Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração52(2017)163–175
Technology
Management
Organizational
learning
capability,
innovation
and
performance:
study
in
small
and
medium-sized
enterprises
(SMES)
Capacidade
de
aprendizagem
organizacional,
inova¸cão
e
desempenho:
estudo
em
pequenas
e
médias
empresas
(PMEs)
Capacidad
de
aprendizaje
organizacional,
innovación
y
desempe˜no:
estudio
en
peque˜nas
y
medianas
empresas
(PYMES)
Giancarlo
Gomes
∗,
Rafaele
Matte
Wojahn
UniversidadeRegionaldeBlumenau,Blumenau,SC,Brazil
Received24November2015;accepted25August2016 Availableonline29December2016 ScientificEditor:MariaSylviaMacchioneSaes
Abstract
Althoughtherelationbetweentheorganizationallearningcapability,organizationalinnovationandperformancehasoftenbeenstudied,there islittleempiricalevidenceto supportthis perspectiveinsmall andmedium-sized enterprises.Thisstudy aimsatanalyzing theinfluence of organizationallearningcapabilityininnovativeperformanceandorganizationalperformanceofsmallandmedium-sizedenterprises.Theresearch wasconductedunderthequantitativeapproach,descriptiveandcausal,andcross-sectionalsurvey.Thesamplewascomposedof92enterprises inthetextileindustry.ThedatawereanalyzedthroughthetechniqueofStructuralEquationModeling.Theresultsshowthattheorganizational learningcapabilityinfluencestheinnovativeperformanceofsmallandmedium-sizedenterprises,however,theinfluenceofthelearningcapability inorganizationalperformancewasnotsignificant.Thestudyprovidesevidencefortheserelationsandshowsthattheyaresignificantandpositive inthecontextofsmallandmedium-sizedtextileenterprises,contextinwhichtheempiricalliteratureisparticularlyscarce.Forfutureresearchitis suggestedtoevaluatecontingencyfactorsforinnovativeandorganizationalperformance.Otherstudiescouldanalyzethedifferencesininnovation betweenmanufacturingandservicesector.
CrownCopyright©2016PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.onbehalfofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia, Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords:Organizationallearningcapability;Innovation;Organizationalperformance
Resumo
Emboraasrelac¸õesentreacapacidadeaprendizagemorganizacional,inovac¸ãoedesempenhoorganizacionaltêmsidofrequentementeestudadas,há poucaevidênciaempíricaparaapoiaressaperspectivaempequenasemédiasempresas.Nesteestudo,objetiva-seanalisarainfluênciadacapacidade deaprendizagemorganizacionalnodesempenhoinovadorenodesempenhoorganizacionaldepequenasemédiasempresas(PMEs).Apesquisa foiconduzidasobaabordagemquantitativa,descritivaecausal,surveyedecortetransversal.Aamostrafoicompostapor92empresasdaindústria têxtil.OsdadosforamanalisadospormeiodatécnicadeModelagemdeEquac¸õesEstruturais(MEE).Osresultadosencontradosmostramque
∗Correspondingauthorat:PPGCC,salaD-202,CampusI,CEP89012-580,Blumenau,SC,Brazil.
E-mails:giancarlo@pzo.com.br(G.Gomes),rafaelewojahn@gmail.com(R.M.Wojahn).
PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo –FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.003
capacidadedeaprendizagemorganizacionalinfluenciaodesempenhoinovadordasPMEs,contudo,ainfluênciadacapacidadedeaprendizagem nodesempenhoorganizacionalnãofoisignificativa.Apesquisaforneceevidênciaparaessasrelac¸õesemostraquesãosignificativasepositivasno contextodepequenasemédiasempresastêxteis,contextoemquealiteraturaempíricaéespecialmenteescassa.Parapesquisasfuturassugere-se avaliarfatoresdecontingênciaparaainovac¸ãoeodesempenhoorganizacional.Outrosestudospoderiamanalisarasdiferenc¸asdeinovac¸ãoentre aindústriatransformac¸ãoeosetordeservic¸os.
CrownCopyright©2016PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.emnomedeDepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia, Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave: Capacidadedeaprendizagemorganizacional;Inovac¸ão;Desempenhoorganizacional
Resumen
Aunqueamenudosehayanestudiadolasrelacionesentrelacapacidaddeaprendizajeorganizacional,lainnovaciónyeldesempe˜noenlosnegocios, haypocaevidenciaempíricaparaapoyarestepuntodevistaenpeque˜nasymedianasempresas.Enesteestudiosetienecomoobjetivoanalizar lainfluenciadelacapacidaddeaprendizajeorganizacionaleneldesempe˜noinnovadoryeldesempe˜noorganizacionaldepeque˜nasymedianas empresas(PYMES).Sehautilizadounenfoquecuantitativo,descriptivoycausal,surveyydecortetransversal.Lamuestrasecomponede92 empresasdelaindustriatextil.Enelanálisisdelosdatossehautilizadolatécnicademodelosdeecuacionesestructurales(MEE).Losresultados muestranquelacapacidaddeaprendizajeorganizacionalinfluyeeneldesempe˜noinnovadordelasPYMES,sinembargo,lainfluenciadela capacidaddeaprendizajeeneldesempe˜noorganizacionalnoessignificativa.Elestudioaportaevidenciadeestasrelacionesymuestraqueson significativasypositivasenelcontextodelaspeque˜nasymedianasempresastextiles,aspectoenquelaliteraturaempíricaesparticularmente escasa.Parafuturasinvestigaciones,sesugierequeseevalúenlosfactoresdecontingenciaparalainnovaciónyeldesempe˜noorganizacional.Otros estudiospodríananalizarlasdiferenciaseninnovaciónentrelaindustriadetransformaciónyelsectordeservicios.
CrownCopyright©2016PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.ennombredeDepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia, Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Capacidaddeaprendizajeorganizacional;Innovación;Desempe˜noorganizacional
Introduction
Organizationallearningcanbelabeled“[...]asafieldtoward
tothestudyofcognitiveandsocialprocessesofknowledgein organizations that are imbricated in organizational and work practices”(Boff &Antonello,2011,p.184). In this perspec-tive,knowledgeisseenascontentandlearningtheprocessby whichknowledgeisacquired(Easterby-Smith&Lyles,2003). ForChivaandAlegre(2005)organizationalknowledgeismainly in the fieldof strategic management, and makes useof eco-nomiclanguage,whereasorganizationallearningisdominated byacademicsintheareaofhumanresources.
Organizationallearninghasbeenimplementedasafieldof study amongresearchers from the 1990s(Bapuji& Crossan, 2004),suggestingtheneedformaximizingtheuseofknowledge inorganizations efficiently(Chiva&Alegre, 2005; Easterby-Smith&Lyles,2003).Agenericdefinitionfororganizational learningisthewayinwhichtheorganizationslearn.Itis charac-terizedasanessentialcomponentinorganizationsthatoperate inturbulentenvironments, in whichknowledgeacts as akey resource(Jiménez-Jiménez&Cegarra-Navarro,2007). Organi-zationsthatemphasizethelearninginthistypeofenvironment are able to optimize the competitive experience (McGill & Slocum,1993).
With regard to these definitions, organizational learning helps organizations create, transfer and integrate knowledge andexperience,aswellastolearncontinuously.Theabilityof organizationallearningaretheorganizationalandmanagement
characteristics that facilitate organizational learning process (Tohidi, Seyedaliakbar, & Mandegari, 2012). The ability of organizational learning is defined as all organizational and managerialpracticesthatfacilitatethelearningprocess(Chiva, Alegre, & Lapiedra, 2007). In the same line of thought,
MbengueandSané(2013)arguethatitisthesetofmanagement practices that facilitate the learning process, or, as a set of mechanisms that increase the ability of an organization to maintainandimproveitsperformance.
Innovation isrelatedtothe ability of organizational learn-ing. Authors like Calantone, Cavusgil, and Zhao (2002)and
AlegreandChiva(2008)pointoutthatorganizationallearning isdescribed asoneofthefactorsthatprecede theinnovation.
Jiménez-JiménezandSanz-Valle(2011)emphasizethat organi-zational learning,innovation andperformanceareinterrelated factors. Innovation impliesnovelty anduse (Alegre&Chiva, 2008) andmaytriggerdirect resultsinorganizational perfor-mance or workwith the innovative performance, i.e., in the results arising from innovation (Alegre, Lapiedra, & Chiva, 2006).
andorganizational performance of small andmedium textile enterprises(SMEs)ofValedoItajaí–SC.
The study is justified because the increasing changes of thetextilemarketresultinincreasedcompetitionintraditional marketsofsmallandmedium-sizedenterpriseswhichleadsto increasedneedforinnovativeandorganizationalperformance. ForAmara,Landry,Becheikh,andOuimet(2008)itisnecessary that small andmedium-sizedenterprises turnto the develop-mentandimplementationoforganizationallearning,allowing the dissemination and exploitation of knowledge among the organization,aswellas,theexternalenvironment,whichmay reflectlaterininnovation.
Theresearchconductedwithsmallandmedium-sized enter-prises located in Vale do Itajai is justified by the high concentrationoftextileenterprisesinthisregion,occupyingthe secondplaceintermsofemployability,consideringthenational territory(FederationofIndustriesofSantaCatarinaState,2015). Accordingtodata fromthe Federationof Industriesof Santa CatarinaState (2016)60% of textile establishments inSanta Catarina are located in Vale do Itajai, with more than 2500 organizations.Asforthesizeoftheestablishments,the south-ernregionofBrazilhas17,248microenterprises,2560small enterprises,387medium-sizedenterprisesand48largetextile companies(Brazil,2015).
Thisresearchis partof alargerstudy that is being devel-oped with textile enterprises from Santa Catarina, especially the ones inVale do Itajaí. The article is structured into five sections.Thefirstsectionincludestheintroductionofthe arti-cle,beingcomposedbythepresentationofresearchthemeand objectivetobeworkedon.The secondsection dealswiththe theoreticalframeworkandhypotheses.Inthethirdsectionthe researchmethodisstructured.Later,inthefourthsection,data analysisispresented.Thefifthsectionpresentsthefinal consid-erationsfromtheresultsshowninthepresentstudy,andfinally, thebibliographicalreferences.
Theoreticalmodelandhypotheses
Organizationallearningcapabilitycanbedefinedasthe abil-ityofanorganizationtoprocessknowledge,i.e.,theabilityto create,acquire,transferandintegrateknowledgeand, also,to modifythebehaviortoreflectthenewcognitivesituation,with theaimatimprovingorganizationalperformance(Jerez-Gomez, Cespedes-Lorente,&Valle-Cabrera,2005).
Organizationallearningcapabilityactsasafacilitatorof orga-nizationallearningprocess(Goh&Richards,1997),understood astheorganizationtangibleandintangibleresources,asskills thatactasawayofpromotingcompetitiveadvantage,andthat allows the organizational learning process (Alegre & Chiva, 2008).ForHsuandFang(2009)the abilityof organizational learningisunderstoodastheorganizationabilitytoabsorband transformnewknowledgeandapplyit tothedevelopmentof newproductswithcompetitiveadvantageandhighproduction speed.
In addition, Chiva etal. (2007) believethat the ability of organizational learning is both an organizational feature as amanagerial one that,in addition tofacilitatingthe learning
process within organizations, operates within the learning process.ItisconsideredbyCamps,Alegre,andTorres(2011)
as the absence of restrictions or barriers to organizational learning process. In this sense, the ability of organizational learningactsasafacilitatoroforganizationallearning.
Organizationsshoulddevelopmechanismsandpracticesthat supportor promotethecreation oforganizational knowledge. These mechanisms include socialization, internalization and externalization, as well as all the management practices that establish a climate conduciveto learning(Mbengue &Sané, 2013). These practices are the essence of the organizational learning capability, whichcan be defined as the set of man-agementpracticesthatfacilitatethelearningprocess,or,asaset of mechanismsthat increasetheorganization abilityto main-tain and improve their performance (Alegre & Chiva, 2008; Mbengue&Sané,2013)
Chivaetal.(2007)analyzedfactorsthatactasfacilitatorsof organizationallearning.Tothisend,theydevelopedascalewith fivedimensions:experimentation;propensitytorisk;interaction withtheexternalenvironment;dialogueandparticipatory deci-sion making.Thescale wasalso usedinJyothibabu, Farooq, andPradhan(2010),Campsetal.(2011),Tohidietal.(2012),
CampsandLuna-Arocas(2012)andMbengueandSané(2013)
works.ThepresentstudyalsousesthescalesuggestedbyChiva etal.(2007),andinthesequenceeachoftheuseddimensions isdescribed.
Experimentationisthedegreetowhichnewideasand sugges-tionsareadoptedandtreatedintheorganization(Tohidietal., 2012).Experimentationisrelatedtosupportingthenewideas, favorableresponsestoinitiativesofemployeesandthe devel-opment and facilitation of change. It also covers the search for innovative solutions to problems, based on the possibil-ityofusing methodsanddifferentprocedures.Organizational learningrequirestheexperimentation,beingoneofthewaysto institutionalizeitintheorganization(McGill&Slocum,1993). Interactionwiththeexternalenvironmentisunderstoodasthe factorsthatinfluencetheorganization,however,theyareoutof itscontroldirectly,asthecompetitors,socialandeconomic sys-temsandpolicies.Thedimensionconsistsofindicatorsrelated tothecollectionandreportingofinformationfromtheexternal environment;receivingandsharinginformationandinteraction ofemployeeswiththeexternalenvironment(Chivaetal.,2007). Inenvironmentsofuncertaintythelearningoccursbythe trans-ferofknowledge,improvementofskillsandbyinvolvementin the resolutionof problemswithintheorganization (Popper& Lipshitz,2000).
Propensitytoriskischaracterizedbytoleranceto ambigu-ity,uncertaintyanderrors.Organizationsthat seemistakesas unacceptablearenotlearningpromoters.Beingthatthe poten-tialerrorscanactas learningfacilitators.Propensitytoriskis relatedtotheincentiveinfacingnewsituations,takingrisksthat donotaffectthecompanyandtheresourcesforprojects involv-ingnewsituations(Chivaetal.,2007;Popper&Lipshitz,2000; Tannenbaum,1997).
thecommunication(Schein,1993).TheDialogueconcernsthe free and open communication within work teams, facilitat-ingcommunicationandthepresenceofmulti-functionalwork teams(Gomes,Machado,&Alegre,2015).Dombrowski,Kim, Desouza,Fátima,Papagari,Baloh,andJha(2007)arguethatit isnecessarytobreakdownthebarriersofcommunication.The hierarchy,thecentralizedpowerandauthoritarianismlimitthe employeeparticipationinproblemsolving.
Lähteenmäki,Toivonen,andMattila(2001)explainthatan organizationcanprovidechangesinsupportoforganizational learninginordertodevelopcertaincharacteristics,suchas par-ticipatorydecisionmaking.
Participatorydecisionmakingfacilitatestheresultsthrough theinvolvementofallemployeesoftheorganization,resultingin commitmentandsatisfaction(Scott-Ladd&Chan,2004).And thisisoneofthefactorsthatfacilitateorganizationallearning.
Theliteratureindicatesthatorganizationallearningis com-monly linked toinnovation (Dodgson,1993). Organizational learningcanmanifestitselfintheeffortsforthedevelopmentof products,resultinginpracticesandskillstoinnovation(McKee, 1992).Themeansbywhichcompaniesdevelopanewproduct are not fortuitous,researchers of innovation put considerable emphasis on the processes of organizational learning. Thus, everytechnologicalinnovationrequiresorganizationallearning (Antonello&Godoy,2011).
Studiessuggestthattheabilityoforganizationallearninghas apositiveeffectoninnovativeperformance(Alegre &Chiva, 2013;Jiménez-Jiménez&Sanz-Valle, 2011;Alegre&Chiva, 2008). Innovation requires that individuals acquire existing knowledgeandsharethisknowledgewithin theorganization. For Hsu and Fang (2009) organizational learning positively affectstheinnovation.Basedontheabove,thefollowing hypoth-esisisformulated:
H1. Thefactorsthatfacilitateorganizationallearninghave pos-itiveinfluenceontheinnovativeperformanceoforganizations.
Innovationsare adoptedinresponse tochangesininternal andexternalenvironments,orasapreventiveactiontoinfluence theenvironment.Smallandmedium-sizedenterprises(SMES) havegreatconditions toinnovate becausein mostcasesthey facethenatural challengeofgrowthanddevelopmentoftheir potentialities(Damanpour,1992).Innovationisthe transforma-tionandexploitationofknowledgeinorganizations,involving the sharingof knowledge, as wellas of informationbetween employees(Jiménez-Jiménez&Sanz-Valle,2011).
Theinnovativeperformanceusedinthisstudyisdividedinto twodimensions,efficacyandefficiency.Thisperspectivewas workedinitiallybyAlegreetal.(2006).Theauthorsdevelopeda measurescaleofperformanceinproductinnovationcalled: inno-vativeperformance.The model psychometricproperties were testedandvalidatedinthecontextofbiotechnologycompanies. Efficacyaims toverify howinnovation economicallyimpacts theorganization,i.e.,thesuccessoroutcomeofinnovationfor theorganization.Efficiencyistheprocessbywhichtheresults areachieved(Alegreetal.,2006).
Previous studies indicate that innovative enterprises can respond fastertoenvironmental pressures, andthereforethey
havesuperiorperformance(Damanpour&Evan,1984;López et al., 2005). Rosenbusch, Brinckmann, and Bausch (2011)
report that innovation has apositive effect on SMEs perfor-mance,however,therearefactorsthatinfluencetheperformance, such as the typeof innovation, the organization age and the culturalcontextinwhichitisinserted.
ThefindingssupportedbyJiménez-JiménezandSanz-Valle (2011) showedthat insmallerenterprisestheeffects of orga-nizationallearningoninnovationandperformanceweremore significantthaninlargercompanies.Thelackoforganizational routinethatsomesmallerorganizationshavemakestheefforts oforganizationallearningoninnovationbemoreintense.
Keskin (2006)studied the influenceof market orientation, orientationtolearningandinnovationinSMEs,indicatingthat innovation affects the organizational performance positively, andthatlearninghasapositiveimpactoninnovation.Likewise, theintroductionofnewproductstakesplaceinmost organiza-tionsregardlessofthelevelofinnovation,includingsmalland medium-sizedenterprises,quitenumerousformosteconomies (Salavou,2005).
Understandingtheneedsofconsumers,theactionsof com-petitors, the technology and the guidelines of organizational learning canlead the organization tobenefitfrom innovation (Calantoneetal.,2002).Bothproductinnovationsasentryinto
new markets by SMEscan contribute toimprovements with
regard toquality, as wellas increased salesof products man-ufacturedbyorganization(Golovko&Valentini,2011).
Innovationisoneofthekeyinstrumentstoincreasemarket shareandtogivethecompanyacompetitiveadvantage(Gunday et al.,2011),having apositiveimpactonthe performanceof companies,producingabetterpositioninthemarketresulting incompetitiveadvantageandsuperiorperformance.Thus,ithas beenhypothesized:
H2. Theinnovation performancehasapositiveinfluenceon organizationalperformance.
The literature provides evidence of the positive relation betweenorganizationallearningandbusiness performance,as inBakerandSinkula’sstudy(1999)inwhichtheauthorsfound that the orientation to learning has a direct effect on orga-nizational performance. Prieto and Revilla’s research (2006)
demonstrates the learning positive influence in non-financial performance of organizations. In short, the empirical results are consistent with the theory and provide evidence suppor-ting the positiverelationbetweenlearningandorganizational performance(Jiménez-Jiménez&Sanz-Valle,2011).
The relation between factors that facilitate organizational learning, innovation andorganizational performancehas also beenrecognizedbyLópezetal.(2005),Wang(2008),Gunday et al.(2011) andAlegre andChiva (2013). The authors sup-portpositiveassociationsbetweenfacilitatorsoforganizational learningandorganizationalperformanceinthefollowing vari-ables:customerloyalty,salesgrowth,profitabilityandreturnon investment.
Experimentation
Interaction
Risk
Dialogue
Organizational Learning Capability
Organizational Performance
Efficacy Innovative
Performance
Efficiency
H1
H3
H2
Fig.1.Modelproposedforanalysis.
Source:Preparedbytheauthors(2015)
H3. The factors that facilitate organizational learning have positiveinfluenceonorganizationalperformance.
Fig.1showsthemodelproposedfortheanalysis.
As shown in Fig. 1, organizational learning capability is constitutedbythedimensions:Experimentation,Propensityto Risk,InteractionwiththeExternalEnvironmentandDialogue. Theinnovativeperformanceiscomposedbythedimensionsof EfficiencyandEfficacy.AndtheOrganizationalPerformanceis formedbyasingledimension.Following,themethodological proceduresarepresented.
In the context of SMEs, it is common for enterprises to
be managed by one or two executives, named entrepreneur
(Julien,2013).Theentrepreneurialpersonalitycomprises deci-sions,visionsandintuitionsofisolatedindividual(Mintzberg, Ahlstrand,&Lampel,2000).Inacomplementaryway,Julien (2013) addresses the centralizedmanagement with regard to micro-enterprises or in sectors considered traditional for up tomedium-sizedbusinesses,featuringakindofindependence bythedirector.ConsideringthatinthecontextofSMEsmost administrativedecisionsaretakenbythedirector,itwasdecided nottoincludeparticipatorydecision-makingdimension inthe analysismodel.
Researchmethodsandtechniques
The research is classifiedas quantitative as the approach, descriptive andcausal, withrespect tothe objectives, survey andcross-sectional.Theuseofconstructshasplayedan impor-tantroleindesigningadatacollectioninstrument.Inresearchon behavioralelements,thereisnoinstrumentthatcanproduce pre-ciselythemeasurementbyasinglemetricunit(Jiménez-Jiménez &Sanz-Valle,2011),researchersusetwoormoremeasuresto assessaconstructorscale.Giventhatthedevelopmentofnew constructsormeasurementscalesisacomplextask,itwas fol-lowed Prajogo and Sohal’s suggestion (2004) and, whenever possiblepre-testedconstructswereusedfrompreviousempirical studiestoensurethevalidityandreliability
The construct of organizational learning capability is composed of the dimensions: Experimentation (four indica-tors),InteractionwithExternalEnvironment(threeindicators),
Propensity to Risk (four indicators) and Dialogue (four
indicators). The assertions were built by means of a Likert scaleof7 points,(1 “totallydisagree”and7“totallyagree”). Theinnovativeperformanceconstructcomposedofthe dimen-sions:efficiency(fourindicators)andefficacy(sevenindicators). AssertivewasconstructedusingLikertscalewithscoresranging from1to7,with1being“muchworsethancompetitors”and7 “muchbetterthancompetitors.”
Organizationalperformanceconstructwasmeasuredbyfour items,beingtwoofmarketperformance(customerloyaltyand sales growth) and two of financial performance(profitability
and return on investment) based on Oslo Manual of OECD
(2005)andLópezetal.(2005).Thelearningnotalways imme-diatelyaffectstheeconomicandfinancialperformance.Instead ofaskingdirectlytorespondentstoreportobjectivemeasuresof financialperformance,theywereaskedtocomparetheaverage performancerealizedinthecompany–overthelastthreeyears –withitscompetitors(Fig.2).Likertscaleof7pointswasused, being1for“muchworsethancompetitors”and7“muchbetter thancompetitors”.
Similar indirect measures of organizational performance wereusedinpreviousresearch(Gundayetal.,2011;Lópezetal., 2005)whenfinancialstatementsdataareunavailableorwhen theydonotallowaccuratecomparisonsbetweencompanies.The reasonfor theuseof subjectivescalesisthefactthat compa-niesarereluctanttodiscloseaccuraterecordsof performance, andmanagersare less willingtoshareperformanceobjective data.Fig.2 showsthedimensions andindicatorsusedinthis study.
Giventheeconomicimportanceofthesectorforthestateof SantaCatarina,thetextileindustryofSantaCatarinaparticipates ofwhatonemightcall“globaltextilechain”,anexpressionthat evokestheframeofinternationalrelationsbundledinthe pro-ductionanddistributionoftextiles,mainlyactivitieslocatedin ValedoItajaí(Jurgenfeld&Lins,2011).
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING CAPABILITY
DIMENSION Variables and Indicators AUTHORS
Experimentation
Support for new ideas (Experiment 1).
Schein (1993); Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby and
Herron (1996); Chiva et al., (2007)
and Camps et al., (2011). Favorable responses to initiatives of employees (Experiment 2).
Change valorization (Experiment 3). Change facilitation (Experiment 4).
Interaction with External Environment
Collection and reporting of information from external environment (InterExtEnv1).
Receiving and sharing information (InterExtEnv2).
Interaction of people with the external environment (InterExtEnv3).
Propensity to Risk
Encouragement in coping with new situations (PropRisk1). Take risks that do not harm the company (PropRisk2). Resources for projects that involve new situations (PropRisk3). Making decisions without having all the information. (PropRisk4).
Dialogue
Encourage employees to communicate (Dialogue1).
free and open communication within work teams. (Dialogue2). Facilitation of communication within the company (Dialogue3). Presence of cross-functional work teams (Dialogue 4).
INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE
Efficiency
Average time in weeks for the development of product (Efficiency1). OECD-Eurostat (1997); Alegre et al.
(2006); Alegre, Chiva and Lapiedra,
(2009). Average time in total hours for product development (Efficiency2).
Average cost per Innovative project (Efficiency3)
Degree of satisfaction with the product (Efficiency4).
INNOVATIVE PERFORMANCE
Efficacy
Replacement of outdated products (Efficacy1)
OECD-Eurostat (1997); Alegre et al. (2006); Alegre
& Chiva (2008); Alegre et al.
(2009). Product line expansion (Efficacy2).
Development of byproducts (Efficacy3). Development of new product lines (Efficacy ). Development of ecological products (Efficacy5). Increased market share (Efficacy 6).
Opening of new domestic markets (Efficacy7). ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Performance
Customer loyalty (Performance 1)
OECD (2005) López et al.
(2005) Sales growth (Performance 2).
Profitability (Performance 3).
Return on investment (Performance 4).
Fig.2. Dimensionsandindicatorsusedinthestudy(Alegre,Chiva,&Lapiedra,2009;Amabile,Conti,Coon,Lazenby,&Herron,1996;OCDE/EUROSTAT,1997).
Source:Preparedbytheauthors(2015)
Theresearchsampledefinitionwasintentional,by accessi-bilityand convenience.It was sought asample of small and medium-sizedenterpriseslocatedinarelativelyhomogeneous spacegeographically,allowingtominimizetheimpactof vari-ablesthatcannotbecontrolled.In thissense enterpriseswere selected from the Valedo Itajaí – Santa Catarina, character-izedasorganizationsthatcouldsomehowpresentattributesthat contributetotheresearchtobeperformed.Thesamplewas com-posedof92smallandmedium-sizedenterprisesinthetextile sectorlocatedinValedoItajaíintheStateofSantaCatarina.
Thelargestnumberofsampleorganizationsoperatesinthe manufacturingsector,mainlyproducingthepersonalclothing, includingunderwear,pajamasandswimwear(women,menand children) andhousehold (bed, bath andtable) Regarding the yearoforganizationfoundation,twoopenedpriortothe1900s arehighlighted,however,mostofthecompaniesinthesample wereopenedintheyears1990–2009.Concerningthesize,there isgreaterfocusonsmallbusinesses.
Aclothingindustrysegmentcharacteristicisthatitdemands productive flexibility to adjust organizations to new fashion trends. The textile industry, here portrayed, includes the producing organizations of natural, artificial and synthetic fibers, passing by spinning, processors and weavings, until
the clothing, as description adopted byBrazilianAssociation of Textile and Apparel Industry (Associac¸ão Brasileira da IndústriaTêxtiledeConfecc¸ão–ABIT).
The understanding of micro, small, medium and large
enterprises is diverse and varies according to the region, financial-economicsize,thebranchofbusinessandlegalform. For this study it was used the classification of the Brazilian ServiceofSupportforMicroandSmallEnterprises(SEBRAE), whichadoptsthecriteriaofIBGE(BrazilianInstituteof Geog-raphyandStatistics),classifyingorganizationsaccordingtothe number of employees combined with the business sector, as showninTable1.
Table1
CriteriafortheclassificationofcompaniesinBrazilbySEBRAE.
Companysize Sector
Commerceandservices Industry
Micro-enterprise Upto09employees Upto19employees Smallorganization From10to49employees From20to99employees Midsizeorganization From50to99employees 100to499employees Largeorganization Morethan99employees Morethan500employees
Table2
Indicatorsofreliability.
Constructs AVE CR CA Rsquare–R2
Organizationallearningcapability 0.439 0.859 0.906 –
Experimentation 0.774 0.932 0.903 0.515
Risk 0.701 0.903 0.857 0.643
Interaction 0.739 0.894 0.823 0.548
Dialogue 0.705 0.905 0.859 0.713
Innovativeperformance 0.830 0.910 0.914 0.409
Efficiency 0.820 0.948 0.926 0.825
Efficacy 0.637 0.897 0.856 0.833
Organizationalperformance 0.783 0.935 0.906 0.457
Note.Source:Researchdata(2015).
AVE,averagevarianceextracted;CA,Cronbach’salpha;CR,compositereliability
Thedatacollectionprocedurewasinitiatedbyapriormeeting withthemanagersofeachoftheorganizationsselectedforthe study,wheretheyweregivenapresentationletterofresearch. Thispreliminary contact has enabled the profile selection of surveyparticipants,sothatthenitwaspossibletoschedule suit-able dates andtimes for data collection. The data collection instrumentwasprintedandmadeavailable tothe directorsof theorganizations.Itwasagreedthedeadlineof15daysforthe returnof thequestionnaires. However,thisdeadlinehasbeen extended,inordertoguaranteeahigherpercentageof return. ThedatacollectionoccurredduringtheperiodfromNovember toDecember2014.
Fordataanalysis,itwasusedtheConfirmatoryFactor Anal-ysis-CFAtotestthereliabilityandvalidityoftheconstructs. Following,itwasheldtheStructuralEquationModeling-SEM, operationalized by SmartPLS software. The structural model indicates the relation between the variables and displays the amountofexplained variance(Hair,Black,Babin,Anderson, &Tatham,2009).Thistechniquewasadoptedinordertotest therelationsbetweenvariablesandvalidateamodeltoverify theinfluenceof OrganizationalLearningininnovative perfor-mance, and if these constructs influence the Organizational Performance.
Thereliabilityof eachconstructwascalculatedseparately. AnindicatorcommonlyusedforreliabilityisCronbach’salpha (CA),beingacceptedvaluesabove0.7.Reliabilitycalculation throughtheCAdoesnotconsidertheerrorsintheindicators.In thissense,itwasalsousedcompositereliability(CR)andthe averagevarianceextracted(averagevarianceextracted–AVE). CRisameasureofinternalconsistencyofitems;valuesgreater than0.70aresuggested.AVErepresentsameasureofreliability thatindicates the amountof varianceinindicators,explained bythelatentconstruct;theliteraturerecommendsvalueshigher than0.5(Hairetal.,2009).
Regardingthe model adjustment, it wasobserved the dis-criminantvaliditycriteriawhichisregardedasanindicatorthat theconstructsorlatentvariablesareindependentofoneanother (Hair,Hult,Ringle,&Sarstedt,2014).Therefore,itwaschecked intwo ways, first by Fornell and Larcker’s criterion (1981), inwhichthesquare rootmustbe greater thanthe correlation betweentheconstructs.Thesecondmeasurewasbasedonthe
criterionof cross-loads,inwhichthe loadsmusthavegreater valueinconstructthaninothers(Ringle,Silva,&Bido,2014). Inordertoevaluatethesignificanceofanalysismodelsitwas observedvaluesresultingfromtheStudentttest,inwhichthe valuesshouldbe≥1.96(Hairetal.,2014),andp-value<0.05. Giventhesecriteria,thereisnoneedforassertivewithdrawal oftheconstructsinthesesettings.ThevaluesofQ2(predictive validity or Stone–Geisserindicator) evaluatethe model accu-racyandthevaluesshouldbe>0and,f2(effectsizeorCohen indicator)matchestheusefulnessoftheconstructtothemodel, inwhichthevalues0.02,0.15and0.35,respectivelyare con-sidered, small, medium and largeones (Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics,2009;Ringleetal.,2014).Aftercheckingtheratesof adjustment,itwastheverifiedthestructuralmodelresult,aswell as,thehypothesestesting.Tothisend,itwasobservedthe Stu-dentttest(≥1.96),andp-value(<0.05)betweentheconstructs ofthestudy.Theresultsareshowninthenextsection.
Presentationandanalysisoftheresults
Atthisstage,researchdatawillbepresentedandanalyzed, startingwiththereliabilityindicators.Reliability–orabsence of randomerrors inmeasurements of latent constructs– was evaluatedbyanalyzingthehomogeneityorinternalconsistency oftheitemsusedforitsdefinition.CoefficientsofAVE,CCand ACwerecalculated,asshowninTable2.
IntermsofAVE,onlytheconstructofsecondorderof orga-nizationallearning(AVE=0.439)presentedavaluebelow0.5. Thisanalysisshouldbe donesparingly,sincethe constructis formedbyallofthefourdimensionsoffirstorder.Thisisnot an absolute value yet, sincethe lowerthreshold to 0.5 were consideredacceptablebyotherauthors(Bagozzi&Yi,1988). With respecttoCR alldimensionswere above0.70. Analyz-ing theindicatorsof CAcontactsthat allvaluesweregreater than0.7(Table2),indicatinggoodreliability(Hairetal.,2009). Basedonreliabilityresults,itispossibletocertifythatthe con-structsdemonstratedacceptablelimitsfortestingthestructural model.
Table3
Discriminantvalidity.
Dimension Experimentation Interaction Risk Dialogue Efficacy Efficiency Performance
Experimentation 0.880
Interaction 0.303 0.859
Risk 0.316 0.658 0.837
Dialogue 0.596 0.446 0.516 0.840
Efficacy 0.382 0.386 0.432 0.596 0.798
Efficiency 0.229 0.486 0.598 0.471 0.659 0.905
Performance 0.309 0.330 0.446 0.502 0.685 0.522 0.885
Note.Source:Researchdata(2015).
etal.(2014),thevalueofR2maybecloseto0.75,0.50and0.25 beingconsidered,respectively:substantial,moderateandweak. Forthe areaof socialsciencesandbehavioral,Cohen (1988)
suggeststhat R2=2%isclassifiedasasmalleffect,R2=13% astheaverageeffectandR2=26%asgreateffect(Ringleetal., 2014).AsnotedinTable2,allR2valueswerehigherthan26%, indicatingagreateffect,whichisagoodindicatorforthemodel.
Table3showsthediscriminantvaliditybyFornellandLarcker’s (1981)criterion.
FordiscriminantanalysisFornellandLarcker’s(1981) crite-rionwasadopted.Discriminantvalidityistheextenttowhich theindicatorsof amodelrepresentasingleconstructandthe constructindicatorsaredifferentfromothers.Itisnotedthatthe modelhasdiscriminantvalidityasAVEsquareroot(inbold)is higherthanthecorrelationsbetweentheotherlatentvariables. When these conditions are met, there has been discriminant validity evidence, that is,infact there aredifferent measures fordifferentconstructs.
Itwasverifieddiscriminantvalidityamongalldimensionsas
FornellandLarcker’s(1981)criterion.ItwasfoundthatAVE squareroot(inbold)isgreaterthanthecorrelationsbetweenthe otherlatentvariables.Inacomplementarysense,itwasobserved thediscriminantvaliditybythemethodofcross-loads,inwhich foreachconstruct,higherloadswerefoundinthesethaninthe otherones.Inthissense,itisconcludedthatthemodelconstructs arereliableandvalid.
Foreachassertion,valuesobtainedbyStudent’sttestwere evaluated, =1.96 (Hair etal., 2014) andp-value >0.05. Like allassertionshavemettheseconditions,therewasnoneedfor adjustmentinthisstage.Following,analysisofQ2(predictive validityorStone-Geisserindicator)andf2(effectsizeorCohen indicator)weredone.SmartPLSsoftwaregeneratedvaluesfor themodesQ2andf2;itwasused“Blindfolding”function.Table4
showstheresults.
GoFindicator(GoF–goodnessoffit)iscalculatedtoevaluate themodelasawhole.However,HenselerandSarstedt(2013)
showedthatthesamedoesnothavethepowertodistinguishvalid andnon-validmodels.Itisnotrecommendedtousethe indica-tor.(Ringleetal., 2014).Goodnesss-of-fit indicator,formerly quitecommoninresearchwithSmartPLS,hasbeenreportedas inefficientinitsstatisticalpowertodifferentiatethequalityofa structuralmodel(Hairetal.,2014;Henseler&Sarstedt,2013) anditwasnotusedinthisstudy.Thenextstepistheexamination ofthestructuralmodelresults,asshowninFig.3.
Regarding organizational learning capability, it appears (Fig.3)thattherewasvalidityoftherelationsproposedinthe second-orderconstruct(organizationallearningcapability)with the firstordervariables:experimentation(Γ=0.718),
Interac-tion withthe externalenvironment (Γ=0.740), propensityto
risk(Γ=0.802)andDialogue(Γ=0.845).Thisresultwasalso
observedinpreviousstudies(Chivaetal.,2007;Tohidietal., 2012). For Chiva and Alegre (2005) organizational learning involvesjointconstructionofnewcollectivemeanings,through dialogue, equal participation, toleranceof different points of view,sharedexperiencesandfirst-handaccesstodata.Inthese cases,thedialogueisofvitalimportance.
Dialogue wasthe dimension withgreater influenceon the abilityoforganizationallearning.Theconstructionof commu-nicationroutinesamonggroupsordifferenthierarchicallevels eliminatesbureaucraticprocesses,allowingahigherdegreeof consistency and creativity, given that individuals make up a common thoughtprocessandstarttogetacquaintedwiththe problemsandgoalsoforganizationasawhole(Schein,1993). Results indicate that the presence of work teams(formed by differentsectors)areacommonwayofwork.ForDombrowski etal.(2007)thetransferoffreeandopenknowledgewithinwork teamscanleadtoinnovations.
In the analysis of the innovative performance construct, contacted that the variable “Efficacy5” it was foundthat the variable“Efficacy5”(Developmentofenvironmentallyfriendly products) showedalowerfactorloadingsthan0.60,soitwas decided toremove the variable. Afterthisadjustment, it was foundthattheresultsshowedasignificantcorrelationbetween
Table4
Predictiverelevance(Q2)andsizeofconstructseffect(f2).
Constructs Q2 f2
Dimensionsoffirstorder
Experimentation 0.390 0.610
Risk 0.395 0.463
Interaction 0.438 0.496
Dialogue 0.489 0.504
Efficiency 0.637 0.690
Efficacy 0.516 0.445
Organizationalperformance 0.352 0.631
Dimensionsofsecondorder
Organizationallearningcapability 0.000 0.372
Innovativeperformance 0.236 0.490
Experiment1
Efficacy1
Efficacy2
Efficacy3
Efficacy6
Efficacy7 Efficacy
Efficiency Efficiency4 Efficiency3 Efficiency2 Efficiency1
Experiment2
Experiment3
Experiment4
Experimentation 0.869
0.852
0.897
0.712
0.885
0.811
0.775
0.797
0.640
0.913 0.908
0.825 0.900 0.947 0.944
0.160
0.562
0.799
0.869
0.944
0.921 0.900
0.900
0.835
0.842
0.834
0.923
0.819
0.765
0.718
0.740
0.802
0.845
Organizational learning capability
Organizational performance Innovative performance
0.850
0.892
0.887
0.718 InterExtEnv1
InterExtEnv2
InterExtEnv3
Interaction
PropRisk1
PropRisk2
PropRisk3
PropRisk4
Dialogue1
Dialogue2
Dialogue3
Dialogue4 Dialogue
0.713 0.643
[+] [+]
0.409
0.457 0.548
0.833 0.825 0.515
Risk
Performance1
Performance2
Performance3
Performance4
Fig.3.Finalstructuralmodel.
Source:Researchdata(2015)
the dimensions of Efficacy and Efficiency. It is perceived
that Efficacy dimension was the one that showed highest
factorload(Γ=0.913)i.e., the innovationsintroduced inthe
market.
Apparently,smallandmediumcompaniessurveyedseekto maintain the market through innovations inproducts tomeet externaldemandsofasectorthatconstantlyseeksfornews,as theyoperatewithadiversityofproductswithextremelyshort lifecycledependingonfashiontrends.Beinganindustrythat coexists withreleases every season,it is understood that the marketitself,throughfashionandvariationofcolorseachseason requires,itensuresthatthereisaconcernwithreplacementof products.
TheEfficiencydimensionthatisdeterminedbythecostand bythetimeofInnovativeproject,obtainedvalueof(Γ=0.908).
Itisnoticedabusinessconcernwiththecostandtimespentonthe developmentof innovativeprojects.Beingcompaniesthatare constantlythreatenedbylargecorporations,itisunderstoodthat thefocusisonacompetitionforlowproductioncosts.Another factorthatcan becitedis therapidchange infashiontrends, leading organizations to develop products that remain in the marketforshortperiodsoftime.Table5showsthehypotheses testingofthestudy.
As shown in Table 5, organizational learning capability showedapositiverelationof Γ=0.640(p<0.001)in
innova-tiveperformance,theT-Statisticswasgreaterthan1.96,which suggests that the coefficients are robust (Hair et al., 2009). TheseresultssupporttheH1–Thefactorsthatfacilitate orga-nizational learning have positive influence on the innovative performance of organizations. Previous studies indicate that theabilityoforganizationallearningisahistoryofinnovation. Learninghasavitalroleinthisrelationbyallowingbusinesses toachieve speedandflexibilitywithin the innovativeprocess (Brown & Eisenhardt,1995; Jiménez-Jiménez &Sanz-Valle, 2011).
Anorganizationthatprovidebetterabilitytoacquireand inte-grateknowledgewillperformbetterintheproductorprocess, therebyachievingbetterresultsinthedevelopmentofnew prod-ucts.ForHsuandFang(2009)acompanythathastheabilityto achievenewknowledgeandintegratingexistingknowledgewith differentmethodswillhaveagoodperformanceintermsof prod-uctandprocessinnovation.Inotherwords,thebettertheability of organizational learning,the betterwill be theorganization innovativeperformance.
Table5
Studyhypothesestesting.
Hypotheses Structuralpath Pathcoefficients Standarderror T-Statistics p-values Result
H1 Organizational
learning capabil-ity→innovative performance
0.640 0.069 9.284 0.000 Supported
H2 Innovative
perfor-mance→organizational performance
0.562 0.092 6.123 0.000 Supported
H3 Organizational
learning capabil-ity→organizational performance
0.160 0.105 1.521 0.129 NotSupported
Note.Source:Researchdata(2015).
T-Statistics=6.123andp<0.001)indicatethat innovationhas apositiveandsignificanteffectonorganizationalperformance, supportingtheideathatinnovationisoneofthefactorsthatlead organizationstosucceedinthelongterm.Studiesonthe rela-tionofinnovationonperformanceprovidesapositiveevaluation thatinnovationresultsinincreasedorganizationalperformance (Damanpour&Evan,1984;Calantoneetal.,2002).
Themainreasonfortheadoptionofinnovationsisthedesire ofcompaniestoachievegreaterorganizationalperformanceand increasecompetitiveadvantage.Companiesgetadditional com-petitive advantageandmarket shareaccordingtothelevel of importancethatisgiventoinnovation.Innovationsbecomekey factorforSMEstobuildmarketreputationandthustoincrease theirmarketshare(Gundayetal.,2011).
SMEsthatareabletolearnhavebetterconditionstodetect eventsandtrendsinthe market.Asaresult,learning organi-zations are generally more flexible and quick to respond to newchallengesthantheircompetitors, thuskeeping competi-tiveadvantagesoflong-term(Jiménez-Jiménez&Sanz-Valle, 2011). For López et al. (2005) the ability to learn faster than competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.
Organizationallearningcapabilityshowedapositiverelation
λ=0.160,butnotsignificant(p=0.129)withtheorganizational
performance,T-Statisticswas1.521,rankingbelow1.96,as sug-gestedby Hairetal.(2009).Thus,the resultsdonot support
H3 – Enabling factors of organizational learning have posi-tiveinfluenceonorganizational performance.Forthesample studied, organizational learning capability was not related to organizational performance.Taking into account thefact that innovationimprovesperformance,thesefindingsseemtoreflect thatinnovationisamediatoroftherelationbetweenlearningand organizationalperformance.
Theresultsdonotsupporttheviewthatorganizational learn-inginfluencesorganizationalperformance.Thefindingsshow thatthisrelationoccursonlyindirectly,i.e.,organizational learn-ing capability influences the innovative performance which, in turn, influences organizational performance. These results contradictpreviousempiricalresearchontherelationbetween learningandorganizationalperformance(Lópezetal.,2005).
Thefactorsthatfacilitatelearningcanbeconsidereda nec-essary conditionbutnotsufficientforabetterandsustainable organizationalperformance.PrietoandRevilla(2006)suggest thatitcanbeassumedthatlearningwillimprovefuture perfor-mance.Overtime, superiorperformancedependsonsuperior learning.Therefore,organizationallearningisconsideredasthe key to the company success,also, the ability to learn faster thanthecompetitorscanbeasourceofsustainablecompetitive advantage(Antonello&Godoy,2011;Wang,2008).
Theliteraturenotonlysuggestsapositiveeffectof organiza-tionallearningonperformance,butalsoindicatesthatinnovation mediates this relation. In particular, some studies (Baker & Sinkula, 1999;Lópezetal.,2005)suggestthatorganizational learningallowsthecompanytodevelopabilitiesthatenhance innovation andthatinnovationpositively affectsperformance. Therefore,Innovativecompaniesshouldpromoteorganizational learning inordertomaximizetheeffectof innovative perfor-manceonorganizationalperformance.
This study suggeststhat organizational learningcapability facilitatesinnovation.Therefore,SMEsthataimstoimprove per-formancethroughinnovationmustimprovetheirorganizational learning processes. This conclusion seems to be particularly importantforthesesmallercompaniesandforcompanies oper-ating in highly turbulent environments (Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle,2011).
Finally, the results confirm the theory since innovation is sourceofcompetitiveadvantageforSMEs.Thefacilitating fac-torsoforganizationallearninghadapositiveeffectonthe perfor-manceofthesurveyedcompanies.Itwasevidentthatthe learn-ingcapabilityisakeyantecedentofinnovationandimproves organizationalperformance.Theresultsallowmanagers, espe-ciallyinthecontextofsmallandmedium-sizedenterprises,to incorporate indicatorsof organizational learningcapabilityin their management tools inordertoeffectivelyimplement the factorsorconditionsforlearningwithinorganizations.
Conclusion
organizational performanceof small and medium enterprises (SMEs).Theresultsshowthatorganizationallearning capabil-ityinfluencesthe innovativeperformanceof SMEs, however, theinfluenceoflearningonorganizationalperformancewasnot significant. The relation between organizational learning and innovativeperformanceindicatesthatthedevelopmentofnew productsandprocesseshaslearningasbackground,astheyare influencedbyfactorsthatfacilitatelearning.
The findings provide theoretical insights and can trigger further research. The study contributes to the evaluation of learningabilities,demonstratingthat itispossibletomeasure relevanttheoreticalvariablesthatareunobservable.Thestudy contributestotheliteratureasitsoughttoexamine,inasingle model,therelationsbetweenorganizationallearning,innovation andperformance,usingalreadyvalidatedmeasuresin interna-tionalcontexts.Theworkprovidesevidencefortheserelations andshowsthataresignificantandpositiveinsmalland medium-sizedtextileenterprises,asectorinwhichtheempiricalliterature isparticularlyscarce.
The resultsalso provide insightsfor managers. The study highlightstheneedtopayattentiontothefactorsthatfacilitate organizationallearning, sincetheyhaveadirect influenceon innovationandindirectoneonorganizationalperformance.Itis essentialtohavetolerancetoambiguity,uncertaintyanderrors. Thefindingsindicatethatthegenerationofnewideasand sug-gestionsfromemployeesmustbeansweredandhandledinthe organization.Inthecompetitiveenvironmentinwhich organi-zationsoftextilesectorareinserted,innovationisnotanoption, butbasicconditionforsurvival.
Dialogue is the dimension that most influenced the
orga-nizational learning. Good communication can improve the
distributionofknowledge withinthe company.Managers can use formal mechanisms to ensure sharing of best practices amongemployeesanddepartments,makingemployeestalkto eachother,usingforthispurposemulti-functionalworkteams. Managerscanencouragesolvingproblemscreativelyand inno-vatively. SMEs should also promote the acquisition of new knowledge,forexample,encouragingemployeestoparticipate infairsandexhibitionsregularly,promotingthedevelopmentof newideasandexperiencesoutsideofthecompany.
Fastfashiondynamicreinforcesaninnovationculture,which encourages experimentation with new alternatives for better managementandproductdevelopment;itmakesenterprisesto absorb this way of seeing the reality and they are prone to theadoption of newtechnologiesandprocedures. Thetextile industryisinconstantchangeandadaptationtothemarketand trends.Itisnoticedthatthereisaninnovationcultureinthe tex-tileindustryinfluencedbyorganizationallearningfactorsthat encourageinnovation.Thisviewisconfirmedinrelationtothe improvementofproductionprocessesaimingatreducingcosts andeconomicandfinancialimprovementofenterprises.
Despitetheadoptedmethodologicalstrictness,thisstudyhas somelimitationsthat shouldbe consideredwhen interpreting theresults.Thefirstlimitationisthatthesamplehasconsidered onlySMEsinValedoItajaí–SC.Alsothefactthatitwasused onlyonerespondentasasourceofinformation.Theuseofmore thanonerespondentwouldincreasethedatavalidity.Itisalso
suggestedtheapplicationofsocialdesirabilityscale(Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Lee,&Podsakoff,2003).
Anotherlimitationistheresearchcross-sectionaldesignand the analysismadeatasinglepointintime. Thus,researchers must interpretcarefully the causality betweenthe constructs. Finally,theuseofasubjectivemeasurefororganizational per-formancemaycausebiasintheresults.
Forfutureresearchitis suggestedtoevaluatecontingency factors for innovation and organizational performance. Other studies could analyze the differences in innovation between manufacturingandtheservicesector.
Itisalsosuggestedalongitudinalstudytoevaluatethe evolu-tionoflearningcapabilityandorganizationalperformanceover time.Longitudinaldatashouldalsoencouragemoreexhaustive study of the relation betweenlearning capability and perfor-manceovertime,alongwiththeanalysisoftherelationbetween financialperformanceandnon-financialperformance.
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
References
Alegre,J.,&Chiva,R.(2008).Assessingtheimpactoforganizationallearning capabilityonproductinnovationperformance:Anempiricaltest. Technova-tion,28(6),315–326.
Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2013). Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of organizational learning capability and innovationperformance.Journalof SmallBusinessManagement,51(4), 491–507.
Alegre,J.,Chiva,R.,&Lapiedra,R.(2009).Measuringinnovationinlong prod-uctdevelopmentcycleindustries:Aninsightinbiotechnology.Technology Analysis&StrategicManagement,21(4),535–546.
Alegre,J.,Lapiedra,R.,&Chiva,R.(2006).Ameasurementscaleforproduct innovationperformance.EuropeanJournalofInnovationManagement,9(4), 333–346.
Amabile,T.M.,Conti,R.,Coon,H.,Lazenby,J.,&Herron,M.(1996).Assessing thework environmentfor creativity.Academy ofManagement Journal,
39(5),1154–1184.
Amara,N.,Landry,R.,Becheikh,N.,&Ouimet,M.(2008).Learningand nov-eltyofinnovationinestablishedmanufacturingSMEs.Technovation,28(7), 450–463.
Antonello,C.S.,&Godoy,A.S.(2011).Aprendizagemorganizacionaleas raízesdesuapolissemia.In:Antonello,C.S.&Godoy,A.S.(Org.),
Apren-dizagemorganizacionalnoBrasil.PortoAlegre:Bookman.
Bagozzi,R.P.,&Yi,Y.(1988).Ontheevaluationofstructuralequationmodels.
JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience,16(1),74–94.
Baker,W.E.,&Sinkula,J.M.(1999).Thesynergisticeffectofmarket orienta-tionandlearningorientationonorganizationalperformance.Journalofthe AcademyofMarketingScience,27(4),411–427.
Bapuji,H.,&Crossan,M.(2004).Fromquestionstoanswers:Reviewing orga-nizationallearningresearch.ManagementLearning,35(4),397–417.
Boff,L.H.,&Antonello,C.S.(2011).Descaminhos:aprendizageme con-hecimentoorganizacionalversusorganizac¸õesqueaprendemegestãodo conhecimento.In:Antonello,C.S.&Godoy,A.S.(Org.),Aprendizagem
organizacionalnoBrasil.PortoAlegre:Bookman.
Brasil. Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego. Empregos em 31/12. (2015). Retrieved on 15 May 2016. http://bi.mte.gov.br/bgcaged/cagedanuario
rais/anuario.htm
Brown,S.L.,&Eisenhardt,K.M.(1995).Productdevelopment:Pastresearch, presentfindings,andfuturedirections.AcademyofManagementReview,
Calantone,R.J.,Cavusgil,S.T.,&Zhao,Y.(2002).Learningorientation,firm innovationcapability,andfirmperformance.IndustrialMarketing Manage-ment,31(6),515–524.
Camps, J.,& Luna-Arocas, R. (2012).Amatter oflearning:How human resourcesaffectorganizationalperformance. BritishJournalof Manage-ment,23(1),1–21.
Camps,J.,Alegre,J.,&Torres,F.(2011).Towardsamethodologytoassess organizationallearningcapability:Astudyamongfacultymembers. Inter-nationalJournalofManpower,32(5/6),687–703.
Chiva,R.,Alegre,J.,&Lapiedra,R.(2007).Measuringorganizational learn-ingcapabilityamongtheworkforce.InternationalJournalofManpower,
28(3/4),224–242.
Chiva,R., & Alegre,J.(2005). Organizationallearning andorganizational knowledge:Towardstheintegrationoftwoapproaches.Management Learn-ing,36(1),49–68.
Cohen,J.(1988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehaviorscience.Lawrance EribaumAssociation.
Damanpour,F.(1992).Organizationalsizeandinnovation.Organization Stud-ies,13(3),375–402.
Damanpour,F.,&Evan,W.M.(1984).Organizationalinnovationand per-formance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly,392–409.
Dodgson,M.(1993).Organizationallearning:Areviewofsomeliteratures.
OrganizationStudies,14(3),375–394.
Dombrowski,C.,Kim,J.Y.,Desouza,K.C.,Braganza,A.,Papagari,S.,Baloh, P.,etal.(2007).Elementsofinnovativecultures.KnowledgeandProcess Management,14(3),190–202.
Easterby-Smith,M.,&Lyles,M.A.(2003).Introductionwatershedsof orga-nizationallearningandknowledgemanagement.In:Easterby-Smith,M.& Burgoyne,J.(Org.),TheBlackwellhandbookoforganizationallearningand
knowledgemanagement.Malden/USA:Blackwell.
Federac¸ãodasIndústriasdoEstadodeSantaCatarina.(2015).SantaCatarina emdados.FlorianópolisFIESC.
Federac¸ão das Indústrias do Estado de Santa Catarina. (2016). Rotas estratégicas setororiais 2022: têxtil e confecc¸ão. Retrieved on 15 May 2016. http://www4.fiescnet.com.br/images/home-pedic/Textil%20e %20Confeccao%20-%20Estudo%20Socioeconomico.pdf
Fornell,C.,&Larcker,D.F.(1981).Structuralequationmodelswith unob-servablevariablesandmeasurementerror:Algebraandstatistics.Journalof MarketingResearch,382–388.
Goh,S.,&Richards,G.(1997).Benchmarkingthelearningcapabilityof orga-nizations.EuropeanManagementJournal,15(5),575–583.
Golovko,E.,&Valentini,G.(2011).Exploringthecomplementaritybetween innovationandexportforSMEs’growth.JournalofInternationalBusiness Studies,42(3),362–380.
Gomes,G.,Machado,D.D.P.N.,&Alegre,J.(2015).Determinantsof innova-tionculture:AstudyoftextileindustryinSantaCatarina.BrazilianBusiness Review,12(4),99.
Gunday,G.,Ulusoy,G.,Kilic,K.,&Alpkan,L.(2011).Effectsofinnovation typesonfirmperformance.InternationalJournalofProductionEconomics,
133(2),662–676.
Hair,J.F.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,Anderson,R.E.,&Tatham,R.L.(2009).
Análisemultivariadadedados.Bookman.
Hair,J.F.,Hult,T.M.,Ringle,C.M.,&Sarstedt,M.(2014).Aprimeronpartial leastsquaresstructuralequationmodeling(PLS-SEM).LosAngeles:SAGE.
Henseler,J.,Ringle,C.M.,&Sinkovics,R.R.(2009).Theuseofpartialleast squarespathmodelingininternationalmarketing.AdvancesinInternational Marketing,20(1),277–319.
Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Goodness-of-fit indices for par-tial least squares path modeling. Computational Statistics, 28(2), 565–580.
Hsu,Y.H.,&Fang,W.(2009).Intellectualcapitalandnewproduct develop-mentperformance:Themediatingroleoforganizationallearningcapability.
TechnologicalForecastingandSocialChange,76(5),664–677.
Jerez-Gomez,P.,Cespedes-Lorente,J.,&Valle-Cabrera,R.(2005). Organiza-tionallearningcapability:Aproposalofmeasurement.JournalofBusiness Research,58(6),715–725.
Jiménez-Jiménez,D.,&Cegarra-Navarro,J.G.(2007).Theperformanceeffect oforganizationallearningandmarketorientation.IndustrialMarketing Man-agement,36(6),694–708.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organiza-tional learning, and performance. Journalof Business Research,64(4), 408–417.
Julien,P.A.(2013).Introduc¸ão:umadefinic¸ãodaPME.In:JulienP.A.(Org.).
Oestadodaartedapequenaemédiaempresa:fundamentosedesafios.
Florianópolis:Ed.daUFSC.
Jurgenfeld,V.,&Lins,H.N.(2011).Aprojec¸ãoasiáticadaindústriatêxtile vestuaristacatarinensenosanos2000:estudosobretrêsexperiênciasnoVale doItajaí.TextosdeEconomia,13(2),11–34.
Jyothibabu,C.,Farooq,A.,&Pradhan,B.B.(2010).Anintegratedscalefor measuringanorganizationallearningsystem.TheLearningOrganization,
17(4),303–327.
Keskin,H.(2006).Market orientation,learning orientation,andinnovation capabilitiesinSMEs:Anextendedmodel.EuropeanJournalofInnovation Management,9(4),396–417.
Lähteenmäki,S.,Toivonen,J.,&Mattila,M.(2001).Criticalaspectsof organi-zationallearningresearchandproposalsforitsmeasurement.BritishJournal ofManagement,12(2),113–129.
López,S.P.,Peón,J.M.M.,&Ordás,C.J.V.(2005).Organizationallearningas adeterminingfactorinbusinessperformance.TheLearningOrganization,
12(3),227–245.
Mbengue, A.,& Sané,S.(2013).Capacitéd’apprentissageorganisationnel: analyse théorique et étude empirique dans le contexte des équipes de projetsd’aidepubliqueaudéveloppement.CanadianJournalof Adminis-trativeSciences/RevueCanadiennedesSciencesdel’Administration,30(1), i–xvi.
McGill,M.E.,&Slocum,J.W.(1993).Unlearningtheorganization. Organi-zationalDynamics,22(2),67–79.
McKee,D.(1992).Anorganizationallearningapproachtoproductinnovation.
JournalofProductInnovationManagement,9(3),232–245.
Mintzberg,H.,Ahlstrand,B.,&Lampel,J.(2000).Safáridaestratégia. Book-manEditora.
OCDE–Organizac¸ãoparaaCooperac¸ãoeoDesenvolvimento.(2005).Manual deOslo:diretrizesparacoletaeinterpreta¸cãodedadossobreinova¸cão(3rd ed.).Brasília:OCDE,Finep.
OCDE/EUROSTAT.(1997).Themeasurementofscientificandtechnological activities.Proposedguidelinesforcolletingandinterpretingtechnological data.InOslomanual.Paris:OCDE.
Podsakoff,P.M.,MacKenzie,S.B.,Lee,J.Y.,&Podsakoff,N.P.(2003).
Commonmethodbiasesin behavioralresearch:Acriticalreviewofthe literatureandrecommendedremedies.JournalofAppliedPsychology,88(5), 879.
Popper,M.,&Lipshitz,R.(2000).Organizationallearningmechanisms,culture, andfeasibility.ManagementLearning,31(2),181–196.
Prajogo,D.I.,&Sohal,A.S.(2004).ThemultidimensionalityofTQMpractices indeterminingqualityandinnovationperformance—anempirical examina-tion.Technovation,24(6),443–453.
Prieto, I. M., & Revilla, E. (2006). Learning capability and business performance:Anon-financialandfinancialassessment.TheLearning Orga-nization,13(2),166–185.
Ringle,C.M.,Silva,D.,&Bido,D.D.S.(2014).Modelagemdeequac¸ões estruturaiscomutilizac¸ãodoSmartPLS.REMark,13(2),54.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Bausch, A. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial?Ameta-analysisoftherelationship between innova-tion and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457.
Salavou,H.(2005).Docustomerandtechnologyorientationsinfluence prod-uctinnovativenessinSMEs?SomenewevidencefromGreece.Journalof MarketingManagement,21(3-4),307–338.
Schein,E.H.(1993).Ondialogue,culture,andorganizationallearning. Orga-nizationalDynamics,22(2),40–51.
SEBRAE – Servic¸o Brasileiro de Apoio a Micro e Pequenas Empresas. (2015).Retrieved20February 2015.http://http://www.sebrae-sc.com.br/ leis/default.asp?vcdtexto=4154.
Tannenbaum,S.I.(1997).Enhancingcontinuouslearning:Diagnostic find-ings from multiple companies. Human Resource Management, 36(4), 437–452.
Tohidi,H.,MohsenSeyedaliakbar,S.,& Mandegari,M.(2012). Organiza-tionallearningmeasurementandtheeffectonfirminnovation.Journalof EnterpriseInformationManagement,25(3),219–245.
