I agree with these findings: (i) Variables like approach to HRM, quality orientation are positively affecting the formation of a learning mechanism, while profitability is negatively correlated.
What I find stimulating: The facts projected by the authors that (i) the IT programme is affecting the in formation of learning organization in limited but in a positive way, and (ii) the change in technology is positively correlated to the formation of learning organization.
The following, I think, are wrong assumptions: (i) OL is nebulous process which does not work in the interest of the business (p 57) (it is contradictory as the authors themselves say that approach to HRM and quality orientation has positive correlation with learning mechanism) (ii) centralized structure of the organization has a negative correlation with the learning organization (but, the defense forces have a centralized organization but maintain an effective learning organization) (iii) external factors do affect the formation of learning mechanism (but it is widely known fact that many companies set up a learning mechanism in the face of tough competition from rivals)
I found these things missing in the paper: (i) there is no relevant description of potential roles of profitability and external factors in the paper, like the description given for other variables, and (ii) the proposition 1& proposition 2 are not mentioned by the authors in the paper.
Assumptions made by the writers: (i) OL is nebulous process which does not work in the interest of the business (this is contradictory with what they found out from the study) (ii) moving toward learning organization status is considered natural by the authors rather than it being transformational (iii) the study found that the variables such as approach to HR and quality have positive correlation, structure and profitability has negative correlation and external factors have conditional correlation with formation of a learning mechanism.