Organisational Learning
Culture in Hungarian Higher Education Institutions
Laszlo Horvath junior research fellow
horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.hu
This presentation is based on the outcomes of the research projects entitled „The emergence and diffusion of local innovations and their systemic impact in the education sector” (No. 115857)
Introduction
• Aim: to explore the relevance and state of organisational learning in Hungarian Higher Education context
• Outline
• Rationale and theoretical background (organisational learning / learning organisation)
• Method: validation of the DLOQ
• Results: CFA, differences
• Conclusions: practical considerations
Rationale
• Diverse and complex challenges (Sporn 2001)
• Restructuring of national economies, changing role of state increased pressure on public funding and autonomy
• Shifting demographics and new technologies new and diverse target groups
• Increasing globalisation, labour market needs programme harmonisation, mobility
• Organisations that have longer than average longevity: learning ability (de Geus 1997)
• HEIs: resistant to change or able to adapt to new realities? (Evans & Henrichsen 2008;
Halasz 2010)
• Expanding goals, professionalisation of leadership, global orientation and internationalisation
(Wissema 2009)
• Examine the implications of learning for organisational functioning (Kezar 2005)
• Learning organisation (Senge 2000)
HEIs as learning organisations?
• Management fad (Kezar 2005) : some kernel of wisdom
•
Organisational learning considers whether, how and under what conditions do organisations learn? (Focus:
internal; limitations)
•
Learning organisation (LO) is an environment that fosters a learning culture (Focus: external; overcoming threats)
• Örtenblad’s (2015) typology of the learning organisation:
•
learning at work
•
organisational learning
•
the climate for learning
•
learning structure
• Örtenblad and Koris (2014) literature review on HEIs as LOs:
•
Research is neither conclusive nor integrative, less focus on employee well-being and societal effectiveness
•
Alternative model of LO for HEIs: more interdisciplinarity with balanced bureaucracy (learning bureaucracy) and
a more emphatic organisation (listening organisation)
Method
• Aim: to test the applicability of the DLOQ (Marsick & Watkins 2003) in the Hungarian Higher Education context
• DLOQ: consistently deals with all aspects of the typology developed by Örtenblad (2015)
• Short 7-item scale each item represents one dimensions from the DLOQ proven validity and reliability in
Korean context
• Sample
• Random sample of HEIs, representative sample of full-time academics (regarding:
region, type, disciplinary context)
• N=1066 (from 37 HEIs)
Continuous Learning (CL) Inquiry and Dialogue (ID)
Collaboration and Team Learning (TL) Embedded Systems (ES)
Empower People (EP) System Connection (SC)
Provide Strategic Leadership for Learning (SL)
Contextual variables Academics HEIs
N Valid % N
Region
Eastern-Hungary 276 27.8% 11
Central-Hungary 540 54.3% 20
Western-Hungary 178 17.9% 6
Type of HEIs
State HEIs 892 89.7% 22
Non-state HEIs - Church 65 6.5% 8
Non-state HEIs - Private 37 3.8% 7
Confirmative Factor Analysis
Variables M SE SD DLOQ1 DLOQ2 DLOQ3 DLOQ4 DLOQ5 DLOQ6 DLOQ7 DLOQ1 2.98 .043 1.342 1 .56** .52** .60** .69** .48** .69**
DLOQ2 2.95 .037 1.157 1 .66** .56** .63** .44** .56**
DLOQ3 3.05 .036 1.123 1 .60** .63** .44** .52**
DLOQ4 3.07 .039 1.244 1 .67** .48** .61**
DLOQ5 3.27 .039 1.238 1 .56** .67**
DLOQ6 3.34 .038 1.206 1 .62**
DLOQ7 2.76 .041 1.290 1
OLC* 3.06 .031 .984 .82** .78** .77** .81** .87** .71** .84**
Common Inter-Item Correlation:
.56 Cronbach’s Alpha: .91
Note. ** Pearson correlations: p < 0.001; N=994; * OLC: Organizational Learning Culture (mean of the seven items) Cases are weighted.
Model fit indices:
χ2(10) = 21.843 RMR = .017 RMSEA = .033
GFI = .99 AGFI = .98
CFI = .98
NFI = .97
Differences in the perception of OLC
• No significant differences regarding:
•
Disciplinary field (except for natural sciences: t(991)=1.982; p<.001;
g=.165)
•
Gender
•
Innovativeness of HEI
•
Region, type
•
Age of respondent
• Significant differences regarding:
•
Organisational leadership position (t(985) = -3.082; p = .002; g = . 241)
•
Organisational classification (F(4) = 5.601; p = .001; η
2= .018)
•
Academic rank (F(5) = 3.115; p = .009; η
2= .017)
•
Job tenure at HEI (F(4) = 5.926; p < .001; η
2= .024)
- 3 4 - 9 10 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 2.6
2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
Chart Title
Job tenure at HEI (years)
Mean of OLC
•
Innovative and not-innovative HEIs (by
Complex Innovation Index (CII) developed by Horvath 2017)
•
HEIs that are below average on the CII have no difference between state and non-state
organisations (t(467) = -.216; p = .829)
•
HEIs that are above average on the CII show a significant difference in OLC by their type:
non-state HEIs performing well above the average in Organisational Learning Culture than state HEIs (t(18.094) = 4.467; p < .001).
This slide is based on the outcomes of the research projects entitled „The emergence and diffusion of local innovations and
their systemic impact in the education sector” (No. 115857)
Conclusions
• 7-item OLC scale from DLOQ is a reliable measurement tool in Hungarian HEIs further exploration of the full DLOQ
• Few differences between hard, contextual variables regarding OLC exploration of other, softer, intra- and inter-personal
factors
• Interrelatedness of innovation and OLC – non-state HEIs as conducive environments
• State of Hungarian HE
aspects
t
Provide strategic leadership for
learning Team-building Formal incentive and reward system
Involving external social capital
Informal recognition system
References
• De Geus, A. P. (1997). The Living Company. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
• Evans, N. & Henrichsen, L. (2008). Long-term strategic incrementalism. An Approach and a Model for Bringing about Change in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education 33, 111-124.
• Halasz, G. (2010). Organizational Change and Development in Higher Education. In J. Huisman & A. Pausits (eds.), Higher Education Management and Development. Münster: Waxmann, 51-65.
• Horvath, L. (2017): A szervezeti tanulás és az innováció összefüggései a magyar oktatási rendszer alrendszereiben. [Interconnection of organizational learning and innovation in the subsystems of the Hungarian educational system]. Neveléstudomány 2017, 44-66.
• Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning organization. New Directions for Higher Education 2005, 7-22.
• Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources 5, 132-151.
• Örtenblad, A. & Koris, R. (2014). Is the learning organization idea relevant to higher educational institutions? A literature review and a
“multi-stakeholder contingency approach”. International Journal of Educational Management 28, 173-214.
• Örtenblad, A. (2015). Towards increased relevance: context-adapted models of the learning organization. The Learning Organization 22, 163-181.
• Senge, P. (2000). The Academy as Learning Community. In A. F. Lucas et al. (eds.), Leading Academic Change. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 275-300.
• Sporn, B. (2001). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of European and US universities.
Tertiary Education & Management 7, 121-134.
• Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the Third Generation University: Managing the University in Transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
