transitioning to the Learning Organization, Faculty publication, University of Nebraska-Lincoln libraries.https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience/5 Goh, S. C. (1998). Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 63(2), 15–20. Garvin, D. A, Edmondson, C. A & Gino, F (2008) Is Yours A Learning Organization? Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business School Publishing Ltd www.hbr.org. Hernandez, M. (2000).The Impact of the Dimensions of the Learning Organization on the Transfer of Tacit Knowledge Process and Performance Improvement Within Private Manufacturing firms in Colombia.Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Georgia, Athens. Hisrich& Peters (2002) Effective Time Management for High Performance in Organizations, Journal of Nigerian Institute of Management, Vol, 44 No 3 pp. 21-26 Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115 Ingham, J. (2007). Strategic Human Capital Management.Routledge, New York. Klein, B. S. (2002) Learning Principles and Applications. 4th. Ed. McGraw Hill, New York. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kolb, D. A.(1981). Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences.The Modern American College 232-255. Kerka, S.(1995). The Learning Organization. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearing House on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Center on Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, The Ohio State University. Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbrey, S..M., &Feurig, P.L. (2005). Examining the Relationship between Learning Organization Characteristics and Change Adaptation, Innovation and Organizational Performance.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 185-211 Marquardt, M. (1996).Building the Learning Organization.McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Marsick, V. J. &Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of Learning Organizations Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151. Michael, J. M. (1996:p220-242) Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement, McGraw Hill (as summarized by Jyrki J. J. k.) Mirkamali, S.M., Thani, F.N., &Alami, F. (2011).Examining the Role of Transformational Leadership and Job Satisfaction in the OrganizationalLearning of an Automotive Manufacturing Company.Social and Behavioural Sciences, 29, 138-148. McLeod, S.A. (2013) Klob’s Learning Styles. simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html Lee-Kelley, L., Blackman, D.A., & Hurst, J.P. (2007). An Exploration of the Relationship Between Learning Organization and The Retention of Knowledge Workers. The Learning Organization, 14, 204-221. Ortenblad, A. (2002)A Typology of the idea of Learning Organization. Management Learning, 33, 213-230. Ojo L.B. &Olaniyan, D.A. (2008) Effective Time Management in Organization Panacea or Placebo, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol., 24 No 1 pp.127-133 Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., &Boydell, T. (1991).The Learning Company: A strategy for Sustainable Development. New York: McGraw-Hills. Popper, M. &Lipshitz, R.(1998). Organizational learning mechanism: A structural and Cultural Approach to Organizational Learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(2), 161-179. Rose, R.C., Kumar, N., & Pak, O.G. (2009). The Effect of Organizational Learning on Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Work Performance.The Journal of Applied Business Research, 25, 55-66. Randall, S. (1979), Managing Stress Means Managing Time, Personnel Journal, Vol, 58 No12 pp. 857. Richa A &Rajen, K. G. (2012) Dimensions of the Learning Organization in an Indian Context, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 7 Issue: 3; pp. 222 – 244. Rowden, R.W., &Conine, C. T. (2005) The Impact of Workplace Learning on Job Satisfaction in Small US Commercial Banks. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17, 215-230. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Currency. Slater, S.&Narver, J. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization.Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63-74. Song, H. J, Joo,B&Chermack, T. J. (2009) The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ): A Validation Study in a Korean Context,Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1.Wiley Interscience. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227609100 Storm, P &Savelsbergh, C. (2005).Lack of Managerial Learning as a Potential Cause of Project Failure.Proceedings 18th Scandinavian Academy of Management conference, August 2005. Arhus, Denmark. Sugarman, B. (2000) A Learning Organization Approach to Organizational Change: Five Case Studies. Valerie, J. S. (1992). Learning Processes and Outcomes.International Encyclopaedia of Educational Research, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. Veten, David, C & Kim S. (2004), "Empowerment and Transferring Authority", Institute of Management Research and Training, 2nd Ed, Tehran Wang, X., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2007). Influence of Demographic Factors and Ownership Type Upon Organizational Learning Culture in Chinese Enterprises. International Journal of Training & Development, 11(3), 154–165 Watkins, K. E., &Marsick, V. J. (1993).Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. : Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Watkins, K. E., &Marsick, V. J. (1996).In Action: Creating the Learning Organization. American Society for Training and Development. Alexandria, VA. Watkins, K. E., &Marsick, V. J. (1997).Dimensions of the Learning Organization., Partnersfor the Learning Organization. Warwick, R.I. Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S & Cronin, M. A. (2007).Group Learning.Tepper School of Business.Paper 891.https://repository.cmu.edu/tepper/891. Weldy, T. G. (2009). Learning Organization and Transfer: Strategies for Improving Performance. The Learning Organization, 16, 58-68. Zokaei K. A. &Simons D. W.,(2006). Value Chain Analysis in Consumer Focus Improvement.A Case Study of the UK Red Meat Industry.The International Journal ofLogistics Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2006 pp. 141-162 DOI 10.1108/09574090610689934. 37