# The Contribution of Organizational Culture to the Dynamics of Organizational Learning: A Theoretical Literature Review

Hind El Mazyani, Loubna Belmourd, Yousra Bey

► To cite this version:

Hind El Mazyani, Loubna Belmourd, Yousra Bey. The Contribution of Organizational Culture to the Dynamics of Organizational Learning: A Theoretical Literature Review. Open Journal of Social Sciences, In press, 13 (07), pp.265-286. 10.4236/jss.2025.137016. hal-05171532

HAL Id: hal-05171532

https://paris1.hal.science/hal-05171532v1

Submitted on 28 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The Contribution of Organizational Culture to the Dynamics of Organizational Learning: A Theoretical Literature Review

Hind El Mazyani<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Loubna Belmourd<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, Yousra Bey<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />

**How to cite this paper:** El Mazyani, H., Belmourd, L., & Bey, Y. (2025). The Contribution of Organizational Culture to the Dynamics of Organizational Learning: A Theoretical Literature Review. *Open Journal of Social Sciences, 13*, 265-286.

https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2025.137016

Received: May 26, 2025

Accepted: July 14, 2025

Published: July 17, 2025

Copyright © 2025 by author(s) and
Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Open Access

## Abstract

In an era shaped by globalization and digital transformation, organizations must enhance their collective learning capabilities to stay competitive. Organizational learning—now recognized as a critical strategic asset—relies on several factors, among which organizational culture is particularly influential. Culture plays a pivotal role in shaping how knowledge is generated, disseminated, and absorbed within organizations. Depending on its underlying values and norms, it can either foster or impede the dynamics of learning. This study investigates how different organizational culture typologies influence learning processes by integrating two complementary theoretical lenses: dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) and organizational knowledge creation (Nonaka et al., 2000). Culture is operationalized through the Competing Values Model, which delineates four archetypal profiles—clan, hierarchy, market, and adhocracy. This theoretical and typological synthesis enables the formulation of targeted hypotheses about the distinct effects each cultural profile exerts on organizational learning dynamics.

## Keywords

Organizational Culture, Organizational Learning, Clan Culture, Market Culture, Adhocracy Culture, Hierarchical Culture

## 1. Introduction

In the era of globalization and the dematerialization of exchanges, organizations are facing new challenges that are disrupting their internal operating methods and

<footnote n="1">¹Faculty of Legal, Economic and Social Sciences-Souissi, Rabat, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Research Laboratory in Organizational Management, Business Law and Sustainable Development (LARMODAD),
Rabat, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Higher Institute of Nursing and Health Techniques, Rabat, Morocco</footnote>

<footnote>Email: h.elmazyani@gmail.com, L.belmourd@um5r.ac.ma, yousra.bey@um5r.ac.ma</footnote>
influencing their positioning in an increasingly competitive environment. Leaders have gradually become aware that the productivity and competitiveness of an or- ganization is not based solely on the accumulation of material resources, but also on intangible factors such as its creative capacity, its know-how, and its ability to collectively solve problems through organizational learning.

In developed countries, organizational learning is increasingly regarded as a necessity rather than a mere strategic option (Alsabbagh & Al Khalil, 2017). It serves as a critical lever for driving organizational transformation and reform. Moreover, contemporary management literature emphasizes organizational learn- ing as a key strategic instrument for gaining competitive advantage and ensuring long-term organizational sustainability (Saadat & Saadat, 2016).

Numerous studies have aimed to identify the key factors that influence organi- zational learning as a driver of improved business performance. Among these fac- tors, the literature underscores the significance of information technology, organ- izational strategies, corporate structure, and—more recently—human resource management and organizational culture. The latter two are particularly critical, as individuals play a central role in the process of knowledge creation.

Organizational culture plays a pivotal role in fostering organizational learning processes (Alsabbagh & Al Khalil, 2017). It is regarded as one of the key contextual factors that drive the success of organizational learning. Culture shapes what is considered valuable knowledge by members of the organization, delineates the boundaries between individual and collective knowledge, and determines the modes through which knowledge is shared (De Long & Fahey, 2000).

Furthermore, the values embedded within an organizational culture can serve both as a catalyst and a significant barrier to the success of organizational learning. Indeed, even when all other essential elements for organizational learning are in place, the absence of a supportive culture can hinder its effectiveness (Tamer, 2021).

Given the substantial influence of culture on organizational learning, we found it relevant and valuable to undertake a study addressing the following question:

What impact do different types of organizational culture have on organizational learning?

To analyze the mechanisms through which organizational culture influences collective learning, this study adopts a theoretical framework that integrates dy- namic capabilities theory (Teece et al., 1997) with organizational knowledge cre- ation theory (Nonaka et al., 2000). These perspectives provide a dynamic and sys- temic understanding of learning, emphasizing the crucial role of organizational culture in the generation of organizational knowledge.

To operationalize organizational culture and evaluate its distinct impact on learn- ing, the Competing Values Framework—widely recognized as one of the most in- fluential models in management research (Obenchain et al., 2004)—is particularly well-suited for this purpose. This framework proposes a well-established typology that identifies four culture types—clan, hierarchy, market, and adhocracy—each
reflecting different organizational logic. By integrating this typology with the the-
oretical framework, it becomes possible to formulate precise hypotheses about
how each culture type influences learning dynamics within organizations.

This study is organized around four key sections. The first outlines the concep-
tual framework by defining the concepts of organizational culture and organiza-
tional learning. The second details the theoretical foundations, drawing on dy-
namic capabilities' theory (Teece et al., 1997) and organizational knowledge crea-
tion theory (Nonaka et al., 2000). The third section focuses on the formulation of
research hypotheses and the development of a conceptual model, grounded in
empirical studies exploring the relationships between types of organizational cul-
ture and organizational learning. Finally, the fourth section presents a discussion
of the proposed hypotheses and offers corresponding recommendations.

## 2. Conceptual Framework of Organizational Culture and Organizational Learning

**2.1. Organizational Culture**

The concept of organizational culture first emerged in the late 1970s, notably
through the seminal work of Pettigrew (1979). Since then, numerous academic
studies have sought to explore its impact on organizational performance across
both Western and Eastern contexts (Pettigrew, 1979; Hofstede, 2009; Schein, 1984).

However, despite the wealth of research on the topic, no consensus has been
reached regarding the exact definition and components of organizational culture
(Hatch & Zilber, 2012).

Among the numerous definitions proposed, that of Edgar H. Schein—a pioneer
in the field—appears particularly relevant to our study. According to Schein
(1984), organizational culture is “the set of basic assumptions that a group has
invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of exter-
nal adaptation and internal integration. These assumptions, having been validated
through experience, are taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
think, and feel in relation to those problems.” This definition highlights the cen-
tral role of values and beliefs transmitted within the organization in shaping mem-
bers’ behavior (see Figure 1).

Indeed, the decisions made by employees and the choices they make in relation
to their roles are largely influenced by an organizational culture established over
time by the founders and initial leaders. However, the leadership style adopted
daily also plays a decisive role in shaping, reinforcing, or transforming this culture
by influencing behaviors, shared values, and organizational norms (Ali, 2019).
This culture is subsequently transmitted and internalized by newcomers (Schrodt,
2002). However, it is not limited to the value system imposed by the founders; it
is also shaped by external factors, including the professional values introduced by
new members (Hofstede, 2009) as well as contingencies related to the sector of
activity, specifically the industrial sector in which the organization operates (Ott,
1989).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Edgar Schein's cultural model 1986.</figcaption></figure>

Moreover, organizational culture serves as a unique source of competitive ad-
vantage due to its implicit characteristics, which are difficult and complex for
competitors to replicate (Coyne, 1986). This distinctive nature helps to shape col-
lective behavior within the organization, aligning it with strategic objectives and
fostering optimal performance (Ojukwu et al., 2020).

Various conceptual frameworks emphasize several core attributes of organiza-
tional culture. It is commonly described as a collection of values, beliefs, rituals,
and assumptions, typically established by the founders and passed down to the
members of the organization. Organizational culture is also expressed through
distinctive behavioral patterns that differentiate one organization from another,
while serving as a guide that shapes how members think, act, and approach prob-
lem-solving.

These characteristics enable organizational culture to exert a significant influ-
ence on various organizational outcomes. Research has demonstrated its impact
on key areas such as economic performance (Hofstede, 2009; Kotter & Heskett,
1992), innovation (Cameron & Quinn, 1999), talent management (Violinda &
Jian, 2016), and internal control (Pfister, 2011). Additionally, organizational cul-
ture contributes to the development of strategic initiatives, including those rele-
vant in the digital era, the attainment of competitive advantages (Guldenmund,
2000), and organizational learning (Halid Hasan, 2023).

This impact is mainly explained by the ability of organizational culture to im-
plicitly structure internal processes and influence behaviors within the organiza-
tion. As Day (1994) has argued, organizational culture plays a central role in co-
ordinating operations and implementing internal procedures, thus enabling effec-
tive resource management (Jarnagin & Slocum Jr., 2007). It also contributes to
solving organizational challenges by providing shared frameworks for thought
and action (Schein, 1984). More generally, organizational culture is an essential
lever for achieving strategic objectives and ensuring the sustainability of long-
term results (Denison, 1990).

As noted earlier, every organization possesses a unique culture with distinct characteristics. Therefore, it is important to have models that capture the construct and specific nuances of organizational cultures.

Hofstede (2009) model is based on a four-year study involving 50 IBM subsidiaries and over 100,000 completed questionnaires. The research aimed to assess the influence of national cultures on management practices. Hofstede identified six cultural dimensions that shape these practices: power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. Each country is scored on these dimensions relative to others. These dimensions are statistically distinct and appear in various combinations, although some patterns are more prevalent than others (Hofstede, 2009).

Denison's (1990) model, by contrast, centers on the relationship between organizational performance and cultural variables within organizations. His study emphasized the significant influence of four cultural dimensions on organizational performance: adaptability, mission, involvement, and consistency.

The Competing Values Framework theory, developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh in 1983, is among the most widely used approaches in organizational culture research (Yu & Wu, 2009). It originated from an empirical study examining factors that influence organizational effectiveness (Botti & Vesci, 2018). The theory is based on two main dimensions: flexibility versus control, and external orientation versus internal orientation. These dimensions give rise to different types of culture (as shown in Figure 2), including:

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Cameron & Quinn's competing values model, 1999.</figcaption></figure>

* Clan culture: characterized by loyalty, commitment, morality, tradition, and strong emphasis on collaboration, teamwork, participation, and consensus. It
also prioritizes individual development (Tseng, 2010).

* Adhocracy culture: associated with a dynamic, entrepreneurial, innovative, and creative work environment (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Tseng, 2010).

* Market culture: results-oriented, valuing competition, performance, stock growth, and market leadership (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

* Hierarchical culture: characterized by a formalized and structured organization with clearly defined procedures and smooth operations. This culture emphasizes stability, predictability, and long-term effectiveness (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

Building on this theory, Cameron and Quinn (1999) developed the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), an empirical tool designed to identify the dominant or preferred type of culture within an organization.

## 2.2. Organizational learning

Due to its multidisciplinary nature, its application across various fields (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999), and its analysis at multiple levels—from individual to organizational—the definition and theorization of organizational learning remain subjects of ongoing debate within the scientific community (Saadat & Saadat, 2016).

Amidst this diversity of approaches, Kim (1993) offers a comprehensive definition of organizational learning as a dynamic process facilitating mutual transfer of knowledge between individuals and the organization, with the primary goal of improving performance by leveraging experience (DiBella, Nevis, & Gould, 1996).

To further understand this process, Huber (1991) identifies four key stages: information acquisition, sharing and dissemination, interpretation, and storage in organizational memory. These stages form part of a continuous learning cycle that enables the organization not only to renew its strategies (Crossan et al., 1999) but also to enhance its performance and competitive advantage (Bontis et al., 2002).

In this context, Taghreed Al Dari et al., (2021) highlight that organizations must learn proactively, swiftly, and effectively to maintain their competitiveness. According to the author, embracing the learning organization model alongside a strong emphasis on organizational learning enables organizations to adapt and thrive in a constantly evolving environment and highly competitive market.

In line with this dynamic, Crossan et al. (1999) identify three levels of learning. The first is the individual level, where a person gathers ideas and information from their environment, assimilates and interprets them, and then applies them, adjusting their behavior based on the outcomes. The second is the group level, where learning emerges from the sharing of individual experiences and interactions among members. At this stage, knowledge is pooled, collectively interpreted, and leads to the development of shared hypotheses. Finally, the organizational level involves networking knowledge across groups, where the exchanged knowledge becomes common guidelines that are adopted, evaluated, and utilized by all members of the organization.
This classification can be complemented by considering the depth of change induced by learning. Argyris (2002) propose three complementary levels. The first, known as single-loop learning, involves adjusting in response to deviations or errors without questioning the organization's underlying values or norms. The second level, double-loop learning, entails questioning the guiding principles behind actions, enabling more critical and transformative adaptation. The third level, triple-loop learning, goes even further by reflecting on the learning processes themselves. This meta-learning allows the organization to develop new ways of learning, thereby enhancing its capacity to evolve in complex environments (Duncan, 1974; Argyris & Schon, 1978; Yahya, 2024).

To fully grasp how organizational learning manifests in practice, it is essential to examine its underlying foundations. Two primary approaches are commonly used to understand this dynamic: the cognitive approach and the behavioral approach. The cognitive approach emphasizes how an organization acquires new knowledge, whereas the behavioral approach focuses on how it adapts to change (Hoe & McShane, 2010).

In addition to these approaches, Calantone et al. (2002) suggest evaluating organizational learning capacity through four key dimensions: commitment to learning, which reflects support for and appreciation of initiatives; a shared vision, fostering alignment of objectives and internal communication; open-mindedness, involving the acceptance of new ideas and the challenging of routines; and finally, knowledge sharing, based on the dissemination and pooling of information throughout the organization.

# 3. Theoretical Foundations of Organizational Culture and Its Impact on Organizational Learning

## 3.1. The Theory of Dynamic Capabilities

The dynamic capabilities approach, initially conceptualized by Teece and Pisano (1994) and further developed by Teece et al. (1997), was designed to address the limitations of the resource-based view (RBV), as presented by Wernerfelt (1984), Barney (1991), Dierickx and Cool (1989), Grant (1991), and Peteraf (1993). In fact, some scholars, including Priem and Butler (2001), have criticized the RBV for its static nature, arguing that it falls short in fully explaining how competitive advantage can be sustained in an ever-changing environment.

Dynamic capabilities theory is defined as the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to effectively respond to rapidly changing environments (Teece et al., 1997). These capabilities are evolutionary and ongoing by nature (Teece, 2008; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Winter, 2003), allowing organizations to continuously develop new resources and renew their competencies to sustain a lasting competitive advantage (Wang & Ahmed, 2007).

At the core of this renewal process lies organizational learning, which produces
new practical knowledge through experience, environmental observation, and the interpretation of contextual cues (Bingham et al., 2007; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat & Peteraf, 2015; Zollo & Winter, 2002).

However, this learning process is not neutral; it is profoundly shaped by organizational culture. As Zbirou et al. (2015) highlight, organizational culture plays a crucial role in the creation of information by influencing behaviors, beliefs, and practices related to knowledge management, collaboration, experimentation, and openness to change.

Indeed, an organizational culture that is open to learning—characterized by norms of cooperation, reciprocity, and dialogue—facilitates employee engagement in experimentation, knowledge sharing, and the questioning of established routines (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Alshammari, 2020). Such a culture also fosters creativity, initiative, and receptivity to change, which are essential elements for the effective exercise of dynamic capabilities (Hurley & Hult, 1998; Tajeddini et al., 2006).

Thus, dynamic capabilities evolve over time through accumulated experience, mediated by organizational learning processes that are either activated or inhibited depending on the characteristics of the dominant organizational culture. This ongoing learning cycle enhances organizational practices and strengthens strategic responsiveness (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Zollo & Winter, 2002), while also helping to prevent the development of “core rigidities” that may stifle innovation (Leonard-Barton, 1992).

In summary, organizational culture plays a fundamental structuring role in activating learning mechanisms (Schilke et al., 2018), thereby influencing the functioning and renewal of dynamic capabilities. It profoundly shapes an organization's capacity to learn, adapt, and transform within an uncertain and constantly evolving environment.

## 3.2. The Theory of Knowledge Creation in Organizations

The dynamic knowledge creation theory, proposed by Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno (2000), provides a theoretical framework for understanding how organizations generate, transform, and leverage knowledge. Unlike traditional information processing paradigms (Newell & Simon, 1972), this approach highlights the pivotal role of social, cultural, and cognitive dynamics in the creation of organizational knowledge (Teece, 2008).

The theory is based on three key elements: the SECI process, the concept of “Ba,” and knowledge assets. Each of these elements is profoundly influenced by organizational culture (Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000).

The SECI process (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) describes four modes of knowledge conversion between tacit and explicit forms (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Socialization involves the direct sharing of experiences and tacit knowledge. Externalization refers to articulating tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Combination corresponds to the integration of explicit
knowledge into more complex and systematic sets, while internalization reflects
the assimilation of explicit knowledge back into tacit knowledge. Organizational
culture exerts a strong influence on each of these processes. For example, a clan
culture—rooted in trust and cooperation—fosters socialization and internaliza-
tion by encouraging informal learning, mentoring, and rich interpersonal inter-
actions. In contrast, market and hierarchical cultures, which emphasize results
and formalization, tend to support combination and externalization processes, fo-
cusing on structuring and disseminating explicit knowledge (Cameron & Quinn,
1999).

Ba, according to Nonaka et al. (2000), is a shared context—whether physical,
virtual, or mental—where knowledge is created, exchanged, and utilized. Each
type of Ba corresponds to a phase of the SECI model: origin Ba (socialization)
facilitates the sharing of experiences and tacit knowledge through face-to-face in-
teractions; dialogue Ba (externalization) supports the articulation of tacit knowledge
into explicit knowledge via dialogue; systematization Ba (combination) involves
virtual exchanges that organize explicit knowledge; and exercise Ba (internaliza-
tion) enables individuals to embed explicit knowledge back into tacit knowledge.
Organizational culture significantly shapes the nature and quality of these know-
ledge-creating spaces. For example, an open and participatory culture fosters ef-
fective dialogue Ba by encouraging free expression of ideas and constructive con-
frontation of viewpoints—essential conditions for the externalization of tacit
knowledge. In contrast, a rigid and hierarchical culture may impede authentic ex-
changes and restrict the transversal interactions necessary for collective meaning-
making (Binkkour & El Abidi, 2021; Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000).

The third element of the model concerns knowledge assets, which are organi-
zation-specific resources that simultaneously serve as inputs, outputs, and mod-
erators of the knowledge creation process. These assets are categorized into four
types: experiential assets, representing tacit knowledge gained through experi-
ence; conceptual assets, consisting of explicit knowledge expressed in symbolic or
conceptual form; systemic assets, encompassing organized explicit knowledge
such as manuals, databases, and documented processes; and routine assets, related
to tacit knowledge embedded in everyday organizational practices. According to
Nonaka, Toyama, and Konno (2000), organizational culture plays a crucial role in
managing and developing these assets. It functions as a filter that determines
which types of knowledge are valued, prioritized, and transmitted. For instance,
an adhocratic or innovative culture tends to promote the creation and sharing of
conceptual knowledge and encourages experimentation, whereas a hierarchical or
bureaucratic culture is more likely to institutionalize routine knowledge, empha-
sizing standardized procedures and conformity (Binkkour & El Abidi, 2021).

Thus, organizational culture not only supports learning mechanisms—it fun-
damentally shapes them. It guides interpersonal interactions, frames interpreta-
tive processes, structures the norms governing knowledge exchange, and influ-
ences the shared representations of what constitutes valuable knowledge. Conse-
quently, any organization seeking to enhance its learning and innovation capacity must strategically cultivate a culture that promotes values and practices such as trust, open communication, collective reflection, and active engagement. Encouraging these cultural elements facilitates knowledge sharing and continuous adaptation, both of which are essential for sustained organizational development.

Through the lens of these two complementary theories, organizational culture emerges as a foundational pillar that structures both organizational learning and knowledge creation. It shapes how the organization acquires, shares, and exploits knowledge, as well as how it engages in learning processes that support adaptation and innovation.

# 4. Hypotheses and Conceptual Model of the Research

## 4.1. Development of Research Hypotheses

Organizational culture plays a fundamental role in shaping organizational learning, as it influences four critical dimensions. First, it affects employees' perceptions of which forms of knowledge are valuable and worth managing, and which can be disregarded. Second, it guides the transformation of individual knowledge into collective organizational knowledge, thus facilitating knowledge integration. Third, it governs the processes through which new knowledge is created, legitimized, and disseminated across the organization. Finally, culture serves as the social context that defines the norms and standards for how effectively knowledge is created, shared, and applied within the organization (De Long & Fahey, 2000).

However, for organizational learning to be fully leveraged, it is crucial to cultivate a dynamic and adaptable organizational culture. Indeed, a culture that evolves around learning is fundamental in supporting employees throughout their transformation process. Such a culture fosters a flexible and open environment where mutual trust is reinforced, thereby promoting collaboration, knowledge sharing, and continuous learning.

In this perspective, a learning organization does not merely absorb mistakes—it extracts explicit lessons from them to inform future actions. A culture that refrains from stigmatizing errors and instead views them as opportunities for growth constitutes the cornerstone of a genuinely learning-oriented organization (Akhavan & Jafari, 2006). Indeed, an organization that embraces this vision of learning demonstrates the capacity to self-reflect, revise its strategies, and adapt proactively to evolving market conditions.

Therefore, for an organization to genuinely evolve into a learning organization, it is essential to cultivate a culture that actively facilitates and supports this transformation. A robust and well-anchored organizational culture that promotes learning across all levels constitutes a critical lever for achieving this evolution effectively and sustainably (Halid Hasan, 2023).

To concretely illustrate the influence of organizational culture on organizational learning, we rely on the typology proposed by the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 1999), which distinguishes four predominant types of culture:
clan culture, hierarchical culture, market culture, and adhocracy culture. This model, widely adopted in organizational research, offers a rigorous and nuanced means of operationalizing organizational culture and analyzing its effects on learning dynamics.

This typology complements our theoretical framework, which is grounded in the dynamic capabilities' theory (Teece et al., 1997) and the knowledge creation theory (Nonaka et al., 2000). It enables a detailed analysis of how different cultural profiles shape an organization's capacity to learn, adapt, and generate new knowledge.

* **Impact of clan culture on organizational learning**

The specific effects of values associated with clan culture on organizational learning remain a topic of debate, with theoretical perspectives and empirical findings showing some divergence.

Some researchers highlight that a work environment dominated by clan culture provides a favorable framework for individual development and significantly fosters organizational learning. Indeed, characteristics inherent to this culture—such as trust, loyalty, flexible social interactions, and strong employee commitment—play a key role in promoting knowledge acquisition and sharing within organizations (Chan, 1997).

In contrast, other studies suggest that a culture overly focused on disciplinary codes may limit the flexibility necessary to fully support organizational learning (Jabeen & Al Dari, 2020).

Furthermore, research by Lee et al. (2016) finds that clan culture has no significant impact on organizational learning, underscoring the complexity and contextual variability of this relationship.

H1: Clan culture has a significant impact on organizational learning.

* **Impact of hierarchical culture on organizational learning**

The formal controls, norms, and policies that govern hierarchical organizations, combined with their focus on stability, predictability, and long-term efficiency (Alexakis, Platt, & Tesone, 2006), are often perceived as barriers to organizational learning. This is mainly due to the excessive formalism and rigid controls they impose, which can stifle flexibility and innovation (Alsabbagh & Al Khalil, 2017; Oh & Han, 2018; Al Dari et al., 2021).

In contrast, other research highlights a positive effect of hierarchical culture on organizational learning (Alavi et al., 2006; Shao et al., 2012). These studies argue that the clear, well-defined, and structured mechanisms typical of hierarchical cultures facilitate effective information processing—a key element in organizational learning. Therefore, these authors conclude that in certain contexts, the values inherent in hierarchical culture can support and even strengthen organizational learning.

H2: Hierarchical culture has a significant impact on organizational learning.

* **Impact of market culture on organizational learning**

Market culture, characterized by its rational orientation and strong focus on the
external environment, aims to achieve competitive advantage by optimizing productivity and maximizing profits (Prajogo & McDermott, 2005). This culture encourages the acquisition of information and knowledge from the competitive landscape, which can enrich internal practices and stimulate organizational learning (Dajani & Mohamad, 2017; Sanz-Valle et al., 2011).

However, some researchers, including Lee et al. (2016) and Alsabbagh and Al Khalil (2017), contend that market culture does not significantly impact organizational learning. They argue that this culture prioritizes explicit assets, such as data and codified knowledge, often at the expense of tacit knowledge, which requires collaborative and reflective learning among organizational members (Suppiah & Sandhu, 2011). Consequently, its strong orientation towards short-term objectives might limit its capacity to foster deep, transformative organizational learning.

H3: Market culture has a significant impact on organizational learning

* **Impact of adhocracy culture on organizational learning**

The adhocratic culture, characterized by its external focus and emphasis on flexibility, innovation, and risk-taking, strongly fosters organizational learning. By prioritizing the acquisition of new knowledge and the development of innovative products or services, it creates an environment conducive to experimentation, adaptation, and the continuous renewal of organizational capabilities (Shepstone & Currie, 2008).

These distinctive values encourage the integration and sharing of knowledge within the organization, thereby enhancing collective learning capabilities. Research indicates that an adhocratic culture, with its focus on agility and creativity, enables organizations to effectively explore new opportunities, anticipate environmental changes, and transform acquired knowledge into sustainable competitive advantages (Sanz-Valle et al., 2011; Alsabbagh & Al Khalil, 2017).

There is a broad consensus among researchers regarding the highly positive impact of adhocratic culture on organizational learning. Its openness to change and relentless pursuit of innovation make it a critical lever for enhancing organizational resilience and sustaining competitiveness in an ever-evolving environment (Dajani & Mohamad, 2017).

H4: Adhocracy culture has a significant impact on organizational learning.

## 4.2. Conceptual Model

The proposed conceptual model draws on the theoretical foundations outlined earlier, notably the dynamic capabilities theory (Teece et al., 1997) and the organizational knowledge creation theory (Nonaka et al., 2000). Its purpose is to analyze how different organizational cultures distinctively influence learning dynamics within organizations. To capture this cultural diversity, the model adopts the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 1999), which identifies four main culture types: clan, hierarchical, market, and adhocracy. Based on this typology, the research hypotheses are developed by linking the defining characteristics of each culture to specific organizational learning mechanisms (as illustrated
in **Figure 3**).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Conceptual research model.</figcaption></figure>

**5. Discussions and Recommendations**

The analysis of the four hypotheses formulated in this study, grounded in the literature review, has revealed several key insights into the relationships between types of organizational culture and the dynamics of organizational learning.

Regarding the first hypothesis (H1), the literature highlights that clan culture—centered on solidarity, loyalty, and human relations—generally fosters an environment conducive to the sharing of tacit knowledge. It particularly supports the socialization and internalization phases of the SECI model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) by encouraging informal exchanges, mentoring, and interpersonal knowledge transmission.

However, this culture can also lead to conformity or resistance to change, particularly when collective norms become rigid. This paradox is evident in NGOs or certain family-run organizations, where strong social cohesion may limit openness to innovation or external learning. Therefore, for clan culture to serve as a true lever for organizational learning, it must be complemented by openness to diverse ideas and constructive dialogue.

The hierarchical culture, based on formalization, respect for rules, and control, facilitates the effective structuring of explicit knowledge by promoting standardized procedures, thorough documentation, and traceability of information. Consequently, it supports, to a significant extent, the combination phase of the SECI model and the organizational memorization of knowledge. However, its emphasis on rigidity and stability may sometimes inhibit the flexibility and experimentation necessary for deeper learning processes.

However, hierarchical culture tends to hinder experiential and adaptive learning due to its constraints on autonomy, experimentation, and risk-taking. Such limitations often lead to rigid decision-making processes and reduced employee engagement in participatory innovation activities.

Market culture, with its strong focus on results, competitiveness, and productivity, can foster strategic learning by promoting active environmental scanning and the rapid adoption of successful practices from competitors. This culture is particularly relevant in high-pressure contexts, such as large export-oriented firms
or publicly traded companies.

However, in some organizations, market culture tends to prioritize financial indicators and immediate performance, often at the expense of collective learning, error capitalization, and continuous improvement—elements that are essential in today's volatile economic environment. The challenge lies in reconciling short-term performance demands with cultivating a culture that values deep organizational learning, especially in dynamic sectors such as manufacturing, banking, and logistics.

The adhocracy culture, characterized by innovation, flexibility, and risk-taking, is the most conducive to organizational learning. It actively engages all phases of the SECI process, particularly externalization (articulating tacit knowledge) and combination (reconfiguring explicit knowledge), while fostering creativity and cross-functional collaboration within teams (Cameron & Quinn, 1999).

This culture is beginning to emerge in developing countries, particularly within technology startups, incubators, innovation hubs, and agile service companies. These organizations, often led by young entrepreneurs, tend to adopt fluid organizational models and knowledge management practices that emphasize experimentation. However, the broader diffusion of adhocratic culture remains constrained by rigid external factors such as limited access to financing, institutional inertia, and a lack of culturally supportive venture capital. Thus, fostering this culture requires not only political support but also a shift in managerial mindsets and a societal recognition of failure as a valuable source of learning.

In short, a cross-analysis of the four types of organizational culture reveals their distinct—and at times ambivalent—influences on the dynamics of organizational learning. Each culture appears to offer specific levers, but also limitations, suggesting that the impact of culture on learning is strongly shaped by the organizational context in which it unfolds.

It is therefore relevant to examine the types of organizations or sectors in which this model finds its most effective application. This conceptual framework appears particularly well-suited to complex environments where multiple cultural logics coexist. This is notably the case in hospitals and healthcare institutions, which often combine a hierarchical culture (based on rules and compliance) with a clan culture (centered on cooperation among healthcare teams) and, at times, adhocratic elements linked to medical innovation and research.

Similarly, universities and higher education institutions frequently blend a clan culture (collegial collaboration), an adhocratic culture (focused on research and pedagogical innovation), and a hierarchical culture at the administrative level. Banks and financial institutions, historically shaped by hierarchical and market cultures, are increasingly incorporating adhocratic logics through digitalization, along with clan-oriented practices in certain services.

Large multi-site or multinational companies also provide fertile ground for the application of this model, due to the cultural diversity that may exist between subsidiaries, departments (e.g., R&D vs. production), or geographic regions. Lastly,
evolving public administrations—though still deeply rooted in hierarchical culture—are beginning to integrate adhocratic dynamics (through public innovation projects) and clan dynamics (promoting collaborative work), while also being subject to performance-driven market logics.

Thus, this model is particularly well-suited to organizations in which multiple organizational cultures coexist and interact, offering a relevant analytical framework for examining their influence on organizational learning.

The conclusions drawn from this study enable us to formulate several strategic recommendations aimed at public policymakers, business leaders, and human resource managers:

* **Promoting reasoned cultural hybridization:**

Organizational cultures should not be considered fixed or mutually exclusive. It is beneficial to intelligently hybridize cultural logics—preserving the structuring strengths of hierarchical culture, such as efficiency and rigor, while integrating adhocratic practices like experimentation and autonomy. Similarly, blending clan culture's solidarity with market culture's responsiveness can create a more adaptive and resilient organization. This hybridization should be approached as a gradual and deliberate process of organizational acculturation, allowing the integration of complementary values and practices over time.

Concrete examples illustrate this logic: Toyota combines hierarchical discipline and participatory innovation through practices such as *kaizen* and *jishuken* (Liker, 2004), while Danone integrates clan-based social values with the performance demands typical of a market culture, through its “dual economic and social project” (Davoine & Ravasi, 2013). These approaches demonstrate that a deliberate cultural hybridization can simultaneously enhance efficiency, innovation, and organizational cohesion.

* **Supporting the ecosystem of innovative businesses**

Young companies embracing an adhocratic culture—such as startups, innovative cooperatives, and entrepreneurial associations—should receive targeted support, including administrative simplification, improved access to financing, strategic mentoring, and greater institutional recognition. These organizations represent future models of organizational learning, where innovation and collaboration lie at the core of their operations.

* **Developing a knowledge-based HR strategy**

HR departments in both public and private sectors must integrate knowledge management into their policies by implementing experience transfer programs, recognizing informal learning, supporting cross-functional projects, and fostering skills networking. This approach requires institutionalizing learning beyond formal training through the cultivation of a culture that values and encourages knowledge sharing.

* **Promoting transformational and facilitative leadership**

Since organizational culture is largely influenced by leaders, it is essential for managers to adopt a transformational leadership style grounded in a shared vision
and intellectual stimulation. Such leadership fosters learning behaviors and cultivates an organizational climate that promotes trust, autonomy, and innovation.

## 6. Conclusion

Organizational culture is a coherent system of values, beliefs, norms, and practices that guide the behaviors of members within an organization. These cultural elements, passed on to newcomers, deeply shape the organization's internal processes. Consequently, culture can either enhance performance or become a barrier when it is misaligned with organizational goals.

As a key lever, organizational culture influences every function within the organization, from operational tasks to strategic decisions. Consequently, the process of organizational learning is deeply shaped and modified by the dominant culture.

To analyze this dynamic, we draw on the organizational knowledge creation theory (Nonaka et al., 2000) and the dynamic capabilities theory (Teece et al., 1997). These frameworks help us understand how organizational culture structures and activates learning mechanisms, profoundly influencing an organization's capacity to evolve, innovate, and transform. More specifically, organizational culture shapes interaction norms, guides collaboration patterns, and determines shared representations of knowledge.

To operationalize the relationship between organizational culture and organizational learning, this study draws on the Competing Values Framework developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999), which identifies four primary culture types: clan, hierarchical, market, and adhocracy. An analysis of empirical research on the influence of these cultural types on learning dynamics reveals several key insights. Clan culture promotes knowledge acquisition and sharing but carries the risk of normative conformity that may impede learning. Hierarchical culture supports the structured processing of information, though its emphasis on formalism can restrict adaptive learning. Market culture demonstrates strong potential for performance-driven strategic learning but tends to undervalue collaborative and reflective learning processes. Finally, adhocracy culture stands out for fostering innovation, cross-functional collaboration, and knowledge transformation, making it the most conducive to organizational learning. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that each type of organizational culture exerts a distinct and significant influence on organizational learning mechanisms.

Considering these findings, several strategic recommendations emerge. First, it is essential to promote a reasoned cultural hybridization that combines the unique strengths of each organizational culture type to enhance the learning capabilities of organizations. Second, targeted support should be provided to young, innovative companies embracing an adhocratic culture by easing their access to financing and offering tailored mentoring. Concurrently, human resource strategies must be designed with a strong emphasis on knowledge management, fostering informal and collaborative learning to build a culture that values knowledge shar-
ing and recognition. Finally, since organizational culture is largely shaped by leadership, it is crucial for leaders to adopt a transformational leadership style centered on a shared vision and intellectual stimulation. Such leadership fosters behaviors conducive to learning and cultivates an organizational environment characterized by trust, autonomy, and innovation

Although this theoretical study underscores the impact of organizational cultures on organizational learning, several questions remain unresolved. Empirical research is therefore essential to deepen our understanding of these relationships, particularly across diverse organizational contexts and sectors. Such investigations would enable the testing and validation of the hypotheses proposed in this article and provide greater insight into the actual mechanisms underlying organizational learning.

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

## References

Akhavan, P., & Jafari, M. (2006). Critical Issues for Knowledge Management Implementation at a National Level. *VINE, 36*, 52-66. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055720610667372

Al Dari, T., Jabeen, F., Hussain, M., & Al Khawaja, D. (2021). How Types of Organizational Culture and Technological Capabilities Contribute to Organizational Learning. *Management Research Review, 44*, 437-459. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-02-2020-0090

Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2006). An Empirical Examination of the Influence of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management Practices. *Journal of Management Information Systems, 22*, 191-224.
https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222220307

Alexakis, G., Platt, A. R., & Tesone, D. V. (2006). Appropriating Biological Paradigms for the Organizational Setting to Support Democratic Constructs in the Workplace. *Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 6*, 17-28.

Ali, M. (2019). The Influence of Motivation, Transactional Leadership, Organizational Culture on Performance. In *Proceedings of the Social and Humaniora Research Symposium (SoRes 2018)* (pp. 354-357). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/sores-18.2019.82

Alsabbagh, M., & Khalil, A. H. A. (2017). The Impact of Organizational Culture on Organizational Learning (an Empirical Study on the Education Sector in Damascus City). *International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7*, 579-600.
https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v7-i4/2834

Alshammari, A. A. (2020). The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices, Organizational Learning, Organizational Culture and Knowledge Management Capabilities on Organizational Performance in Saudi Organizations: A Conceptual Framework. *Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, 29*, 714-721.

Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop Learning, Teaching, and Research. *Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1*, 206-218. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.8509400

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). *Apprentissage organisationnel: Une perspective théorique de l'action*. Addison-Wesley.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Ressources de l'entreprise et avantage concurrentiel durable. *Journal of Management, 17*, 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. (2007). What Makes a Process a Capability? *Heuristics, Strategy, and Effective Capture of Opportunities*. *Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal*, *1*, 27-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1

Binkkour, M., & El Abidi, A. (2021). Organizational Culture and Managerial Innovation in Family SMEs in Morocco: Case of the Agadir Region. *The International Journal of Management*, *4*.

Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an Organizational Learning System by Aligning Stocks and Flows. *Journal of Management Studies*, *39*, 437-469.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.t01-1-00299

Botti, A., & Vesci, M. (2018). Competing Value Framework and Public Administration: Managerial Insights, Theoretical Reflections and Practical Implications from Italy. *International Business Research*, *11*, 147-160. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v11n2p147

Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Orientation vers l'apprentissage, capacité d'innovation et performance des entreprises. *Industrial Marketing Management*, *31*, 515-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-8501(01)00203-6

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). *Diagnostiquer et faire évoluer la culture d'une organisation: Le Competing Values Framework*. Jossey-Bass.

Chan, A. (1997). Corporate Culture of a Clan Organization. *Management Decision*, *35*, 94-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749710160232

Coyne, K. P. (1986). Sustainable Competitive Advantage—What It Is, What It Isn't. *Business Horizons*, *29*, 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(86)90087-x

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution. *The Academy of Management Review*, *24*, 522-537.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259140

Dajani, M. A. Z., & Mohamad, M. S. (2017). Leadership Styles, Organisational Culture and Learning Organisational Capability in Education Industry: Evidence from Egypt. *International Journal of Business and Social Research*, *6*, 42-57.
https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v6i11.1022

Davoine, E., & Ravasi, C. (2013). The Relative Stability of National Career Patterns in European Top Management Careers in the Age of Globalisation: A Comparative Study in France/Germany/Great Britain and Switzerland. *European Management Journal*, *31*, 152-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.06.001

Day, G. S. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. *Journal of Marketing*, *58*, 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800404

De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management. *Academy of Management Perspectives*, *14*, 113-127.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.3979820

Denison, D. R. (1990). *Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness*. John Wiley & Sons.

Dibella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M. (1996). Understanding Organizational Learning Capability. *Journal of Management Studies*, *33*, 361-379.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00806.x

Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. *Management Science*, *35*, 1504-1511.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504

Duncan, R. B. (1974). Modifications in Decision Structure in Adapting to the Environment: Some Implications for Organizational Learning. *Decision Sciences*, *5*, 705-725.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1974.tb00649.x
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? *Strategic Management Journal*, 21, 1105-1121.
https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10<1105::aid-smj133>3.0.co;2-e

Grant, R. M. (1991). The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. *California Management Review*, 33, 114-135.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166664

Guldenmund, F. W. (2000). The Nature of Safety Culture: A Review of Theory and Research. *Safety Science*, 34, 215-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00014-X

Hasan, H. (2023). Effect of Organizational Culture on Organizational Learning, Employee Engagement, and Employee Performance: Study of Banking Employees in Indonesia. *Problems and Perspectives in Management*, 21, 471-482.
https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.21(3).2023.38

Hatch, M. J., & Zilber, T. (2012). Conversation at the Border between Organizational Culture Theory and Institutional Theory. *Journal of Management Inquiry*, 21, 94-97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492611419793

Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2015). Managerial Cognitive Capabilities and the Micro-foundations of Dynamic Capabilities. *Strategic Management Journal*, 36, 831-850.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2247

Hoe, S. L., & McShane, S. (2010). Structural and Informal Knowledge Acquisition and Dis-semination in Organizational Learning: An Exploratory Analysis. *The Learning Organ-ization*, 17, 364-386. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471011043117

Hofstede, G. (2009). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. *Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2*, Article 8.
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Litera-tures. *Organization Science*, 2, 88-115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88

Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. *Journal of Marketing*, 62, 42-54.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200303

Jabeen, F., & Al Dari, T. (2020). A Framework for Integrating Knowledge Management Benefits in the UAE Organisations. *Knowledge Management Research & Practice*, 21, 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1780966

Janićijević, N. (2013). The Mutual Impact of Organizational Culture and Structure. *Eco-nomic Annals*, 58, 35-60. https://doi.org/10.2298/eka1398035j

Jarnagin, C., & Slocum, J. W. (2007). Creating Corporate Cultures through Mythopoetic Leadership. *Organizational Dynamics*, 36, 288-302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.004

Kim, D. H. (1993). The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning. *Sloan Man-agement Review*, 35, 37-50.

Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). *Corporate Culture and Performance*. Free Press.

Lee, J., Shiue, Y., & Chen, C. (2016). Examining the Impacts of Organizational Culture and Top Management Support of Knowledge Sharing on the Success of Software Process Improvement. *Computers in Human Behavior*, 54, 462-474.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.030

Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development. *Strategic Management Journal*, 13, 111-125.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250131009

Liker, J. K. (2004). *The Toyota Way, 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest*
Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). *Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage*. *The Academy of Management Review*, *23*, 242-266.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259373

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). *Human Problem Solving*. Prentice Hall.
http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1980/A1980KD04600001.pdf

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). *The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation*. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). *SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation*. *Long Range Planning*, *33*, 5-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0024-6301(99)00115-6

Obenchain, A. M., Johnson, W. C., & Dion, P. A. (2004). *Institutional Types, Organizational Cultures, and Innovation in Christian Colleges and Universities*. *Christian Higher Education*, *3*, 15-39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15363750490264870

Oh, S., & Han, H. (2018). *Facilitating Organisational Learning Activities: Types of Organisational Culture and Their Influence on Organisational Learning and Performance*. *Knowledge Management Research & Practice*, *18*, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1538668

Ojukwu, C. E., Okafor, I. E., & Nwigwe, E. C. (2020). An Appraisal of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organisational Performance of Commercial Banks in Nigeria. *Journal of Business and Strategic Management*, *5*, 35-47.

Ott, J. S. (1989). *The Organizational Culture Perspective*. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View. *Strategic Management Journal*, *14*, 179-191.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303

Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On Studying Organizational Cultures. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, *24*, 570-581.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392363

Pfister, J. A. (2011). Managing Organisational Culture for Effective Internal Control: From Practice to Theory. *The British Accounting Review*, *43*, 147-148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2011.03.003

Prajogo, D. I., & McDermott, C. M. (2005). The Relationship between Total Quality Management Practices and Organizational Culture. *International Journal of Operations & Production Management*, *25*, 1101-1122.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570510626916

Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the Resource-Based “View” a Useful Perspective for Strategic Management Research? *Academy of Management Review*, *26*, 22-40.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011928

Saadat, V., & Saadat, Z. (2016). Organizational Learning as a Key Role of Organizational Success. *Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences*, *230*, 219-225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.028

Sanz-Valle, R., Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Perez-Caballero, L. (2011). Linking Organizational Learning with Technical Innovation and Organizational Culture. *Journal of Knowledge Management*, *15*, 997-1015.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111179334

Schein, E. H. (1984). Culture as an Environmental Context for Careers. *Journal of Organizational Behavior*, *5*, 71-81.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030050107

Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo Vadis, Dynamic Capabilities? A Content-
Analytic Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Recommendations for Future Research. *Academy of Management Annals*, 12, 390-439.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0014

Schrodt, P. (2002). The Relationship between Organizational Identification and Organizational Culture: Employee Perceptions of Culture and Identification in a Retail Sales Organization. *Communication Studies*, 53, 189-202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970209388584

Shao, Z., Feng, Y., & Liu, L. (2012). The Mediating Effect of Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing on Transformational Leadership and Enterprise Resource Planning Systems Success: An Empirical Study in China. *Computers in Human Behavior*, 28, 2400-2413.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.011

Shepstone, C., & Currie, L. (2008). Transforming the Academic Library: Creating an Organizational Culture That Fosters Staff Success. *The Journal of Academic Librarianship*, 34, 358-368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2008.05.008

Suppiah, V., & Singh Sandhu, M. (2011). Organisational Culture's Influence on Tacit Knowledge-Sharing Behaviour. *Journal of Knowledge Management*, 15, 462-477.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137439

Tajeddini, K., Trueman, M., & Larsen, G. (2006). Examining the Effect of Market Orientation on Innovativeness. *Journal of Marketing Management*, 22, 529-551.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725706777978640

Tamer, G. (2021). The Effects of Organizational Culture on the Relationship of Organizational Learning and Innovation: A Research in a Private Health Institution. *University Journal of Social Sciences*, 8, 240-252.

Teece, D. J. (2008). *Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organizing for Innovation and Growth*. Oxford University Press.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. *Strategic Management Journal*, 18, 509-533.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::aid-smj882>3.0.co;2-z

Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: An Introduction. *Industrial and Corporate Change*, 3, 537-556.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/3.3.537-a

Tseng, S. (2010). The Correlation between Organizational Culture and Knowledge Conversion on Corporate Performance. *Journal of Knowledge Management*, 14, 269-284.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011032409

Violinda, Q., & Jian, S. (2016). Dynamic Capabilities, Organizational Culture and Competitive Advantage: Evidence from Agriculture Cooperatives in China. *Asia Pacific Management and Business Application*, 4, 136-153.
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.apmba.2016.004.03.4

Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities: A Review and Research Agenda. *International Journal of Management Reviews*, 9, 31-51.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00201.x

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A Resource-Based View of the Firm. *Strategic Management Journal*, 5, 171-180.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207

Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding Dynamic Capabilities. *Strategic Management Journal*, 24, 991-995.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318

Yahya, N. (2024). The Organizational Learning Process: Keys to Innovation and Adaptation. *African Scientific Journal*, 3.

Yu, T., & Wu, N. (2009). A Review of Study on the Competing Values Framework. *International Journal of Business and Management*, 4, 37-42.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v4n7p37

Zbirou, O., Toffoli, R., Cordelier, B., & Breduillieard, P. (2015). The Influence of Organizational Culture on Advertising Agencies: The Case of the French Advertising Industry. In D. Sharma (Ed.), *Cultural Perspectives in a Global Marketplace* (pp. 94-99). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18696-2_39

Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. *Organization Science*, *13*, 339-351. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780