The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-8269.htm

Contribute to
How types of organizational organizational
culture and technological learning

capabilities contribute to
organizational learning
Taghreed Al Dari, Fauzia Jabeen and Matloub Hussain Received 15 February 2020
Revised 1 June 2020
College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and 14 August 2020
Accepted 8 September 2020
Dana Al Khawaja
Department of Pharmacy, Fatima College of Health Sciences,
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to develop a theoretical framework of the impact of clan and hierarchy cultures
and knowledge technological capabilities on organizational learning.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire survey was used to collect data from 693 employees
working in knowledge management centers in various law and enforcement units in the United Arab
Emirates (UAE). Structural equation modeling was used to test the relationships between the variables.
Findings – The findings show that the clan culture had a significant negative effect on organizational
learning. However, hierarchy culture and knowledge technological capabilities had a significant positive
impact in predicting organizational learning behavior.
Research limitations/implications – The study focuses on a specific type of public organization only,
which somewhat limits the generalizability of the research results. Second, as the study was cross-sectional,
the causal relationships could not be inferred directly. The study results will help policymakers create a
learning organization by examining the impact of organizational culture and knowledge of technological
capabilities.
Originality/value – This paper has added knowledge about the relationship between culture types,
knowledge technological capabilities and organizational learning, particularly in the UAE. This study helps
to bridge the gap in research on culture and knowledge technological capabilities and organizational learning.
Keywords United Arab Emirates, Organizational learning, Information technology,
Knowledge management, Clan culture, Hierarchy culture
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The concept of organizational learning has been a focus of considerable attention since the
1980s. A majority of researchers in this field have stressed that effective organizational
learning enables an organization to improve by creating advanced knowledge (Yang, 2007).
To maintain a good position in a rapidly changing environment and competitive market,
firms need to focus on organizational learning and transform into learning organizations

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the editor(s), and the anonymous three reviewers for their
constructive quality feedback which helped us in improving this manuscript. Management Research Review
Declaration: Dr. Taghreed Al Dari and Dr. Fauzia Jabeen have contributed equally and are the co- © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-8269
first authors of this article. DOI 10.1108/MRR-02-2020-0090
MRR (Sohaib et al., 2010). The capability of a firm’s employees to adapt to change, quickly master
new skills and incorporate technological advancements, and learn faster than their peers in
competitor organizations will determine the firm’s competitive advantage (Salim and
Sulaiman, 2011).
Tortorella et al. (2020) suggested that organizational learning is an effective strategy for
improving and maintaining a company’s sustainable performance, improvements and
competitive edge. Senge (2014) confirmed the importance of adaptive learning, enhancing
the ability to create and shape the company’s future more effectively. Pedler and Burgoyne
(2017) investigated the importance of learning for organizations, looking at organizational
capability and mobilizing collective intelligence. They suggested that learning is especially
important to organizations in this volatile time because it shows how to do things differently
to enhance organizational performance. Thus, the importance of organizational learning in
organizational competitiveness and success cannot be underestimated.
Investment in certain areas can directly augment organizational learning. For example,
organizational culture fosters organizational learning (Hsu and Chang, 2014). Organizational
knowledge and technological capabilities are crucial for organizational learning. Few
studies have empirically examined the association between organizational culture and
organizational learning (Lindquist and Marcy, 2016). There is also a need to understand the
effect of knowledge management and technological capabilities on organizational learning.
Previous research has supported the potential value of continuing in these directions (De
Molli, 2019; Lee et al., 2016; Mao et al., 2016; Siddique, 2017).
Despite the rapid development of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and its modern
infrastructure, the impact of culture on organizational learning is still very different from
western culture. UAE culture, characterized by high power distance, being collectivistic and
having high uncertainty avoidance, has been found to inhibit learning inside organizations
(Siddique, 2017). In the UAE, studies on organizational learning are limited. For example,
Siddique (2017) found a strong linkage between dimensions of national culture and
organizational learning in private organizations. Jabeen and Al Dari (2020) reported that
organizational learning was useful in positively improving knowledge management
benefits. In other UAE studies, researchers such as Chidambaranathan and Regha (2016)
and Jabeen and Isakovic (2018) used the competing values framework (CVF) to analyze the
UAE’s organizational culture types in higher education and public sector organizations.
They found that clan and adhocracy cultures dominated overall performance in the UAE
organizations, adopting new technologies and innovating.
Although various studies have been undertaken in western countries, limited studies
(Jabeen and Al Dari, 2020) have been conducted in law enforcement organizations in Arab/
Middle Eastern context. Bjelland and Dahl (2017) reported that the data gathered during the
police investigation process is considered essential for improving organizational learning. A
focus on feedback and coaching emphasizing the practice-based learning culture has been
found to enhance organizational learning in Norwegian police (Janssens et al., 2017). In
general, law enforcement organizations are expected to protect society and ensure safety
and security. These responsibilities are becoming increasingly challenging and complex,
and so many countries give the law enforcement organizations inclusive controls. These
challenges and controls have called for law enforcement organizations to develop a learning
organization that focuses on creating a strong learning culture (Filstad and Gottschalk,
2013). However, knowledge transfer from police misconduct cases has not been
conceptualized as a learning process in police districts and general law enforcement (Filstad
and Gottschalk, 2010).
 Studies that have investigated the factors impacting on organizational learning have Contribute to
found contrary results concerning the effect of clan culture on organizational learning: that it organizational
can be not only positive (Dajani and Mohamad, 2017; Lee and Chen, 2005) but also negative
(Alsabbagh and Khalil, 2017). Hierarchy culture has both a positive (Alattas, 2015; Shao
learning
et al., 2015) and a negative relationship (Alsabbagh and Khalil, 2017) on knowledge sharing.
Previous studies have found that hierarchy culture was the dominant culture in the public
sector (Bhatnagar and Bhandaris, 1998; Saif, 2017). Moreover, no studies have linked clan
culture, hierarchy culture and technological capabilities to organizational learning in law
enforcement organizations.
It is essential to adopt a comprehensive approach that measures organizational learning
in law enforcement organizations. This study extends the literature by investigating the
effects of organizational culture (specifically the clan and hierarchical cultures, which have
an internal focus) and knowledge technological capabilities on organizational learning in
law enforcement organizations in the UAE. This is particularly important for a law
enforcement organization where learning is critical and must be enhanced to allow crimes to
be detected quickly and maintain public safety (Al-Shayeb and Hatemi-J, 2016). The law
enforcement organizations may benefit from implementing the findings to improve the
effectiveness of organizational learning. The study seeks to answer the following research
questions:

RQ1. How does the clan and hierarchy culture affect organizational learning?
RQ2. How do knowledge technological capabilities affect organizational learning?

Literature review and theoretical background

Organizational culture can be an essential influence on communicating and promoting the
right level of understanding, which will positively affect organizational learning (Mahler,
1997). Organizational culture can be defined as a warehouse of knowledge, where
organizational learning is the process of acquiring and updating this knowledge (Argote,
2013). According to organizational learning theory, firms will resist changing their
fundamental operating paradigms in the absence of organizational learning processes
(Miller, 1996). This suggests that employees will be encouraged to share knowledge to
produce innovative ideas (Ma et al., 2017). When employees have no opportunity to share
knowledge, this has a negative effect on organizational learning because problems will not
be solved efficiently (Zhang and Kwan, 2018). Another theory that supports the relationship
among constructs is the absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) or the ability of the
firm to absorb technological knowledge and enhance organizational learning. Khan et al.
(2019) found that building absorptive capacity and enhancing organizational learning can
increase innovation.

Organizational learning and organizational culture

An organizational learning culture is the set of values and norms that individuals within
organizations follow to support their learning, thereby improving collaboration and
knowledge sharing (Torres-Coronas and Arias-Oliva, 2008). It involves four steps:

acquisition of knowledge;

distribution of information;

interpretation of knowledge; and

organizational memory (Huber, 1991).
MRR In a recent study, Jabeen and Al Dari (2020) affirmed that knowledge management
capabilities, intrinsic motivation and organizational learning play an important role in
improving knowledge management benefits. Hodgkinson (2000) noted that learning
organizations need to motivate their staff to participate in learning through collaboration,
interaction and experimentation. Svetlik and Stavrou-Costea (2007) stressed that learning
organizations are the pivotal components of knowledge management. The creation of a
positive working environment plays a major role in knowledge-sharing (Nuaimi and Jabeen,
2020). Garvin (1998) found that learning organizations undertake five tasks:

solving problems;

experimentation;

learning from prior experience;

learning from others; and

knowledge transfer.

Tsang (1997) added that a learning organization is effective in organizational learning.

Therefore, the concept of organizational culture is commonly viewed as conceptually
challenging because it has been defined differently (Alavi et al., 2005). The idea has been the
focus of considerable research interest and several scholars have examined its potential
impact on work lives from different angles (Langton et al., 2013). There is a general
understanding that organizational learning is positively affected and stimulated by
organizational culture, as long as the activities undertaken to develop and use knowledge
are consistent with the organizational norms, values and assumptions (Alavi et al., 2005).
Cameron and Quinn (1999) postulated a framework to understand and examine the
features that lead to the development of strategies to alter culture and enhance
organizational performance. They considered organizational culture’s role in organizational
learning through four types of cultures: hierarchy, clan, market and adhocracy cultures
(Figure 1). Each of these has particular characteristics. The first two, market and adhocracy
cultures, are outward-facing. A market culture emphasizes leader-driven profits,
productivity and results through market superiority, competitive advantage and the drive to
win (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005). Adhocracy culture stresses visionary and innovative
leadership, risk-taking and innovation, confronting challenges and flexibility to change
(Shepstone and Currie, 2008).

Figure 1.
Competing values
framework by
Cameron and Quinn
(1999)
The other two cultures, clan and hierarchy cultures, are inward-facing. A clan culture is like Contribute to
a family, with a concentration on teamwork, nurturing and mentoring (Quinn and Cameron, organizational
2005). Koutroumanis and Alexakis (2009) stated that clan culture is characterized by a
friendly workplace where individuals indulge in sharing; leaders play the role of mentors;
learning
the firm is bound together by tradition and loyalty. This study will consider only the clan
and hierarchy cultures, to reduce the complexity of the analysis (Tseng, 2010), focusing on
the two types of cultures with an internal focus (Figure 1; Lee et al., 2016). Organizational
learning includes knowledge acquisition, knowledge development and knowledge sharing
(Huber, 1991; Tippins and Sohi, 2003). Market and adhocracy culture focus on the external
environment to encourage competitiveness and increase profits (Al Murawwi et al., 2014;
Dwyer et al., 2003). They may lead to less knowledge sharing because knowledge is seen as
power. Clan and hierarchy cultures focus on internal issues such as increasing knowledge
sharing (Alavi et al., 2005; Wiewiora et al., 2013). They were, therefore, considered more
critical to the objective of this study. Law enforcement organizations in the activity stage
pay more attention to implementing regulations across management levels, relying on
manuals and other documents to solve problems and enhance organizational learning
(Filstad and Gottschalk, 2010). Castellano (2019) assessed aspects of organizational learning
to confirm that employees have the responsibility of drive; once managers have
demonstrated the organizational directions and goals and provided employees with
incentives for implementing the same, the onus falls to the workers’ initiative and
acceptance. Thus, there may be little a manager can do beyond psychological
encouragement for potential temporary mood benefits. De Molli (2019) argued that an
emphasis on art is used for similar reasons, citing some observed interest but recommending
further research for greater conclusiveness.

Clan culture and organizational learning

Clan culture is considered to be beneficial for organizational learning because of the friendly
working environment, fosters team-building (Bremer, 2016). Individuals share common
traits, and a clan organization is similar to an enlarged family grounded on traditions and
loyalty and encouraging increased involvement of group members. The definition of success
in this culture is based on care for people and providing solutions for clients or customers
(Bremer, 2016). Chan (1997) studied the organizational culture of DHL and found it showed
many of the characteristics of clan culture, focusing on loyalty, trustworthiness, diligence,
stable membership and training and development for all staff members. Bhatnagar and
Bhandaris (1998) studied private and public sector organizations and found the clan culture
was the second most dominant culture in private sector organizations, after adhocracy.
Jabeen and Isakovic (2018) reported that clan type organizations tended to have more trust
in top managers than those from other culture types.
The CVF model set out by Cameron and Quinn (1999) suggests that clan and adhocracy
cultures promote flexibility, so they should be most likely to enhance organizational
learning. Robbins and Decenzo (2001) found that collaboration and flexible social
interactions may promote organizational learning. Lee and Chen (2005) found evidence of a
positive impact of corporate culture on organizational learning. Their study suggested that
clan and adhocracy cultures were positively linked to organizational learning. Dajani and
Mohamad (2017) found that clan, adhocracy and market cultures were significantly
correlated with organizational learning capability. In another study, Oh and Han (2020)
reported that clan culture had a positive relationship with organizational learning in Korean
companies. However, Alsabbagh and Khalil (2017) found that clan culture did not
significantly impact organizational learning. This opposite effect of clan culture provided a
MRR further incentive to investigate the impact of clan culture on organizational learning. Hence,
we propose:

H1. Clan culture has a direct and positive relationship with organizational learning.

Hierarchy culture and organizational learning

Formal structures and regulations characterize hierarchy culture. Policies and formal rules
bind the organization, activities of individuals are governed by procedures, successful
leaders are active organizers and coordinators, importance is placed on the firm’s smooth
functioning and efficiency, stability and predictability are long-term concerns of the
organization (Alexakis et al., 2006). This organizational culture emphasizes control,
institutionalization and a pre-determined structure for leadership and power (Tharpe, 2009).
It does not support organizational learning because it resists change and is backward-
looking. Organizations with a hierarchy culture lack adaptability to changing
environmental conditions and avoid taking risks (Young, 2002). Bureaucratic organizations
generally have a hierarchical culture and often have non-commercial aims (Young, 2002).
Alavi et al. (2005) and Shao et al. (2012) found that hierarchy culture and clan culture both
had a positive impact on knowledge sharing. Distributing information and building
knowledge are considered characteristics of organizational learning (Huber, 1991). Shao
et al. (2012) found that a hierarchy culture was positively correlated with knowledge
sharing. They suggested that a hierarchical culture may directly promote explicit
knowledge sharing. Shao et al. (2012) stressed that hierarchy culture focuses on uniformity,
efficiency and coordination. These can help organizational members adopt new processes,
and motivate them to share knowledge and rectify issues highlighted during the
implementation of IT systems. Alattas (2015) found that the hierarchy of culture had a
significant impact on knowledge sharing. McDermott and Stock (1999) argued that one of
the most significant advantages of business system success is sharing knowledge with
others. Therefore, users may perceive that the hierarchy culture, as a core organizational
value, promotes coordination, internal efficiency, regulation and control.
Contrary to previous research, Lee and Chen (2005) and Oh and Han (2020) found that
hierarchy culture had a negative association with organizational learning. Cameron and
Quinn’s (1999) model supports this because this culture stresses the achievement of control,
procedures and norms, all of which are hurdles for the learning process because they
discourage dialogue and communication, autonomy, risk-taking, empowerment and change
orientation. Alsabbagh and Khalil (2017) also found a negative correlation between
organizational learning and hierarchy culture. Dajani and Mohamad (2017) were unable to
find any significant relationship between hierarchy culture and organizational learning
capability. This suggests there is controversy in the results of previous studies, and
investigating motivation is essential. Hence, we propose:

H2. Hierarchy culture has a direct and positive relationship with organizational
learning.

Knowledge technological capabilities and organizational learning

Becerra-Fernandez et al. (2004) stated that knowledge management encompasses everything
necessary to extract the maximum value from knowledge resources. Knowledge
management capabilities promote the creation, transfer, distribution and application of
knowledge in firms and include processes such as acquisition, storage, dissemination and
implementation (Laudon and Laudon, 2006). Knowledge management requires capabilities Contribute to
to acquire, protect, convert and apply knowledge (Gold et al., 2001). Recently, Gao et al. organizational
(2019) recommended that the established model of inter-organizational collaboration be used learning
to optimize aspects of this and organizational learning objectives.
Knowledge creation happens by converting the innate knowledge and experiences of
employees into recordable and articulated knowledge with continuous refinement, testing
and integration through group and organizational processes (Winkelen and McKenzie,
2007). The main objective of knowledge-sharing is to transfer existing knowledge from
an individual to the group, promoting organizational learning (Antonova and Gourova,
2006).
IT plays a crucial role in knowledge management because it is a technology for
managing information (Hsu, 2014). Dong and Yang (2015) found that IT has a moderating
role in enhancing organizational learning processes. Alavi and Leidner (2001) defined
knowledge management systems as IT-based systems built to improve and support
regulatory operations such as creating, storing/retrieving, transferring and applying
knowledge. Abubakar et al. (2019) suggested that IT was crucial in promoting collaboration
and communication within an organization and enabled collaborative learning and
knowledge researching. IT-focused knowledge management practices have been linked with
innovations (Inkinen et al., 2015) and can improve organizational ability to discover and
exploit opportunities (Su et al., 2015).
The resource-based view of the organization (Barney, 1991) suggests that
organizations have a historically-determined assortment of resources and assets, which
are coupled with the organization semi-permanently. Teece et al. (1997) noted that some
researchers applying the resource-based view have argued about the distinction between
physical capital and brand names which are fully appropriable by the organization, and
less tangible resources such as capabilities and routines. A difference has also been made
between dynamic and static resources (Lockett et al., 2009). Static resources represent a
stock of assets that can be used over a finite period (Peteraf, 1993). Dynamic resources
represent the capabilities of an organization, such as its learning capacity, which builds
additional opportunities over time (Teece et al., 1997). Combs and Ketchen (1999) added
that a vital condition in the resource-based view is that organizational resources of all
types that are organization-specific and cannot be easily imitated by competitors, lead to
competitive advantage for the organization (Barney, 1991). Ca (2019) investigated the
importance of knowledge technological capabilities in enhancing learning by
highlighting the process in developing countries in the new technology sector. He noted
that economic theories that are based on labor and capital could not explain this process.
He suggested that learning was essential to help organizations adapt quickly to change,
which explained why some organizations fail to adapt. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is postulated:

H3. Knowledge technological capabilities (KTC) have a direct and positive relationship
with organizational learning.

Proposed framework
The framework illustrated in Figure 2 presents clan culture, hierarchy culture and
knowledge technological capabilities as three critical elements in attaining organizational
learning. The proposed conceptual model shows the independent and dependent variables.
MRR Research methodology
This study was underpinned by a philosophy to ensure that it added value to the existing
knowledge. The research followed the positivism approach and focused on quantitative
methods to test the relationships between independent and dependent variables (Cohen
et al., 2011). Positivist researchers use empirical tests and techniques such as sampling,
measurement and questionnaires. The insights determined are likely to have a high
standard of reliability and validity, meaning that the results are usually generalizable
(Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). A deductive approach was followed by testing and
developing a framework for organizational learning in a policing organization, by proposing
three hypotheses, testing the proposition among variables and evaluating outcomes to
examine whether they support the beliefs (Saunders et al., 2009).

Sample selection and data collection

After a formal corporate approval in the organization, the human resources department
provided a list of employees in managerial and leadership positions (department manager,
section manager, branch manager and team leader), with over one-year experience of
knowledge management. The reason for such selection is because of the strong relationship
between knowledge sharing and organizational learning. They worked in various law and
enforcement units. Of these, 1,400 were randomly selected and contacted by phone, email
and in person. In total, 693 responses were collected from employees who matched the
selection criteria. Participants included both military and civilian police officers. Descriptive
statistics were used to analyze the survey data and model fit.

Survey design and measurement of variables

All the variables were drawn from previous studies. The questionnaire had four sections
(Appendix). Section A covered demographic information. Section B measured clan and
hierarchy culture using eight items (three for the clan and five for hierarchy culture) from
Lee et al. (2016). Section C examined knowledge technological capabilities and included four
questions from Mao et al. (2016). Section D contained four questions about organizational
learning by Kohtamäki et al. (2012).
Responses were on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Participation in the survey was voluntary and no rewards were obtainable.
Participants were assured of confidentiality for all procedures, data collection and results.
The questionnaire was translated into Arabic and then back-translated by an expert
linguist. The final version of the survey was reviewed by three knowledge management
experts who had experience in organizational learning.

Clan Culture
H1

Organizaonal
Hierarchy Culture H2
Learning

H3
Knowledge Technological
Figure 2. Capabilies
Proposed framework
Findings Contribute to
Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of the study sample. Most of the respondents organizational
were male (82.3 vs 17.7% female). The majority of the respondents had more than ten years
of experience.
learning
To answer the research questions and to test the research hypotheses, this study used
structural equation modeling (SEM) with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). To analyze the
research model, it used the partial least squares (PLS) technique and SmartPLS 3.2.8
software. The study used the recommended two-stage analytical procedure (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988) to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement model and then the
structural model to test the hypothesized relationships (Hair et al., 2017). Model fit was
examined and a bootstrapping method (5,000 resamples) was used to test the significance of
the path coefficients and the loadings.

Model fit
The overall goodness-of-fit (GoF) of the model should be the starting point of model
assessment. PLS path modeling’s tests of model fit rely on the bootstrap to determine the
likelihood of obtaining a discrepancy between the empirical and the model-implied
correlation matrix that is as high as the one obtained for the sample at hand if the
hypothesized model was indeed correct (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015). Bootstrap-based tests
of the model fit over the unweighted least squares (dULS) and the geodesic discrepancy (dG)
between the empirical and the model-implied correlation matrix allows the assessment of the
global goodness of the model fit (Dijkstra and Henseler, 2015). Henseler et al. (2016) argued
that if dULS and dG < than the 95% bootstrapped quantile (HI 95% of dULS and HI 95% of
dG), researchers may not need to reject the model.
In addition to dULS and dG, two indices of standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) and normed fit index (NFI) were implemented in this research to test the model fit. A

Demographics Category No. (%)

Gender Male 570 82.3

Female 123 17.7
Age 25 years or below 9 1.3
26–35 years 271 39.1
36–45 years 344 49.6
46–55 years 65 9.4
56 years or more 4 0.6
Job function Technical 44 6.3
Administrative 455 65.7
Operational fieldwork 152 21.9
Others 42 6.1
Level of education Below high school 10 1.4
High school 127 18.3
Bachelor/Diploma 328 47.3
Master and above 228 32.9
Experience Less than 5 years 19 2.7
More than 5 years but less than 10 years 79 11.4
More than 10 years but less than 20 years 404 58.3
20 years or more 191 27.6 Table 1.
Position Military Police officer 570 82.3 Respondents
Civilian Police Officers 123 17.7 demographics
MRR cut-off value of 0.08, as proposed by Hu and Bentler (1998), appears to be more adequate for
PLS path models. For factor models, NFI values above 0.90 are considered as acceptable
(Byrne, 2008).
Table 2 reports the results of the testing model fit.
As Table 2 shows, the SRMR value is 0.051 (<0.08) and the NFI is 0.911 (>0.90). The
dULS < bootstrapped HI 95% of dULS and dG < bootstrapped HI 95% of dG, indicating the
data fits the model well.

Reliability
The second step of analysis is to assess internal consistency reliability, most often using
Jöreskog’s (1971) composite reliability. Cronbach’s alpha is another measure of internal
consistency reliability that assumes similar thresholds but produces lower values than
composite reliability. Dijkstra and Henseler (2015) also proposed rho_A as an approximately
exact measure of construct reliability, which usually lies between Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) recommend a minimum reliability of
0.7 acceptable. This research implemented the three criteria, as mentioned above. Table 3
indicates the generated results of the reliability test.
As Table 3 shows, the entire values related to the three measures of Cronbach’s alpha,
rho_A and composite reliability are higher than 0.7, demonstrating the reliability of the
model.

Validity
Apart from reliability, validity assessment is equally important in any research. There are
two types of validity criteria assessment, namely, convergent validity and discriminant
validity.

Convergent validity
Convergent validity is the extent to which the construct converges to explain the variance of
its items (Hair et al., 2019). The metric used for evaluating a construct’s convergent validity
is the average variance extracted (AVE) for all items on each construct. AVE serves as a
measure of unidimensionality (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). An AVE of 0.5 or higher is
regarded as acceptable (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The second metric is used to test the

Indic Value 95% 99%

d_ULS 0.359 0.412 0.438

d_G 0.187 0.231 0.257
Table 2. SRMR 0.051
GoF and bootstrap NFI 0.911

Construct Cronbach’s alpha rho_A Composite reliability

Clan culture 0.823 0.831 0.879

Hierarchy culture 0.852 0.854 0.894
Table 3. KTC 0.872 0.884 0.912
Construct reliability Organizational learning 0.927 0.928 0.949
convergent validity is composite reliability. A model has convergent validity when for every Contribute to
factor CR > AVE (Ramayah et al., 2017). Table 4 indicates the results of testing convergent organizational
validity of the model. learning
As Table 4 reveals, the entire values of AVE related to the constructs are higher than 0.5.
Also, the values of composite reliability for each construct are greater than their
corresponding AVE values. Accordingly, the model indicates convergent validity.

Discriminant validity
The fourth step of analysis is to assess discriminant validity, which is the extent to which a
construct is empirically distinct from other constructs in the structural model (Hair et al.,
2019). Henseler et al. (2016) proposed the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio for testing
discriminant validity, which is defined as the mean value of the item correlations across
constructs relative to the (geometric) mean of the average relationships for the items
measuring the same construct. Discriminant validity problems are present when HTMT
values are high (Hair et al., 2019). Bootstrapping can be applied to test whether the HTMT
value is significantly different from 1.00 (Henseler et al., 2016) or a lower threshold value
such as 0.85 or 0.90, which should be defined based on the study context (Franke and
Sarstedt, 2019). Table 5 indicates the results generated for testing discriminant validity.
According to the results reported in Table 5, the values passed the HTMT0.90 (Gold et al.,
2001) and the HTMT0.85 (Kline, 2011). Hence, discriminant validity is ascertained.

Collinearity
When assessing structural models, it is vital to determine that there are no collinearity
issues in the structural model (or inner model). This typically occurs when two variables
hypothesized to have a causal relationship end up measuring the same construct. To assess
the collinearity issue, the variance inflation factor (VIF) is often used. VIF should not be
greater than 5 or else it indicates that there might be a potential collinearity problem (Hair
et al., 2019). Table 6 reports the results of testing collinearity related to the items.
As Table 6 reports, the values of VIF for the entire constructs are less than 5,
demonstrating that the model does not have any collinearity problems.

Construct AVE Composite reliability

Clan culture 0.709 0.823

Hierarchy culture 0.629 0.852
KTC 0.722 0.872 Table 4.
Organizational learning 0.822 0.927 Convergent validity

Construct Clan Hierarchy KTC Org learning

Clan culture
Hierarchy culture 0.137
KTC 0.083 0.628 Table 5.
Organizational learning 0.044 0.787 0.623 Discriminant validity
MRR Testing the research hypotheses
Once collinearity is not an issue, and the measurement model is deemed to be of
satisfactory quality, the analysis should be proceeded to assess the structural model. The
path coefficients or beta coefficients ( b ) are the most relevant results of a structural
model. They indicate the change in a dependent variable resulting from a unit change in
an independent variable with the condition that all the other independent variables
remain constant (Henseler et al., 2016). A path coefficient is regarded as significant (i.e.
unlikely to result from sampling error purely) if its confidence interval does not include
the value of zero or if the p-value is below the pre-defined a-level (0.05, which shows 95%
confidence level). Despite strong pleas for the use of confidence intervals, p-values still
seem to be more common in social research.
The predictive power of the research model can also be evaluated using the coefficient of
determination score (R2). As a guideline, R2 values of 0.75, 0.50 and 0.25 can be considered
substantial, moderate and weak (Hair et al., 2019). Researchers can also assess how the
removal of a particular predictor construct affects an endogenous construct’s R2 value. This
metric is the f2 effect size and is somewhat redundant to the extent of the path coefficients.
According to Cohen (1988), f2 values of 0.35, 0.15 and 0.02 are considered large, medium and
small effect sizes. Figure 3 depicts the measurement model results produced by SmartPLS
3.2.8.
As Figure 3 indicates, the loading values of the entire observed variables on their related
constructs are higher than 0.7, demonstrating the observed variables’ strength in predicting
their associated factors. Table 7 indicates the structural model results for direct
relationships between the exogenous variables and the endogenous study variable.
Table 7 shows there is an indirect but significant relationship between clan culture and
organizational learning ( b = 0.05, t = 2.014, p < 0.05, f2 = 0.005). This is, therefore, the
opposite of the relationship set out in H1.
The results also show that the hierarchy culture directly and significantly affects
organizational learning ( b = 0.563, t = 15.401, p < 0.01, f2 = 0.479), confirming H2. There
was also a direct and significant relationship between knowledge technological capabilities
and organizational learning ( b = 0.264, t = 6.786, p < 0.01, f2 = 0.106), confirming H3.

Discussion
The results suggest that clan culture indirectly but significantly affects organizational
learning. The majority of previous studies have found a significant positive impact of clan
culture on organizational learning, although the survey conducted by Alsabbagh and Khalil
found that it did not affect (Alsabbagh and Khalil, 2017; Bhatnagar and Bhandaris, 1998;
Bremer, 2016; Cameron and Quinn, 1999; Lee and Chen, 2005). This study found that clan
culture had a negative and significant effect on organizational learning. This effect was
observed as arguably weak but substantial overall. The reason for its existence (or the
observations depicting this) may have been actually due to the nature of the culture in the
observed organization. An organization controlled by the codes of discipline concerning
communication may include conditions that give rise to such an effect being caused, and is,

Construct Organizational learning

Table 6. Clan culture 1.019
Values of VIF for the Hierarchy culture 1.443
entire constructs KTC 1.427
 Contribute to
organizational
learning

Figure 3.
Measurement model
results

Relationship Std. beta ( b ) t -value p -value f2 Status

Clan culture ! organizational learning 0.05 2.014 0.044 0.005 Significant

Hierarchy culture ! organizational learning 0.563 15.401 0.000 0.479 Significant
KTC ! organizational learning 0.264 6.786 0.000 0.106 Significant Table 7.
Structural model
Note: R2 organizational learning = 0.542 results

therefore, an area of concern. Therefore, this discrepancy is an area that is seemingly among
the most significant to target ongoing formal research efforts. Further research regarding
aspects of power balance, organizational learning influences and organizational culture
influences that are along the lines of the work of Van de Ven et al. (2017), Alsabbagh and
Khalil (2017) and Castellano (2019) would be of benefit to the knowledge base and general
industry.
Meanwhile, the research showed that organizational learning was directly and
significantly affected by hierarchical culture, providing further support to the findings
resulting from a range of previous studies (Alattas, 2015; Alavi et al., 2005; Shao et al., 2012).
Hierarchical culture focuses on uniformity, efficiency and coordination, which are
characteristics that can help organizational members to adopt new processes. They can also
motivate them to share knowledge and rectify issues that have been highlighted through
organizational learning processes. Hierarchical cultures often streamline knowledge
management procedures, and this type of culture was a much stronger predictor of
MRR organizational learning than clan culture (Dajani and Mohamad, 2017; Saif, 2017). It seems
that in the particular organization observed, the determinative and predictive culture of
organizational learning was hierarchical rather than clan culture. The employees were
observed to favor uniformity, efficiency and coordination as ways to promote organizational
learning, rather than friendly working, camaraderie and loyalty to their colleagues. The
primary feature of organizational culture that determines organizational learning in the
targeted organization is organizational rules (including hierarchical processes), rather than
the relationships established and maintained between employees. Clan culture was observed
to have a significant adverse effect on organizational learning, while organizational culture
and knowledge technological capabilities had a pivotal role in predicting organizational
learning behavior. Further research combining these elements with the emphasis on
organizational culture and operational variables such as those targeted by
Chidambaranathan and Regha (2016) and De Molli (2019) would benefit the knowledge base.
This study also showed that knowledge technological capabilities could have a direct
and significant effect on organizational learning, consistent with previous findings (Barney,
1991; Dong and Yang, 2015; Melville et al., 2004; Abubakar et al., 2019). KTC promoted
creating, transferring, distributing and applying knowledge in the observed organization,
and through processes including acquisition, storage, dissemination and the application of
knowledge. This study has shown the inherent nature of a pivotal role of organizational
culture and knowledge technological capabilities as predictive factors of organizational
learning behaviors. These findings improve the understanding of organizational learning,
and its antecedents and promoters, as a contribution to the existing academic knowledge
base. This also suggests that managers should work to ensure that the values prevalent in
the organizational culture fit with the required criteria for organizational learning. Providing
and developing knowledge technological capabilities can also significantly increase
organizational learning (Bremer, 2016; De Molli, 2019).
The nature of the clan culture as collaborative implies that it generally allows the
developmental direction to lead toward an average. While pleasing, it may very well not be
in the best interests of organizational operation as it is best understood by the experts or
most elite working within an organization. Meanwhile, the positive impacts of hierarchical
culture imply that the top-down approach is most effective in working toward goals
established by the higher levels. In comparison, the bottom-up approach may be best
addressed through closer observation and consideration of perspective in establishments
only as these more senior levels control them. Examination of the interests of the lower
levels beyond the most strategically developed objectives, as agreed by the most informed
and influential in the organization, is implied to be counterproductive. However, this
informed nature may benefit from more consideration of the bottom levels’ perspective than
has been done in traditional or conventional business processes. The existing literature base
has not provided evidence or significant implications of the contrary, regardless of claims or
even evidence of some improvements correlated with the use of a bottom-up approach. In
terms of organizational culture, this implies that more consideration should be given to
promoting the harmony of working toward providing input regarding the improvement of
capacities to achieve organizational objectives. The knowledge base would benefit from
further research that gives evidence of optimal methods of facilitating this.

Implications
The study results will be helpful to academics studying organizational learning in the UAE
and the Middle East. There are few studies on organizational learning in the UAE and most
have focused on the private sector. The studies, which investigated the impact of corporate
culture on organizational learning, were minimal. This study helps to bridge the gap in Contribute to
research on culture and knowledge technological capabilities and organizational learning. organizational
The study builds on previous theories related to the research model, such as absorptive
learning
capacity theory and organizational learning theory. These support the relationship between
organizational capabilities and organizational learning. The negative result on the
relationship between clan culture and organizational learning may reflect the type of culture
in a law enforcement organization such as policing, which can generally be described as
hierarchal. Replicating the same study in a different organization could provide different
outcomes.
The most significant contribution to the knowledge base regarding this general
optimization of organizational learning is creating a data set that focuses on both
managerial and trainee perspectives, which could potentially but not necessarily
encompass organizational cultural models or factors. Such a contributory data set would
conclusively determine the most effective factors in terms of efficient and useful
implementations and outcomes from both managerial and employee perspectives.
Managers, developers, analysts and other parties looking to implement this form of
optimization would be better informed by this formal method of denoting and defining
correlations and differences between what managers and employees perceive to be the
most significant or causal factors. For example, the study confirmed the importance of
knowledge technological capabilities in enhancing organizational learning in a policing
organization. This may reflect the organization’s need to enhance employees’ IT skills,
especially those working in different geographic locations who need to access data about
crime statistics to make decisions about resource allocation.
The findings from this research effort imply further and new potentials for improvement
in multiple areas of policy development and industry. The relationship between knowledge
management capability and organizational learning may help knowledge-intensive
organizations such as law enforcement units in the UAE and understand how to enhance
and promote a specific organizational culture and knowledge management activities to
maximize organizational learning benefits. Therefore, the study has several suggestions for
managers and decision-makers who aim to create a successful organizational learning
strategy, particularly in law enforcement organizations in the Middle East.
Our findings can also motivate practitioners to emphasize organizational culture,
technological capabilities and organizational learning in law enforcement organizations.
The results can help policymakers create a learning organization by examining the
impacts of culture and knowledge technological capabilities in relevant organizational
developments. The study implies that the use of knowledge management capability, and
in particular use of information technology was critical in promoting organizational
learning in a policing organization. The findings support the UAE’s Vision 2030, toward
building a knowledge-based society by enhancing organizational learning. This will
encourage knowledge sharing and improve organizational performance. It will also help
the policing organization focus more on its technological capabilities, hierarchal culture
and organizational learning projects and encourage benchmarking activities. For
instance, the law enforcement organization will be able to focus more on its technological
capabilities and invest heavily in its software, hardware and networking. The study
emphasizes the importance of building a technological database within law enforcement
organizations. Practitioners can also employ mechanisms connecting organizational
culture, technological capabilities and organizational learning to form an intervention for
organizational advancement.
MRR Conclusion
This study aimed to investigate the effects of organizational culture (particularly clan and
hierarchical culture) and knowledge technological capabilities on organizational learning in
law enforcement organizations in the UAE. The study results show that the clan culture has
a negative effect, whereas hierarchical culture and knowledge technological capabilities has
a direct positive impact on organizational learning. There were some notable limitations to
this work. First, the results may be limited to the type of public organization, so they may
not be generalizable. Second, as the study was cross-sectional, causal relationships could not
be inferred directly. Other limitations applicable to this work included sample size or the
single organization examined, and the presumed complete accuracy of information recorded.
The study results may also be limited because the sample comprises more male respondents
than their female counterparts. Theories of culture and organizational learning need to be
better aligned to improve management practices and strategies successfully. Further
research is required to examine the effects of other types of culture on organizational
learning. Meanwhile and as only a few studies have empirically examined the association
between organizational culture and organizational learning, the observations provide
support and evidence of practical value for continuing relevant developments in this
direction (Lindquist and Marcy, 2016; Palos and Stancovici, 2016).
The addressed gap in the knowledge base can be further addressed through more
targeted research. Still, the researcher does not mean that such a completed study would be
the most significant contribution. There is a need to understand better the effects of
organizational culture and technological capabilities on organizational learning. There is a
need to continue research expanding on the findings in the unique and gap areas. Inclusion
of an analysis of implications for how these factors are relevant generally or apply to other
models used in organizational culture (or hierarchy related) aspects of operations would
naturally contribute to the global community. Replicating the study in different regions and
organizations may provide different findings. Demographic factors such as gender or job
functions (administrative, technical or operational) could also be added to the framework as
potential moderators.

References
Abubakar, A.M., Elrehail, H., Alatailat, M.A. and ElçI, A. (2019), “Knowledge management, decision-
making style and organizational performance”, Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 104-114.
Al Murawwi, M.A., Behery, M., Papanastassiou, M. and Ajmal, M. (2014), “Examining the relationship
between organizational culture and knowledge management: the moderation effect of
organizational divisions at an Abu Dhabi gas company”, SAM Advanced Management Journal,
Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 48-59.
Alattas, M. (2015), “The relationship between organization culture and knowledge sharing towards
business system success”, paper presented at Australasian Conference on Information Systems,
Adelaide, pp. 1-13.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T.R. and Leidner, D.E. (2005), “An empirical examination of the influence of
organizational culture on knowledge management practices”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 191-224.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Alexakis, G., Platt, A. and Tesone, D. (2006), “Appropriating biological paradigms for the
organizational setting to support democratic constructs in the workplace”, Journal of Applied
Business and Economics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Alsabbagh, M. and Khalil, A. (2017), “The impact of organizational culture on organizational learning: Contribute to
an empirical study on the education sector in Damascus city”, International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 560-578.
organizational
Al-Shayeb, A. and Hatemi-J, A. (2016), “Trade openness and economic development in the UAE: an
learning
asymmetric approach”, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 587-597.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Antonova, A. and Gourova, E. (2006), “A note on organizational learning and knowledge sharing
in the context of communities of practice”, paper presented in 2006 International Workshop
on Learning Networks for Lifelong Competence Develop. INCOMA Ltd, Sofia, Bulgaria,
pp. 1-6.
Argote, L. (2013), “Organization learning: a theoretical framework”, in Organizational Learning,
Springer, Boston, MA.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzalez, A. and Sabherwal, (2004), “Knowledge management: challenges”,
Solutions, and Technologies, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Bhatnagar, D. and Bhandaris, L. (1998), “Organizational culture in the changing environment”, Vikalpa:
The Journal for Decision Makers, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 83-92.
Bjelland, H.F. and Dahl, J.Y. (2017), “Exploring criminal investigation practices: the benefits of
analysing police-generated investigation data”, European Journal of Policing Studies, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 5-23.
Bremer, M. (2016), “Organizational culture: create, collaborate, control and compete”, available at www.
ocai-online.com/blog/2016/09/Organizational-culture-Create-Collaborate-Control-Compete (accessed
10 June 2018).
Byrne, B.M. (2008), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Psychology Press, New York, NY.
Ca, T.N. (2019), Technological Capability and Learning in Firms: Vietnamese Industries in Transition,
Routledge.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Castellano, S. (2019), “Driven from within”, TD: Talent Development, Vol. 73 No. 10, pp. 74-77.
Chan, A. (1997), “Corporate culture of a clan organization”, Management Decision, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 94-99.
Chidambaranathan, K. and Regha, V.S. (2016), “Diagnosing the organizational culture of higher
education libraries in the United Arab Emirates using the competing values framework”, Libres:
Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 99-112.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011), Research Methods in Education, 7th ed., Routledge,
London.
Combs, J. and Ketchen, D.J. (1999), “Explaining inter-firm cooperation and performance: toward a
reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 867-888.
Dajani, M.A. and 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, Vol. 6 No. 11, pp. 42-57.
MRR De Molli, F. (2019), “Arts-based methods and organizational learning. higher education around the
world”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 515-517.
Dijkstra, T.K. and Henseler, J. (2015), “Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear
structural equations”, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 81, pp. 10-23.
Dong, J.Q. and Yang, C.H. (2015), “Information technology and organizational learning in knowledge
alliances and networks: evidence from US pharmaceutical industry”, Information and
Management, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 111-122.
Dwyer, S., Richard, O.C. and Chadwick, K. (2003), “Gender diversity in management and firm
performance”: the influence of growth orientation and organizational culture”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 12, pp. 1009-1019.
Filstad, C. and Gottschalk, P. (2010), Creating a Learning Organizations in Law Enforcement. The
Learning Organization, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 404-418.
Filstad, C. and Gottschalk, P. (2013), “The police force: to be or not to be a learning organization?”, In
Handbook of Research on the Learning Organization, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Franke, G. and Sarstedt, M. (2019), “Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a
comparison of four procedures”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 430-447.
Gao, S., Yin, F., Chen, J. and Guo, Y. (2019), “The mechanism of inter-organizational collaboration
network on innovation performance: evidences from east coastal enterprises in China”, Journal
of Coastal Research, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 945-949.
Garvin, D.A. (1998), Building a Learning Organization, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 185-214.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results of
PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hair, J.F., Thomas, G., Hult, M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oakes, CA.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Hodgkinson, M. (2000), “Managerial perceptions of barriers to becoming a learning organization”, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 156-166.
Hsu, S. (2014), “Effects of organization culture, organizational learning and its strategy on knowledge
management and performance”, The Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 50-58.
Hsu, M.-H. and Chang, C.-M. (2014), “Examining interpersonal trust as a facilitator and uncertainty as
an inhibitor of intra-organisational knowledge sharing”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 119-142.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 424-453.
Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”,
Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Inkinen, H.T., Kianto, A. and Vanhala, M. (2015), “Knowledge management practicesand innovation
performance in Finland”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 432-455.
Jabeen, F. and Al Dari, T. (2020), “A framework for integrating knowledge management benefits in the
UAE organisations”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, pp. 1-15.
Jabeen, F. and Isakovic, A.A. (2018), “Examining the impact of organizational culture on trust and Contribute to
career satisfaction in the UAE public sector”, Employee Relations, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1036-1053.
organizational
Janssens, L., Smet, K., Onghena, P. and Kyndt, E. (2017), “The relationship between learning conditions
in the workplace and informal learning outcomes: a study among police inspectors”,
learning
International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 92-112.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time
has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1971), “Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations”, Psychometrika, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 409-426.
Khan, Z., Lew, Y.K. and Marinova, S. (2019), “Exploitative and exploratory innovations in emerging
economies: the role of realized absorptive capacity and learning intent”, International Business
Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 499-512.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York,
NY.
Kohtamäki, M., Kraus, S., Mäkelä, M. and Rönkkö, M. (2012), “The role of personnel commitment to
strategy implementation and organisational learning within the relationship between strategic
planning and company performance”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 159-178.
Koutroumanis, D. and Alexakis, G. (2009), “Organizational culture in the restaurant industry:
implications for change”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 45-53.
Langton, N., Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A. (2013), Fundamentals of Organizational Behaviour, Pearson
Education Canada, Toronto.
Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (2006), Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm,
Person Prentice Hall, NJ.
Lee, C. and Chen, W. (2005), “The effects of internal marketing and organizational culture on knowledge
management in the information technology industry”, International Journal of Management,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 661-672.
Lee, J.C., Shiue, Y.C. and Chen, C.Y. (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, Vol. 54, pp. 462-474.
Lindquist, E. and Marcy, R. (2016), “The competing values framework: implications for strategic
leadership, change and learning in public organizations”, International Journal of Public
Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 167-186.
Lockett, A., Thompson, S. and Morgenstern, U. (2009), “The development of the resource-based view of
the firm: a critical appraisal”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 9-28.
McDermott, C.M. and Stock, G.N. (1999), “Organizational culture and advanced manufacturing
technology implementation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 521-533.
Ma, Z., Long, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, J. and Lam, C.K. (2017), “Why do high-performance human resource
practices matter for team creativity? The mediating role of collective efficacy and knowledge
sharing”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 565-586.
Mahler, J. (1997), “Influences of organizational culture on learning in public agencies”, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 519-540.
Mao, H., Liu, S., Zhang, J. and Deng, Z. (2016), “Information technology resource, knowledge
management capability, and competitive advantage: the moderating role of resource
commitment”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1062-1074.
MRR Melville, N., Kraemer, K.L. and Gurbaxzni, V. (2004), “Information technology and organizational
performance: an integrative model of IT business value”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 283-322.
Miller, D. (1996), “A preliminary typology of organizational learning: synthesizing the literature”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 485-505.
Nuaimi, M.A. and Jabeen, F. (2020), “A study of factors influencing knowledge transfer in organisations
in the United Arab Emirates”, International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 170-189.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), “The assessment of reliability”, Psychometric Theory, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 248-292.
Oh, S.Y. and Han, H.S. (2020), “Facilitating organisational learning activities: types of organisational
culture and their influence on organisational learning and performance”, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Palos, R. and Stancovici, V.V. (2016), “Learning in organization”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 2-22.
Pedler, M. and Burgoyne, J.G. (2017), “Is the learning organization still alive”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 119-123.
Peteraf, M. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-192.
Prajogo, D.I. and McDermott, D. (2005), “The relationship between total quality management practices
and organizational culture”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1101-1122.
Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (2005), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: based on the
Competing Values Framework, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Ramayah, T., Yeap, J.A., Ahmad, N.H., Halim, H.A. and Rahman, S.A. (2017), “Testing a confirmatory
model of Facebook usage in SmartPLS using consistent PLS”, International Journal of Business
and Innovation, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Robbins, S.P. and Decenzo, D.A. (2001), Fundamentals of Management: Essential Concepts and
Applications, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Saif, N. (2017), “Types of organizational culture in private Jordanian hospitals”, International Review of
Management and Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-58.
Salim, I.M. and Sulaiman, M. (2011), “Organizational learning, innovation and performance: a study of
Malaysian small and medium sized enterprises”, International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 6 No. 12, pp. 118-125.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed.,
Pearson, London.
Senge, P.M. (2014), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning
Organization, Crown Business.
Shao, Z., Feng, Y. and 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, Vol. 28
No. 6, pp. 2400-2413.
Shao, Z., Wang, T. and Feng, Y. (2015), “Impact of organizational culture and computer self-efficacy
on knowledge sharing”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 4,
pp. 590-611.
Shepstone, C. and Currie, L. (2008), “Transforming the academic library: creating an organizational
culture that fosters staff success”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 358-368.
Siddique, C.M. (2017), “National culture and the learning organization: a reflective study of the learning Contribute to
organization concept in a non-Western country”, Management Research Review, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 142-164. organizational
Sohaib, M., Ihsaan, M. and Yousaf, J. (2010), “Factors affecting the organizational learning: a study of learning
banking sector of Pakistan”, International Journal of Management and Organizational Studies,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 18-22.
Su, C., Lin, B. and Chen, C. (2015), “Technological knowledge co-creation strategies in the world of open
innovation”, Innovation, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 485-507.
Svetlik, I. and Stavrou-Costea, E. (2007), “Connecting human resources management and knowledge
management”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 197-206.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Tharpe, B.M. (2009), Organizational Culture White Paper, Haworth, New York, NY.
Tippins, M.J. and Sohi, R.S. (2003), “IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a
missing link?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 745-761.
Torres-Coronas, T. and Arias-Oliva, M. (2008), Encyclopaedia of Human Resources Information
Systems: Challenges in e-HRM, Information Science Reference, New York, NY.
Tortorella, G.L., Vergara, A.M.C., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Sawhney, R. (2020), “Organizational learning
paths based upon industry 4.0 adoption: an empirical study with Brazilian manufacturers”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 219, pp. 284-294.
Tsang, E.W.K. (1997), “Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy between
descriptive and prescriptive research”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Tseng, S. (2010), “The effects of hierarchical culture on knowledge management processes”,
Management Research Review, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 827-839.
Van de Ven, A., Bechara, J. and Sun, K. (2017), “How outcome agreement and power balance among
parties influence processes of organizational learning and non-learning”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 1252-1283.
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G. and Coffey, V. (2013), “Organizational culture and
willingness to share knowledge: a competing values perspective in Australian context”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 1163-1174.
Winkelen, C. and McKenzie, J. (2007), “Integrating individual and organisational learning
initiatives: working across knowledge management and human resource management
functional boundaries”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 527-538.
Yang, J. (2007), “The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 83-90.
Young, R. (2002), Leadership: Toward a Visionary Approach, Institute for Public Service and Policy
Research at the University of SC, Columbia, SC.
Zhang, X. and Kwan, H.K. (2018), “Empowering leadership and team creativity: the roles of team
learning behavior, team creative efficacy, and team task complexity”, in Mainemeli, C. and
Epitropaki, O. (Eds), Creative Leadership: Contexts and Prospects, Routledge, London,
pp. 95-121.

Further reading
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2011), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework, John Wiley and Sons, London.
MRR Appendix
About the authors Contribute to
Dr Taghreed Al Dari is a practitioner with 10 years of experience and is working in one of the major organizational
public sector organization in the UAE. She is a DBA graduate from the College of Business, Abu
Dhabi University. learning
Dr Fauzia Jabeen is an Associate Professor of Management at College of Business at Abu Dhabi
University. She holds a PhD in Management and has notable academic and industrial experience in
the United Arab Emirates. Dr. Jabeen’s teaching and research interests pertain to Women
Entrepreneurship and Small Medium Enterprises, Strategic Management, Sustainability,
International Business, Organizational Behavior and Leadership. Her work has been published in the
leading journals such as International Journal of Hospitality Management, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Journal of Management Development, International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies
and Gender in Management: An International Journal. She has more than 18 years of experience in
teaching, consulting and research. Fauzia Jabeen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
fauzia.jabeen@adu.ac.ae
Dr Matloub Hussain is an Associate Professor of Operations Management in the College of
Business at Abu Dhabi University. He has published his research works in high impact factor
journals.
Dana Al Khawaja is a Senior Pharmacy Student at Fatima College of Health Science, Abu Dhabi,
UAE. She is interested in pursuing her research in health sciences in the future.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com