1.1 Background of the Study
The emergence of the global knowledge-based economy with a dynamic environment poses new challenges to organizations (Dimitriades, 2005). According to Namada (2017) environmental turbulence coupled with stiff competition both at the domestic and global levels are key reasons why firms need to learn from the past in order to improve the future. In addition, Blackler (1995) argues that there is current interest in the competitive advantage that learning may provide for organizations and in the significance of knowledge, competencies and knowledge-intensive firms. In search for enhanced performance of the individual, the group and the organization, learning has to be maintained as a key component, an idea that is strongly advocated by Dirani (2009). Learned knowledge therefore should provide an organization with extra benefit which should grow the growth organization to achieve its objectives.
Organizational learning (OL) therefore plays a big role towards adapting an increasing dynamic business environment, seeking to enhance competence and increase its aggressive yet competitive edge. Organisational learning is currently a major focus of considerable attention, from different branches of psychology and a broad range of literatures; organization theory, industrial economics, economic history, business management and innovation studies all approach the question of how organizations learn (Dodgson, 1993). Crossan, Lane and White (1999) concluded that although interest in organizational learning has grown dramatically in recent years, a general theory of organizational learning has remained elusive. This study has considered these observations by some scholars and will seek to find out the behavioral outcomes of learning as a key mediator and close the gaps raised by scholars.
In appreciating such importance, what fosters learning in an organization, and the outcomes, have both received significant attention among researchers and practitioners. Asserting that there is an intimate relationship between OL and certain organizational dimensions, proposed to enhance OL through more effective interventions of those dimensions and therefore cause a particular desired outcome. This research project aims to examine those factors that facilitate learning and their effect on employee behavior that creates the competitive advantage. The intent is to explore the antecedents and outcomes of organizational Learning (OL) in Kenyan hotels. An organizational capability to continuously acquire, disseminate, exploit and store relevant knowledge as a process of organizational learning is crucial for the organization’s better performance (Funmilola Olubunmi Omotayo 2015). This study will be exploring how silence, autonomy and trustworthiness create an environment of organizational citizenship behaviour and in-role behaviour through individual, group and organizational learning. In the past two decades, there has been an increased interest in the ability of organizations to learn. This area has attracted interest especially from within organizations with increased divergence theoretical and pragmatic perspectives. To this interest, this study examine the context of the research gaps which are to be filled by this research from in the context of Kenyan hotels.
Academics and practitioners have proposed that organizational learning as a process of continuous knowledge acquisition, dissemination and exploitation may improve the competitiveness of an organization (Hanna ,2012) an assertion that this paper will examine though the determinants and outcomes that validate learning as a competitive advantage tool. Kenyan hotels have to some extend invested in learning but for reasons varied from what the study seeks to establish. Hoteliers require a lot of updated information to keep up with the industry changes and also compete with others, this is majorly why some Kenyan hotels have invested in learning. However learning is of benefit to the organization if causes positive behaviour change that enhances the achievement of goals and objectives
This study has also considered that many of the hotels practicing or with interest in learning measure the outcome of learning through employee output. This study will go further to establish what influences learning and behaviour outcomes of organizational learning. According to Dinçer et.all (2015), the administrative practices carried out to achieve the activities within an organization have a significant impact on the attitudes developed by employees in conjunction with their organizations. These attitudes develop behaviour that facilitate or hinder organizational effectiveness. The study pre assumes that employee behaviour will positively be affected by autonomy, trustworthiness and silence mediated by learning with reference to characteristics of the industry in Kenya as this may differ from other contexts where closer or similar studies may have been conducted.
1.1.1 Organizational Learning
Organizational Learning play a mediating role in this study linking the relationship of learning to its antecedents and outcomes. Kolb (1984) deduces organizational learning as an interactive process in which action is taken, assessed by the actor and modified to produce desired outcomes. Learning in Kenyan organization is gaining importance from organization that have structured it. We launch to find out the behaviour outcomes of learning in Kenyan hotels for an organization’s competitiveness and survival as empirical research on organizational learning is still needed (Goh 1998; Bontis, Crossan et al. 2002). Need for survival and growth in an era of continuous change can force organizations to find a condition that will enable them to cope with the new situation in the environment.
Hotels in Kenya are faced with internal and external challenges that demand that learning be a central strategy in managing those challenges. It is proposed that the search to face the hurdles leads organizations to continuously learn from their internal and external environments (Crossan and Bedrow 2003) The need for the organizations to learn as holistic entities became more pronounced with the onslaught of globalization, favouring organizational learning as a means of creating competitive advantage (Senge, 1990). Learning within organizations always includes three levels (individual level, team or group level and organizational level), because it is evident that this multilevel structure is vital for its performance (Bontis et al., 2002) Organizational learning is seen as the learning processes used intentionally in order to achieve a long-term transformation of the organization so that the organization can be effective and achieves its goals.
Learning organization could be described as an organization that regularly creates, disseminates and integrates knowledge, transforms itself and modifies its action based on new knowledge, perceptions and experience in order to meet its strategic objectives (Paraskevi, 2014). Individual level learning as: “individual competence and capability and motivation to undertake the required tasks” Thus, individual capacity and motivation can attract learning and help the different levels participate in learning. Group learning involves development of a shared understanding through sharing of individual interpretations with an intended result of integration and effectiveness. This knowledge within groups then become an organizational product contributing to the larger shared goals and aims of the entire organization. Organizational level learning is further focused on structure, strategy, procedures, and culture, given the competitive environment and need. Learning within organizations focus to include individual, group and organizational level learning and the effect that learning capacity of individuals will result in group learning (Hanna, 2012) A continuous effort to create a process of organizational learning needs enthusiastic, capable and motivated employees who work effectively and are able to absorb new knowledge and to apply it in a daily working context.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Here is the problem, a review of the organizational learning literature reveals that the relationship between organizational learning and its antecedents has been inconsistent. the study aims to solve the problem of quality in Kenyan Hotels which is achieved through learning. Despite the widely recognized importance of organizational Learning as a vital source of competitive advantage, there is little understanding on the exact objectives it achieves that create the advantage. Hotels must realise that improving service quality through learning and delivery pays off in the long run. Through Learning, hotel staff acquire improved skills that help in increasing service quality, in turn, increase revenue, build customer loyalty and reduce complaints, lower marketing costs, and aid in the attraction and retention of employees. But, to realise the service quality pay-off requires a company to focus on what customers perceive as really important and this is not happening as much as it should be in the travel industry”.This analysis provides companies with opportunities to improve the service areas that matter most to their customers and indicates where more performance than is expected is being provided.
The most competitive organizations today position themselves in a strategic spot and condition in order to be effective. Globalization and technology has significantly influenced economic competitiveness forcing organizations to look for the extra competitive advantage like organizational learning which enhances employee positive behaviour majorly linked to improved performance (Evans, Pucik & Barsoux, 2002) in order to achieve sustainable performance, organizations are essentially required to invest in organizational learning. There has been a variety of empirical studies on the relationship between organizational learning and individual, group and organizational performance. However, there have been inconsistency in the results and this has led to lack of conclusiveness of this area of study.
No studies have been conducted yet in the context aimed by this study, while other studies done remain limited as well. Even more problematic is the lack of empirical testing and validation of the relationship between organizational learning and positive behaviour change mostly because of the multi-dimensional nature of the learning construct. Most published studies have used only qualitative selected case studies and anecdotes from organizational experience as the basis for evidence that organizational learning works and has positive effects on employee behaviour (Paraskevi, 2014). This research will attempt to make three main contributions to the emerging area and empirical studies regarding the antecedents of organizational learning. First, the study aims to improve the understanding of the multiple dimensions of organizational learning (individual, group and the organizational).
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The main objective of this study is to examine the relationship between the antecedents of organizational learning (OL); silence, autonomy trustworthiness and its behavioral outcomes; in-role behaviour (IRB) and organizational Citizenship behaviour (OCB) in selected 3-5 star hotels in Kenya.
1.4 Specific Objectives
1.4.1 To determine the effects of organizational perceptions on organizational learning
1.4.2 To determine the effects of organizational learning on employee behaviour
1.4.3 To determine the mediating effects of organizational learning between organizational perceptions and employee behaviours
1.5 Significance or importance of the study
Organizational learning antecedents and outcomes may have already been examined by some researchers. However, this study’s focus is on the relationship’s effect to the individual, the group/team, has not yet been examined and especially in the context of hotels. Moreover, given the increased learning behaviour of Kenyan hotels, this study aims to add new knowledge and provide more insight of the role of learning in achieving positive behaviour change
1.5.1 Significance to Policy Academicians and Researchers.
Academicians have proposed organizational learning as a process of continuous knowledge acquisition learning in organizations as a phenomena that has emerged in the recent years and inspired the academic field. Responding to these research objectives, this research attempts to make three main contributions to the emerging area and empirical studies regarding the effects of organizational perceptions on organizational learning and effects of organizational perceptions on organizational learning. The study aims to improve the understanding of the multiple dimensions of organizational learning (individual, group and the organizational) and provide empirical support for the relationship between the mediating effects of organizational learning and employee behaviours.
1.5.2 Significance to practitioners and Managers
Thirdly, the study aims to provide firm managers with practical implications, which may help build organizational learning abilities that enhance organizational positive employee behaviours. Knowledge dissemination and exploitation may improve the competitiveness of an organization.
1.6 The Scope of the Study
This study will focus to establish the effect of organizational perceptions mediated by individual learning, group, organizational to employee behaviours. In attempting to link them, this study will establish any positive relationship in the context of selected 3-5 star hotels in Kenya. This study acknowledge that organizational learning is common in hotels context but limited as a mediating factor.
1.7 Definition of terms
1.7.1 Individual Learning
Individual level learning refers to the process by which individuals generate new insights and knowledge from existing tacit or explicit information and knowledge. From a capability approach, individual learning capability refers to the individuals’ competencies and motivation to learn (Bontis et al., 2002)
1.7.2 Group Learning
Group level learning involves individuals transferring their individual knowledge within a group so that all members develop a shared understanding (Huber, 1991; Crossan et al., 1999; Kiessling et al., 2009).
1.7.3 Organizational Silence
Morrison and Milliken (2000) point out that organizational silence is the common choice made by organization members despite all research extolling the virtues of upward information for organizational health .Pinder and Harlos (2001) recognized that the phenomenon of employee silence might take on different meanings depending on its underlying motives. They distinguished silence in two forms, such as “quiescence” and “acquiescence” silence. In terms of “quiescence” silence represented deliberate omission, while “acquiescence” silence is based on submission (p. 348-349). Early definitions of silence equated it with “loyalty” and the assumption that nothing was wrong if concerns were not being voiced. But researchers today have shown that a climate of silence can work against desired organizational outcomes (Aylsworth, 2008).
Autonomy is the degree to which a job provides an employee with the discretion and independence to schedule their work and determine how it is to be done. (Marcia J. Simmering) A degree or level of freedom and discretion allowed to an employee over his or her job.
According to Paterson and Brock, (2002) Organisational autonomy refers to a university’s ability to decide freely on its internal organization, such as the executive leadership, decision-making bodies, legal entities and internal academic structures. Autonomy refers to the extent of decision-making authority wielded by a given position or organization.
Trustworthiness, as defined by Mayer et al. (1995) is based upon the “ability, benevolence, and integrity” of the party being trusted. One party trusts another based upon that other party’s perceived trustworthiness (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). Trust commitment is the degree to which one person acts cooperatively in pursuing another party’s objectives. Their trust behavior is based upon the degree to which the trusting party perceives that a leader or organization is trustworthy and honors the perceptions of the trusting party about ethical duties owed (Gullett et al., 2009). Trust and trustworthiness are both ethically related constructs. Trust and trustworthiness are constructs that are commonly interchanged as if they were the same concept (Caldwell and Jeffries, 2001), and a multitude of definitions and approaches from a diversity of perspectives have been offered to provide insight into the field (Hosmer, 1995).
1.7.6 The In-role Behavior
According to Yanhan Zhu (2013) In-role behavior means the core-task behavior, a concept is first proposed by Katz and Kahn officially. Katz et al. believed that the in-role behavior was such a kind of behavior that was described and defined as one part of employees’ work and reflected in the official salary system in the organization. The central concept of the role theory is the role. The term “role” comes from the theater, originally referring to the script regulating the behavior of actors. The social psychologists notice that this concept can help people to understand the social behavior and the individual personality and introduces it into the social psychology. In an organization, the individual is a member of the organization, whose behaviors should be different according to the difference of specific positions. With this basis, is the concept of the in-role behaviour.
1.7.7 Organizational Citizenship behaviour (OCB)
Organizational Citizenship behaviour refers to “individual behavior that is discretionary not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the ef?cient and effective functioning of an organization”(Organetal.,2006,p.3). Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a term that encompasses anything positive and constructive that employees do, of their own volition, which supports co-workers and benefits the company. Typically, employees who frequently engage in OCB are the ones who are known to ‘go the extra mile’ or ‘go above and beyond’ the minimum efforts required to do a merely satisfactory job. OCBs have often been conceptualized as discretionary prosocial employee behaviors that are not tied to a formal reward system or job description and tend to improve organizational performance (Organ, 1988).
1.8 Chapter Summary
Competitive advantage has been a strategy that many companies employ to control market share. Learning is one of these modern strategies that have been employed to give a competitive advantage. Learning is therefore expected to yield to positive outcome from the individual the group and the whole organization. Kolb, 1984; Schon (1983) viewed organizational learning as an iterative process in which action is taken, assessed by the actor and modified to produce desired outcomes. Positive employee behaviour is the expected outcome from learning and this include behaviours and attitudes. This study will specifically seek to establish the mediating role of organizational learning between organizational perceptions and behaviours
Dimitriades, (2005) “Creating strategic capabilities: organizational learning and knowledge management in the new economy”, European Business Review, Vol. 17 Issue: 4, pp.314-324
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this paper is to examine literature on antecedents of organizational learning and behaviour outcomes through the individual, the group and the organization based on the specific objectives earlier enumerated in chapter. More specifically, the literature will examine, the effects of organizational perceptions on organizational learning, the effects of organizational learning on employee behaviour and the mediating effects of organizational learning between organizational perceptions and employee behaviours.
2.2 The effects of organizational perceptions on organizational learning.
In today’s work environment, organizations are increasingly demanding more and more from their employees such as taking initiative, speaking up and accepting responsibility in order to competitively achieve the set objectives. This situation is necessitated by intensive competition, higher customer expectations, more focus on quality goods and services, indicating the current constant world of change (Gülsün et.al 2014). In the competition among the organizations, environmental conditions and technological developments cause the notions of organizational silence to make organizational learning to become of more importance day by day (Crossan et al., 1999).
According to Yeloglu et.al (2016) organizational silence has positive influence on organizational learning. If an employee feels that the organization is supporting him/her, he/she will be less join the learning process in the organization and try more to learn more. The more an employee chooses to be silent, the more he/she will learn probably due to the fact that being silent makes an employee to listen more, to watch more and they all result in the more learning of the employee. In many organizations, people choose to remain silent, especially if it is something detrimental regarding the senior management or the CEO. In addition, when employees know the truth about certain issues and problems facing the organization dare not to speak the truth to their superiors. Many employees feel that speaking up may have negative repercussions for their position in the company and/or that speaking up does not make a difference. Scholars have stated that organizational silence is a dangerous impediment to organizational learning and change hampering the growth of pluralistic organization where multiple viewpoints can be expressed and debated freely.
Negative effects of organizational silence on organizational learning include stifling innovation where employees can not feel free to deviate from the norm and offer novel perspectives or ideas. More relative is that organizational silence stifles organizational learning where; without dissenting viewpoints, there can be no critical self-examination of ideas or course of action and also by blocking negative feedback or information, a false sense of security pervades the organization that everything is working fine. Silence make errors can magnify over time and periodically affect any learning effort in the organization. Top management during this time may assume that silence is signaling consensus and success which is however the opposite. In the case the management directly asks employees for feedback on various organizational issues, employees may carefully filter out negative information and provide the information that satisfies the management.
Silence further causes stress and anxiety which affects any kind of learning in the organization caused by a discrepancy between one’s belief and one’s behavior. For example, a salesman who knows that customers are unhappy with a product but cannot raise this issue to his superiors because of fears of negative repercussions may come under stress to act like there is not a problem when he really knows there is. People naturally want to feel that they have control and a voice in things that affect them. Being able to express opinions gives people a greater sense of control leading to organizational deviant behavior.
Conditions that can lead to organizational silence include managers who fear negative feedback or information (especially from their juniors under). Surprisingly, when negative information comes from below as opposed to above, studies have shown that it tends to be seen as less legitimate and less accurate and more threatening to one’s power and credibility. This situation affects learning too when need to learn from below may be looked at least important. That has created an erroneous belief that management cares more about the company than employees do. Also are unstated beliefs that employees are only “self-interested” and that management knows what’s best about issues of organizational importance. Studies have shown that the longer a team has been together, the more they favor consensus and will tend not to challenge shared assumptions which is a collective sense making by employees. The preference in this case will be collective silence which affects group learning and employees will share their experiences of not being able to speak up and this becomes a cultural epidemic inside the organization as the accepted norm and this problem that affects many organizations to some degree. One suggestion for breaking down the walls of silence that the authors put forth and which I agree with is that organizations should seek and reward dissenting opinions and negative information which may be a learning opportunity for both sides. The management is responsible for putting up systems in place that will drive the behavior of the employees to speak up and allow employees to remain anonymous if they choose to come forward with sensitive information.
Some employees have personalities that make uneasy with undemocratic thoughts, managements and leadership structures while others are overly submissive to the authorities. Managements may offer opportunities to employees to be involved in decision making and voice their concerns but that must not be driven by the management or leadership but rather the employees if it will be effective. Employee participation and involvement in decision-making are well-established areas of research and have attracted interest from a wide range of social science perspectives in recent years. Pine and Van Dyne (1998,) whilst managements have a degree of latitude in shaping the channels and mechanisms of employee ability to speak up, employees also have a choice regarding how and whether they wish to use the provided mechanisms the study earlier explained. However some employees might not choose voice despite potentially having something to express, and the availability of voice channels (Harlos, 2010).
There is a need, therefore, to understand more about why workers may or may not want to take up voice opportunities even when they may have something meaningful to say (Detert & Edmondson, 2011). This is because no learning will take place in such an environment. Van Dyne et al. (2003) have defined silence as “intentionally withholding ideas, information, and opinions with relevance to improvements in work and work organizations”. Meaning that any intentional development through learning will not be effective and if it is done, the participants will not learn. From this perspective, silence is when employees choose not to share or express their opinions or ideas; silence is not about failing to communicate or having nothing to say. This definition focuses on ideas concerning organisational improvements, reflecting a business, rather than an ethical,
case for voice. Failed communication will affect knowledge sharing and that may have a negative impact on learning. The implication is that a dominant pattern of silence among employees results in a climate of organisational silence, which can seriously impede organisational decision-making and performance (Morrison and Milliken, 2000).
Silence can thus be viewed as the antithesis of voice (Donaghey et al., 2011). On the other hand, while voice can be viewed as a deliberate choice, silence might be not be a conscious decision, but the result of more general feelings of disengagement, psychological withdrawal or simply having nothing to say. The absence of intentional silence, defined as the deliberate withholding of information, does not mean the presence of voice behaviour (Brinsfield, 2012). Where employees deliberately refrain from speaking up, there is a whole range of possible reasons. While much of the extant research has focused on silence as a “risk avoidance” strategy, recent studies suggest a wider range of explanations for silence, including deviant behaviour, to avoid damaging a relationship, fear of speaking up, lack of confidence, perceived ineffectiveness and general disengagement (Brinsfield, 2012). Employees may decide to remain silent depending on the nature of the issue and time. Some issues such as pay inequity, managerial incompetence and decision-making procedures are often considered to be difficult to raise. (Cherian, 2009)
2.2.1 Organizational Silence
Employees know the truth about certain issues and problems facing the organization yet they do not dare to speak the truth to their superiors. Silence climate has an impact on organization’s ability to detect errors, learn and therefore, organizational effectiveness is negatively affected. This is majorly necessitated by management fears of feedback from receiving feedback and would rather maintain silence in the organization. Silent individuals do not expose their concerns based on the belief that they cannot make any change or because of their disengagement from organizational issues (Van Dyne et al., 2003). employees are often not willing to convey information that could be understood as negative or threatening to superiors in an organizational hierarchy (Roberts and O’Reilly, 1974)Employee silence behaviour can also create stress, cynicism, and dissatisfaction (Tamuz, 2001). According to Morrison and Milken 2000, , organizational silence is a potentially dangerous impediment to organizational change and development The main question is how can organizational create a climate where employees will speak up about significant issues of organizational life. Based on this study, there are implications of silence to organizational learning. Managements have to create an environment where employees can express themselves freely withhold withholding information which is important in learning for both individuals and groups in the organization. In the organizations, in order to have organizational learning and to develop its level from individual, group and organizational, there need to be a determination and intention to take part in learning activities along with having a shared learning vision, freedom in expressing thoughts and opinions and possessing a sharing atmosphere (Shirivastava, 1983) therefore any hindrance to the conditions facilitating learning will be perceived in a particular way.
As pointed out by Morrison and Milliken (2000) organizational silence is the common choice made by organization members (Rodriguez 2004). Pinder and Harlos (2001) recognized that the phenomenon of employee silence might take on different meanings depending on its underlying motives but its effect on the organization remains an adverse implication. Researchers today have shown that a climate of silence can work against desired organizational outcomes (Aylsworth, 2008). Learning in the organization id definitely one of those outcomes that a competitive organization intents to achieve. According to Pinder and Harlos (2001) silence is the absence of voice as it has its own form of communication, involving a range of cognitions, emotions or intentions such as objection or endorsement and its impact is impaired or no learning in the organization.
The literature on organizational silence is grounded on the recent research by Morrison and Milliken (2000). Early definitions of silence equated it with “loyalty” and the assumption that nothing was wrong if concerns were not being voiced (Bagheri, et al., 2012). If there are no voices then silence was termed as positive agreement in the case of voice absence. According to Van Dyne and LePine (1998) employee voice is generally related to contextual performance and silence must therefore be analysed in the contexts it presents itself. Morrison and Milliken?s concept of “organizational silence” blocks organizations from hearing their members? voices. Many scholars have conducted research on this and this is perplexing that Morrison and Milliken (2000) point out that organizational silence is the common choice made by organization members. Early definitions of silence equated it with “loyalty” and the assumption that nothing was wrong if concerns were not being voiced. But researchers today have shown that a climate of silence can work against desired organizational outcomes (Aylsworth, 2008). Different definitions from organizational silence are as follows Pinder and Harlos (2001) defined silence as the absence of voice as it has its own form of communication, involving a range of cognitions, emotions or intentions such as objection or endorsement. Additionally, they recognized that the phenomenon of employee silence might take on different meanings depending on its underlying motives. Van Dyne, Ang and Botero conceptualized organizational silence as a multi-dimensional construct and present three types of silence, acquiescent silence, defensive silence and prosocial silence. Acquiescent silence is described as an intentionally passive silent behavior. Defensive silence is described as deliberate omission of work related information based on fear of reprisal. Prosocial silence is withholding of work related information for the benefit of others including the organization (Bogosian, 2012).
Morrison and Milliken see organizational silence as a “collective” phenomenon. This means that it has a peer effect especially when employees perceive management in a negative way. They ground the question “why silence?” in the sociology of the workplace, not the psychology of individual workers (Maria, 2006: 226). When most members of organizations choose to keep silent about organizational matters, silence becomes a collective behavior, which is referred to as organizational silence (Dan et al., 2009). Actually, organizational silence is an inefficient organizational process that wastes cost and efforts and can take various forms, such as collection silence in meetings, low levels of participation in suggestion schemes, low levels of collective voice therefore impairing organizational efforts to learn (Shojaie et al., 2011).
So employee silence refers to situations where employees withhold information that might be useful to the organization to which they are a part of whether intentionally or unintentionally. The usefulness of the information withheld by the employees include learning and sharing of knowledge. This can happen if employees do not speak up to a supervisor or manager (Subra Tangirala, 2008). According to Morrison and Milliken (2000) gives the employee the choice to withhold their opinions and concerns about organizational problems some which are useful towards organizational learning. Employees know the truth about certain issues and problems facing the organization yet they do not dare to speak the truth to their superiors. Employees learn better when they share knowledge within their groups and in the organization. If there is deliberate silence to withhold knowledge that therefore will affect learning among the employees. According to Yeloglu et all (2016) Even if the employees who show silence in organizations work in learning organizations, in order for the organization to reach a better situation, their knowledge, ideas and suggestions intentionally hidden should be expressed and provided for solving the problems and finding solutions for the sake of organizations. Hence, organizational learning brings a myriad of benefits to the organization by diminishing the silence in the organizations along with its future negative effects and consequences on the organizations.
The silence shown by the employees of an organization may be an impediment in the process of sharing the knowledge and experience; this behaviour may lead to deficiency in the knowledge flow of an organization. Organizational silence, affecting the organizational learning has deeply, been of great concern in the recent years (Alparslan and Kayalar, 2012). This rising attention might be due to the increase in competition the organizations encounter and the organizations’ need for learning about the changes, adapting to them or sometimes overcoming them by controlling or restricting them. According to Morrisson and Miliken (2000), organizational silence is an influential barrier to the world’s changes and developments. From this perspective, it can be implied that there may be a relationship between organizational learning and organizational silence; organizational silence may affect organizational learning. This study seeks to find out this important relationship so as to solve quality related issues in hotels.
According to Yeloglu et.all (2016) anything that causes the flow of knowledge to change, whether increase or decrease or even cease, will have impact on the learning processes. Silence may be one of these factors, for it may drastically decrease knowledge sharing and affect learning in an organization. In organizational behaviour, the focus of study is the behaviour of the employees of an organization, inside its borders. The silence shown by the employees of an organization may be an impediment in the process of sharing the knowledge and experience; this behaviour may lead to deficiency in the knowledge flow of an organization. Organizational silence, affecting the organizations deeply, has been of great importance in the recent years (Alparslan & Kayalar, 2012).
It is suggested that employee silence is extremely harmful to organizations often causing an increasing level of dissatisfaction among employees, which shows itself in absenteeism and turnover and perhaps other undesired behaviours. Over time silence within organizations causes some employees to be irrelevant to their jobs quality of work (Bagheri, et al., 2012). It is assumed that employee silence only hurts the organization, but realistically it hurts both the organization and the employees.
If the expression of opposition is not welcomed in organizations, then new theories and models that allow for the existence and even the encouragement of divergent view- points and expressions are needed. (Morrison & Milliken 2000). Organizational silence is an inefficient process which can waste all organizational efforts and may take various forms, such as collective silence in meetings, low levels of participation in suggestion schemes, low levels of collective voice and so on (Nikmaram, et al., 2012). Due to this realization, organizations must examine their channels of communication and whether they are bearing any gainful benefits and learning efforts will definitely be affected by an environment of silence.
How people learn in the workplace is changing (Clarke, & Klein, 2014) There is indeed a greater awareness that learning in the workplace involves more than just attending formal training and development events, courses, and programs. Today, employees learn informally, through talking with colleagues, searching the internet, watching videos, and even taking free on-line courses offered by educational providers that are not affiliated with or sanctioned by their employer. There are a variety of autonomous learning methods. These methods give employees the choice to select a mode which best makes them learn. Autonomy in learning in the workplace is an important practice that will facilitate innovation, yet for research shows that self-regulation is important in learning in formal training programs,
Job autonomy is defined as the degree to which the job offers considerable liberty, proving free hand and choice to the individual in scheduling the work and also defining the means to achieve the tasks (Naqvi et.all 2013). More specifically it can also be defined as the choice and freedom inborn in the job to perform numerous tasks (Brey, 1999). It is simply the degree to which a job provides an employee with the discretion and independence to schedule their work and determine how it is to be done. Marcia J. Simmering (2011) term it as degree or level of freedom and discretion allowed to an employee over his or her job.
Higher levels of autonomy on the job have been shown to increase job satisfaction, and in some cases, motivation to perform the job. In practice organizations, only allow higher autonomy levels to senior employees. However, current organizational structures, such as flatter organizations, have resulted in increased autonomy at lower levels. Additionally, many companies now make use of autonomous work teams. Autonomy in the workplace can have benefits for employees, teams, managers, and the company as a whole, but it also may have drawbacks.
Of interest to this study is also autonomous learning, which is the autonomy of the learner to engage in learning. Holec (1981) defined autonomous learning as the ability of the learner to take charge of their own learning. The organization does not plan on behalf of the employee but rather the employees drive the whole process. Autonomous learning is different from formal training and development in which learners can and should take charge of their learning. It is voluntary, but not imposed by an organization’s formal human resource development policies and practices and the individual chooses to actively participate and put forth effort toward learning (Furtmuller, ; Guttell, 2016). Autonomous learning also involves unstructured experiences with no prescribed specifications for learning content or process. This means that employees are not learning in order to meet predetermined or planned learning objectives.
Autonomous learning is similar to the idea of continuous learning in the sense that it occurs due to individuals’ ongoing awareness of the need and value of learning (London & Mone, 1999). Autonomous learning also generates human capital. Although employees have the freedom to choose their learning behavior, those behaviors must result in employees gaining information that builds knowledge or skills relevant to their job or career and this is of benefit to the organization. Autonomous learning behavior is not administratively or operationally supported by the organization. However, an organization’s culture or values can emphasize a continuous learning philosophy which facilitates autonomous learning. From this study’s perspective, autonomous learning encompasses several other learning concepts that have been studied in the training and development and education domain including employee development, self-development, self-directed learning, voluntary employee development, workplace learning, and informal learning.
Employee development refers to “the expansion of an individual’s capacity to function effectively in his or her present or future job and work organization” (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Self-development encompasses all deliberate activities not formally required by the organization that an employee engages in to acquire and enhance job knowledge and skills (Orvis & Leffler, 2011). Self-directed learning is a process in which learners take the initiative in identifying their learning needs and goals, choose learning resources and strategies, and assess learning outcomes (Knowles, 1975). Voluntary employee development refers to employee participation in non- mandatory, discretionary learning activities related to the current job or to long-term effectiveness and career development (Hurtz & Williams, 2009).
Job autonomy is considered as a chief characteristic of work and possibly the most extensively studied job characteristic (Naqvi et al 2013). There is growing evidence to suggest that although employees are working harder and they take their work much seriously but still they seem to be less passionate and less satisfied and less committed to their organization because they are restricted from working freely and making decisions regarding their own work by themselves. They are also not free to make learning choices among those other choices which affect individual and group learning.
There has been increasing emphasis on learner-centered rather than instructor-centered learning. Learning that give autonomy to the individual and the group to make choice that facilitate learning or make them learn better. Active learning model emphasizes that the greatest benefits can be gained from learning when the learner engages in exploratory learning, error-encouragement framing, and has emotional control (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008). Third-generation learning model focuses on social interaction, particularly as it occurs in an on-line learning environment (Kraiger, 2008). Knowledge is socially constructed with shared meaning based on instructor-learner interactions and learner-learner interactions. Both the active learning and third-generation models support autonomous learning. That is, both models emphasize that learning design needs to focus on creating conditions where the learner is actively participating, socially embedded, and has a choice about what to learn. Basically autonomy involves responsibility for the outcomes of the work which results in outcomes like high work efficiency and higher levels of intrinsic motivation (Hackman & Oldham1976; Langfred & Moye, 2004)
Autonomy has been identi?ed as one of the most important areas of research in terms of competitiveness (Paterson and Brock, 2002) it is the extent of decision-making authority wielded by a given position or organization. In managerial autonomy as earlier noted in this chapter, managers tend to have increased autonomy in organizations that are more decentralized. In such organizations, managers have more latitude to make decisions regarding the work of employees and even personnel decisions. This however includes making decision on learning matters on behalf of the employee. This might affect learning in the event that the employees are not involved in choosing their learning needs. On the other hand, organizations have in recent years made use of teams in the workplace, many of which operate autonomously. Self-managed work teams are those in which a supervisor gives little direction to the team, and the team members manage themselves. The success of such teams depends greatly on the team members, including their professional capabilities and their ability to work together. Some of the capabilities are enhanced by learning and knowledge sharing. In many accessions autonomous teams can greatly enhance an organization’s ability to be creative, flexible, and innovative through learning. High-autonomy organization promotes individual initiatives to experiment with new ideas and building its strength on individual learning. The high-conformity organization, in contrast, assimilates the individual knowledge base and accelerates organizational learning through frequent knowledge sharing among individuals (Hanaki & Owan, 2013). An organization with a more equal mixture of individual initiative and knowledge assimilation tends to perform worse, especially when the operation is reasonably complex (in other words, interdependency is high enough) and/or the business environment is reasonably turbulent.
Although a high-conformity organization tends to be the better choice when the environment is mildly turbulent, a high-autonomy organization tends to be the better choice when the environment is either stable or extremely turbulent. (Hanaki & Owan, 2013) According to Hanaki & Owan (2013) a certain level of organizational homogeneity is required to promote organizational learning. When the environment is turbulent that always promote individual initiatives and build organizational strengths on individual learning and those good at assimilating individuals’ knowledge base and exploiting shared knowledge. It is rather intuitive that too much assimilation of knowledge with too little autonomy is counter-productive, because without diversity in the search for better solutions, neither individual knowledge nor organizational knowledge will improve. (Hanaki & Owan, 2013)
However, it is less obvious why straddling the high-autonomy and high-conformity types of organizations fails when the operation is suf?ciently complex or the business environment suf?ciently turbulent. The intuition is as follows: on the one hand, a hybrid organization with more equal allocation of time between individual search and assimilation of knowledge experiences slower individual learning through search than does the high-autonomy organization, where 100% of time is allocated to individual search. On the other hand, a moderate level of individual search means that individual knowledge is too diverse for an organization to update knowledge effectively. In such organizations, once members reach locally-best solutions at the individual level, they cannot agree on how to improve the organizational knowledge. We ?nd that this slow evolution of organizational knowledge is more costly when tasks are or when the environment continually changes. The dynamics of these two potentially optimal organizations also differ. Performance of the high-autonomy organization is always better than that of the high-conformity organization, initially. When the task becomes suf?ciently complex or when environmental turbulence becomes suf?ciently high, however, the latter catches up with the former, outperforming in later periods. In the high-conformity organization, since individuals’ knowledge is assimilated through high conformity to organizational knowledge, their search is more aligned and organizational knowledge improves steadily.
However, employees who are supervised closely by their managers, employees with considerable job autonomy have the opportunity to generate products or services more effectively by efficiently utilizing their knowledge, skills, and abilities (Man and Lam, 2003).studies have reported that job autonomy has a positive association with organizational behavioral outcomes facilitated by knowledge sharing. Although a number of previous studies have found positive relationships between job autonomy and employee outcomes, job autonomy is not equally beneficial in all organizations (Rhokeun Park, 2016) Individuals who experience high job autonomy are less constrained by the situational factors than the individuals who experience low autonomy and learn easily (Gellatly & Irving, 2001).
Human resource management practices have an important influence on individual’s behavior in organizations, too. Human Resource practices, and high performance work practices in facilitate individual and collaborative informal learning and innovative behavior. Autonomy and learning can and should lead to individual performance improvement. However, from the organization’s perspective, autonomous learning needs to create value, and the organization needs to take action to capture that value. In conclusion, autonomy generally is a positive attribute for employees, managers, teams, and organizations as a whole. Employees typically desire autonomy, and its introduction can increase motivation and satisfaction. However, because too much autonomy can have organizational drawbacks, care should be taken when increasing it.
According to JikCho (2011), organizational citizenship consists of cooperative, altruistic, and extra-role-oriented employee behaviors that enhance the collective well-being and performance of the organization (Kramer 1999). Generally, these behaviors are aimed at pursuing a shared sense of organizational mission. Higher levels of interpersonal trust are associated with several examples of organizational citizenship (Podsakoff et al. 2000), for example, pursuing collective rather than individual goals (Parks and Hulbert 1 995), exercising restraint in the face of opportunities to use organizational resources for personal gain (Henagar & Scamahorn, 1996), creation of larger numbers of higher functioning teams (Webber 2002), higher levels of cooperation with fellow employees (Smith et al. 1995), and higher quality of communication among employees (Muchinsky 1977).
Trustworthiness can be said to be that behavior which is in support of the expectation that an actor will respond in reciprocity in regard to the interest of the party. The concept of regarding people as the most important asset of an organization has widely been accepted but very few people live towards the same. In most cases, managers would call for greater effort and enthusiasm from their employees by heightening the involvement of the employees but doing very little in changing the organizational practices in order to reflect same commitment. According to Hodson, organizations just like social communities can either be anomic, alienating and disorganized or normative, organized, integrated, and produce meaning and satisfaction. Organizational trustworthiness is generally based on employment practices and the managerial competency models (Xu, et. all 2016).
Trustworthiness, as defined by Mayer et al. (1995) is based upon the “ability, benevolence, and integrity” of the party being trusted. One party trusts another based upon that other party’s perceived trustworthiness (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Trust commitment is the degree to which one person acts cooperatively in pursuing another party’s objectives. Their trust behavior is based upon the degree to which the trusting party perceives that a leader or organization is trustworthy and honors the perceptions of the trusting party about ethical duties owed (Gullett et al., 2009). Trust and trustworthiness are both ethically related constructs. They may be measured on a subjectively determined continuum, based upon the perceptual subjective lens of each individual (Caldwell and Clapham, 2003). In examining the nature of trust, Hosmer (1995) explained trust’s role as the intersection or connecting link between organizational theory and ethics.
Trustworthiness, as defined by Mayer et al. (1995) is based upon three levels which include, ability or competence, benevolence, and integrity” of the party being trusted. Competence includes the level of knowledge and ability to achieve results associated with the purposes of an organization. One party trusts another based upon that other party’s perceived trustworthiness (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). Competence is basically the level of knowledge and ability to achieve results associated with the purpose of an organization. Competence is based on the belief that the other party is capable and reliable. Xie and Peng (2009) the trustee possesses the knowledge, expertise and skills required to ful?ll the needs of the trustor which are, skills, competencies, expertise. This gives the employee a high degree of believe that the person is able to do their duties well and can deliver the expected results.
Benevolence is the morally valuable character trait, or virtue of being disposed to act for the benefit of others (Beauchamp, 2008). It is based on the trustee’s willingness to establish mutually ful?lling interactions rather than maximizing their own pro?ts. The person is not self-seeking but rather concerned about the wellbeing of other employees. It is an attitude or intention in the theory of reasoned action, and is an element of trustworthiness in the Mayer et al.’s (1995) model. Benevolence requires actions taken in pursuit of others welfare, growth, and wholeness,” (Caldwell et al., 2011) and affirmative behaviors which treat others with the objective of creating oneness with them. Hosmer (1995) described benevolence as a duty to act transcending legal responsibility and a fundamental element of ethical duties. Benevolence is linked in the academic literature to interactional justice and procedural justice constructs (Clapham et al., 2014).
Benevolence as an organizational level construct was equated by Caldwell and Clapham (2003) with interactional courtesy and responsibility to inform and were defined in Caldwell and Clapham (2003)
Integrity has been identified as a critical element of trustworthiness in building both trust and commitment (Kouzes &Posner, 2011). It implies that the trustee will demonstrate and stick to a set of principles and values that the trustor ?nds acceptable (McKnight & Chervany, 2001). The honoring of ethical duties (Schein, 2010) forms the basis of a perceived social contract between the parties and is fundamental to the integrity associated with trustworthiness. Hosmer (1995) identified equity and fairness as essential elements of trustworthiness. Honoring commitments, keeping promises, telling the entire truth, and honoring the spirit and the letter of an implied set of duties are all associated with integrity (Killinger, 2010). Integrity at the organizational level would require balancing duties to a broad set of stakeholders (Solomon, 1992) while optimizing the best interests of all parties. It is an ethical stewardship owed by organizations to their members (Caldwell et al., 2008).
Leaders who honor duties, keep commitments and treat others fairly are perceived as trustworthy and build high commitment and high trust organizations (Ulrich et al., 2012). Furthermore, employees feel obliged to take on duties from such managers. Caldwell and Clapham’s (2003) found that legal compliance and procedural fairness are two organizational factors that create and enhance organizational trustworthiness. Within a service organization context, integrity entails that every aspect of the service provider displays a harmonized approach when dealing with their customers – consistently offering an equitable and fair outcome.
Trust and trustworthiness are constructs that are commonly interchanged as if they were the same concept (Caldwell and Jeffries, 2001), and a multitude of definitions and approaches from a diversity of perspectives have been offered to provide insight into the field (Hosmer, 1995). The interchange of trust and trustworthiness is most likely due to the cheek-by-jowl relationship of the constructs. While it is difficult to imagine one without the other, we will attempt to define each and discuss their interrelatedness. “Trust is an expression of faith and confidence that a person or an institution will be fair, reliable, ethical, competent, and nonthreatening” (Carnevale, 1995, p. xi). If you close your eyes and fall backward into another’s arms, you trust that individual has the desire to catch you, they have the strength to catch you and they will not move away from your fall. Certainly, the act of closing one’s eyes and falling is a risk; it is giving up control of where and how you land. Two soldiers walking down a trail in enemy territory, each carefully scanning one side of the trail and putting their life in the hands of the other. Soldiers trust that their comrades have the ability to spot the enemy, have the fire-power to divert an attack, and will make the right response if an enemy is encountered. These examples illustrate that “the context of the relationship will affect both the need for trust and the evaluation of trustworthiness” (Mayer et al., 1995)). The act of trusting is a temporal phenomenon since it is based on experiences, interactions, and perceptions of others, organizations and institutions. Trust is an attitude reflecting a willingness to assume a risk and relinquish control in the hope of receiving a desired benefit. As Mayer et al. noted, ability, benevolence, and integrity are each important to trust, “and each may vary independently of the others. Caldwell and Jeffries (2001) noted that the three elements in the Mayer et al. model are subjectively perceived by each individual – and that each person’s individual lens contains an ethical filter and a set of core beliefs that form the basis of one’s frame of reference and unique perceptual paradigm.
As adyadic relationship, interpersonal trust is “determined by contextual factors such as the stakes involved, the balance of power in the relationship, the perception of the level of risk, and the alternatives available to the trustor” (Mayer et al.,1995, pp. 726–727). Similarly, “the context of the relationship will affect both the need for trust and the evaluation of trustworthiness” (Mayer et al., 1995,) Trust in supervisor and silence Mayer et al.’s (1995) model discussed the characteristics of trustor and trustee. Trustee’s characteristics are ability, benevolence and integrity (Knoll and Gill, 2011). Ability refers to the combination of skills, competencies and characteristics that gives an opportunity to influence within a certain domain. Benevolence is derived from the belief that the trustee intends to help the trustor and Integrity is based on the quality of the trustee that is identified when the trustor perceives that the trustee has a set of principles that are acceptable to the trustor.
When trustor believes that these set of principles to be unacceptable, the trustee is perceived to be not to have integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). Individuals assess the benevolence and integrity of supervisors before sharing information because subordinates protect themselves by making sure that their supervisors intend to benefit them and follow a set of principles and therefore, will not punish them for delivering information. By assessing integrity, employees assess their supervisor’s principles and analyze previous instances when information was delivered to them. In the event that supervisor is discovered to hold a negative attitude toward information-sharing, individuals draw conclusions about the supervisor’s principles and have a lower level of trust in their supervisor. In situations of reduced trust, individuals do not feel safe sharing work-related opinions because they may face problems, such as punishment, and therefore those individuals avoid sharing their concerns due to fear or self-defense. Hence, there is positive relationship between trust and risk-taking behavior (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Mayer et al., 1995). The more individuals have trust in their supervisors, the more they feel safe about supervisors’ reaction for speaking up. Thus, employees with higher level of trust are more likely to express their opinions and concerns whereas employees with lower level of trust are more likely to withhold their thoughts based on the fear and self-defense. Moreover, when assessing integrity of supervisors, employees concern the attention of supervisors for shared information. When supervisors do not take some measures for shared information, employees will have lower level of trust in their supervisors and therefore, perceive that speaking up does not make a change. Based on this perception, employees give up raising their work-related concerns and withhold those issues by becoming acquiescently silent.
To be effective organizational leaders the management must recognize that their role implies a broad set of ethical and social duties (Caldwell and Hansen, 2010). Understanding the nature of trust and trustworthiness and treating employees as valued partners enable leaders to build credibility, demonstrate competence and honor duties owed to those employees (Block, 2013). In today’s knowledge-based economy, enhancing employee commitment is a key to building and sustaining long-term success (Covey, 2004). These conclusions apply to all organizations, regardless of their country of origin.
2.3 To determine the effects of organizational learning on employee behaviour
HR practices are the primary means by which ?rms can in?uence and shape the skills, attitudes and behavior of individuals (Chen and Huang, 2009) Learning can be defined as the activity or process of acquiring knowledge or skill by studying, practicing, being taught, or experiencing something. (A Sharma, et.al 2016) A learning-oriented employee can look for the innovative thinking and approach for resolving a problem via the process of interacting with the group so as to enhance and achieve the realization of personal accomplishment goal. During the era of knowledge economy, the key to industrial competitions is no longer based on resources but rather the accumulation and utilization of knowledge within an organization Chuan Lin 2017). This knowledge has a behavioral effect on the employee.
The expectation is to acquire more knowledge via learning so as to enhance its competitiveness (Markovic, 2008). Therefore, within an organization, it is extremely important to be good at creating, acquiring, transforming, and utilizing knowledge so as to correct its behavior by organizational learning in order to cope well with the rapid-changing environment (Leal & Rolda’n, 2006). Moreover, organizational learning is a critical factor to an organization’s long-term performance and survival (Yukl, 2009). This performance is defined by the employee behaviour which may be positive or negative. Calantone, Cavusgil & Zhao (2002) proposed that, an organization collects knowledge and information from various sources and ensure their activity and the guidance for application in future operations.
Learning should be viewed as the major rooted value for a company and should be deep rooted in the organizational culture. This value also affects how much actively its members will act with the learning attitude (Chaveerug & Ussahawantichakit, 2008). This culture will be entrenched in employee’s behaviour and may positively enhance organizational performance. The management should also share the company’s vision for future developments and further provide the learning direction so as to make commitments to the company and achieve the goal. Creative thinking beyond the rules and the degree of belief and assumption to actively challenge the existing conventions that have been held for a long term is equally useful (Chaveerug & Ussahawantichakit, 2008). The overall belief of the organization can also be enhanced by the learning and knowledge diffusion across departments. The knowledge and experiences of different departments should be accumulated and stored in the organizational memory so as to enhance organizational performance.
Individual behavior after learning can be defined as how an individual behaves at work. A person’s behavior is influenced by the following factors, attitude perception personality stress belief norms or other psychological matters. The more we learn the more we change, as learning is a continuous process, it affects individual behavior. There is a change in the attitude of a person due to learning which can take place due to factors like education which is the second place of learning and is t where an individual chooses to pursue his/her education and where an individual’s personality is further polished with respect to the parenting values. There has always been behaviour change after school instruction both witnessed by teachers and parents.
Job training is definitely another factor that changes employee behaviour. An individual is prepared to be presentable in the company and learns organizational traits. These are points are the key elements that are responsible for the change in a person’s behavior due to learning. Role perceptions beliefs about what behaviors are appropriate or necessary in a particular situation, including job tasks, relative importance, and preferred behaviors to accomplish those tasks and require behaviour change which is achieved through learning. In role behaviour entails task performance goal-directed activities that are under the individual’s control physical and mental behaviors most can be measured and controlled.
Learning will improve long term behaviour of the employee in the organization. Behaviour is modified through what happens before the behaviour, what the person does. (Beeby & Booth (2000) defined it as a change in behaviour and underlying mindsets, and in the redesign of organization practices. Similarly, Garavan (1997) defined this concept as referring to the development of new knowledge and behavioral change. According to Gieseck and McNeil (1999), organizational learning means the intentional use of new knowledge to foster continuous development and enhance an organization’s services through employee behaviour change. Organizational learning can be used as a method or technique to change the behaviour and attitudes of members or leaders by facilitating learning and developing new ways to manage change. Garavan (1997) and Castiglione (2006) assumed that learning usually has significant results and leads to professional growth. Castiglione (2006) added that organizational learning enhances communication and collaboration among work groups.
Literature on organizational learning highlights its importance for libraries intending to establish collaborative initiatives by understanding different approaches to conflict management is required for successful negotiation and discussion between libraries and vendors or publishers (Edwards and Walton, 2000). This is s learning initiative that will definitely improve employee behaviour. Executives with organizational learning can strengthen the work engagement of employees, thereby affecting employee’s innovation behavior. Besides, we further found that work engagement also plays a full mediating role among organizational learning and employee’s innovative ideas generation, advocacy, and implementation respectively.
2.3.1 The In-role Behavior
Today’s global economy, competitive advantage is not only a function of superior technical resources and intellectual property. Competitive advantage is underpinned by trust, followership, in-role behavior, creativity and innovation of employees (Ulrich et al., 2012). According to (Yanhan Zhu 2013) The in-role behavior also means the core-task behavior. This concept is first proposed by Katz and Kahn officially. Katz et al. believed that the in-role behavior was such a kind of behavior that was described and defined as one part of employees’ work and reflected in the official salary system in the organization. Behavior, as a variable, has caused widespread concerns in various disciplines and therefore provides the theoretical foundation for the explaining the difference and the consistence of the individual behavior and help people to understand the social behavior and the individual personality (Yanhan Zhu 2013).
Williams and Anderson defined the in-role behavior as all the behaviors that were necessary for the completion of the responsible work which is well executed when an employee has learned the required skills and knowledge. The central concept of the role theory is the role. The term “role” comes from the theater, originally referring to the script regulating the behavior of actors. The social psychologists notice that this concept can help people to understand the social behavior and the individual personality and introduces it into the social psychology. They believe that people’s positions in the social relations determine their social behavior, which is similar to the script regulating the behavior of actors. George Herbert Mead was the first scholar who introduced the concept of role into the social psychology, but he did not present a clear definition of the role. He only used it as a metaphor to illustrate the phenomenon that different individuals showed similar behaviors in a similar situation.
Thibaut’s opinion, the role was the system, by which the others expected a series of behaviors of an individual in certain position in the interaction mechanism, and the system, by which an individual in certain position expected his or her own behaviors. J.L. Friedman et al. pointed out that the social role was a set of rules about how people behave in a specific type of relations. According to a Soviet social psychologist, although making social psychological analysis of the role need to study the subjective factors of the role behavior, we should not make them abstraction in order to recognize the nature of these subjective factors. We should associate the subjective aspect of the role behavior with the objective social relations closely, because the role expectations were nothing more than the ideological forms of objective social relations in social practice. They were the subjective reflection. In her opinion, the social role was the social function, which was ultimately determined by the position of an individual in the social relation system. The society set the general behavior principles or standards for the implementers of certain social role. In an organization, the individual is a member of the organization, whose behaviors should be different according to the difference of specific positions. With this basis, the concept of the in-role behavior.
Four factors that affect individual behavior in organizations: Motivation, Ability Provide opportunities and constraints Role perceptions Situational Contingencies. Based on the knowledge spiral theory proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), an individual’s tacit knowledge can be expanded to the higher level of the ontology level between teams and organizations via four knowledge transformation model such as socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. Therefore, a learning-oriented employee can look for the innovative thinking and approach for resolving a problem via the process of interacting with the group so as to enhance and achieve the realization of personal accomplishment goal. Tsai and Chen (2010) also proposed that it is easier for an learning- oriented organization to form an innovative culture, which stresses the learning and developments of its members, encourages the generation of new knowledge, diffuses and transforms the knowledge for the application to the improvement of the organization’s activities so as to enhance the innovation capability.
2.3.2 Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB)
According to Chang, (2011) the effects of organizational learning are influenced by the organizational citizenship behaviors and the organizational commitments positively. if an organization’s employees have the organizational commitments to their organization, they could process organizational learning well. Owing to the organizational commitments, employees identify with organization’s culture, goal and value and they want to learn any ability, skill and knowledge in order to achieve the goal of organization. Second, if the staffs have good organizational citizenship behaviors, they also could process organizational learning well since the staffs have citizenship behaviors are influenced positively by the organizational commitments. When the staffs are loyal to loyalties to their organization, they can make more commitments to help the organization to complete organization’s strategies.
It is commonly accepted in the management literature that organizations need employees who are willing to exceed normal duty call or the willingness of individuals to contribute cooperative efforts to the organization was necessary to effective attainment of organizational goals. The concept of organizational citizenship behavior was first introduced by Organ (1988). Organ defined OCB as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” OCB is usually understood as exerting exceptionally good behaviors for the sake of the organization and informally supporting its members.
Van Dyne, et al. (1994) proposed the broader construct of extra-role behavior, defined as behavior which benefits the organization and/or is intended to benefit the organization, which is discretionary and which goes beyond existing role expectations. According to Cinar et all 2013, While in a changing world, organizations need for employees who express their ideas; employees also choose organizations in which they can express themselves because both employees and managers have high motivation and high performance in a place that silence doesn’t exist. How to break silence culture and establish a free climate to encourage employees’ voice are big challenges faced to mangers (Beheshtifar et al., 2012). It is obvious that a silent climate can work against organizational outcomes and vice versa.
Katz and Kahn (1978) stated that organizational citizenship is important in organizations because it can be highly valuable to organizations and can contribute to performance and competitive advantage. OCB is a relatively new notion in performance analysis but it represents a very old human conduct of voluntary action and mutual aid with no request for pay or formal rewards in return. Successful organizations need employees who will do more than their usual job duties and provide performance that is beyond expectations. Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) include actions in which employees are willing to go above and beyond their defined role requirements. According to Podsakoff et al. (1997), as OCB contributes to improved organizational effectiveness, it takes considerable amount of attention through learning..
Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a term that encompasses anything positive and constructive that employees do, of their own volition, which supports co-workers and benefits the company. Typically, employees who frequently engage in OCB may not always be the top performers (though they could be, as task performance is related to OCB) but they are the ones who are known to ‘go the extra mile’ or ‘go above and beyond’ the minimum efforts required to do a merely satisfactory job. OCBs have often been conceptualized as discretionary prosocial employee behaviors that are not tied to a formal reward system or job description and tend to improve organizational performance (Organ, 1988). OCB refers to “individual behavior that is discretionary not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the ef?cient and effective functioning of an organization”(Organetal.,2006). As OCB is important to organizational functioning, research in OCB has predominantly focused on antecedents of OCB like learning. OCB explains behaviour which permits the organization through strengthening and maintaining its social system (Sonboli and Noruzi, 2012). Employees with more job autonomy engaged more frequently in OCB than those with less job autonomy. Rhokeun Park, (2016)
By reviewing the relevant literature of organizational citizenship behavior, it can be seen that there is a lack of consensus about the dimensions of OCB. Also the different labels used for the dimensions of OCB, those are the most relevant dimensions which introduced by Organ (1988) as Altruism team Building civic virtue and sportsmanship. OCB is very important to organizations because they need employees who will do more than their usual job duties and provide performance that is beyond expectations. OCB describe actions in which employees are willing to go above and beyond their prescribed role requirements. Podsakoff, et al. (2000) mentioned seven ways that OCB contributes to organizational superior performance through increasing co-worker or managerial productivity – Releasing resources so they can be used for more productive purposes – Coordinating activities within and across work groups – Reducing the need to devote scarce resources to purely maintenance functions – Strengthening the organizations’ ability to attract and retain the best employees – Increasing the stability of the organization’s performance – Enabling the organization to adapt more effectively to environmental changes.
2.4 The mediating effects of organizational learning between organizational perceptions and employee behaviours
Organizational learning is more of a need than a choice at the present time. It is almost impossible to notice organizations that will admit to ignoring learning, since this would be akin to be accepting the start of its demise (Moreno & Morales, 2005; Probst & Buchel, 1997). Organizational learning is considered by many a core capability of an effective organization and a key element of a strategy for corporate renewal (Spicer &Smith, 2006). Long-term survival, competitiveness and achieving greater performance all depend on the organizations’ capacity to match the continuous changes in the environment (Montes et al., 2005). Realizing the importance of organizational learning, it has recently commanded a great deal of attention. As a result, the concept of organizational learning has achieved prominence amongst the ideas, which now influence management studies. Although links between learning and positive work outcomes have often been assumed, there is little empirical evidence to support this perspective (Lopez, Peon and Ordas, 2005).
Spicer and Sadler-Smith (2006) contend that the investigation on organizational learning have failed consistently in demonstrating its impact on organizations. They further pointed that the field has suffered from a dearth of empirical evidence to support the assertion that there is a positive relationship between organizational learning and performance based outcomes. Conversely to Watkins and Marsick (2003), researchers are in the relatively early stages of exploring learning organization constructs and developing measurement approach. These early studies and adoption of learning organization principles in practice have led to growing interactions between organizational learning culture and organizational outcomes (Egan, Yang, and Bartlett, 2004). Although organizational learning theories and practices have been clarified by practitioners and scholars over the past several years, there is much to be explored regarding interaction in organizational learning culture, employees learning and organizational outcomes (Egan et al., 2004), especially in the public services sector. Outcomes of OL basically are the complex interplay of various factors faced by an organization. These factors are presumably antecedents of OL that enhance its strategic learning capability and hence competitive advantages
2.4.1 Individual Learning
Individual level learning refers to the process by which individuals generate new insights and knowledge from existing tacit or explicit information and knowledge. learning is seen as the most important component of human resource development which is implemented to build systems in the organization that enlarge the possibility that learning will enhance individual performance (Swanson & Holton, 2001). That is why this study aims to establish the role played by organizational learning and its perceptions and behavioral context of Kenyan hotels. In Knowledge Intensive Firms, elevated employee perceptions coincides with ability to efficiently acquire, manage and utilize knowledge (Storey, 2005) Individual employee behaviour is vital, because it is said to have implications for outcomes on the firm level (Huselid, 1995).
Bontis et al. (2002) define the individual level learning as individual competence, capability, and motivation to undertake the required tasks while performance is understood as the overall achievement of an employee throughout a specific amount of time, taking the employee’s attitudes and behavior into account (Wang, He, & Zeng, 2011). Thus, the combinations of what people are capable of and how motivated they are. Competence is not earned at ago but gained within time and through different tasks and this is what gives ability and motivation for an individual to be effective and perform or outperform their expectation. Organizations should create and maintain ways in which learning improves performance by facilitating the individual employee. The adoption of learning organization strategies, practices and behaviour patterns, strengthens organizational performance through the facilitation of individual, team and organizational learning (Davis & Daley, 2008; Weldy, 2009). Of Corse these organizational strategies build confidence and knowledge of the Individual that is believed to cause improved individual performance. Therefore every organization makes models that target the individual employee in considering all the individual aspects like, abilities, attitudes perceptions and all other behaviours. However, the implementation of learning organization model does not only enrich staff individual knowledge, but also boosts their commitment to organizational goals, increases their productivity and performance (Bhatnagar, 2007). Vemi? (2007) ultimately this argument underlines the crucial significance of continuous employee learning and development for the enhancement of her/his individual performance. The basis and the foundation of learning tools must target the individual before widening the scope. First this is because the individual must be able to contribute to the group and the evaluation will be done on the individual. Ellinger et al (2002) highlights a positive correlation of all seven learning organization building blocks with net income and average productivity per employee.
A supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes and practices, leadership that reinforces learning, diagnostic survey to assess the depth of Learning in an organization and building the learning culture. With emphasis on these blocks, there is tendency to achieve superior individual performance and contribute to the organizational goal. This study provides additional support for prior research works reporting that learning organization exerts a strong positive impact on individual performance (Paraskevi Dekouloua et. all) to this view it therefore seek to find out whether the proposition from the other studies can be said so even from non-profit making organizations. Organizational Leadership as observed as one of the learning blocks must reinforce learning. Failure to have a supportive leadership will weaken the effects and the intended results from learning opportunities.
Paraskevi Dekouloua et al observed that the learning leader tends to regularly offer employees generous opportunities for learning and training, self-improvement and professional advancement. To this regard they understand the individual and general benefits of learning. Learning must therefore be systematic and regular as also guided by the learning blocks discussed in paragraph two. Regular provision of learning opportunities, shared leadership and empowerment, open communication and trusting relations as critical job satisfaction enhancers (Chang & Lee, 2007; Gaertner, 2000; Griffin et al,2001; Kim, 2002). Many scholars continues to view leadership and Human Resource managements as a factor that can positively support learning and therefore improve individual performance. Managers can promote the learning of their employees and are able to shape a work situation, which measures and rewards desired employee outcomes (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). All organizations work towards organizational effectiveness, whether profit based or not for profit, the main objective will be achievement of its objective. The individual employee also has their objective which can only be fulfilled by working for the organization. This is where learning mediates to bring out the best and help achieve their goals and this will lead to improved individual performance. The attainment of personal objectives does not only bring about satisfaction generation, but also ameliorates individual performance (Weldy, 2009). Learning must therefore be an ongoing organizational strategy if organization require a competitive advantage. Studies have established an existing fact of improved individual performance where learning has taken place.
Learning and development for continuous individual performance improvement, as well as with findings generated by Rose et al (2009) research, which postulated a positive association between organizational learning and individual performance, To a very great extent, the organization therefore must always focus on the individual learning when a company defends employee professional and individual well-being, and makes staff feel and behave as parts of a system, both their job satisfaction and performance increase (Hu Robert B.) The fact remains that, learning is a growing phenomenon in many organizations looking up to make a difference in human management to compete. Resource based strategy acknowledge human resource as one of the resources an organization can control in a market and as companies invest highly in learning and development interventions to enhance individual learning (ASTD, 1996), they aim to advance their performance (Bontis et al., 2002).
As many scholars amply learning from the individual to the larger learning groups, other acknowledge that the individual must always be targeted as the beginning of organizational learning. Bontis emphasizes that learning within organizations always includes three levels (individual level, team or group level and organizational level), because it is evident that this multilevel structure is vital for its performance (Bontis et al., 2002) Human Resource Development and Employee Performance must always be the focus by HRM and especially increase of the individuals learning capacity. Since the focus of this study is related to employee performance, the perceptions of employees that are thought to precede individual behavioral reactions are important as these are the most direct reaction on HR practices (Kehoe & Wright, 2011). Globalization has intensified competition even from unexpected competitors. Learning has however been employed by organizations that continue to new employees as internal customers to whom the organizations entirely depend on, and therefore, the success of organizations consequently is built upon organizations’ and individuals’ speeding learning. Thus, learning in organization is the key for organizations to sustain competitive advantages. (Li-An Ho 2008)
2.4.2 Group learning
Group level learning involves individuals transferring their individual knowledge within a group so that all members develop a shared understanding (Huber, 1991; Crossan et al., 1999; Kiessling et al., 2009).Individuals join to make organizational teams and groups. Scholars have defined group as larger from a team and argued that teams last longer than groups, however, we will use the two words interchangeably with no particular reference. (Steve W. J. Kozlowski) define work teams and groups are composed of two or more individuals, who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks and share one or more common goals.
From the individual to the group, learning now take a larger approach and a collective one. Which is team learning. However, our interest as a study is not learning alone but a comparison as to whether team learning improve performance of the team and contribute to effectiveness. Team Learning is the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to create the results its members truly desire. Peter Senge, et. al. Organizational learning has a critical influence on team processes essential to team effectiveness and this forms one of the basis of this study with a proposition that team learning will improve team performance. (Hu Robert, 2015) The structure of many organizations are similar in that organizations are made of teams and individuals, organization must therefore share some common knowledge structure that will result in each individual taking actions that collectively will achieve strategic objectives (Mezias et al., 2001).
This further highlights the individual contribution which is important in contributing to the group performance. (Huajing Hu Robert B. 2015) introduced the aspect of team orientation and defined it as the degree to which the employees stress collaboration and cooperation in performing activities and making decisions. Teams allow for innovative problem-solving and for the development of synergy, whether to bring collective knowledge and skills to bear on problems or to develop new and innovative ideas that improve organizational effectiveness. Team-working, group problem-solving and self-managed teams typify organizational learning (Garvin, 1993). Effective teams achieve more and learning teams achieve even more. A teamwork environment also encourages the openness that is required for learning to occur. Practices such as the use of multi-functional and cross-functional work groups will promote openness to different points of view and a wider variety of ideas that finally improve effectiveness (McGill et al., 1992). Studies done indifferent departments have continued to show the positive relationship between team learning and performance Hult et al. (2003) found a positive relationship between team learning and firms’ supply management performance: innovativeness, cycle time and overall performance. This further affirms to the validity of this objective. The knowledge generated by employees does not aggregate itself to the level of the organization. Within organizations, groups are founded where employees share their knowledge (Huajing Hu Robert B. 2015)
Organizational learning purposely aim to improve on competitive advantage and organizational effective. The organization further benefit from group knowledge that add to improve organizational effectiveness. (Chalofsky, 1992 el all) says that HRD aims to increase the individual learning capacity (ILC), the team or group learning capacity (GLC) and the organizational learning capacity (OLC) in order to contribute to individual and organizational performance The knowledge generated by employees does not aggregate itself to the level of the organization. Within organizations, groups are founded where employees share their knowledge. Organizational groups contribute to Human Resource Development and Employee Performance (Argote, 1999). In addition to that, organizational learning structures give employees the chance to learn and increase their commitment and involvement, which creates interdependence in tasks and processes that will immediately benefit other employees and the organization. (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2007). However even though what Somech talks about the benefit of learning structures to the organization, we acknowledge that these structures are made through teams and groups.
Finally, in order to enhance the growth of employees and the organization’s effectiveness in the long run there must be a creation of an organizational culture that values and supports continuous learning. This can be achieved by taking down barriers to learn within groups and the organization and increasing the individual employee’s capacity to learn (Swanson & Holton, 2001). Therefore, System connection, empowerment, inquiry and dialogue, are the learning organization components most significantly and directly associated with group performance. (Paraskevi Dekouloua)
2.4.3 Organizational Level Learning
Organizational level learning occurs when individual and group knowledge is institutionalized (Crossan et al.,1999)Organizational learning prioritizes the creation and acquisition of new knowledge, and emphasizes the role of people in the creation and utilization of that knowledge (Denton, 1998). In this way, organizational learning presents an important route to performance, success and competitive advantage for the organizations (Dunphy and Griffths, 1998; and Lei et al., 1999) Organizational learning according to (Paraskevi Dekouloua) empowers staff members to contribute to the realization of organizational vision, strengthens their commitment to organization’s principles, values and objectives. According to him, employees are highly motivated to intensify their attempts to contribute to the most effective possible organization’s operation and the achievement of optimum organizational outcomes through their continuous self-enhancement and professional advancement.
While discussing his analysis, he acknowledged that the results stressed that the more a company bases its operation on learning organization model, the higher performing its employees are (Paraskevi Dekouloua) Organizational learning is a precursor to an effective organization that performs well in relation to the organization’s goals. Yang et al (2004), found that learning organization dimensions are crucial determinants of staff productivity and effectiveness (Paraskevi Dekouloua) Empowering staff members to contribute to the realization of organizational vision, strengthens their commitment to organization’s principles, values and objectives; employees are highly motivated to intensify their attempts to contribute to the most effective possible organization’s operation and the achievement of optimum organizational outcomes through their continuous self-enhancement and professional advancement. This cannot be ignored neither underestimated in this era of globalization.
Scholars agree on the building of knowledge from the individual and ultimately to the whole organization and how this contributes to the organizational goal achievement .Individuals at the helm of these firms need to regularly create and utilize learning and training opportunities, generously mentor and coach their subordinates, systematically share with them views, knowledge and information as well as highly motivate all staff members to contribute to the attainment of organizational goals (Paraskevi Dekouloua) Organization identity and competitive ness has made many organizations engage in learning and developmental knowledge management. A need for survival and growth in an era of continuous change can force organizations to find a condition that will enable them to cope with the new situation in the environment (Ferdinandus Sampe 2012). Learning is one of these conditions that organizational leadership must ensure they engage in and practice if employee performance has to improve and be sustained. The intellectual capital is inevitable for the organization’s survival (Yang & Lin, 2009), consists of the accumulated knowledge of an organization (Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005) and is three to four times of its book value (Edvinsson & Malone, 1997).
Organizations that spend substantial amounts of money on the development of their employees Organizational Learning today has become a sensational discourse aimed at human resource development and employee performance. It is anticipated that it results in a competitive advantage in the long run (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Research revealed that organizations with large investments in training and development are more successful, profitable and treasured on Wall Street (Bontis, Crossan, & Hulland, 2002). Industrial organization economics (IO) perspective shows us how important the organizational learning is for a firm to gain a cost advantage (Wencang Zhou et all) Organizations that spend huge amounts of money on the development of their employees Learning that is then key to ensuring any investment in L&D activity will positively support the achievement of intent. (Brinkerhoff, 2002). Huber (1998) asserts that enhances an organization’s ability to innovate, which consequently improves organizational competitiveness and performance.
The assessment of performance has been almost exclusively at the level of individual or team, little attention has been paid to the processes and structures by which individual or team level performance could be translated to organizational level performance (Jackson et al., 2004) Inter-organizational learning Inter-Organizational learning is the processes of creation of collective knowledge, knowledge acquisition and transfer (Francesca Marriott) Most of the literature focuses on learning within organizations (Francesca Mariott) who further acknowledge that other scholars have identified a gap in this area. Organization’s learning and value-making are inescapably embedded in various forms of partnerships. Learning thus takes place in the “interstices between firms, universities, research laboratories, suppliers, and customers” (Powell et al., 1996). Mikael Holmqvist, The development of networks for resource sharing and knowledge exchange is a process common to all organizations and Organisational communities. (Dinesh Rathi, et all (2017) Partnerships in any form are viewed as an important means for acquiring and sharing both tacit and explicit knowledge (Becerra et al., 2008) done to the benefit of the individual organizations. Inter-organizational learning is one of those partnerships that largely target performance benefit from the organizations. Inter-organizational learning outcomes are proposed to be the interactive results of the respective partners’ type of adopted learning strategy (Rikard Larsson et all 1998) “cooperation is thus an ef?cient way for ?rms to acquire knowledge”. Similarly, Hallikas et al. (2009) suggested that organizations create as well as share new knowledge by partnering with each other; this process helps organizations to remain competitive and renew themselves. Speci?cally, inter-Organisational partnerships can provide valuable insight into externally directed KM practices of NPOs (Dinesh Rathi, et all 2017)
2.5 Chapter Summary
Through the literature journey reviewed, different material from different industries have established a positive relationship between learning and performance. Organizations aim to gain competitive advantage through learning, individual learning and group. The literature has also established a common phenomenon in sharing knowledge among organizations. It is established that studies have been conducted in comparison of the two variables has been
Increased awareness of the value of human capital resources for competitive advantage. According to resource-based theory, a resource is anything that can potentially provide an organization with a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Employees’ explicit and implicit knowledge may be one of the most important ways through which human capital contributes to competitive advantage (Kogut & Zander, 1992). Explicit knowledge is well-documented and easily articulated. It includes processes, flowcharts, formulas, checklists, and definitions. Explicit knowledge is often obtained by employees through participating in formal training programs. Tacit knowledge, which is arguably more important, refers to knowledge that is subconsciously understood based on experience (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). For example, policies and procedures can be taught, but learning through experience plays a critical role in determining when and how to apply, adopt, or abandon those practices. The short duration of many formal training and development programs, limited opportunities for practice, and lack of interaction with peer learners limits the extent to which tacit knowl- edge can be acquired. However, autonomous learning may be especially valuable for the development of tacit knowledge. For example, informal learning which occurs face-to-face or through social media provides opportunities for employees to build interpersonal networks and social relationships which are essential for acquiring tacit knowledge.
Response rate- how many questionnaires you gave gave out and how many wre answered.
Descriptive. Describing demographics-control variables., what is their age ect
Exploratory fact analysis, explore the data and see which variables are giving general descriptions of the relationships.
Confirmatory factor analysis-being specific on the relationship- then show the SEM regression analysis,
Is like linear regression.
Linear regression with t-values, the beta values and the t values and p values.
Andy fields-spss correlations
Descriptive statictistics- the box with mean and
Correlation matric-cmatrix-talk abot Cronbach alpha, high realiabilty, thee normal range is supposed to be .7 and.95.
Do the SEM by showing the conceptual framework the variable map. With results from
Do the indirect table
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The aim of this chapter is to cover a comprehensive methodology of this study and how it will be used to carry out the research. The discussion of methodology within chapter three begins with a description of the research design, population and sampling design, data collection methods, research procedures also including participants, and questionnaire used, followed by a description of the primary data collection for this study, then SEM analysis method, and finally, a summary of the study methods and human subjects. In addition the sampling design in the research methodology shall further be comprised of sampling technique and sample size. Taylor and Bogden (1998) the choice of methodology is dependent on the researcher’s assumptions, interest and purposes. The study will best answer the specific objectives using the outlined methodology.
3.2 Research Design.
This study will adopt a descriptive survey design of research aimed at establishing how organizational learning is related to perceptions and employee behaviours. Burns and Grove (2003) define a research design as a blueprint for conducting a study with maximum control over factors that may interfere with the validity of the findings. This give the study a unique and yet quality results depending on the design. Parahoo (1997) describes a research design as a plan that describes how, when and where data are to be collected and analyzed. This chapter will fulfil these requirements as observed by other researchers.
Descriptive research studies are those studies which are concerned with describing the characteristics of a particular individual, or of a group (Kothari, 2004). Descriptive statistics discover and measure cause and effect relationships among variables (Cooper and Schindler, 2000). The variables in this study have this relationship that makes a descriptive study relevant to this research. This study has opted to use quantitative surveys since surveys are usually appropriate in case of social and behavioral sciences. One of the reasons to this is that many types of behaviour that interest the researcher may not be arranged in a realistic set up.
The study is guided by three independent variables with some having sub-variables, one mediating variable and two dependent variables with sub-variables. Organizational silence, autonomy and trustworthiness are the independent variables while the dependent variables are In-role behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour, all mediated by organizational learning at individual, group and organizational level; this will form the basis of the data. Collection of data will be done amid general hotel employees. Descriptive research is preferred by this study because the design employs both qualitative and quantitative methods of research and allows comparison of the research findings also that the researcher can collect data without influencing or interfering with the study subject (Saunders et al., 2009).
The reason for using the mixed research method in this study was supported by the views of Kothari (2010) and Creswell (2003) that a mixed research strengthens the claims of the findings. Similarly, using both the qualitative and quantitative methods for analysis, in line with Creswell (2003), provides a basis for interpretation and discussion of findings. This design is the most appropriate in investigating the specific objectives of this this paper in order to generate the expected results
Population refers to the entire group of individuals or objects to which a study is interested in in order to generalize the conclusions (Martirosyan et al., 2010) in addition (Kothari, 2004) define population as the total number of people or elements in any study. The target population of this study consists of staff of two to five star hotels in Nairobi, staff are from all levels of employment and status. The study aims to do a collective total of 250 respondents from sampled two, three four and five star hotels in Nairobi. These hotel ratings have been selected because most hotel staff move within hotels of these ratings often given the high turnover of hospitality staff in Kenya. Therefore any staff from these ratings will be valid to participate in the study.
3.4 Sampling Design
Sampling design can be viewed in two different ways: the sample and the sampling method. The Sample is a section of a population and the sampling methods of any study are the rules which are governed by the selection of the sample (Shields & Rangarajan, 2013) Sampling design is the process of selecting units; people, organizations, from a population of interest so that by studying the sample we may fairly generalize our results back to the population from which they were chosen (Kothari, 2008)
3.5 Sampling Frame
This is basically a list of all the members of the population that we wish to study. According to Descombe, (1998), it is an objective list of the population from which the researcher can make a selection. Sampling frame should be a complete and a correct list of population members only (Cooper and Schindler, 2000). This study has strategically selected two to five star hotel staff that. Defined as a list of items or individuals in a population being researched on (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The list of the respondents will be provided by respective hotels and it will entail all the current employees. The employees are categorized in different categories, management and non-management, contract or permanent, department, work experience and level of education. The hotels establishments’ directories information registered in the administrative departments for industry and commerce is taken as the target population sampling frame
3.6 Sampling technique
A sampling technique involves the procedure of selecting a sample from a population (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). The study will employ stratified random sampling technique from the list of all the employees. This is because the population is heterogeneous and contains several different groups, some of which are related to the topic of the study. (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). According to Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) Stratified sampling is a probability sampling method and a form of random sampling in which the population is divided into two or more groups (strata) according to one or more common attributes. Sample represents specific sub-groups or strata and this study will employ this in choosing different top management heads to represent other departments of the organization. This has been guided by the fact that different groups have different job descriptions and therefore there is need to sample every group accordingly. For this study, this will work well for group employees and organizational level of learning.
3.7 Sample size
About 10 sample units are selected from 40 rated hotel units in the hotel industry in Nairobi County. This represents 25 employees per hotel. They are proportionally distributed to the ward regions. Holloway and Wheeler (2002) observed that sample size does not influence the importance or quality of the study and most important, choosing the sample size, must be a representation of the total population. According to Creswell (2013) the researcher needs to account for the margin of error also known as the confidence interval in the formula for selecting sample size. State the confidence level and the standard deviation. The sample size formula to be employed for this study will result to a sample size employees from the entire study population. The sample selected will be representative of each level based on the availability of some staff especially the general staff who some are may be out in the field. A sample size will be determined using proportional stratified sampling from the list of all the employees.
3.8 Data Collection
According to Parahoo (1997), a research instrument is a tool used to collect data and designed to measure knowledge attitude and skills. The study will collect primary data using a structured questionnaire for analysis to ascertain the three specific research objectives. The advantage of using primary data is that research will be collecting information for this purpose of this particular study. In essence, the research will seek to ask questions that are tailored to elicit the data that will help with this study. Researchers collect the data himself, using structured questionnaire based upon some ready-made index. The researcher did not see the value of reinventing the wheel and so decided to use pre-existing questionnaires. They have already been well validated and tested for reliability, with normative data available as a baseline for the study to compare our results with. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003), questionnaires are relatively cheaper to use and the respondents are not influenced by the interviewer .The questionnaire will use Likert scale measure with the extend weather they agree or disagree. The questions have open-ended and closed-ended questions. Accessibility to the respondents, and ability to collect larger amount of information are some of the reasons the researcher consider using survey questionnaires The questionnaires will be distributed and supervised. Three different scales were used to collect; organizational perceptions variables, organizational behavior and organizational learning scales were used in data collection.
3.9.1 Organizational Silence
Items on organisational silence were drawn from Maria Vakola, Dimitris Bouradas, (2005). The employee silence behaviour was measured by a seven-item scale. All the seven items answers ranged from 1 ”Never” to 5 ”Always”. Originally, the last three items ranged from 1 ‘With great difficulty” to 5 ”easily” however the study matched with the first four since both were differentiated by adverbs, often and easily and still targeting the same employee.
3.9.5 Organizational Learning
The literature has used different measures of OL depending on the approach adopted. As above-mentioned, this paper considers OL as an organizational capability that can be described at three levels: individual, group and organizational. Thus, we suggest OL as a multilevel variable which should be measured as a second-order construct most of previous studies also measure OL as a second order construct (Milia & Birdi, 2010) The scales used in this study (see Table 1) were extracted from Bontis (1999) and Bontis et al. (2002). First, because Bontis’ research is one of few researches that offer measures for these three OL levels. Furthermore, we have found a recent paper adopting this approach and uses Bontis’ scales too (Jyothibabu et al., 2010). Second, we found these scales suitable for this research since they are consistent with the concepts of individual learning, group learning and organizational learning de?ned in the theoretical framework of this paper.
3.9.6 In-role Behaviour
3.9.7 Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
OCB Scale: Developed by Vey and Campbell (2004), and Williams and Shiaw (1999) to measure dimensions introduced by Organ (1988), this 19-item scale consists of Altruism, Conscientiousness, Courtesy, Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue dimensions. Bas?m and ?e?en (2006) conduct reliability analysis for two samples and find that Cronbach alpha scores for OCB sub-dimensions in the first sample are between .75 and .86, and the total reliability of the scale is .89. The scores for the mentioned sub-dimensions in the second sample are between .77 and .87, and the total reliability of the scale is calculated as .94. Confirmatory factor analysis of OCB scale in this study shows that the model fit is acceptable (x/²df= 3.033; GFI= 0.91; AGFI= 0.81; CFI= 0.94; NFI= 0.92; RMSEA= 0.123 and SRMR= 0.080)
3.9 Research procedures
After reaching the hotels physically, the researcher will present an introduction letter and the questionnaires to the organization’s top management to request for approval to conduct the research with confidentiality assurance. The questionnaires are in English. The HR managers and the employees will receive the same questionnaire to be answered by employees. The research tool to be used in the research tool has been used before and this will avoid pretesting. This will reduce the time taken to pre-test and adjust the questionnaires. In order to ensure a high response rate, the researcher notified the respondents that their responses will be used for purposes of research with assurance that their identities will not be identified. Through the head of human resource, permission will be obtained to reach to department heads.
3.10 Data Analysis Methods
This study seeks to answer these specific objectives; to determine the effects of organizational perceptions on organizational learning; to determine the effects of organizational learning on employee behaviour and to determine the mediating effects of organizational learning between organizational perceptions and employee behaviours. To examine these research questions, a mediation path analysis will be conducted to assess if mediator mediates the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable. In order for mediation to be met, four conditions will be met. First, relate the independent variables to dependent variable. Second, independent variable to the mediator. Third, in the final regression, mediator should remain a significant predictor of dependent variable.
The procedure will take place after a careful audit of the filled questionnaires on consistency and errors including data cleaning. The study will do analysis for both qualitative and quantitative methods for organizational learning, perceptions and outcomes using statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0. MLUS 6.0 to proceed to statistic and analysis of the data which will come from respondents. We will use SPSS to precede the factor analysis and reliability and used MPLUS to precede CFA of SEM. Regression and correlation analysis will be done to help the researcher to identify the relationship between the independent and the dependent variable variables. The data will be analyzed by using descriptive analysis such as descriptive statistics mean scores and standard deviations frequencies distributions and percentages and the results will presented in the form of tables and charts.
3.11 Chapter Summary
The researcher has presented the research methodology to use in this chapter with the aim of answering the specific objectives presented in chapter one. The researcher has chosen to use descriptive research design proceeded by the population. The study will be sampling hotels with approximate total population of 250. Descriptive research design will be used and stratified random sampling technique was adopted to select the sample size from the population. Data collection was conducted using structured questionnaire, and analyzed descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) and inferential statistics (correlation, regression, and ANOVA). Further analysis will also be done with MPLUS. Scales are applied to a group of 250 people from the same population to conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Factor analysis is carried out with the obtained data, scale points which give error in modification indices will be removed from scales to obtain better factor scores. The next chapter will provide the analysis part.
4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of the study was to analyze the extent to which organizational perceptions affect organizational learning and how organizational learning affects employee behaviour as well as the mediating role of organizational learning between perceptions and employee behaviours. This chapter presents the findings of the data collected using the questionnaire distributed through the drop and pick method and supervised by the researcher. The questionnaire was developed to address the following specific objectives (i) To determine the effects of organizational perceptions on organizational learning; (ii) To determine the effects of organizational learning on employee behaviour and (iii) To determine the mediating effects of organizational learning between organizational perceptions and employee behaviours. A total of 152 questionnaires were returned from the 300 distributed. The returned questionnaires were analyzed and the results presented in tables and bar charts.
4.2 General characteristics of the respondents
Part one of the questionnaire gave general demographical information of the respondents. This included gender, age and education. There was also experience in the organization, department, and level of management, hotel rating, and employment status. Work experience was important in establishing the knowledge of the some of the issues as well as the management level which also serves the same importance.
Table 4.1 Work Experience
0 – 1 years 35 23.0
1– 2 years 28 41.4
2 – 3 years 26 58.6
3 –4 years 17 69.7
3 –4 years 46 100.0
Level of Management.
No Mngt Responsibilities 45 30.0
Senior Manager 26 47.3
Assistant Manager 70 94.0
Line Manager 2 95.3
Supervisor 1 96.0
Other 6 30.0
Five Star 45 30.0
Four Star 26 47.3
Three Star 70 94.0
Two Star 2 95.3
One Star 1 96.0
Other 6 30.0
Mean Std. Deviation N
Silence 2.9205 .88391 140
Aut_Ind 3.4181 .84229 135
aut_team 3.62 .842 138
Abil_GM 3.98 .885 145
Abil_Su 4.00 .813 147
Ben_GM 3.51 1.023 148
Ben_Su 3.52 .946 146
Int_GM 3.69 .926 146
Int_Su 3.75 .836 146
ol_ind 3.68 .768 142
ol_gro 3.71 .759 145
ol_org 3.51 .792 147
irb 3.97 .489 134
ocb_alt 4.27 .661 151
ocb_team 4.30 .556 147
ocb_civ 3.57 .880 140
ocb_spo 2.04 1.111 148