Learning organizations are known as organizations which adopt learning as a team, systems thinking, creating a vision. The capacity of organizational learning is accepted as an important variable being a learning organization. When the Turkish literature on learning organizations was reviewed, it has been noted that there are some research carried out in different areas of interest, except cargo sector. The cargo industry worldwide has played an increasingly important role in world trade and cargo industry being the fastest growing sector in the dynamic market and therefore knowledge and learning are important issues for these foundations. The aim of this research was to evaluate the organizational learning capacity of the Cargo employees. Data were gathered from 102 employees who are working at Cargo companies in Denizli. SPSS was used for the data analysis. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Akçit, Volkan

Enli, Pınar

Kızıloğlu, Mehmet

Serinkan, Celaletdin

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

AbstractLearning organizations are known as organizations which adopt learning as a team, systems thinking, creating a vision. The capacity of organizational learning is accepted as an important variable being a learning organization. When the Turkish literature on learning organizations was reviewed, it has been noted that there are some research carried out in different areas of interest, except cargo sector. The cargo industry worldwide has played an increasingly important role in world trade and cargo industry being the fastest growing sector in the dynamic market and therefore knowledge and learning are important issues for these foundations. The aim of this research was to evaluate the organizational learning capacity of the Cargo employees. Data were gathered from 102 employees who are working at Cargo companies in Denizli. SPSS was used for the data analysis

Serinkan, Celalettin

Kiziloglu, Mehmet

Akcit, Volkan

Elsevier - Publisher Connector 

Organizational Learning Capacity in Cargo Industry 

 Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  116 ( 2014 )  4005 – 4009 
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.881 
ScienceDirect
5th World Conference on Educational Sciences - WCES 2013 
Organizational learning capacity in cargo industry 
Celalettin Serinkan, Mehmet Kiziloglu*, Volkan Akcit c   Pınar Enli  
Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey 
Abstract 
Learning organizations are known as organizations which adopt learning as a  team, systems thinking, creating a vision. The 
capacity of organizational learning is accepted as an important variable being a learning organization. When the Turkish 
literature on learning organizations was reviewed, it has been noted that there are some research carried out in different areas of 
interest, except cargo sector. The cargo industry worldwide has played an increasingly important role in world trade and cargo 
industry being the fastest growing sector in the dynamic market and therefore knowledge and learning are important issues for 
these foundations. The aim of this research was to evaluate the organizational learning capacity of the Cargo employees. Data 
were gathered from 102 employees who are working at Cargo companies in Denizli. SPSS was used for the data analysis. 
© 2013 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved 
Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Servet Bayram 
Keywords: Organizational learning, learning capacity, cargo industry 
1. Introduction 
We live in a world of disruptive change (Christensen&Overdorf, 2000). In our disruptive world, an 
organization’s capacity to learn, apply and spread new insight has been touted as the fundamental strategic 
capability (Fiol &Lyles, 1985) and leading source of competitive advantage (de Geus, 1988, 1997; Stata, 1989). 
Organizational learning is fundamental for improving performance within a rapidly changing and competitive 
business environment. Some researchers such as; Argyris (1999), Crossan and Hulland (2002), Kululanga et al. 
(2002), Smyth (2004), Lopez et al. (2005), Senge (1990), Stata (1989), Kim et al. (2009) argue in general that 
organizational learning is conducive to companies performing well in the competitive environment of today’s 
business world. Organizational learning can be defined as the development of new knowledge that has the potential 
to influence behavior in an organization (Huber, 1991). The literature on this topic has grown rapidly over the past 
few years. Various works have dealt with the analysis of this construct from differing viewpoints.   
      Our objective is to measure of organizational learning capacity. We test its validity and reliability in a sample of 
102 employee who are working at Cargo companies in Denizli. We first establish the concept of organizational 
learning. Then, analyze data which we collected from Cargo employees. Finally, we set out the findings and 
conclusions of the study. 
	
)(!%#%$&''%%"
 
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2013 he t . Published b  l Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selecti n and/or peer-revie  er responsibility of Academic World Education and Research Center.
4006   Celalettin Serinkan et al. /  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  116 ( 2014 )  4005 – 4009 
2. Literature review 
2.1. Organizational learning 
Organizational learning concept has been first emerged in 1970’s and defined as to catch the errors and fix them. 
In these days, the firms’ learning activities were being accepted to be realized via the employees  working for them 
(Daft and Weick, 1984). Argyris has shortly defined organizational learning as detecting the error and fixing 
process. Organizational learning literature is studied by several researchers (e.g., Argyris and Schön, 1978; Argyris 
and Schön, 1996; Shrivastava, 1983; Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Daft and Huber, 1987; Levitt and March, 1988; Huber, 
1991; Nonaka 1991; Sinkula, 1994; Crossan et al., 1995; Slater and Narver, 1995; Easterby-Smith, 1997; . Baldwin 
et al., 1997;  Bell et al., 2002; Bontis et al., 2002). Bontis et al. (2002) note that in order to survive organizations are 
forced to learn efficiently and effectively in today’s tougher competitive environment and by effect of the 
knowledge era. Baldwin et al. (1997) noted that what seems to distinguish surviving and adapting organizations 
from the rest is their ability to learn. Also Nonaka (1991) argued that competitive advantage, innovation and 
effectiveness are the primary products of nurturing a culture of learning within a company.  
Organizational learning is a dynamic process. Not only does learning occur over time and across levels, but it 
also creates a tension between assimilating new learning (feed forward) and exploiting or using what has already 
been learned (feedback) (Crossan et al., 1999).  
2.2. Organizational learning capacity 
The increasingly dynamic environment and the spurt in information technology gave rise to the recognition that 
knowledge is perhaps the most important resource for developing a sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 
1996a, 1996b). This literature stresses that an organization should focus on enhancing its intellectual capacity and 
the dissemination of knowledge among its members (Huber, 1991; Kogut and Zander, 1992, Hult et al., 2001). 
It is the intangible, organization-specific knowledge that can generate value in a unique, inimitable, 
nontransferable way. Therefore, an argument can be made that knowledge and the capacity to develop knowledge 
are the major resources that generate added value. We refer to this capacity as the ‘‘organizational learning 
capacity.’’ The key to obtaining a sustainable competitive advantage is the integration of knowledge of participants 
(Hult et al., 2001). 
3. Method 
The instrument used in this study is the organizational learning questionnaire comprised four factors with 17 
questions.  Hult (2001)  designed this questionnaire, with the  reliability of 0.87, the results were satisfactory. The 
factors of this questionnaire include  team orientation, system orientation, learning orientation and memory 
orientation. 
The sample group in the present research is employees of an cargo companies in Denizli, which in this research, 
among them 102 individuals were selected based on simple random sampling as statistical sample members. Finally, 
102 questionnaires were  distributed and then analyzied in SPSS. 
4. Findings 
The aim of this study to determine the views of the  cargo employees about organizational learning capacity, 
sharing the resulting data on organizational learning and the creation of awareness of organizational learning in the 
cargo companies.  
The participants of the survey were employees who work in cargo sector. The total number of the participants 
was 102. The sample consisted of 67 men with 65.7% and 35 women with 34.3%. Considering participants 
education level; 8.8% have primary school, 58.8% have high school, 23.5% have bachelor degree and 8.8% have 
4007 Celalettin Serinkan et al. /  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  116 ( 2014 )  4005 – 4009 
master degree degree. The rate of the participants who have high school is the highest level. In addition to these, the 
positions of the participants, 21.6% are manager, 48% are carrier, 18.6% are finance worker, 9.8% are customer 
representative. Many of participants to our study is carrier workers. According to the results of participants’ job 
experience, 37.7% are 2 years and under 2 years, 44.1% are 3-5 years, 10.8% are 6-8 years and 7.8% are 9-12 years.  
The reliability analysis of the 17 items questionnaire was 0.87 and then t test and anova was conducted to see the 
difference between the demographic datas and organizational learning dimensions. 
 
Table 1. Comparison the employees according to their age level 
 
 N Mean Std.Deviation t Sig. 
Memory 
Orientation 
20 ≤ 14 4,05 ,512 
2,443 0,003 
30 ≥ 11 3,34 ,930 
As shown in Table 1, result of the t test analysis revealed that a significant difference between 20 years old and 
younger workers and workers who were over the age of 30 who are employees participated in the survey.  
Employees consider different about the dimension of memory oriented in the scale of organizational learning 
capacity. While the arithmetic mean of the memory oriented participants under the age of 20 is ( X =4,05),  
participants over the age of 30 is ( X = 3,34). Employees under the age of 20 are more memory oriented than over the 
age of 30.  
 
Table 2. Comparison the employees according to their levels of education 
 
 N Mean Std.Deviation t Sig. 
Learning 
Orientation 
Primary School 9 3,77 ,814 
1,418 0,041 High School 60 4,07 ,709 
University 24 4,48 ,539 
Table 2 showed that anova test analysis revealed a significant difference between the employee’s education level 
of primary school, high school and university. Employees consider different about the dimension of learning 
oriented in the scale of organizational learning capacity. Arithmetic mean of the learning oriented participants from 
primary school is ( X =3,77), participants from high school is ( X =4,07) and participants from university is ( X =4,48). 
As we see from the result, learning capacity for the participants from university is the highest. 
 
Table 3. Comparison the employee according to their job experience 
 
 N Mean Std.Deviation t Sig. 
System 
Orientation 
2 ≤ 38 4,38 ,528 
0,133 0,020 
3-5 45 3,96 ,643 
As shown in Table 3, result of the  t test analysis revealed that a significant difference between the employees 
who have job experience of 2 years and under 2 years and 3-5 years. Employees consider different about the 
dimension of system oriented in the scale of organizational learning capacity. While the arithmetic mean of the 
system oriented for the participants’ job experience 2 years and under 2 is ( X =4,38),  3-5 years job experience is    
( X = 3,96). 
 
Table 4. Comparison the employee according to their levels of income 
 
 N Mean Std.Deviation t Sig. 
Team 
Orientation 
Low Income 34 3,98 ,796 
1,245 0,036 
Middle Income 65 4,16 ,621 
Table 4 showed that the t test analysis revealed a significant difference between employees who have low income 
level and the middle income level. Employees consider different about the dimension of team oriented in the scale 
of organizational learning capacity.  Arithmetic mean of the team oriented participants who have middle income 
4008   Celalettin Serinkan et al. /  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  116 ( 2014 )  4005 – 4009 
level is ( X =4,16), participant who have low income level  ( X =3,98). As we see on the result, employees who have 
middle income level more team oriented and high level of organizational capacity than employees who have low 
income level.  
 
Table 5. Correlation of Organizational Learning Capacity and Its Dimensions 
 
 
1 2 3 4 5 
1.Team Orientation  α=,75     
2.System Orientation ,595** α=,74    
3.Learning Orientation ,420** ,662** α=,80   
4.Memory Orientation ,339** ,600** ,515** α=,70  
5.Org. Learning Capacity ,769** ,881** ,802** ,748** α=,87 
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level,             α= Significant Level 
Correlation analysis has been conducted to test organizational learning capacity and its dimensions. As shown in 
Table 5, the result of correlation analysis revealed that the direction and degree of the relationship between 
organizational learning and its dimensions. When we examine the Table 5, we see that there is a high and positive 
relationship between organizational learning capacity and its dimensions. 
5. Conclusion 
In today's fast, competitive and innovative world, organizations must commit themselves to learn continuously. 
Human factor is the most important factor to create learning organizations. If people are diligent to improve 
themselves and given the opportunity to practice what has been learned to pass his career, it can be said that 
organizations have started to become a learning organizations.  
In this study, organizational learning capacities of employees in cargo companies were determined. As a result of 
the research, under 20 years old employees’ learning capacity is higher than the others, university graduates are 
more inclined to learn than primary school and high school, employees with a less than 2 years of experience have 
higher learning capacity and employees with a higher level of income have higher organizational learning points 
have been identified. 
In a learning organization there are lots of works to do for managers and to be a  person who is unprejudiced, 
open to criticism, support new ideas is important for managers Additionally, in order to increase learning capacity, 
managers should try to create environments in which the work done is questioned, the information and the 
experiences are shared. At the learning organization, managers should be objective, open to new approaches, and 
keep themselves modern for adapt and follow innovations. Managers should appreciate team-oriented studies to 
have a continuous learning environment. Furthermore they should always investigate and implement better systems 
to use at work. Great learning atmosphere must be established and organizations should encourage employees 
continuously. 
As a result, this study was conducted to determine organizational learning capacity in cargo companies, shed 
light on other research and reveals more effective results in different  regions with different participants.  
Acknowledgements 
We would like to thank Pamukkale University for providing the research grant PAU-PAUBAP-1420-2013 
References 
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978).  Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective.  Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. 
Argyris C. & Schön D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 
4009 Celalettin Serinkan et al. /  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  116 ( 2014 )  4005 – 4009 
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning. Blackwell Business, Massachusetts, USA. 
Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., and Johnson, J. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student 
satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1369-1397. 
Bell, S.J., Whitwell, G. J., Lukas, B.A. (2002). School of Thoughts in Organizatioanl Learning. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 30(1): 
70. ABI/INFORM Global. 
Bontis, N., Crossan, M. and J. Hulland. (2002). Managing an Organizational Learning System by Aligning Stocks and Flows. Journal of 
Management Studies, 39(4), 437-469. 
Christensen, C, and Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 66–76. 
Crossan, M., Lane, H., and White, R. and Djurfeldt, L. (1995). Organizational learning: dimensions for a theory. International Journal of 
Organizational Analysis, 3, (4), 337–60. 
Crossan, M., Lane, H., and White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management 
Review, 24(3), 522-537. 
Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2002). Leveraging knowledge through leadership of organizational learning, in Choo, W.W. and Bontis, N. (Eds), 
The Strategic Management of  Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 711-723. 
Daft, R.L. and Huber, G. (1987). How organizations learn.  Research in the Sociology of Organizations. 
Daft R. L., Weick K. E., (1984), Toward A Model of Organization As Interpretation Systems. Academy of Management Review. 9, 284-295. 
De Geus, A. (1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review, 66(2), 70–74. 
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085-1113. 
Fiol,C.M. and Lyles,M.A.(1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4),803–813. 
Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization 
Science, 7 (4), 375 – 387. 
Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17,109 – 122 (Winter Special Issue). 
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88 – 115. 
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Reus, T.H. (2001). Organizational learning in capacity and internal customer orientation within strategic 
sourcing units. Journal of Quality Management, 6(2001), 173 – 192. 
Kim, J. and Miner, A.S. (2009). Organizational Learning from Extreme Performance Experience: The Impact of Success and Recovery 
Experience. Organization Science. 20(6),November-December, 958-978. 
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3 (3), 
383 – 397. 
Kululanga, G.K., Price, A.D.F. and McCaffer, R. (2002). Empirical Investigation of Construction Contractors’ Organizational Learning. Journal 
of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(5), 385-391. 
Levitt M. and March. J.G. (1988).  Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14. 
Lopez, S. P., Peon J. M.M., and Ordas C.J.V. (2005). Organizational learning as a determining factor in business performance. The Learning 
Organization, 12 (3), 227-245. 
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. In Harvard Business School (ed.) (1998).  Harvard Business Review on Knowledge 
Management, 21–45. 
Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20,1,7–28. 
Sense, A.J. (2004).  An Architecture For Learning in Projects. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today. 16(3), 123-145. 
Sinkula, J.M. (1994). Market Information Processing and Organizational Learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35-45. 
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(7), 63-74. 
Smyth, H. (2004). Competencies for improving construction performance: theories and practice for developing capacity. International Journal of 
Construction Management, 4 (1), 46-51. 
Stata, R. (1989). Organizational learning: the key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review, 30(Spring), 63–74. 
 


Pamukkale Üniversitesi Açık Erişim Arşivi

Organizational learning capacity in cargo industry

file:///data/core-remote/dit/data/elsevier/pdf/f92/aHR0cDovL2FwaS5lbHNldmllci5jb20vY29udGVudC9hcnRpY2xlL3BpaS9zMTg3NzA0MjgxNDAwODk4Mg==.pdf

Organizational learning capacity in cargo industry

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Pamukkale Üniversitesi Açık Erişim Arşivi