Administration & Society http://aas.sagepub.com/

Organizational Learning and Individual Values : The Case of Israeli Civil Service Employees Aaron Cohen, Zehava Rosenblatt and Tali Buhadana Administration & Society 2011 43: 446 originally published online 14 July 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0095399711413080 The online version of this article can be found at: http://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/4/446

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Administration & Society can be found at: Email Alerts: http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://aas.sagepub.com/content/43/4/446.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 16, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 14, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

413080 080Cohen et al.Administration & Society © 2011 SAGE Publications

AAS43410.1177/0095399711413

Organizational Learning and Individual Values: The Case of Israeli Civil Service Employees

Administration & Society 43(4) 446­–473 © 2011 SAGE Publications DOI: 10.1177/0095399711413080 http://aas.sagepub.com

Aaron Cohen1, Zehava Rosenblatt1, and Tali Buhadana1

Abstract This study examines the relationship between individual values and organizational learning among employees of an Israeli government ministry. The authors examined the predictive relationships between 10 individual values and organizational learning, focusing on four dimensions of organizational learning. The study sample consisted of 298 civil service employees working in one Israeli ministry. The findings showed that three values that reflect a focus on person–organization fit—namely, security, tradition, and universalism— were positively and consistently related to all dimensions of organizational learning. Other values representing a focus on the individual—power and self-direction—were negatively related to organizational learning. Keywords organizational learning, individual values, person-organization fit, Israeli civil service

1

University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Corresponding Author: Aaron Cohen, Division of Public Administration, School of Political Science, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

447

Cohen et al.

Introduction Organizational learning (OL) was first defined in terms of the detection and correction of error (Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996) and later as the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). It has been a concept of interest in the search for efficiency, innovation, and knowledge management in both the private and public sectors (Barrette, Lemyre, Corneil, & Beauregard, 2007). OL has chiefly been studied in business organizations, but the concept has value in the context of human service organizations as well (Busch & Hostetter, 2009). Indeed, at a time of major budget reductions in public organizations, there is an increasing call for demonstrating the difference that careful spending can make in services provided, and taxpayers and their representatives are demanding that public entities prove their accountability and effectiveness through performance-based evaluations and outcome measurements. Under these circumstances, public organizations have come to recognize that knowledge provides a competitive edge. Understanding the factors that facilitate or inhibit learning would thus be highly valuable for public sector organizations struggling with limited resources and the need to demonstrate their service effectiveness (Busch & Hostetter, 2009). Bureaucracies are often criticized for their inability to manage uncertainty and environmental complexity, and in particular, to implement and exploit the learning activities required to adjust to change. Myers (1985) argues that bureaucratic structures create a barrier to learning. However, this conclusion has not been based on empirical research. Although it is possible that bureaucratic characteristics such as specialization and formalization may inhibit learning, it cannot be stated unequivocally that the bureaucratic structure is the core factor that limits learning in such organizations. Indeed, to become learning entities, organizations need both flexibility and stability in their management of environmental complexity. The stability inherent in many bureaucratic structures is thus not in itself a factor that is detrimental to learning (Lipshitz, Friedman, & Popper, 2007). Clearly, different bureaucracies differ in their strategies, cultures, communication climates, and formal or informal systems that foster learning. These are influenced by a given organization’s particular mission and goals as well as structural factors inherent to bureaucracies in general. A third factor that cannot be ignored, however, is the characteristics of organizational members, including their individual values.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

448

Administration & Society 43(4)

As the role of individual values in work-related behaviors and attitudes has received renewed interest over the past decade (Schwartz, 1999), researchers have begun to examine the way values affect the workplace (Ang, Van Dyne, & Begley, 2003; A. Cohen, 2007; Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). Fischer and Smith (2006) highlight the importance of such an examination, arguing that employees from different sociocultural backgrounds bring different career aspirations and value systems to their work. The aggregation of these individual-level inputs shapes the way the organization operates. In particular, values are thought to play a functional role in key work-related processes and outcomes (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002). Values can influence how an individual perceives and interprets a given situation and the importance he or she gives it (Schwartz, Sagiv, & Boehnke, 2000) as well as how he or she reacts and behaves in given circumstances (Schwartz, 1996). Furthermore, values play a central role in determining the fit between individuals and the employment organization (Berings, De Fruyt, & Bouwen, 2004). The underlying assumption is that people will be happier and more motivated, satisfied, and committed when their values are congruent with those emphasized in the group or organization (Berings et al., 2004). It follows that an understanding of individual-level differences in values may offer insights into the way organizations operate (Francesco & Chen, 2004). It is clear that OL, at least as much as other workplace processes, is dependent to a great degree on the characteristics of individual members. First, although OL does not require that every individual member be a learner, it can be thought of as the collective accumulation, sharing, and formalizing (through procedures and policies) of members’ individual learning (Wriston, 2007). Second, certain psychological states are crucial to make OL happen. In this regard, Lipshitz, Popper, and Friedman (2002) highlight psychological safety, without which members would be reluctant to take the risks required for learning and organizational commitment, which aligns the interests of individuals with those of the organization. Because individual values are at the heart of any individual attitude and behavior, and because the collective attitudes and behaviors of many individuals shape the organization’s learning culture, we believe that values may be found as key determinants of OL. In the current article, we explore the relationship between individual values and perceived OL among Israeli civil service employees, all employed in one Israeli government ministry. We will examine the link between individual values on one hand and OL on the other, while staying at the individual level of analysis.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

449

Cohen et al.

Conceptual Framework and Research Hypotheses Organizational Learning Argyris and Schön’s (1978, 1996) seminal theory of OL has shaped much of the current discussion of OL in the organizational literature (Godkin & Allcorn, 2009; Saka-Helmhout, 2010; Thomas & Allen, 2006). Argyris and Schön argue that people behave according to “mental maps” that shape how they plan, implement, and review their actions in different situations. These mental maps—of which people may not be consciously aware (Argyris, 1980)— govern what we (as human beings) actually do, which may differ from what we feel we ought to do or would like others to think we do. Argyris and Schön discuss these competing models in terms of “theories of action.” The former—how we actually behave—represents action in practice or “theory in use” (Argyris & Schön, 1978). The latter—how we would like to behave— represents espoused theory. This is the theory of action to which we give allegiance and which, on request, we communicate to others (Smith, 2001). According to Argyris and Schön, this distinction makes it possible to ask questions about the extent to which behavior fits espoused theory—that is, whether inner feelings become expressed in action. Argyris and Schön (1978) argue that effective action results from developing congruence between theory in use and espoused theory. When there is a mismatch between the two, the result will be a mismatch between intentions and outcomes. That is, the consequences of a person’s actions may not be what he or she intended and may not harmonize with the person’s governing values. Argyris and Schön suggest two responses to this mismatch, which can be seen in the notion of single- and double-loop learning. For Argyris and Schön (1978), learning, in its most basic form, involves the detection and correction of error. Where something goes wrong, the first step for many people is to look for an alternative strategy that will work within the governing variables. In other words, given or chosen goals are operationalized rather than questioned. According to Argyris and Schön, this is single-loop learning. In single-loop learning, goals, values, frameworks, and, to a certain extent, strategies are taken for granted; any reflection is directed toward making the strategy more effective. The alternative response, which they call double-loop learning, is to subject the governing variables themselves to critical scrutiny. Double-loop learning is likely to produce a shift in the way strategies and consequences are framed. It is more creative and reflective, but it is riskier and more difficult for both the individual and the organization (Smith, 2001).

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

450

Administration & Society 43(4)

Much of Argyris and Schön’s (1978) work has explored how organizations can increase their capacity for double-loop learning, necessary to improve decision making in rapidly changing and often uncertain contexts. In their view, behavior that inhibits double-loop learning is governed by a strong motivation to avoid embarrassment, to protect oneself from risk and change, and to enhance control over the environment and the task. To this end, potentially contradictory information is suppressed, open inquiry is discouraged, and assumptions are not tested. As such, this model (Model I in Argyris and Schön’s formulation) leads to “often deeply entrenched defensive routines” (Smith, 2001). The alternative model (Argyris and Schön’s Model II) enhances doubleloop learning by taking as fundamental the learning that requires (a) seeking out and disseminating valid, reliable data; (b) inclusiveness in hearing others’ views and perspectives; and (c) reasoning about and testing theories and positions. This model “looks to emphasize common goals and mutual influence, [to] encourage open communication, [and to] combine advocacy with inquiry” (Smith, 2001). Then, for OL to occur, the individual learners in the group must share their discoveries and conclusions, so that they become “embedded in organizational memory” (Argyris & Schön, 1978, p. 19)—that is, incorporated into organizational processes and priorities. Aside from Argyris and Schön (1978, 1996), other researchers have offered their own approaches to the conceptualizations of OL (Lipshitz & Popper, 2000). For instance, OL has been defined as a cycle or process that facilitates acquisition of knowledge, a process of collective learning through interaction with the environment, a process of identifying anomalies and making corrections (this idea is a restructuring of the theory of action), an enhanced ability to achieve desired results, or an organization’s ability to use experience to maintain and improve its performance (for a review of these definitions, see Barrette et al., 2007). Lipshitz and Popper (2000) suggest that the conceptual confusion surrounding OL is partly attributable to unsatisfactory solutions to the “paradox of organizational learning” (Argyris & Schön, 1996). In their view, although it is true that organizations can be said to “learn” through their members, what organizations “know” is not a simple sum of the knowledge of each individual member. Lipshitz and Popper advance a conceptual framework to solve the problematic link between individual-level and organizational-level learning through the concept of OL mechanisms (OLMs) and the culture in which they are embedded. Thus, they expand the cognitive approach advanced by Argyris and Schön to present a value-based foundation for OL. OLMs, which constitute the structural facet of OL, can be categorized according to two main features: (a) who detects and corrects errors through information processing and (b) when and where this learning occurs relative

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

451

Cohen et al.

to the task system (Lipshitz et al., 2002). Examples of OLMs include strategic planning, auditing, quality control departments, and formal performance reviews. However, OLMs represent a necessary but not sufficient condition for productive OL. OLMs may be ineffective because the learning may be ritualistic or limited by defensiveness, impoverished or distorted information, organizational politics, or other learning disabilities. Thus, a usable model for guiding OL needs to go beyond the structural elements to address those factors that are likely to promote or inhibit OL (Lipshitz et al., 2002). Effective OL requires a climate or culture that fosters inquiry, openness, and trust. Popper and Lipshitz (1998) define organizational culture as a normative system of shared values that shape how organizational members feel, think, and behave. Barrette et al. (2007) similarly define organizational culture as a set of implicit assumptions—values, beliefs, and ways of thinking—that determine how a group perceives, thinks, and reacts in various environments; these assumptions are taken for granted by members of the group and are taught to new members. An organizational culture may be characterized in part by its learning orientation. One can conceptualize learning orientation as arising from that set of organizational values which influence the propensity of the firm to create and use knowledge. An organization’s learning orientation determines what information the organization considers worthy of attention, interpretation, and evaluation as well as the degree to which the organization is satisfied with keeping things as they stand and, hence, the degree to which proactive learning occurs (Sinkula, Baker, & Noordewier, 1997). A learning culture should promote values such as experimentation, knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, reciprocity, risk taking, and recognition of the opportunities created by change. Popper and Lipshitz (1998) argue that learning cultures have in common a set of core values: validity of information, transparency, issue orientation, and accountability. (A fifth dimension—continuous learning—was not included in the present study.) They describe these four dimensions as follows: Valid information. Valid information is information that is complete, undistorted, and verifiable. Making validity of information a key value increases the likelihood that people will withstand pressures to distort information (Ellis, Caridi, Lipshitz, & Popper, 1999). Because all learning in organizational contexts involves the transformation of data into knowledge, Popper and Lipshitz suggest that having access to valid information is necessary for effective learning. Transparency. Transparency is the willingness to hold oneself and one’s actions open to inspection to receive valid feedback. Making transparency a value serves the goal of ensuring that information is valid by decreasing the

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

452

Administration & Society 43(4)

likelihood of self-deception and by countering pressures to distort or suppress threatening information (Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). Issue orientation. Issue orientation is manifested when opinions and assertions are judged according to their merits, divorced from the identity and status of the person pronouncing them. Issue orientation is related to, but is more focused than, democratization, power equalization, and participation. Similar to these values, it opens communication channels, thereby enhancing innovation and learning (Ellis et al., 1999; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). Accountability. Accountability means accepting responsibility for one’s actions and their consequences, and for learning from these consequences. Accountability facilitates overcoming obstacles to effective learning in the form of action barriers that prevent the implementation of lessons learned. It also prevents passing responsibility to others, which handicaps effective implementation of change programs (Ellis et al., 1999; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). Together, these dimensions capture the essence of the OL construct.

Schwartz’s Individual Values Model Schwartz and Sagiv (1995), based on Schwartz’s (1992, 1996) conceptualization, define human values as desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives. In their formulation, the crucial content aspect that distinguishes values from one another is the type of motivational goal they express. (Somewhat differently, values can be thought of as cherished but abstract principles, whereas goals are desired states that are derived from or consistent with them.) Schwartz and Schwartz and Sagiv distinguish between 10 types of values (listed in Table 1). Figure 1 illustrates the conflict and compatibility among value priorities that, in the view of Schwartz and Sagiv (1995), structure the value system. Competing value types emanate in opposing directions from the center; compatible types are in close proximity around the circle. As shown in Figure 1, the 10 value types are organized in two dimensions representing higher order value types. The first dimension—Openness to Change Versus Conservation— juxtaposes values emphasizing independent thought and action and favoring change (self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism) with those emphasizing submissive self-restriction, preservation of traditional practices, and protection of stability (security, conformity, and tradition). The second dimension— Self-Enhancement Versus Self-Transcendence—juxtaposes values emphasizing pursuit of one’s own relative success and dominance over others (power, achievement, and hedonism) with those emphasizing acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare (universalism and benevolence). (Note that

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

453

Cohen et al.

Table 1. Definitions of Motivational Types of Values in Terms of Their Goals and the Single Values That Represent Them Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources (Social power, authority, wealth) [Preserving my public image, social recognition]a Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards (Successful, capable, ambitious, influential) [Intelligent and self-respect] Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. (Pleasure, enjoying life) Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. (Daring a varied life, an exciting life) Self-Direction: Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring. (Creativity, freedom, independent, curious, choosing own goals) [Self-respect] Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. (Broadminded, wisdom, social justice, equality, a world of peace, a word of beauty, unity with nature, protecting the environment) Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. (Helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, responsible) [True friendship, mature love) Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self. (Humble, accepting my portion in life, devout, respect for tradition, moderate) Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms (Politeness, obedient, selfdiscipline, honoring parents and elders) Security: Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. (Family security, national security, social order, clean, and reciprocation of favors) [Sense of belonging and being healthy] a

Values in brackets were not used in computing indexes for value types.

hedonism fits in both dimensions, relating to both Openness to Change and Self-Enhancement.) Evidence for this theoretical structure has been found in samples from 67 nations (Schwartz, 1992, 2005; Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995) as well as in recent data from 38 countries (Fontaine, Poortinga, Delbeke, & Schwartz, 2008). These findings, showing that 10 motivationally distinct value types are recognized across cultures and are used to express value priorities, provide substantial support for both the content and structure postulates of the theory. De Clercq, Fontaine, and Anseel (2008), in an extensive quantitative literature review, also conclude that this model offers a thorough, comprehensive, and crossculturally validated theoretical values structure.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

454

Administration & Society 43(4)

Figure 1. Theoretical model of relationships among 10 motivational types of values

Schwartz (1996) describes several possible processes that may link value priorities to people’s attitudes and behaviors. He suggests that values influence, first of all, what we, as human beings, notice and pay attention to in the world around us. Values then influence our perceptions and interpretations of various situations. Schwartz argues that his view of value systems as integrated structures facilitates the generation of systematic, coherent hypotheses about how values and value priorities relate to other attitudes or behaviors. In his view, external variables (e.g., attitudes or behaviors) tend to be associated similarly with value types that are adjacent in the model—that is, with values that fall into the same higher order classes.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

455

Cohen et al.

A number of arguments provide general conceptual justifications for a relationship between individual values and OL. First, previous research shows that people’s beliefs and convictions may lead to specific work behaviors. Lydon (1996), for instance, contends that core values define who we are in an important way. They serve as a bridge from the self to life experiences by informing us about the meaning that life experiences have for us. Meaning thus fulfills epistemic concerns about life experiences—but meaning then seeks expression in a “motivational process” that energizes the person to pursue a goal in the face of adversity. Furnham, Petrides, Tsaosis, Pappas, and Garrod (2005) argue that affective disposition can have a pervasive influence on how people view the world, including their job—meaning that individuals with different personalities may react to different aspects of their work environment. This argument relies on the fact that there is considerable variability among people in the same work environment, although it is uncertain whether this reflects personality or demographic differences or some combination of the two (Furnham et al., 2005). Beyond that, Furnham et al. suggest that disposition may at times influence job-related choices, such that people with a negative disposition will accept, or may even seek out, less appealing jobs than people whose outlook is positive. In other words, it may be that people with different inclinations sort themselves into different jobs. Second, a careful examination of values make-up on one hand and OL structure on the other point at reasonable relationships between the two. In the current research, we expect that employees who highly value tradition, conformity, benevolence, universalism, and security will show greater OL than those who do not. These five core values are compatible with a desire to build long-term, stable, meaningful, and productive relationships with the organization. They suggest a willingness to contribute and to support and improve important aspects of the organization. Most employees who put time and effort into OL probably consider themselves long-term members of the organization. They care about the organization and share a positive perspective about its orientation toward learning. As such, OL has much in common with the five values in the set listed above. Benevolence, for instance, shares with OL a focus on enhancing the welfare of the group, as does universalism. Tradition and conformity emphasize support, a sense of belonging, and solidarity, all of which are necessary if one is to accept the primacy of goals such as transparency and accountability. Security, similarly, suggests a striving for long-term relationships and increased stability. People with high levels of these values will most likely be more willing to become long-term members of the organization and to contribute to its success. OL is one way of doing so. Therefore, our Hypothesis 1 states,

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

456

Administration & Society 43(4)

Hypothesis 1: Employees who highly value tradition, conformity, security, benevolence, and universalism are likely to show greater OL on all its dimensions—issue orientation, accountability, validity of information, and transparency—than those who do not. Conversely, we expect that employees who value achievement, hedonism, stimulation, power, and self-direction will show less OL than those who do not. These values are likely to have a much weaker or even a negative relationship with OL. People who highly value hedonism or stimulation are likely to focus more on themselves than on the welfare of the organization as a whole. Those who value achievement and self-direction will likewise invest more in advancing their own interests and less in helping the organization because of their strong focus on, and pride in, their own success. As for power, individuals who seek to augment their own power within the organization are likely to perceive the dimensions of OL—accountability, transparency, issue orientation, and validity of information—as not applicable to themselves or, at the very least, as values to pay lip service to. We would therefore expect a negative relationship between power and OL. This leads to our second hypothesis. Hypothesis 2: Employees who value power, hedonism, stimulation, achievement, and self-direction are likely to show less OL on all its dimensions—issue orientation, accountability, validity of information, and transparency—than those who do not. It should be noted that we do not draw specific hypotheses regarding the relationships between values and each separate dimension of OL because of the exploratory nature of this study. Very few studies, if any, have examined individual values in relation to OL, meaning that both theory and findings are insufficient to develop solid hypotheses regarding the relationship between the two. We hope that the findings of this study will provide future studies with sufficient data to develop specific hypotheses in future research.

Demographic Variables and OL This study examines three demographic variables as control variables: age, gender, and position in the organization. Age is expected to have a positive relationship with all dimensions of OL. Older employees are likely to have acquired more knowledge in and about the organization and presumably are more attached to it (Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984); for these

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

457

Cohen et al.

reasons, they are likely to demonstrate stronger OL than younger employees. Women—whether old or young—are generally those who are expected to deal with additional, sometimes conflicting, demands from home, such as the care of children or aging parents. This situation is particularly true in Israel (A. Cohen & Kirchmeyer, 2005; Yishai & Cohen, 1997). As a result, women may invest less time in OL. With regard to organizational status, one may expect managers to have both a better understanding of the importance of OL and greater ability to contribute in that regard. At the very least, managers can be expected to show greater accountability than lower status employees as a direct result of their managerial responsibilities. Managers are therefore likely to have greater levels of OL than nonmanagers. Our study is designed to explore the effect of values on OL above and beyond the effect of these demographic variables. To measure the relationships between OL and the demographic variables, we assume that employees who engage more in OL activities will be more inclined to report on higher levels of OL in the organization.

The Setting The study took place in Israel, a country of heavy immigration, many ethnic minorities, and a diversity of cultural groups. This diversity suggests that Israel offers a broad spectrum of people with different life and work values. Therefore, it represents an excellent setting in which to examine individual values and their influence on organizational processes. Israel gained its independence in 1948 and since its early days has been characterized by rapid growth as well as by a continuous state of war with the Arab nations surrounding it. The pioneering generation that established the new state, mainly immigrants from Eastern Europe, were in large part committed socialists, eager to form a socialist society in Israel (Lewis, 1972). It is not surprising, then, that socialism was the leading socioeconomic ideology during the first decades of Israel’s existence (Tzafrir, Meshoulam, & Baruch, 2007); its dominance was demonstrated particularly in the collectivist communities known as kibbutzim. This helped to generate a strong sense of cohesion in the country and enabled it to cope with enormous difficulties in areas such as security (which remains an issue today) and the heterogeneity of its population, caused by a number of waves of mass immigration from various countries (Lecker & Shachmurove, 1999). The late 1970s saw the beginning of a new era in the Israeli labor market that continues up to the present, as global and political changes led to transformations in Israel’s economy and a modernization of its industrial system.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

458

Administration & Society 43(4)

Because of these changes (among them the growth of the high-tech industry and the end of hegemony for the ruling Labor Party in 1977), the prevailing ideology has changed and today tends to follow the American capitalist model (Sagie & Weisberg, 2001). Since 1977, all Israeli governments have adopted the principles of liberalization and privatization. Furthermore, recent peace efforts have signaled to foreign companies and investors that Israel is no longer a risky partner, supplier, or purchaser (De Fontenay & Carmel, 2004). These processes have opened Israel to the international market. Indeed, Israeli firms have been vigorous in their efforts to establish business ties with companies from other countries (Lavie & Fiegenbaum, 2000; Sagie & Weisberg, 2001). One important process during this era has been the emergence of alternatives to the diminishing Histadrut (the national trade union) and government industry organizations, with engineers and workers in high-tech firms often forgoing union membership in favor of personal contracts. During this period, the country’s civilian workforce more than doubled, mostly due to immigration from the former Soviet Union (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 1970, 2002). (Israel’s current population is around 6,689,700, more than 10 times its 1948 population of 600,000; Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2004.) The country faced the new challenge of managing a multicultural, multivalue workforce.

Research Design Participants and Procedure The study population comprised all the employees in one of Israel’s smaller government ministries. Questionnaires were distributed to all 512 employees of the ministry, who work in offices throughout the country. Over about 3 months, 298 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 58%. The participants were 75.3% female. Their average age was 49.4 years (SD = 9.9) and average tenure in the ministry and in the present job was 17.0 (SD = 8.8) years and 9.9 (SD = 6.5) years, respectively. Most of the respondents (80.3%) were married, 55.6% had a university degree, and 64% were born in Israel. About a third, or 36.4%, held managerial positions.

Study Measures Individual values. The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) was applied to measure the 10 basic values (Schwartz, 2005; Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann,

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

459

Cohen et al. Table 2. Items of Organizational Learning Dimensions

Issue orientation 1. In team discussions, participants have equal rights to speak. 2. The focus in the organization is on the what and why of errors and not on who makes them. 3. Subordinates feel that superiors do not “pull rank” in discussions of workrelated issues. 4. Actions are judged by their merits regardless of the actor. 5. The organization encourages equality among (formal) ranks on professional discussions. 6. Everyone feels free to contribute to professional discussions. 7. Personal issues are kept out of work-related discussions. 8. Organization members, regardless of rank, have to face the truth equally. 9. Our norm is “we are all in the same boat, everyone can make a mistake.” 10. It is customary to believe that “the boss is never wrong.”a Accountability 1. People are encouraged to say frankly what they think. 2. The discussion of work-related issues is not affected by who raises them. 3. Admitting error is the norm at all ranks and levels. 4. Team members take personal responsibility when their team’s decisions fail. 5. Organization members take responsibility for their actions. 6. Organization members are expected to learn from the mistakes of others. 7. When organization members make mistakes they are expected to check why they made them. 8. Every organization member feels responsible for his or her actions even if they are not successful. 9. Organization members who take part in a project that fails see themselves as responsible for this outcome. 10. Members are expected to take responsibility for their unsuccessful as well as successful actions. 11. Organization members try to learn from their errors to improve in the future. Valid information 1. Organization members tend to sweep their mistakes under the rug.a 2. Organization members provide inaccurate information to defend themselves when they make errors.a 3. Subordinates inform their superiors of their successes but not of their failures.a 4. When organization members fail to meet targets they prefer to keep it to themselves.a 5. Organization members prefer not to admit their mistakes.a 6. Organization members tell the truth even if it might hurt them. (continued)

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

460

Administration & Society 43(4)

Table 2. (continued) 7. Organization members believe that it always pays to tell the truth. 8. Organization members believe they have to tell their bosses of their (own) work-related errors. 9. Organization members prefer to report “half-truths” to appear successful.a Transparency 1. It is customary in the organization to discuss work-related errors. 2. Errors are considered in the organization to be natural and legitimate. 3. Everybody in the organization feels free to express criticism. 4. Organization members do not lie to defend themselves. 5. Organization members feel free to surface problems. a

Keyed negatively.

Burgess, & Harris, 2001). The PVQ presents brief verbal portraits of 40 different people, gender matched with the respondent. Each portrait describes a person’s goals and aspirations that point implicitly to the importance of a value. The verbal portraits describe each person in terms of what is important to him or her. Thus, they capture the person’s values without explicitly identifying values as the topic of investigation. The number of portraits for each value ranges from three (stimulation, hedonism, and power) to six (universalism), reflecting the conceptual breadth of the values. The score for the importance of each value is the average rating given to these items, all of which were designated a priori as markers of a value. All the value items have demonstrated near equivalence of meaning across cultures in analyses using multidimensional scaling (MDS; Schwartz, 2005). OL. The four scales for OL were adopted from Ellis et al. (1999), who developed this instrument based on Popper and Lipshitz’s (1998) conceptualization. The four-dimension measure is presented in Table 2. Issue orientation was measured by 10 items, with Cronbach’s α = .93; accountability by 11 items, with Cronbach’s α = .74; validity of information by 9 items, with Cronbach’s α = .97; and transparency by five items, with Cronbach’s α = .89.

Data Analysis We applied correlation analysis to test the interrelationships among the research variables and to examine the possibility of multicollinearity. Hierarchical regression analysis using the “enter” method was used to test the hypotheses. We did not use the stepwise method because that technique has been criticized for allowing the computer program to sequence the variables based on their

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

461

Cohen et al.

contribution to R2 (J. Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The hierarchical regression using the enter method in SPSS was performed in two stages. In the first stage, the three demographic variables were regressed on each of the OL dimensions. In the second stage, the 10 values were entered. For the purposes of this research, this method has the advantage of allowing the examination of any variance above and beyond that explained in previous stages. This allows for exploring the effect of the conceptual variables (individual values) while controlling for the effect of the three demographic variables.

Results Table 3 presents the basic statistics of the variables and the intercorrelations among them. The correlations among the predictor variables are acceptable and preclude the possibility of multicollinearity. The results show acceptable reliabilities of the research variables. Table 3 shows that the reliabilities for all the values, based on the raw data, are all above the minimum threshold of α = .67 (except for self-direction, α = .61, and power, α = .66). It is noteworthy that Schwartz et al. (2001) warned not to expect high internal reliabilities for individual values. They point out that reliabilities below .60 are not unusual, both because the indexes include only a few items and because many values have conceptually broad definitions, encompassing multiple components. Therefore, the relatively high reliabilities found here are encouraging and can be attributed to the homogeneity of the scales. MDS using ALSCAL (SPSSX) allows us to further examine the validity of Schwartz’s model (1992, 1996). The objective of MDS is to array points in multidimensional space such that the distances between points on the scatterplot(s) reflect as closely as possible the subjective distances obtained by surveying the participants. That is, MDS shows graphically how different objects of comparison do or do not cluster. The two-dimensional analysis presented in Figure 2 generally supports Schwartz’s model. It shows that all the conservation and self-transcendence values, except for tradition, are concentrated on the right-hand side of the figure, and all the openness to change and self-enhancement values, except for self-direction, are on the left-hand side. Universalism, conformity, security, and benevolence form one strong cluster. Power, hedonism, stimulation, and achievement form a second good cluster, whereas tradition and self-direction are a little distant from the two clusters. Although these results basically follow Schwartz’s original model, the distance between tradition and the general conservation cluster, and between self-direction and the general openness to change cluster, may reflect the specific characteristics of the present study. For example, tradition is often

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

462

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

M

1

2

.15 .12 .08 .19 -.01 -.14 -.04 -.19 .05 .18

.14 .16 .14 .14

0.86 1.26 0.61 0.86 0.77 1.06 1.21 1.10 1.13 0.68

0.87 1.07 1.35 1.07

-.12 -.11 -.09 -.08 .12 -.01 -.08 .03 .06 -.17 -.08 -.07 -.19 -.20

-.19 -.18 -.01 -.20

3

.03 -.14 .00 -.04 .04 -.10 -.13 -.04 -.24 -.03

9.90 0.44 -.05 0.46 .12 -.12

SD

.49 .49 .50 .48

(.67) .38 .40 .40 -.05 .07 .25 .25 .10 .56

4

.53 .44 .45 .45

(.69) .34 .32 -.00 .16 .08 .04 -.03 .30

5

.43 .38 .33 .33

(.68) .54 .17 .27 .22 .22 .07 .39

6

8

9

10

11

.48 .03 .12 .50 .13 .14 .46 -.01 .04 .47 .07 .16

.22 .27 .19 .36

.23 .21 .13 .20

(.76) .20 (.61) .29 .37 (.69) .16 .23 .52 (.83) .21 .44 .43 .33 (.80) .09 .34 .39 .38 .57 .50 .16 .08 .33 .22

7

13

.03 .12 .07 .08

14

15

16

                   

     

17

  .63 (.93)   .66 .55 (.74) .61 .43 .61 (.97)   .65 .72 .68 .54 (.89)

(.66) .16 (.69)

12

Note: Correlation ≥ .12 significant at .05; correlation ≥ .15 significant at .01; and correlation ≥ .19 significant at .001. N = 287 to 298 due to missing values. a Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female. b Position: 0 = nonmanagerial position; 1 = managerial position.

Demographics  Age 49.43  Gendera 0.74 0.29  Positionb Individual values  Conformity 4.73  Tradition 3.55 5.18  Benevolence 4.62  Universalism  Self-direction 4.89  Stimulation 3.66  Hedonism 3.83  Achievement 4.13 3.30  Power  Security 4.86 Organizational learning   Issue orientation 3.31  Accountability 3.90   Valid information 3.98  Transparency 3.20

Variables

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities (in Parentheses), and Intercorrelations Among Research Variables

463

Cohen et al.

Figure 2. Two dimensional analysis of Schwartz’s individual values model

associated in Israeli population with one aspect of religiosity. In sum, the results of the MDS analysis generally provide strong support for the relevance and validity of Schwartz’s model to the study sample. The summary results of the obtained model attest to its relative strength: The fit measures show a satisfying stress (φ) of .088 and a more satisfying squared correlation index (RSQ) of .96 (considering that any RSQ above .60 is considered good). Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis, where the dependent variables were regressed on the demographic variables in the first step and on the 10 values in the second step. Each of the four dimensions of OL was analyzed separately. The findings for Step 1 show that the demographic variables explain relatively high levels of variance in OL (R2 = .11 for transparency; R2 = .07 for issue orientation; and R2 = .06 each for accountability and valid information). These results support our expectation that male employees and older workers are likely to report on higher levels of OL. The findings for the position variable were largely significant but in the opposite direction to that anticipated: In all the OL dimensions except accountability, managers actually scored lower than nonmanagers.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

464

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

.07(.06) 6.60***

.14* -.20*** -.12*

Step 1

.01 .30*** .08 .11* -.10* .04 .05 .23*** -.19*** .43*** .60(.58) 30.70*** .53 35.50***

.03 -.15*** .04

Step 2

Issue orientation

.06(.05) 6.33***

.16** -.18** -.10 .09 .20*** .00 .17** .02 -.04 .06 .06 -.04 .44*** .55(.53) 25.25*** .48 29.03***

.00 -.13** .04

Step 2

Accountability Step 1

Note: N = 287 to 298 due to missing values. a Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female. b Position: 0 = no managerial position; 1 = managerial position. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Demographics  Age  Gendera  Positionb Individual values  Conformity  Tradition  Benevolence  Universalism  Self-direction  Stimulation  Hedonism  Achievement  Power  Security R2 (adjusted) F ΔR2 F for ΔR2

Antecedents

Organizational learning

.06(.05) 6.32***

.16** -.03 -.22***

Step 1

.10 .26*** -.03 .20*** -.09 -.11 .05 .01 .06 .37*** .50(.48) 20.61*** .44 23.38***

-.02 .05 -.06

Step 2

Valid information

.11(.10) 11.64***

.15** -.22*** -.24***

Step 1

.05 .22*** -.07 .16** -.02 -.03 .19*** .12* -.16** .42*** .57(.55) 27.91*** .46 29.26***

.04 -.17*** -.09*

Step 2

Transparency

Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Results (Standardized Coefficients) of Demographic Variables and Individual Values on Dimensions of Organizational Learning

465

Cohen et al.

Step 2 in Table 4 presents the results of a hierarchical regression analysis of individual values on the OL dimensions. Recall that our two hypotheses posited that OL would be positively related to tradition, conformity, security, benevolence, and universalism, and negatively related to power, hedonism, stimulation, achievement, and self-direction. Regarding Hypothesis 1, we found a strong positive relationship between security and the four dimensions of OL, and a weaker but still positive relationship between tradition and universalism and all four dimensions of OL. However, we found no significant relationship between OL and either conformity or benevolence. Regarding Hypothesis 2, we found negative relationships between power and two dimensions of OL, issue orientation and transparency as well as a negative relationship between self-direction and issue orientation. A few findings were not expected by Hypothesis 2, namely, the positive (though weak) relationships between achievement, on one hand, and issue orientation and transparency, on the other, and between hedonism and transparency. Hypothesis 2, then, was partly supported for power and self-direction but not for stimulation, hedonism, and achievement. Altogether, the individual values explained a significant amount of variance beyond that already explained by the demographic variables. The individual values added 53% to the variance explained for issue orientation, 48% for accountability, 44% for validity of information, and 46% for transparency. This analysis, thus, strongly supports the idea that employees’ individual values can contribute a great deal to a better understanding of OL.

Discussion The results of this study generally support our contention that individual values contribute to employees’ perceptions of organizational learning. In particular, the fact that individual values contributed to the explained variance of OL above and beyond the effect of the demographic control variables attests to the relevance of individual values in OL. This is particularly true for the three values that were positively correlated with all four OL dimensions: tradition, universalism, and security. The findings for self-direction and power (negatively correlated with OL on one and two dimensions, respectively) also buttress the notion that developing an OL culture depends on the values that employees bring with them into the organization. The fact that two values associated with openness to change and selfenhancement—namely, hedonism and achievement—were positively (though weakly) related to OL is puzzling. Both values (correlated with OL on one and two dimensions, respectively) reflect a strong emphasis on individual goals

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

466

Administration & Society 43(4)

and interests, unlike the other values that showed a positive correlation with OL, which reflect an underlying theme of concern for the group or collective. One way to understand these odd findings is to assume that civil servants may identify with the organization to a greater degree than workers in the private sector. In other words, the ministerial employees in our sample may have internalized the public-service message of the government body that employs them, such that their personal goals and interests are at least somewhat in line with the goals and interests of their workplace. In contrast, employees in business organizations may be more likely to find their interests opposing those of the organization’s owners and management. In this regard, another point is worth mentioning. A comparative look at the four OL dimensions reveals that two of these dimensions, issue orientation and transparency, were each related to six values, whereas only three values were related to accountability and validity of information. These results may imply that issue orientation and transparency are more relevant to the understanding of OL for our sample of Israeli civil service respondents than the other two dimensions, though why accountability and information validity should be less relevant is not entirely clear. One possible explanation suggests itself for accountability. Although accountability is typically a built-in part of organizational operations, it is likely that for public institutions, in particular, the specific forms taken by accountability measures are a function of cultural norms associated with the specific institution involved. For instance, accountability is likely to involve both norms of personal responsibility and standardized measures in public institutions such as schools (Rosenblatt & Shimoni, 2002). Indeed, accountability is a recognized component of organizational culture (Popper & Lipshitz, 1998; Wriston, 2007). In public organizations, then, it may be that cultural norms associated with the particular organization affect employees’ personal attitudes toward accountability. Future studies that take a qualitative approach, where respondents report verbally on how they perceive OL vis-à-vis their personal values, may shed light on these questions. We hope the current findings will be useful in the development of theory and hypotheses for such future research. Taken as a whole, our findings fit well with other concepts in the organizational behavior literature. The most obvious of these is organizational commitment. The profile that seems most predictive of OL—high scores for tradition, universalism, and security, and low scores for power and selfdirection—represents a commitment to the collective or the system: an elevation of the group’s needs over those of the individual. Organizational commitment and OL should therefore show relationships with the same sets of values. Indeed, A. Cohen (2009) finds positive and significant correlations

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

467

Cohen et al.

between organizational commitment and conformity, tradition, benevolence, universalism, and security among Israeli bank employees. Besides organizational commitment, OL shares conceptual similarities with psychological safety and information sharing. The values with the largest effect sizes in our research, as seen in Table 3, show close affinities with these concepts. For instance, security is fundamental to psychological safety (Lipshitz et al., 2002), whereas universalism seems important for information sharing. The values that had conspicuously low correlations with OL, namely, power and self-direction, are likewise likely to be poorly correlated with both psychological safety and information sharing, which, like OL, demand cooperation and working together. The positive yet weak association of hedonism and achievement with OL is not inconsistent with this overall picture. Looking in a different direction, the relationships established in this study between personal values and OL point to existing research on the similarities between individual and organizational learning. Kim (1993) argues that because organizations learn through the experience and actions of individuals, OL is affected directly or indirectly by individual learning. Kim explains organizational learning in terms of processing individual mental models and learning schemes. Yet he points out that sometimes learning cycles within organizations are incomplete. We suggest that awareness of individual values and preferences adds to our understanding of how individual learning patterns are transformed into learning at the organization level. Our findings pertaining to the demographic factors (control variables) were mixed. The relationship of gender and age with OL was as expected: Men (but not women) and older employees tended to regard themselves as employed by learning organizations. However, in contrast to our expectation, managers reported on OL to a lesser degree than nonmanagers. This surprising result may be unique to the specific population studied—civil servants. It may be that managers in the focal governmental organization focus on maintaining their power and status. Thus, the values that direct them are power and self-direction—both found in this study as impediments to OL. We believe that this study makes several contributions to the literature. First, it highlights the relationship between OL and individual values in general, and in the public administration context in particular. Our findings enhance our understanding of OL in the civil service setting at a time when this concept is attracting growing interest among scholars. Second, whereas previous studies tended largely to take a cognitive approach to OL, the contribution of the present study is its focus on values, as a critical component needed for effective, double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Third, the results of the study demonstrate the degree to which individual values relate to OL beyond the

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

468

Administration & Society 43(4)

effect of significant demographic variables such as age, gender, and managerial position. Finally, the study points at the specific individual values that are most likely to support a learning culture in public organizations. Theoretically, the study contributes to the clarification of a critical issue in the study of OL: the tendency toward anthropomorphism (Friedman, Lipshitz, & Popper, 2005). This is a tendency to attribute individual capacity—learning—to the organization and to analyze organizational processes in terms borrowed from individual analysis. The present study distinguishes between the two. It emphasizes the degree to which individual attributes can predict (but remain separate from) organizational processes. This study does have several limitations. First, any effort to explore aspects of organizational culture (such as OL) must grapple with the potential confounding effects of (a) the particular organizational context—for example, publicversus private sector or traditional business versus high-tech business—and (b) the larger cultural setting in which the organization operates—in this case, Israel. It should be noted in this context that, like civil servants in many other countries, Israeli civil service employees are very secure in their jobs, working under collective agreements that make it almost impossible to terminate their employment. As we reported above, our study population is distinguished by a relatively long tenure in the ministry (17 years), and they tend to be older (average age 49) than is typical in many other occupations. Given this, we must question whether some of our findings—such as the conspicuously strong association of security with all dimensions of OL in our study—should be attributed to the particular Israeli civil service employment setting. We recommend that the study be replicated in other countries and occupational settings, with an eye, in particular, toward comparing the public with the private sector. Second, the study relied on a snapshot-in-time survey design. Such a design consists of a single observation with no control group and limited control over the effects of variables. However, individual values are quite stable constructs that are not easily affected by situational changes, and therefore, it is hard to assume that measuring them in more than one time frame would yield different findings. This assumption should be tested in future studies. Finally, as noted above, although the current research departs from previous studies in moving beyond a cognitive approach to OL, it could be argued that it did not move far enough. Future studies might expand this research beyond the focus on values to consider another noncognitive factor of importance in organizational behavior—namely, emotions. Certainly, individual and group emotions, normally nonconscious and automatic, are likely to affect the capacity to detect and correct errors and to enhance

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

469

Cohen et al.

collective learning in organizations. Although such an endeavor was beyond the scope of the current research, it would offer valuable insights into the subject. Despite the study’s limitations, its findings demonstrate the importance of individual values in understanding OL. The results suggest that the literature would benefit from further research into the role of values at the individual level in the public service arena. In particular, research exploring variables that mediate and moderate the relationship between values and OL would make a particularly valuable contribution to the understanding of this relationship. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Begley, T. M. (2003). The employment relationships of foreign workers versus local employees: A field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction, performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 561-583. Argyris, C. (1980). Inner contradictions of rigorous research. New York, NY: Academic Press. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Barrette, J., Lemyre, L., Corneil, W., & Beauregard, N. (2007). Organizational learning among senior public-service executives: An empirical investigation of culture, decisional latitude and supportive communication. Canadian Public Administration, 50, 333-354. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40. Berings, D., De Fruyt, F., & Bouwen, R. (2004). Work values and personality traits as predictors of enterprising and social vocational interests. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 349-364. Busch, M., & Hostetter, C. (2009). Examining organizational learning for application in human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 33, 297-318. Central Bureau of Statistics (1970). Statistical abstracts of Israel. Jerusalem: Author.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

470

Administration & Society 43(4)

Central Bureau of Statistics (2002). Statistical abstracts of Israel. Jerusalem: Author. Central Bureau of Statistics (2004). Statistical abstracts of Israel. Jerusalem: Author. Cohen, A. (2007). An examination of the relationship between commitments and culture among five cultural groups of Israeli teachers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 34-49. Cohen, A. (2009). A value based perspective of commitment in the workplace: An examination of Schwartz’s basic human values theory among bank employees in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 332-345. Cohen, A., & Kirchmeyer, C. (2005). A cross-cultural study of the work/nonwork interface among Israeli nurses. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 538-568. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. De Clercq, S., Fontaine, J. R., & Anseel, F. (2008). In search of a comprehensive value model for assessing supplementary person-organization fit. Journal of Psychology, 142, 277-302. de Fontenay, C., & Carmel, E. (2004). Israel’s Silicon Wadi: The forces behind cluster formation. In Breshnahan and A. Gambardella (Eds.), Building High-Tech Clusters: Silicon Valley and beyond (pp. 40-77). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, S., Caridi, O., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (1999). Perceived error criticality and organizational learning: An empirical investigation. Knowledge and Process Management, 6, 166-175. Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcomes relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715-729. Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803-813. Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on the link between organizational justice and work behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 541-562. Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Delbeke, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Structural equivalence of the values domain across cultures: Distinguishing sampling fluctuations from meaningful variation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 39, 345-365. Francesco, A. M., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Collectivism in action. Group & Organization Management, 29, 425-441.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

471

Cohen et al.

Friedman, V., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2005). The mystification of organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 19-30. Furnham, A., Petrides, K. V., Tsaosis, I., Pappas, K., & Garrod, D. (2005). A crosscultural investigation into the relationships between personality traits and work values. Journal of Psychology, 139, 5-32. Godkin, L., & Allcorn, S. (2009). Dependent narcissism, organizational learning and human resource development. Human Resource Management Research, 8, 484-505. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 37-50. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 557-569. Lam, S. K. S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1-18. Lavie, D., & Fiegenbaum, A. (2000). The strategic reaction of domestic firms to foreign MNC dominance: The Israeli experience. Long Range Planning, 33, 651-672. Lecker, T., & Shachmurove, Y. (1999). Immigration and socioeconomic gaps: Theory and applications. Applied Economics, 31, 539-549. Lewis, B. (1972). The emergence of modern Israel. Middle Eastern Studies, 8, 421-427. Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V. J., & Popper, M. (2007). Demystifying organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2000). Organizational learning in a hospital. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 345-361. Lipshitz, R., Popper, M., & Friedman, V. J. (2002). A multifacet model of organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 78-98. Lydon, J. (1996). Toward a theory of commitment. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olsen & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 191-213). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Meyer, P. J., & Allen, J. N. (1984). Testing the side bet theory of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378. Myers, J. B. (1985). Making organizations adaptive to change: Eliminating bureaucracy at Shenandoah Life. National Productivity Review, 4, 131-138. Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 161-179. Rosenblatt, Z., & Shimoni, O. (2002). Teachers’ accountability: An experimental field study in physical education. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15, 309-328.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

472

Administration & Society 43(4)

Sagie, A., & Weisberg, J. (2001). The transformation in human resource management in Israel. International Journal of Manpower, 22, 226-234. Saka-Helmhout, A. (2010). Organizational learning as a situated routine-based activity in international settings. Journal of World Business, 41, 41-48. doi:10.1016/j .jwb.2009.04 009 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). New York, NY: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olsen, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23-47. Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory on universals in individual human values. In A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho (pp. 56-95). Brasilia, Brazil: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542. Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92-116. Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Boehnke, K. (2000). Worries and values. Journal of Personality, 68, 309-346. Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 305-318. Smith, M. K. (2001). Chris Argyris: Theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/thinkers/argyris.htm Thomas, K., & Allen, S. (2006). The learning organization: A meta-analysis of themes in literature. Learning Organization, 13, 123-139. Tzafrir, S. S., Meshoulam, I., & Baruch, Y. (2007). HRM in Israel: New challenges. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 114-131. Wriston, M. J. (2007). Creating a hi-performance culture. Organizational Development Journal, 25(1), 8-16. Yishai, Y., & Cohen, A. (1997). (Un) Representative bureaucracy: Women in the Israeli senior civil service. Administration and Society, 28, 441-465.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012

473

Cohen et al. Bios

Aaron Cohen is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Haifa, Israel. He received his PhD in Management at the Technion— Israel Institute of Technology and taught for 3 years at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. His current research interests include commitment in the workplace and in particular, organizational commitment and occupational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, cross-cultural research, and work/nonwork relationship. His work has been published in Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and more. Zehava Rosenblatt is a faculty member in the Department of Leadership and Educational Policy, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Israel, and heads the university Center for Educational Evaluation and Administration. She received her PhD from the Technion—Israel Institute of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management. Her specialization is school human resource management and teacher organizational behavior, and her research interests focus on teacher withdrawal behaviors, teacher training, job insecurity, and accountability. Tali Buhadana is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science, University of Haifa, Israel.

Downloaded from aas.sagepub.com at University of Haifa Library on March 30, 2012