Knowledge Management Research & Practice

ISSN: 1477-8238 (Print) 1477-8246 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tkmr20

Facilitating organisational learning activities:

Types of organisational culture and their influence
on organisational learning and performance

Seok-young Oh & Hyeong-seok Han

To cite this article: Seok-young Oh & Hyeong-seok Han (2018): Facilitating organisational
learning activities: Types of organisational culture and their influence on organisational
learning and performance, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, DOI:
10.1080/14778238.2018.1538668

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1538668

Published online: 07 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tkmr20
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE
https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1538668

Facilitating organisational learning activities: Types of organisational culture

and their influence on organisational learning and performance
Seok-young Oha and Hyeong-seok Hanb
a
Department of Education, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea; bCLX HRD Team, SK energy Co., LTD., Ulsan, Korea

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aimed to identify the relationship between organisational culture (OC) and Received 27 February 2018
organisational learning (OL), and explore the mediation role of OL on OC and performance Revised 23 July 2018
in a Korean context. This study applied four cultural types, namely, clan, adhocracy, market, Accepted 12 October 2018
and hierarchy, to assess OC and used a 4I framework (intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and KEYWORDS
institutionalising) to measure OL. Data were collected on management groups working in Organisational culture;
listed private sector Korean companies, and 527 responses were analysed. To test nine organisational learning;
hypotheses, model measurement and structural equation model analysis were conducted. performance;
The research found that clan and adhocracy cultures had strong positive relationships with knowledge-sharing
OL, while market and hierarchy cultures showed no significant relationships with OL. OL
activities were fully mediated between clan and adhocracy cultures and organisational
performance. OL enhances organisational performance, and management needs to develop
workplace learning tools accordingly, particularly in fostering clan and adhocracy cultures.

1. Introduction own interpretation processes based on rituals, myths,

and beliefs (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Cook & Yanow,
Over the previous forty years, the concept of organisa-
1993; Gherardi, 2001). The OL process, thus, can be
tional learning (OL) has grown and evolved in line with
seen as socially constructed through a process of nego-
various academic perspectives, such as management,
tiating, interpreting, or integrating what individuals or
education, sociology, political science and anthropology
groups experience, and producing (or institutionalising)
(Popova-Nowak & Cseh, 2015). To understand how
new structures, systems and performance. OL involves
organisations learn, learning in organisations has been
not only obtaining explicit knowledge but also volunta-
analyzed and interpreted according to numerous aca-
rily participating in and collectively practicing what is
demic perspectives (Starkey, Tempest, & McKinlay,
required within organisational life (Cook & Brown, 1999;
2004). In the initial efforts to interpret how firms learn,
Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999).
scholars applied processes of individual learning to
With much research from a range of multidisci-
organisations (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Kim, 1993;
plinary perspectives devoted to understanding how
Shrivastava, 1983). The basic assumption of this perspec-
and why organisations learn, OL has emerged as a
tive was that organisations learn through a cognitive-like
critical management framework or set of practices in
process in similar fashion to individuals, such as acquir-
terms of the success of firms (DiMilia & Birdi, 2010).
ing knowledge, interpreting and storing it (Huber, 1991).
Because of its importance as a source of competitive
Meanwhile, from a management perspective, organisa-
advantage in dealing with unstable environments,
tions were believed to have OL capability because they
research has focused on trying to identify the deter-
possessed specific kinds of organisational and managerial
minants of OL (Oh & Kuchinke, 2017; Vera &
practices that facilitated learning, thereby achieving their
Crossan, 2004). However, there have been few studies
goals (Chiva, Alegre, & Lapiedra, 2007; Jerez-Gomez,
to identify the effects of organisational culture (OC)
Céspedes-Lorente, & Valle-Cabrera, 2005; Tohidi,
on OL in respect of direct or indirect effects on, or in
Seyedaliakbar, & Mandegari, 2012). The main interest
constructing, organisational members’ beliefs, values
of management was to determine whether organisations
and behaviour in relation to participation in a collec-
possessed the best practices or the most effective systems,
tive learning process involving the interpretation of
for example, in relation to leadership or knowledge shar-
new ideas or the reinterpretation of existing ideas.
ing systems, which would directly promote learning
OC is an important environmental factor influencing
within an organisation. From a sociological perspective,
whether organisational members are willing to parti-
however, organisations learn because they have a unique
cipate in OL activities. From a social constructionist
value system rooted in the social interaction of organisa-
perspective, OC shapes assumptions about ways of
tional members who sustain it, and learn through their

CONTACT Seok-young Oh [email protected] Department of Education, Yonsei University, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea
© Operational Research Society 2018
2 S.-Y. OH AND H.-S. HAN

thinking, what knowledge is worthwhile and com- throughout an organisation (Crossan et al., 1999).
monly accepted, and how knowledge will be used Thus, in order to achieve the purposes of this study,
(DeLong & Fahey, 2000). From a resource-based per- the following three research questions are addressed:
spective, since it is also recognised as a key resource How do the four different types of organisational cul-
for sustainable competitiveness due to its uniquely tures (i.e. clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy)
valuable features, OC is a critical driver to foster influence organisational learning? how do the four
other management practices as well as to enhance different types of organisational cultures influence
organisational performance (Barney, 1991). organisational performance? and Does organisational
Although both OC and OL play a vital role in learning mediate between organisational cultures and
improving performance (Bontis, Crossan, & performance?
Hulland, 2002; Cameron & Quinn, 2011), there have
been few studies assessing their relationship (Lopez,
1.1. Organisational culture
Peon, & Ordas, 2005) or on their joint effects on
organisational performance, apart from technical Organisational culture (OC) has been defined as a set of
innovation (Sanz-Valle et al., 2011). There is some values and assumptions inherent in the behaviour of
evidence that OC is strongly associated with knowl- organisational members, as well as a common charac-
edge-sharing behaviour (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011 ) teristic that is integrated among organisational mem-
and with knowledge management (DeLong & Fahey, bers to focus collective effort in one direction (Quinn,
2000; Rai, 2011). In particular, there has been a lack 1988). The concept of OC has been developed from
of studies on the linkages between OC, OL, and various perspectives, including anthropology, sociol-
performance within a Korean commercial context, ogy, and management science. Mullins (1999) noted
in which cultivation of OC needs encouragement to that the concept of OC contains various aspects in
foster OL, to facilitate opening new business markets, diverse forms within the cultural web of an organisa-
and to develop innovative products (Ahn & Park, tion, for example, in stories, symbols, rituals and rou-
2013). In a few studies on Korean corporate culture, tines, language, and in system and power structures,
OC in Korea is mainly characterised by a hierarchical and they coexist and interrelate with one another simul-
culture that is based on age, gender, and position taneously within an organisation. Schein (2004) defined
(Chang & Moon, 2008). Kim and McLean (2014) OC as a pattern of basic assumptions shared by organi-
argue that Korean workers tend to recognise the sational members and formed through the processes of
organisation as a family and to stress harmony and external adaptation and internal integration. Cohen
relationships. This analogy with the family has both (1993) delineated OC as a combination of formal and
negative and positive dimensions that sometimes informal aspects, with leadership, decision-making pro-
interfere with their critical discussion for knowledge cesses and the HR system reflecting the formal aspects
sharing or sometimes promote team learning through of OC, while historical anecdotes, language, and myths
cooperation. Although a collectivist culture akin to a and rituals representing the informal aspects of OC
traditional family has allowed Korean firms to pro- arising implicitly. Thus, OC can be seen as a compre-
mote a level of internal unity that has enabled the hensive concept represented by a combination of ele-
rapid replication of the skills of advanced foreign ments constituting culture, including dominant
companies, it has limited their capacity to respond leadership styles, management procedures and routines,
proactively and anticipate transformations and dialogue, definitions of success, and collective uncon-
opportunities in a rapidly changing business environ- sciously exercised practices (Cameron & Quinn, 2011;
ment (Lee, 2014). While the importance of the link Cook & Yanow, 1993). Considering these multiple and
between OC and OL activities has been stressed, few integrative characteristics of OC, this study adopted the
empirical studies have been conducted that identify competing values framework (CVF) proposed by
the nature of their relationships within the Korean Quinn (1988) and used in his follow-up studies. The
business environment. CVF is one of the most widely and extensively used
To address this lack, the purpose of this study was models to delineate dynamic OC phenomena.
to examine the relationship between OC and OL, and According to Cameron and Quinn (1999), the CVF
explore the mediation role of OL on OC and perfor- consists of two dimensions: a vertical dimension con-
mance in a Korean context. This study applied four tinuum involving contrasting values of “flexibility ver-
cultural classification types, which differently influ- sus control”, and a horizontal dimension continuum
ence individual or group cognition and behaviour involving contrasting values of “internal focus versus
but coexist within an organisation (Cameron & external focus”. The “flexibility” value emphasises
Quinn, 2011), to assess OC. Moreover, this study also voluntariness, dynamism, decentralised decision-mak-
used multidimensional concepts in relation to OL, ing, and empowered authority, while the “control”
which takes place at individual, group, and organisa- value emphasises order, predictability and stability.
tional levels and involves dynamic learning processes The “internal focus” value emphasises integration,
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 3

unity and cooperation within an organisation to main- control, predictability, assessment, and centralisation
tain the existing organisation, and the “external focus” are emphasised. Routines, norms, and standardised
value emphasises interactions with the external envir- practices are crucial factors to maintain systems and
onment, specifically adaptation and competitiveness, promote incremental improvement. Top-down com-
for coping with external change. Therefore, the CVF munications and clear guidelines help members to
approach facilitates the classification of OC into four avoid confusion and errors, thereby helping to obtain
types: clan culture (flexibility with internal focus), standardised results and to achieve common goals
adhocracy culture (flexibility with external focus), mar- (Cameron and Quinn, n.d.).
ket culture (control with external focus), and hierarchy Among the four distinct OC types, there is no a
culture (control with internal focus). single cultural type predominantly preferred by orga-
Clan culture has been referred to as the “human nisations. According to Cameron and Quinn (2011),
relation model” because it is characterised by values there is no claim made that a single cultural type is
involving internal and organic relationships in flex- the best, and they noted that the four distinct cultural
ible organisational structures. In clan culture, “doing types need to be balanced, and that organisations
things together” is emphasised along with the values need to judge the appropriate cultural type to pro-
of trust, morale-boosting, and teamwork, which mote, according to the competitive environment in
encourage people to bond with one another. Since which the organisation is operating. Moreover, orga-
clan culture is encouraged in organisations with a nisations with these various cultural types well-
long history of stable membership, a sense of affilia- balanced tend to be effective at managing knowledge
tion and belonging to a clan play an important role in creation and management (Rai, 2011).
building interpersonal relationships and facilitating
the development of individual talent and competen-
1.2. Organisational learning
cies, thereby helping to achieve common goals
(Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Adhocracy culture, con- Organisational learning (OL) has been very broadly
sidered to be an “open system model”, is charac- defined in the management literature as involving
terised by values involving external and organic knowledge-sharing systems (Nonaka, 1994) and
relationships in flexible organisational structures. In learning processes within an organisation comprising
adhocracy culture, “doing things first” is highlighted an interaction of multi-level learning individuals,
along with the values of creativity, transformation, groups and organisations (Kim, 1993; Schein, 1993;
and growth, which enable members proactively to Tsang, 1997). Kim (1993) defined OL as dynamic
cope with changing environments. To maintain and process or organisational capacity that transfers
facilitate flexibility and discretion, organisations learning outcome from individuals to organisations
decentralise systems and operate adhocracy not tied and vice versa; meanwhile, DiBella, Nevis, and Gould
to a specific purpose, and quickly reorganise when (1996) defined it as “the capacity (or processes)
new challenges arise. Adhocracy culture still empha- within an organisation to maintain or improve per-
sises social bonding but with more focus on enthu- formance based on experience” (p. 363). Most
siasm for change than that of clan culture (Cameron recently, Chia (2017, p. 108) defined OL as a collec-
and Quinn, n.d.). tive endeavor to silently transmit and absorb social
Market culture, also known as “the rational goal practices of organisational members non-deliberately
model”, focuses on external relationships and compe- and unconsciously. Despite its diverse definition,
tency enhancement. It is characterised by the values of commonly accepted understandings of OL highlight
control, predictability, goal achievement and successful its roots in the personal learning of organisational
external competition, thus an attitude of “doing things members (Shrivastava, 1983). However, OL is quite
fast” is emphasised. In market culture, committed different from individual learning in that it also has a
organisational performance is strongly embedded collective component involving group thinking and
within organisational systems and procedures, and social learning, which it activates to reach a com-
the ends of competitiveness and productivity basically monly shared conceptual model (Schein, 1993), and
form members’ thought and actions. Instead of inter- that it is a dynamic process based on knowledge
action with internal organisational members, market sharing such as knowledge acquisition, transfer and
culture gives priority to building relationships with integration activities among the different levels (indi-
external stakeholders (i.e. the market) to obtain neces- viduals, groups, and organisations) (Huber, 1991;
sary and differentiated resources from outside the Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005).
organisation (Cameron and Quinn, n.d..). Hierarchy Crossan et al. (1999) identified OL as a key means
culture, also known as the “internal process model”, to achieving strategic renewal of an organisation. OL
focuses on internal relationships characterised by for- activities, for example, acquiring knowledge or creat-
malised and hierarchical structures. Since hierarchy ing new knowledge along with its distribution and
culture prizes “doing things right”, the values of integration within a firm, can become a significant
4 S.-Y. OH AND H.-S. HAN

strategic resource and enable organisations to renew DeLong and Fahey (2000), the cultural context heav-
themselves for better competitive organisational per- ily influences learning activities in diverse ways. First,
formance (Bontis et al., 2002). OC affects the judgment of organisation members
Crossan et al. (1999) classified the OL process using a concerning what is useful, important and valid
“4I framework.” A 4I framework attempts to integrate knowledge within an organisation. Second, it serves
theories of learning at the individual, group, and orga- as a bridge for individual (or subunit) knowledge to
nisational levels using a multidimensional approach. become knowledge held in common by an organisa-
Intuiting and interpreting occur at the individual level, tion. When individuals are invited to share their
interpreting and integrating take place at the group knowledge, OC plays a critical role in determining
level, and integrating and institutionalizing are found whether to share. Third, OC shapes the context for
at the organisational level. Intuiting is related to the facilitating processes of creating, institutionalizing
informal recognition of patterns and possibilities within and distributing new knowledge. OC determines
personal experience and affects individual intentions how learning outcomes at the individual, group, and
and actions. Interpreting involves explaining one’s organisational level will be utilised and transferred
insights and thoughts to others to clarify and create across levels in a specific context and governs the
meaning for others to experience. Integrating involves relevant social interactions.
developing shared conceptual models among indivi- The core values of clan culture comprise mutual
duals in a socially connected system. Institutionalizing trust, belonging, and cooperation, with closer human
involves sustaining and/or modifying routines and relations, participation, and teamwork emphasised
norms based on intuiting, interpreting and integrating (Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011). These criteria in
processes (Crossan et al., 1999.). respect of organisational performance are vital in
Within the OL process, the 4I framework empha- human resource development, and for organisational
sises existing tensions between exploration (using what commitment (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). Kostova
has already been learned) and exploitation (assimilat- (1999) argued that trust-based cooperation among
ing new learning). March (1991) stated that achieving organisational members actively influenced knowledge
a proper balance between exploration and exploitation sharing and learning processes, and Lopez et al. (2004)
was a core element in survival and prosperity, and the noted that a collaborative culture favored sharing ideas
4I framework reflected the tension between two learn- and integrating knowledge through encouraging
ing flows operating in different directions, namely, that debate and dialogue at multiple organisational levels,
from individual learning to group and organisation and verified that a collaborative culture influenced
level learning (i.e. feedforward learning), and that ongoing OL processes, as was proposed by Huber
from the opposite direction, going from organisation (1991), such as knowledge acquisition, distribution,
level learning to individual learning (i.e. feedback interpretation and accumulation within organisations.
learning). A learning flow from the individual to the Sanz-Valle et al. (2011) tested the relationship between
organisation through the group explores and creates four types of OC, as proposed by Quinn’s study and of
new knowledge, and influences the organisational OL as proposed by Huber (1991), but did not find any
structures, systems, products, procedures, strategies, effects of clan culture on OL in a Spanish business
and cultures. Conversely, systems, structures, and stra- context. They interpreted their results as due to the
tegies at the organisational level have an impact on the internal-oriented features of clan culture whereas an
learning of individuals and groups in a context that external orientation is also required for OL. However,
effectively exploits existing institutionalised knowl- Crossan et al. (1999) have emphasised the need to keep
edge. In other words, the dynamic processes of OL a balance between feedback learning which utilises
show how the three learning levels (learning at the already obtained knowledge and feed-forward learning
individual, group, and organisation levels) and the which explores new knowledge from both the internal
two learning flows relate to each other. This study and external environments. The value of “doing things
adopted the integrated OL activities approach pro- together” in clan culture promotes a human relations-
posed by Crossan et al. (1999) to identify their rela- oriented atmosphere that focuses on teamwork,
tionships with OC and organisational performance. empowerment, and talent management (Cameron &
Quinn, 2011), and heavily facilitates a 4I framework
(intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionaliz-
1.3. The relationships between OC and OL
ing), with learning flows of exploration and exploita-
Since OC involves the core beliefs, values, and hidden tion. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:
assumptions shared by organisational members, it
affects the behaviour of individuals, groups and orga- H1: Clan culture positively influences OL activities
nisations, as well as serves to facilitate or retard
learning activities, depending on the values to be The core values of adhocracy culture are flexibility,
encouraged (Cook & Yanow, 1993). According to openness and innovation, with an emphasis on
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 5

cultivating creative people and promoting entrepre- fostered by market culture. People operating in a
neurship (Hartnell et al., 2011). Adhocracy culture- market-oriented culture prefer to participate in learn-
oriented organisations, especially in industries that ing activities providing clear and explicit knowledge,
need to respond rapidly to change, enjoy the chal- and carefully monitor the learning process to enhance
lenges arising with external changes and are more the reliability of knowledge output (Rai, 2011). Thus,
tolerant towards error (Chang, 2010). Sanz-Valle this study proposed the following hypothesis:
et al. (2011) found that only adhocracy culture had
a positive influence on OL due to its external orienta- H3: Market culture positively influences OL activities
tion in motivating members to learn and obtain new
knowledge. Several empirical studies on the effect of Hierarchy culture has control, efficiency, and sta-
adhocracy culture on learning have shown that, bility as core values and emphasises loyalty and pre-
where there is more capacity to change an organisa- dictability (Hartnell et al., 2011). In this type of OC,
tion, OL activities will be greater (Ahn & Park, 2013), organisations emphasise regulations, rules, and order,
and it has been emphasised that higher levels of and develop measurement and assessment tools to
innovation experience, risk-taking attitudes, and improve efficiency (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
encouragement of entrepreneurship have a positive Because organisations characterised by a hierarchy
effect on knowledge creation (Lai & Lee, 2007; Lee, culture are oriented more to the functioning of the
Cho, & Lee, 2010). Moreover, Palanisamy (2008) also system and to strict norms rather than to the indivi-
assessed the effects of innovative OC on knowledge duals involved within the organisation, members
creation and knowledge storage among organisations carry the burden of ensuring that formal communi-
implementing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) cations occur, a fact which limits their willingness to
systems, and found that an organisation’s approach share their knowledge (Schein, 1993). Moreover, hier-
to reviewing successes as well as failures and in moti- archy culture can retard or suppress the dissemina-
vating members to participate in generating innova- tion of relevant information and make people hesitate
tive ideas through the ERP system statistically and to adopt new knowledge required in novel situations.
positively influenced both knowledge creation and Sanz-Valle et al. (2011) also hypothesised that hier-
storage activities. Takeuchi and Nonaka (2004) archy culture had a negative effect on OL and found
pointed out that an open system approach encour- that its preference for stability and control hindered
aged intuition and ingenuity at the individual level OL activities. However, from a 4I framework perspec-
and facilitated externalisation, which entails a conver- tive, institutionalisation, which involves firms lever-
sion process from individual tacit knowledge to the aging learning at individual or group levels, requires
explicit knowledge of a group. Crossan et al. (1999) governing structures, systems, and procedures to
also found that an organisation needed to be flexible guide the learning of organisational members.
and open rather than adopt a solely internal focus to Lawrence et al. (2005) noted that the authority gen-
enhance OL activities. Based on the relevant litera- erated by hierarchy culture facilitated OL activities to
ture, the following hypothesis was proposed: some extent in that it reduced possible resistance
occurring within processes of integration or institu-
H2: Adhocracy culture positively influences OL tionalisation. Nonaka et al. (2000) also stated that
activities stability, routinisation, and centralisation promoted
the process of conversion from explicit to implicit
The core values of market culture are based on knowledge, which is required to ensure that indivi-
rational thinking that emphasises productivity, com- dual learning matches that of the organisation. Thus,
petitiveness, and clear goal setting. In market culture, the following hypothesis was proposed:
leaders are preferred who are very enthusiastic in
encouraging their subordinates to achieve their H4: Hierarchy culture positively influence OL
goals, and a quick response is emphasised to ensure activities
competitive success (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
Crossan et al. (1999) stated that the key role of OL OC, OL and organisational performance
was to achieve strategic renewal, and organisations In OL literature, the concept of OL has been
needed to find a balance between exploration and recognised as an integrated learning process in creat-
exploitation for effective renewal. March (1991) ing knowledge, which is a strategic resource (March,
added that a fundamental reason to maintain a 1991; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), as well as invol-
balanced approach was to enable organisations to ving a capability to improve organisational perfor-
survive competition for scarce resources. A tension mance (DiBella et al., 1996; Lopez et al., 2005).
between transference of learning from individuals to Several empirical studies have provided evidence con-
groups and organisations, and vice versa, is naturally cerning the noteworthy influence of OL on organisa-
generated through competition for resources, as tional performance. Organisational performance has
6 S.-Y. OH AND H.-S. HAN

been defined as an indicator which measures how negative relationship on performance. Moreover, Oh
well an organisation achieves its goals effectively and Kuchinke (2017) assessed associations between
(Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). Because perfor- quality management practices and organisational per-
mance is not a simple profit issue, it has been con- formance in Korean manufacturing businesses. They
ceptualised as various ways to identify the degree of found that OL was fully mediated in the relationships
its achievement, such as the extent to which a firm between quality practices involving leadership, people
has systems and resources to achieve its goals, the focus, process management, and organisational per-
extent to which a firm fulfils the market’s needs, or formance. This current study adopted the concept of
the extent of employees’ perception that their firm organisational performance used by Prieto and
could achieve its goals (Dess & Robinson, 1984). Revilla (2006) and proposed the following hypothesis:
Management literature views performance as wider
concept than just financial outcomes (Škerlavaj, H5: OL activities positively influenced organisational
Štemberger, & Dimovski, 2007) and more focus on performance.
its future-oriented characteristics or at least both
capability and the future, such as the satisfaction of In relevant OC literature, several studies have con-
internal and external stakeholders on firms’ overall firmed a direct relationship between the four types of
reputation or specific quality of products and service OC and innovation performance (Naranjo-Valencia,
(Brudan, 2010). Based on previous studies, this cur- Jimenez-Jimenez, & Sanz-Valle, 2016; Sanz-Valle
rent study thereby views organisational performance et al., 2011), but few studies have been conducted to
as a socially constructed perception which is placed in identify the effects of these types of OC on business
people’s mind about not only an organisation’s finan- performance (Acar & Acar, 2014). Given that the
cial achievement (e.g. growth in sales and profitabil- concept of OC has been defined as involving shared
ity) but also its quality of performance (e.g. service values, beliefs and identities that directly influence
and product quality) and peoples’ satisfaction (e.g. the behaviour and thinking of organisational mem-
customer satisfaction and corporate reputation). bers, it makes sense to assume that OC is directly or
In OL literature, learning in organisations has been indirectly associated with business performance
highlighted as critical organisational capability to (Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2016). Moreover, the CVF
promote organisational performance (Chiva et al., was initially developed as criteria for predicting
2007; Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005). Achieving organisa- whether a firm was performing effectively (Quinn &
tional goals or and creating competitive advantage Rohrbaugh, 1983), and was combined with other
requires organisations to learn (Huber, 1991). management fields, such as leadership, strategising
Gorelick and Tantawy-Monsou (2005) argue both and knowledge management, to achieve greater orga-
that learning taking place at individual, group, or nisational effectiveness (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). In
organisational levels is aligned with organisational addition, from a resource-based perspective, OC can
goals and that acquisition, transfer, and integration be considered as a source of sustainable competitive
of knowledge across levels are dynamic processes for advantage due to its specifically valuable and unique
sustainable performance. Several empirical studies characteristics (Barney, 1991). Because of their per-
verified the link of OL to organisational performance. formance-oriented character, clan culture involves
Prieto and Revilla (2006) considered that OL (using close affiliation and cooperation to achieve perfor-
the 4I framework) was not just about learning cap- mance excellence (Balfour & Wechsler, 1991), adhoc-
ability and examined its link with organisational per- racy culture promotes an entrepreneurial mindset for
formance. They defined organisational performance long-term performance enhancement (Kantur, 2016),
in terms of economic and financial success, and used market culture focuses on the competitive environ-
employees’ perception on non-financial and financial ment to achieve improved performance (Cameron &
indicators, such as customer satisfaction, corporate Quinn, 2011), and hierarchy culture assures a high
reputation, profitability, and product and service quality performance through the guidance of struc-
quality, to evaluate success; their finding was that tured and standardised practices (Chan, Shaffer, &
that OL had a significant effect on business perfor- Snape, 2004). Several empirical studies have been
mance. Bontis et al. (2002) also examined the effects conducted to identify the direct and indirect effect
of multi-level learning (involving individuals, groups, of OC on organisational performance. Acar and Acar
and organisations) and the misalignment between (2014) examined the direct effects of the four types of
each level of learning and learning flows (feedback OC on service performance and financial perfor-
and feedforward) on business performance for mance in the healthcare industry in Turkey; they
Canadian firms, and found that multi-level learning identified market and hierarchy cultures as having
was highly associated with organisational perfor- strong statistical associations with both service and
mance, while misalignment between knowledge accu- financial performance, and that adhocracy culture as
mulation at each level and learning flows had a showing a weaker but statistical significant
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 7

association on financial performance. Naranjo- performance. Researchers selected 24 firms that

Valencia et al. (2016) explored the direct and indirect were convenient to contact, taking into account
effects of the four types of OC on innovation and industry types and firm size. Researchers contacted
performance, and found that only adhocracy culture a HR manager of each firm and introduced the
was strongly associated with both innovation and study and its aims. The HR manager of each firm
performance, and that all types of OC indirectly was asked to select 10 employees who were knowl-
affected performance through innovation. Sanz-Valle edgeable about their firm and working in major
et al. (2011) also investigated the direct and indirect departments such as sales and marketing, HR, and
effects of OC on OL and technical innovation and R&D, for completion. The HR manager at each firm
identified no direct effects of OC on innovation, but distributed questionnaires among these 10 employ-
that all types influenced innovation through OL pro- ees to inquire into the current perceived status of
cesses. The relationships among the OC types and OC, OL, and organisational performance, along
performance have been found to vary, depending on with consent forms including a study description.
national or business circumstances. However, this The HR managers were also asked to recruit
study, in considering the performance-oriented char- another firm of similar size and industry, and the
acteristics of the CVF, proposed the following researchers conducted the same procedure to
hypotheses (see Figure 1 for the full model): expand the number of participants, conducting the
same procedure by taking into account the same
H6: Clan culture positively influences organisational number of respondents in each firm and the ratio of
performance. industry and firm size.
A forward and backward translation process was
H7: Adhocracy culture positively influences organisa- carried out to decrease possible bias, and a pilot test
tional performance. was conducted beforehand with 21 managers,
employed in different firms and industries, to assess
H8: Market culture positively influences organisa- the questions and any cross-cultural invariance. A total
tional performance. of 532 individuals responded, and 527 responses were
used in the analysis (5 responses were incomplete and
H9: Hierarchy culture positively influences organisa- eliminated). A total of 67% of the respondents were
tional performance. male, and most respondents were aged between
30 years and 40 years old (92.8%), followed by those
aged in their 50s (7.2%). The most common position
held in the organisations was middle manager (60.9%),
2. Materials and methods followed by junior manager (25.2%) and senior man-
2.1. Sample and procedure ager (23.9%), involving those working in the HR
department (31.3%), sales and marketing (23.7%),
Data were collected from junior to senior managers R&D (14.4%), management planning (15.7%), produc-
working in private sector listed Korean companies. tion (12.5%) and other (2.4%). The sample included 6
The targeted respondents of this study comprised business sectors, including manufacturing (35.3%),
those working as managers who were knowledge- services (32.1%), IT (10.6%), finance (10.6%), distribu-
able about their organisations’ overall status and tion (6.8%), and construction (4.6%). Most firms had
more than 1000 employees (60.9%), followed by those
with fewer than 300 (23.5%), and those having
between 300 and 999 (15.6%).

2.2. Measurement instrument

To test the hypotheses, a two-step procedure invol-
ving structural equation modeling (SEM) was con-
ducted. The first step was to assess the measurement
model by using confirmative factor analysis and the
second step was to evaluate the structural model.
SPSS 23.0, AMOS 23.0, and Mplus 7 were used as
statistical tools.

2.2.1. OC measurement
An organisational culture assessment instrument
Figure 1. The hypothesised model. (OCAI), developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999),
8 S.-Y. OH AND H.-S. HAN

was employed to measure the four dimensions of OC, individual learning stock (for example, “In my orga-
that is, clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy cul- nisation, individuals are knowledgeable about their
tures, based on the CVF proposed by Quinn (1988). work”), group learning stock (for example, “We
As mentioned, the CVF represents the balance of share our successes within the group”), OL stock
different culture dimensions within an organisation, (for example, “Our organisational systems contain
and the OCAI was applied to the model to classify important information”), feedback-learning flow (for
OC. The OCAI consists of six key factors, namely, example, “Policies and procedures aid individual
dominant characteristics, organisational leadership, work”), and feed-forward learning flow (for example,
management of employees, organisational glue, stra- “Individuals have input into the organisation’s strat-
tegic emphases, and criteria of success, to measure egy”), with 50 items (ten items per sub-construct). To
the respective degree to which clan, adhocracy, mar- obtain reasonable construct validity, a CFA was car-
ket, and hierarchy cultures can be identified within an ried out and most standardised coefficient values
organisation. All 24 items, consisting of the 6 factors were between .578 and .844 except for two items of
for each cultural dimension (for example, as a domi- feedback-learning flow, which showed less than .5
nant characteristic of clan culture: “My organisation and were eliminated. The remaining 48 items in the
is like an extended family”), were measured using a 6- five sub-constructs had high reliability, with
point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and Cronbach’s alpha between .885 and .921, a CR
6 = strongly agree). According to Cameron and between .960 and .966, and an acceptable AVE
Quinn (1999), the advantage of using a Likert scale between .495 and .563. The reduced model fit showed
is that a cultural profile can be measured without χ2/df = 2.854, p = .000, GFI = .884, TLI = .880,
distortions, even if diverse cultural characteristics CFI = .886, and RMSEA = .059. The AVE of feed-
coexist, or where contradictory cultural characteris- back-learning flow also showed a value slightly less
tics coexist within an organisation. than .5, but the CR was greater than .06 and the VIF
To confirm the validity and reliability of the OC was less than 5, and was thus acceptable.
construct, a confirmative factor analysis (CFA) was
carried out. The results of the CFA showed that most
Table 1. The results of confirmatory factor analyses, AVE, and CR.
items had acceptable standardised coefficient values
S. t- S. t-
(.594-.819) except for three items, namely, organisation Items Coeff. value AVE CR Items Coeff. value AVE CR
glue for clan culture, and leadership style and criteria of IL1 .611 　 .543 .966 FFL8 .756 16.859 　 　
success for hierarchy culture, which showed less than IL2 .605 12.008 　 　 FFL9 .578 13.544 　 　
IL3 .804 14.844 　 　 FFL10 .666 　 　 　
.50 and were therefore eliminated. The reduced model IL4 .74 14.000 　 　 FBL1 .713 17.426 .495 .960
fit indicated χ2/degrees of freedom (df) = 4.137; good- IL5 .683 13.196 　 　 FBL4 .562 13.189 　 　
IL6 .811 14.929 　 　 FBL5 .721 17.638 　 　
ness-of-fit index (GFI) = .885; Tucker–Lewis index IL7 .814 14.964 　 　 FBL6 .698 16.961 　 　
(TLI) = .890; comparative fit index (CFI) = .904; IL8 .781 14.548 　 　 FBL7 .668 16.107 　 　
IL9 .766 14.346 　 　 FBL8 .764 18.957 　 　
and root–mean–square error of approximation IL10 .715 13.65 　 　 FBL9 .787 　 　 　
(RMSEA) = .072 (See Table 1). Kline (2005) noted GL1 .703 　 .500 .964 FBL10 .691 16.770 　 　
GL2 .637 13.957 　 　 CLA1 .608 　 .514 .813
that values of GFI, CFI, and TLI greater than .80 and a GL4 .693 15.150 　 　 CLA2 .694 12.535 　 　
RMSEA less than .08 indicated an acceptable model fit. GL5 .729 15.907 　 　 CLA3 .545 10.435 　 　
Moreover, the OC construct showed an acceptable GL6 .674 14.736 　 　 CLA5 .796 13.694 　 　
GL7 .697 15.224 　 　 CLA6 .755 13.259 　 　
composite reliability (CR) between .813 and .857, an GL8 .676 14.79 　 　 ADH1 .773 　 .594 .898
average variance extracted (AVE) between .481 and GL9 .758 16.519 　 　 ADH2 .751 17.98 　 　
GL10 .770 16.766 　 　 ADH3 .819 19.942 　 　
.594, and Cronbach’s alpha between .792 and .897. If OLL1 .769 15.174 .563 .973 ADH4 .777 18.721 　 　
the CR and Cronbach’s alpha are greater than .70, and OLL2 .770 15.555 　 　 ADH5 .798 19.308 　 　
OLL3 .806 17.221 　 　 ADH6 .701 16.576 　 　
the AVE is greater than .50, the reliability and conver- OLL4 .768 16.212 　 　 MAR1 .709 　 .510 .836
gent validity are considered acceptable (Hair, Black, OLL5 .763 14.372 　 　 MAR2 .704 14.759 　 　
OLL6 .782 14.476 　 　 MAR3 .763 15.900 　 　
Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The AVE of hierarchy cul- OLL7 .764 15.362 　 　 MAR4 .651 13.701 　 　
ture showed a value slightly less than .5, but with CR OLL8 .736 15.693 　 　 MAR5 .775 16.124 　 　
values greater than .06 and a variance inflation factor OLL9 .596 12.345 　 　 MAR6 .674 14.175 　 　
OLL10 .727 　 　 　 HIE1 .594 　 .481 .857
(VIF) less than 5 (see Table 2), the convergent validity FFL1 .727 17.653 .525 .968 HIE3 .622 10.825 　 　
of hierarchy culture can still be considered adequate FFL2 .748 17.698 　 　 HIE4 .77 12.235 　 　
FFL3 .844 18.559 　 　 HIE5 .769 12.227 　 　
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). FFL4 .785 17.632 　 　 PER1 .722 　 .666 .901
FFL5 .684 17.522 　 　 PER3 .829 18.01 　 　
FFL6 .689 17.987 　 　 PER4 .848 18.378 　 　
2.2.2. OL measurement FFL7 .738 17.553 　 　 PER5 .858 18.551 　 　
A strategic learning assessment map (SLAM), as pro- Note: S.Coeff: standardized coefficient, AVE: average variance extracted,
posed by Crossan and Bontis (1998), was used to CR: composite reliability, CLA: clan culture, ADH: adhocracy culture,
MAR: market culture, HIE: hierarchy culture, IL: individual learning, GL:
measure OL. The SLAM instrument consists of five group learning, OLL: organization-level learning, FFL: feedforward
sub-constructs based on the 4I framework, namely, learning, FBL: feedback learning, PER: organizational performance,
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 9

Table 2. Statistical descriptions and correlations.

CLA ADH MAR HIE IL GL OLL FFL FBL PER
CLA (.870) 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　
ADH .491** (.897) 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　
MAR .010 .402** (.860) 　 　 　 　 　 　 　
HIE −.060 −.156** .247** (.792) 　 　 　 　 　 　
IL .420** .570** .244** −.119** (.921) 　 　 　 　 　
GL .515** .558** .217** −.082 .625** (.898) 　 　 　 　
OLL .563** .522** .182** −.023 .622** .622** (.926) 　 　 　
FFL .496** .540** .195** −.051 .582** .577** .587** (.915) 　 　
FBL .460** .529** .249** −.065 .580** .567** .589** .627** (.885) 　
PER .323** .409** .245** −.016 .340** .384** .439** .404** .450** (.884)
Min. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Max. 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000
Mean 3.407 3.004 3.991 4.067 3.793 3.753 3.476 3.551 3.538 3.980
St.d. 1.101 1.182 1.091 1.080 0.912 1.022 1.051 1.025 .998 1.104
Skewness .077 .335 −.176 −.425 −.068 −.363 −.002 .010 −.132 −.411
Kurtoses −.322 −.476 −.522 −.220 −.047 −.230 −.432 −.386 −.305 −.245
VIF 1.776 2.253 1.476 1.193 2.167 2.157 2.854 2.284 2.261 -
Note: n = 527, ** p < .01, Min.: minimum value, Max.: maximum value, St.d.: standard deviation, VIF: variance inflation factor, and Cronbach’s alpha is in
parentheses

2.2.3. Organisational performance 2.2.5. Item parceling

The perceived organisational performance was mea- To develop a well-designed structural model, the item
sured using five criteria employed in previous empirical scores of each OL sub-construct were calculated and
studies (Dess & Robbinson, 1984; Prieto & Revilla, averaged, and the mean of the scores was used as a
2006). This study inquired into perceptions of the aver- measured variable for the main construct. A content-
age status, over the preceding three years, of growth in based parceling approach places items into parcels
sales, profitability, service and product quality, custo- based on contents and has been applied in respect of
mer satisfaction, and corporate reputation, using a OL (Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013).
6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and Moreover, each cultural dimension involving 5 or 6
6 = strongly agree). The sample questions for the first final items (for example, clan, adhocracy and market
and second criteria were: “Is my organisation continu- culture) was parceled into 3 observed variables. This
ing to increase sales?” and “Is my organisation continu- study applied a balancing approach (Little et al., 2013)
ing to increase profitability?” Although all standardised to tie the item with the highest loading value with the item
coefficient values showed greater than .8, the TLI was with the lowest loading value to make the first parcel, and
.773(< .8) and the RMSEA was .28 (> .08), which were the next highest item with next lowest item for the second
not acceptably robust. This study identified that the parcel, and so on in turn. This item parceling technique
modification index of item 2 (growth in profitability) leads to increased simplicity of the structural model as
was very high (151.07 in the covariance between item 1 well as decreased estimates of latent errors when many
and item 2). According to Kline (2005), an item can be items are used in modeling in moderately sized samples
eliminated if the latent variable is theoretically not (Bandalos & Finney, 2001). In sum, the structural model
undermined due to its elimination in the confirmatory in this study had six latent variables representing clan
measurement model. Given that in a previous empirical culture, adhocracy culture, market culture, hierarchy cul-
study (Dess & Robbinson, 1984), other criteria were ture, OL, and organisational performance. Among the
identified as capable of replacing the item measuring OC constructs, the first three latent variables, respectively,
business profitability performance in organisations, this had three parceled indicators, while hierarchy had four
item was eliminated to improve the measurement (hierarchy culture did not parcel its indicators due to its
model fit. Four items showed high loading values early item reduction). Moreover, the OL construct had
between .722 and .858, and acceptable CR (.901) and five parceled indicators namely, individual learning,
AVE (.666), with a high Cronbach’s alpha (.884). The group learning, organisational level learning, feedback
model fit showed χ2/df (5.914/2) = 2.957, p = .005, learning and feed-forward learning, while organisational
GFI = .994, TLI = .990, CFI = .997, and RMSEA = .061. performance did not parcel to keep a balanced number of
observed indicators with the other constructs and had
2.2.4. Control variables four observed indicators.
This study used the firm sizes and industry types and
respondent age as control variables. Dummy variables
3. Results
were created to represent subgroups of the firm sizes (i.e.
fewer than 300, between 300 and 9999, and more than Table 2 presents basic statistical information and
1000 [reference]), industry types (i.e. manufacturing, IT, correlation coefficients among the variables. Overall
finance, distribution, construction, and services [refer- correlations among the variables were positive and
ence]), and age (i.e. 30s, 40s and 50s [reference]). significant, but there was no significant relationship
10 S.-Y. OH AND H.-S. HAN

between hierarchy culture and OL and there was a values at the overall indexes (χ2 = 908.77, df = 383,
negative relationship of hierarchy culture with indi- TLI = .917, CFI = .926, and RMSEA = .051). Loading
vidual learning. Among the OC variables, respon- values between measured (parceled) items and their
dents perceived that hierarchy culture had a positive underlying constructs ranged from .59 to .88, and all
correlation with market culture and a negative corre- were statistically significant (p < .001). Covariance
lation with adhocracy culture, while clan culture posi- coefficients among independent variables showed a
tively correlated with adhocracy and had no negative (in the relationship of ADH with HIE) or a
correlation with market and hierarchy culture. positive statistical significance (p < .01), except the
These findings correspond with Quinn’s OC model relationship between CLA and HIE (p = .06). The
(Quinn, 1988) that represented both hierarchy and range of error estimates was between .233 and .648.
market culture as based on control and stability while The results of the hypothesised model showed that
clan and adhocracy culture were orientated toward the path coefficients from CLA to OL (γ = .534 and
flexibility. The mean for hierarchy culture was rela- t-value = 7.155), from ADH to OL (γ = .398 and
tively high (4.067 out of 6), followed by market cul- t-value = 4.467), and from OL to business perfor-
ture (3.991) among the OC variables, which indicated mance (β = .627 and t-value = 5.791) were positive
that the respondents considered their firms to be and statistically significant (See Table 3). On the
quite focused on control and goal achievement in other hand, the path coefficients from core MAR to
the workplace. All skewness and kurtosis coefficients OL (γ = .035 and t-value = .664) and from HIE to OL
were less than 2 and 7, respectively, (Fabrigar, (γ = −.016 and t-value = −.316) did not show statis-
Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999), indicating tical significance. In addition, none of the path coeffi-
that the data showed no violation of the assumptions cients from CLA, ADH, MAR and HIE to business
of normality. Moreover, all VIFs were less than 10, performance showed statistical significance.
and therefore no problems resulted from the assump- Concerning direct influence, however, MAR showed
tion of multicollinearity among the variables (Hair no statistical significance but had 10 per cent level of
et al., 2010). significance (p = .101), indicating a stronger degree of
To examine the hypothesised structure model, direct influence on organisational performance
path analysis was conducted by using Mplus. The (γ = .114) than OL. Based on path analysis, OL
model was designed to consider the four OC variables mediate the relationship between CLA and organisa-
as independent variables, OL as a mediated variable, tional performance, and between ADH and organisa-
and organisational performance as a dependent vari- tional performance, in the structural model. No
able (See Figure 2). The model also included three statistical significance in the relationship between
control variables directly linked to the dependent control variables and organisational performance
variable. The results showed acceptable model fit was evident. To test for mediation effects, this study

Figure 2. The results the of structural equation model for the hypothesised model.
Note: one-way bold arrow paths represent statistical significance and dotted arrow paths represent no statistical significance.
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 11

Table 3. The results of path analysis and bootstrapping relationships with OL. These results supported the
analysis. theoretical assumption that both a human relations-
t- Total Direct Indirect focused culture (i.e. clan culture) and an open-system
St. E. S.E. value. p effect effect effect
CLA → .534 .075 7.155 *** .534*** .534*** -
orientation (i.e. adhocracy culture) were key catalysts
OL in promoting learning activities at multiple levels
ADH → .398 .089 4.468 *** .398*** .398*** - (Crossan et al., 1999; Huber, 1991), in that these
OL
MAR → .035 .052 .664 .507 .035 .035 - sorts of organisations provided their members with
OL psychological support through interactive relation-
HIE → −.016 .049 −.316 .752 −.016 −.016 -
OL ships (Edmonson and Lei, 2014) as well as with
OL→ .627 .108 5.791 *** .613*** - experimental learning opportunities for creating or
PER
CLA → −.047 .121 −.391 .696 .288** −.047 .335*** absorbing new knowledge (Takeuchi & Nonaka,
PER 2004). These results also corresponded with previous
ADH → .030 .121 .247 .807 . 280* .030 .250**
PER
empirical studies (Palanisamy, 2008; Sanz-Valle et al.,
MAR → .114 .069 1.641 .101 .135† .114 .022 2011). In the case of market culture, it was expected
PER to have a positive association with OL because of its
HIE → .034 .065 .532 .595 .025 .034 −.010
PER emphasis on productivity and rational goal setting,
Note: ***p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, † p < .10 which can facilitate group learning and feedback
St.E.: Standardized effects, indicating bootstrapping direct/indirect learning, but no positive effect on OL activities was
effects
S.Coeff: standardized coefficient, and S.E.: standard error found. A possible interpretation for this finding is
that market culture is related more to explicit knowl-
edge-based assets rather than implicit internal knowl-
conducted bootstrapping analysis with 1000 resam-
edge (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011), which does not
plings to assess for inferences of mediation effects.
require further reflective and cooperative learning
The results showed that there were significant indir-
among organisational members.
ect associations between CLA and organisational per-
Another significant finding was that OL activities
formance through OL (β = .328, p < .001) and
fully mediated the relationship between clan culture
between ADH and organisational performance
and organisational performance and between adhoc-
through OL (β = .244, p < .001). The results also
racy culture and organisational performance. Two
indicated that there were no statistically mediated
important observations can be made. First, OL activ-
effects of OL in the relationships between MAR
ities are a key organisational capability required to
(and HIE) and organisational performance in the
accomplish organisational success and enhance per-
structural model (See Table 3). All results the of
formance (Prieto & Revilla, 2006), and this study has
structural equation model are presented in Figure 2.
verified the potentially positive effects of OL capabil-
Based on the structural equation modeling analyses,
ity on performance, resulting from an interdepen-
H1, H2 and H5 were supported, while H3, H4, H6,
dence arising between knowledge accumulation and
H7, H8 and H9 were not supported.
learning transfers across multiple levels of an organi-
Model fit: χ2/df (908.77/383) = 2.373, p = .000,
sation. Second, the potential effects of OL capability
TLI = .917, CFI = .926, and RMSEA = .051..
on performance are influenced by clan and adhocracy
culture. Although theoretical discussions have
occurred assuming that these two types of culture
4. Discussion and conclusions
are highly associated with performance (Quinn &
The purpose of this study was to investigate the Rohrbaugh, 1983), it appears that specific learning-
effects of four diverse types of OC, namely, clan, friendly elements within these types of culture play a
adhocracy, market, and hierarchy culture on OL, key role in improving performance. In contrast,
which consists of individual, group, and organisa- although market culture did not statistically show
tional-level learning, as well as the flows of learning any indirect or direct association with performance
to other organisational levels, and to identify how through OL, the total effect of market culture on
both OC and OL influence organisational perfor- organisational performance showed somewhat weak
mance in a Korean context. The target samples were but a possible influence on performance (total
management groups working in various industries in effect = .135, p = .0.60). Due to its performance-
Korea and 527 responses were analyzed. Based on a oriented and control-based characteristics, it may be
literature review, nine hypotheses were proposed and more likely to facilitate productive behaviour to deal
examined using SEM analysis. with competitive environments with encouraging OL
The findings of this study provide empirical evi- activities. The findings of this study stressed that a
dence that clan and adhocracy culture had strong market-driven approach in acquiring personal exper-
positive relationships with OL, while market and tise or organizational knowledge resources is limited
hierarchy culture did not show any significant in its capacity to promote organizational learning
12 S.-Y. OH AND H.-S. HAN

across individual, group, and organisation levels. The organisation literature focuses on “learning culture,”
market culture has goal- or competition-oriented which focuses on environmental factors to facilitate
characteristics, and structured and planned learning learning (Ellinger et al., 2002), demonstrating the
opportunities can lead to systemic knowledge acqui- relationship between OL process with OC provides
sition from outside of firms (Sinkula, 1994). insight into the mechanisms by which diverse OC
However, market culture may be limited in its capa- may influence multidimensional OL.
city to effect participative and interactive learning The practical implications of this study are as
activities that are associated with how to interpret follows. First, learning taking place at multiple
and integrate knowledge for long-term outcomes levels within organisations is a key capability
(Crossan et al., 1999). Moreover, market culture enabling organisations to cope with changing envir-
may play a role in fulfilling external motivation to onments. Thus, management needs to develop
learn (e.g. extrinsic reward) but not to meet the workplace learning tools such as mentorship pro-
internal motivation, which can come from emotional grams, on-the-job training, and shared practices,
interaction or autonomy, to embrace new challenges which can promote learning through closer working
(Chiva et al., 2007). relationships, and encourage learning tool imple-
Concerning hierarchy culture, there was no direct mentation. Second, clan and adhocracy cultures
and indirect influence found on both OL and perfor- are key drivers in fostering OL activities, whereas
mance. Many empirical studies have not shown con- market and hierarchy cultures can act as potential
sistent results on the effect of hierarchy culture (for barriers or can be supplemented. Although it is
example, Acar & Acar, 2014; Rai, 2011). A possible good to identify the needs of market and make it
explanation for these results is that, although assur- a goal of change, management needs to focus more
ance and control are necessary to verify learning on the process of learning rather than its result,
activities, flexibility and openness are required more with openness, flexibility, and risk-taking attitudes
to facilitate OL activities. According to Blackman and to facilitate collective and participative learning.
Sadler-Smith, individuals or groups tend to be often From a social constructionist perspective, “situated
silenced by consciously suppressed circumstances learning,” which takes place within the daily life of
resulting from power of upper positions or strict workplaces, is important to create meaning and
hierarchical structures. Hierarchy culture may make develop new values (Gherardi, 2001). Thus, higher
organisational members choose to be silent because managements need to understand the importance of
of a conscious habituation. This reason may mitigate the diverse types of OC and utilise them appropri-
the positive effect of its control and stable ately in promoting learning situations. From this
characteristics. perspective, future study is also needed on other
cultural dimensions, such as ethical culture, to
explain the linkage between OC and OL. Recently,
4.1. Implications and future research
trust, accountability and justice have been high-
The main theoretical contribution of this study is to lighted as further determinants facilitating OL
provide insight on the important role of multidimen- (Baxter, Colledge, & Turner, 2017; Bierema &
sional learning activities to promote organisational Callahan, 2014). Rai (2011) argues that ethical and
performance. Previous research has regarded OL as trusting cultures need to be considered fundamental
a firm-level learning activates such as knowledge elements to facilitate knowledge sharing within an
acquisition, distribution, interpretation, and memor- organisation and added to Quinn’s OC model.
isation (Lopez et al., 2005; Sanz-Valle et al., 2011) or Moreover, further studies should be conducted to
learning culture (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang, & Howton, confirm whether hierarchy culture has only negative
2002) and verified its effect on organisational perfor- effects on fostering OL activities or performance.
mance. This study highlights the characteristic of According to Lawrence et al. (2005), routine-based
multidimensional learning within an organisation and structured systems (fostered by hierarchy cul-
and verified its key role in increasing organisational ture) are useful to facilitate knowledge distribution
performance. Although the relationship between the throughout organisations. Moreover, well-designed
4I model of OL and performance has been tested in a controlling processes reduce confusion that can
few studies (Bontis et al., 2002; Prieto & Revilla, arise from flexibility and can provide clearer direc-
2006), the idea of conceptualising the OL feature as tion (Clegg, 2014).
a latent variable and testing its mediated role in The primary limitation of this study concerns the
facilitating organisational performance is relatively use of self-reported data to estimate all variables. To
new. Moreover, it is also a new attempt to explore reduce potential bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
their relationship within a Korean business setting. Podsakoff, 2003), this study set a clear purpose, which
The study also contributes to OL literature by asso- was well explained to HR managers to increase repre-
ciating with organisational culture. Although learning sentativeness, and respondents were asked to answer
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 13

questions as honestly as possible. Another limitation Chan, L., Shaffer, M., & Snape, E. (2004). In search of
is that the response unit of this study need to be an sustained competitive advantage: The impact of organi-
organisation because the study is designed to identify zational culture, competitive strategy, and human
resource management practices on firm performance.
indicators to organisational performance. Due to a International Journal of Human Resource Management,
lack of the firm samples needed in order to conduct 15(1), 17–35.
a path analysis, researchers used the individual as a Chang, Y. S. (2010). The effects of organizational culture
unit of analysis and tried to equalise the number of type on the knowledge sharing. Korean Journal of
respondents per firm to overcome it. Thus, future Business Administration, 23(5), 2793–2813.
Chang, Y.-S., & Moon, H. K. (2008). Organizational culture
research needs to utilise a firm as research unit as
research: Trends and challenges in Korea. Korean
well as objective performance measure in the rela- Academy of Management, 16(1), 65–114.
tionships among OC, OL, and performance. Chia, R. (2017). A process-philosophical understanding of
organizational learning as 'wayfinding': process, practices
and sensitivity to environmental affordances. Learning
Disclosure statement Organization, 24(2), 107–118.
Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Lapiedra, R. (2007). Measuring
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the organisational learning capability among the workforce.
authors. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 224–242.
Clegg, S. (2014). Circuits of power/knowledge. Journal of
Political Power, 7(3), 383–392.
Cohen, D. (1993). Creating and maintaining ethical work
References climates: Anomie in the workplace and implications for
Acar, A. Z., & Acar, P. (2014). Organizational culture types managing change. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3(4), 343–358.
and their effects on organizational performance in turk- Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemol-
ish hospitals. Emerging Markets Journal, 3(3), 18–31. ogies: The generative dance between organizational
Ahn, H. B., & Park, G. S. (2013). Study on the relationship knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization
among organization culture, organization learning and Science, 10(4), 381–400.
knowledge Transfer. Tax Accounting Research, 36, 89–108. Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: Organizational Learning. Journal of Management
A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison- Inquiry, 2(4), 373–390.
Wesley. Crossan, M., & Bontis, N. (1998). The strategic manage-
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1991). Commitment, perfor- ment of organization learning. Paper presented at
mance, and productivity in public organizations. Public Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.
Productivity & Management Review, 14(4), 355–367. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An
Bandalos, D. I., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to
in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & Institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3),
R. E. Schumaker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation 522.
modeling: New developments and techniques(pp .269– DeLong, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural
296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained compe- Management Executive, 14(4), 113–127.
titive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. Dess, G. G., & Robinson, R. (1984). Measuring organiza-
Baxter, D., Colledge, T., & Turner, N. (2017). A study of tional performance in the absence of objective measures:
accountability in two organizational learning frame- The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate
works: Why accountability for learning is critical. business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 265–273.
European Management Review, 14(3), 319–332. DiBella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M. (1996).
Bierema, L., & Callahan, J. L. (2014). Transforming HRD: Understanding organizational learning capability.
A framework for critical HRD practice. Advances in Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 361–379.
Developing Human Resources, 16(4), 429–444. DiMilia, L., & Birdi, K. (2010). The relationship between
Bontis, N., Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an multiple levels of learning practices and objective and
organizational learning system by aligning stocks and subjective organizational financial performance. Journal
flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 437–469. Of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 481–498.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety:
and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal
working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, construct. Annual Review Of Organizational Psychology
2(1), 40–57. and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.
Brudan, A. (2010). Rediscovering performance manage- Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W.
ment: Systems, learning and integration. Measuring (2002). The Relationship between the learning organiza-
Business Excellence, 14(1), 109–123. tion concept and firms’ financial performance: An
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and empirical assessment. Human Resource Development
changing organizational culture: based on the competing Quarterly, 13(1), 5–21.
values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., &
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory
changing organizational culture : Based on the competing factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological
values framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Methods, 4(3), 272–299.
Bass. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
14 S.-Y. OH AND H.-S. HAN

measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., & Sanz-Valle,
(1), 39–50. R. (2016). Studying the links between organizational
Gherardi, S. (2001). From organizational learning to prac- culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish com-
tice-based knowing. Human Relations, 54(1), 131–139. panies. Revista Latinoamericana De Psicologia, 48(1),
Gorelick, C., & Tantawy-Monsou, B. (2005). For perfor- 30–41.
mance through learning, knowledge management is the Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational
critical practice. The Learning Organization, 12(2), 125– knowledge creation. Organization Science, 32 (1), 7–23.
139. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba ,
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge
(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7 ed.). Upper Saddle creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5–34.
River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Oh, S., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2017). Exploring the role of
Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). organizational learning activities in the quality manage-
Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: ment context. Leadership & Organization Development
A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values Journal, 38(3), 380–397.
framework’s theoretical suppositions. American Palanisamy, R. (2008). Organizational culture and knowl-
Psychological Association, 96(4), 677–679. edge management in ERP implementation: An empirical
Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contribut- study. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48(2),
ing processes and the literature. Organizational Science, 100–120.
2(1), 88–115. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.
Jerez-Gomez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
(2005). Organizational learning capability: A proposal of research: A critical review of the literature and recom-
measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715–725. mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5),
Kantur, D. (2016). Strategic entrepreneurship: Mediating 879–903.
the entrepreneurial orientation-performance link. Popova-Nowak, I. V., & Cheh, M. (2015). The meaning of
Management Decision, 54(1), 24–43. organizational learning: A metaparadigm perspective.
Kim, D. H. (1993) The link between individual and organiza- Human Resource Development Review, 14(3), 299–331.
tional learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37–50. Prieto, I. M., & Revilla, E. (2006). Learning capability and
Kim, S., & McLean, G. N. (2014). The impact of national business performance: A non-financial and financial
culture on informal learning in the workplace. Adult assessment. The Learning Organization, 13(2/3), 166–185.
Education Quarterly, 64(1), 39–59. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management:
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of
equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kostova, T. (1999). Transnational transfer of strategic orga- Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of
nizational practices: A contextual perspective. Academy effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values
of Management Review, 24(2), 308–324. approach to organizational analysis. Management
Lai, M.-F., & Lee, -G.-G. (2007). Relationships of organiza- Science, 29, 363–377.
tional culture toward knowledge activities. Business Rai, R. K. (2011). Knowledge management and organiza-
Process Management Journal, 13(2), 306–322. tional culture: A theoretical integrative framework.
Lawrence, T. B., Mauws, M. K., Dyck, B., & Kleysen, R. F. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(5), 779–801.
(2005). The politics of organizational learning: integrat- Sanz-Valle, R., Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez,
ing power into the 4i framework. Academy Of D., & Perez-Caballero, L. (2011). Linking organizational
Management Review, 30(1), 180–191. learning with technical innovation and organizational
Lee, C. (2014). A study on the organizational culture-based culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 997–
growth engine of the large Korean companies: Cultural 1015.
capabilities model and shared values DNA structure Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organiza-
model. Korean Academy of Management, 22(1), 39–93. tional learning. Reflections, 4(4), 27–28.
Lee, K. M., Cho, D. S., & Lee, Y. C. (2010). The antecedents Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and
of knowledge creation of subsidiaries: A study of rela- Leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
tional factors between subsidiary and MNC. Proceeding Shrivastava, P. (1983). Typology of organizational learning
of Korean Academic Society of Business Administration systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 7–28.
2010 conference (pp. 1–21). Seoul, Korea: Korean Sinkula., J. M. (1994). Market Information Processing and
Academic Society Of Business Administration. Organizational Learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1),
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. 35-45.
M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy Škerlavaj, M., Štemberger, M. I., & Dimovski, V. (2007).
needn’t be one. Psychology Methods., 18(3), 285–300. Organizational learning culture—The missing link
Lopez, S. P., Peon, M. M., & Ordas, V. J. (2005). between business process change and organizational per-
Organizational learning as a determining factor in busi- formance. International Journal of Production Economics,
ness performance. The Learning Organization., 12(3), 106(2), 346–367.
227–245. Starkey, K., Tempest, S., & McKinlay, A. (2004). How
Lopez, S. P., Peon, M. M., & Ordas, V.J. (2004). Managing organizations learn: Managing the search for knowledge
knowledge: the link between culture and organizational (2nd ed.). London: South-Western Cengage Learning.
learning. Journal Of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 93– Suppiah, V., & Sandhu, M. S. (2011). Organizational cul-
104. ture's influence on tacit knowledge-sharing behavior.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in orga- Journal Of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 462–477.
nizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. Takeuchi, H., & Nonaka, I. (2004). Hitotsubashi on knowl-
Mullins, L. J. (1999). Management and Organizational edge management: Knowledge creation and dialectics.
Behaviour. London: Financial Times. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia).
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 15

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 73–
capabilities and strategic management. Strategic 89.
Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement
Tohidi, H., Seyedaliakbar, S. M., & Mandegari, M. (2012). of business performance in strategy research: A compar-
Organizational learning measurement and the effect on ison of approaches. The Academy of Management
firm innovation. Journal of Enterprise Information Review, 11(4), 801–814.
Management, 25(3), 219–245. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and
Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational learning and the organizational learning. Academy of Management
learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive Review, 29(2), 222–240.