Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linking Altruism and Organizational Learning Capability: A Study from Excellent Human Resources Management Organizations in Spain

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The new features of the business environment have expanded the concept of organizational learning capability (OLC). In today’s competitive business environment, OLC has been recognized as an essential means to gain a sustainable competitive advantage. However, the effective development of that capability has not been sufficiently analyzed in the organizational learning literature. Prompted by a recent paradigm shift in the organizational sciences, this research explores the link between altruism and OLC testing a wider picture that includes two intermediate steps: Relationship Conflict and Organizational Trust. To check our hypotheses, we used structural equations to analyze data from a survey of Spanish firms with recognized excellence in human resource management. Results indicate that organizational trust mediates on the altruism—OLC relationship; however, such linkage is not mediated by relationship conflict. Findings suggest that altruism and trust should be promoted in organizations in order to boost OLC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., & Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. C., & Aren, S. (2007). Emotional and learning capability and their impact on product innovativeness and firm performance. Technovation, 27(9), 501–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test. Technovation, 28(6), 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altuntas, S., & Baykal, U. (2010). Relationship between nurses’ organizational trust levels and their organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42(2), 186–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995). Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measures. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 453–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becton, J. B., Giles, W. F., & Schraeder, M. (2008). Evaluating and rewarding OCBs: Potential consequences of formally incorporating organisational citizenship behaviour in performance appraisal and reward systems. Employee Relations, 30(5), 494–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berson, Y., Nemanich, L. A., Waldman, D. A., Galvin, B. M., & Keller, R. T. (2006). Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 577–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. R., Brown, M., & Penner, L. A. (2012). Moving beyond self-interest. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of- practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. K. (1995). Behaviors, trust, and goal achievement in a win-win negotiating role play. Group and Organization Management, 20(4), 486–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camps, J., Alegre, J., & Torres, F. (2011). Towards a methodology to assess organizational learning capability: A study among faculty members. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 687–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. C., Tsai, M. C., & Tsai, M. S. (2011). The organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational commitments of organizational members influences the effects of organizational learning. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(1), 61–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2008). Emotional intelligence and job satisfaction: The role of organizational learning capability. Personnel review, 37(6), 680–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2009). Organizational learning capability and job satisfaction: An empirical assessment in the ceramic tile industry. British Journal of Management, 20(3), 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Lapiedra, R. (2007). Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 224–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, Y. T., Church, R., & Zikic, J. (2004). Organizational culture, group diversity and intra-group conflict. Team Performance Management, 10(1/2), 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K. S., & Schilke, O. (2010). The role of public, relational and organizational trust in economic affairs. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(2), 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, K.B. (1998). Antecedents and effects of intergroup conflict in the nursing unit, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University.

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., & Dollinger, M. J. (1992). An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and professionally managed firms. Family business review, 5(2), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., & Beersma, B. (2005). Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(2), 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2003). The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007). Destructive and productive family relationships: A stewardship theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 545–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C., & Mogelof, J. P. (2006). Explaining psychological safety in innovative teams: Organizational culture, team dynamics, or personality? In L. Thompson & H. S. Choi (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizational teams (pp. 109–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrin, D. L., Dirks, K. T., & Shah, P. P. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of third-party relationships on interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 870–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., & Brown, S. (1988). Getting together: Building relationships as we negotiate. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, L. G., Zheng, W., Rau, D., & Thomas, C. H. (2012). organizational learning subprocess identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of cultural antecedents. Journal of Management, 38(2), 640–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2000). What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict styles on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M. (2014). Compassion and capitalism implications for organizational studies. Journal of Management, 40(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., Hampton, M. M., & Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to generation: Life cycles of the family business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goh, S., & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. European Management Journal, 15(5), 575–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation a longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Research, 39(3), 278–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T., Mannix, E., & Neale, M. (2003). Conflict and virtual teams. In C. Gibson & S. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 335–352). Jossey-Bass, CA: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinot, J., Chiva, R., & Mallén, F. (2013). Organizational trust and performance: Is organizational learning capability a missing link? Journal of Management & Organization, 19(05), 559–582.

  • Hair, H. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, H. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1999). Multivariate data analysis. London: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, K. (2004). Altruism as an organizational problem: The case of organ procurement. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 387–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 8–27). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187–220). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, T., Ahmad, Z., Ahmed, I., & Mohammad, S. K. (2012). Key Factors of organizational citizenship behavior in the banking sector of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 6(9), 3296–3302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 187–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning capability: A proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2007). Organizational learning and compensation strategies: Evidence from the Spanish chemical industry. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 26(3), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1993). Promoting altruism as a corporate goal. The Academy of Management Executive, 7(3), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakas, F. (2010). Spirituality and performance in organizations: A literature review. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Feuding families: When conflict does a family firm good. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(3), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. S., & Cobb, A. T. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 898–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemay, E. P, Jr, Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 834–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams a nonlinear dynamics model. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 740–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust; and, power: two works by Niklas Luhmann. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luque, T. (2000). Técnicas de análisis de datos en investigación de mercados. Madrid: Pirámide, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallén, F. F., Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Guinot, J. (2015). Are altruistic leaders worthy? The importance of organizational learning capability. International Journal of Manpower. doi:10.1108/IJM-09-2013-0212.

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 874–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, D. P., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation of employee trust in management. Public Administration Quarterly, 16, 265–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, M. W. (2002). Social innovation capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(1), 30–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2009). Editorial introduction: Towards a more humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 413–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, K. R. (1996). The heart of altruism: Perceptions of a common humanity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhan, R. C., & Marlowe, H. A. (1997). Development and psychometric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation Review, 21(5), 614–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panteli, N., & Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: A framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 599–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1997). The learning company: A strategy for sustainable development. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual review of sociology, 16, 27–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M. A., & Lawrence, P. R. (2010). Humanism in business—Towards a paradigm shift? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(4), 553–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M., & Turnbull, S. (2011). Toward a more humanistic governance model: Network governance structures. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning: Mechanism, culture and feasibility. Management Learning, 31(2), 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., Bartunek, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Margolis, J. D. (2012). Care and compassion through an organizational lens: Opening up new possibilities. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 503–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulze, W. S., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2003). Toward a theory of agency and altruism in family firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 473–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, R. G. (1991). Altruism and sociology. Sociological Quarterly, 32(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behaviour from an organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 281–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorrentino, R. M., Holmes, J. G., Hanna, S. E., & Sharp, A. (1995). Uncertainty orientation and trust in close relationships: Individual differences in cognitive styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 314–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spitzeck, H. (2011). An integrated model of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. (2009). Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippins, M. J., & Sohi, R. S. (2003). IT competency and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzafrir, S. S. (2005). The relationship between trust, HRM practices and firm performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(9), 1600–1622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1993). High-impact learning: Building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G. M., Kidwell, R. E., & Page, K. (2011). Corporate ethical values and altruism: The mediating role of career satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 509–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Emmerik, I. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Stone, T. H. (2005). Associations among altruism, burnout dimensions, and organizational citizenship behavior. Work & Stress, 19(1), 93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Grinsven, M., & Visser, M. (2011). Empowerment, knowledge conversion and dimensions of organizational learning. Learning Organization, The, 18(5), 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., & Westley, F. (1996). Organizational learning: affirming an oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 440–458). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Hartman, N. S. (2004). Structural equation modeling methods in strategy research: Applications and issues. In D. J. Ketchen Jr & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 1, pp. 303–346). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the University Jaume I and Spanish Innovation Ministry (Ref. P11B2008-13 and ECO2011-26780) for its financial support for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universitat Jaume I, Avda. Sos Baynat, s/n, 12071, Castellón, Spain

    Jacob Guinot, Ricardo Chiva & Fermín Mallén

Authors
  1. Jacob Guinot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricardo Chiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fermín Mallén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Guinot.

Appendix: Research Questionnaire

Appendix: Research Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions about your company or organization. Indicate the number corresponding to the answer that best matches your opinion, where 1 represents strongly disagree and 5, strongly agree.

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

In accordance

Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

About altruism: Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990)

1. Helps others who have been absent

1–2–3–4–5

2. Helps others who have heavy workloads

1–2–3–4–5

3. Helps orient new people even though it is not required

1–2–3–4–5

4. Willingly helps others who have work-related problems

1–2–3–4–5

5. Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her

1–2–3–4–5

About Conflict: Cox (1998)

6. The atmosphere here is often charged with hostility

1–2–3–4–5

7. Backbiting is a frequent occurrence

1–2–3–4–5

8. One party frequently undermines another

1–2–3–4–5

9. There are often feelings of hostility among parties

1–2–3–4–5

10. Much “plotting” takes place “behind the scenes”

1–2–3–4–5

Organizational Learning Capability: Chiva et al. (2007)

About experimentation:

11. People here receive support and encouragement when presenting new ideas

1–2–3–4–5

12. Initiative often receives a favorable response here, so people feel encouraged to generate new ideas

1–2–3–4–5

About Risk taking:

13. People are encouraged to take risks in this organization

1–2–3–4–5

14. People here often venture into unknown territory

1–2–3–4–5

About interaction with the external environment:

15. It is part of the work of all staff to collect, bring back, and report information about what is going on outside the company

1–2–3–4–5

16. There are systems and procedures for receiving, collating, and sharing information from outside the company

1–2–3–4–5

17. People are encouraged to interact with the environment

1–2–3–4–5

About dialog:

18. Employees are encouraged to communicate

1–2–3–4–5

19. There is a free and open communication within my work group

1–2–3–4–5

20. Managers facilitate communication

1–2–3–4–5

21. Cross-functional teamwork is a common practice here

1–2–3–4–5

About participative decision making:

22. Managers in this organization frequently involve employees in important decisions

1–2–3–4–5

23. Policies are significantly influenced by the view of employees

1–2–3–4–5

24. People feel involved in main company decisions

1–2–3–4–5

About Trust: Nyhan and Marlowe (1997)

25. Employees fully trust that this organization will treat them fairly

1–2–3–4–5

26. The level of trust between supervisors and workers in this organization is high

1–2–3–4–5

27. The level of trust between the people of this organization is high

1–2–3–4–5

28. People depend heavily on each other in this organization

1–2–3–4–5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guinot, J., Chiva, R. & Mallén, F. Linking Altruism and Organizational Learning Capability: A Study from Excellent Human Resources Management Organizations in Spain. J Bus Ethics 138, 349–364 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2603-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2603-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation