organisational culture essay introduction

Essay on Organizational Culture

Organizational culture: essay introduction, project management & organizational design, the importance of culture in an organization: formal management vs parent company, organizational culture: essay conclusion.

Culture in an organization refers to the values, beliefs, history and attitudes of a particular organization. Culture also refers to the ideals of an organization that dictate the way members of the organization relate to each other and to the outside environment.

An organization’s culture defines its values; the values of an organization refer to the ideology that the members of an organization have as pertains their goals and the mechanisms to be used to achieve these goals. The organization’s values map out the way employees are required to behave and relate to each other in the workplace (Allan, 2004).

There is a very important need to develop healthy cultures in all organizations whether they are religious, commercial or institutional. The culture of an organization determines how it is perceived both by its own employees and its stakeholders. The managers of an organization are said to be able to influence the culture of the organization. This can be done by the implementation of various policies that lead to a culture change.

Many organizations have two types of cultures, the culture that management wants to enforce and a culture that dictates the relationships of the employees among each other. Many institutions have been found to have a persistent and hidden culture among the employees. This is the biggest task to organizational management; how to replace the employee culture with the desired culture (Young, 2007).

There are two types of culture; namely strong culture and weak culture. Strong culture is whereby the actions and beliefs of the employees are guided by the values of the company. Such a culture ensures smooth and efficient flow of an organization’s activities. Strong cultures result in successful and united organizations.

Weak culture on the other hand refers to instances where the activities of the employees are not guided by the values of the company. A weak culture results in the need for a strict administration that is bureaucratic so as to ensure that the company’s activities flow well. Weak cultures result in increased overheads and under motivated employees.

Fig. 1: Organization culture (Burke, 1999).

There are five dimensions of an organization’s culture namely power distance, risk taking tendencies, gender issues and employee psychology. The power distance aspect refers to the mentality among the employees on who wields more power and how much power they wield.

This will vary among organizations as some have more powerful managers as compared to others. Risk taking tendencies refers to the willingness of the employees and the organization to take risks in an attempt to grow and improve (Jack et al, 2003). Employee psychology on the other hand is an aspect that covers issues such as individualism and collectiveness mentalities in an organization. Companies that have a collective psychology have been found to work and do well as compared to individualistic ones.

The individualistic psychology has been found to cause a lack of coordination and flow of activities in organizations. Lastly the gender dimension refers to the mentality of an organization’s employees towards members of the male and female genders. Companies that view women as weaker and disadvantaged sexes have been found to discriminate among each other and result in a reduction of the employee cooperation levels (Jack et al, 2003).

There are four types of cultures in modern day organizations, role cultures, power cultures, person cultures and task cultures. Role cultures exist in organized and systematic organizations where the amount of power that an employee has is determined by the need that they fulfill in the organization.

Power cultures are those that have a few powerful individuals who are required to drive and direct the rest of the organization. Person cultures are cultures that exist when an organization’s employees feel superior to the company; this is a common culture in most law firms and firms that are formed by individual professionals who merge with others to form organizations. A tasks culture is a culture that is geared towards accomplishing tasks and doing things.

It is very important to understand the culture of an organization so as to enable an organization to map out the type of management that suits it. Culture as mentioned, is the accepted standard in which the employees of an organization relate to each other and to the stakeholders.

There are several factors that affect the culture of an organization. These include technological exposure, environmental conditions, geographical situation, organizational rules and procedures and influence of organizational peers on a subject. Such factors affect the culture of an organization and in the long run its management structure (Johnstone et al, 2002).

Organizational cultures can have both positive and negative effects on the organization. Negative and unwanted cultures are those that oppose change in an organization. These cultures have the tendency of inhibiting the innovation and implementation of change in an organization. Therefore the understanding of an organization’s culture can be used to determine:

• Why certain projects of the organization have failed or are failing
• Aspects of the culture that hinder innovation and change
• What needs to corrected so as to improve how the organization operates
• The origin of certain culture within an organization
• Measures that can be taken so as to introduce new culture or improve on the current culture

An in depth understanding of an organization’s culture is important so as to allow project managers and other managers to affect the mode in which activities are carried out. To influence the performance of the organization an understanding of its cultures is very necessary so as it enables the management to filter its employees and choose performers from non performers (Johnstone et al, 2002).

The proper understanding of organizational culture and its use in deciding a suitable management structure cannot be stressed further. The success of a project depends on how it is managed. There are three major types of project management namely; project, functional and matrix management structures.

Functional management refers to the type of management that focuses on specialty areas and skills. The departments and responsibilities are determined by the skills of the members. There is vertical and horizontal communication between the departments. To allow operation of all arms of the organization bureaucratic means are used so as to ensure smooth flow of the business.

This type of management tends to reduce operational costs and encourage the specialization of labour. Specialization in turn leads to better efficiency and standardization of activities. Disadvantages of the functional approach include the integration of budgets, operational plans and procedures into the project activities making it cumbersome to implement (Kloppenborg, 2009).

Fig.1: Functional project management (Young, 2007).

Project based organization on the other hand is whereby the activities of a company are organized according to its ongoing projects. This type of management is based on the objectivity principle that emphasizes the importance of solid objectives in improving the efficiency of an organization’s processes.

This principle is used in scenarios that require the efficient management of projects that involve activities from different disciplines e.g. medicine, engineering, law.

The advantages of such management techniques include the fact that power and responsibility is decentralized and is carried out by managers of different teams. Such a management technique also allows for the proper utilization of time, leads to reduced cost and enhanced quality levels. Such a management technique is suitable for certain company profiles and cultures, for example:

• Management of large projects and organizations that require the delegation of responsibilities
• Situations with restricted cost and specification parameters
• Situations that require the coordination and completion of projects from different but interrelated disciplines
• In cultures that value responsibility and accountability of ones actions / decisions
• Cultures that encourage communication among all management levels

Fig. 2: Example of a project based management (Allan, 2004).

The project based management structure also faces a few limitations like any other structure. Limitations include the inability of a project manager to mobilize all the resources of a company as he has direct control of only what falls under his area of specialty. Employees and managers of such projects have been found to become slack towards the termination of projects due to the fear of losing their jobs once their projects have been completed (Kloppenborg, 2009).

Due to the limitations of both the operational and functional management structures the matrix was developed. This structure combines both structures to form a hybrid structure. In this type of structure there are two types of managers, namely functional and operational who work together in the same system.

The functional managers are responsible for the distribution of resources in their specialty departments and the operational managers coordinate and manage the activities of their departments. The functional managers are also responsible for overseeing all the technical decisions that fall under their departments.

This method of management has its advantages such as: the project manager oversees all activities that fall under his department. He has all authority and power and thus this eliminates the wastage of time as a result of quarrels and conflicts among the top levels of an organization.

Secondly the manager is able to use organization resources in facilitating the execution of the intended goals and objectives of the company. Disadvantages include the conflicts and coercion between project managers and functional managers that is bound to occur in such a setting. This kind of relationship has an eventual effect on employee motivation as it often results in the demoralization of employees (Young, 2007).

Fig. 3: Matrix management structure (Burke, 1999)

There are various factors that are considered when choosing the management structure of a project. These include the type of activities to be carried out, their importance / order of priority, the human skill required, the amount of time needed and the resources that are required to accomplish the set targets.

Situations that require extensive cooperation and interaction of the functions of an organization require matrix types of management. However there is no optimum type of organization and the organization must strive to come up with solutions to its unique needs and situations.

For a project to be well managed a healthy culture of communication must be developed. Communication theories propose that the project manager should always be like the hub of a bicycle. This means that the project manager acts as a focal point through which suggestions and results are received from various stakeholders.

The project manager also acts as the supporting point for the communication wheel. It is therefore very important for project managers to assist in maintaining a good communicative culture within the organization (Burke, 1999).

Factors such as nature of businesses in which the organization is in, size of projects and type of projects will also have a strong impact on the type of management structure that an organization may use.

Formal management has an overall effect on the operations of an organization. The type of management that an organization has ultimately affects how its activities are carried out. Formal management is important in an organization as it serves as a foundation on which an organization’s goals and principles are guided. There are various guidelines that dictate the behavior and characters of managers in formal systems.

Managers in formal managements are required to have high integrity / moral standards, should be an effective communicators and listeners of others. Managers serve as the basis through which a formal management system is enforced. The project manager should also relate well with people.

He should have the ability to motivate and influence his workers positively. The project manager is also bestowed with the responsibility of ensuring that all aspects and stakeholders of a project work together for the common good of the organization. The manager is also responsible for setting time frames and ensuring that the project adheres to the set schedules.

This serves the purpose of ensuring that there is timely flow of an organization’s activities. Project managers are also required to make assessment of risks that could affect a project and try to manage the risks. In summary, project managers make up the backbone of any formal project management system and the performance of any project depends on the managers themselves (Burke, 1999).

There are three distinct characteristics that define a formal management structure; formality, the presence of groupings and the implementation of various systems. There exist rules and regulations that govern the relationships of the members of the organization. These rules also guide the reporting mechanisms of the members and the responsibilities / power which each member holds. These rules and regulations form the basis of all relationships and activities within the organization.

Formal organizations also group their members into teams and taskforces that are designed to suit various needs within the organization. For example accountants will usually be grouped together, designers with fellow designers and so forth. The groupings form departments and many departments form the organization.

However formal management has been said to be a very rigid mechanism by which an organization / project should be kept in check. This is because failure on the part of the managers would result in the total collapse of the organization. This is because managers are expected to provide guidance, direction and ensure that all members perform their duties.

Culture on the other hand is a better driver as it does not need to be enforced by anyone. Culture is self driven and once the members of an organization have adopted a desirable culture they will conduct themselves in accord to the culture without being supervised by a manager (Johnstone et al 2002).

Culture is also a better means of ensuring that a project is completed as it allows people to go out of the set boundaries and make innovations. Culture driven projects are better as they allow for unified and independent thinking at the same time. Whereas a formal management structure relies on the manager to make decisions a culture driven project accepts all decisions as long as they fall under the culture boundaries of the organization.

Formal management structures are slow and time consuming. This is because all major decisions and control is dependent on the managers. This leads to a very slow decision making process as the managers have to receive reports from members, deliberate on the reports and then give their recommendations. In cases where the manager is slow or is not presence this hinders the further development of the project (Young, 2007).

Many organizations that employ the formal type of management usually group their employees into departments. The departments are usually made up of people with common skills and areas of expertise. However such departmental setups hinder the exchange and sharing of ideas between people of different areas of expertise.

Due to the formal setup members from different departments lack a common factor that would enhance cooperation between the departments. This leads to poor coordination between the departments. In culture driven organizations, the members are unified by the common culture and this enhances the cooperation levels of the employees. Culture driven projects are therefore much more organized and have a better flow of activities as compared to formal projects (Kloppenborg, 2009).

Formal management of projects requires the mapping out and development of clear cut systems that will ensure the smooth flow of the project. These systems are essential in ensuring efficient execution of the project and its activities. Culture driven projects however do not need such a system so as to run smoothly. The culture itself forms a dynamic system through which all the activities are executed effectively.

Strategic management is a major component of formal management systems. It involves the science and methodologies of formulating cross functional parameters that enable an organization to achieve its objectives. Strategic management involves the development of missions and visions, mapping out of objectives and the making of critical decisions for the company (Allan, 2004).

Projects in formal management are stepping stones on which a firm uses to achieve its goals and objectives. The project development processes of a firm are driven by its strategic development goals and objectives. Examples of strategic elements include mission, objective, goals, programs and workable strategies.

Formal management is however beneficial as it promotes proper and sober decision making as compared to culture based management. This is because decision making and planning activities in a formal management are usually done after careful consideration and assessment. Culture based management is however prone to errors and misguided actions due inadequate consideration and thinking.

From the study it is evident that culture is an important aspect of any organization. Culture has been found to affect the behavioral attitudes of a company’s employees and the manner through which these attitudes are manifested. The strong impacts of culture have resulted in the need for managers to find ways to affect the culture of their employees and of the work places.

By influencing the culture of an organization the managers are therefore able to influence the way the organization operates. Culture is an unsaid norm which the members of an organization abide to (Jack et al, 2003).

Organizations implement different types of organization structures. The type of organization structure implemented depends on the size and project characteristics. The type of project management has an effect on the eventual delivery of the project. The study has shown that there is no perfect method of management.

Managers of projects are therefore required to assess and identify the appropriate structure for their specific conditions. Project management structures have a great effect on the quality and effectiveness of the organization’s activities (Allan, 2004).

The study has brought to light the importance of proper culture in an organization. Culture has been found to be a better determinant of employee behavior as compared to formal management. Formal management is dependent on the enforcement of those in authority / wield power.

Culture on the other hand is enforced by the members themselves as they are part and pertinent of the culture. Formal management has also been found to be excessively bureaucratic and procedural and thus its implementation is rather cumbersome and expensive. Culture has therefore been found as the most appropriate way of managing a project.

Allan, B., 2004. Project Management: tools and techniques for today’s ILS professional. London: Facet Publishing.

Ashish, D., 2010. Project management Module. Hull: University of Hull.

Burke, R., 1999. Project Management, Planning and control Techniques. Chichester: Wiley.

Jack, M. & Mentel, S., 2003. Project Management: A Managerial Approach. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.

Johnston, R. Chambers, S. & Slack, N., 2002. Operations management . Essex: Pearson Publishers.

Kloppenborg, T., 2009. Project management A Contemporary. Chicago: Xavier University.

Young, T., 2007. The Handbook of Project Management, A practical Guide to Effective Policies and Procedures . Washington: Kogan Page publishers.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 18). Essay on Organizational Culture. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizations-culture/

"Essay on Organizational Culture." IvyPanda , 18 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/organizations-culture/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Essay on Organizational Culture'. 18 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Essay on Organizational Culture." April 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizations-culture/.

1. IvyPanda . "Essay on Organizational Culture." April 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizations-culture/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Essay on Organizational Culture." April 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/organizations-culture/.

• Sociology. Evolution of Formal Organizations
• Preferred Organizational Structure: Functional Organizational Structure
• Importance of Communication in an Organization - Essay
• Management Skills in the 21st Century
• Challenges Inherent in Repositioning a Fast Food Chain
• Impact of Resolution Act of 1998 on Women-Workers
• Leadership and Management Strategies
• The Product and Service Development Process

Module 9: Culture and Diversity

Introduction to organizational culture, what you’ll learn to do: describe organizational culture, and explain how culture can be a competitive advantage.

Organizational culture is a term that describes the shared values and goals of an organization. When everyone in a corporation shares the same values and goals, it’s possible to create a culture of mutual respect, collaboration, and support. Companies that have a strong, supportive culture are more likely to attract highly qualified, loyal employees who understand and work toward the company’s best interests.

• Introduction to Organizational Culture. Authored by : Lisa Jo Rudy and Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

Privacy Policy

What Is Organizational Culture?

Companies have to create environments in which their employees are motivated to deliver excellent results each day in order to operate efficiently. Organizational culture is considered to be among the crucial components that help businesses operate because it helps create a unified vision of objectives and targets. This paper aims to define organizational culture, identify types of culture, examine approaches to communicating it, and research changes that can occur.

What is Organizational Culture?

Both within a society and in the environment of companies the concept of culture describes a complex structure of shared values that transpire to daily actions. The Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) defines culture as “the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time” (para. 1). Therefore, this definition applies to companies as well because they employ people who interact and communicate within a particular timeframe and should have a unified understanding of the business’s objectives.

Definition of Organizational Culture

While the previous paragraph explains the general meaning of this concept, it is necessary to determine whether there are particular features applicable to this model in terms of private companies. Organizational culture has many definitions depending on a specific perspective from which an author regards this phenomenon. According to Naranjo-Valencia, Jiménez-Jiménez, and Sanz-Valle (2016), “organizational culture can be defined as the values, beliefs and hidden assumptions that the members of an organization have in common” (p. 30).

Moreover, the authors argue that innovation cannot be executed without proper culture. Pang (2017) states that the notion can be viewed as a specific approach a business takes towards its operations. Thus, organizations depend on culture because it defines the internal processes and interactions that occur in a particular environment.

Moreover, leaders who disregard this element of organizational structure can not benefit from enhanced efficiency and adequate cooperation, which will be discussed in detail in the next section of this paper. Groysberg, Lee, Price, and Cheng (2018) state that “strategy and culture are among the primary levers at top leaders’ disposal in their never-ending quest to maintain organizational viability and effectiveness” (para. 1). While the first component is a formalized reflection of goals and responsibilities, the second is an intangible representation of norms within a firm.

How is Organizational Culture Created and Communicated?

It is evident that organizational cultures a crucial component of any company. Executives can leverage this by developing an appropriate culture that inspires employees to work towards the set goals. Firstly, it is necessary to clearly define the mission of business in question and using that information as well as strategic plans to create culture. Additionally, leaders should pay specific attention to ensuring that newcomers correctly comprehend the existing culture, which can be done through training.

While executives are responsible for ensuring that a company has adequate culture, it should be noted that it defines the approaches that leaders can take towards their work and communication with followers. Both Forbes Communication Council (2017) and Pang (2017) emphasize the importance of communicating culture to employees through vision and mission statements. Other materials that managers can distribute are manuals and policy statements. However, these do not guarantee that all staff members comprehend the culture appropriately.

A better method of ensuring a proper understanding of culture is through the actions of executives. Pang (2017) states that “the culture of a business has a significant impact on its performance in the marketplace” (para. 1). However, without a commitment from top-level leaders employees would not be as eager to perform tasks well. Additionally, strategies that can encourage behaviors that correspond to a particular culture should be encouraged through rewards.

Personal Culture and Market Culture

The two primary types of culture in companies are personal and market, which imply a different approach to managing people and achieving strategic objectives. Personal culture refers to a structure in which individuals that work for an organization are considered to be more valuable than the business itself. From this perspective, a horizontal structure is the most suitable for establishments that apply this approach. The downside of this model is that it can organizations may face difficulties with sustaining and growing their operations. Additionally, if key people of a film decide to leave, such a company would be unable to proceed with its services and obtain revenue.

In this regard, market culture can be as considered a drastically different approach. In this model, competition and achievements are the primary objectives of work for people. It can be argued that this method allows organizations to avoid issues that can occur in the previously described personal culture model. Due to the fact that results are prioritized, the problem with this model is that the value of individuals is inevitably connected to the benefit that they bring for a company.

Adaptive Culture and Adhocracy Culture

The next two types of organizational culture are adaptive and adhocracy, which can be applied in industries that require constant innovation and adjustments of approaches. Adaptive culture implies that changes in how business functions are part of the daily operations, and thus they occur regularly and without difficulties. This is especially important for industries that are subjected to many altercations within their environment because employees can change their daily tasks efficiently.

Adhocracy is an entrepreneurial strategy that values an individual’s creativity and utilization of new approaches. The ability to create and develop new products, services, or management techniques are the crucial components of this strategy. Consecutively, this approach implies risk-taking and exploration of new abilities. It can be argued that this culture type is the most appropriate one for modern day information technology companies and startups.

Power Culture, Role Culture, and Hierarchy Culture

Power culture can be characterized as a type, which uses the leader’s authority. The power that leads to formal leadership in such company is held in by a few people (Driskill, 2019). They are capable of making decisions that would affect each component of such a company. Similarly to market culture, achievements are the focus of work when evaluating employees’ contributions. The issue with this approach is highlighted by Driskill (2019) who states that while this method can help make decisions quickly and adjust operations following market demands. However, the issue is that the risk of such an environment becoming toxic is high.

Role culture is highly regulated and each in such company knows his or her responsibilities and tasks. Major decisions in such structure are made by people in managerial positions (Driskill, 2019). While the environment of such companies implies that all staff members should perform their tasks well because they are fully aware of what should be done, the process of decision-making is usually long due to bureaucracy.

Thus, such organizations are unlikely to make strategic decisions that imply risk and struggle with adopting new approaches. Next, as the name of this approach suggests, hierarchy culture focuses on formal interactions within an organization. The structure of the company is the primary element that coordinates the work relationships within this environment. Additionally, the leaders prioritize long-term operations and thus, the planning for execution of each task is thorough. Such settings are highly predictable in terms of decisions that such companies make.

Task Culture and Clan Culture

Task culture is oriented towards creating an environment in which projects are prioritized. Thus, the primary objective is to create an ecosystem in which tasks are done through proper planning and preparation. Driskill (2019) states that this method is facilitated through the creation of teams that are responsible for a particular project. Expert power is the most critical element for leaders in this case. Depending on a specific outline, different members of the organization can take leadership. Based on the information it can be concluded that this approach focusses on results as well.

Clan culture is a structure in that values internal relationships and mentoring of newcomers. Driskill (2019) compares this structure to tribes, which implies that such organizations function using informal connections. In addition, it means that the competition prevalent in market culture is mitigated. Arguably, this can lead to a worse completion of tasks, although Driskill (2019) emphasizes that loyalty that is the basis of this approach ensures proper motivation for employees.

Other issues connected to this model are inadequate diversity because the process of hiring new members to such companies can be biased. Both of these approaches focus on the commitment of staff members towards achieving goals that the company’s leaders set. However, the distinct difference is that in task-oriented environments the knowledge and skills of individuals have a crucial role. Clan culture, on the other hand, emphasizes the process of mentoring new members, which can lead to a disregard for their actual capabilities.

How and Why Does Organizational Culture Change?

Inevitably, due to changes in the industry or other alterations such as political or economic issues, organizations have to adapt their approaches to operations to be more efficient. In this case, changing the culture is necessary because, as was described before, each model is suitable for a particular strategy and target in regards to employee performance. Groysberg et al. (2018) state that “the best leaders we have observed are fully aware of the multiple cultures within which they are embedded, can sense when change is required, and can deftly influence the process” (para. 5).

Alternatively, culture can evolve as the leaders, and other members of organizations gain new knowledge and identify what approaches lead to successful operations and an increase in revenue. The following paragraphs describe the process of culture change and components that contribute to it.

Top Management Vision

The first step is to critically examine the existing culture and deciding which model would correspond to the current conditions better. The C-level executives are responsible for ensuring that the existing culture corresponds to the type of tasks and goals that a company wants to achieve because this element directly affects the outcomes of work. Groysberg et al. (2018) emphasize the connection between culture and strategy; therefore, the first step in the process of changing the company’s approaches is to develop new objectives by creating and stating new vision and mission.

Top Management Commitment

Secondly, the executives of an organization should display readiness for the changes, which should transpire to its employees because they can witness the application of new values. This can be achieved through actions so that staff members could observe the changes and become accustomed to the new culture. This would ensure that the leaders of the company respect the culture and are ready to perform their daily tasks in regards to it.

Model Culture Change at the Highest Level

Similarly to the previous step, this component requires particular attention from managers of a firm. People should showcase the values that the company aims to nurture within its internal environment at managerial positions, which would communicate the change correctly. As was previously discussed communication of culture through actions is the best method. In this regard, the role of change agents who facilitate the adoption of new approaches to operations is crucial.

Modify the Organization to Support Organizational Change

The fourth step requires a critical examination of the current components that enable operations and identifying which of those should be changed to suit the new culture better. Particular types of organizational cultures imply a specific structure of processes and interactions within a business. For instance, adhocracy requires flexibility while role culture is based on formal relationships. The leaders should change the existing elements for the new model to be adopted.

Select newcomers and terminate deviants

Next, a strategy for hiring and terminating employees should be in place. In some cases, particular individuals are not able to fit in with the new approach.

Asli (2016) states that this step is connected to human resource functions and determines whether newly hired individuals can adapt to the selected culture model. The process of firing individuals should be tailored towards the new values as well. However, culture change helps performance results, thought enabling better performance and efficiency; thus some individuals have to be terminated.

An executive has to create approaches for mitigating risks of the new model for developing ethical and legal sensitivity. Asli (2016) states that in most cases, a severe change in a company’s culture would result in fear of uncertainty and insecurity for the staff members. This should be mitigated through ethical and legal considerations. Asli (2016) recommends applying the method of periodic evaluation for determining if this strategy helps minimize the conflict between new culture and employees. This can help ensure a smooth transition towards a new model.

Organizational Subcultures

Subcultures may exist in any company regardless of the model that it applies. Faller, de Kinderen, Constantinidis (2016) conducted a study by examining several companies in Europe and identifying how subcultures affect productivity and achievement of results. The authors concluded that both differences and similarities in the subcultures of a company’s department could lead to a decrease in the efficiency of enterprise architecture.

This can be due to difficulties in communicating information between different structural elements that are guided by varied organizational environments. For instance, issues may arise if departments prefer to work in isolation from others, or if one of the teams uses this approach while others interact. Therefore, identifying them and ensuring that they can communicate with each other is crucial.

Overall, a thriving organizational culture has several benefits for companies. Firstly, leaders can enhance their commitment towards achieving their strategic goals through proper culture. Secondly, every company develops a particular environment, and improper models can lead to reduced motivation and an inability to perform tasks efficiently. Due to this reason, executives can leverage culture to ensure better work efficiency. Finally, this element shapes the behaviors and interactions within an organization, and employees can benefit from this by assuming particular roles and fulfilling tasks.

Asli, G. (2016). Organizational change management strategies in modern business. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Culture. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionary. Web.

Driskill, G. W. (2019). Organizational culture in action: A cultural analysis workbook (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Faller, H., de Kinderen, S., Constantinidis, K. (2016). Organizational subcultures and enterprise architecture effectiveness: Findings from a case study at a European airport company. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) , Koloa, HI, 2016, pp. 4586-4595. Web.

Forbes Communication Council. (2017). Telling your company’s culture story . Forbes . Web.

Groysberg, B., Lee, J., Price, J., & Cheng, J. Y. (2018). The leader’s guide to corporate culture . Web.

Naranjo-Valencia, J., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2016). Studying the links between organizational culture, innovation, and performance in Spanish companies. Revista Latinoamericana De Psicología , 48 (1), 30-41. Web.

Pang, K. (2017). Are you nurturing a positive company culture? Communication is the key . Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, January 8). What Is Organizational Culture? https://studycorgi.com/what-is-organizational-culture/

"What Is Organizational Culture?" StudyCorgi , 8 Jan. 2021, studycorgi.com/what-is-organizational-culture/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'What Is Organizational Culture'. 8 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "What Is Organizational Culture?" January 8, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/what-is-organizational-culture/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "What Is Organizational Culture?" January 8, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/what-is-organizational-culture/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "What Is Organizational Culture?" January 8, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/what-is-organizational-culture/.

This paper, “What Is Organizational Culture?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 8, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Organizational Culture

Armstrong (1999) said that the organizational culture is the pattern of values, norms, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions that may not have been articulated but shape the ways in which people behave and things get done.

Organizational Culture: Introduction, Components, Functions and Barriers

• Introduction to Organizational Culture
• Organizational Culture ― An Analytical Overview
• Beginning of Organizational Culture
• Components of Organizational Culture
• Functions of Organizational Culture
• Adaptation of Organizational Culture by the Employees
• Organizational Culture as a Barrier
• Organizational Cultures in the 21st Century
• Sustaining Basics and Developing Variable Aspects of Organizational Culture- Conclusion

# 1. Introduction to Organizational Culture:

The idea of viewing organizations as cultures—where there is a system of shared meaning among members—is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the mid-1980s, organizations were, for most part, simply thought of as rational means by which to coordinate and control a group of people, which have vertical levels, departments, authority relationships, and so forth. But organizations are more than that.

They have personalities too, just like individuals which can be rigid or flexible, unfriendly or supportive, innovative or conservative. For example, general electric offices and people are different from the offices and people at general mills. Harvard and MIT are in the same business of education—separated only by the width of the Charles River in Massachusetts, USA, but each has a unique feeling and character beyond its structural characteristics. Organization theorists now acknowledge this by recognizing the important role that culture plays in the lives of organizational members.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Interestingly, though, the origin of organizational culture as an independent variable affecting an employee’s attitude and behaviour can be traced back more than 50 years to the notion of institutionalization. When an organization becomes institutionalized, it takes on a life of its own, apart from its founders and any of its members. For example, Ross Perot created electronic data systems (EDS) in the early 1960s and left in 1987 to establish a new company, Perot Systems.

EDS has, however, continued to thrive despite the departure of its founder. Sony, Eastman, Kodak, Gillette, McDonald’s, and Disney are a few other examples of organizations that have existed beyond lives of their founders or any one member and have developed their own self-initiated organizational cultures over the period of time. Additionally, when an organization becomes institutionalized, it becomes valued for itself and not merely for the goods and services it produces. It acquires corporate immortality. If its goods are no longer relevant, it does not go out of business. Rather it redefines itself.

When the demand for Timex watches declined, the Timex Corporation merely redirected itself into consumer electronics business-making, in addition to watches, clocks, computers, and health care products such as digital thermometers and blood pressure testing devices. Timex Corp took on an existence that went beyond its original mission to manufacture low cost mechanical watches. This sense of redefining itself became a part of Timex’s organizational culture.

Hence, institutionalization operates to produce common understandings among members about what is appropriate and, fundamentally, meaningful behaviour. So when an organization takes on institutional permanence, acceptable modes of behaviour, it becomes largely self-evident to its members. This is almost the same thing that organizational culture does.

Hence; an understanding of what makes up an organization’s culture, and how it is created, sustained, and learned, further enhances the manager’s ability to explain and predict the behaviour of people at work.

# 2. Organizational Culture ― An Analytical Overview:

Armstrong (1999) said that the organizational culture is the pattern of values, norms, beliefs, attitudes and assumptions that may not have been articulated but shape the ways in which people behave and things get done. Values refer to what is believed to be important about how people and the organizations behave. Norms are unwritten rules of behaviour.

This definition emphasizes that organizational culture is concerned with abstractions such as values and norms which pervade the whole or part of an organization. There seems to be wide agreement that organizational culture refers to a system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations. This system of shared meaning is a set of key characteristics that the organization values.

O’Reilly III, Chatman and Caldwell (1991) suggests that there are seven primary characteristics that, in aggregate, capture the essence of an organization’s culture:

i. Innovation and Risk-Taking:

The degree to which employees are encouraged to be innovative and take risks.

ii. Attention to Detail:

The degree to which employees are expected to exhibit precision, analysis, and attention to detail.

iii. Outcome Orientation:

The degree to which management focuses on results or outcomes rather than on the techniques and processes used to achieve those outcomes.

iv. People Orientation:

The degree to which management decisions take into consideration the effect of outcomes on people within the organization.

v. Team Orientation:

The degree to which the work activities are organized around teams rather than individuals.

vi. Aggressiveness:

The degree to which people are aggressive and competitive rather than easy-going.

vii. Stability:

The degree to which the organizational activities emphasize maintaining the status quo in contrast to growth.

Each of these characteristics consists on a continuum from low to high. Appraising the organization on these seven characteristics, then, gives a composite picture of the organization’s culture. This picture becomes the basis for feelings of shared understanding that members have about the organization, how things are done in it, and the way members are supposed to behave.

Organizational culture is, therefore concerned with how employees perceive the characteristics of organization’s culture, not with whether or not they like them. Organizational culture represents a common perception held by the organization’s members. It is widely accepted that individuals with different backgrounds or at different levels in the organization will tend to describe the organization’s culture in similar terms.

It is this ‘shared meaning’ aspect of organizational culture that makes it such a potent device for guiding and shaping behaviour. That is what determines, e.g., Microsoft’s culture which values aggressiveness and risk-taking. This gives the managers the insight and information to better understand the behaviour of Microsoft’s executives and employees.

It can be concluded that organizational culture provides stability to an organization. Furthermore, every organization has a culture and, depending on its strength, it can have a significant influence on the attitudes and behaviours of organization’s members. In order to successfully understand the culture of an organization, it is important first of all to understand how culture begins in an organization.

# 3. Beginning of Organizational Culture:

An organization’s culture does not pop out of thin air. Once established, it rarely fades away. An organization’s current customs, traditions, and general ways of doing things are largely due to what it has done before and the degree of success it has had with those endeavours. This leads to the ultimate source of organization’s culture and its founders.

The founders of an organization traditionally have a major impact on that organization’s early culture. They have a vision of what organization should be. They are unconstrained by the previous customs and ideologies. The small size that typically characterizes new organizations further facilitates the: founder’s imposition of their vision on all organizational members.

The process of culture creation occurs in three ways ― First, founders only hire and keep employees who think and feel the way they do. Second, they indoctrinate and socialize these employees to their way of thinking and feeling. And finally, the founder’s own behaviour acts as a role model that encourages employees to identify with them and thereby internalize their beliefs, values and assumptions. When the organization succeeds, the founder’s vision is seen as a primary determinant of that success. At this point, the founder’s entire personality becomes embedded in the culture of the organization.

To substantiate this, citing the example of Sony will be quite appropriate as Sony can truly be viewed as the Essence of Akio Morita. Akio Morita, Sony Corporation’s co-founder had such a tremendous influence on the company’s culture that people often referred to him as Mr. Sony.

Morita was described as a passionate lover of music and art, a workaholic, a great socialiser, a brilliant observer of people’s behaviour, and a man with an un-bounding energy, a relentless drive, and a determined focus. Morita applied these qualities in pursuing his vision of creating a brand name for products that appealed to people worldwide.

He chose a short, catchy name for his company so people everywhere could easily pronounce and remember it. Morita began his globalization strategy in the United States, where he moved his family so that he could study American culture and increase Sony’s chance of success. Today, Sony is recognized throughout the world as a leading brand name.

Citing another recent example, Southwest Airlines can be aptly described as Herbert Kelleher s passion. The actions of Herbert Kelleher, Southwest Airlines’ Chief Executive, had a strong influence on the company’s casual, fun-loving culture. He stars in the company’s orientation film, where new employees see their leader singing and dancing. Kelleher models the light-hearted behaviour he expects of his employees so they, in turn, know that it is okay as a part of providing exceptional customer service, to have fun with the airline’s passengers.

Similarly, the culture at Hyundai the giant Korean Conglomerate is largely a reflection of its founder Chung Ju Yung. Hyundai’s fierce, competitive style and its disciplined, authoritarian nature are the same characteristics used to describe Chung.

Other contemporary examples of founders who have had an immeasurable impact on their organization’s culture include ― Bill Gates at Microsoft, David Packard at Hewlett-Packard, Fred Smith at Federal Express, Mary Kay at Mary Kay Cosmetics, and Richard Branson at the Virgin Group.

# 4. Components of Organizational Culture:

The culture of an organization represents a complex pattern of shared values, norms and artefacts which are characteristics of the organization. Hence, organizational culture can be said to comprise of three different components viz., values, norms and artefacts.

These terms are further described below:

Values are the beliefs in what is good for the organization and what should or ought, to happen. The ‘value set’ of an organization may only be recognized at top level, or it may be shared throughout the business, in which case the organization could be described as value-driven. The stronger the values, the more they will influence behaviour. This does not depend upon their having been articulated.

Implicit values that are deeply embedded in the culture of the organization and are reinforced by the behaviour of the management can be highly influential, while espoused values that are idealistic and are not expressed in the managerial behaviour may have little or no effect. Some of the most typical areas in which values can be expressed, implicitly, or explicitly are: performance, competence, competitiveness and teamwork.

Norms are the unwritten rules of behaviour, the ‘rules of the game’ that provide informal guidelines on how to behave. Norms tell people what they are supposed to be doing, saying, believing and even wearing. They are never expressed in writing—if they were, they would be policies or procedures.

They are passed on by the word of mouth or behaviour and can be enforced by the reactions of the people if they are violated. They can exert very powerful influence on the behaviour because of these reactions—people are controlled by the way others react to them. Norms can be very well illustrated by the prevailing work ethics, e.g., ‘work hard, play hard’, ‘come in early, stay late’, look busy at all times’ or ‘look relaxed at all times’.

3. Artefacts:

Artefacts are the visible and tangible aspects of an organization that people hear, say or feel. Artefacts can include such things as the working environment, the tone and language used in letters and memoranda, the manner in which people address each other at meetings or over the telephone, the welcome (or lack of welcome) given to the visitors and the way in which receptionists deal with outside calls. Artefacts can be very revealing.

# 5. Functions of Organizational Culture:

After having described what an organizational culture is, along with its origin and components, it will be appropriate to probe into the wide array of meaningful functions performed by the organizational culture for the organization.

Staw and Cummings (1996) described that organizational culture performs a number of functions within an organization. First, it has a boundary-defining role, i.e. it creates distinctions between one organization and others. Second, it conveys a sense of identity for organizational members. Third, organizational culture facilitates the generation of commitment to something larger than one individual’s self-interest. Fourth, it enhances, social system stability.

Organizational culture is therefore, the social glue that helps hold the organization together by providing appropriate standards of what employees should say and do. Finally, organizational culture serves as a sense-making and control mechanism that guides and shapes the attitudes and behaviour of the employees. The role of organizational culture in influencing employees’ behaviour appears to be increasingly important in today’s work-place.

As organizations have widened the spans of control, flattened structures, introduced teams, reduced formalization, and empowered employees, the shared meaning provided by a strong culture ensures that everyone is pointed in the same direction. For instance, the employees at Disney theme parks appear to be almost universally attractive, clean and wholesome looking, with bright, smiles. That is what the organizational culture at Disney imbibes and conveys.

The company selects employees who will maintain that image. And once on the job, a strong organizational culture, supported by the formal rules and regulations, ensures that Disney-theme park employees will act in a relatively uniform and predictable way. Also, to illustrate the notion of shared meaning, ‘Yahoo! Incorporation.’ presents a good example.

The shared meaning provided by Yahoo Inc.’s strong organizational culture is stated in the company’s motto—’Do what’s crazy, but not stupid.’ The motto guides employees as they develop entertaining programmes and services that grab the attention of today’s internet users. Employee creativity is the key to keeping ‘Yahoo!’ the leading search engine on the internet. ‘Yahoo!’ hires young net enthusiastic who thrive in an informal setting where there are few rules and regulations to stifle the creative process.

# 6. Adaptation of Organizational Culture by the Employees:

How Employees Adopt Culture:

Once an organizational culture is in place, there are practices within the organization that act to maintain it by giving employees a set of similar. Culture is transmitted to employees in a number of forms, the most potent being stories, rituals, material symbols and language.

1. Stories:

During the days when Henry Ford II was the chairman of the Ford Motor Co., one would have been hard pressed to find a manager who had not heard the story about Mr. Ford reminding his executives, when they got too arrogant, that “it’s my name that is on the building.” The message was clear- Henry Ford II ran the company.

Stories such as that circulate through many organizations. They typically contain a narrative of events about the organization’s founders, rule-breaking, rags-to-riches successes, reductions in the workforce, relocation of employees, reactions to past mistakes and organizational coping. For most of the part, these stories develop spontaneously. But some organizations actually try to manage this element of organizational culture’s learning.

For instance, Krispy Kreme, a large doughnut maker out of North Carolina, USA has a full time ‘Minister of Culture’ whose primary responsibility is to tape interviews with customers and employees. The stories these people tell are then put into company’s video magazine that describes Krispy Kreme’s history and values. These stories anchor the present in the past and provide explanations and legitimacy for current practices.

2. Rituals:

Rituals are repetitive sequences of activities that express and reinforce the key values of the organization; which goals are most important, and which people are important and which are expendable. One of the best known examples for organizational rituals is Mary Kay Cosmetics’ Annual Award Meeting. Looking like a cross between a circus and a Miss America pageant, the meeting takes place over a couple of days in a large auditorium, on a stage in front of a large, cheering audience, with all the participants dressed in glamorous evening clothes. Sales women are rewarded with an array of flashy gifts—gold and diamond pins, fur stoles, pink Cadillacs—based on the success in achieving sales quota.

This ‘show’ acts as a motivator by publicly recognizing outstanding sales performance. In addition, this ritual aspect reinforces Mary Kay’s personal determination and optimism, which enabled her to overcome personal hardships, establish her own company, and achieve material success. It conveys to her sales people that reaching their sales quota is important and that through hard work and encouragement they too can achieve success.

3. Material Symbols:

The headquarters of Alcoa, world’s leading producer of primary aluminum, fabricated aluminum, and alumina, does not look like a typical head office operation. It has few individual offices. It is essentially made up of cubicles, common areas, and meeting rooms. This informal corporate headquarters convey to the employees that Alcoa values openness, equality, creativity and flexibility.

Some corporations provide their top executives with chauffeur-driven limousines and, when they travel by air, unlimited use of the corporate jet. Others may not get to ride in limousines or private jets but they might still get a car and air transportation paid for by the company. Only the car is Chevrolet (with no driver) and the jet seat is in the economy section of a commercial airliner.

The layouts of the corporate headquarters, the types of automobiles top executives are given, and the presence or absence of corporate aircraft, are a few examples of material symbols. Others include size of offices,’ the elegance of furnishings, executive perks and dress attires. These material symbols convey to employees who is important, the degree of egalitarianism desired by the top management, and the kinds of behaviour (for example, Risk-taking, conservative, authoritarian, participative, individualistic, social) that are appropriate.

4. Language:

Many organizations and units within the organizations use language as a way to identify its organizational members. By learning this language, members attest to their acceptance of the culture and, in doing so help to preserve it. For example, employees at Tattoo, a marketing services agency in San Francisco, USA use special words to convey the organization’s unique culture.

They call the Tattoo’s three floors of office space the ‘hive’ because it buzzes with activity as employees move between the floors to work on different client projects. They refer to themselves as ‘Tattools’, because the company discourages the formal job titles and other symbols of formal authority.

Unlike most marketing firms that use market research studies and focus groups for developing brand campaigns, Tattoo uses an intuitive approach it calls ‘living the brand’. Employees call client presentations ‘collages’, a blending of music and visuals intended to show the sensory and emotional aspects of brand.

Hence, organizations, over a period of time, often develop unique terms to describe equipment, offices, key personnel, suppliers, customers, or products that relate to their business. New employees are frequently overwhelmed with acronyms and jargon that, after 6 months on the job, have become fully a part of their language. Once, assimilated, this terminology acts as a common denominator that unites members of a given organizational culture.

# 7. Organizational Culture as a Barrier:

Every coin has two sides and so has organizational culture. On the one hand, organizational culture plays a very integral part in the organizations’ overall conduct. Many of its functions are valuable to both the organizations and the employees. Organizational culture enhances organizational commitment and increases the consistency of employee behaviour.

These are clearly benefits to organizations. From an employee’s standpoint, organizational culture is valuable because it reduces ambiguity. It tells employees how the things are done and what is important. On the other hand, organizational culture can also pose to become a barrier to organizational growth and development.

This fact is well-depicted in some potentially dysfunctional aspects of organizational culture and its effects on the organization, especially a strong one, on an organization’s effectiveness:

1. A Barrier to Change:

Culture is a liability when shared values are not in agreement with those that will further the organization’s effectiveness. This is most likely to occur as an organization’s environment is dynamic. When an organization is undergoing rapid change, organization’s entrenched culture may no longer be appropriate.

So consistency of behaviour is an asset to an organization when it faces a stable environment. It may, however, burden the organization and make it difficult to respond to changes in the environment. For instance, JC Penney and Sears once ruled the USA’s retail department store market.

Their executives considered their markets immune to competition. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Wal-Mart did a pretty effective job of humbling Penney’s and Sear’s managements. General Motors’ executives, safe and cloistered in their Detroit headquarters in USA, ignored the aggressive efforts by the Japanese auto firms to penetrate its markets. The result is history. General Motors market share has been in a free fall for three decades.

Toyota, once one of those aggressive Japanese firms that was successfully stealing market share from General Motors, itself became a casualty of its own success. During the first half of 1990s, having been slow to respond to the recreational vehicle market and stuck with a cumbersome vehicle development process, Toyota experienced a serious loss in market share and profit margins.

2. A Barrier to Diversity:

Hiring new employees who, because of race, gender, disability, or other differences, are not like majority of the organization’s members, creates a paradox. Management wants new employees to accept the organization’s core cultural values. Otherwise, these employees are unlikely to fit in or be accepted. But at the same time, management wants to openly acknowledge and demonstrate support for the differences that these employees bring to the workplace.

Strong cultures put considerable pressure on employees to conform. They limit the range of values and styles that are acceptable. In some instances, such as the widely publicized Texaco case (which was settled on behalf of 14000 employees for $ 176 million) in which senior managers made disparaging remarks about minorities; a strong culture that condones prejudice can even undermine formal corporate diversity policies.

Organizations seek out and hire diverse individuals because of the alternative strengths these people bring to the workplace. Yet, diverse behaviours and strengths are likely to diminish in strong cultures as people attempt to fit in. Strong organizational cultures can, therefore, be liabilities when they effectively eliminate those unique strengths that people of different backgrounds bring to the organization. Moreover, strong organizational cultures can also be liabilities when they support institutional bias or become insensitive to people who are different.

3. A Barrier to Acquisitions and Mergers:

Historically, the key factors that management looked at in making acquisitions or merger decisions were related to financial advantages or product synergy, but, in recent years, organizational cultural compatibility has become the primary concern. While a favourable financial statement or product line may be the initial attraction of an acquisition candidate, whether the acquisition actually works seems to have more to do with how well the two organizations’ cultures match up.

A number of acquisitions consummated in the 1990s already have failed. And primary cause is conflicting organizational cultures. For instance, AT and T’s 1991 acquisition of NCR was a disaster. AT and T’s unionized employees objected to working in the same building as NCR’s non-union staff. Meanwhile, NCR’s conservative, centralized culture did not take kindly to AT and T’s insistence on calling supervisors ‘coaches’ and removing executive’s office doors. By the time AT and T finally sold NCR, the failure of the deal had cost AT and T more than $ 3 billion.

Similarly, Word-Perfect Corp. bought Novell Inc. in 1994 to give it a viable word-processing product to compete against Microsoft. But the employees and the managers from the two organizations could never see eye to eye on important issues. When Word Perfect was sold to Corel Corp. in 1996, Novell got $ 1 billion less than it had paid just two years earlier. Hence, it is clearly evident from the above real-life corporate examples that rigid organizational cultures can pose to be significant barriers to the organization’s future growth and development.

# 8. Organizational Cultures in the 21st Century:

Any group of people who have worked together for some time, any organization of long standing, indeed, any state or national body over a period of time develops a philosophy and a series of traditions. These are unique and they fully define the organization, setting it aside for better or worse from similar organizations.

To cite an example from the fast-moving, ever changing information technology world, this article dwells into Hewlett-Packard which is a leading giant in the computer and information technology business. At Hewlett-Packard, whole of its organizational culture goes under the general heading of the ‘H-P Way’.

In general terms, ‘H-P Way’ is the policies and actions that flow from the belief that men and women want to do a good job, a creative job, and that if they are provided with the proper environment, they will do so. But that’s only a part of it. Closely coupled with this is the H-P tradition of treating each individual with consideration and respect and recognizing personal achievements.

This really catches the essence of the ‘H-P Way’. It cannot be described in number and statistics. Basically, it is the spirit, a point of view. It is a feeling that everyone is the part of a team, and that team is Hewlett- Packard. It exists because people have seen that it works, and they believe in it and support it. The belief is that this feeling makes Hewlett-Packard what it is, and that it is worth perpetuating. And this belief forms the crux of Organizational Culture at Hewlett-Packard.

This example provides some insight into the organizational culture of Hewlett-Packard. In many respects, its culture is unique in itself and is very different from that of IBM or Apple Computers or Texas Instruments. In fact, two organizations might be in essentially the same business, be located in the same geographic area, have similar form of organizational structure, and yet be, somehow, very different as places to work.

This difference can be credited, to a large extent, to different organizational cultures unique to an organization itself. This goes on to substantiate the fact that a strong organizational culture can affect employees’ behaviours and commitment to the organization in a significant manner.

# 9. Sustaining Basics and Developing Variable Aspects of Organizational Culture- Conclusion:

In the end, it would be wise to acknowledge the fact that in order to make organizational cultures work for the organization, we have to sustain some of the basic aspects of the organizational culture as they provide stability to the organization, while developing certain variable aspects of organizational cultures in order to equip the organization to survive in a dynamic environment of today’s modern day corporate world.

An organization’s culture is largely made up of relatively stable characteristics. It develops over many years and is rooted in deeply held values to which employees are strongly committed. In addition, they are a number of forces continually operating to maintain a given culture.

These would include written statements about the organization’s mission and philosophy, the design of the physical space and buildings, the dominant leadership style, hiring criteria, entrenched rituals, popular stories about key people and events, past promotion practices, the organization’s historic performance evaluation criteria, and the organization’s formal structure.

Selection and promotion policies are particularly important devices that work for sustaining the basics of organizational culture. Employees choose an organization because they perceive their own values to be a good fit with the organization. They become comfortable with that fit.

Hence, one of the most important managerial implications of organizational culture relates to the selection decisions. Hiring individuals whose values do not align with those of the organization is likely to lead to employees who lack motivation and commitment and who are dissatisfied with their jobs and the organizations.

Employees form an overall subjective perception of the organization based on such factors as degree of risk tolerance, team emphasis, and support of people. This overall perception becomes, in effect, the organization’s culture or personality. These favourable or unfavourable perceptions then affect employee performance and satisfaction, with impact being greater for stronger cultures, just as people’s personalities tend to be stable over time, so too strong cultures do.

This makes strong cultures difficult for managers to change. When a culture becomes mismatched to its environment, management would want to change it. But changing an organization’s culture is a long and difficult process. The result, at least in the short-term, is that managers should treat their organization’s culture as relatively fixed. Robbins (2003) says that culture is largely stable in nature but that does not mean it cannot be changed.

In the unusual case when an organization confronts a survival-threatening crisis— a crisis that is universally acknowledged as a {rue life-or-death situation— members of the organization will be responsive to efforts at cultural change. Hence, changing an organization’s culture is extremely difficult, but cultures can be changed.

Roth (1998) suggests that cultural change is most likely to take place when most or all of the following conditions exists:

First condition is of a dramatic crisis. This is the shock that undermines the status quo and calls into question the relevance of the current culture. Examples of this crisis might be a surprising financial setback, the loss of a major client or customer base, or a dramatic technological breakthrough by a competitor.

Second condition is of turnover in leadership. This happens basically when the new top leadership, which can provide an alternative set of key values, may be perceived as more capable of responding to the crisis.

Third is the case of young and small organizations. The younger the organization the less entrenched its culture will be. Similarly, it is easier for the management to communicate its new values when the organization is small and young.

And finally, there is the case of a weak culture. The more widely held the culture and the higher the agreement among members on its values, the more difficult it will be to change. Conversely, weak cultures are more amendable to change than strong ones.

If the preceding conditions exist, the following actions may lead to change- new stories and rituals need to be set in place by top management; employees should be selected and promoted who espouse these new values and the reward system needs to be changed to support the new values. Under the best of conditions, these actions would not result in an immediate or dramatic shift in the prevailing organizational culture. This is because cultural change is a lengthy process—measured in years rather than in months. But cultures can be changed.

Related Articles:

• Relation between Performance and Organisation Culture
• Difference between Organisation Climate and Organisation Culture
• Business and Culture: Relationship
• Organisational Culture: Definitions, Features, Significance, Elements, Types

We use cookies

Privacy overview.

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

How Does Leadership Influence Organizational Culture?

• 02 Mar 2023

Organizational culture is a powerful driver of success. Yet it’s difficult to quantify and track, making it an intimidating but necessary challenge leaders must face.

How can you, as an organizational leader, shape a strong culture? Before exploring how, here’s a primer on organizational culture and why it matters.

What Is Organizational Culture, and Why Is It Important?

Organizational culture is the collection of values, beliefs, assumptions, and norms that guide activity and mindset in an organization.

Culture impacts every facet of a business, including:

• The way employees speak to each other
• The norms surrounding work-life balance
• The implied expectations when challenges arise
• How each employee feels about their work
• The permissibility of making mistakes
• How each team and department collaborate

Having a strong culture pays off financially: It can impact employees’ motivation, which, in turn, influences their work’s quality and efficiency, ability to reach goals, and retention rates. Having a culture that fosters innovation can also pay off in the form of new product ideas and creative solutions to problems .

It’s not possible to opt out of having an organizational culture—if you don’t put effort into crafting it, a negative one can emerge. If you’re an organizational leader —especially at a large company—you can’t directly speak to every employee, so you must influence culture from a high level.

Here are three ways you can influence organizational culture, the importance of effective communication, and how to build your skills.

Access your free e-book today.

How Do Leaders Influence Organizational Culture?

1. ensuring alignment on mission, purpose, and vision.

One way you can influence your organization’s culture is by ensuring everyone’s aligned on its mission, purpose, and vision.

Think of this communication as laying the foundation for culture. What customer need does your company fulfill? How does it make a positive impact? What’s its vision for the future, and what strategies are in place for getting there?

Additionally, ensure every employee understands how their daily work contributes to your organization’s success. According to a Salesforce report , more than 70 percent of U.S. employees say connecting to their company's culture and values motivates them to do their best work.

“Leading at scale and scope requires you to treat communication as a tool to reach out to people, captivate heads, and move hearts, so those you’re leading understand your actions and goals,” says Harvard Business School Professor Joshua Margolis in the online course Organizational Leadership . “And, perhaps more importantly, so they understand where they fit and why their work matters.”

2. Inspiring Confidence in the Face of Challenges

The way you react in times of tumult can powerfully impact culture. How do you pivot your company’s goals? Do you visibly panic, keep everything under wraps, or communicate with thoughtful transparency? Your reaction sets the tone for your team.

One example of a strong leader who crafted culture during crisis is explorer Ernest Shackleton. Shackleton’s original mission was to traverse Antarctica. But when his ship, the Endurance, was trapped and crushed by icebergs, it suddenly became irrelevant. The new mission was to get his team of 28 men home alive. One important part of doing so was managing the team’s culture.

“Critical to accomplishing his mission, he had to convince the crew that, individually and collectively, they can do it,” says HBS Professor Nancy Koehn in a sample business lesson on resilient leadership . “That they, under his leadership, are going to do that.”

Shackleton not only focused on increasing morale but on containing any doubts in the group. He asked the few men uncertain of success to sleep in his tent to influence their morale and keep them from spreading skepticism to the rest of the crew. His efforts paid off, and he led his team to safety.

Although not every challenge is a life-or-death situation like Shackleton’s, you can influence culture by letting your employees know their safety and well-being are a priority and that you’re confident in their ability to endure crises .

Related: How to Become a More Resilient Leader

3. Leveraging Mistakes as a Source of Learning

If you want to foster an innovative organizational culture, embracing and learning from mistakes is crucial.

“You can’t wave a wand, dictate to people that they need to be more creative, and wake up the next day to find people taking risks and trying new things,” says HBS Professor Anthony Mayo in Organizational Leadership .

If you chastise or punish employees for making mistakes, they’re far less likely to try new ideas. To unlock innovation’s potential, make it clear that experimentation is something to celebrate—regardless of its outcome. If an experiment fails, frame it as a chance to learn what worked and what didn’t.

If encouraging experimentation and failure feels too risky for your core business, designate a space or team specifically for testing innovative ideas.

The Importance of Communication in Shaping Organizational Culture

While each organization’s culture is unique, the common thread between strong ones is effective leadership communication .

When seeking alignment, inspiring confidence, and fostering innovation, how you choose to communicate determines whether your messages have their intended impacts.

In Organizational Leadership, Margolis and Mayo present five dimensions of communicating organizational direction , which you can use to shape culture, too:

• Know your audience: Have a firm understanding of your audience’s perspective. What information do they already know? What questions or concerns do they have? What factors matter most to them?
• Cater the content: Based on your audience, craft your message’s content to align with what they want and need to learn.
• Align on purpose: Determine your communication’s purpose. Is it to inform, meant to solicit input, gain approval, or motivate your audience?
• Design the process: Logistically, decide how you’ll deliver your message. Consider timing, frequency, channel, and who’s responsible.
• Compassion: Do you show your audience you care about their perspectives?
• Clarity: Do you communicate clearly to those unfamiliar with the message?
• Conciseness: Is the message short enough to internalize?
• Connection: Do you emotionally connect with your audience?
• Conviction: Do you demonstrate your commitment to the good of your organization?
• Courage: Do you demonstrate confidence in your ability to lead through uncertainty?

For example, consider how you might communicate mass layoffs to affected employees. How would your organizational culture be impacted if you sent a generic email to them rather than delivering the news face-to-face?

What about messaging the employees who aren’t being laid off? If you communicate the reasons for the decision and show empathy toward those impacted, you can build a culture of trust—which will be crucial to maintain with your remaining employees.

Every communication you deliver can shape organizational culture; it’s up to you to decide how to use it.

Building Your Leadership Skills

While shaping organizational culture can be challenging, all leaders face it. If you aim to build your leadership skills in this area, search for courses that include real-world examples.

In Organizational Leadership , you’re presented with real-world business cases —featuring leaders from companies including General Mills, McAfee, Medtronic, and Levi Strauss & Company—and prompted to consider how to handle each situation. Afterward, you discover how each leader approached challenges, gaining insights and perspectives you can apply to your organization.

By learning from others, communicating effectively, and making purposeful choices, you can leverage your leadership skills to shape organizational culture.

Are you interested in elevating your leadership skills? Explore Organizational Leadership —one of our online leadership and management courses —and learn how to communicate direction and lead at scale.

About the Author

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay

Article Critique

• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Organizational Culture, Essay Example

Pages: 1

Words: 269

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Organizational culture is a crucial aspect in any organization and helps in guiding and explaining the behavior of top management and employees of the organization. Good quality culture helps the company to run its operations smoothly by facilitating appropriate communications and interactions within the organization.

It is essential to have consistency in the quality culture developed and adapted by the company. Consistency helps to reduce the possibility of having double standards, which undermines the values of the organization. Consistency also assists as the reference point for the regular, organizational operations and sets a required standard.  The organizational culture must have a relationship with the vision and the mission of the company.  The quality culture should not manipulate the employees, but act to develop a proper attitude towards productivity.

Quality organizational culture must empower the employees towards exploration of their creativity and; therefore, must give them an opportunity to be autonomous as long as they stay within the stipulated guileless. Empowerment leads t organizational success through the use of positive changes within the organization. A quality organizational culture must also incorporate the aspect of respect between all the players in the organization. Respect is essential in the communication between the organizations employees and management. Understanding of one another in the organization assists in the alignment of the values of the organization.

Another element necessary in the development of a strong quality culture is the development and learning. The people involved in the operations of the organization should be developed by the culture adopted by the company. The process should not chastise mistakes unnecessarily but strive to provide a learning environment to facilitate productivity.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

How to Assess a Student, Research Paper Example

Affiliated-Individuation in Caregivers of Adults With Dementia, Article Critique Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 14 May 2024

Linking organisational learning, performance, and sustainable performance in universities: an empirical study in Europe

• Roba Elbawab   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2152-229X 1 , 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  626 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

14 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Business and management

Universities are facing changes that could be adapted by learning. Organisational learning helps universities in attaining better organisational and sustainable performance. The study aims to combine and explore how organisational learning culture enables organisational learning to contribute to better organisational performance and better sustainable performance, following the natural resource-based view and organisational learning theory. The study examines the relationship between organisational learning culture, organisational learning, organisational performance, and sustainable performance in the university context from university teachers. The author collected 221 surveys from public university teachers in Europe to test the model. The results indicate a positive relationship between organisational learning culture and organisational learning. In addition to that, the positive relationship between organisational learning and organisational performance is indicated. Moreover, the results indicate a positive relationship between organisational learning and sustainable performance. The results also show that the organisational learning process mediates organisational learning culture and university performance. The study addresses a gap in the scarce studies in the university context for organisational learning and sustainable performance. Finally, this study reproduces an organisational model that has been adapted for universities.

Similar content being viewed by others

Do staff capacity and performance-based budgeting improve organisational performance? Empirical evidence from Chinese public universities

Do subcultures play a role in facilitating academic quality?—A case study of a Saudi higher education institution

The relationship between strategic human resource management, green innovation and environmental performance: a moderated-mediation model

Introduction.

Universities are facing different types of change, including digitalisation, sustainability, entrepreneurship, and innovation (Leal Filho et al. 2018 ; Pocol et al. 2022 ); it is the universities’ obligation to cope with this change (Medne et al. 2022 ; James et al. 1993 ). One of the proven ways that help universities adapt to change and increase their performance is learning, more specifically, organisational learning (Kezar and Holcombe 2019 ). In fact, organisational learning practices and processes can facilitate change and enhance organisations (Argyris and Schön 1996 ; Fiol and Lyles 1985 ; Garvin 1993 ; Huber 1991 ).

The topic of organisational learning has been discussed since the early nineties when the foundations of organisational learning were further developed during this era (Castaneda et al. 2018 ). Researchers called for more research to understand organisational learning. Organisations learn when there is information processing that leads to a change in the behaviour and the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities (Kezar and Holcombe 2019 ; Flores et al. 2012 ; Jyothibabu et al. 2010 ; Jiménez Jiménez and SanzValle 2006 ; Slater and Narver 1995 ; Huber, 1991 ). Organisational learning researchers have extended their research to identify the organisational learning predictors to include organisational learning culture (Flores et al. 2012 ). Organisational learning has been discussed in several industries, but it is considered scarce in the university context (Abu‐Tineh 2011 ; Voolaid and Ehrlich 2017 ). Previous research focused on organisational learning capabilities and behaviours. However, the author will focus on organisational learning processes in this study. The organisational learning processes affect organisational performance (Bontis et al. 2002 ; Crossan and Bapuji 2003 ; Kontoghiorghes et al. 2005 ; Sun et al. 2008 ; Jyothibabu et al. 2010 ), as well as sustainability and sustainable performance (Iqbal and Ahmad 2021 ; Kordab et al. 2020 ; Bilan et al. 2020 ). However, this relationship in the university sector is understudied, with a gap in organisational learning literature. Especially since universities are considered a complex type of organisation (Elbawab 2022a ; Bleiklie and Kogan 2007 ). Sustainable development was defined as ‘development which meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 (Basiago 1995 ). Sustainable development and learning share many important elements, including “a challenge to mental models, fostering fundamental change, engaging in extensive collaborative activity and, in some cases, revisiting core assumptions about business and its purpose” (Molnar and Mulvihill 2003 , p. 168), therefore several scholars showed the need to understand the relationship between learning in organisations and sustainability (Feeney et al. 2023 ). Sustainability is used in different domains, including economics and education (Pocol et al. 2022 ; Basiago 1995 ). In 2015, The United Nations General Assembly approved the ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, which contains a set of measures aiming to balance economic progress and the protection of the environment (Leal Filho et al. 2018 ). The agenda consists of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which, among many other tasks, plan to eradicate poverty and create better health conditions in both developed and developing countries (Leal Filho et al. 2018 ). Sustainability in higher education institutions can be implemented in teaching, research, governance, and outreach (Leal Filho et al. 2023 ; Serafini et al. 2022 ). In fact, higher education’s growth contributes to society’s better sustainable development (Geng et al. 2023 ; Geng et al. 2020a ). Therefore, this is one of the reasons for the need to focus on studying sustainability in higher education. In the research area, sustainability research can be implemented by researchers from various areas who can work independently or collectively on the same project by combining their expertise (Leal Filho et al. 2023 ; Collin 2009 ). Additionally, sustainability can be implemented in research by framing higher education institutions’ research in the direction of the SDGs (Serafini et al. 2022 ). In the teaching area, sustainability can be implemented within the strategies in the curriculum development of promoting sustainability and in planning new courses (Leal Filho et al. 2023 ; Serafini et al. 2022 ). Sustainability in the teaching area can also be developed by modifying the existing curriculum with the SDGs (Leal Filho et al. 2023 ). As for governance, sustainability can be implemented by establishing indicators in rankings that evaluate the performance of higher education institutions concerning compliance with the SDGs. Sustainability within governance can also be implemented by evaluating the level of knowledge, awareness, and attitudes towards the SDGs among academic community members and educators (Serafini et al. 2022 ). Finally, for the outreach, sustainability can be implemented by disseminating SDGs by training the managers and decision-makers in civil society organisations (Serafini et al. 2022 ). In this study, the author will focus on the governance of sustainability in education. The relationship between organisational learning and sustainability has been discussed in several studies. A study developed in 2020 assessed the relationship between organisational learning and sustainable organisational performance (Kordab et al. 2020 ). Another study assessed the relationship between organisational learning and sustainability (Bilan et al. 2020 ). Subsequently, the lack of studies that evaluate organisational learning and sustainability in universities has emerged.

According to the natural resource-based view (NRBV) theory (Hart 1995 ), environmentally friendly resources and capabilities play a key competitive advantage in an organisation (Iqbal and Ahmad 2021 ; Hart 1995 ). The NRBV theory takes the capabilities and competitive advantage thinking one step further, where the theory posits that the organisation’s competitive advantage can only be sustained when the capabilities creating the advantage are supported by resources not easily duplicated by competitors (Hart 1995 ). In this study, the resource is the organisational learning. In organisational learning theory, organisational learning is defined as the change that occurs in the organisation, resulting from knowledge memorised in organisations gathered from experience and changes in behaviour resulting from such knowledge (Argote and Miron-Spektor 2011 ). These experiences and changes in behaviours that happen in the organisation are not easily duplicated by the competitors. To explain organisational learning more thoroughly and to show how organisational learning is a resource that is not easily duplicated, the author will further explain the types of learning that are crucial for the organisational learning theory (Crossan et al. 1999 ). Organisational learning has two types of learning. The first is characterised by improving the existing routines, and the second is characterised by reframing a situation or solving unclear problems (Edmondson 2002 ). Since the existing routines and situations will differ from one organisation to another, thus organisational learning can be considered a resource that is not easy to duplicate. Consequently, environmentally friendly resources should have a relationship with organisational learning. Subsequently, this study explores the relationship between organisational learning and sustainable performance (Environmental performance and social performance). The significance of the study is found at both empirical and theoretical levels. Theoretically, it is found to explore the influence of organisational learning as a process on university performance. Also, the influence of learning on sustainability and the role of learning culture among these relationships. This study adds to the theory of organisational learning and, specifically, how to treat organisational learning as a process. Moreover, another significant aspect of this study is addressing the mediation of the organisational learning process in the relationship between organisational learning culture and university performance, as organisational learning culture is proposed to directly affect higher education institutional performance (Kumar 2005 ). Furthermore, the significance of the study is found in exploring the relationship between organisational learning and sustainable performance in the university context. Finally, it empirically assesses organisational learning and all the relationships in the university’s context.

This study assesses the relationship between organisational learning culture and organisational learning processes. The study will also assess the organisational learning processes with the outcomes, where the relationship between the organisational learning process and university performance is assessed. The study will also assess the relationship between organisational learning processes and sustainable performance. Further, this research assesses the mediation between the organisational learning culture and university performance.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Organisational learning process.

Most scholars agree that organisational learning is known as the change in organisational knowledge, which is acquired through practical experiences (Argote and Miron-Spektor 2011 ), where this knowledge is then translated into the organisation’s knowledge system (Do et al. 2022 ). Organisational learning is defined as “the process by which organisations learn” (Chiva et al. 2007 , p. 224; Domínguez-Escrig et al. 2022 ). Organisational learning focuses not only on intentional learning but also on unintentional learning in the organisation (Huber 1991 ), as organisational learning helps reduce uncertainty (Schönherr et al. 2023 ). Learning can happen intentionally and unintentionally (Huber 1991 ). Intentional learning is the main process for scientists and educators. Researchers often think of it as an intentional process directed at improving effectiveness. In contrast, unintentional learning is proposed as unsystematic learning (Huber 1991 ). Even though previous research has focused on organisational learning as a culture or as an outcome, fewer have discovered organisational learning processes (Pham Thi Bich, Tran Quang 2016 ). Consequently, the author focuses on the organisational learning process due to the scarcity of research in this area. Subsequently, universities’ organisational learning will be better understood (Abu‐Tineh 2011 ) and could be enhanced.

Huber ( 1991 ) suggested that organisational learning includes four processes. The processes are information acquisition, knowledge dissemination, shared interpretation, and organisational memory (Huber 1991 ; Santos-Vijande et al. 2012 ). The relevant organisational learning processes in the university sector proposed by the study (Elbawab 2022b ) are information acquisition and knowledge dissemination. In this research, the author has empirically assessed the organisational learning processes and proposed that the relevant processes are information acquisition and knowledge dissemination. Hence, these are the processes used in this paper. The process of information acquisition is about acquiring information from various sources, either internally or externally (Huber 1991 ; Flores et al. 2012 ). The internal information is gathered from inside the organisation and from the company’s creator or previously acquired experience. As for the external information, it is gathered from the competitors and the marketplace through acknowledging and acquiring the implicit analysis of the actions of the competitors. On other occasions, organisations look for the best practices, and they solve the problems by identifying key tendencies, collecting external information, and comparing their performance with that of their relevant competitors (Santos-Vijande et al. 2012 ).

Knowledge dissemination is a process that takes place through formal settings (e.g., departmental meetings, discussion of future needs, and cross-training) and informal interactions among individuals within the organisation (Kofman and Senge 1993 ). The creation of formal networks and databases encourages communication by guaranteeing both the accuracy and the rapid dissemination of information. These initiatives need more informal exchange mechanisms to complement them so that any tacit knowledge individuals gather is transformed into explicit knowledge. Researchers perceive organisational learning as either an organisational process or an organisational capability. Organisational capability is the organisational and managerial characteristics that facilitate the organisational learning process or allow an organisation to learn (Aragón et al. 2014 ; Chiva et al. 2007 ; Tohidi et al. 2012 ). In the present study, organisational learning is viewed as a process that occurs inside the organisation on an organisational level. Organisational learning as a process focuses on the set of actions that occur in the organisation to help in the learning process. In the university context, researchers have called for more studies to understand the organisational learning process (Abu‐Tineh 2011 ). Voolaid and Ehrlich ( 2017 ) assessed organisational learning in two Estonian universities, but also from a cultural perspective and with the perception of the two universities. The researchers insisted on the scarcity of organisational learning research in higher education institutions and the need for a study that empirically assesses organisational learning in more universities from different countries and regions. Further, more research is needed to understand the multidimensionality from an aggregated perspective.

Organisational learning culture

Organisational learning culture is a general predictor of the organisational learning process. The organisational learning culture is essential for organisational learning (Flores et al. 2012 ). Higher education institutions need to adapt to the competition with new discoveries and ideas proactively. The development of a learning culture could be the key, to help through gathering, organising, sharing, and analysing the knowledge across the institution (Kumar 2005). Previously, several predictors have been mentioned for organisational learning, including knowledge-sharing behaviour (Park and Kim 2018 ), goal orientation (Chadwick and Raver 2012 ), participative decision-making, openness, learning orientation and transformational leadership (Flores et al. 2012 ). Flores et al. ( 2012 ) mentioned that these predictors are part of the culture, whereas organisational learning culture is considered a predictor that should be assessed in relation to organisational learning. Consequently, this study assesses organisational learning culture as a predictor of organisational learning. Pham Thi Bich and Tran Quang ( 2016 ) recommend that more predictors positively influencing organisational learning should be explored.

Organisational culture is a factor that facilitates organisational learning (e.g., Ahmed et al. 1999 ; Campbell and Cairns 1994 ; Conner and Clawson 2004 ; Maccoby 2003 ; Marquardt 1996 ; Marsick and Watkins 2003 ; Pedler et al. 1997 ; Rebelo and Duarte Gomes 2011 ). An organisational learning culture is described as the values, beliefs and assumptions that emphasise creating collective learning in an organisation (Sorakraikitikul and Siengthai 2014 ). Researchers have shown the importance of an organisational learning culture as a culture that creates a supportive environment. This culture enables and influences learning and knowledge sharing at the individual, team, and organisational levels (Kontoghiorghes et al. 2005 ; Marsick and Watkins 2003 ). Despite the importance of organisational learning culture in the literature (e.g., Marquardt 1996 ; Pedler et al. 1997 ), there is still a lack of research explicitly concerning learning culture (Rebelo and Duarte Gomes 2011 ) and its relationship with organisational learning. Also, a study developed by Wahda ( 2017 ) has agreed with the scarcity of studies that assess organisational learning culture in higher education institutions. In Wahda’s ( 2017 ) study, the results show that organisational learning culture is found in a university in Indonesia, and it also shows the importance of applying organisational learning culture in higher education institutions as it facilitates the learning processes. In conclusion, there is a lack of research addressing this relationship in the university context.

Previous research showed a positive relationship between participative decision making, openness and leadership and organisational learning (Flores et al. 2012 ). Since these predictors are considered part of the organisational culture, the author proposes a positive relationship between organisational learning culture and organisational learning. This study will explore the relationship between the organisational learning culture (as a predictor) and the organisational learning process in the university context. Accordingly, the author hypothesises:

H1 : There is a positive relationship between the organisational learning culture and the organisational learning process.

H1a : There is a positive relationship between system connection and dialogue and inquiry and information acquisition.

H1b : There is a positive relationship between system connection and dialogue and inquiry and knowledge dissemination.

Performance

Organisational performance.

The organisation’s performance depends on the achievement and the progress of the strategy identified by the organisation (Davies and Walters 2004 ; Mohammad 2019 ). Performance needs to meet the organisational strategies and the organisational goals because it shows the organisation’s success. Several studies have mentioned Organisational performance as an outcome of organisational learning (Aragón et al. 2014 ; Mohammad 2019 ). This research focuses on university performance. Few studies have focused on assessing the relationship between organisational learning and organisational performance for example (Bontis et al. 2002 ; Crossan and Bapuji 2003 ; Jyothibabu et al. 2010 ; Kontoghiorghes et al. 2005 ; Sun et al. 2008 ). Some previous empirical studies proposed the positive influence of organisational learning on organisational performance (Aragón et al. 2014 ; Mohammad 2019 ). According to previous research, organisational learning helps to improve the performance of an organisation.

Most previous research has focused on the relationship between organisational learning as a capability and performance (e.g., Camps and Luna-Arocas 2012 ; Hurley and Hult 1998 ; Keskin 2006 ; Rhodes et al. 2008 ). Nevertheless, the present study focuses on organisational learning as a process and its impact on university performance. In the context of universities, few empirical studies have shown a positive relationship between organisational learning and university performance (Guţă 2014 ; Pham Thi Bich and Tran Quang 2016 ). Guţă ( 2014 ) did not assess the relationship empirically, while Pham Thi Bich and Tran Quang ( 2016 ) study assessed university performance in only one university. More research is needed to assess the relationship between the organisational learning process and organisational performance (Pham Thi Bich and Tran Quang 2016 ). This paper assesses university performance from teachers’ opinions from several universities. From the previous research, the author hypothesised:

H2 : There is a positive relationship between organisational learning processes and university performance.

The relationship between organisational learning culture and organisational performance has also been discussed in the previous literature, where a positive relationship has been identified between organisational learning culture and organisational performance (Ellinger et al. 2002 ; Sorakraikitikul and Siengthai 2014 ). Organisational learning culture supports promoting and facilitating workers’ learning, hence contributing to organisational development and performance (Rebelo and Duarte Gomes 2011 ). Although there is little empirical evidence concerning the relationship between organisational learning culture and the performance of public organisations, some studies still allow us to infer that organisational learning culture is related to performance (Choi 2020 ). This paper assesses educators’ opinions in public universities, as public organisations are understudied. Hence, we hypothesised the following:

H3 : There is a positive relationship between the organisational learning culture and university performance.

The study will also assess the mediation of the organisational learning process in the relationship between organisational learning culture and university performance. Building on the previous hypotheses H1, H2 and H3, we propose that organisational learning culture solely is not sufficient to improve the university’s performance and that there is a need to involve organisational learning to enhance the university’s performance. Subsequently, we hypothesise the following:

H4 : The organisational learning process mediates the relationship between organisational learning culture and university performance.

Sustainable performance

Nowadays, sustainability has been called for in different business models (Zhang et al. 2019 ). The concept of sustainability helps organisations to improve different processes, which results in higher organisational performance (Zhang et al. 2019 ). Other studies have mentioned sustainability as an output of organisational learning (Kordab et al. 2020 ; Bilan et al. 2020 ; Iqbal and Ahmad 2021 ). The more learning that happens on an organisational level, the more sustainable the organisation is. In a study developed by Bilan et al. ( 2020 ), the authors advised that organisational learning significantly improves the firm’s sustainability. Other studies have focused on sustainable performance (Kordab et al. 2020 ; Iqbal and Ahmad 2021 ). Kordab and his colleagues mentioned the positive relationship between organisational learning and sustainable organisational performance (Kordab et al. 2020 ). The study developed by Iqbal and Ahmad ( 2021 ) states that organisational learning significantly influences sustainable performance. Another study developed in 5 companies in Norway and Italy has explored the internalisation of a sustainable environment through the learning process (Bianchi et al. 2022 ; Massimo and Nora 2022 ). The literature discussing the relationship between organisational learning and sustainability is scarce (Kordab et al. 2020 ). The earlier mentioned studies have assessed the relationship between Malaysian manufacturing organisations (Bilan et al. 2020 ), audit and consulting companies in the Middle East (Kordab et al. 2020 ), and small and medium-sized enterprises in Pakistan (Iqbal and Ahmad 2021 ). On the other hand, this study assesses the relationship between organisational learning and sustainable performance in the university context.

Sustainability in higher education institutions helps in the development of regenerative societies. This help is provided by educators as they influence ideologies and perspectives regarding sustainability in society (Leal Filho et al. 2023 ). In the review study developed by (Serafini et al. 2022 ) for the articles related to higher education institutions and SDGs, only four per cent of the studies considered professors as the target audience. Hence, in this study, the author assesses sustainable performance from educators’ perceptions as it is scarce. Therefore, the hypothesis is developed as below:

H5 : There is a positive association between organisational learning and sustainable performance.

H5a : There is a positive relationship between information acquisition, knowledge dissemination and sustainable environmental performance.

H5b : There is a positive relationship between information acquisition, knowledge dissemination and sustainable social performance.

Finally, Fig. 1 shows the proposed model of this study, which includes the proposed hypotheses.

Proposed research model.

Methodology

Data collection and sample.

This study’s sample mainly focused on university teachers from several European universities. Self-selection sampling is used in this paper; this method helps the researcher better explore the research area and understand the relationships (Saunders et al. 2007 ). The self-selection sampling method relies on the willingness of the participant to participate in the questionnaire. An email invitation with the link to the online questionnaire has been sent to a range of professors. Moreover, university teachers who accepted to participate are the ones who were considered in this study. The researcher has gathered the emails of the university teachers from the university websites.

Data were gathered through an online questionnaire Footnote 1 . The questionnaire is developed from the previous literature. The questionnaire was developed on Qualtrics, and an anonymous link was sent to the respondents. The researcher sent the questionnaire to 10366 university teachers. The university teachers are from different schools and departments, including business, psychology, science, and engineering schools. The researcher received 525 replies, which corresponds to a response rate of 5%. Of the 525 responses received, 304 were incomplete, so we excluded the incomplete questionnaires and kept 221 questionnaires. The questionnaire was sent to 53 public universities in Europe. The countries were Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Greece.

The sample is composed of (36.7%) associate professors, (15.4%) assistant professors, (22%) full professors, (6.8%) lecturers and assistants, (3.2%) invited assistant/associate/full professors and (15.8%) respondents who did not declare their job level. Also, the majority of the sample (65.2%) has worked more than seven years in the same university and more than five years in the same team (66.5%). As for the age of the participants, (49.9%) were of age 50 years and above, and the majority of the sample (47.5%) was composed of Males, followed by (37.6%) Females and (14.9%) ‘don’t prefer to say’. The survey was conducted from October 2022 to January 2023. Two reminder emails were sent to the university teachers. Moreover, the design of this study is a correlational design, where all the proposed relationships are studied between organisational learning as a process and its antecedent and outcomes.

The constructs used to assess the indicators in this study are obtained from previous scientific studies, where their reliability and validity were previously tested and verified. Organisational learning culture was assessed using the measure of the Dimensions of Learning Organisations Questionnaire (Watkins and Marsick 1993 , 1997 ), which was adapted and validated to the university’s context in Elbawab ( 2022b ). The adapted measure included two sub-dimensions. The scale consisted of 8 items that measured the two sub-dimensions: dialogue and inquiry and system connection. The participants indicated to what extent they agreed with each of the eight items on a 7-point rating scale (1 = totally disagree, 7= totally agree). An example of the items is: “In my university, whenever academic staff state their view, they also ask what others think.” we checked the scales’ internal consistency to measure these indicators by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. The results indicate strong scale reliability for both system connection (0.88) and dialogue and inquiry (0.87).

The organisational learning process scale was assessed based on the Santos-Vijande et al. ( 2012 ) scale and then adapted to the university’s context in Elbawab ( 2022b ). The scale consists of 8 items that measure two subdimensions: information acquisition and knowledge dissemination. Individuals indicated to what extent they agreed with each of the eight items on a 7-point rating scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). An example of the items is: “We have a meeting schedule among departments and with the dean to integrate the existing information.” We checked the scales’ internal consistency to measure these indicators by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. The results indicate strong scale reliability for information acquisition (0.89) and knowledge dissemination (0.79).

As for the performance, one variable was used to evaluate university performance, and another was used to evaluate sustainable performance. The university performance questionnaire is based on Jyothibabu et al. ( 2010 ), but the scale is adapted to the university context. The measured scale includes seven items. All items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7= totally agree). An example of the items is: “There is continuous improvement in my university”. In this study, the Jyothibabu et al. 2010 scale has been adjusted from a 6-point to a 7-point Likert scale as the 7-point Likert scale reaches the upper limit of reliability (Allen and Seaman, 2007 ; Leung, 2011 ). Also, removing a neutral point introduces “a forced choice in the scale” (Allen and Seaman 2007 ), whereas our focus in this study is to avoid the forced choice. The reliability score of this scale in this study is 0.93; however, Jyothibabu et al. ( 2010 ) Cronbach alpha scored 0.90. In conclusion, the Cronbach alpha score in this study has improved. All factor loadings are significant ( p  < 0.05) and indicate strong factor loadings. As for sustainable performance, it is assessed based on Iqbal and Ahmad ( 2021 ), but only the environmental and social performance were adopted in this study. Since the economic performance measure mainly focuses on sales growth, income stability, profitability and return on investment. At the same time, the activities of public universities are driven by the pursuit of excellence and prestige maximisation, which does not necessarily imply economic efficiency traditionally assumed for profit-maximising business establishments (Kipesha and Msigwa 2013 ). Therefore, sustainable economic performance will not be assessed in this study for these reasons.

These measures are relevant to the university context, which follows the QS world rankings, where the environmental impact and the social impact of each university are addressed. The sustainable performance scale is adapted to the university context. All items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). An example of the items is: “Your university is concerned about waste management”. The results indicate strong scale reliability for sustainable environmental performance (0.88) and sustainable social performance (0.82). All factor loadings are significant ( p  < 0.05) and indicate strong factor loadings.

Data analysis

The author assessed the descriptive statistics in this study by identifying the means and standard deviations. Also, the author measured the factor loading for all the questionnaire items. Moreover, the author tested the hypotheses with the statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics Suite, version 27. The author assessed the correlations among the relationships and assessed the models using regression analysis using SPSS. Moreover, the author used the PROCESS macro by Andrew Hayes ( 2013 ) in SPSS to test the mediation hypothesis.

The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all the variables in the study are shown in Table 1 . The results shown are a consideration of a sample where more than 65% have worked in the same university for more than seven years, and more than 74% of the sample are assistant, associate, and full professors. The highest means are for performance and sustainability environmental performance. At the same time, the lowest means are for system connection and dialogue and inquiry. Factor loadings were then calculated for all items, which were all higher than 0.64% (shown in Table 2 ).

The findings show the acceptance of H1, there is a strong significant positive relationship between dialogue and inquiry and information acquisition ( r  = 0.70, p  < 0.001), and there is likewise a strong positive significant relationship between dialogue and inquiry and knowledge dissemination ( r  = 0.64, p  < 0.001). There is a significant positive relationship between system connection and information acquisition ( r  = 0.59, p  < 0.001), and a significant positive relationship emerged between system connection and knowledge dissemination ( r  = 0.52, p  < 0.001). Multiple regression was run to predict information acquisition from dialogue, inquiry, and system connection. There is a positive effect between dialogue and inquiry and information acquisition (β = 0.520, p  < 0.01); also, there is a positive effect of system connection and information acquisition (β = 0.197, p  < 0.01). These variables statistically significantly predicted information acquisition, R2 = 0.522. All two variables added statistically significantly to the prediction, p  < 0.05. Therefore, H1a is supported. Multiple regression was run to predict knowledge dissemination from dialogue, inquiry, and system connection. There is a positive effect of dialogue and inquiry on knowledge dissemination (β = 0.544, p  < 0.01), and there is a positive effect between system connection and knowledge dissemination (β = 0.162, p  < 0.01); these variables statistically significantly predicted information acquisition, R2 = 0.429. All two variables added statistically significantly to the prediction, p  < 0.05. Therefore, H1b is supported. These findings show the positive relationship between organisational learning culture and organisational learning.

The findings also support H2. A significant positive relationship between information acquisition and university performance is found ( r  = 0.58, p  < 0.001), and there is a strong positive significant relationship between knowledge dissemination and university performance ( r  = 0.64, p  < 0.001). A multiple regression was run to predict university performance from information acquisition and knowledge dissemination. There is a positive effect between information acquisition and university performance (β = 0.250, p  < 0.01); also there is a positive effect between knowledge dissemination and university performance (β = 0.381, p  < 0.01). These variables statistically significantly predicted information acquisition, R2 = 0.451. All two variables added statistically significantly to the prediction, p  < 0.05. Therefore, H2 is supported. These findings show the positive relationship between the organisational learning process and university performance.

The findings support H3, where there is a strong significant positive relationship between system connection and university performance ( r  = 0.57, p  < 0.001), also there is a strong positive significant relationship between dialogue and inquiry and university performance ( r  = 0.66, p  < 0.001). Multiple regression was run to predict university performance from system connection, dialogue and inquiry. There is a positive effect between system connection and university performance (β = 0.184, p  < 0.01), and there is a positive effect between dialogue and inquiry and university performance (β = 0.440, p  < 0.01). These variables statistically significantly predicted information acquisition, R2 = 0.470. All two variables added statistically significantly to the prediction, p  < 0.05. Therefore, H3 is supported. This concludes the positivity of the relationship between organisational learning culture and university performance.

This study also developed a mediation analysis, H4, using Hayes ( 2013 ). Macros were developed to assess the mediation analysis of the models on SPSS. Macros help estimate the indirect effect with a bootstrap approach (Cole et al. 2008 ).

Organisational learning culture (dialogue and inquiry and system connection) has an indirect effect on university performance mediated by organisational learning processes (information acquisition and knowledge dissemination), which supports H4. Dialogue and inquiry have an indirect impact on university performance mediated by information acquisition (IE = 0.1427). The indirect effect is statistically significant; a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval around the indirect effect did not contain zero CI[0.482, 0.2423]. Also, system connection indirectly affects university performance mediated by information acquisition (IE = 0.1800); the indirect effect is a statistically significant bootstrapped 95% confidence interval around the indirect effect that did not contain zero, CI[0.1104,0.2548]. Dialogue and inquiry have an indirect impact on university performance mediated by knowledge dissemination (IE = 0.2038). The indirect effect is a statistically significant bootstrapped 95% confidence interval around the indirect effect that did not contain zero, CI [0.1306, 0.2865]. Moreover, system connection has an indirect effect on university performance mediated by knowledge dissemination (IE = 0.1970). The indirect effect is a statistically significant bootstrapped 95% confidence interval around the indirect effect that did not contain zero, CI [0.1351, 0.2638].

The findings support H5, where there is a strong significant positive relationship between Information acquisition and sustainable environmental performance ( r  = 0.57, p  < 0.001), Whereas a positive significant relationship has been found between information acquisition and sustainable social performance ( r  = 0.559, p  < 0.001). Moreover, a positive significant relationship is detected between knowledge dissemination and sustainable environmental performance ( r  = 0.526, p  < 0.001), and finally, a positive significant relationship is detected between knowledge dissemination and sustainable social performance ( r  = 0.550, p  < 0.001). A multiple regression was run to predict sustainable environmental performance from information acquisition and knowledge dissemination. There is a positive effect between information acquisition and sustainable environmental performance (β = 0.365, p  < 0.01); also, there is a positive effect between knowledge dissemination and sustainable environmental performance (β = 0.208, p  < 0.01). These variables statistically significantly predicted information acquisition, R2 = 0.362. All two variables added statistically one significantly to the prediction, p  < 0.05. Therefore, H5a is supported. A multiple regression was run to predict sustainable social performance from information acquisition and knowledge dissemination. There is a positive effect between information acquisition and sustainable social performance (β = 0.299, p  < 0.01); also, there is a positive effect between knowledge dissemination and sustainable social performance (β = 0.252, p  < 0.01). These variables statistically significantly predicted information acquisition, R2 = 0.365. All two variables added statistically significantly to the prediction, p  < 0.05. Therefore, H5 b is supported. It is deduced that a positive relationship exists between the organisational learning process and sustainable performance. The results are summarised in Table 3 , and the new proposed model is found in Fig. 2 .

Deduced research model.

Discussion and conclusion

This paper examines the impact of the organisational learning culture on the organisational learning process in the university context as well as the impact of the organisational learning process on a university’s performance and sustainable performance. The literature showed a gap where organisational learning processes are rarely assessed in universities (Abu‐Tineh 2011 ; Elbawab 2022b ). Also, most of the previous studies assess the impact of culture on organisational learning, but few studies have assessed the impact of organisational learning culture on the organisational learning process. Another gap has emerged, where the impact of organisational learning on sustainability is understudied (Alerasoul, 2022 ). Whereas this study also focuses on empirically assessing the relationship between organisational learning and sustainable performance. Learning normally empowers the occurrence of sustainability in organisations and enhances sustainability practices.

The findings of this study contribute to the literature in many ways. The findings support the positive relationship between an organisational learning culture and an organisational learning process, which supports H1. Organisational learning culture is represented by dialogues and inquiry and the system connection. Further, organisational learning processes are represented in this study as the process of information acquisition and knowledge dissemination. Dialogue and inquiry and system connection have a positive impact on information acquisition and knowledge dissemination. So, the findings indicate that the more the organisational learning culture increases in the university, the more the organisational learning processes occur. This relationship between the organisational learning culture and the organisational learning process is assessed empirically in this research, contrary to other studies where previous research always focused on organisational culture rather than organisational learning culture (Cho et al. 2013 ; Liao et al. 2012 ). This research also contributes to organisational learning research as the results indicate that the organisational learning culture is one of the antecedents to the organisational learning process. Accordingly, top management in universities needs to focus on improving the organisational learning culture to have better organisational processes. Also, human resources practitioners need to highlight the importance of maintaining organisational learning culture in organisations as it facilitates the organisational learning process.

The findings also support H2 which posits the positive relationship between the organisational learning process and a university’s performance. Our findings agree with previous research that supported the positive relationship between organisational learning and performance in organisations (Aragón et al. 2014 ; Bontis et al. 2002 ; Jyothibabu et al. 2010 ). We mainly focus on organisational learning processes that enhance a university’s performance. Our findings show that the better the information acquisition process and knowledge dissemination processes are, the better the university’s performance is going to occur in universities. So practically, the higher the efficiency of the acquisition of knowledge process, like acquiring the information from two sources is leading to a better the university’s performance. The two sources of information acquisition are internally from within the university and externally from other universities in the market. In this research, information acquisition is the process of identifying tendencies and problems, which leads to a better performance by the university.

This research has focused on the relationship between organisational learning culture and university performance. The findings in this study agree with previous studies (Ellinger et al. 2002 ; Sorakraikitikul and Siengthai 2014 ) that there is a positive relationship between the organisational learning culture and performance; the present study assessed this relationship empirically in the context of public universities while other studies have focused on various industries. (Choi 2020 ) focused on the assessment of the relationship between organisational learning culture and performance in public organisations generally. The present study focused on public universities as part of the public organisations in any country. The results show support for H3. Moreover, the findings suggest that universities that have a supportive learning culture will lead to better performance. If universities encourage a strong learning culture among their teachers, staff, and students, this will eventually lead to better performance.

Moreover, the organisational learning process mediates the relationship between organisational learning culture and university performance, as illustrated by the findings. These results support H4. Also, these results indicate that the more the top managers and human resources practitioners in universities encourage a learning culture and develop strong organisational learning processes, the higher the university’s performance will be. These findings demonstrate the need for alignment between the university learning culture and the university learning processes as they will promote better university performance. The findings indicate that organisational learning culture indirectly impacts university performance when it is mediated by organisational learning. From a theoretical lens, the organisational learning in this study is stated as a process. Hence, the organisational learning culture is considered an antecedent to the organisational learning process. In this study, the adapted model of culture (system connection and dialogue and inquiry) tests the culture with the process (information acquisition and knowledge dissemination); the results have shown both a direct and an indirect impact on university performance. The direct impact of culture on university performance has been found in the (Wahda, 2017 ) study, where this study agrees with (Wahda 2017 ) study. However, since this study has looked at organisational learning as a process and culture as an antecedent, it provided additional theoretical evidence of the indirect impact of organisational learning culture on performance, mediated by organisational learning as a process. This study also agrees with (Rebelo and Gomes 2017 ) study, where organisational culture emerges as a key concept and an essential condition that would promote and support learning in organisations. Moreover, in the following study, organisational learning culture is considered an antecedent to the organisational learning process. Whereas university performance is considered an outcome of the organisational learning process. Therefore, this study supports the (Rebelo and Duarte Gomes 2011 ) study that considers organisational learning culture as an antecedent to the organisational learning process. At the same time, the theoretical contribution that lies in this study is to address the model and consider the relationship between organisational learning culture and university performance directly and indirectly through the organisational learning process.

Another part of the framework assessed in this study is the impact of organisational learning processes on sustainable performance. Most universities nowadays focus on the importance of sustainability and apply sustainability practices. Also, the universities capitalise on the SDGs that are developed by the European Union. Whereas universities call for relating future research with the SDGs, as it helps in the sustainable development of society (Serafini et al. 2022 ). Moreover, universities focus on enhancing their sustainable environment. Still, this study addressed a significant gap, where few research studies have empirically addressed the impact of organisational learning on sustainable performance. And this research highlights the importance of applying this relationship and helps imply sustainable performance as an indicator for universities to be used in the future.

Sustainable performance in this study is considered another outcome of organisational learning. The findings of this study show support for H5. This study confirms the previous study findings (Iqbal and Ahmad 2021 ) that there is a positive impact between organisational learning and sustainable performance. However (Iqbal and Ahmad 2021 ) study did not assess the organisational learning process in universities, so this study develops it. The findings of this paper indicate the positive impact of information acquisition and knowledge dissemination on sustainable environmental performance and sustainable social performance. Therefore, when the organisational learning in universities is deepened and increased, the sustainable performance of the universities is better.

Finally, this study has created a suitable model to assess organisational learning processes, antecedents, and outcomes in universities. It has contributed to the theory of organisational learning; it shows a newly adapted model of organisational learning culture as well as organisational learning as a process and its influence on a university’s performance and the sustainable performance of the organisation. This adapted model may be considered novel because it indicates the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of organisational learning. Also, this model relates between NRBV and organisational learning theories, which is considered a theoretical contribution. Moreover, this model is tested in European universities and is considered an empirical contribution.

Implications and future research

Theoretical implications.

For the theoretical implications of describing organisational learning in universities, most previous research focused on assessing learning organisations; for example, the review developed by (Örtenblad and Koris 2014 ) showed the studies focused on assessing learning organisations. Furthermore, few studies focused on the learning processes and identified which organisational learning processes are more relevant to public universities and the education sector.

We have validated the organisational learning predictor as an organisational learning culture. Also, we have validated the organisational learning outcomes: university performance and sustainable performance.

The relevant learning processes are knowledge dissemination and information acquisition, where these processes are mainly representing the organisational learning processes in universities. This study recommends using the organisational learning developed model as it is relevant to universities.

Since researchers proposed that organisational learning culture is an important facilitator of the organisational learning process (Marsick and Watkins 2003 ). This study focused on assessing organisational learning culture’s impact on the organisational learning process. Previous research mainly focused on assessing the organisational culture’s impact on organisational learning (e.g., Oh and Han 2020 ; Rebelo and Duarte Gomes 2011 ). Few researchers focused on the impact of organisational learning culture on organisational learning. Previous research showed organisational culture as decision-making processes, openness, learning orientation, and leadership (Flores et al. 2012 ). In this study, organisational learning culture was described as the collective learning culture that enhances the organisational learning activities (Sorakraikitikul and Siengthai 2014 ). Subsequently, it is evident that this gap was addressed and studied in this study. The findings show a strong relationship between organisational learning culture and organisational learning processes in education.

Moreover, the mediation of organisational learning processes between organisational learning culture and university performance is another theoretical contribution to organisational studies. As the previous research mainly focused on the impact of organisational learning culture on organisational performance (Sorakraikitikul and Siengthai 2014 ), few studies focused on mediation analysis. The findings of this study show that organisational learning culture indirectly impacts university performance when it is mediated by both organisational learning processes (information acquisition and knowledge dissemination). These findings show the importance of having an effective learning culture and efficient organisational learning processes on the organisational level as they help improve university performance.

Previous studies focused on assessing the relationship between organisational learning and organisational performance (Bontis et al. 2002 ; Jyothibabu et al. 2010 ). Scarce studies focused on university performance, while in the meantime, university performance reveals the success of the university and the achievement of its goals. Finally, this study has contributed to organisational studies by exploring the relationship between organisational learning and sustainable performance and curating a model specifically for higher education institutions.

Practical implications

This research serves universities; the implications of this research could be adapted to various faculties. The result of this investigation recommends that when universities work on organisational learning culture, it is followed by enhancing the organisational learning process. Subsequently, the organisational performance and sustainable performance will be improved. This section will provide implications and countermeasures for different stakeholders related to the universities.

To develop the organisational learning culture, universities should work on their dialogue and inquiry process and their system connection process. A learning culture that promotes more dialogue and inquiry among the university members is the target. Hence, the organisational learning culture should be encouraged at all university levels, including among deans, heads of departments, directors, and teachers. The author of the study suggests that deans hold organisational meetings for the faculty members (for example, semester meetings and monthly meetings) mainly to discuss the faculty’s point of view, to share feedback and to empower the experimentation and questioning of the process, to reach for shared view and perspective reasonably. For the teacher, the author recommends attending the meetings with the capacity to inquire about the process, share their feedback and opinions and listen to other views. At the same time, the author recommends enhancing the organisational learning culture by focusing on the system connection.

The author recommends having an ongoing connection with the market to know their needs. Subsequently, the department heads and the director of the programs design new curricula and update the existing ones to align the curriculum with the market needs. We recommend that the teachers support the system connection by advising and recommending the new market demands and technologies in their classes and for the program directors and department heads. Subsequently, both these actions will help increase the organisational learning culture in universities.

After providing the necessary organisational learning culture, universities should develop their organisational learning process in order to increase their performance. To develop the organisational learning process, universities are recommended to capitalise on information acquisition and processes to disseminate knowledge.

For the information acquisition process, acquiring information from two sources improves the university’s performance. The two sources of information acquisition are internally from within the university and externally from other universities in the market. The author recommends that the deans, as well as the heads of departments, focus on acquiring the information internally, whether the students’ satisfaction, the feedback about the curriculum, and even the successful teaching methodologies. The deans need to focus on the university’s previous experiences and align the learning processes with the business environment. As for the external information, deans and rectors who have the bigger image need to acquire the information from competitors (e.g. international universities) and the marketplace to develop their analyses regarding each academic year and the long-term plans. The rectors will help empower the organisational learning processes to flow throughout the university. Practically, the top management in the university needs to look for the best practices internally and externally and solve problems by identifying the key tendencies, whereas in this process, the rectors, deans, program directors, heads of departments and teachers need to share and collaborate. Meanwhile, the information acquisition process is enhanced by collecting not only the information but also the best practices and pedagogies from the competitors. Also, the employers’, policymakers’, and governors’ perspectives should be acquired.

Another practice for enhancing the information acquisition process is comparing the university’s performance to other universities. Acquiring information sources could be formally through the formal reports published on a yearly basis (ex: public university performance reports, universal rankings and amount of collaboration and funds provided to this university), whereas informal sources of acquiring information like assessing the performance of the university on social media. Hence, different stakeholders are involved in the information acquisition process.

As for the second process, knowledge dissemination, the author recommends that universities focus on both the formal and informal interaction between employees to enhance the dissemination of knowledge. For the formal interactions, the author advises rectors and deans to focus on meetings and training that will enhance the continuous learning process and efficiently use the university database. Moreover, deans should enhance the formal networks among their universities and the rest of the universities, for example, through exchanging professors and publishing research papers. These practices will help disseminate the information rapidly and accurately. As for the informal interaction and communication between employees, the author advises the teachers to share knowledge, best practices, new teaching methods, and new tendencies in research and the market with each other. The author also advises university heads of departments to encourage informal interaction between teachers to support the university’s organisational learning. Since the government governors are involved in the process, the author recommends that university heads contact government governors. Government governors can help by disseminating the goals and future plans of the government, as well as the best practices from different universities so that the universities can adapt their learning processes.

Another example of an organisational learning process may be found during the departmental and pedagogical meetings, during which the future of the courses, the programmes, and the schools are discussed, this leads to better dissemination of knowledge and eventually a better performance by the university. Therefore, top managers in universities need to focus on the implementation of the organisational learning processes in their universities as it helps in having better performance and eventually adapt to change and university success (Meshari et al. 2021 ).

Another important point is that universities need to acquire sustainable performance as it is also one of the indicators of the university rankings that has been recently added to the university’s ranking (like the QS world ranking). Where the SDGs in the QS world ranking, mainly focus on the environmental impact and the social impact of each university by indicating the SDGs rating of each university regarding social and environmental impact.

Finally, top managers in universities need to adapt the universities to the change that is occurring internationally and promote having a better sustainable performance to also reflect in their ranking. These will eventually reflect in the university’s success.

Since the findings show that there is a positive impact of organisational learning on sustainable performance, then it is recommended to deliver training for top managers and decision makers in civil society organisations and government governors to enhance sustainable development outreach. Moreover, in order to focus on the importance of sustainable performance in the meetings and the conferences that are developed in the organisations.

In conclusion, all these recommendations will likely help universities achieve better performance. Top managers like deans, rectors and school heads in universities need to focus on the learning flow within the university. They need to focus on the organisational learning process at the organisational level. The author suggests for the future of this research stream to assess this model on a broader scope, as more universities from outside Europe could be evaluated. As this model showed its validity in various public universities. Also, it is recommended to assess this model in private universities, as the private universities have different regulations, organisational learning culture and performance goals.

Data availability

The dataset generated during and/or analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

https://iscteiul.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_37Cf3UZX5NPJs0d

Abu‐Tineh AM (2011) Exploring the relationship between organizational learning and career resilience among faculty members at Qatar University. Int J Edu Manag 25(6):635–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111159095

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed PK, Loh AYE, Zairi M (1999) Cultures for continuous improvement and learning. Tot Quality Manag 10(4-5):426–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412997361

Alerasoul SA, Afeltra G, Hakala H, Minelli E, Strozzi F (2022) Organisational learning, learning organisation, and learning orientation: An integrative review and framework. Human Res Manag Rev 32(3):100854

Google Scholar  

Allen IE, Seaman CA (2007) Likert scales and data analysis. Quality Prog 40(7):64–65

Aragón M, Jimenez‐Jimenez D, Sanz Valle R (2014) Training and performance: The mediating role of organizational learning. Business Res Quart 3(10):17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cede.2013.05.003

Argote L, Miron-Spektor E (2011) Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge. Organization Sci 22(5):1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0621

Argyris C, Schön D (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reis, (77/78), 345–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/40183951

Argyris C, Schön D (1996) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley

Basiago AD (1995) Methods of defining ‘sustainability. Sustainable Dev 3(3):109–119

Bianchi G, Testa F, Boiral O, Iraldo F (2022) Organizational Learning for Environmental Sustainability: Internalizing Lifecycle Management. Org Environ 35(1):103–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026621998744

Bilan Y, Hussain HI, Haseeb M, Kot S (2020) Sustainability and economic performance: Role of organizational learning and innovation. Enginee Econ 31(1):93–103. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.31.1.24045

Bleiklie I, Kogan M (2007) Organization and governance of universities. Higher Edu Policy 20:477–493

Bontis N, Crossan MM, Hulland J (2002) Managing An Organizational Learning System By Aligning Stocks and Flows. J Manag Stud 39(4):437–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00299

Campbell T, Cairns H (1994) Developing and Measuring the Learning Organization. Industrial Commercial Training 26(7):10–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197859410064583

Camps J, Luna-Arocas R (2012) A Matter of Learning: How Human Resources Affect Organizational Performance. British Journal of Management, no–no. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00714.x

Castaneda DI, Manrique LF, Cuellar S (2018) Is organizational learning being absorbed by knowledge management? A systematic review. J Knowledge Manag 22(2):299–325. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-01-2017-0041

Chadwick IC, Raver JL (2012) Motivating Organizations to Learn. J Manag 41(3):957–986. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312443558

Chiva R, Alegre J, Lapiedra R (2007) Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. Int J Manpower 28(3/4):224–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755227

Cho I, Kim JK, Park H, Cho N-H (2013) The relationship between organisational culture and service quality through organisational learning framework. Total Quality Manag Business Excellence 24(7-8):753–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.791100

Choi I (2020) Moving beyond Mandates: Organizational Learning Culture, Empowerment, and Performance. Int J Public Admin 43(8):724–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1645690

Cole MS, Walter F, Bruch H (2008) Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. J Appl Psychol 93(5):945–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.945

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Collin A (2009) Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration: implications for vocational psychology. Int J Educ Vocat Guid 9(2):101–110

Conner ML, Clawson JG (Eds.). (2004) Creating a Learning Culture. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139165303

Crossan MM, Bapuji HB (2003) Examining the link between knowledge management, organizational learning and performance. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Organizational Learning and Knowledge, Lancaster University, Lancaster, 30 May-2 June

Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 522–537. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/259140 . Accessed 28 Sept. 2020

Davies H, Walters P (2004) Emergent patterns of strategy, environment and performance in a transition economy. Strategic Manag J 25(4):347–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.380

Do H, Budhwar P, Shipton H, Nguyen HD, Nguyen B (2022) Building organizational resilience, innovation through resource-based management initiatives, organizational learning and environmental dynamism. J Business Res 141:808–821

Domínguez-Escrig E, Broch FFM, Chiva R, Alcamí RL (2022) Authentic leadership: boosting organisational learning capability and innovation success. Learning Org 30(1):23–36

Edmondson AC (2002) The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective. Org Sci 13(2):128–146. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.128.530

Elbawab R (2022b) University Rankings and Goals: A Cluster Analysis. Economies 10(9):209

Elbawab RRKI (2022a) Predictors and outcomes of team learning in higher education institutions. Dissertation, ISCTE-University Institute of Lisbon

Ellinger AD, Ellinger AE, Yang B, Howton SW (2002) The relationship between the learning organization concept and firms’ financial performance: An empirical assessment. Hum Resource Dev Quart 13(1):5–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1010

Feeney M, Grohnert T, Gijselaers W, Martens P (2023) Organizations, learning, and sustainability: A cross-disciplinary review and research agenda. J Business Ethics 184(1):217–235

Fiol CM, Lyles MA (1985) Organizational Learning. Acad Manag Rev 10(4):803. https://doi.org/10.2307/258048

Flores LG, Zheng W, Rau D, Thomas CH (2012) Organizational learning: Subprocess identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of cultural antecedents. J Manag 38(2):640–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310384631

Garvin DA (1993) Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Rev 71:78–91

CAS   Google Scholar  

Geng Y, Chen L, Li J, Iqbal K (2023) Higher education and digital economy: Analysis of their coupling coordination with the Yangzte River economic Belt in China as the example. Ecol Indicators 154:110510

Geng YQ, Zuhu HW, Zhao N, Zhai QH (2020a) A New Framework to Evaluate Sustainable Higher Education: An Analysis of China. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc 2020:110514

Guţă AL (2014) Measuring organizational learning. Model testing in two Romanian universities. Manag Marketing 9(3), 253–282. http://www.managementmarketing.ro/pdf/articole/454.pdf

Hart S (1995) A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad Manag Rev 20(4):986–1014

Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications

Huber GP (1991) Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Org Sci 2(1):88–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88

Hurley RF, Hult GTM (1998) Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. J Marketing 62(3):42–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303

Iqbal Q, Ahmad NH (2021) Sustainable development: The colors of sustainable leadership in learning organization. Sustain Dev 29(1):108–119

James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1993) r-sub(wg): An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol 78(2):306–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306

Jiménez Jiménez D, SanzValle R (2006) Innovación,aprendizaje organizativo and resultados empresariales. Un estudio empírico. Cuadernos de Economía and Dirección de la Empresa 29:31–56

Jyothibabu C, Farooq A, Bhusan Pradhan B (2010) An integrated scale for measuring an organizational learning system. Learning Org 17(4):303–327. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471011043081

Keskin H (2006) Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs. Eur J Innovation Manag 9(4):396–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060610707849

Kezar AJ, Holcombe EM (2019) Barriers to organizational learning in a multi-institutional initiative. Higher Educ 79(6):1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00459-4

Kipesha EF, Msigwa R (2013) Efficiency of higher learning institutions: Evidences from public universities in Tanzania. J Educ Pract 4(7):63–73

Kofman F, Senge PM (1993) Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Org Dyn 22(2):5–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(93)90050-b

Kontoghiorghes C, Awbrey SM, Feurig PL (2005) Examining the Relationship Between Learning Organization Characteristics and Change Adaptation, Innovation, and Organizational Performance. Hum Res Dev Quarterly 16(2):185–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1133

Kordab M, Raudeliūnienė J, Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė I (2020) Mediating role of knowledge management in the relationship between organizational learning and sustainable organizational performance. Sustainability 12(23):10061

Kumar N (2005) Assessing the learning culture and performance of educational institutions. Perform Improv 44(9):27

Leal Filho W, Tripathi SK, Andrade Guerra JBSOD, Giné Garriga R, Orlovic Lovren V, Willats J (2018) Using the sustainable development goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges. Int J Sustain Develop World Ecol 26(2):179–190

Leal Filho, W, Trevisan LV, Rampasso IS, Anholon R, Dinis MAP, Brandli L L, ... Mazutti J (2023) When the alarm bells ring: Why the UN sustainable development goals may not be achieved by 2030. J Clean Prod 407:137108

Leung SO (2011) A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales. J Soc Serv Res 37(4):412–421

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Liao SH, Chang WJ, Hu D-C, Yueh YL (2012) Relationships among organizational culture, knowledge acquisition, organizational learning, and organizational innovation in Taiwan’s banking and insurance industries. Int J Hum Res Manag 23(1):52–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.599947

Maccoby M (2003) The Human Side: The Seventh Rule: Create a Learning Culture. Res-Technol Manag 46(3):59–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2003.11671567

Marquardt M (1996) Building the Learning Organization. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

Marsick VJ, Watkins KE (2003) Demonstrating the Value of an Organization’s Learning Culture: The Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire. Adv Dev Hum Res 5(2):132–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422303005002002

Massimo B, Nora A (2022) Barriers to organizational learning and sustainability: The case of a consumer cooperative. J Co-operative Org Manag 10(2):100182

Medne A, Lapina I, Zeps A (2022) Challenges of uncertainty in sustainable strategy development: Reconsidering the key performance indicators. Sustain 14(2):761

Meshari AZ, Othayman MB, Boy F, Doneddu D (2021) The impact of learning organizations dimensions on the organisational performance: An exploring study of Saudi Universities. Int Business Res 14(2):54

Mohammad HI (2019) Mediating effect of organizational learning and moderating role of environmental dynamism on the relationship between strategic change and firm performance. J Strat Manag 12(2):275–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsma-07-2018-0064

Molnar E, Mulvihill PR (2003) Sustainability-focused organi- zational learning: Recent experiences and new challenges. J Environ Planning Manag 46(2):167–176

Oh SY, Han HS (2020) Facilitating organisational learning activities: Types of organisational culture and their influence on organisational learning and performance. Knowledge Manag Res Pract 18(1):1–15

Örtenblad A, Koris R (2014) Is the learning organization idea relevant to higher educational institutions? A literature review and a “multi-stakeholder contingency approach”. Int J Educ Management 28(2):173–214

Park S, Kim E-J (2018) Fostering organizational learning through leadership and knowledge sharing. J Knowledge Manag 22(6):1408–1423. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2017-0467

Pedler M, Burgoyne J, Boydell T (1997) The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London. https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/pah-27346?lang=en

Pham Thi Bich N, Tran Quang H (2016) Organizational Learning in Higher Education Institutions: A Case Study of A Public University in Vietnam. J Econ Dev88–104. https://doi.org/10.33301/2016.18.02.06

Pocol CB, Stanca L, Dabija DC, Pop ID, Mișcoiu S (2022) Knowledge co-creation and sustainable education in the labor market-driven university–business environment. Front Environ Sci 10:781075

Rebelo T, Gomes AD (2017) Is organizational learning culture a good bet? An analysis of its impact on organizational profitability and customer satisfaction. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración 30(3):328–343

Rebelo TM, Duarte Gomes A (2011) Conditioning factors of an organizational learning culture. J Workplace Learn 23(3):173–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621111117215

Rhodes J, Lok P, Yu‐Yuan Hung R, Fang S (2008) An integrative model of organizational learning and social capital on effective knowledge transfer and perceived organizational performance. J Workplace Learn 20(4):245–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620810871105

Santos-Vijande ML, López-Sánchez JÁ, Trespalacios JA (2012) How organizational learning affects a firm’s flexibility, competitive strategy, and performance. J Business Res 65(8):1079–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.002

Santos-Vijande ML, López-Sánchez JÁ, González-Mieres C (2012) Organizational learning, innovation and performance in KIBS.Journal of Management & Organization, 1390–1447. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.2012.1390

Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2007) Research methods for business students (4th. Ed.). Pearson education

Schönherr S, Eller R, Kallmuenzer A, Peters M (2023) Organisational learning and sustainable tourism: the enabling role of digital transformation. J Knowledge Manag

Serafini PG, de Moura JM, de Almeida M. R., de Rezende JFD (2022) Sustainable development goals in higher education institutions: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 370:133473

Slater SF, Narver JC (1995) Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. J Marketing 59(3):63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900306

Sorakraikitikul M, Siengthai S (2014) Organizational learning culture and workplace spirituality. Learning Org 21(3):175–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-08-2011-0046

Sun H, Ho K, Ni W (2008) The empirical relationship among Organisational Learning, Continuous Improvement and Performance Improvement. Int J Learn Change 3(1):110. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijlc.2008.018871

Tohidi H, Mohsen Seyedaliakbar S, Mandegari M (2012) Organizational learning measurement and the effect on firm innovation. J Enterprise Info Manag 25(3):219–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410391211224390

Voolaid K, Ehrlich Ü (2017) Organizational learning of higher education institutions: the case of Estonia. Learning Org 24(5):340–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-02-2017-0013

Wahda W (2017) Mediating effect of knowledge management on organizational learning culture toward organization performance. J Manag Dev 36(7):846–858

Watkins K, Marsick VJ (1993) Sculpting the Learning Organization. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

Watkins K, Marsick V (1997) Dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Partners for the Learning Organization, Warwick, RI

Zhang Y, Khan U, Lee S, Salik M (2019) The influence of management innovation and technological innovation on organization performance. A mediating role of sustainability. Sustainability 11(2):495

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

BRU-IUL, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal

Roba Elbawab

Escola de Ciências Económicas e das Organizações, Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisboa, Portugal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RE contributed to all the sections of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roba Elbawab .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All questionnaires collected in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the university and declaration of Helsinki, the questionnaire was previously used in the following dissertation (Elbawab, R. R. K. I. (2022)a. Predictors and outcomes of team learning in higher education institutions. Dissertation, ISCTE-university institute of Lisbon).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Elbawab, R. Linking organisational learning, performance, and sustainable performance in universities: an empirical study in Europe. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 626 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03114-1

Download citation

Received : 20 March 2023

Accepted : 25 April 2024

Published : 14 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03114-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies