Recebido em 03/12/2018.  Aprovado em 03/04/2019. Avaliado pelo sistema double blind peer review. Publicado conforme normas da APA.

http://dx.doi.org/10.22279/navus.2019.v9n3.p112-123.875

Organizational
learning in public organizations: an integrative review

Denise
Cuffa

Doutoranda
em Engenharia e Gestão do Conhecimento. Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina (UFSC) – Brasil. [email-masked]

Andrea Valéria
Steil

Doutora
em Engenharia de Produção. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) –
Brasil. [email-masked]

ABSTRACT

This review analyzes the
results of empirical studies on organizational learning (OL) in public
organizations. We used
integrative review method to research two international databases. By applying inclusion
and exclusion criteria, twelve publications were selected for analysis. The
results indicated that OL in public organizations is a relatively recent topic
and little explored in empirical studies. Mostly consisting of qualitative
studies, they describe OL with a focus on organizational changes and identify
elements that inhibit (e.g., blame and caution) or facilitate (e.g., delegation
of power, positive managerial coaching, active communication) the
organizational learning process. In a smaller number, quantitative studies
investigate OL antecedents such as knowledge acquisition and transformation and
learning culture, and a consequent of OL, organizational performance. This
paper analyzes these results and suggests an agenda for organizational learning
in public sector organizations.

Keywords: organizational learning; empirical studies;
public sector organizations; integrative literature review.

Aprendizagem organizacional em organizações
públicas:

uma revisão integrativa

RESUMO

Esta revisão analisa os resultados de pesquisas empíricas sobre
aprendizagem organizacional (AO) em organizações públicas. Foi utilizado o
método de revisão integrativa para buscas em duas bases de dados
internacionais. Após a aplicação de critérios de inclusão e exclusão, doze
estudos foram selecionados para análise. Os resultados indicaram que AO em
organizações públicas consiste em um tema relativamente recente e pouco
explorado em estudos empíricos. Em sua maioria qualitativos, os estudos
descrevem a AO a partir do foco em mudanças organizacionais e identificam
elementos que inibem (culpa e cautela) ou facilitam (delegação de poder, coaching gerencial positivo, comunicação
ativa, por exemplo) o processo de aprendizagem organizacional. Em menor
quantidade, foram identificados estudos quantitativos, que investigam os
antecedentes à AO, como a aquisição e a transformação do conhecimento e a
cultura de aprendizagem; e um consequente à AO, o desempenho organizacional. O
artigo analisa estes resultados e apresenta uma agenda de pesquisas para o
construto.

Palavras: aprendizagem
organizacional; estudos empíricos; organizações do setor público; revisão
integrativa de literatura.

1 INTRODUCTION

Public sector
organizations have been pushed by society to learn, innovate and improve
continuously their services (Hartley, 2008; Hartley and Skelcher,
2008). In the context of public management, organizational learning (OL) is
described as a strategy for organizations to perform their activities
efficiently and effectively (Ferreira and Medeiros, 2011). For instance,
learning processes in public organizations enable organizational
self-correction as an adaptive mechanism to changes in their internal and
external environment (Common, 2004). In spite of the
expectations with the adoption of practices to induce organizational learning
in public organizations, this is a complex task (Mahler and Casamayou,
2009) due to the bureaucratic nature of the public organizations (Yeo, 2007; Bastiani et al., 2015). Public organizations are part of a
political environment and subject to high levels of scrutiny, accountability
and formal political control (Hartley and Skelcher,
2008).

Studies indicate that the academic production on organizational learning
in public context and public-sector learning process is still little expressive (Moynihan and Landuyt, 2009; Rashman et al., 2009; Jang, 2010; Easterby-Smith
and Lyles, 2011; Maden, 2012; Olejarski
et al., 2018). As pointed out by Jang (2010, p. 02), “despite the importance of
organizational learning and the numerous studies conducted in private sector
organizations during the past decades, (...) few empirical studies have been
undertaken in the public sector”.

A literature review
on OL (Lyles and Easterby-Smith, 2003) showed that
until the early 2000s, a small part (19%) of the publications on OL analyzed
the construct in public organizations. Reviews on OL in the public sector have
focused on the relationship of OL with other constructs, such as knowledge
management, both little explored in empirical research (Rashman
et al., 2009; Easterby-Smith and Lyles, 2011). In the
last 25 years, the interest on public organizations has increased (Rashman et al., 2009; Gilardi and
Radaelli, 2012; Maden,
2012). An example is a recent study (Santos et al., 2015) that mapped
scientific publications on OL and organizational memory and identified the need
for studies that address these two constructs in public organizations. To
contribute to the understanding of OL in public organizations from an approach
based on evidence, this paper seeks to answer the following question: which are
the results of empirical research on organizational learning in public
organizations? Based on this question, the aim of this paper is to analyze the
results of empirical studies on organizational learning in the public sector
published in scientific journals.

This paper seeks to
expand the understanding on what is known and what is not known on
organizational learning in public organizations from an empirical perspective.
The synthesis of empirical literature on this subject allows for the
identification of gaps and the proposition of a research agenda. In practical
terms, the access to accumulated empirical knowledge on OL in public
organizations may be useful to the management of this kind of organization on
federal, state and city levels (Antal et al., 2003).

2 ORGANIZATIONAL
LEARNING IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS

Organizational
learning is a research area concerned about how organizations learn and how
this can contribute to increasing their innovation and efficiency (Abel, 2015).
In the context of public
organizations, organizational learning is the creation and application of new
knowledge to the political and innovation processes when implementing public
policies (Common, 2004). This process permeates the knowledge society through
the identification, generation, sharing, and interpretation of available
knowledge (Rodríguez, 2005; Jensen, 2005; Santos, 2014) as well as through the
coordination and preservation of knowledge that people already have (Jensen,
2005).

One consolidated
perspective on organizational learning defines it as a process of change
(cognitive and behavioral), which begins with individual learning, the
interpretation and integration of this learning in the group level, and the
institutionalization of such learning at the organizational level (Crossan et al., 2011). The result of this process is new
organizational knowledge and routines, which influence new learning processes
(Vera and Crossan, 2005). Organizational learning is
thus a dynamic process through which individuals transfer their new ideas and
actions to the group and the organization and, at the same time, what has
already been learned by the organization influences groups and individuals (Crossan et al., 1999; Bapuji and Crossan, 2004; Crossan et al.,
2011; Meral et al., 2014). “Organizational learning
is an emergent property that depends not only on individual learning, but also on the
pattern of interactions among the learning of all individual” (Avnet, 2015, p.
594). As pointed
out by Picoli and Takahashi (2016), organizational
learning occurs when, through its processes, new knowledge is incorporated into
the organizational level.

The definition of OL as a
process is aligned with a descriptive approach in as much as research on OL
processes have “the objective of describing and understanding processes and
behaviors” (Angeloni and Steil,
2011, p. 125), based on scientific rigor. Research on OL ratifies group
learning as a mediator of the relationship between individual and
organizational learning (Edmondson et al., 2007), and OL as a basic process for
the generation of organizational knowledge (Magalhães,
1998; Rashman et al., 2009; Moreno-Luzon and Lloria, 2008).

Public organizations play a crucial role in the country’s
competitiveness because they provide the necessary conditions and
infrastructure that private companies need to be effective in national,
regional and local levels (Hartley and Skelcher,
2008). Organizational learning is one of the most important ways that a public
organization has to increase the creation and use of
its knowledge (Whee et al., 2012). The study by Olejarski
et al. (2018, p. 04) identified that organizational learning in public
organizations can result from “culture, public-sector politics, and public
performance holistically, as a process, within the context of the
organization”. Kasemsap (2017,
p. 51) found that “organizational learning enables more effective responses to
the dynamic environments”. This study also identified that organizational
learning contributes positively to the increased information sharing and
communication. Other studies found a positive relationship between
organizational learning and innovation capacity (Salim and Sulaiman,
2011) and intellectual capital (Naghi et al., 2010). Thus, learning within and between public
organizations has been considered a key element for the improvement of public
services (Rashman et al., 2009; Jang, 2010; Kasemsap, 2017). From this perspective, this paper
emphasizes the learning process at the organizational level.

3 METHOD

This is an
integrative review that seeks to “review, critique and synthesize
representative literature” (Torraco, 2005, p. 356) on
organizational learning in the public sector. We used the stages proposed by
Cooper (1982) to carry out an integrative review: (i)
problem formulation; (ii) data collection; (iii) data evaluation; (iv) analysis
and interpretation; and (v) public presentation stage.

3.1 Data collection

We searched for
papers on Scientific
Electronic Library Online (Scielo), Scopus and
on all databases indexed on ISI-Web of knowledge (Web of ScienceTM Core Collection; Derwent
Innovations IndexSM; Korean databases of Korean
periodicals - KCI); Russian Science Citation Index; Scielo
Citation Index). These
databases are representative of the scientific community and index important,
multi-disciplinary, national and international scientific publications (Woszezenki et al., 2012).

The search words
were “organi?ational
learning”, “public organi?ation”, “public
administration”, “public sector”, “public agency”, “public management”, in the
search box[1] of each
database. We conducted the searches in pairs: “organi?ational
learning” AND “public organi?ation”; “organi?ational learning” AND “public
administration”; “organi?ational learning” AND “public sector”; “organi?ational learning” AND “public agency”; and “organi?ational learning” AND “public management”. We used
the “?” character for retrieving variations in the searched words. The search
period corresponded to the available years on the databases, until December 31,
2017. This systematic search resulted in 451 papers (Table 01).

Keywords

ISI - Web of Science

Scopus

Scielo

“organizational learning” AND “public organization”

15

43

17

“organizational learning”
AND “public administration”

35

38

07

“organizational learning” AND “public sector”

83

108

10

“organizational learning”
AND “public agency”

02

17

02

“organizational learning” AND "public management”

21

25

28

Total
of publications

156

231

64

Table 01. Keywords used to search on databases and
the respective number of papers retrieved

Search:
Authors (2018)

We imported all
papers into references management software, which automatically identified 232
duplicated papers, which were excluded. We then applied inclusion and exclusion
critera to the 219 remaining papers.

3.2 Data evaluation

The application of the criteria (of inclusion and exclusion)
occurred from the reading of the title and abstract of papers. When necessary,
the paper was read in full.

Of the 219 articles, 207 were excluded on the basis
of the following exclusion criteria:
a) papers examining organizational learning from a prescriptive approach, which
excluded 26 articles;
b) gray literature such as books
chapters and technical reports, theoretical papers, and empirical papers on
organizational learning in broader public contexts (e.g., schools,
municipalities), which excluded 181 articles. This second exclusion criterion was used
because the activities in these contexts are different from those of the
mainstream public organizations. The remaining twelve papers
met the inclusion criteria, which
were empirical research on organizational learning in public sector
organizations.

3.3 Procedure for
analysis of papers

We selected the
following information from each paper: name of the author(s), year of
publication, title, journal, study goal, keywords, definition of OL, participants
or sample, dependent and independent variables, method of data collection,
analysis, and results.

4 RESULTS

The twelve papers of
this review were published in 11 journals, written by 28 authors affiliated to
18 institutions, located in 12 countries. We highlight that four researchers
have links with two institutions located in different countries.

The journals with
the largest number of empirical papers were The
Learning Organization and International
Journal of Public Administration, both with two publications on this topic
(Table 02).

Journals

Number of articles

Environmental
Management

1

International Journal of Public Administration

2

International Journal of Public Sector
Performance Management

1

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management

1

Journal of Quality

1

Journal of Strategic Information Systems

1

Management
Learning

1

Public Administration Review

1

Revista
de Administração Pública

1

The
Learning Organization

2

Table 02. Journals and the respective number
of published papers

Search:
Authors (2018)

The countries with
more empirical publications on the topic were Netherlands, Brazil and Sweden,
both with two publications (Table 03).

Country

Number of institutions

Number of papers

UK

1

1

Thailand

1

1

Israel

3

1

Netherlands

2

2

Brazil

2

2

Sweden

2

2

Singapore

1

1

Canada

1

1

Taiwan

1

1

Finland

1

1

Belgium

1

1

Table 03. Country, the respective number of
institutions and published papers

Search:
Authors (2018)

These papers were
published from 1999 to 2017 (Figure 01). In 1999, only one paper was published.
The years with the largest number of empirical papers were 2011, 2012 and 2015.

Figure
01. Empirical publications on
organizational learning in public organizations

Search:
Authors (2018)

With respect to
papers published recently (2015 and
2017), in 2015 three papers were published, and in 2016 and in 2017 we
identified only one article per year, showing that there is still a small
number of empirical papers on the subject. In the following section we
synthesize the papers on organizational learning in the public sector.

Description of the empirical papers

The studies were
cross-sectional. Ten of the twelve papers are qualitative with
predominance in health and education setting. We describe each study below,
highlighting its objectives, research context, and results.

Vince and Saleem
(2004) conducted a study with nine managers of a UK public organization to
examine the perceived relationship between emotion, learning and organizing.
According to the managers, the dynamics resulting from repeated patterns of
blame and caution interfere in communication and reflection processes in the
organization. This also affects negatively the implementation of organizational
learning strategies.

Yeo (2007)
investigated OL and its impacts on public organizations from various sectors
(health, education and manufacturing) in Singapore. The study found that
commitment of managers was a catalyst of OL. Yeo (2007) also found that
facilitators of OL (open communication, reward and compensation) are related to
workers’ well-being. According to the author, the investigated public
organizations showed more concern with the cognitive and behavioral development
of their employees than with financial results.

Based on the
analysis of a change process resulted from the implementation of an information
system (IS) in Singapore’s national library, Phang et
al. (2008) developed a study to understand the perceived relationships between
the organizational elements (learning, culture, memory and organizational
policies) and OL success. According to the top managers, institutional
environment interfered in internal processes in the organization that, in turn
interfered in the OL process. According to the managers, such relationship
resulted from the improved efficiency of the organization as
a whole in the development and evaluation of their human resources via
IS.

Lundberg (2011)
analyzed the environmental evaluation process of a Swedish public institution
to understand how follow-up can be used as an organizational learning tool.
Results revealed that by monitoring actual and unforeseen impacts on the
environment and by using such information for OL, the actions and procedures of
the studied organization can be strategically and continuously improved.

Based on the
analysis of debriefing documents produced in a public medical center in Israel,
Holzmann et al. (2012) found a link between
experience and management of future occurrences. Results showed that poor
communication, documentation and information exchange between managers and the
stakeholders accounted for most of the undesired occurrences and for the
inefficiency of the OL processes in the investigated organization.

The study conducted
by Yip-So (2012) analyzed learning roles based on a comparative study with
different public organizations in Taiwan. In-depth interviews were conducted
with 24 top managers of the studied organizations. As a result, two kinds of
learning were identified: political learning and instrumental learning. The
first type was described as a process limited to the central decision-making
body and is related to the identification of indicators and goals, and
formulation of policies. Example of this process includes the supply of
customized services in response to community demands. The second type of
learning was described as a single loop learning process of improvement of
routines to achieve organizational goals.

Bertolin et al. (2013) developed a study to
understand OL in the public service based on social elements involved in
working practices (e.g., integration, informality, autonomy, flexibility,
participation, reflexivity, and sharing of practices and experiences). Through
observation and interviews with sectoral managers of a Brazilian public health
organization, the authors found that learning is still quite distant from the
management practices due to the predominance of bureaucratic and centralized
practices. The authors concluded that these elements inhibit streamlined
management, the organization of daily activities, and learning in the public
sector.

Santos and Steil (2015) developed a study on OL processes during the
adoption and use of an information system (IS) in a Brazilian public
university. Documents were analyzed and 22 individuals were interviewed,
including the president, vice-president, professors and civil servants of the
university. The study demonstrated that social and cognitive processes of
individual and group learning were associated with specific modes of power, especially
discipline, influence, force, and domination. In addition, only when a specific
configuration of these power modes occurred, adoption and use of an information
system were possible in the university.

By analyzing a
change caused by the implementation of a budget cutting policy in a Finnish
public hospital, Mutiganda (2016) identified
facilitators of learning and change. These are power delegation, positive
managerial coaching, active communication between managers, freedom for
managers to set priorities in the redesign process, specification of budgetary
responsibilities of each manager, and use of a schedule to monitor clinic
performance. The institutionalization of said change was achieved using the
managers’ power and the managerial diagnosis systems used to monitor the
implementation of the management goals.

In a recent study, Broekema et al. (2017) identified the factors that
interfered in the OL process based on four veterinary crises (classical swine
fever, food-and-mouth disease, avian influenza, and Q fever) in a public
organization in the Netherlands. In-depth interviews were conducted with key
experts in the organization and documents were analyzed. Considering the
analyzed crises, the results showed that OL consisted of a complex process
involving factors related to the political-economic context, socio-emotional
understanding, organizational culture, organizational structure, crisis
management, and organizational loss of memory.

Finally, two
papers are quantitative studies, which analyzed the relation between
certain variables and OL in the public sector. Barette
et al. (2012) identified OL facilitators in a research conducted with 2,081
executives from Canadian public organizations. The instrument used had 29 items
(Cronbach’s alpha: 0.96), with scale ranging from 0 – very difficult for a
manager to evaluate or observe; 1 – sometimes possible for a manager to
evaluate or observe; and 2 – easy for a manager to evaluate or observe. Five
facilitators related to the process (knowledge acquisition and transformation)
and to the environment (learning leadership, support to OL, learning culture,
and strategic management) were identified. Of the five OL facilitators,
knowledge acquisition and transformation was the main predictor of individual
learning and organizational performance. Learning leadership and
support to organizational learning also predicted individual learning, but to a lesser degree of association. Support to OL also predicted
group learning as well as learning culture.

Tang and Yeh (2015) examined the relationship of
organizational culture, leadership style and OL in organizational innovation.
The study was conducted with 398 employees of Taiwan public organizations. The
instrument used is composed of 75 items, with a measuring scale ranging from 1
(disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly), duly validated (Cronbach’s alpha:
0.726 ~ 0.929). The results showed that organizational culture and
organizational learning, mediated by organizational innovation, improved organizational
performance.

5 DISCUSSION

The aim of
this review is to understand what is known about organizational learning in
public organizations, based on the analysis of empirical papers on this
construct, and identify areas of future studies. From the analysis of the twelve
papers, some general considerations about the studies on Organizational
Learning developed until 2017 can be established.

The empirical
studies developed so far are descriptive and mostly qualitative. The majority of studies on OL was carried out in Europe
(six) and Asia (four). Antonello and Gody (2009)
identified that only 25% (23) of the Brazilian organizational learning studies
were conducted in public organizations. These results demonstrate that such
delimitation of territories for existing studies can restrain the expansion of
knowledge and the conduction of comparative studies on the topic of interest (Antonello and
Godoy, 2009).

The analyzed
studies define organizational learning as a dynamic and multi-level process
involving the understanding of experiences and the generation of new knowledge.
It is a process (Holzmann et al., 2012) that facilitates the “evolution of organizational knowledge and
practices” (Barette et al., 2012, p. 138) and helps the adaptation to changes
in the public organizational setting (Crossan et al.,
1999). As a process,
organizational learning is incorporated into the culture and routines of an
organization (Voronov and Yorks, 2005). Some studies
identified OL facilitators or inhibitors in public organizations
but they are still poorly understood (Antonello and Godoy, 2009, 2010).

As
regards the processes and models of organizational learning, some studies used the 4Is model proposed by Crossan
et al. (1999) and the framework of Lawrence et al. (2005) to analyze the OL
process in public organizations. We also identified the prevalence of single
loop learning proposed by Argyris and Schon (1978). Finally, we point out that
some studies have investigated factors that foster or inhibit OL in public
organizations.

Bureaucracy
and centralized management are the main characteristics found in the studies.
The results of the studies show prevalence of single loop learning (Argyris and
Schon, 1978) in public organizations. Often, the public sector is considered
resistant to double loop learning due to the influence of its bureaucracy and
strong departmental cultures. Double loop learning questions why things are done
(Common, 2004), and is present in more complex and nonprogrammable activities (Bennet
and Bennet, 2006). On the other hand, single loop learning is more visible in
the public sector, since it consists of a process that simply questions how the
same things can be done in a better way (Common, 2004). Public organizations are subject to
high levels of supervision, accountability and formal political control
(Hartley and Skelcher, 2008). The single loop
learning is considered suitable to this kind of context due to recurrent
problems and programmable routines that exist in this environment (Bennet
and Bennet, 2006).

Some studies (Mutiganda, 2016; Santos
and Steil, 2015) used the 4Is model (Crossan et al., 1999) and the framework of Lawrence et al.
(2005) to analyze the OL process in public organizations. These studies
identified a link between political aspects, different forms of power and OL.
The forms of power can enable or block up the access to learning practices and
provide facilitating means for OL (Contu and Wilmott,
2003). Researchers (Easterby-Smith, 1997; Contu and Willmott, 2003; Ferdinand, 2004) encourage future
studies on the power relations that permeate AO processes. Domination and
force, for instance, can facilitate or hinder the processes of participation of
stakeholders, development of competencies and formulation of strategies
(Voronov and Yorks, 2005). Literature underlines the
role the 4Is to identify barriers to the organizational learning process either
by theoretical or practical questions (Schilling
and Kluge, 2009). In the literature review that Rashman
et al. (2009) carried out on OL and knowledge in public organizations, they identified that
“organizational learning is an inherently political process, and both formal
and informal politics can support and/or undermine learning efforts” (Rashman et al., 2009, p. 485). Although still little
explored in studies on OL, power dynamics are considered important elements to
understand OL and knowledge in public organizations (Rashman et al., 2009). On the one hand, power dynamics
based on formal authority can foster the learning processes in public
organizations because they provide stability and continuity (Lawrence et al.,
2005). On the other hand, there may be resistance from members of the organization
to strive for the organization to learn, because they understand that OL is not
in line with their professions (Greiling and Halachmi, 2013). To advance in the understanding of this
relationship, researchers encourage further studies to investigate the dynamics
of power involved in OL processes (Contu and Willmott,
2003; Ferdinand, 2004; Rashman et al., 2009).

Empirical
evidences found a relationship between OL and organizational performance in the
public sector. Barette et al. (2012) identified OL
facilitators for environmental situations and processes that influence OL.
These facilitators predict individual and group learning. Knowledge acquisition
and transformation was the OL facilitator that showed a positive relationship
with organizational performance (Barette et al.,
2012). Empirical evidences (Cavaleri et al., 2007; Monavvarian and Kasaei, 2007;
Fugate et al., 2009; Olejnicczak, 2014) have shown
that “OL improves the performance of an organization both in its strategic and
operational activities” (Olejniczak, 2014, p. 15). By
means of learning, “the organizations can enhance and strengthen their
knowledge and skills” (You et al., 2017, p. 312).
The study of Barette et al. (2012) is relevant because it links OL with
the performance of public organizations. The relationship between these
constructs has a research tradition in private organizations with outcomes that
are not always convergent (Bontis et al., 2002;
Santos-Vijande et al., 2005; Panayides,
2007; Dimovski et al., 2008). Advances in
understanding this relationship in the context of public organizations are
considered complex due to the challenges of measuring a process construct in
organizations whose structure and processes are strongly influenced by
political and economic factors.

Other
environmental-related OL constructs are predicted by factors that foster or
inhibit OL and personal development in the workplace. A learning-driven
organizational culture recognizes the need for individuals to be motivated to
create, share and explore knowledge in their organization (Dixon, 1994). These
processes are associated with the idea of continuous improvement by
identifying, implementing and institutionalizing ongoing improvements in the
organization (Swart and Kinnie,
2010). This is particularly helpful in public organizations because they have
been pressured to learn and improve continuously its processes and services (Hartley, 2008)
to increase their value for society (Hartley and Skelcher,
2008; Olejniczak, 2014).

6 FINAL
CONSIDERATIONS

Learning has become
an important concept to understand how organizations evolve over time and adapt
to changes that occur in their internal and external environments. This review
synthesized the results of empirical studies published until 2017 on OL in public
organizations. The evidences show that this topic is still poorly explored.
Most of the studies have a qualitative design and seek to identify OL
facilitators and inhibitors in public organizations.

Public organizations
seek to improve their processes and services and, in doing so, they create
value for society; therefore, by identifying and knowing the OL elements
(facilitators and inhibitors) public organizations can achieve this goal. The
results show that little is known about OL in public organizations. Since the
studies were mostly qualitative and descriptive, it is not possible to
generalize most of the results to public organizations in a specific region.
Due to this aspect, future research studies can investigate the same constructs
in different regions and countries. As a result, it is possible to build a base
of knowledge capable of identifying common elements in this specific type of
organization.

Another possibility
for future studies consists of identifying the OL antecedents and consequences
in the public sector, based on the degree of association of the elements
identified in the qualitative studies examined in this literature review (Jang,
2010). It is also suggested to conduct studies with larger samples of
organizations, so that the results found can be generalized, and OL in the
public context in a larger number and more diversified public organizations can
be understood more comprehensively.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was
financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) -
Finance Code 001.

REFERENCES

Abel, M. H. (2015). Knowledge map-based web platform to facilitate
organizational learning return of experiences. Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 51, pp. 960–966. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.012

Angeloni, M. T. and Steil, A. V. (2011). Alinhamento de
estratégias, aprendizagem e conhecimento organizacional. In Tarapanoff,
K. Aprendizado organizacional:
fundamentos e abordagens multidisciplinares. Curitiba: IBPEX.

Antal, A., Dierkes, M., Child,
J. and Nonaka, I. (2003). Organizational
learning and knowledge: reflections on the dynamics of the field and challenges
for the future. In Dierkes, M., Antal,
A., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Org.). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Antonello, C. S. and Godoy, A. S. (2009). Uma agenda brasileira para os
estudos em Aprendizagem organizacional. Revista
de Administração de Empresas (RAE), Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 266-281.

Antonello, C. S. and Godoy, A. S. (2010). A Encruzilhada
da Aprendizagem Organizacional: uma Visão Multiparadigmática. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, Vol.
14, No. 2, pp. 310-332.

Avnet, M. S. (2015). A
network-based approach to organizational culture and learning in system safety.
Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 44, pp. 588–598.
doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.061

Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational
Learning. A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading - Addison Wesley.

Bapuji, H. and Crossan, M.
(2004). From questions to answers: reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.
397–417.

Barette, J., Lemyre,
L., Corneil, W. and Beauregard, N. (2012). Organizational
Learning Facilitators in the Canadian Public Sector. International Journal
of Public Administration, Vol. 35, pp.
137–149.

Bastiani, S. N. A. C., Dias, T., Sehnem, S. and Puffal, D. (2015).
Limites e possibilidades da inovação como estratégia
em organizações públicas. Contextus - Revista
Contemporânea de Economia e Gestão, Vol. 13, No. 3.

Bennet,
A. and Bennet, D. (2006). The
learning organization: Learning as associative patterning”, The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems. Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 371–376.

Bertolin, R. V., Zwick, E. and
Brito, M. J. (2013). Aprendizagem organizacional socioprática
no serviço público: um estudo de caso interpretativo. Revista de Administração Pública, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 493–513.

Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M. and Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by
aligning stocks and flows. Journal of
Management Studies, 39, No. 4,
pp. 437–469.

Broekema, W., van Kleef, D. and
Steen, T. (2017). What factors drive organizational learning from crisis?
Insights from the Dutch food safety services’ response to four veterinary
crises. Journal of Contingencies and
Crisis Management, Vol. 25, No. 4.

Cavaleri, S. A., Seivert, S. and
Lee, L. W. (2007). Knowledge leadership: The art and science of the
knowledge-based organization. Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 5, pp. 154-156.

Common, R. (2004). Organisational learning in a political environment:
Improving policy-making in UK government. Policy
Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1,
pp. 36–49.

Contu, A. and Willmott, H.
(2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in
learning theory. Organization Science,
Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 283–296.

Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific
guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 291–302.

Crossan, M., Lane, H. W. and
White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to
institution. The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 522–537.

Crossan, M., Maurer, C. C. and
White, R. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade award: do we have a theory
of organizational learning?. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 446–460.

Dimovski, V., Škerlavaj, M., Kimman, M. and Hernaus, T. (2008). Comparative
analysis of the organizational learning process in Slovenia, Croatia, and
Malaysia. Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.
3063–3070.

Dixon, N. M. (1994). The Organizational Learning Cycle: How We can
Learn Collectively. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines
of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Human Relations,
Vol. 50, No. 9, pp. 1085–113.

Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.
(2011). The evolving field of organizational learning and knowledge management.
In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. (Ed.), Handbook
of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Chippenham:
Wiley.

Edmondson, A. C., Dillon,
J. R. and Roloff, K. S. (2007). Three perspectives on
team learning. The Academy of Management
Annals, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 269–314.

Ferdinand, J. (2004). Power,
politics and state intervention in organizational learning. Management
Learning, Vol. 35, No. 4,
pp.435-451.

Ferreira, S. A. and
Medeiros, A. L. (2012). Será uma comunidade de prática? Um estudo de caso
sobre o processo de aprendizagem da diretoria de tecnologia da informação de
uma Universidade Federal da região norte do Brasil. Administração Pública e Gestão Social (APGS), Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.
279–299.

Fugate, B. S., Stank, T. P. and Mentzer, J. T. (2009). Linking improved knowledge management to operational
and organizational performance. Journal of Operations Management, Vol.
27, No. 3, pp. 247-264.

Gilardi, F. and Radaelli, C. M. (2012). Governance and learning. In Levi-Faur, D. (ed.), Handbook
of Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 155–168.

Greiling, D. and Halachmi, A. (2013). Accountability and Organizational
Learning in the Public Sector. Public
Performance and Management Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 380-406.

Hartley, J. (2008). The innovation landscape for public service organizations.
In Hartley, J., Skelcher, C., Donaldson, C. and
Wallace, M. (Eds.). Managing to Improve Public Services. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hartley, J. C. and Skelcher, C. (2008). The agenda for public service
improvement. In Hartley, J., Skelcher, C., Donaldson, C. and
Wallace, M. (Eds.). Managing to improve public
service, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Holzmann, V., Mischari, S., Goldberg, S. and Ziv,
A. (2012). New tools for learning: a case of organizational problem analysis
derived from debriefing records in a medical Center. The Learning Organization, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 148–162.

Jang, H. (2010). Examining
Organization Learning in Public Sector Organizations: From the Perspective of
Florida Municipal Governments. Dissertation (Doctor of Philosophy), The Florida
State University, College of Social Sciences and Public Policy.

Jensen, P. E. (2005). A
contextual theory of learning and the learning organization. Knowledge and
Process Management, Vol. 12, No.
1, pp. 53–64.

Kasemsap, K. (2017). Organizational
Learning: Advanced Issues and Trends. In IGI Global, Organizational Learning, pp. 42 – 66, Copyright, IGI Global. doi: DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1642-2.ch003

Lawrence, T. B., Mauws, M. K., Dyck, B. and Kleysen,
R. F. (2005). The politics of organizational learning: Integrating power into
the 4I framework. Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 180-191.

Loiola, E. and Bastos, A. V. B.
(2003). A Produção Acadêmica sobre Aprendizagem Organizacional
no Brasil. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 181-201.

Lundberg, K. (2011). A
System Thinking Approach to Environmental Follow-Up in a Swedish Central Public
Authority: Hindrances and Possibilities for Learning from Experience. Environmental Management, Vol. 48, pp.
23–133.

Lyles, M. and Easterby-Smith,
M. (2003). Organizational learning and knowledge management: agendas for future
research. In Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. A.
(Org.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Maden, C. (2012). Transforming
public organizations into learning organizations: a conceptual model. Public Organization Review, Vol. 12, No.
1, pp. 71–84.

Magalhães, R. (1998). Organizational
Knowledge and Learning. In Von Krogh, G., Roos,
J. and Kleine, D. (Eds.). Knowing Firms -
Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge. London: Sage Publications.

Mahler, J. G. and Casamayou, M. H. (2009). Organizational Learning at NASA:
The Challenger and Columbia Accidents. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.

Merad, M., Dechy, N. and Marcel, F. (2014). A pragmatic way of
achieving highly sustainable organisation: Governance
and organisational learning in action in the public
French sector. Safety Science, Vol. 69,pp. 18–28.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.01.002

Monavvarian, A. and Kasaei, M. (2007). A KM model for public administration:
The case of Labour Ministry. The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 348-367.

Moreno-Luzon, M. D. and Lloria, M. B. (2008). The
role of non-structural and informal mechanisms of integration and coordination
as forces in knowledge creation. British Journal of Management, Vol. 19,
No. 3, pp. 250–276. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00544.x

Moynihan, D. P. and
Landuyt, N. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and
structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, Vol. 69, No. 6,
pp. 1097-1105.

Mutiganda, J. C. (2016). Financial management of public
services in a hybrid organisation: a learning
approach in inter-organisational settings. International Journal of Public Sector
Performance Management, Vol. 2, No. 4.

Naghi, A. A., Gholamrez, J., Mehdi, A. S., Reza, H.
and Majid, R. (2010). Increasing the intellectual capital in organization:
Examining the role of organizational learning. European Journal of Social
Sciences, Vol. 14, No. 1/2, pp. 98–112.

Olejarski, A. M. O., Potter, M. and Morrison, R. L. (2018). Organizational
Learning in the Public Sector: Culture, Politics, and Performance”, Public Integrity, pp. 1-17. doi: 10.1080/10999922.2018.1445411

Olejniczak, K. (2014). Why learning matters. In Olejniczak, K. and Mazur, S. (Eds.). Organizational learning: A Framework for Public Administration.
Warsaw: Scholar Publishing House.

Panayides, P. M. (2007). The impact of organizational
learning on relationship orientation, logistics service effectiveness and
performance. Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 68–80.

Picoli, F. R. and Takahashi, A.
(2016). Capacidade de Absorção, Aprendizagem Organizacional
e Mecanismos de Integração Social. Revista de Administração Contemporânea,
pp. 01–20.

Phang, C. W., Kankanhalli, A. and Ang, C.
(2008). Investigating organizational
learning in eGovernment projects: A multi-theoretic approach. Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
Vol. 17, pp. 99–112.

Rashman, L., Withers, E. and
Hartley, J. (2009). Organizational learning and knowledge in public service
organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal
of Management Reviews, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp. 463–494.

Rodríguez, O. (2005). Guías de apoyo a localidad de la gestión pública
local, Guía 3, La gestión del conocimiento al servicio de la mejora continua de
las administraciones locales. Madrid: Ministerio de Administraciones
Públicas.

Salim, I. and Sulaiman, M. (2011). Organizational
learning, innovation and performance: A study of Malaysian small and medium
sized enterprises. International Journal of Business and Management,
Vol. 6, No. 12, pp. 118–126. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n12p118

Santos, N. (2014). Organizational learning and Web 2.0 technologies:
Improving the planning and organization of a software development process. In Cruz-Cunha, M., Moreira, F. and
Varajao, J. (Eds.). Handbook
of research on enterprise 2.0: Technological, social, and organizational
dimensions, pp. 512–528, Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4373-4.ch027

Santos, J. L. S. and Steil, A. V. (2015). Organizational learning and power
dynamics: a study in a Brazilian University. The Learning Organization, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 115–130.

Santos, J. L. S., Martins, P.
P. and Steil, A. V. (2015). Aprendizaje y Memoria
Organizacional. ¿Cuáles el perfil de la producción científica internacional y
qué se ha investigado en las organizaciones públicas?.
Documentos
y Aportes en Administración Pública y Gestión Estatal- DAAPGE, Vol. 25, pp. 7–30.

Santos-Vijande,
M. L., Sanzo-Pérez; M. J.,
Álvarez-González, L. I. and Vázquez-Casielles, R. (2005). Organizational learning and marketing orientation:
interface and effects on performance. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.
34, pp. 87–202.

Schilling,
J. and Kluge, A. (2009). Barriers to organizational learning: An integration of
theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 337–360.

Swart, J. and Kinnie, N. (2010). Organizational learning, knowledge
assets and HR practices in professional service firms. Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 64–79.

Tang, L. and Yeh, Y.
(2015). Effect of Organizational Culture, Leadership Style, and Organizational
Learning on Organizational Innovation in the Public Sector. Journal of Quality, Vol. 22, No. 5.

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing
Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples. Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 356–367.

Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2005). Organizational learning and knowledge
management: toward an integrative framework. In Easterby-Smith,
M. and Lyles, M. A. (Eds.). Handbook of
organizational learning and knowledge management, Madden: Wiley-Backwell.

Vince, R. and Saleem, T.
(2004). The Impact of Caution and Blame
on Organizational Learning. Management
Learning, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 133–154.

Voronov, M. and Yorks, L. (2005). Taking power seriously in strategic
organizational learning. The Learning
Organization, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 9–25.

Whee, T. T. G., Ngah, R. and
Seng, Y. C. (2012). The Relationship of Knowledge Management Capabilities,
Learning Organization and Organizational Performance in Public Sector of Dubai
Government. Knowledge Management International
Conference (KMICe), Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

Woszezenki, C. R., Besen, F., Santos, J. L. and Steil, A. V.
(2012). Mapeamento das Publicações Acadêmico-Científicas
sobre Desaprendizagem Organizacional”, 23º Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na
Educação - SBIE, Rio de Janeiro.

Yeo, R. K. (2007). Organizational
learning in representative Singapore public organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20, No. 5,
pp. 345–365.

Yip-So, B. W. (2012). Learning as a Key to Citizen-centred
Performance Improvement: A Comparison between the Health Service Centre and the
Household Registration Office in Taipei City. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 71, No. 2,
pp. 201–210.

You,
J., Kim, J. and Lim, D. H. (2017). Organizational Learning and Change:
Strategic Interventions to Deal with Resistance. Handbook of Research on Human Resources Strategies for the New
Millennial Workforce, Copyright - IGI Global, pp. 310 -328.

[1]ISI - Web of
Knowledge (Search field: topic - title, abstract, keyword)

Scopus (Search
field: article, title, abstract, keyword)

Scielo (Search field: all indexes)