Purpose: The Strategic Learning Assessment Map (SLAM) originally assessed organizational learning (OL) at the level of the firm by addressing managers, who rated OL in the SLAM on five dimensions of individual learning, group learning, organizational learning, feed-forward learning, and feedback learning. However, as employees are getting their jobs done discretely and are increasingly making their own decisions, their perspective on OL genuinely matters. Hence, we assessed OL at the level of the individual by addressing employees on all levels, who rated OL in a short form of the SLAM (SF-SLAM). Design/methodology/approach: In this paper, we focused on the construct validity of this SF-SLAM by investigated its reliability, factorial validity, and nomological network. First, we asked whether the SF-SLAM reliably measures OL on five dimensions of individual, group, organizational, feed-forward, and feedback learning. Next, we asked whether the SF-SLAM was associated with its nomological network of engaging in innovation-related learning activities, behaving innovatively on the job, and showing higher educational levels, intelligence, and individual job performances. We used a diverse German employee sample of skilled and unskilled workers and managers (N = 434) and analyzed the data with structural equation modeling. Findings: The SF-SLAM was reliable, but revealed both constrained factorial validity and validity on the basis of its nomological network. First, five dimensions found support in our employee sample, but their correlations were high or very high, except for individual learning. Second, the SF-SLAM showed only few differential relations with variables from its nomological network. Originality/value: Taken together, the SF-SLAM is short, reliable, and only valid for examining individual learning.
Mainert, J., Niepel, C., Lans, T., & Greiff, S. (2018). How employees perceive organizational learning: construct validation of the 25-item short form of the strategic learning assessment map (SF-SLAM). Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(1), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2016-0494