Abstract
The concept of learning has an undeniable importance in terms of both individuals and organizations. It is generally accepted phenomenon that proportional development can be achieved from learning individuals to learning organizations and towards to learning society. In this study, traditional and learning organizations are compared in terms of learning dimension. In the title of traditional organizations covers; The place of traditional organizations in theories of management, the assumptions of traditional management theories on human and organization, the common features of traditional management approaches and the general evaluation of traditional management theories. The second main topic is related to learning organizations. In this title, the definition and the character of the learning organizations are introduced first. Then, the features and development process and dimensions of the learning organizations are discussed. In the sub-headings of features of learning organizations, the system has been clarified in terms of thought, personel mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning. Eventually, the basic elements of the organizations learning have been emphasized. At the end of the study, traditional and learning organizations are compared.
Key Words: Learning, Traditional Organizations, Learning Organizations
COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND LEARNING ORGANIZATION IN TERMS OF LEARNING DIMENSION
Adnan ÇELİK* - Ahmet GÖZEN**
*) Prof.Dr., Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Selcuk University, Turkey. E-mail: adnancelik@selcuk.edu.tr
1. INTRODUCTION
Theories of management have begun to develop systematically after the Industrial Revolution and especially since the 1900s, and the management which has a field accepted rules and principles are admitted in the century we are in. (Baransel, 1979: 8).
The generally approaches accepted in management literature are based on a chronological classification; It can be divided four parts as traditional (Classical), Human Relations (Neoclassical), Modern and Post-Modern. There is no doubt that there are no borders between this approach or models.
This study, titled “Comparison of traditional and learning organizations in terms of learning dimension,” consists mainly of two separate titles. Firstly in the study, traditional (classical) organizations are explained.
Here, the place of traditional organizations in management theories, the assumptions of traditional management theories on human and organizations, the common features of traditional management approaches and the general evaluation of traditional management theories are explained. In the title of learning organizations; the definition and the quality of learning organizations, the characteristics of learning organizations, the development process and dimensions of learning organizations, the principles of learning organizations and the basic elements of learning organizations are handled separately.
The study was finally ended by a comparison of traditional and learning organizations.
2. TRADINIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
2.1. The Place of Traditional Organizations in Management Theories
In the name of traditional management theory, mainly focused on three basic approaches. These are ; “Scientific Management” or “Taylorism” approach that Frederick Winslow Taylor defended
and sometimes referred to by his own name, “Management Process Approach” developed under the leadership of Henri Fayol, and finally by Max Weber, Bureaucracy “approaches developed by other thinkers. However, Scientific Management developed by Taylor and his colleagues come forward in traditional management theories. For this reason, the fact that the basic assumptions on which the Scientific Management thought movement is based can give us a general idea of the essence of traditional management approaches (Simsek and Çelik, 2016: 163).
2.2. Assumptions of Traditional Management Theories Related to Human and Organizations
The basic assumptions of the traditional management theories related to people can be listed as follows (Baransel, 1979: 195-197, Certo, 1997: 29-30, Simsek and Çelik, 2016: 164): People are often rational. In other words, they decide not with their emotions but with their minds and always keep their economic interests in the foreground. People are lazy from birth and do not like to work. For this reason, an increase in their efficiency can only be achieved with a tight control. Occupiers (workers and civil servants) try to satisfy their first material needs.
As a natural consequence of this, the most important tool that can be used without the willingness to work is money. The average employee needs to be governed by others and fails to harmonize its power with the power of others without a specific process of governance and control. Business security is greater importance than deciding and acting freely at work for employee.
The “Scientific Management Approach”, based on Taylor’s predecessor and later on human assumptions, developed by management scientists such as Henry L. Gant, Frank and Lillian Gilberth and H. Emerson, is basically based on manufacturing and similar manufacturing activities.
Taylor and colleagues that based on observations at the workshop and factory level, have shown that many departments and tasks are far from effective and that the vast majority of workers are devoid of education.
The same persons argued that the productivity decline in production was caused not only by the fact that employees did not show expected behaviors and attitudes but also because the wage and incentive system was unsatisfactory with the inadequacy of management practices. Based on these observations, Taylor and his colleagues listed their assumptions about organizations as follows (Baransel, 1979: 198-199, Certo, 1997: 31-33, Simsek and Çelik, 2016: 165):
- Increasing the efficiency of an organization is a purely technical problem and depends on the most economical usage of scarce resources.
-If the operations in the organization are determined to the tiniest point, the workers will work in a productive manner and consequently organizational productivity will increase.
- It is possible and necessary to obtain detailed information about the future and prepare detailed plans for organizational actions based on this information.
- The management should not deal with members of the organization but about related their Works.
-Specialization is a necessary and useful opportunity to raise individual and consequently organizational productivity by making possible for each worker to gain mastery in a particular job.
- In organisation, authority and decision-making authority should be gathered at the highest level manager. The top management may delegate some of this authority to the lower level and to the extent it is required necessary.
-Management functions are to be carried out in accordance with scientific principles that are valid everywhere and at all times, regardless of human and environment elements.
2.3. Common Features of Traditional Management Approaches When our explanations are scrutinized on traditional management theory, it will come to light that the three concepts play a key role in such approaches.
The first of these is the establishment of order and stability in the organization; Second, the existence of authority based on information and intelligence, and finally the third is the organizational productivity and efficiency that is desired to be achieved with the help of these two things. Representatives of the scientific management movement viewed rationality as the method and standardization of order and stability in organizations.
According to these persons, it is inevitable for the organizational productivity to find the material and human elements within the organization in certain places and in order. The establishment and maintenance of order is related to the continuation of stability. Because according to traditional management understanding, instability is both cause and effect of bad management.
For this reason, it is vital importance that all works be tied to specific rules and that the organizational life is stabilized and freed from arbitrariness.
As for authority; At Taylor’s head there is only one source of authority and a legal basis, and that is scientific knowledge. According to him, jobs are planned and organized scientifically and payments made in return for work are based on scientific criteria, a harmonious, stable and productive working environment can be established.
The establishment of such a working environment leads to positive and productive results in relation to the management of the workplace.
Taylor suggests that order and stability in the organization can be achieved and that it can work effectively and productively in the event that the direction is based on scientific knowledge in practice and that scientific analaysis is used to solve the problem (Taylor, 1947: 39; Baransel, 1979: 203-205 Lightning and Steel, 2016: 193).
All approaches related to traditional management theories are fundamentally based on economic activity. According to Taylor, providing organizational effectiveness is based on the scientific principles of management.
At the forefront of the “management process” approach to achieving effectiveness is the division of labor and specialization, separation into departments, and finally the establishment of a rational organizational structure in which powers and responsibilities are clearly defined.
According to the bureaucratic approach, efficiency is characterized by the fact that the relations between the individuals which are carried out in a formal way, a division of labor based on functional specialization, a clearly defined hierarchical structure, the establishment of authority and responsibilities within this structure, designation of the methods for the construction of the works and finally the selection of the staff will be done according to the technical knowledge and skills.
The traditional system of management theory as the first systematic approaches to management and organization, which we try to explain in its outline, has formed the sequence and equipped with specific tools to solve the problems that the manager may encounter.
However, the necessity of introducing new concepts found out over time because of the fact that the traditional models have insufficient tools to solve some problems, while the results of the investigations are contradictory to traditional interpretation, Taylor, 1947: 39, Baransel, 1979: 203-205, Simsek and Çelik, 2016: 193).
2.4. General Evaluation of Traditional Management Theories The principles developed by traditional management approaches have always been gathered around the conclusion of how to build the best organizational structure. In addition, these principles have been accepted as universal principles applicable to every location and type of organization.
As a consequence, organizations have emerged which are called “bureaucratic” or more generally called “mechanical”. Such organizational structures have not given a special importance to the employee and have not made it a part of the model.
The structure was formed by bringing together elements (such as material elements, work, tasks, concepts, etc.) other than the human
element in line with the determined principles and assuming that the human is placed in this structure as acting like a machine (robot) . It is assumed that the personal problems of the employees are not reflected in the workplace, the time spent in the business and the life outside the business are different.
In the traditional management theory, the concept of leadership, which is of great importance today, is not focused on the natural aspects of the leadership, unlike management, which is completely handled from the formal direction.
According to traditional management theory, the manager is the person who has the authority to apply orders for the organization. He will use this authority in the most rational way to ensure optimum efficiency. Rationality will dominate his behavior not emotionality. Decision-making authority in the organization is only on the director’s hand.
Decisions go down from top to bottom following the lines of authority and hierarchy steps.
Communication is only one way from top to down and consists of the announcement of the orders given from above for below levels (Şimşek ve Çelik, 2016: 195).
According to traditional organizational theorists, there is no incompatibility in an organization which operates with optimum productivity. The only factor that encourages workers is money and other material factors.
There can be no contradiction between the aims of the organization and its members, since workers know that if they work hard, they will increase organizational productivity and that they will get a bigger share from increased production.
In that case, there is no conflict in a healthy organization. Even if it is thought that incompatibility may arise, they must be resolved by the managers closest to them, without being referred to high-level managers. According to these persons, the solution of the conflicts in the
downward direction is useful in reducing the burden of the top managers, who already have heavy responsibilities. Inaddition, according to them, as the communication channels become increasingly distant and the news may change in quality when they go further. Furthermore, the closest neighbor director to the problem can provide a better solution to the problem because he has the big capacity to collect information on time and more realistic for required data.
As a summary; Traditional organizational and management theories have paid attention to only formal and legal aspects of management, have tried to set principles in this field and have not given the necessary importance to the management and co-ordination. This has prevented them to see the entire behavioral relationships within the organization for managers.
The conclusion that can be drawn from all of these statements is not the result of the absence of any valid traditional organizational and management theories today.
On the contrary, in spite of the important limitations they have in some respects, the principles of traditional theories are still applied in many of today’s cases, and they have accepted to some extent that they are valid in this period.
Today, as the various thinkers can not put a whole new model by substituting the theory of the subject and the underlying philosophy of management and organization on them, they try to rethink their foundations in the light of modern developments and make the necessary changes and thus maintain the validity of traditional theories (Simsek and Çelik, 2016: 196).
3. LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS
3.1. Definition and Feature of Learning Organizations
Significant scientific studies on learning have been shaped since the 19th century and the date back to ancient Greek thinkers (Kaynak, 1995: 86). Enterprises with open systems have been learning just like human (Budak, 2008: 219).
Here, the “learning organization” issue, in which the features of the information age are also covered, is discussed rather than learning concept. The concept of learning organization began to become widespread in 1990 when it was used by Peter Senge in his work entitled “The Fifth Discipline”. Along with the transition from the industrial society to the information society, it has begun to play a role as a key factor in the success and development of knowledge, businesses and societies.
Knowledge and institutional learning are important elements in the study of technological and institutional change. It plays great importance to be equipped with institutional learning skills for organizations that want to succeed in a competition and rapid change environment in which we live (Koçel, 2010: 427).
Organizations like all organisms have to be constantly change in order to live, survive and adapt to the environment. Success of organizations is only possible if they adapt themselves to changing environmental conditions. Learning organization concept; “Dynamic organizations that are able to transform themselves in the direction of these changes by monitoring changes in environmental conditions, developing and renewing themselves” (Özalp, 2000. 357).
The learning organization is the organization that is active in the fields of information production, discovery and communication and transforms institutional behaviors within the framework of new knowledge and foresight. The learning organization is an organization that constantly changes market elements and adapt himself to new enviroment.
In other words, learning an organization means to prepare the environment to create new knowledge, to use this new knowledge for producing new goods and services, and to encourage the creation of information again by counting all the experience it has obtained as a learning opportunity.
An organization is possible to come up with a dynamic learning organization that “follows the changes in environmental conditions and develops itself towards these changes and reaches its competitive advantage” and this is closely related to equipping human resources with
Learning organizations are those which can learn from their own rights and wrongs, adapt their actions to the changing environmental conditions in a systematic way and transform and develop itself continually. Organizations with the capacity of learning fast can adapt to new conditions more quickly and possess significant strategic advantages in the competitive environment (Basım et al., 2009: 57).
Learning happens inside a structure deliberately created for that purpose, however, it is especially informal workplace learning that has recently received a lot of attention. Informal workplace learning is less prestructured, more in control of the learner, embedded in daily working activities of the employee and therefore often a by-product of some other activity, and may happen unconsciously or incidentally (Froechlich et al., 2014: 31).
Senge (1990), who put forward the term “learning organization”, suggests that the whole global business world learns to learn together and has become a learning community.
3.2. Characteristics of Learning Organizations
The characteristics of learning organizations can be considered in three main categories as “strategic, structural and external environment related characteristics”. The below listing is made by Sandelands and Pedler (1999) (Baysal, 1995, Yazici, 2001: 169):
- Learning Approach in Strategy determination: Learning organizations are structured as a learning process with the establishment of the policies and strategies of the business, the application of the strategy, development and evaluation.
- Participatory Approach to Creating Business Policies: All employees in the business have the right to take part in the formation of policies and strategies in order to discuss these policies and strategies, and also to participate in important decisions. As a result of this approach, the existence of groups with opposing views can emerge within the enterprise. However, it is important that the discussions among these groups lead to creativity and more creative solutions.
-Information systems: This feature involves the use of the possibilities provided by information technology for learning organizations. In order to ensure the development of information systems, information must firstly be made available to all businesses on the basis of whom it is reached.
-Creative Accounting and Control: Accounting and budgeting systems are important in many businesses. Creative accounting, budgeting and reporting systems foresee supportive and internal customers to be content to learn. This approach encourages employees to undertake certain tasks by getting certain responsibilities.
-Internal change: Internal change is that all business units and departments can see each other as customers and suppliers. The main aim of the department is to please its domestic customers. In order to be able to do this, individuals and departments must be constantly exchanging information and providing feedback.
- Flexibility in awarding: In parallel with increasing participation in organization, new awarding systems should also be developed. First of all, it should be assumed that money is not the only means of rewarding tool.
It should be clearly stated what the values to be awarded in the organization are.
- Developer Structures: Developer structures create opportunities for individual and business development. Department boundaries within the enterprise are perceived as temporary structures and are adaptable to change with a flexible structure.
- The Employees ‘ Analysis from outside of Organization: It is involved the process of gathering information outside the enterprise. Not only the specialized individuals or departments to gather information in organization or outside, but all employees who are connected with outside of organization in learning organizations are responsible for this.
- Business-to-Business Learning: A learning organization wants to take advantage of some mutual learning advantages as long as it wants to
please its customers. Joint venture, joint investment in R & D, etc. They are examples of mutual agreements.
-Learning Climate: In a learning organization, top managers undertake the leading of this approach by questioning their own ideas, behaviors and movements. It is important to ensure continuous improvement of these approaches.
Self-Development Opportunities for Everyone: The resources and possibilities of the business should be obtained in terms of enabling them to develop themselves at all levels.
These sources are; Courses, seminars, self-learning tools, books, professional publications, etc.
3.3. Evolution Process and Dimensions of Learning Organizations
According to some authors, it is the result of a kind of development in which organizations become “learning organizations”. According to these, the “learning organization” is the last stages of this development process and is concerned with the following issues (KalDer, 1997: 25-27; Garvin, 1993: 78-91; Dalay, 2001; Pam, 2002; Koçel, 2010: 431-432):
- The first step of relations with the periphery of organizations is the “knowing organization” which classical management thought defends. Rationality in the knowing organization is the forefront. The size of the knowing organization is based on the theory of scientists such as Adam Smith, Max Weber, Frederick W. Taylor and Henry Fayol, and is based on the idea that “whatever will be done, only single best way to do it.” This organizational model can be successful as long as the structure of the market remains unchanged. Knowing organizations have a static structure and are only interested in learning when needed.
- The “understanding organization”. Understanding organization is an organization that does not look at the “best”, emphasizing that there can be different “good” depending on circumstances and personal understanding and value judgments.
-The following stage of the understanding organization phase has become the “thinking organization”. Basic approach of this organization is to see management techniques, as the corrective instruments of the disruptive aspects of the business.
If there is a disruption in any aspect of business activities, the organization will take measures to prevent it from emerging again, improving the necessary models and systems for this. The shortcomings of thinking organizations are not addressing the basic problems by focusing on fast solutions.
Finally, the “learning organizations” that emerged in the last stage as an organization that promotes learning, emphasizes the development of personnel and emphasizes open communication and creative dialogue.
3.4. Principles of Learning Organizations
The learning organization environment is where individuals discover how they can change their realities and future. In order to achieve this, a number of principles are needed to fundamentally change a mindset.
These principles can be listed as system thinking, personel mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning (Senge, 1990: 69-236, Senge, 1996: 156-255, Cüceloğlu, 1993: 521, Fındıkçı, 2002, 73: Efil, 2006: 334, Dalay, 2001: 414-415).
According to Senge (1990), the most obvious reason for establishing learning organizations is that we have only recently started to understand the skills required to become such an organization.
The most basic distinction between learning organization and classical authoritarian organizations is that learning organization possesses certain fundamental disciplines (Senge, 1990: 13). The five disciplines required to become a learning organization are systems thinking, personal mastery, shared vision, mental models and team learning (Senge, 1990: 15):
a sum of knowledge that has been developed in the last fifty years. Actions affect each other in a cause-effect chain.
Things can be understood by considering the system as a whole, not the pieces of the pattern separately. The system approach defines mutual solidarity or linkage among factors within the organization.
This mutual solidarity includes unchanging feedback and outcome outputs. Understanding that a system is a system of interconnected systems is crucial in determining what factors need to be addressed in order to achieve the most effective success.
2.Personal Mastery: It is the discipline of clarifying our personal horizons, focusing our energies, developing our patience and seeing reality objectively. The essence of personel mastery; Is to learn how the individual of the organization can produce and sustain creative tension in both internal and external life of the organization.
3.Mental Models: Beliefs, values, assumptions and mind-sets that are deep-seated in our minds.
With mental models, the discipline of working begins by turning individuals’ mirror into their inner world. We need to find out the horizons and visions we have and learn to pass them through without a rigorous examination.
4.Shared Vision: Purposes, values and feelings of duty that are deeply shared in the organization. Shared vision is pictures that encourage long-term connections in organization, workshops, to take part. In short, the shared vision encourages risk taking and experimentation, transforming the relationship between people and the organization into an understanding of “our organization”, and allowing the directors to find ways to organize long-term work.
5.Team Learning: The basic learning unit in the modern organizations is not individuals, but teams. Individuals cannot learn unless the teams learn. While individuals are constantly learning, a learning organization may not appear.
On the other hand, if teams learn, a micro-world for learning within the whole organization still comes and gains can be transformed into actions.
The basic characteristics of a learning organization is due to its emphasis on a continuous learning strategy and culture, flexible rewards and structures, participation in decision making, and open communication (Akella and Akella, 2012: 113). Learning organizations have a relatively flexible management structure.
Cooperation and teamwork is quite important to achieve success in these organizations. Information is shared with all individuals and units for continuous and permanent learning.
Learning organizations have strong cultures that increase learning, clarity, creativity and efficiency and effective leaders (Balay, 2012: 2462). In the learning organizations, the employees focus on the learning processes carried out cooperatively by all employees rather than their own performances (Basım et al., 2009: 56).
3.5. Basic Elements of Learning Organizations
Individuals can gain skills through systematic problem-solving, experimenting with new approaches, learning from past and mistakes, learning from others, and using the information quickly and effectively to learn about learning together (Atlan, 2007; Yazıcı, 2001: 118-122; : 112, Koçel, 2010: 431, Öztürk, 2003: 256-258; Kalder, 1997: 25-27):
1.Systematic Problem Solving: This ability involves systematically collecting data, analyzing problems, using statistical methods to organize and interpret data. This capability is an important aspect of the Total Quality approach; “a) to use scientific methods instead of judgment-based methods to define and solve the problem, b) to insist on actual statements rather than to quick acceptance, c) to use simple statistical methods for compiling and evaluating the information”.
2.Trying New Approache: Testing new information and being open to discussing the results. Being able to keep up with the restructuring and innovation of the sector is also an important concept in organizational
3.Learning from the past and the mistakes: Businesses should keep an eye on the successes and mistakes, systematically evaluate them, and record the lessons clearly to the employees.
Those who do not remember the past, keep repeating it. Research has revealed that those who learn from mistakes, play a key factor in later successes. Experiences and practice often fail. Failure, however, is part of the learning process.
4.Learning from others: Organizations which see the part of life with learning from others ability, can be learning organization. In this way, best practices are found and analyzed and so adaptation and implementation steps can be carried out.
5.Learning to use information in a fast and effective way and learning to learn together: The ability to share developed information with all related parties and transfer them to manufactured goods and services.
The production of knowledge has become an important priority in terms of management. Increasing global competition is a strategically important source of competitiveness for organizations.
4. COMPARISON OF THE TRADITIONAL AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS
The main difference that distinguishes learning organizations from traditional structures is that they require certain features. Here, the principles such as “personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning” are the foreground. Progressing of these five disciplines together are of vital importance.
Among the main differences between the traditional organization and the learning organization are how to implement ideas, how they are applied, the structure of organizational thinking system, the management styles of conflicts, effective managerial and leadership practices, motivational methods and practices.
Leading activity in learning organizations is an important issue to consider. It is expected that executive leaders should turn to effective organizational practices and encourage their stakeholders.
Those who determine a shared vision, who authorize their subordinates, keep the participation alive and if necessary, demonstrate charisma and make an effective decision-making process in the organization, are considered as active leaders.
Leaders in the learning organization must be designer and instructor individuals.
Learning organizations need to adopt a clear culture for criticism and to create unique organizational development visions instead of imitating other organizations, because the art of fair is an institution of active listening habits and creativity.
It has always been an important contribution to the management thinking of any organization or management theory. It is necessary to examine the related theories in terms of their application periods, education levels, democratization structures, communication facilities, technological tools, social and psychological structure.
To see the people as the part of learning organization in years of more mechanical organizational appearances, bear some limitations.
Although some of the freedoms of decision making individual, the development of thinking and questioning skills, participatory management, teamwork, teamlearning increasing quality of life, quality management system and other contemporary applications were asserted by the Human Relations (Neo-Classical) Approaches, but these have begun to be generally accepted in the Post- Modern period.
References
Atlan, Mustafa (2007), “Öğrenen Organizasyonlar”, http://www. bilgiyonetimi.org/cm/pages, E.T: 10.02.2007.
Baransel, Atilla (1979), Çağdaş Yönetim Düşüncesinin Evrimi, Cilt.1, İstanbul Üniversitesi, İşletme Fakültesi Yayını, İstanbul.
Baysal, Rauf (1995). “Dünyanın Tüm Organizasyonları Öğrenin!”, Power Aylık Ekonomi Dergisi, Sayı.5.
Bingöl, Dursun (2006), İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, 6.b., Arıkan Basım Yayım, İstanbul.
Budak, Gönül (2008). Yetkinliğe Dayalı İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, Barış Yayınları-Fakülteler Kitabevi, İzmir.
Certo, Samuel C. (1997). Modern Management, 7th ed., Prentice Hâll, New Jersey.
Cüceloğlu, Doğan (1993), İnsan ve Davranışı, 4.b., Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul.
Çam, Salim (2002), Öğrenen Organizasyon ve Rekabet Üstünlüğü, Papatya Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
Dalay, İsmail (2001), Yönetim ve Organizasyon: İlkeler, Teoriler ve Stratejiler, Sakarya Üniversitesi Yayınları, Adapazarı.
Efil, İsmail Efil (2006), İşletmelerde Yönetim ve Organizasyon, 6.b., Alfa Yayınları, İstanbul.
Elma Cevat ve Kamile Demir (2000), Yönetimde Çağdaş Yaklaşımlar, Uygulamalar ve Sorunlar, Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara.
Fındıkçı, İlhami (1996), Bilgi Toplumunda Yöneticilerde Kendini Geliştirme, Kültür Koleji Eğitim Vakfı Yayınları, İstanbul.
Garvin, David A. (1993), “Building a Learning Organization”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.71, No.4, July-August 1993, ss.78-91.
KalDer- Öğrenen Organizasyonlar Uzmanlık Grubu (1997), Öğrenen Organizasyonlar, KalDer Yayını, No.16, İstanbul.
Kaynak, Tuğray (1995). Organizasyonel Davranış ve Yönlendirilmesi, 2.b., Alfa Basım Yayım Dağıtım, İstanbul.
Koçel, Tamer (2010), İşletme Yöneticiliği, Genişletilmiş 12.b., Beta Yayınevi, İstanbul.
Luthans, Fred (1992), Organizational Behavior, 6th ed., Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
Özalp, İnan, Celil Koparal ve Güneş Berberoğlu (2000). Yönetim ve Organizasyon, 3.b., Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, Eskişehir.
Öztürk, Mehmet (2003), Fonksiyonları Açısından İşletme ve Yönetimi, Papatya Yayınları, İstanbul.
Senge, Peter, M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York.
Senge, Peter M. (1996), Beşinci Disiplin, çev. Ayşegül İldeniz ve Ahmet Doğukan, 3.b., Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul.
Şimşek, M. Ş. ve Adnan Çelik (2016). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. 18.Baskı, Eğitim Kitabevi, Konya.
Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1947), Scientific Management, Harper and Row Publishers, New York.
Yazıcı, Selim (2001), Öğrenen Organizasyonlar, Alfa Basım Yayım, 2001.
