The Inter–relationship of Organizational Learning,Learning Organizations,Virtual Technology,and Virtual Communities of Practice

Abstract

This article explores the integration between technology and human resource development (HRD) techniques and theories by examining the inter–relationship between organizational learning, learning organizations, virtual technology, and virtual communities of practice and the role of the HRD professional in that relationship. First, the evolution of the concept of organizational learning is examined. This is followed with a discussion of organizational learning, and learning organizations, and their relationship with virtual technology and virtual communities of practice within organizations. Lastly, the implications of organizational learning and virtual technology upon human resource development professionals are presented.

Keywords

Organizational learning learning organizations virtual technology virtual communities of practice

Knowles (1989) predicted that technology would be one of the major forces affecting adult learning in the 21^st century. Frequently, the concepts of organizational learning and the learning organization have been used to shape human resource development (HRD) interventions for individuals, groups, and organizations, while technology has transformed many workplaces from physical spaces into virtual environments (Chalofsky, 2010). However, how these virtual technology systems are linked to meaningful employee learning and development (Jo & Joo, 2011), and organizational learning outcomes (Yoon, Song, Lim & Joo, 2010) is still not well articulated (Reio, 2015). Consequently, it is important for human resource development professionals to more clearly understand the role that virtual technology plays in organizational learning and the learning organization.

The emerging area of virtual human resource development is one area that intersects human resource development and technology. Virtual human resource development involves building learning capacity by integrating technology and human resource development (HRD) techniques and theories (Bennett, 2014). This article explores the integration between technology and human resource development (HRD) techniques and theories by examining the inter–relationship between organizational learning, learning organizations, virtual technology, and virtual communities of practice and the role of the HRD professional in that relationship.

First, the evolution of the concept of organizational learning is examined. This is followed with a discussion of organizational learning, and learning organizations, and their relationship with virtual technology and virtual communities of practice within organizations. Lastly, the implications of organizational learning and virtual technology upon human resource development professionals are presented.

Organizational Learning

Organizational learning as a concept has evolved through various stages of research. The concept of organizational learning was first mentioned in the early 1950s in reference to public administration (Prange, 1999), but it wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s that scholars like Argyris, Schon, March, and Olsen began publishing articles and books on organizational learning.

In the 1960s, most scholars did not agree on the concept and described it in diverse ways. Initially, Cyert and March (1963) and Cangelosi and Dill (1965) focused on the adaptation of the organization as a way of learning. The focus by Cyert and March (1963) was on the aggregate level of the organization as defined by standard operating procedures and organizational rules while Cangelosi and Dill (1965) expanded the scope of organizational learning to include a series of interactions between adaptation at the individual or subgroup level, and adaptation at the organizational level.

Later, in the 1970s and 1980s, issues of organizational inquiry, routine practices and behavior, and procedures were common in the understanding of organizational learning (Argyris, 1972; Levitt & March, 1988). Argyris (1972) proposed that organizations learn through collectivities. The organizations are made up of individuals, and the organization can learn when their individual members or a substantial fraction of them learn. Organizations learn in organizational environments within which individuals think and act. As a result, organizationslearn when inquiry is undertaken by individuals who function as agents of the organization according to roles and rules. Organizational learning occurs when knowledge is gained through organizational inquiry by individual members. Organizations also learn through embedded routines and practices.

Argyris (1972) noted that, for an organization to learn, individuals within the organization experience a problem and try to solve it on the organization's behalf. They often then experience a mismatch between expectations and what is actually occurring. In their quest to resolve this mismatch, some form of learning occurs. In addition, the organization learns through single and double loop learning. Single loop learning leaves the value of a theory of action unchanged, while double loop learning results in change in the values, strategies and assumptions.

Furthermore, Argyris and Schon (1978) developed the concept of organizational learning around an emphasis of learning to enhance organizational effectiveness. It evolved into a process by which organizational members detect errors or anomalies and correct them by restructuring the organizational theory in use (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Their focus was on individual learning in organizations and the use of theories of action. They understood organizational learning to include informational content, a learning product, a learning process (acquiring, processing and storing information), and a learner, or learners, to whom the learning process is attributed. Similarly, Duncan and Weiss (1979) proposed that organizational learning could only occur through the individual who must be part of a system of learning, with exchanges of what is learned among individuals.

As the concept of organizational learning continued to evolve in the 1980s there were debates about the value of the individual in relation to the organization. Fiol and Lyles (1985) disputed the notion that organizational learning was only the sum of individual learning. They believed organizational learning to be a process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding. Later, Levitt and March (1988) believed that organizational learning was more than individual learning. They proposed that organizations be seen as learning by encoding inferences from history into routine behavior. They interpreted organizational learning from three observations, “behavior in an organization is based on routines, routines are based on interpretations of the past, and organizations are oriented towards targets” (p.320). Organizational learning also occurs through learning from direct experience, organizational memory and learning from the experience of others. Organizations learn through direct experience based on trial and error learning or organizational search. Gradually organizations will adopt routines, procedures, or strategies that lead to favorable outcomes. However, these can be affected by competency traps, superstitious learning and the ambiguity in defining success. Organizational memory is dependent on the individual's memories of members of the organization. They also believed organizations learn from the experience of others, that organizations capture the experiences of other organizations through technology, procedures or similar routines through diffusion. Diffusion can occur through rules given by government agencies, trade associations, professional associations, and so forth, or contact with someone such as a consultant (Levitt & March, 1988).

From the 1990s, more scholars began to view organizational learning as a system of knowledge acquisition and sharing. The concept of various learning entities was introduced by Huber (1991) who believed that, “an entity learns if through the process of information, the range of its potential behaviors is changed” (p.24). An organization learns if any of its units acquires knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the organization (Huber, 1991). Entities include individuals, groups, organizations, industries and society. Weick and Roberts (1993) believed connections between behaviors rather than people define organizational learning. They defined organizational learning as consisting of interrelating actions of individuals which results in a collective mind. After exploring the growth of the concept over time, Prange (1999) proposed that organizational learning refers to processes of individual and collective learning both within and between organizations.

The evolution of organizational learning continued, with Crossan, Lane and White (1999) proposing a theoretical model of the four I's framework or phases: (a) intuiting, (b) interpreting, (c) integrating and (d)institutionalizing. Organizations learn through intuiting, the preconscious recognition of the pattern or possibilities inherent in the personal experience of the employee for example. Interpreting allows the organization to learn by explaining through words and or actions an insight or idea to oneself or their group. In the phase of integrating, the organization learns through developing shared understanding among individuals, and taking coordinated action through mutual adjustment. When the organization institutionalizes, these actions become routine (Crossan, Lane & White, 1999).

To apply this model Crossan, Lane and White, (1999) stated that organizations learn on three levels: (a)individual, (b) group and (c) organizational. Learning at the individual level occurs during the intuiting and interpreting phases, learning at the group level occurs during the interpreting and integrating phases, and learning at the organizational level occurs during the integrating and institutionalizing phases. During these four phases there are feedback and feed forward loops that allow the organization to prevent such occurrences as institutionalizing and driving out intuition. The loops are necessary for organizations to learn because a collective mindset can become a cognitive barrier to change in the organization. Organizations also learn by institutionalizing learning, which is necessary to reap the ongoing benefits of what has already been learned.

Organizational learning continued to evolve in the 2000s. Templeton, Lewis and Snyder (2002) used the conceptual definitions of organizational learning to identify the set of four actions within the organization (knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory) that intentionally and unintentionally influence positive organizational change.

Vera and Crossan (2004) proposed a model of strategic leadership and organizational learning in which there is an explicit relationship between the two. They consider the close and distant leadership processes on the part of the CEO and the top management team that foster the development of the stocks and flows of learning. They also proposed that organizational learning can thrive at times under transactional leadership, and at other times from transformational leadership. Transactional leaders are leaders who exchange tangible rewards for the work and loyalty of followers. Transformational leaders are leaders who engage with followers, focus on higher order intrinsic needs, and raise consciousness about the significance of specific outcomes and new ways in which those outcomes might be achieved (Burns, 1998).

Yorks (2005) notes that the literature conceptualizes organizational learning as embedded in organizational level systems, practices and procedures, information technology, routines, the organizational culture, and other sources of institutional memory. However, these entities of organizational learning must be conceptualized as different from the cognitive processes associated with individual learning. Organizational learning requires individual learning, the establishment of a supportive culture context, and incentives that permit learning across organizational boundaries. Yorks (2005) adds that team and organizational learning are not goals in themselves, but processes for improving performance. Song and Chermack (2008) concluded that, “individual learning is the agent of the organizational learning process; in turn, organizational learning is the key locomotive for the knowledge–sharing process; consequently, organizational shared knowledge is the basis for knowledge creation.” (p. 428).

The various perspectives from scholars on organizational learning show that from the 1960s to the 1980s, most scholars did not agree on the concept and described it in diverse ways. The evolution of our understanding of organizational learning has shifted through the decades from a focus on the adaptation of the organization as a way of learning, to issues of organizational inquiry, routine practices and behavior, and procedures from the 1970s to the 1980s. After 1990, more scholars began to view organizational learning as a system of knowledge acquisition and sharing. Therefore, in exploring the evolution of organization learning, one can conclude that it is a system of knowledge acquisition and sharing occurring at the individual, group and organizational levels that captures experiences, procedures, practices and routines. The following section explores the differences between organizational learning and the learning organization and how understanding the differences can help us examine the inter–relationship between organizational learning, learning organizations, virtual technology, and virtual communities of practice.

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization

It is important to distinguish three differences between organizational learning and learning organizations. First, in organizational learning, the goal is to identify what is currently occurring in the organization, while a learning organization is more futuristic (Edmondson and Moingeon, 1998). Second, the organizational learning literature is primarily descriptive, whereas the learning organization literature is primarily prescriptive (Easterby–Smith & Araujo, 1999). Third, organizational learning is academic in nature, while the learning organization literature targets practitioners and consultants (Amy, 2007).

Despite these differences, scholars and practitioners share three areas of consensus, as described by Fiol & Lyles, (1985): (a) the centrality of environmental alignment; (b) the necessity of individual learning and its transfer to the organizational level; and (c) the priority of maximizing the impact of contextual factors such as strategy, structure, and culture. In short, the learning organization proactively pursues a link between contextual factors and the environment to facilitate the organizational learning process. In addition, Amy (2007) notes that organizational learning refers to learning processes and activities that occur within the organization, and a learning organization refers to a particular organizational form.

Yang, Watkins & Marsick, (2013) contend the construct of the learning organization normally refers to organizations that have displayed continuous learning and adaptive characteristics, or have worked to instill them. However, organizational learning denotes collective learning experiences used to acquire knowledge and develop skills. The characteristics of a learning organization are often reflected at different organizational levels – the individual, team or group levels, and the structural or system levels.

Furthermore, Swanson & Holton, (2001), believe most researchers and practitioners view “organizational learning” as the result of specific strategies formed by the organization to promote learning. This concept is different from the learning organization and should not be related to it in a manner that implies these terms are interchangeable. The learning organization, considered the domain of the practitioner, focuses on how an organization's behavior should be changed to effect organizational learning. Whereas, organizational learning, considered the domain of the academic, refers to the study of the learning processes (Örtenblad, 2001; Sun & Scott, 2005). Graham and Nafukho (2008) note, it is important that we continue to seek theoretical congruence of the definitions of learning organization and organizational learning. Operationally defining these concepts has attracted scholars from various disciplines and, as a result, conceptual clarity has been difficult to achieve.

Virtual Technology and Organizational Learning

Technology is currently a key aspect of human resource development (HRD) efforts, which is why there has been an increase in literature published on how virtual technology influences organizational learning (Fagan, 2014). Virtual HRD posits that technology should be culturally relevant as well as media rich to have the best chance of improving such HRD outcomes as learning, performance, growth of expertise, innovation, and community bonding (Bennett, 2014). Technology development impacts HRD practice by adapting technology to support HRD interventions and processes in practice, and by applying HRD techniques, processes and models to ensure organizational needs are met strategically during and after the design and implementation of new technology (Bennett, 2014).

For the purpose of this paper, virtual technology includes everything that HRD professionals define as collaborative media. This includes social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and telecommunications technologies such as email, asynchronous education, discussion forums, electronic bulletin boards, chat rooms, synchronous video conferencing and so forth. To fully understand the relationship between virtual technology and organizational learning, this review considers the individual, group and organizational levels.

Earlier on, Pentland (1995) introduced the organizational knowledge system which suggests a deeper level of influence, where information systems can also affect the objects of knowledge and the criteria for knowledge construction. He believed organizational learning should be investigated as a system of five knowledge processes – (a) constructing, (b) organizing, (c) storing, (d) distributing and (e)applying. When organizational learning is a system of these knowledge processes, it becomes useful in a virtual environment such as a virtual community of practice.

Robey, Bodreau and Rose (1999) developed recommendations for organizations in incorporating information systems into organizational learning. They recommend that organizations use their past experiences with technology when introducing new technologies, and use learning that occurs not just in formal training, but in work contexts as well. Information technology would be useful in capturing past experiences and capturing experiences that occur in the everyday work context. Organizations should also seek help from consultants and outsiders in incorporating virtual technology.

However, Robey et al. (1999) warn that information technology can also disable organizational learning when organizations rely too much on formal, rigid systems and less on the information stored in individual experienced employees. The virtual communities of practice can help to loosen the rigidity of formal information systems, encouraging the capturing of the rich expertise of skilled employees. Information technologies can also enhance organizational learning by increasing members’ communication and by supporting discourse among them (Robey et al., 1999).

In a study by Kane and Alavi (2007), they investigated the effects of information technology on the exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. They relied on qualitative case evidence in a single organization to extend an earlier computational model of organizational learning by introducing learning between individuals in an organization through three distinct information technology enabled learning mechanisms: knowledge repositories, virtual team rooms, and electronic communities of practice. From this study, they concluded that each of these mechanisms has a distinct effect on the exploration and exploitation dynamics in organizational learning.

In addition, when the three learning mechanisms are blended together, the environmental conditions under which they operate, and the characteristics of the individuals who use the tools, collectively influence the impact of the three on organizational learning. Understanding how the three support organizational learning, when used in different combinations and under particular environmental conditions, can better, help grasp their effect. Kane and Alavi (2007) noted that computer simulation can also help extend our understanding of under–researched areas such as unintended effects of information technology in organizational learning.

Additionally, Li, D'Souza and Du (2011) point out, virtual teams are important because they can take advantage of the varied and diverse expertise of team members at different locations. Before the proliferation of virtual technology in the workplace, organizational knowledge was confined by geographical location. Now, virtual technology offers the advantage of including workers in other geographical regions which further expands the quantity and quality of organizational learning. In addition, they support knowledge creation through deep engagement of the learner and collaborative knowledge construction.

Wang's (2011) study of workplace e–learning integrates a key performance indicator model with web 2.0 technologies that align individual learning needs with organizational objectives. The model has four main functions: (a) defining organizational goals and linking them to competencies, (b) building a knowledge network by linking learning resources to a set of competencies to be developed, (c) connecting workers who wish to share, create and evaluate their knowledge with peers in the network, and (d) profiling each individual in relation to their expertise, performance, learning need and work context. Zhao and Kemp (2012) believe that while the study created a focus on the use of virtual technology for organizational learning, its only focus was on short term needs related to job performance. It did not address long term human resource development of the workers.

Virtual Communities of Practice and Organizational Learning

The integration of technology and traditional HRD techniques and theories is occurring through a new intersection between virtual technology and organizational learning in what are now known as virtual communities of practice. As described by Wenger (2011), a community of practice is broadly described as a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do, and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly. A virtual community of practice is a community of practice that is developed, and maintained using the internet, and includes active members who are practitioners, or “experts,” in the specific domain of interest. Members must participate in a process of collective learning within their domain. Communities of practice are places which provide a sound basis for organizational learning and encourage knowledge creation and acquisition (Correia, Paulos & Mesquita, 2009). Virtual communities of practice perform a central role in promoting communication and collaboration between members who are dispersed in both time and space.

Vries, Bloemen and Roossink (2000) viewed online knowledge communities as social structures where people organize their professional development, lifelong learning, electronic performance support, professional interests, and so forth. Virtual communities like intranets, chat rooms, new feeds, email, shared editable documents, and workflow systems allow members to communicate, route work to others, and collaborate both synchronously and asynchronously (Bennett, 2014).

Additionally, Vries et al. (2000) identify six qualities necessary for virtual communities to succeed: (a) when membership and user roles are clearly defined, (b) a clear mission is given, (c) a goal statement is generally accepted, (d) ideas or beliefs are shared, (e) the members are loyal to the mission, and (f) there is frequent social interaction between members. In addition, participation is mutually beneficial to members and they use virtual technologies as a meeting place

Chang (2003) defines a learning community on the web as a virtual social organization of learners who share knowledge and experiences, exchange information, as well as collaboratively solve problems in the pursuit of common learning objectives and interests. Wenger (2011) defined communities of practice as groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do, and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly, and whose identity is defined by a shared domain of interest.

Ardichvili (2008) describes virtual communities of practice as organic systems that emerge and are constantly constituted and reconstituted through interactions among community members and members of the larger institutional environment. One can argue that virtual communities of practice are in line with one of Senge's (2006) five disciplines, developing a shared vision. A shared vision can be a powerful motivator and driving force within an organization, and who, as proposed by Vries et al. (2000), can help the organization develop the accepted goal statements, ideas, or beliefs, with members who are loyal to the mission.

Vries et al. (2000) notes three types of online knowledge communities. The first is corporate communities made for employers, employees and colleagues, and used for knowledge creation, improving work and information processes and collaborative work. This type of community helps manage internal affairs and may be located on an organization's intranet. The second type is a community of practice for professional workers, professional colleagues and experts who could be used for making knowledge available, knowledge creation and collaborative working, and could be located on the internet, extranet, or within a professional organization. The third type of online knowledge community is a social knowledge community for internet users, and is useful for making knowledge available and knowledge creation. Usually this type of group will have a specific theme or target group issue (Vries, 2000).

Learning communities may be fostered by communication, attention to differences, shared culture, adaptation, dialogue and access to information resources (Jonassen et al., 1999). According to Li, D'Souza and Du (2011), when virtual communities of practice pay attention to differences, they can take advantage of the varied and diverse expertise of team members at different locations. The differences may strengthen the group more effectively than would a local community of practice.

As virtual communities of practice evolve, Chang (2003) proposes that a learning community have the following features: spontaneous learning and active knowledge construction by individual learners, idea sharing and information provision for all members of the learning community, and distributed knowledge and expertise. Knowledge is distributed among different people, objects, and tools, and is shared through interaction, discussion, communication, instruction, and sharing or utilization of tools.

Correia et al., (2009) developed a case study in order to identify both the motivations and the constraints that members of an organization experience when taking part in the knowledge creating processes of virtual communities of practice. Results showed that organizational culture and professional and personal development play important roles in these processes. No interviewee mentioned direct financial reward as a motivation factor for participation in virtual communities of practice. Most identified the difficulty in aligning objectives, established by the management, with justification of the time spent in the virtual communities of practice. The interviewees also said that technology is not a constraint.

Regarding the role of HRD professionals in developing virtual communities of practice, Ardichvili (2008) believes their role is to function as designers/supporters and co–creators. These virtual communities of practice can be encouraged by promoting the members’ sense of belonging to the community, promoting conditions for an open, uninhibited exchange of ideas and information by creating time and space for exchanging stories and expertise, and by teaching community members about the value of storytelling and how to develop and share stories.

One issue of importance in virtual communities of practice is the issue of trust. Ardichvili (2008) recommends that in building knowledge for organizational learning trust, it is important to supplement online interaction with teleconferences, and some face to face meetings. This trust extends to trust in the organization as a whole and its determination to discourage misuse of shared information. Virtual communities of practice can also be hampered by a potential aversion to the use of online technology as a communication medium. According to Duden (2011), a learning culture with trust guarantees the continuous increase and innovative way for organizations to assess their environment, and ensure continued operating success.

Virtual communities of practice may be useful for informal and incidental learning as well. According to Watkins & Marsick, (1993), due to the sometimes informal structure of virtual communities of practice, they create environments that aid learning from experience, provide non–routine conditions, remove limitations to learning and enhance learning. In addition, Thomas & Akdere, (2013) believe collaborative media is useful for HRD because it is learner focused, accessible to learners at anytime and anyplace, and can be utilized when the learner has an immediate and tangible need for the information. Collaborative media such as asynchronous discussion forums, electronic bulletin boards, chat rooms, synchronous video conferencing, and social media platforms can all be used to facilitate virtual communities of practice.

Mancuso, Chulp and McWhorter (2010) investigated the use of virtual communities of practice by studying the use of Second Life. Second Life is a 3–D online virtual world where avatars do the same things real people do in real life like buy and sell goods, gamble, listen to music, watch movies and so forth. They note that there are some enablers in Second Life that could be applied to virtual communities of practice: a variety of educational topics, opportunities for multidisciplinary collaboration, collaboration across geographical boundaries, and immersive environments that create a social presence. In addition, they discovered that virtual communities of practice like Second Life provide health and emotional benefits which are created through interaction and cost savings over face to face experience.

There are a variety of models for virtual communities of practice. However, White (2014) argues the need for a model that also incorporates inter– and intra–organizational learning, as learning can take place outside the organization, across multiple organizations and across multiple sectors of society. This creates a need to explore virtual communities of practice beyond the organization and possibly to include professional organizations, community groups, global networks and so forth.

Implications of Virtual Technology on Organizational Learning

In the 21^st century, an organization's competitive advantage lies in its learning capability, which in human resource development (HRD) is defined as organizational learning (Lin & Lin, 2001). While there are many benefits to incorporating virtual technology to achieve organizational learning, Mancuso et al. (2010) points out that there are also barriers to using virtual technology for organizational learning, such as glitches in technology, addictiveness of virtual environments, and lack of funding for small businesses and nonprofit organizations. The reliance on technology is an important issue, because inconsistency can create frustration and cause users to abandon the technology that the organization might have spent a small fortune on. Virtual technology can be addictive that may affect overall performance of workers and the organization. In addition, there is always a learning curve when new technology is introduced to workers. The varied nature of learning curves among different types of learners is sometimes heightened when technology is concerned, because there is not always a specific right or wrong way of approaching virtual technologies. Lastly, virtual technologies can be expensive due to the costs associated with purchasing, maintaining and training workers. These costs can be prohibitive to a small business or not for profit organization.

However, HRD professionals are in a unique place where they can demonstrate value and relevance to the modern, technology enabled organization (Bennett, 2014). HRD professionals are able to observe and shape how Virtual HRD is implemented in organizational learning. To avoid the present perspective of technology in many organizations, where technology is treated as secondary to the profession, they must engage in critical conversations about virtual HRD developments (Fagan, 2014).

As proposed by Bennett (2014), HRD professionals must position themselves to contribute to technology implementation that will affect organizational learning. They can also recommend that technology used for organizational learning be tied to the recognition and compensation systems of the organization. HRD professionals must accept their role as designers of environments, not just implementers of programs, so that virtual technology can actually aid in organizational learning and ultimately in creating a learning organization. HRD will need to become more team based and interdisciplinary in research and practice so that the individual, the groups or teams, and the organization are fully incorporated in virtual HRD (Bennett, 2014).

Conclusion

The relationship and use of virtual technology within organizational learning and learning organizations, and how possible relationships between these concepts can be utilized in the use of knowledge repositories, virtual team rooms, and virtual communities of practice were presented. The result shows that a conceptual understanding of organizational learning and learning organizations play important roles. For example, users of virtual communities of practice identified the difficulty in aligning objectives established by the management with justification of the time spent in the virtual community of practice (Correia et al., 2009).

The implication of using virtual technology in organizational learning remains an important and unexplored research topic. Present research does show that virtual technology, described in this article as everything that HRD professionals define as collaborative media, is useful for HRD because it is learner focused, accessible to learners at anytime and anyplace, and can be utilized when the learner has an immediate and tangible need for the information (Thomas & Akdere, 2013). Virtual communities of practice are one example of how virtual technology and organizational learning are merging to enable organizational learning, by boosting intellectual and emotional self–esteem and developing individual and group expertise. (Mancuso et al., 2010).

While there are many benefits, there are also barriers to using virtual technology for organizational learning, such as glitches in technology, addictiveness of virtual environments, and lack of funding for small businesses and nonprofit organizations. The learning curve and costs associated with any new technology remain as barriers to the effective use of virtual technology for organizational learning.

Consequently, the use of virtual technologies creates a need to address issues of information security and privacy without restricting the potential benefits that can be derived using these technologies. Virtual environments create a need to revisit the issues of trust, privacy and confidential information. It is imperative that HRD professionals develop ways to build and maintain trust, while maintaining an acceptable level of privacy and respect for confidential information as the virtual community of practice succeeds.

Some of these issues need to be further addressed through empirical studies that prove the value of virtual technology to HRD. There is a need for more empirical studies that are generalizable to other settings. In particular, future empirical research must focus on which variables and constructs in virtual technology positively influence HRD practice. Also, future studies are needed to explore how virtual communities of practice have aided organizational learning.

Ultimately, it is important for human resource development, as a field, engage in the foundational goal of developing a virtual technology that aids in organizational learning and creates effective learning organizations.

References

Ardichvili

(2008). Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: Motivators, barriers, and enablers. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10 (4), 541–554. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422308319536

Argyris

(1972). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York, NY: Wiley.

Argyris

, & Schon

(1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Bennett

E. E.

(2009). Virtual HRD: The intersection of knowledge management, culture, and intranets. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 362–374.

Bennett

E. E.

(2014a). How an intranet provides opportunities for learning organizational culture: Implications for virtual HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16 (3) 296319. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314532093

Bennett

E. E.

(2014b). Introducing new perspectives on virtual human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16 (3), 263–280. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314532091.

Burns

J. M.

(1998). Transactional and transforming leadership. Leading organizations, 133–134.

Cangelosi

V. E.

, & Dill

W. R.

(1965). Organizational learning: Observations toward a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 175–203. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2391412

Chalofsky

N. E.

(2010). Meaningful workplaces: Reframing how and where we work. John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Chang

C. C.

(2003). Towards a distributed web–based learning community. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(1), 27–42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800032000038831

11.

Correia

A. M. R.

, Paulos

, & Mesquita

(2009). Virtual communities of practice: Investigating motivations and constraints inthe processes of knowledge creation and transfer. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 11–20.

12.

Crossan

M. M.

, Lane

H. W.

, & White

R. E.

(1999). An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.2202135

13.

Cyert

R. M.

, & March

J. G.

(1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

14.

Easterby–Smith

, & Araujo

(1999). Organizational learning: current debates and opportunities. Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, 1(1) 1–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218297

15.

Edmondson

, & Moingeon

(1998). From organizational learning to the learning organization. Management Learning, 29 (1), 5–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507698291001

16.

Fagan

M. H.

(2014). Exploring a sociomaterial perspective on technology in virtual human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16 (3), 320–334. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314532094

17.

Fiol

C. M.

, & Lyles

M. A.

(1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1985.4279103Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 264–285. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311406421

18.

Lin

F. R.

, & Lin

S. C.

(2001). A conceptual model for virtual organizational learning. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 11(3), 155–178.

19.

Mancuso

D. S.

, Chlup

D. T.

, & McWhorter

R. R.

(2010). A study of adult learning in a virtual world. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(6), 681–699. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422310395368

20.

Örtenblad

(2001). On differences between organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organization, 8(3), 125–133. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470110391211

21.

Pentland

B. T.

(1995). Information systems and organizational learning: the social epistemology of organizational knowledge systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 5(1), 1–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0959–8022(95)90011–x

22.

Prange

(1999). Organizational learning: Desperately seeking theory. Organizational learning and the learning organization, 23–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218297

23.

Reio

T. G.

(2015). Technology, Learning and Development. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 27(1), 1–2.

24.

Robey

, Boudreau

M. C.

, & Rose

G. M.

(2000). Information technology and organizational learning: a review and assessment of research. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 10(2), 125–155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959–8022(99)00017–x

25.

Song

J. H.

, & Chermack

T. J.

(2008). A theoretical approach to the organizational knowledge formation process: Integrating the concepts of individual learning and learning organization culture. Human Resource Development Review, 7(4), 424–442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484308324983

26.

Templeton

G. F.

, Lewis

B. R.

, & Snyder

C. A.

(2002). Development of a measure for the organizational learning construct. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2), 175–218.

27.

Thomas

K. J.

, & Akdere

(2013). Social media as collaborative media in workplace learning. Human Resource Development Review, 12(3), 329–344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312472331

28.

Vera

, & Crossan

(2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/20159030

29.

Vries

S. D.

, Bloemen

, & Roossink

(2000). Online knowledge communities. In WebNet WorldConference on the WWW and Internet, 2000 (1), 124–129.

30.

Watkins

K. E.

, & Marsick

V. J.

(1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass Inc.

31.

Weick

K. E.

, & Roberts

K. H.

(1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1) 357–381. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2393372

32.

Wenger

(2011). Communities of practice: a brief introduction. Retrieved March 5, 2014, from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro.htm

33.

White

C. C.

(2014). An integrative literature review to introduce socio–networked learning: A new theoretical framework for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 13(3) 276292. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484313513951

34.

Yoon

S. W.

, Song

J. H.

, Lim

D. H.

, & Joo

B. K.

(2010). Structural determinants of team performance: The mutual influences of learning culture, creativity, and knowledge. Human Resource Development International, 13(3), 249–264.

35.

Yorks

(2005). Strategic human resource development. New York, NY: South–Western College Publishing.

36.

Zhao

, & Kemp

L. J.

(2012). Integrating Web 2.0–based informal learning with workplace training. Educational Media International, 49(3), 231–245. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2012.738015