The Effects of organizational learning culture and job

The Effects of OrganizationalLearning Culture and JobSatisfaction on MotivationtoTransfer Learning andTurnover IntentionToby Marshall Egan, Baiyin Yang, Kenneth R. BartlettAlthough organizational learning theory and practice have been clarifiedby practitioners and scholars over the past several years, there is much tobe explored regarding interactions between organizational learning cultureand employee learning and performance outcomes. This study examinedthe relationship of organizational learning culture, job satisfaction, andorganizational outcome variables with a sample of information technology(IT) employees in the United States. It found that learning organizationalculture is associated with IT employee job satisfaction and motivation totransfer learning. Turnover intention was found to be negatively influencedby organizational learning culture and job satisfaction. Suggestions forfuture study of learning organizational culture in association with jobsatisfaction and performance-related outcomes are discussed.Withthecurrentexpansionoftheglobaleconomyandthefast-changingevo-lutionoftechnologyandinnovation,organizationsarefacinganongoingneedforemployeelearninganddevelopment.Asknowledgeincreasinglybecomesakeyfactorforproductivity,ithasalsobecomeacurrencyforcompetitivesuccess.UnderstandingfactorsthatcontributetoorganizationallearningandthetransferofknowledgetotheworkplaceenvironmentareessentialtoNote:TheworkreportedherewassupportedundertheNationalResearchCenterforCareerandTechnicalEducationprogram,PR/AwardVO51A990006administeredbytheOfficeofVocationalandAdultEducation,U.S.DepartmentofEducation.However,thecontentsdonotnecessarilyrepresentthepositionsorpoliciesoftheOfficeofVocationalandAdultEducationortheU.S.DepartmentofEducation,andendorsementbythefederalgovernmentshouldnotbeassumed.HUMANRESOURCEDEVELOPMENTQUARTERLY, vol. 15, no. 3, Fall 2004Copyright © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.279280Egan, Yang, Bartletthumanresourcedevelopment(HRD)(Swanson&Holton,2001).Thecul-tureandenvironmentofanorganizationcaninfluencethetypesandnum-bersoflearning-relatedeventsandemployeejobsatisfactionaswellasemployeemotivationtotransmitnewlyacquiredknowledgetotheworkplacecontext.Inthecontextoforganizationalenvironment,theinteractionamongorga-nizationallearningculture,jobsatisfaction,motivationtotransferlearning,andturnoverintentionhasnotbeenexploredextensively.OfparticularinteresttoHRDisthepotentialimpactonmotivationandsatisfactionemergingfromworkplaceenvironmentsthathavecharacteristicsstronglyassociatedwithanorganizationallearningcultureconstruct.Abetterunderstandingregardingorganizationallearningculture,jobsatisfaction,motivationtotransferlearn-ing,andturnoverintentionwouldprovideHRDscholarsandpractitionerswithadditionalinformationregardingperceivedfactorsthatcontributetolearning,jobsatisfaction,andimportantoutcomeswithdemonstratedlinkstoperfor-mance.Althoughmotivationtotransferlearninghasbeenemphasizedbyschol-arsasimportanttothesuccessoforganizationallearning,performance,andinvestment,thecurrentresearchonmotivationtotransferislimited(Salas&Cannon-Bowers,2001).HRDhasextendedbeyondanarrowconcentrationontrainingtoincludeorganizationalandsystems-levelissuesthatinfluencethedevelop-mentofbroadskillsets,abilities,andknowledgeassociatedwithlearningintechnical,social,andinterpersonalareas(Kuchinke,1996).Thisbroaden-ingperspectiveregardingHRDhasled,inpart,toafocusonlearningorga-nizationculture.Researchersareintherelativelyearlystagesofexploringlearningorganizationconstructsanddevelopingmeasurementapproaches(Watkins&Marsick,2003).Theseearlystudiesandadoptionoflearningorganizationprinciplesinpracticehaveledtogrowinginterestregard-inginteractionsbetweenorganizationallearningcultureandorganizationaloutcomes.Yettheextenttowhichanorganizationallearningcultureandemployeejobsatisfactioninfluencemotivationtotransferlearningandturnoverintentionhasnotbeenexploreddespiteitspotentialimportancetobusinessperformance.The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship among organi-zational learning culture, job satisfaction, motivation to transfer learning to theworkplace setting, and turnover intentions. More specifically, the followingresearch questions guided the study:•Does organizational learning culture have a positive impact on employees’job satisfaction?•What are the influences of organizational learning culture and job satisfac-tion on employees’ motivation to transfer learning?•What are the influences of organizational learning culture and job satisfac-tion on employees’ turnover intention?Effects of Organizational Learning Culture281Significance of the StudyIn recent years, HRD has been focusing on ways in which organizations canpromote learning (Watkins & Marsick, 2003). It has been theorized that sys-tematic approaches to learning in organizations are tied to corporate perfor-mance and survival and therefore of value. Related discussions have establishedthe need to understand further the factors associated with organizational learn-ing environments as critical to ongoing organizational success and as a keycontribution from the field of HRD. Therefore, additional insight into howorganizations can create and improve workplace environments, as well asrecognition of the potential impacts of such environments on employees,iscrucial for practice, research, and theory building. Such employee attitudesinclude satisfaction, motivation, and retention as they relate to overall learn-ing and development (Kontoghiorghes, 2001).Although ongoing research is still required, employee attitudes have beenfound to interact with environmental factors that influence job satisfaction andturnover intention (Gaertner, 2000; Mobley, 1977). Employee motivation totransfer learning appears also to be influenced by organizational learning envi-ronments (Kontoghiorghes, 2001). An inverse relationship between turnoverintention and job satisfaction has been established (Sablynski, Lee, Mitchell,Burton, & Holtom, 2002). Despite these related findings, no available studieshave explored interactions among all of these variables. A better understand-ing of these relationships will contribute to theory and practice in HRD andprovide further insight into the influence of organizational learning culture onemployee learning, perceptions, and performance-related actions.In addition, Ulrich, Halbrook, Meder, Stuchlik, and Thorpe (1991) foundthat decreases in turnover led to increases in organizational performance anda reduction in costs associated with losses of firm- and job-specific knowledge,hiring, and retraining of replacement employees. Reduced turnover shrinksassociated indirect costs such as lower new employee productivity, additionaltime needed by managers in support of new employees, and diminished pro-ductivity of established employees as they serve as mentors to new employees(Cascio, 2000). Understanding whether organizational learning culture influ-ences the individual variables explored in this study will also help to deter-mine whether learning environments are important investments that contributenot only to employee learning and performance, but to lower costs associatedwith turnover or decreases in employee motivation. Such insights are impor-tant to the development of HRD theory and practice.Theoretical FrameworkThetheoreticalframeworkthatguidedthisstudyisshowninFigure1.Werea-sonedthatorganizationallearningculturecanenhanceemployees’jobsatisfac-tionandthatbothofthesevariablesinfluencetheorganizationaloutcomevariables282Egan, Yang, BartlettFigure 1.Conceptual Model of the Effects of Learning CultureandJobSatisfactionLearningCultureOutcome Variables- Motivation totransfer learning- Turnover intentionJobSatisfactionofmotivationtotransferlearningandturnoverintention.Inthefollowingsection,weidentifyevidencefromtheliteraturetosupportthetheoreticalframeworkthatguidedthisstudy.Literature ReviewThissectionpresentsthetheoryoforganizationallearningcultureasoneofthekeyconstructsofthisstudyanddiscussestherelationshipsoforganiza-tionallearningculture,jobsatisfaction,andtheoutcomevariablesunderinvestigation.Organizational Learning Culture.Organizations that have prioritizedlearning and development have found increases in employees’ job satisfaction,productivity, and profitability (Watkins & Marsick, 2003). For the purposes ofthis article, organizational learning culture will describe both the structural andprocess dimensions of learning within an organizational context. This defini-tion is consistent with the construct and measures forwarded by Watkins andMarsick (1993, 2003) and used in this study. Watkins and Marsick (1993,2003) suggested that the learning organization concept has seven distinctbutinterconnected dimensions, which are associated with people and struc-ture. A learning organization is viewed as one that has capacity for integratingpeople and structure to move an organization in the direction of continuouslearning and change.The analytic framework of the learning organization developed by Watkinsand Marsick (1993, 2003) serves as the theoretical basis for this study.Thisframework has several important features. It provides a lucid and broaddefinition of the construct of learning organization, defines the construct fromEffects of Organizational Learning Culture283an organizational culture standpoint, and provides sufficient measurementdomain. In addition, this model not only identifies underlying learning organi-zation dimensions, but also integrates such dimensions in a theoretical frame-work that specifies interdependent relationships. Örtenblad (2002) reviewedtwelve perspectives of learning organization and revealed that Watkins andMarsick’s approach (1993) is the only theoretical framework that covers mostidea areas of the concept in the literature. Due to its analytical and conceptualdevelopment, Watkins and Marsick’s frame is effective for use in this study.JobSatisfaction.TheconceptualmodelpresentedinFigure1suggestsadirectimpactoforganizationallearningcultureonemployees’perceivedjobsat-isfaction.Itispositedthatbothorganizationallearningcultureandjobsatisfac-tioncanbeusedtopredictoutcomevariablessuchasemployees’motivationtotransferlearningandturnoverintention.Jobsatisfactionistypicallydefinedasanemployee’saffectivereactionstoajobbasedoncomparingdesiredoutcomeswithactualoutcomes(Cranny,Smith,&Stone,1992).Jobsatisfactionisgen-erallyrecognizedasamultifacetedconstructthatincludesbothintrinsicandextrinsicjobelements(Howard&Frick,1996).PorterandSteers(1973)arguedthattheextentofemployeejobsatisfactionreflectedthecumulativelevelofmetworkerexpectations.Thatis,employeesexpecttheirjobtoprovideamixoffea-tures(suchaspay,promotion,orautonomy)forwhicheachemployeehascer-tainpreferentialvalues.Therangeandimportanceofthesepreferencesvaryacrossindividuals,butwhentheaccumulationofunmetexpectationsbecomessufficientlylarge,thereislessjobsatisfactionandgreaterprobabilityofwith-drawalbehavior(Pearson,1991).Indeed,someinterestinjobsatisfactionisfocusedprimarilyonitsimpactonemployeecommitment,absenteeism,inten-tionstoquit,andactualturnover(Agho,Mueller,&Price,1993).However,acrossstudies,theproportionofvarianceinturnoverbehaviorexplainedbylevelsofsatisfactionmaybesmallerthanoriginallythought(Hom&Griffieth,1991;Lee,Mitchell,Holtom,McDaniel,&Hill,1999).Atwo-yearlongitudinalstudyshowedthatemployeeswhochangedjobsandmovedintoanewoccupationhadhigherlevelsofworksatisfactioninthenewjobthanemployeeswhodidnotchangejobsatall(Wright&Bonett,1992).Inparticular,satisfactionwiththefacetsofmeaningfulworkandpromotionoppor-tunitiesweresignificantpredictorsofintentionstoleaveanorganization.Aspectsoftheworksituationhavebeenshowntobedeterminantsofjobsatisfaction(Arvey,Carter,&Buerkley,1991).Sometimesfacetmeasuresareaveragedtogetherforanoverallmeasureofsatisfaction(Wright&Bonett,1992).Somestudieshaveusedmeasuresofbothglobalandspecificjobfacetsatisfactionbecausespecificfacetsatisfactionmeasuresmaybetterreflectchangeinrelevantsituationalfactors,whereasaglobalmeasuremaymorelikelyreflectindividualdifferencesthanresponsestospecificitems(Witt&Nye,1992).OrganandNear(1985)notedthatmostsatisfactionmeasuresaskedrespon-dentstocomparefacetsoftheirjobstosomereferent(acognitiveprocess)anddidnotreallyaskforjudgmentsabouttheirfeelingsandemotions.284Egan, Yang, BartlettThere appear to be few studies of job satisfaction associated with charac-teristics suggested by learning organization theory. Bussing, Bissels, Fuchs, andPerrar (1999) identified a connection between dimensions of job satisfactionand employee engagement in problem solving. However, the qualitative natureof this study does not provide generalized support for the identified findings.Fraser, Kick, and Kim (2002) argued that a viable theory of job satisfaction inthe modern workplace must support the validity of reported employee per-ceptions, which spring from an organizational culture. Research suggests thatjob satisfaction, as a work-related outcome, is determined by organizationalculture and structure. Kim (2002) suggested that participative managementthat incorporates effective supervisory communication can increase employ-ees’ job satisfaction. Wagner and LePine (1999) conducted a meta-analysis andrevealed significant impacts of job participation and work performance on jobsatisfaction. Daniels and Bailey (1999) concluded that participative decisionmaking enhances the level of job satisfaction directly, regardless of strategydevelopment processes. Eylon and Bamberger (2000) found that empower-ment had a significant impact on job satisfaction and performance. Leadershipbehaviors related to inspiring teamwork, challenging tradition, enabling others,setting examples, and rewarding high performance have been found to havesignificant effects on role clarity, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction (Gaertner,2000). In a study of organizational culture and climate, Johnson and McIntye(1998) found that the measures of culture most strongly related to job satis-faction were empowerment, involvement, and recognition. These measuresreflect clearly the learning culture advocated by theorists of the learning orga-nization (Watkins & Marsick, 1993, 2003). Although these studies have exam-ined impacts of individual dimensions related to organizational learning, theinfluence of the full range of learning organization culture on job satisfactionis not known.MotivationtoTransferLearning.MotivationtotransferlearningisoneofthekeyconceptsintheHRDliterature.Itcanbedescribedastrainees’desiretousetheknowledgeandskillsmasteredintrainingorassociatedlearningactiv-itiesonthejob(Noe&Schmitt,1986).AccordingtoNoe(1986),trainees’atti-tudes,interests,values,andexpectationscaninfluencetrainingeffectiveness.Noehypothesizedthatmotivationtotransferisamoderatorfortherelation-shipbetweenlearningandbehaviorchange.Itwasadditionallyhypothesizedthatmotivationtotransferisinfluencedbyperceptionsofworkgroupsupportandtaskconstraints.Motivationtotransferinvolvesthedriveorinspirationofanindividualtoreassignknowledgegainedfromformalorinformallearn-ingtoajob-specificcontext.However,veryfewidentifiedstudieshavefocuseddirectlyonmotivationtotransfer(Seyler,Holton,Bates,Burnett,&Carvalho,1998).Studies have examined the association between the learning climate ofanorganization and employees’ motivation to transfer learning. Baldwin,Magjuka, and Loher (1991) found that trainees reported stronger transferEffects of Organizational Learning Culture285intentions when engaged in learning activities in which follow-up from theirmanager was anticipated or when employees were involved in training thatwas mandatory. Baumgartel and Jeanpierre (1972) found that managers whobelieved a training program was beneficial in providing the development ofskills and techniques related directly to their jobs were more likely to attemptto transfer knowledge. Huczynski and Lewis (1980) found important issuesassociated with transfer of training, including organizational climate, particu-larly manager support of the perceived relevance of the training to work-relatedpractices, and with voluntary participation in the learning activity. They con-cluded from their study that issues important to whether trainees use theirtraining included whether training participants initiated participation in train-ing, the extent to which training participants believed training would providepositive on-the-job benefit, and the motivational climate of the organization.Baumgartel and Jeanpierre’s study of managerial training (1972) found thatparticipants were more likely to attempt to use the training if they perceived itas clearly relevant to work-related activities. Organizational climate was foundto be the most important factor bearing on efforts to apply new knowledge inthe actual job setting.Other studies also support the impacts of environmental factors on themotivation to transfer learning. Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, and Kudisch(1995) developed a training model that incorporated the effects of employeeattitudes and overall beliefs about training on pretraining motivation and per-ceived training transfer. Kontoghiorghes (2001) found that environmentalfactors such as a motivating job, opportunities for advancement, and rewardsfor teamwork were predictors for motivation to transfer. In addition, the expec-tation of using new knowledge, growth opportunities, job importance, andorganization commitment was found to correlate significantly with motivationto transfer. Seyler, Holton, Bates, Burnett, and Carvalho (1998) examined sev-eral factors influencing motivation to transfer. The most significant finding toemerge from the study was that environmental factors (specifically, the utilityof that which was learned, peer support, supervisor sanctions, and supervisorsupport) explained a large amount (over one-fourth) of the variance in moti-vation to transfer.Although a growing number of studies have investigated the predictingfactors for motivation to transfer learning, none has studied the phenomenonfrom the perspective of organizational learning culture. Moreover, few studiesused environmental or distal measures to explore predictors of motivation totransfer. Instead, motivation to transfer has been explored largely within thepre- and posttraining context. This has prompted a call for studies to explorethe impacts of learning environment variables on motivation to transfer learn-ing (Kontoghiorghes, 2001).Turnover Intention.According to Trevor (2001), most major voluntaryturnover models are descendants of the March and Simon (1958) model.Because of the practical implications and potential for impact productivity,286Egan, Yang, Bartlettemployee turnover has been examined by researchers in multiple disciplinesfor some time, often exploring the inverse relationship to job satisfaction(Sturman, Trevor, Boudreau, & Gerhart, 2003). Muchinsky and Morrow (1980)estimated the number of turnover-related studies to be between fifteen hundredand two thousand. There is no indication that there has been a decrease in thestudy of turnover in the past twenty-four years (Trevor, 2001). Although stud-ies have not been well integrated in the literature, HRD-related fields haveexplored turnover and turnover intention in association with job satisfaction,organizational commitment, personality, aptitude, intelligence, governmentalpolicies, and rates of unemployment (Hatcher, 1999; Sturman et al., 2003).For the purposes of this study, turnover intention is defined as a consciousand deliberate willingness to leave the organization (Tett & Meyer, 1993). Thosewho worked early in the development of the behavioral intentions literature(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) developed a reasoned action model that identifiedthe best single predictor of individual behavior to be a measure of reportedintention to perform that behavior. Highlighting turnover intention as a key ele-ment in the modeling of employee turnover behavior, scholars have determinedthat behavioral intentions are the single best predictor of turnover (Abrams,Ando, & Hinkle, 1998; Lee & Mowday, 1987; Michaels & Spector, 1982).Overall, turnover intention has emerged as the strongest precursor to turnover.Job satisfaction has been found to have an inverse relationship to turnoverintention (Muchinsky & Morrow, 1980; Trevor, 2001). The relationshipsbetween turnover intention, commitment, and satisfaction have been sup-ported in several additional studies (Bluedorn, 1982; Hollenbeck & Williams,1986; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Despite these findings, little examination has beenmade of the impact of organizational learning culture or learning environmenton turnover intention.MethodA survey research method was used to investigate the relationships amongorganizational learning culture, job satisfaction, motivation to transfer learn-ing, and intention to turnover. A self-administered Web-based survey was usedto collect individual-level perception data from employees in a single industry.The use of an employee survey was deemed appropriate to address the pro-posed research questions.SampleandProcedure.Thefocusofthisstudywasemployeesinstand-aloneinformationtechnology(IT)departments,whicharemoreoftenassoci-atedwithlargeorganizations.Forthepurposeofthisstudy,alargebusinesswasdefinedasafirmwithfivehundredormoreemployeesinallofitsindustriesorbusinesslocationsinwhichthefirmoperates(U.S.SmallBusinessAdministra-tion,2001).Organizationalsizewasthoughttoinfluencetheroleandpromi-nenceofIT.Inaddition,itwasestimatedthatlargerorganizationsweremorelikelytodedicateresourcesandHRDprofessionalstothesystematicEffects of Organizational Learning Culture287considerationoforganizationallearningcultureandpractices(Watkins&Marsick,1993).ThepopulationforthisstudywasallITworkersinlargeU.S.companies.ThesampleforthestudywasdrawnfromReferenceUSA,anon-linedatabasethatprovidesinformationonmorethan12millionU.S.businesses.Atotalof3,336firmsthroughouttheUnitedStatesfromthedatabasehadfivehundredormoreemployeesandthereforemettheselectioncriteria.Theyweresentaletterdescribingthestudyandinvitingparticipation.Wereceivedfiftyconfirmationsfromorganizationsagreeingtoparticipate.Thesefiftyconsentingorganizationsrepresentthevolunteersampleforthisstudy.AllITemployeesattheseorgani-zationswereinvitedtoparticipateinthisstudy.Attheconclusionofthestudyperiod,245completedsurveysfromITemployeeswerereceivedfromthirteenfirms(26percent).Thedatacollectionprocessdidnotallowforadeterminationregardingthepercentageofemployeerespondentsfromwithintheparticipatingorganizations.Inordertoaddresspotentialnonresponsebias,afollow-upwithseveralHRexecutivesdeterminedthatthegenderandyearsofworkexperienceofrespondentswereroughlyequaltothelargerpopulationofthefirm.Use of Web Survey.A Web survey was used primarily for ease of use andspeed of response. Additional benefits with this still evolving data collectionmethod also include flexibility in design and layout, the ability for large-scalesamples, and reduced costs (Weible & Wallace, 1998). With the recent prolif-eration of Web surveys, there remain a number of issues surrounding this formof data collection (Dillman, 1999). Perhaps the major issue is that of coverage,given that many sample populations have varied access, exposure, and usagepatterns associated with e-mail and Internet. The well-accepted lower responserates for Web surveys (Mehta & Sivadas, 1995) are not well understood. Fourkey factors, in addition to the question of Internet access, may be (1) the man-ner in which the invitation to participate occurs, (2) the ability of prospectiverespondents to preview the questions to determine interest, (3) the existenceand frequency of open-ended questions, and (4) perceived survey burden(Best, Krueger, Hubbard & Smith, 2001). The participation rate for this studywas determined to be unknowable: the total numbers of IT workers in therespective organizations, the total number invited, and the total number receiv-ing invitations were not included in the design of the study at the request ofthe participating firms.Demographics.The majority of respondents had at least some college orformal training, with nearly half of the 245 respondents having been awardedpostsecondary degrees. The level of experience in the IT industry wasbimodally distributed, with 24 percent of respondents having one to threeyears of experience and 37 percent having twenty-five or more years of expe-rience. The distribution of respondent tenure in their respective organizationswas also bimodal, with 45.1 percent having been with their organization forbetween one and three years and 37.1 percent having been with their respec-tive companies for twenty-five years or more.288Egan, Yang, BartlettMeasures.This section provides the initial selection of measurement itemsand the process of identifying final measures through an item analysis process.Internal consistency reliability estimates are provided. Unless noted otherwise,all measures are scored so that a high score represents higher levels of the con-struct. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations)and zero-order correlations among all measures included in the final dataanalysis.OrganizationalLearningCulture.WeassessedorganizationallearningculturewiththeDimensionsofLearningOrganizationQuestionnaire(DLOQ)developedbyWatkinsandMarsick(1993,2003).ThesevendimensionsintheDLOQaremeasuredbyforty-threeitemsonasix-pointLikert-typescale.Respondentsareaskedtodeterminetheextenttowhicheachofthequestionsreflectstheirorganizationintheaspectsoflearningculture(1ϭalmostnever;6ϭalmostalways).AlthoughtheDLOQisarelativelynewinstrument,ithasbeenvalidatedinseveralrecentempiricalstudies(Ellinger,Ellinger,Yang,&Howton,2002;Watkins&Marsick,2003;Yang,2003).ThesestudiessuggestthattheDLOQhasacceptablereliabilityestimates,andtheseven-dimensionstructurefitstheempiricaldatareasonablywell.WeusedanabbreviatedformoftheDLOQthatcontainedtwenty-onemeasurementitems—threeforeachofthesevendimensions(Yang,2003).Confirmatoryfactoranalysis(CFA)revealedanadequatefitbetweentheseven-dimensionstructureandthecurrentdata(␹2(165)ϭ437.18,pϽ.01;RMRϭ.04,RMSEAϭ.08,GFIϭ.86,TLIϭ.91,IFIϭ.93,CFIϭ.93).Thereliabilityestimatesforthesevendimensionsare.71,.83,.83,.74,.86,.83,and.90,respectively,andtheoveralltwenty-one-itemscalereliabilityestimate(Cron-bachalpha)reachedashighas.95.Nevertheless,theinterdimensionalcorrela-tionsweresubstantial(rangingfrom.58to.79)andcreateapossiblemulticollinearityissueifallofthesesevendimensionswereincludedintheanaly-sisaspredictorvariables.Consequently,wefollowedYang’sguideline(2003)andselectedonerepresentativeitemforeachofthedimensions.Asaresult,sevenitemscorrespondingtothesevendimensionsoflearningorganizationwereusedtoassesstheconstructoflearningculture,withareliabilityestimateof.89.Ineffect,thistreatsorganizationallearningcultureasasingleconstruct.Job Satisfaction.We assessed job satisfaction with the three items relatedto job satisfaction from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Question-naire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). Respondents wereasked to indicate their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert-type scale(1 ϭstrongly disagree to 7 ϭstrongly agree). The measurement items are:(1) “All in all, I am satisfied with my job,” (2) “In general, I don’t like myjob” [reverse coded], and (3) “In general, I like working here.” Coefficientalpha for job satisfaction was moderate at .70, which is not too far removedfrom the .77 reported by the authors of the scale (Cammann et al., 1979).MotivationtoTransferLearning.Tenitemswereusedtoassessmotivationtotransferlearning.ThesetenitemsincludedanexistingsetofitemswithTable 1.Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Measurement ItemsNMeanSD2453.231.442443.581.442443.751.252443.351.382453.681.352433.491.282443.541.352452452452452454.062453.972444.552444.05.83.26.21.31.76.21.16.15.13.22.87.18.09.13.16.16.26.32.86.11.14.20.10.18.18.11.19.22.21.18.23.255.271.623.981.325.681.284.47.77.40.22.29.14.46.28.23.12.39.30.02Ϫ.05.34.21.30.12.50.29.38.13.39.22.35.16.50.18.41.12—.35.66.14.25.22.17.21.59.61.56.44.67.55——.28.09.01.01.16.14.49.49.38.49.60—.67.59.48.53—.50.49.42—.38.60—.51——1234567891011121314151617Measurement Items—.10.18.14.11.17—.45.47.57.39—.77.39.43—.43.47—.59—1.DLOQ I—ContinuousLearning2.DLOQ II—Inquiryand Dialogue3.DLOQ III—TeamLearning4.DLOQ IV—EmbeddedSystem5.DLOQ V—SystemConnection6.DLOQ VI—Empowerment7.DLOQ VII—ProvideLeadership8.Job Satisfaction I9.Job Satisfaction II10.Job Satisfaction III11.Motivation to TransferLearning I12.Motivation to TransferLearning II13.Motivation to TransferLearning III14.Motivation to TransferLearning IV15.Motivation to TransferLearning V16.Turnover Intention I17.Turnover Intention II18.Turnover Intention III2442.631.30Ϫ.07Ϫ.08Ϫ.01Ϫ.01Ϫ.03.07Ϫ.01Ϫ.07Ϫ.12Ϫ.05.02.05.10Ϫ.03Ϫ.01—2451.981.15Ϫ.30Ϫ.22Ϫ.19Ϫ.15Ϫ.24Ϫ.14Ϫ.24Ϫ.30Ϫ.14Ϫ.26Ϫ.27Ϫ.19Ϫ.14Ϫ.33Ϫ.31.36—2452.351.26Ϫ.13Ϫ.14Ϫ.12Ϫ.18Ϫ.25Ϫ.13Ϫ.16Ϫ.32Ϫ.13Ϫ.37Ϫ.07Ϫ.04Ϫ.02Ϫ.15Ϫ.16.48.40Note: For |r|Ͼ.13, p Ͻ.05; for |r|Ͼ.16, pϽ.01; for |r|Ͼ.22, pϽ.001.290Egan, Yang, Bartletthighreliabilityestablishedinpreviousstudies—alphasat.80orabove(Machin&Fogerty,1997;Noe,1986;Seyleretal.,1998).Modificationsandadditionstothemotivationtotransferitemsavailableweremade.Althoughtheten-itemscalehadanacceptablereliabilityestimate(alphaϭ.82),notallitemsperformedequallywellintermsofitem-totalcorrelation.Consequentlyweselectedfiveitemsbasedontheresultsofitemanalysis,andthesefiveitemsconstitutedareliablescalefortheconstructofmotivationtotransferlearning(alphaϭ.83).Allfiveitemsselectedwereusedinpreviousstudies—threebyNoeandtwobyMachinandFogerty.Anexampleofoneitemis,“Atwork,Iammotivatedtoapplynewknowledge.”Turnover Intention.Turnover intention was measured with three itemsadapted from Irving, Coleman, and Cooper (1997). Each item used a five-point response scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglyagree). These items are: (1) “I intend to change job within this firm in theforeseeable future,” (2) “I intend to see work in a profession other than IT inthe foreseeable future,” and (3) “I intend to seek IT related work at anotherfirm in the foreseeable future.” Coefficient alpha for intention to turnoverwas .68, a little lower than the .73 reported by Irving et al. (1997) butnevertheless within marginally acceptable limits.Data Analysis.Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to explorethe relationships between variables under examination. SEM is a multivariatestatistical analysis tool that provides researchers with a thorough method forthe examination and quantification of theories (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996a).It enables researchers to explicitly examine measurement error and tests ofboth direct and indirect structural hypotheses. Both endogenous variables(underlying dependent variables) and exogenous variables (external predic-tors) can be explored. There are numerous measures or indexes used to deter-mine the fit of the model under examination. The results from data analyzedare compared with established standards for estimated fit to determine thestrength of the findings as compared to the proposed model being tested. Asolid SEM model provides explanation for the observed covariance structure.ModelSpecification.Weestimatedthehypothesizedstructuralequationmodel(seeFigure1)usingJöreskogandSörbom’sLISREL8program(1996a).InputfortheLISRELprogramconsistedofan18ϫ18covariancematrixgeneratedbyPRELIS2(Jöreskog&Sörbom,1996b).Thelatentvariablesusedintheanalysiswereorganizationallearningculture,jobsatisfaction,motivationtotransferlearning,andturnoverintention.TwostructuralequationmodelswereexaminedasoutlinedinFigure1:oneforthemotivationtotransferlearningasendogenousvariable(latentdependentvariable)andtheotherfortheintentiontoturnover.ModelEvaluation.Toevaluatetheoverallfitofthedatatothemodel,wereportchi-squarestatisticsalongwithseveralotherdifferenttypesoffitindexes.Weselectedthreeincrementalfitindexes:Tucker-LewisIndex(TLI;Tucker&Lewis,1973),IncrementalFitIndex(IFI;Bollen,1989a),andEffects of Organizational Learning Culture291ComparativeFitIndex(CFI;Bentler,1990).Twootherresidualtypesoffitindexeswerealsoevaluated:JöreskogandSörbom’s(1996a)rootmeansquaredresiduals(RMR)andSteiger’s(1990)rootmeansquareerrorofapproximation(RMSEA).Allthreeincrementalindexesarebasedonacom-parisonofthefitofthehypothesizedmodeltothefitofthenullbaselinemodel.Eachoftheincrementalfitindexesrangesfromzeroto1.0,withavaluegreaterthan.90indicatinganadequatemodel-datafit.The Tucker-Lewis index differs from the other two fit indexes in that it isunlikely to be influenced by sample size and model complexity. The RMR mea-sures the average of the fitted residuals, and the RMSEA reflects the closenessof the fit between the model and population. These two indexes concernthedegree to which the covariance matrix implied by the model match theobserved one, and an optimal fit is indicated by a value of zero. Values of suchindexes less than .08 reflect reasonably well-fitting models (Browne & Cudeck,1993).In addition to the fit indexes, we report the parameter estimates with theirassociated significance levels for the hypothesized model. This is done for theinterest of identifying adequate measurement items for the constructs includedin the study. We also report squared multiple correlations for key endogenousvariables in order to identify the predictive power for the hypothesized con-ceptual model. The squared multiple correlations for a latent variable indicatethe percentage of variations of that construct that can be explained by the pro-posed model.Missing Data.As can be seen in Table 1, there were few missing cases inthe data collected for this study. In order to maintain a favorable ratio ofparticipants to the number of estimated parameters, we imputed missing datawith PRELIS 2. This is a commonly used approach to handle missing valuesby replacement with the person mean within the scale or item mean from thesample. However, such substitution methods may cause spurious changes inthe inter-item correlations (and therefore reliability) for the produced scale(Downey & King, 1998). The PRELIS 2 program uses an imputation methodthat substitutes missing values with real values. The value to be substitutedfor the missing value for a case is identified from another case that has asimilar response pattern (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996b). This method hasbecome popular and tends to increase accuracy (Roth, 1994).ResultsStructuralModelforMotivationtoTransferLearning.Figure2presentstheestimatesofbothmeasurementandstructuralpartsofthehypothesizedmodelformotivationtotransferlearning.Theoverallchi-squareforthemodelwas231.18with82degreesoffreedomandapvaluelessthan.01.Thevalueofthethreeincrementalfitindexesrevealedanadequatefitofthemodeltothedata(TLIϭ.91,IFIϭ.93,CFIϭ.93),andthehypothesizedmodelhadarelatively292Egan, Yang, BartlettFigure 2.Parameter Estimates for a Structural Equation ModelofMotivation to Transfer LearningContinuouslearningInquiryand dialogueTeamlearningEmbeddedsystemSystemconnectionEmpowermentProvideleadershipJobsatisfaction IJobsatisfaction IIJobsatisfaction III.77.73.61.67.86.28.73.78.68Motivation toTransfer Learning.13 (ns).83JobSatisfactionLearningCulture.67.59.63.85MTLmeasure IMTLmeasure IIMTLmeasure IIIMTLmeasure IVMTLmeasure V.93.33.81smallamountofresiduals(RMRϭ.051,RMSEAϭ.086).Therefore,itcanbeconcludedthatthestructuralmodelrepresentedinFigure2tendstofitthedatareasonablywell.Thesquaredmultiplecorrelationfortheconstructofmotivationtotransferlearningwas.15,indicatingthat15percentofthevariationsoftheconstructwereaccountedforbytheproposedmodel.In structural equation models, ellipses are normally used to represent con-structs (latent variables), and a line with one arrow between two constructsindicates the influence of one construct on the other. The number near the lineis the statistic that denotes standardized path coefficients (SPC), which can beviewed as a standardized regression coefficient for one latent variable in rela-tion to another when the effects of all other variables are partialed out. Theresults of this study suggest that organizational learning culture had signifi-cantly positive contributions to both job satisfaction (SPC ϭ.68, pϽ.01) andmotivation to transfer learning (SPC ϭ.28, pϽ.01). Although job satisfac-tion had a positive correlation with motivation to transfer learning, its impactwas not statistically significant (SPC ϭ.13, pϭ.10). The square multiple cor-relation for the construct of job satisfaction was .46, showing that nearly halfEffects of Organizational Learning Culture293of the variance of job satisfaction could be explained by organizational learn-ing culture. In sum, the results of the structural equation analysis suggest thatorganizational learning culture is a valid construct in predicting employees’ jobsatisfaction and motivation to transfer learning.Instructuraldiagrams,indicators(ormeasurementitems)ofthelatentvari-ablearerepresentedbyrectangles,andtheassociationsbetweenindicatorsandlatentvariablesarerepresentedbysingle-headedlines.Theseassociationsrep-resentthefactorloadingsoftheindicators,andthestrengthsofsuchassociationindicatetheadequacyofthemeasurementmodel.Theresultsofthestructuralequationmodelingformotivationtotransferlearningrevealedthatallsevendimensionshadsignificantandhomogeneousloadingsontheconstructoflearningculture(factorloadingsrangedfrom.61to.86)andthatfiveselectedmeasurementitemshadsignificantloadingsontheconstructofmotivationtotransferlearning(factorloadingsrangedfrom.59to.85).However,threeitemsincludedforthemeasurementofjobsatisfactionfailedtoshowparallelload-ings.Specifically,items2and3tendedtobeadequatemeasuresfortheconstructofjobsatisfaction(loadingswere.93and.81,respectively),whileitem2hadmarginalfactorloading(.33).Inotherwords,item2asamanifestvariabledidnotadequatelyreflecttheconstructofjobsatisfaction.Thiswasprobablyduetoitsnegativewording.Inordertoavoidmodelidentificationproblem(Bollen,1989b),wehaveincludedthisitemforthefinalmodelbecausethreemeasure-mentitemsarenormallyneededforeachconstruct.Structural Model for Turnover Intention.Turning to intention to turnoveras the endogenous variable, Figure 3 presents the estimates of both measure-ment and structural parts of the hypothesized model. The overall chi-squarefor the model was 135.65, with 59 degrees of freedom and a pvalue less than.01. The value of the three incremental fit indexes revealed an adequate fit ofthe model to the data (TLI ϭ.93, IFI ϭ.95, CFI ϭ.95), and the hypothesizedmodel had a relatively small number of residuals (RMR ϭ.043, RMSEA ϭ.073). Therefore, the results of structural equation modeling revealed thatthestructural model represented in Figure 3 tends to fit the data very well. Thesquared multiple correlations for the construct of intention to turnover was.31, indicating that nearly one-third of the variations of the construct wereaccounted for by the proposed model.The standardized path coefficients revealed in the analysis suggested thateach of the hypothesized paths was in the expected direction. Specifically, orga-nizational learning culture had a significantly positive influence on job satis-faction (SPC ϭ.68,pϽ.01), confirming the result revealed in the previousmodel. Both learning culture and job satisfaction were found to be negativelyassociated with employee turnover intention, but magnitudes of the impactsvaried. The direct impact of learning culture on turnover intention was mod-erate and just reached the predetermined significance level (SPC ϭϪ.16, pϭ.05), and the effect of job satisfaction on turnover intention was very strong(SPC ϭϪ.43, pϽ.01). That is, learning culture had a substantial impact on294Egan, Yang, BartlettFigure 3.Parameter Estimates for a Structural Equation ModelofTurnover IntentionContinuouslearningInquiryand dialogueTeamlearningEmbeddedsystemSystemconnectionEmpowermentProvideleadershipJobsatisfaction IJobsatisfaction IIJobsatisfaction III.77.73.61.67.86Ϫ.16 (ns).73.79.68.12 (ns).76.66.91.32.82JobSatisfactionϪ.43Turnoverintention ITurnoverintention IITurnoverintention IIILearningCultureTurnover Intentionjob satisfaction, which in turn affected turnover intention significantly. Never-theless, learning culture had a relatively weak direct impact on turnover inten-tion. Thus, the impact of organizational learning culture on turnover intentionwas linked indirectly through job satisfaction. Therefore, it can be concludedthat learning culture was a valid construct in predicting employees’ turnoverintention and that the effect of learning culture was largely mediated by jobsatisfaction.With regard to the measurement part of the structural model for turnoverintention, factor loadings of the items for the constructs of learning culture andjob satisfaction were very close to those revealed in the model, where motiva-tion to transfer learning was treated as the endogenous variable. Specifically,all seven dimensions significantly loaded on the construct of organizationallearning culture (loadings ranged from .61 to .86), and three measurementitems significantly loaded on the construct of job satisfaction (loadings rangedfrom .32 to .91). However, the second measurement item for job satisfactionappeared to be a less adequate measure.Effects of Organizational Learning Culture295Among three measurement items for the construct of turnover intention,two items (the second and third ones) significantly loaded on the construct(loadings were .76 and .66) and are thus regarded as adequate indicators forthe latent variable. However, the loading on the first measurement item (“Iintend to change jobs within this firm in the foreseeable future”) was not sig-nificant (.12). Conceptually, this item indicated employees’ intention to changefrom their current position to another new job within the organization andthus failed to reflect employees’ actual turnover intention of leaving the orga-nization where they were then employed. For the purpose of model identifi-cation, we have included this item based on the consideration of mild positivecorrelation with two other measurement items. In sum, the results of the mea-surement part of the model revealed that the majority of the measurementitems were adequate.DiscussionThis study developed and tested a conceptual model of the joint effects of orga-nizational learning culture and job satisfaction on two outcome variables: moti-vation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Overall, the results ofstructural equation modeling analyses were consistent with the hypotheses.Organizational learning culture is a valid construct in predicting job satisfac-tion and two outcome variables: motivation to transfer learning and turnoverintention. By testing two structural models, we developed a detailed under-standing of how learning culture and job satisfaction may directly or indirectlyinfluence these two outcome variables. This study suggests that job satisfac-tion is associated with organizational learning culture and that although theseconstructs are highly correlated, they tend to be conceptually distinct. The dis-criminate validity of these two concepts is evident. Associated measurementitems have adequately loaded on their respective constructs, and the correla-tion between the two constructs tends to be moderately high. The findings ofthis study suggest that organizational learning culture and job satisfaction areimportant in determining employees’ motivation to transfer learning andturnover intention.The results of this study revealed that organizational learning culture hadsignificant influences on both job satisfaction and motivation to transfer learn-ing, and that the direct impact of job satisfaction on motivation to transferlearning was positive but not significant. It was also found that learning cul-ture had an indirect impact on employees’ turnover intention. However, thisimpact was mediated by job satisfaction. Perhaps one of the major theoreticalimplications of this study comes from the findings that confirm that organiza-tional learning culture is a valid concept and that its associated measures, oper-ationalized as the DLOQ, are valid and reliable. Although organizationallearning culture and job satisfaction were highly correlated, they tend to bemutually exclusive in concept and measurement. Consequently, learning296Egan, Yang, Bartlettculture should continue to be taken into consideration when studying organi-zational outcomes.Theimportanceoflearningcultureandrelatedimpactsonemployeelearn-ingandperformanceareemergingasahallmarkforthefieldofHRD.Althoughfuturestudiesareneededtoconfirmandextendthefindingsofthisstudy,thesefindingsareinalignmentwiththeemergingtheoryandresearchidentifyingpositivecontributionsoforganizationallearningcultureonemployeeandorganizationalsuccess(Watkins&Marsick,2003).Combinedwiththeavail-ableliteratureonemployeemotivation,satisfaction,andturnover,wemoveclosertoaffirmingtheideathateffortstosupportorganizationallearningcul-tureshavepositivebenefitsforemployees.Asmentionedearlier,increasesinjobsatisfactionandreductioninturnoverhavebeenfoundtoincreaseorgani-zationalproductivity(Trevor,2001).Ourfindings,alongwiththoseofEllingeretal.(2002),extendthesuggestedbenefitsoforganizationallearningculturebeyondfirm-levelperformancetoincludepositiveimplicationsattheemployeelevel.The results from this study provide HRD managers and researchers withsome insight into the relationships between the variables studied and thepotential for taking an applied approach to exploring learning organizationdimensions (Watkins & Marsick, 1993, 2003). Such practices are outlined inthe learning organization literature and could be evaluated to determine orga-nizational success in improving the organizational learning culture, as well asproviding contexts for future examination of workplace learning and perfor-mance. Fortunately, scholars and practitioners have described many of thepractices associated with the support of a learning organization culture. Relatedliterature, along with other HRD studies describing implementation associatedwith learning organization practices, can be beneficial in the development oforganizational strategies associated with systems-level approaches to learningand in support of employee job satisfaction.As the findings from this study suggest, there is emerging evidence thatthe practices examined here may lead to increased levels of motivation to trans-fer learning, which is an important element in supporting firm investment inlearning activities and increased performance (Seyler et al., 1998). In addition,the losses associated with employee turnover may be averted and innovationincreased through the support of an organizational learning culture (Sta. Maria,2003). Turnover, job satisfaction, and motivation to transfer are especiallyimportant in competitive labor markets such as the IT industry (U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, 1997, 1999). Both the high demand for IT employees andthe dynamic changes occurring in the IT industry make the need for organi-zational strategies aimed at retention, learning, and development crucial tolong-term success. Although there is much work to be done in aligning HRDliterature with HRD practice, the pragmatic manner in which the variablesforthis study are described and operationalized make for positive potentialconnections for practice.Effects of Organizational Learning Culture297Although the findings of this study confirmed several of our researchhypotheses and these findings have both theoretical and practical implications,several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. First, althoughour proposed structural models were conceptualized in terms of causal rela-tions, this cross-sectional, correlational approach using the structural equationmodeling technique does not allow for conclusions to be drawn on causalinference. For example, it was assumed that learning culture has an impact onjob satisfaction instead of vice versa. The alternative assumption might be suit-able if we accept the fact that high job satisfaction might cause some respon-dents to rate their organizations highly in the aspect of learning culture.Structural equation modeling is a technique that has to be based on certaintheoretical assumptions and cannot directly confirm or prove causal relations,although it can disconfirm a model in terms of data-model fit (Bollen, 1989b).Consequently, theoretical guidelines are necessary in the structural equationmodeling, and we have accepted the theoretical framework of learning orga-nization suggesting that learning culture brings about positive outcomes(Watkins & Marsick, 1993, 2003). Other research approaches are desirable inexamining causal relations among organizational variables, such as experi-mental and longitudinal designs. Nonetheless, cross-sectional studies tend toprovide an efficient and economical way to assess the utility of researchhypotheses and conceptual models before engaging any other expensiveresearch approaches. This is particularly true in the early stages of research ina substantive area.Second,aspectsoftheresearchdesign,especiallythoseinherentinnonex-perimentalstudies,presentadditionallimitations.Thetermsofparticipationfromorganizationsagreeingtobepartofthestudyeliminatedtheoptionofrandomlyselectingthesample.NotknowingthetotalnumberofITworkersineachorganizationorthenumberreceivingtheinstrumentraisesquestionsregardingnonresponsebias(Dooley&Lindner,2003).Thefactthatthesam-pleforthisstudycomesfromparticipantsinoneprofessionmaylimitfurtherthegeneralizabilityofthefindings.Moreresearchusingdifferentsamplingapproachesandinotherindustrieswithdifferentgroupsofemployeesisneeded.Inaddition,allofthedatawerecollectedfromself-reportsusingaWeb-basedsurveyinsteadofsomemoreobjectivemeasures,suchasobservationandrecords.Likemostothersurveystudies,thisself-reportingapproachmightinflatetheparameterestimates.Nevertheless,wearemoreinterestedinthepre-dictivevalidityfortheconstructoforganizationallearningculturethantheactualmagnitudeofitsimpactonotherorganizationalvariables.Perhapsitisacrucialfirststeptoattesttheimportanceofthisnewlycreatedconstruct.RecentstudiesbyEllingeretal.(2002)areleadinginexaminingtheimpactoflearningcultureonasetofobjectivemeasuresoforganizationalperformance.Third, several scales included in this study had relatively low reliabilityestimates and thus constrained the findings of the study. For example, learn-ing culture might have a direct significant impact on employees’ turnover298Egan, Yang, Bartlettintention in addition to its indirect influence through job satisfaction. How-ever, the correlation between the two constructs was discounted when themeasures were relatively less reliable. To understand better the relationshipbetween organizational learning culture and organizational outcomes, newstudies should be deployed. Suggested future work includes a longitudinalstudy that measures perceived organizational learning culture, critical incidentsand employee motivation, and a comparative study examining differences andsimilarities between organizational learning culture dimensions between orga-nizations and relevant outcomes. Continued efforts exploring the dynamicsassociated with interactions between organizational learning culture andemployee satisfaction, learning, and performance are essential for the ongoingdevelopment of research and practice unique to HRD.ReferencesAbrams, D., Ando K., & Hinkle S. (1998). Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-culturaldifferences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’turnover intentions. PersonnelSocial Psychology Bulletin, 24,1027–1039.Agho, A. O., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: Anempirical test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46 (8), 1007–1020.Arvey, R. D., Carter, G. W., & Buerkley, D. K. (1991). Job satisfaction: Dispositional and situa-tional influences. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6,359–383.Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils of participation: Effects of choiceof training on trainee motivation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44,51–65.Baumgartel, H., & Jeanpierre, F. (1972). Applying new knowledge in the back-home setting: Astudy of Indian managers’ adoptive efforts. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 8,674–694.Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,107,238–246.Best, S. J., Krueger, B., Hubbard, C., & Smith, A. (2001). An assessment of the generalizabilityof Internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 19 (2), 131–145.Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations,35,135–153.Bollen, K. A. (1989a). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models.Sociological Methods and Research, 17,303–316.Bollen, K. (1989b). Structural equations with latent variables.New York: Wiley.Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models(pp. 136–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Bussing, A., Bissels, T., Fuchs, V., & Perrar, K. (1999). A dynamic model of work satisfaction:Qualitative approaches. Human Relations, 52 (8), 999–1028.Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assess-ment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University ofMichigan.Cascio, W. F. (2000). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations(4thed.). Boston: Kent.Cranny, C. J., Smith, C. P., & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobsand how it affects their performance.San Francisco: New Lexington Press.Daniels, K., & Bailey, A. (1999). Strategy development processes and participation indecisionmaking: Predictors of role stressors and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Management Studies,8 (1), 27–42.Dillman, D. W. (1999). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method.New York: Wiley.Dooley, L. M., & Linder, J. R. (2003). The handling of nonresponse error. Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 14 (1), 99–110.Effects of Organizational Learning Culture299Downey, R. G., & King, C. V. (1998). Missing data in Likert ratings: A comparison of replace-ment methods. Journal of General Psychology, 125,175–191.Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between thelearning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13 (1), 5–21.Eylon, D., & Bamberger, P. (2000). Empowerment cognitions and empowerment acts: Recog-nizing the importance of gender. Group and Organization Management, 25,354–373.Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J.E.A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The influ-ence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation andperceived training transfer. Journal of Management, 21,1–25.Fishbein M., & Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theoryand research.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Fraser, J., Kick, E., & Kim, B. (2002). Organizational culture as contested ground in an era ofglobalization: Worker perceptions and satisfaction in the USPS. Sociological Spectrum, 22,445–471.Gaertner, S. (2000). Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitmentin turnover models. Human Resource Management Review, 9 (4), 479–493.Hatcher, T. (1999). How multiple interventions influence employee turnover: A case study.Human Resource Development Quarterly,10 (4), 365–382.Hom, P. W., & Griffieth, R. W. (1991). Structural equation modeling test of turnover theory:Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,350–366.Hollenbeck, J. R., & Williams C. R. (1986). Turnover functionality versus turnover frequency: Anote on work attitudes and organizational effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,606–611.Howard, J. L., & Frick, D. D. (1996). The effects of organizational restructure on employeesatisfaction. Group and Organization Management, 21 (3), 278.Huczynski A. A., & Lewis, J. W. (1980). An empirical study into the learning transfer process inmanagement training. Journal of Management Studies, 17 (2), 227–240.Irving, G., Coleman D. F., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Further assessment of a three-componentmodel of occupational commitment: Generalizability and differences across occupations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,444–452.Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996a). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide.Chicago: ScientificSoftware International.Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996b). PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide.Chicago: ScientificSoftware International.Johnson, J. J., & McIntye, C. L. (1998). Organizational culture and climate correlates of jobsatisfaction. Psychological Reports, 82,843–850.Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leader-ship. Public Administration Review, 62,231–241.Kontoghiorghes, C. (2001). A holistic approach towards motivation to learn. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 14 (4), 233–246.Kuchinke, K. P. (1996). Classification of human development in HRD. Organization DevelopmentJournal, 14 (1), 55–69.Lee, T. W., Mitchell T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel L. S., & Hill J. W. (1999). The unfoldingmodel of voluntary turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal,42(4), 450–462.Lee, T. W., & Mowday, R. T. (1987). An empirical investigation of Steers and Mowday’s model ofturnover. Academy of Management Journal,30,721–743.Machin, M. A., & Fogarty, G. J. (1997). The effects of self-efficacy, motivation to transfer, and sit-uational constraints on transfer intentions and transfer of training. Performance ImprovementQuarterly, 10 (2), 98–115.March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations.New York: Wiley.Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Comparing response rates and response content in mail versuselectronic mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society,37 (4), 429–439.300Egan, Yang, BartlettMichaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley,Griffith, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53–59.Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job dissatisfaction andemployee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (2), 237–240.Muchinsky, P. M., & Morrow, P. C. (1980). A multidisciplinary model of voluntary employeeturnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17,263–290.Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainee attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences in training effectiveness.Academy of Management Review, 11,736–749.Noe, R. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The influence of trainee attitudes on training effectiveness: Testof a model. Personnel Psychology, 39,497–523.Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1985). Cognitive vs. affect measures of job satisfaction. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 20,241–254.Örtenblad, A. (2002). A typology of the idea of learning organization. Management Learning,33(2), 213–230.Pearson, C. A. (1991). An assessment of extrinsic feedback on participation, role, perceptions,motivation, and job satisfaction in a self-managed system for monitoring group achievement.Human Relations, 44 (5), 517–537.Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work and personal factors in employeeturnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80,151–176.Roth, P. L. (1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. PersonnelPsychology, 47,537–560.Sablynski, C. J., Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Burton, J. P., & Holtom, B. (2002). Turnover: An inte-gration of Lee and Mitchell’s unfolding model and job embeddedness construct with Hulin’swithdrawal construct. In J. Brett, & F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychology of work.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. AnnualReview of Psychology, 52,471–499.Seyler, D. L., Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R., Burnett, M. F., & Carvalho, M. A. (1998). Factors affect-ing motivation to transfer training. International Journal of Training and Development, 2 (1), 2–16.Sta. Maria, R. F. (2003). Innovation and organizational learning culture in the Malaysian publicsector. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (2), 205–214.Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimationapproach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,173–180.Sturman, M. C., Trevor, C. O., Boudreau, J. W., & Gerhart, B. (2003). Is it worth it to win thetalent war? Evaluating the utility of performance-based pay. Personnel Psychology, 56 (4),997–1036.Swanson, R. A., & Holton E. F. III (2001). Foundations of human resource development. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover inten-tion: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46,259–293.Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactive effects among actual ease of movement determinants and jobsatisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44,621–638.Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analy-sis. Psychometrika, 38,1–10.Ulrich, D., Halbrook, R., Meder, D., Stuchlik, M., & Thorpe, S. (1991). Employee and customerattachment: Synergies for competitive advantage. Human Resource Planning,14,89–103.U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy.(1997). America’s new deficit: Theshortage of information technology workers.Available at: http://www.ta.doc.gov/reports/itsw.pdf.U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy.(1999). The digital workforce: Build-ing infotech skills at the speed of innovation.Available at: http://www.ta.doc/gov/report/htm.U.S. Small Business Administration (2001). Small businesses.Available at: http://www.sba.gov/smb/htm.Effects of Organizational Learning Culture301Wagner, J. A., & LePine, J. A. (1999). Effects of participation on performance and satisfaction:Additional meta-analytic evidence. Psychological Reports, 84,719–725.Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art andscience of systemic change.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (Eds.). (2003). Make learning count! Diagnosing the learningculture in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (2).Weible, R., & Wallace, J. (1998, Fall). Cyber research: The impact of the Internet on data col-lection. Market Research,pp. 19–24.Witt, L. A., & Nye, L. G. (1992). Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness of payor promotion and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (6), 910–917.Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (1992). The effect of turnover on work satisfaction and mentalhealth: Support for a situational perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,503–615.Yang, B. (2003). Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture.Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5 (2), 152–162.Toby Marshall Egan is an assistant professor in human resource development atTexasA&M University, College Station, Texas.Baiyin Yang is an associate professor in the Department of Work, Community, andFamilyEducation at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.Kenneth R. Bartlett is an associate professor in the Department of Work, Community,and Family Education at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.For bulk reprints of this article, please call (201) 748-8789.