International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Moving beyond Mandates: Organizational

Learning Culture, Empowerment, and
Performance

Iseul Choi

To cite this article: Iseul Choi (2019): Moving beyond Mandates: Organizational Learning
Culture, Empowerment, and Performance, International Journal of Public Administration, DOI:
10.1080/01900692.2019.1645690

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1645690

Published online: 25 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1645690

Moving beyond Mandates: Organizational Learning Culture, Empowerment, and

Performance
Iseul Choi
Department of Public Administration and Policy, University at Albany- State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Cultural aspects of organizations have been perceived as keys to creating desirable organizational Organizational learning;
performance in pursuit of an effective government. Particularly, organizational learning culture employee empowerment;
may enable individuals to learn from each other allowing them to feel free to create creative ideas organizational performance
and transfer knowledge. This study examines whether organizational learning culture is associated
with organizational performance through the mediating effect of employee empowerment. Using
the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data, the findings show that having organizational culture
more conducive to learning is indirectly and positively associated with perceived performance.
The study supports that empowerment is an important mediator elucidating the positive associa-
tion between learning culture and performance.

Introduction
Organizational culture has received significant atten-
tion in public administration and it has been suggested
that public administrators needs to take cultural aspects
of organizations into consideration when managing
government performance (Moynihan, 2005; Moynihan
& Ingraham, 2004). According to Marsick and Watkins
(2003), “the culture or ideology of the organization
serves as a filter to direct the organization’s attention”
(p. 135). Organizational culture effects daily operations
within which public managers and employees pursue
performance goals (Fawcett, Brau, Rhoads, Whitlark, &
Fawcett, 2008; Laurian, Walker, & Crawford, 2017).
Establishing an organizational culture focused on
learning becomes important because it allows employees
to create innovative ways of solving problems and learn-
ing new skills and knowledge in the workplace. With
a strong culture of learning, an organization can not
only maintain and share its knowledge, but also learn
new insights related to responding to diverse demands
(Joo & Shim, 2010). Thus, organizational learning culture
is a crucial aspect related to creating an environment that
supports development and innovation for the purposes of
improving performance.
Despite its importance, we do know little about how
organizational learning culture influences public
employees and impacts performance. In particular, it
is worth examining the link between organizational
learning culture and performance via the mediation of
the level of employee empowerment. While existing
research connects a learning culture to organizational
performance and empowerment to performance, the
scholarship currently lacks an empirical assessment of
whether a learning culture and empowerment jointly
influence performance.
Accordingly, the goal of the study is to empirically
test the relationship between organizational learning
culture and performance particularly through employee
empowerment. It aims to answer the following research
question: does organizational learning culture influence
performance through the mediating effect of employee
empowerment? This study utilizes the organizational
learning theory to determine whether organizational
learning culture influences organizational performance
through employee empowerment. By focusing on cul-
ture and empowerment, this study focuses more on
culture and informal rules than on structure and formal
rules. With a strong emphasis on cultural aspects of
organizations, this research operationalizes organiza-
tional learning culture by focusing on the components
of a supportive environment for learning and employs
the four practices of empowerment suggested by Kim
and Fernandez (2015): providing information about
goals and performance, offering rewards based on

CONTACT Iseul Choi ichoi@albany.edu Department of Public Administration and Policy, University at Albany- State University of New York, Albany,
NY, USA.
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 I. CHOI
performance, providing access to job-related knowl-
edge, and granting discretion. The study further argues
that the relationship between a learning culture and
organizational performance is enabled through
employee empowerment because learning requires
using and questioning information and its meaning.
This study proceeds as follows. First, it reviews the
relationship between organizational learning and per-
formance management. This section is particularly
focused on a cultural approach to learning in which it
is compared to a structural approach to
learning. Second, the paper proposes two hypotheses
based on the theoretical background of organizational
learning culture, employee empowerment, and organi-
zational performance. Third, the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data and structural equation
modeling (SEM) method used to empirically test the
hypotheses are reviewed. After presenting the findings
and results, the paper discusses the theoretical and
practical implications along with the contributions of
the study.
Theory and hypotheses
Organizational learning theory
The importance of organizational learning has been
heavily discussed in the mangement literature (Argote,
2012; Argyris & Schon, 1996; Garvin, Edmondson, &
Gino, 2008). Although the concept of and model for
organizational learning has been perceived as abstract,
multiple studies attempt to define the concept more
typically focus their attention on its components, rather
than the concept as a whole. One of the prevailing
definitions of organizational learning is “the process
of improving actions through better knowledge and
understanding” (Fiol & Lyles, 1985, p. 803). Although
this definition offers important components of organi-
zational learning such as the process of learning and
transforming knowledge, it lacks specific information
about the entities that are involved in the process.
Considering this, this paper takes Hodgkinson’s
(2000) approach which defines organizational learning
as “the coming together of individuals to enable them
to support and encourage one another’s learning, which
will in the longer term be of benefit to the organiza-
tion” (p. 157).
Some theoretical frameworks exist for organizational
learning. According to Argote and Miron-Spektor’s
(2011) model, the organizational learning process can
occur through interactions between task performance
experience, tools, members, and knowledge. When
organizations proceed a learning process though the
interactions, and the learning process is influenced by
the latent organizational context such as organizational
culture and goals and by external environment context
existing outside of the organization. Some studies have
examined organizational learning using three levels: the
individual level, the team or group level, and the orga-
nizational level (Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Watkins &
Marsick, 1993). At the individual level, individuals
learn from dialogues and inquiries. At the team or
group level, individuals learn via team learning and
collaboration. The organizational level contains
embedded systems, system connections, empowerment,
and strategic leadership. It is important to note that
individual learning is necessary, but not sufficient for
organizational learning, as the organization is “a micro-
cosmic portrait” within individuals in learning pro-
cesses. All things considered, employees are able to
increase the capacity of organizational learning from
their individual learning experiences if their organiza-
tions provide continuous learning opportunities, sup-
port, and rewards for the use of new knowledge.
Organizational learning culture
It has been suggested that an organizational culture is
conducive to learning as it is an essential contextual ele-
ment of the organizational learning process. An organiza-
tional culture strongly influences behaviors and
perceptions within an organization (O’Reilly & Chatman,
1996). In particular, cultural approaches have emphasized
creating and maintaining shared norms and understand-
ings that can be the basis of learning (Moynihan, 2005;
Senge, 1990). Thus, establishing a learning culture enables
individuals to learn through informal work settings and
conversations (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). For example, if
an organization has a culture of sharing information, then
employees are encouraged to collaborate and help each
other to provide better services. In contrast, if an organiza-
tion has a competitive culture, then it may discourage the
employees from learning and causing the organization to
fail to respond to environmental changes and advanced
citizens’ or customers’ needs. Therefore, organizational
learning culture can be an important, but latent foundation
that “reflects organizational behavior from the perspective
of learning and development” (Yang, 2003, p. 152).
This study defines organizational learning culture as
the atmosphere that encourages members to find new
ways of doing work and learn from each other.
Particularly, this study focuses on whether the organi-
zational environment supports the sharing of ideas
and/or disagreements. In academic research, the con-
cept of organizational learning culture is sometimes
intermingled with participative or developmental

culture; however organizational learning culture
defined in this study is distinguished from these two
types of cultures. Whereas participative culture condu-
cive to employee participation, can be used to pursue
other goals (e.g., democracy, affiliations), organiza-
tional learning culture pursues a goal of learning at
the individual, group and organizational levels
(Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, & Robison,
2009; Stohl & Cheney, 2001). Also, compared to devel-
opmental culture, organizational learning culture
focuses more on sharing ideas and learning through
communication and reviews rather than getting and
developing skills. Thus, when agencies have organiza-
tional learning culture, employees are able to present
even negative and opposing ideas, which can promote
an intensive learning process (Argyris, 1994; Garvin
et al., 2008).
Organizational learning culture and performance
Several studies have investigated positive relationships
between organizational learning culture and perfor-
mance. Although there is relatively little empirical evi-
dence on the link between organizational learning
culture and performance of public organizations, there
are some studies that help us to infer that organiza-
tional learning culture is related to performance.
Mackenzie (1986) argues that organizational culture is
“a useful means of assessing the congruency of the
organization’s goals, strategies and task organization,
and resulting outcomes” (mentioned in Marcoulides
& Heck, 2007, p. 210). According to Garvin et al.
(2008), a supportive environment, a concrete process,
and leadership support can be effective for learning in
organizations. One study indicates that organizational
learning culture in international joint ventures was
positively related to trust, openness, and decentraliza-
tion in the parent organizations (Kandemir & Hult,
2005). Furthermore, organizational learning and
knowledge management capability have direct impacts
on organizational performance in technological compa-
nies (Ho, 2008).
In the public administration literature, a study
explores the effects of goal-based learning in case pro-
cessing in state social service agencies in performance
management (Moynihan, 2005). Also, organizational
learning in the public sector has been shown to exhibit
a positive effect on work performance when partially
mediated by organizational commitment and job satis-
faction (Rose, Kumar, & Pak, 2009). Similarly, a study
by Hogan and Coote (2014) shows that organizations
supporting for innovation are more likely to achieve the
desired performance of organizations by employing
cultural artifacts (e.g., language, rituals) and innovative
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 3
behaviors. Not only does learning experience impact
task performance, but the experience of performance
can also change the environment and future learning in
the organization (Argote, 2012). Combined, organiza-
tional culture which prioritizes a set of shared norms
and values of learning would affect people’s behavior
toward an organization’s objectives, which, in turn,
would lead the organization to a successful perfor-
mance. Thus, the study hypothesizes:
H1: Organizational learning culture is positively asso-
ciated with perceived performance.
Employee empowerment
Theoretical studies on empowerment have included
psychological and managerial perspectives (Kim &
Fernandez, 2015; Potterfield, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). On the one hand, from
the psychological perspective, scholars have presented
empowerment as a motivational construct. Within the
literature, Spreitzer’s (1995) four dimensions of
employee empowerment (i.e., meaning, competence,
self-determination, and impact) have been widely
used. According to Thomas and Velthouse (1990),
empowerment heightens intrinsic task motivation or
internalized commitment to a task. Moreover, empow-
erment is theorized as a set of cognitions that may be
conditional according to work environment factors
(Joo & Shim, 2010).
On the other hand, scholars have presented empow-
erment as a relational construct taking managerial per-
spectives rather than psychological views. As the goal of
this study is to look at the mediating role of empower-
ment linked to organizational context and organiza-
tional performance, this study takes managerial
approaches emphasizing the enhancements of empow-
erment through power sharing and leadership style.
Bowen and Lawler (1995) note that sharing power
and authority with other employees and allowing
them to make decisions are key to enhancing employee
empowerment. Therefore, employees may feel empow-
ered when their managers provide “1) information
about the organization’s performance, 2) knowledge
that enables employees to understand and contribute
to organizational performance, 3) rewards based on the
organization’s performance, and 4) power to make
decisions that influence organizational direction and
performance”(Bowen & Lawler, 1992, p. 32). Also,
researchers have emphasized empowering leadership
styles, such as providing autonomy from bureaucratic
constraints and enhancing the meaningfulness of work
4 I. CHOI
(Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005). It is also essential
for managers to create environments that increase
employee empowerment, which, in turn, enhances
organizational commitment (Joo & Shim, 2010).
Employee empowerment as a mediator between
organizational learning culture and performance
This study considers employee empowerment to be
a mediator between organizational learning culture
and performance. It is worth mentioning that empow-
erment can be linked with organizational culture
according to a person-environment fit perspective
(Foster-Fishman & Keys, 1997). From this perspective,
the empowerment process is a dynamic interaction
between individuals’ desires and abilities and environ-
mental opportunities. When one’s capacity fits the con-
textual needs or environmental opportunities and
resources are compatible with individual needs, he/she
tends to be empowered. Accordingly, empowerment is
not just an inherent personal trait, but also a dynamic
construct that can be facilitated or discouraged by
environmental and cultural factors.
Organizational learning culture can make employees
feel more empowered, in that the learning culture is an
important foundation by which to implement success-
ful empowerment practices. Such practices have aimed
at “providing employees with access to job-related
knowledge and skills and at granting them discretion
to change work processes have a positive and substan-
tively significant influence on perceived performance”
(Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2011, p. 23). With a strong
learning culture, employees have more opportunities to
gain sufficient information and skills and gain better
understanding of organizational performance (Bowen
& Lawler, 1992, 1995).
Further, regarding the relationship between learning
culture and employee empowerment, an important
finding has shown that that employees are more
empowered in a more “doing-oriented” culture (Sigler
& Pearson, 2000). Organizational learning culture is
one of the highest doing-oriented cultures, as employ-
ees learn through active engagement. Moreover, when
employees can freely express their creative and/or
opposing ideas and interact with their supervisors,
they feel more empowered in decision-making pro-
cesses. Therefore, it is reasonable to see a link between
organizational learning culture and employee
empowerment.
Evidence exists that empowerment is related to per-
formance in government agencies. Fernandez and
Moldogaziev (2013a) find a positive and significant
relationship among empowerment, agency, and work
unit level performance. Seibert, Silver, and Randolph
(2004) find that psychological empowerment mediates
the relationship between an empowerment climate at
the organizational level and individual performance. In
managing-for-results reforms, decisions to enhance
employee empowerment facilitated performance
improvements by encouraging employees to exploit
opportunities to use performance information rather
than discouraging them from doing so (Moynihan,
2005). If managers have a high-level of empowerment,
then it means that they have more intrinsic motivation,
such as prosocial motivation to serve to the public. In
this case, it is likely that empowered managers would be
highly motivated to use performance information as
much as possible in order to reduce errors in decision-
making, which can enhance organizational perfor-
mance. Accordingly, this study suggests the following
hypotheses:
H2: Organizational learning culture is positively asso-
ciated with employee empowerment.
H3: Employee empowerment is positively associated
with perceived performance.
H4: Employee empowerment partially mediates the
relationship between organizational learning culture
and perceived performance.
Data and methods
To analyze the relationship between organizational
learning culture, employee empowerment, and organi-
zation performance, this study employs the combined
2014 and 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
data, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM). The survey was administered
electronically in 2014 and 2015 and achieved govern-
ment-wide response rates of 47 percent in 2014 and
50 percent in 2015. In terms of the number of respon-
dents, there were slightly less than 400,000 respondents
in 2014 and slightly more than 420,000 respondents in
2015: thereby the total number of respondents in the
combined sample is approximately 820,000 (U.S. Office
of Personnel Management, 2014, 2015). To keep the
number of observations consistent for the analysis, this
article uses a sample of 509,131 respondents from the
combined datasets, representing approximately two-
thirds of the responding samples.
In terms of variables, three variables are included in
the analysis: organizational learning culture, employee
empowerment, and organizational performance. All
three variables are primarily considered as latent
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 5

variables for a mediation analysis in the structural To test the hypotheses, SEM with STATA is used, as
equation model, although another mediation analysis it is appropriate for a mediation analysis. In conducting
is conducted with three variables treated as observed a mediation path analysis using SEM, both a direct and
variables. The latent variable organizational learning an indirect effect of an independent variable on
culture represents a supportive learning culture in orga- a dependent variable can be estimated in the same
nizations measured using two survey items (see appen- structural model. Thus, instead of running multiple
dix). As organizational learning culture is a latent regression models to test a mediation, a mediation
variable, which is difficult to observe, it is reasonable analysis using SEM may provide an efficient way to
to conduct a factor analysis. According to the results of estimate the effects at once, and it can test
the factor loading, the two items fit together as one a mediation effect among both observed variables and
factor for organizational learning culture, having latent variables. Further, especially when the main vari-
a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.812. For the analysis, the two ables seem to be latent or unobservable, a mediation
items were combined into an additive index score as analysis using SEM is useful to analyze measurement
a data reduction technique, to maximize variance models and structural models at the same time. In
across the individual respondents. other words, it allows us not only to conduct
With regard to employee empowerment, the other a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for measurement
latent variable, this study draws heavily from Kim and models, but also to analyze a mediation model with
Fernandez (2015), who identified four practices repre- latent variables. Last but not least, this mediation ana-
senting employee empowerment as a latent variable. lysis using SEM enables us to estimate indirect effects
While they used a different number of items in each and conduct bootstrapping tests. Thus, through SEM,
empowerment practice, this study includes the same the effect of organizational learning culture and the
number of survey items, so that the additive index is not mediation effect of employee empowerment on perfor-
weighted more heavily toward one practice. Therefore, mance are tested in a latent variable model, where
a total of 12 items are selected for four practices. In testing correlated measurement error in each variable can be
scale reliability, the Cronbach’s alphas range from .76 for modeled (Kenny, 2018).
practice 4 to .84 for practice 2. All 12 items are loaded into
a single factor based on the factor loadings, and have
Table 1. Parameter estimates for a confirmatory factor analysis
a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.929. This high alpha score model.
is not surprising given the large number of items. Parameter Unstandardized SE Standardized
Organizational performance treated as a latent vari- Factor loadings
able is measured in two survey items. One survey item OLC
OLC→ Learning 1 1.00a - .81***
measures agency performance: my agency is successful OLC→ Learning 2 1.01*** .001 .84***
in accomplishing its mission (performance 1). The Employee empowerment
Employee empowerment → 1.00a - .87***
other survey item measures work unit performance: Practice 1
how would you rate the overall quality of work done Employee empowerment → 1.01*** .001 .80***
Practice 2
by your work unit? (performance 2). Employee empowerment → .97*** .001 .89***
In addition to the key variables of performance, Practice 3
Employee empowerment → 1.01*** .001 .86***
learning culture, and empowerment, this study includes Practice 4
a series of demographic controls for each respondent. Performance
Performance → Performance 1 1.00a - .77***
To account for the stratified sampling process, the Performance → Performance 2 .74*** .001 .66***
study controls for management status and agency for Measurement error variances
Learning 1 .51 .001 .34
each respondent. Gender and minority status are Learning 2 .41 .001 .29
included in order to account for differential perceptions Practice 1 1.95 .004 .24
Practice 2 3.75 .008 .36
of opportunities for empowerment. For gender, women Practice 3 1.52 .004 .20
are coded as “1” and, for minority status, non- Practice 4 2.27 .005 .26
Performance 1 .37 .001 .41
minorities are coded as “1.” Employee age and educa- Performance 2 .39 .001 .57
tion level are included, because they may impact on Factor variances and covariance
OLC .98 .002 1
willingness to learn. Survey items on age were grouped Empowerment 6.34 .016 1
Performance .53 .002 1
into four categories: under 40, aged 40–49, aged 50–59, OLC ↔ Empowerment 2.43*** .006 .97***
and 60 or older. Education level was grouped into three OLC ↔ Performance .61*** .002 .85***
Empowerment ↔ Performance 1.68*** .004 .91***
categories: less than a bachelor’s degree, bachelor’s a
The parameter is constrained and not tested for statistical significance.
degree, and more than a bachelor’s degree. *** p < .001
6 I. CHOI

To begin with, Table 1 shows the results of the CFA, Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
indicating that there is convergent validity and discri- Variables N Mean Standard Deviation Min Max
minant validity in the factor measurement. According Dependent Variable
Performance 509,131 8.097 1.541 2 10
to Kline (2011), all indicators measuring a factor should Individual Variable
“have relatively high standardized factor loadings on OLC 509,131 6.598 2.208 2 10
Mediating Variable
that factor” (p.116). Table 1 shows that all standardized Empowerment 509,131 39.748 10.50 12 60
factor loadings on each factor are relatively high (from Control Variables
Gender 509,131 0.458 0.498 0 1
.66 to .89), which confirms the convergent validity of Supervisors 509,131 0.237 0.425 0 1
each factor. Also, estimated correlations between three Minorities 509,131 0.665 0.472 0 1
Age Group 509,131 2.457 0.987 1 4
factors – organizational learning culture, empowerment Education 509,131 2.010 0.808 1 3
and performance – do not exceed .90 (see Table 2),
usually considered as the cutoff for the discriminant
validity of the factors (Kline, 2011). These results indi- aged 50–59. The correlations provide initial evidence that
cate that there is convergent validity and discriminant performance is related to learning culture and empower-
validity of the measurement scale. ment (see Table 3). Specifically, the perceptions of orga-
In addition, it is worthwhile to report the results of the nizational learning culture and performance have strong
other two indicators – Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and positive correlations and are statistically significant at
and Composite Reliability (CR) – to establish the con- the level of 95 percent (r = 0.6277). Employee empower-
vergent validity and reliability of factor measurement ment is also strongly and positively correlated with per-
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Kline, 2011; Raykov, 2004). All formance (r = 0.7172).
of the AVE values exceed .50, indicating the reliability of A risk of common method biases, also called single
the factor measurement. Also, in terms of CR, the rule of source biases, may exist, as all of the responses come
thumb is above 0.7 for establishing the reliability of factor from a single survey (Brannick, Chan, Conway, Lance,
measurement (Hancock & Mueller, 2001). In this study, & Spector, 2010; Chan, 2009; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
CR values are 0.8, 0.9, and 0.7 for organizational learning Podsakoff, 2011). Common method biases refer to
culture, empowerment and performance respectively, a tendency in respondents to answer multiple items in
indicating that the evidence for reliability among indica- a similar fashion, causing less differentiation among the
tors of each factor is acceptable. survey items, which results in artificially high correla-
Table 2 indicates the descriptive statistics of the main tions and multicollinearity. In variance-based SEM,
variables. To begin with, the federal employees agree that assessing discriminant validity is one way to control
their agencies were successful in accomplishing their mis- common method variances. In assessing discriminant
sions. The respondents report a learning culture score of validity, Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) of corre-
6.6 out of a possible 10 points. Furthermore, they report lations has been strongly recommended as a statistical
a relatively high level of empowerment, with an additive technique, which identifies a lack of discriminant valid-
index score of 40 out of 60. Also, among the respondents, ity more effectively compared to other standard
46 percent were women, while 24 percent of the respon- approaches (e.g., the Fornell-Larker criterion)
dents were supervisors. Minorities constituted 34 percent (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). The HTMT is
of the respondents, and 32 percent of the employees report the proportion of the average of the heterotrait-
having less than a bachelor’s degree. The age group with heteromethod correlations (i.e., the correlations of the
the largest proportion of respondents, at 37 percent, is items across different constructs) to the geometric

Table 3. Estimated correlations between items and factors (at the significance level .05).
Factor OLC (1) Empowerment (2) Performance (3)
Factor Item L1 L2 P1 P2 P3 P4 Perf1 Perf2
(1) L1 1
L2 0.6827 1
(2) P1 0.6755 0.6988 1
P2 0.6010 0.7330 0.6982 1
P3 0.7209 0.7028 0.7988 0.6956 1
P4 0.6927 0.7176 0.7524 0.6764 0.7608 1
(3) Perf1 0.5257 0.5585 0.6118 0.5237 0.6296 0.6192 1
Perf2 0.4485 0.4533 0.5204 0.4831 0.5593 0.4863 0.5031 1
OLC Empowerment Performance
OLC 1
Empowerment 0.8451 1
Performance 0.6277 0.7172 1

mean of the averages of the monotrait-heteromethod
correlations of each construct (i.e., the correlations of
the items under the same construct) (see more details
in Henseler et al., 2014). According to the correlations
between items in Table 3, the HTMT value is 0.523,
which is lower than one, suggesting that there is evi-
dence of discriminant validity. As a result, common
method bias is not problematic in this study, although
the risk of common method bias still needs to be care-
fully considered when interpreting results.
Findings
To begin with, this study determines whether the structural
model provided a good fit, as assessment of model fit is
critical in structural modeling (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
According to model fit statistics, the results show that the
structural model delivers an acceptable fit to the observed
data. The Chi-Squared test usually tests “badness-of-fit” of
the model such that significant results indicate a bad model
fit. Although the Chi-Squared statistic, χ 2 (degrees of free-
dom [df] = 3) = 927583.14, p < .001, shows that this model
may not have a good fit, it is worth noting that the Chi-
Squared test tends to reject the null hypothesis with a large
sample size (N > 200). The sample size of this study is above
500,000, which may explain why the test results are subject
to a large sample size (Kline, 2011). Another absolute model
fit indicator, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), indicates a better model fit when the value is
closer to zero, and it is usually considered as a good fit when
RMSEA value is below 0.08. In this study, the RMSEA value
is .085, indicating moderate model fit to some extent (Hu &
Bentler, 1999; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996).
Both comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index
Table 4. Mediation analysis results with structural equation modeling.
Unstandardized
Parameter coefficient
Structural model
Direct effects
OLC→ Empowerment
Empowerment→ Performance
OLC→ Performance −0.64***
Indirect Effect
OLC→ Empowerment → Performance
Total Effect (Indirect + direct effects)
OLC→ Performance
Measurement model
OLC→ Learning 1
OLC→ Learning 2
Employee empowerment → Practice 1
Employee empowerment → Practice 2
Employee empowerment → Practice 3
Employee empowerment → Practice 4
Performance → Performance 1
Performance → Performance 2
a
The parameter is constrained and not tested for statistical significance.
*** p < .001
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7
(TLI) are close to 1, greater than a conventional cutoff of
0.95, suggesting a good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Also, standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) is
close to zero which is way below the cutoff value .06, such
that it concludes that the model is a relatively good fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Despite some inconsistent model fit statis-
tics, it is reasonable to conclude that the hypothesized
model has a relatively acceptable fit to the observed data,
as most model fit indices except the Chi-Squared statistic
suggest good or mediocre fit of the model. In addition, the
coefficient of determination (R2) shows that the organiza-
tional learning culture and employee empowerment factors
explain 96.7 percent of the variance in organizational
performance.
The results of the mediation analysis with SEM are
presented in Table 4 and Figure 1. In terms of direct
effects, a negative and significant association exists
between organizational learning culture and perfor-
mance (b = – 0.64, p < .001) that is inconsistent with
hypothesis 1. However, the findings offer some evi-
dence that organizational learning culture is positively
and significantly related to employee empowerment
(b = 2.48, p < .001). This lends support to hypothesis
2. In addition, employee empowerment is positively
and significantly associated with performance
(b = 0.51, p < .001), supporting hypothesis 3.
Although the direct path fails to be consistent with
hypothesis 1, the results of the path analysis show there
is an indirect relationship between organizational learn-
ing culture and performance via its connection to
employee empowerment. In terms of an indirect effect
or mediated effect, the findings offer evidence that
organizational learning culture is indirectly and posi-
tively related to performance through the mediation
effect of employee empowerment, consistent with
SE Standardized coefficient
2.48*** .004 .97***
.51*** .006 1.76***
.016 −0.87***
1.26*** .016 1.71***
.63*** .001 0.84***
a
1.00 - .81***
1.01*** .001 .84***
1.00a - .87***
1.01*** .001 .80***
.97*** .001 .89***
1.01*** .001 .86***
1.00a - .77***
.74*** .001 .66***
8 I. CHOI

Figure 1. Path diagram of the mediation model with results for structural equation modeling.
Note: Unstandardized path coefficients, the variances and the constants are shown. All path coefficients are significant (p< .001).

a. Total Effect
hypothesis 4. For a justification of the indirect effect,
the indirect effect of learning culture on performance
can be tested with the bootstrapping method after pro-
ducing SEM estimates (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).
Bootstrapping results show that the indirect effect is
positive (b = 1.26), and the 95 percent confidence
interval is [1.23, 1.30], suggesting that the indirect effect b. Indirect and Direct Effect
is statistically significant. This implies that having orga-
nizational culture more supportive to learning increases
performance by virtue of increased employee empow-
erment. To calculate a total effect of organizational
learning culture on performance, the indirect effect
and the direct effect of learning culture on performance
need to be added together. In total, a positive and
significant association is found between organizational
learning culture and performance (b = 0.63, p < .001).
To check the robustness of the results, another
mediation analysis without a measurement model
Figure 2. Mediation analysis without measurement model.
has also been conducted, assuming that all variables
are observed variables. Figure 2 shows the findings
of the mediation analysis. Figure 2a indicates that previous results, showing a negative, direct relation-
the total effect of organizational learning culture on ship between the two. With respect to the relation-
performance is positive and significant (b = 0.44, ship between learning culture and empowerment,
p < .001). This total effect can be broken down there is a positive relationship (b = 4.02, p < .001).
into two pieces – direct effect and indirect effect Also, the indirect effect of organizational learning
of organizational learning culture on performance – culture on performance through the mediator,
as shown in Figure 2b. In this mediation model, employee empowerment, turns out to be positive
there is a direct and positive association between and statistically significant (b = 0.39, p < .001),
organizational learning culture and performance which confirms the findings from the mediation
(b = 0.05, p < .001). Thus, this finding supports analysis with measurement models in SEM pre-
hypothesis 1, but weakens the robustness of the sented earlier.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 9

Discussion and conclusion variables and measurement models suggests that there
is a negative and direct effect of learning culture on
The findings of this study offer some evidence from the
performance (see Figure 1). This is usually treated as
CFA that there is convergent validity and discriminant
“empirical suppression,” which is not a true suppression
validity in the measurement scale for organizational
effect, and could occur simply due to sampling fluctua-
learning culture, empowerment and performance
tions (Mackinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000; Shrout &
respectively. The values of the AVE and CR indicators
Bolger, 2002). On the contrary, there is a positive and
also show that there is reliability in the factor measure-
direct effect when the mediation analysis is conducted
ment for each variable. According to the results of the
with observed variables holding empowerment constant,
mediation analysis, organizational learning culture has
as shown in Figure 2. Regardless of the opposite signs of
a positive and significant effect on employee empower-
the direct effect, the magnitude of the direct effect is
ment. Also, there is a positive relationship between
relatively trivial, and close to zero. All things considered,
employee empowerment and performance. The results
the results might imply that measurement errors among
indicate that organizational learning culture is posi-
indicators and sampling fluctuations can be a potential
tively and indirectly associated with organizational per-
reason for an inconsistent sign of direct effect, leaving
formance through employee empowerment. The total
limited room for complete understanding of the direct
effect of organizational leaning culture on performance
link between learning culture and performance.
is positive, although there is mixed evidence in terms of
Discussion of the indirect effect of organizational learn-
the direct effect of learning culture on performance.
ing culture on performance through employee empower-
There are some possible caveats to this study. First,
ment is more interesting, delivering three important
some may argue that no clear difference exists between
theoretical and practical implications. First, with respect to
organizational learning culture and empowerment. This
the positive direct link between learning culture and
study deals with this potential concern by operationalizing
employee empowerment, the findings reinforce the state-
organizational learning culture, which represents an envir-
ment that a well-designed organizational learning culture
onment that may encourage creativity and innovation.
can bring about a high level of empowerment. They clarify
Regarding empowerment, four practices point out to
how an organizational learning culture could be operatio-
what extent employees are provided with job-related skills
nalized at individual level (Jenkins et al., 2009; Stohl &
and information, treated based on performance, and
Cheney, 2001). The results of the study are strongly consis-
empowered in their work processes. As shown earlier, the
tent with previous literature, implying that empowerment is
factor loadings indicate that there is discriminant and con-
a product of the interaction between individuals’ capacities
vergent validity. Thus, employee empowerment can be
and environmental opportunities (Foster-Fishman & Keys,
clearly distinguished from how organizational learning
1997; Sigler & Pearson, 2000). Consistent with organiza-
culture is perceived and operationalized. Second, perfor-
tional learning theory, it is also possible that having more
mance is operationalized and measured through employ-
chance to transfer knowledge and deepen understanding
ees’ perceptions, which is a limitation of the dataset.
might expand what employees do in organizations.
Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to look at the degree to
Therefore, employees feel more empowered when their
which employees perceive their organizational perfor-
organizational culture gives them the essential learning
mance, because this study examines the mediated path
opportunities to meet their individual desires.
between organizational learning culture, employee
Second, this study finds that the managerial empow-
empowerment and perceived performance. Also, the
erment factor has a large mediating effect on the rela-
items for the perceived performance factor used in the
tionship between learning culture and performance at
analysis are consistent with prior studies (Fernandez &
organization level. The results of this study are compa-
Moldogaziev, 2013b), which provides a more consistent
tible with previous findings on the positive relationship
understanding of the link between empowerment and
between organizational learning culture, empowerment
performance.
and performance (Kroll & Vogel, 2014; Moynihan,
Among the findings of this study, it is worthwhile to
2005). Beyond that, the findings show that empower-
discuss mixed evidence in terms of the direct effect of
ment can be an important tool to describe how and
learning culture on performance. Although prior work
why organizational learning culture has a positive influ-
implies that organizational culture supporting learning is
ence on performance. The results not only indicate that
positively related to desired outcomes of performance
having an organizational culture supportive to learning
(Hogan & Coote, 2014), this study fails to provide
enhances performance indirectly, but also highlight the
empirical evidence of the direct and positive relationship
significant role of employee empowerment as
between the two. The mediation analysis with latent
a mediator. This mediation path implies that employee
10 I. CHOI
empowerment can be an important mediator that high-
lights the positive link between organizational learning
culture and performance.
Last, empirical evidence suggests that practitioners
should consider the cultural aspects of organizational learn-
ing in order to improve performance. As noted earlier,
cultural aspects are key to the organizational learning pro-
cess, but are less often empirically tested and examined,
because they are not sufficiently observable. In the U.S.
Federal government, the passage of the Government
Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 sug-
gests that agencies are still struggling to firmly establish
learning cultures. Additional survey evidence on audit
reports provides further suggestions that agencies continue
to struggle in this area. Although it is hard to build up
a learning culture within the organizations, the findings
show that the underlying values and norms from organiza-
tional culture are still crucial to achieving performance.
Based on these results, this study strongly recommends
building environments that significantly support employ-
ees in regard to finding better ways of conducting work
through innovation.
All in all, this study mainly contributes to the literature
in two ways. First, this study tests the measurement models
of organizational learning culture, employee empowerment
and performance. For three variables treated as latent vari-
ables, the CFA results provide evidence that there is con-
vergent validity and discriminant validity in the factor
measurement. Second, this research illustrates potential
paths by means of which the valuable ongoing learning
experiences that exist through informal communications
and settings in organizational learning cultures are benefi-
cial to organizations. The findings suggest that organiza-
tional learning culture is positively and indirectly associated
with performance via its connection to employee empow-
erment. This study offers meaningful evidence that
employee empowerment can be a strong mediator that
elucidates the link between organizational learning culture
and performance.
References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or
not to empower your sales force? An empirical examina-
tion of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior
on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.90.5.945
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and
transferring knowledge (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learn-
ing: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science,
22(5), 1123–1137. doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0621
Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks
learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77–85.
doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.10.002
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organiational learning
(2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1992). The empowerment of
service workers: What, why, how, and when. Sloan
Management Review, 33(3), 31–39.
Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1995). Empowering service
employees. Sloan Management Review, 36(4), 73–84.
Brannick, M. T., Chan, D., Conway, J. M., Lance, C. E., &
Spector, P. E. (2010). What is method variance and how can
we cope with it? A panel discussion. Organizational Research
Methods, 13(3), 407–420. doi:10.1177/1094428109360993
Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really
that bad. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.),
Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends:
Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social
sciences (pp. 309–336). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fawcett, S. E., Brau, J. C., Rhoads, G. K., Whitlark, D., &
Fawcett, A. M. (2008). Spirituality and organizational cul-
ture: Cultivating the ABCs of an inspiring workplace.
International Journal of Public Administration, 31(4),
420–438. doi:10.1080/01900690701590819
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2011). Empowering public
sector employees to improve performance: Does it work?
The American Review of Public Administration, 41(1),
23–47. doi:10.1177/0275074009355943
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013a). Employee empow-
erment, employee attitudes, and performance: Testing
a causal model. Public Administration Review, 73(3),
490–506. doi:10.1111/puar.2013.73.issue-3
Fernandez, S., & Moldogaziev, T. (2013b). Using employee
empowerment to encourage innovative behavior in the
public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 23(1), 155–187. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus008
Fiol, M., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. The
Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–813.
doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4279103
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and measure-
ment error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
doi:10.1177/002224378101800104
Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1997). The person/
environment dynamics of employee empowerment: An
organizational culture analysis. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 25(3), 345–369. doi:10.1023/
A:1024628711026
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours
a learning organization?. Harvard Business Review Bus Rev, 86
(3), 1–11.
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking con-
struct reliability within latent variable systems. In
R. Cudeck, S. Du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural
equation modeling: Present and future-A Festschrift in
honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new
criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Ho, L.-A. (2008). What affects organizational performance?:
The linking of learning and knowledge management.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(9),
1234–1254. doi:10.1108/02635570810914919
Hodgkinson, M. (2000). Managerial perceptions of barriers to
becoming a “learning organization.”. The Learning
Organization, 7(3), 156–167. doi:10.1108/09696470010335872
Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, inno-
vation, and performance: A test of Schein’s model. Journal of
Business Research, 67(8), 1609–1621. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2013.09.007
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., &
Robison, A. J. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participa-
tory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Joo, B.-K., (Brian), & Shim, J. H. (2010). Psychological
empowerment and organizational commitment: The mod-
erating effect of organizational learning culture. Human
Resource Development International, 13(4), 425–441.
doi:10.1080/13678868.2010.501963
Kandemir, D., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). A conceptualization
of an organizational learning culture in international joint
ventures. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(5),
430–439. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.10.002
Kenny, D. A. (2018). Mediation. Retrieved May 30, 2019,
from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm#EX
Kim, S. Y., & Fernandez, S. (2015). Employee empowerment and
turnover intention in the U.S. federal bureaucracy. American
Review of Public Administration, 1–19. 10.1177/
0275074015583712
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kroll, A., & Vogel, D. (2014). The psm-leadership fit: A model
of performance information use. Public Administration, 92
(4), 974–991. doi:10.1111/padm.2014.92.issue-4
Laurian, L., Walker, M., & Crawford, J. (2017). Implementing
environmental sustainability in local government: The
impacts of framing, agency culture, and structure in US cities
and counties. International Journal of Public Administration,
40(3), 270–283. doi:10.1080/01900692.2015.1107738
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M.
(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size
for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods,
1(2), 130–149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
Mackenzie, K. D. (1986). Organizational design: The organiza-
tional audit and analysis technology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub.
Mackinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000).
Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppres-
sion effect. Prevention Science : the Official Journal of the
Society for Prevention Research, 1, 4. doi:10.1023/
A:1026595011371
Marcoulides, G. A., & Heck, R. H. (2007). Organizational cul-
ture and performance: Proposing and testing a model.
Organization Science, 4(2), 209–225. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.2.209
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the
value of an organization’s learning culture: The
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 11
dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151.
doi:10.1177/1523422303005002002
Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Goal based learning and the future
of performance management. Public Administration
Review, 65(2), 203–216. doi:10.1111/puar.2005.65.issue-2
Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2004). Integrative
leadership in the public sector: A model of
performance-information use. Administration & Society,
36(4), 427–453. doi:10.1177/0095399704266748
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1996). Culture as social control:
Corporations, cults, and commitment. In B. Staw &
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(pp. 157–200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011).
Sources of method bias in social science research and recom-
mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,
63(1), 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Potterfield, T. A. (1999). The business of employee empower-
ment: Democracy and ideology in the workplace. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measure-
ment invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling.
Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 299–331. doi:10.1016/S0005-
7894(04)80041-8
Rose, R. C., Kumar, N., & Pak, O. G. (2009). The effect of
organizational learning on organizational commitment,
job satisfaction and work performance. Journal of Applied
Business Research, 25(6), 55–66.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004).
Taking empowerment to the next level: A
multiple-level model of empowerment, performance,
and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47
(3), 332–349. doi:10.2307/20159585
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the
learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental
and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and
recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
Sigler, T. H., & Pearson, C. M. (2000). Creating an empow-
ering culture: Examining the relationship between organi-
zational culture and perceptions of empowerment. Journal
of Quality Management, 5(1), 27–52. doi:10.1016/S1084-
8568(00)00011-0
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in
the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and valida-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–
1465.
Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/
paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilem-
mas of organizational democracy. Management
Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 349–407.
doi:10.1177/0893318901143001
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive ele-
ments of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrin-
sic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15
(4), 666–681. doi:10.5465/amr.1990.4310926
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2014). federal
employee viewpoint survey results: Employees influencing
12 I. CHOI

change. Retrieved from www.education.nasa.gov/divisions/ Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the
informal/overview/index.html learning organization: Lessons in the art and science
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2015). 2015 of systemic change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Federal employee viewpoint survey results: Employees Yang, B. (2003). Identifying valid and reliable measuresfor
influencing change. Retrieved from https://www.fed dimensions of a learning culture. Advances in Developing
view.opm.gov/2015FILES/2015_FEVS_Gwide_Final_ Human Resources, 5(2), 152–162. doi:10.1177/
Report.PDF 1523422303005002003

Appendix. Survey Items

Variables Survey Items

Performance Performance 1
My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission. a
Performance 2
How would you rate the overall quality of work done by your work unit? b
Organizational learning culture Learning Environment 1
I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things. a
Learning Environment 2
Creativity and innovation are rewarded. a
Empowerment Practice 1) Providing Information about Goals and Performance
● My supervisor provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job performance. a
● Managers review and evaluate the organization’s progress toward meeting its goals and objectives. a
● How satisfied are you with your involvement in decisions that affect your work? a
Practice 2) Offering Rewards Based on Performance
● Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. a
● Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs. a
● Employees are recognized for providing high quality products and services. a
Practice 3) Providing Access to Job-Related Knowledge and Skills
● I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. a
● The workforce has the job-relevant knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish organizational goals. a

● Supervisors in my work unit support employee development. a

Practice 4) Granting Discretion to Change Work Processes
● I have sufficient resources (for example, people, materials, budget) to get my job done. a
● Employees have a feeling of personal empowerment with respect to work processes. a
● How satisfied with your involvement in decisions that affect your work? c
a
Survey item responses: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly agree.
b
Survey item responses: 1 = Very poor 2 = Poor, 3 = Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4 = Satisfied, 5 = Very satisfied.
c
Survey item responses: 1 = Very dissatisfied 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Very good.
Note 1: Selection of organizational learning culture items informed by Garvin et al. (2008).
Note 2: Selection of empowerment items informed by Kim and Fernandez (2015).