Int. J. Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 13, No.

2, 2020 123

Organisational learning and knowledge creation

research: a hotel typologies according to the
manager perceptions

María Soledad Celemín-Pedroche*

Business Administration Department,
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Carretera de Colmenar Viejo, K. 15,
28049, Madrid, Spain
Email: marisol.celemin@uam.es
*Corresponding author

Miroslava Kostova Karaboytcheva

European Parliament Research Service,
Rue Wiertz, 60,
Brussels, Belgium
Email: miroslava.karaboytcheva@europarl.europa.eu

Luis Rubio-Andrada
Department of Applied Economics,
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Carretera de Colmenar Viejo, K. 15,
28049, Madrid, Spain
Email: luis.rubio@uam.es

José Miguel Rodríguez-Antón

Business Administration Department,
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Carretera de Colmenar Viejo, K. 15,
28049, Madrid, Spain
Email: josem.rodriguez@uam.es

Abstract: This study aims to analyse the relationship between organisational

learning and organisational performance, establishing a typology of hotels that
give origin of a series of competitive advantages linked to the organisational
learning process and deepening the knowledge creation model. In order to
achieve the results, a questionnaire has been distributed among the hotel
establishments in the Community of Valencia in Spain, performing both an
exploratory factorial analysis and a cluster analysis. The results show that
hotels which facilitate more organisational learning gain more clients’ loyalty

Copyright © 2020 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

124 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

and that outsourcing is the most used process by hotels that are related to the
knowledge creation. The study has only been applied in the Valencian
Community and the information collected comes from the perceptions of senior
managers of hotel establishments. Considering the achieved results, it is
recommendable that hotels learn from customers’ expectations during their
stays.

Keywords: organisational learning; knowledge creation; organisational

performance; hotels; contingent factors.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Celemín-Pedroche, M.S.,

Karaboytcheva, M.K., Rubio-Andrada, L. and Rodríguez-Antón, J.M. (2020)
‘Organisational learning and knowledge creation research: a hotel typologies
according to the manager perceptions’, Int. J. Knowledge and Learning,
Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.123–145.

Biographical notes: María Soledad Celemín-Pedroche received her PhD in

Economics and Business Administration at the Universidad Autónoma
de Madrid, Spain in 2011. She is a Lecturer in Enterprises Organization,
teaching in business administration, tourism, aeronautical management and
obtained her Master of Business and Administration since 2008 in the
university. She is an Academic Secretary of the Department of Enterprises
Organization, member of the GIDEST – Research Group on Tourism Business
Management – Research Group formally recognised by Autonomous
University of Madrid Governing Council, and an Academic Secretary of the
Tourism Studies Commission of AECA – Spanish Association of Accounting
and Business Administration.

Miroslava Kostova Karaboytcheva obtained her PhD in Economics and

International Relations in the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain in 2007.
She currently works as a Policy Analyst at the European Parliament Research
Service in Brussels. She had been a Lecturer in Microeconomics I and II,
Macroeconomics I and II, and Introduction to Economics at the Department of
Quantitative Methods and Economic Theory and the Department of Economics
in the University of Alicante for eight years. She initiated her research in 2002
at the Autonomous University of Madrid and then continued at the University
of Alicante.

Luis Rubio-Andrada received his PhD in Economics and Business

Administration at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain in 1998. He is a
Lecturer in Statistics, at the Department of Applied Economics and teaches in
Business Administration, Tourism, Aeronautical Management and others, since
1987. His research interests include tourism and knowledge management. He is
the Academic Director of the Bachelor in Aeronautical Management and
Bachelor in Tourism and a member of the Research Group in Management of
Tourism Firms.

José Miguel Rodríguez-Antón is a Professor of Business Administration at

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain. He is obtained his PhD in
Economic Sciences and Masters in Business Administration. He is currently the
Director of the Research Group in Tourism Firms Management and the
President of the Tourism Studies Commission of AECA – Spanish Association
of Accounting and Business Administration.
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 125

1 Introduction

Organisational learning involves acquiring, sharing and using knowledge. Therefore, it is

a process by which the created knowledge increases in an organised and transformed way
within a part of the organisational knowledge system (DiBella et al., 1996). Some studies
have suggested that organisational learning can affect organisational performance in the
tourism sector (Kraleva, 2011; Svagzdiene et al., 2013; Fraj et al., 2015), but there is little
empirical evidence in relation to this influence (Bayraktaroglu and Ozen, 2003; Yang,
2010; Kraleva, 2011; Habibi-Badrabadi and Akbarpour, 2013; Kasim, 2015; Zhou et al.,
2015; Bello and Adeoye, 2018). The empirical literature has so far been focused more on
organisational learning and its influence on service quality, customers’ satisfaction,
employees’ satisfaction, yield management (Yang, 2008) or innovation (Zeng et al.,
2015).
On the one hand, organisational learning has been seen as an essential process that the
organisation can use to improve the creation and subsequent use of key knowledge
continuously (Chiva and Alegre, 2005; Zhao et al., 2013; Wu and Chen, 2014). On the
other hand, in terms of performance, Bierly and Chakrabarty (1996) show that the results
of the company derived from the organisational learning depend on the company’s own
knowledge base and its capacity to create knowledge. If we focus on this process of
knowledge creation oriented learning, previous studies have already argued the mediating
role of knowledge creation to achieve organisational performance (Lee and Choi, 2003;
Darroch, 2005; Lee et al., 2012). Considering the process of knowledge creation as a
learning process and specifically using the Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) SECI model of
knowledge creation, we intend, to examine this model as facilitator of learning. We link it
to the hotel sector – a sector which belongs to the tourism industry (Yang, 2010) and
specify what kind of extraordinary organisational performance can be achieved, we aim
to reinforce throughout empirical study the notion that awards a prominent role to
organisational learning in performance.
Thereby, this exploratory study firstly aims to determine the typologies of hotel
establishments regarding the learning process as key component of performance in
organisations. Secondly, it tries to classify the analysed hotels in terms of their usage of
the process of knowledge creation in order to achieve adequate organisational learning. In
conclusion, this paper aims to distinguish if there is any correlation between the two
lasting typologies subject of this study.
To achieve these objectives, the paper is structured in five sections. We present a
review of the literature related to this topic in Section 2. In Section 3, the methodology
used to analyse and the results is explained in detail in order to proceed with the analyses
of the obtained results in Section 4. Section 5 includes a discussion about these results, as
well as the conclusions arrived at, the limitations of the study and future research lines.

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Organisational learning and organisational performance

There is little consensus in the literature regarding the definition of organisational
learning (Crossan et al., 1999; Williams, 2001), but nowadays learning is seen as a
126 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

crucial element in the development of a competitive advantage, which implies a better

performance, and as a vehicle for adaptation to the changing environment (Jérez-Gómez
et al., 2005; Williams, 2001; among others). In several researches, organisational learning
has been defined in terms of sustainable competitive advantages (De Geus, 1988; Weick,
1991). We consider definitions such as those given by Garvin (1993) where
organisational learning is considered as multidimensional process in which knowledge is
acquired to improve entrepreneurial performance or the one of Jérez-Gómez (2005, p.5)
that assumes organisational learning as “the capability of an organisation to process
knowledge-in other words, to create, acquire, transfer, and integrate knowledge, and to
modify its behaviour – to reflect the new cognitive situation, with a view to improving its
performance”, but we focus more on the process of knowledge creation.
There are many authors who defend the idea that organisational learning is the
solution to survive, grow and succeed (Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Dodgson, 1993; Garvin,
1993; Azmi, 2008). In this sense, creating an organisation which learns is an imperative
to promote lasting success (Sandberg, 2007; Azmi, 2008) and namely learning-oriented
organisations are faster in shaping their structure and repositioning their resources to take
advantage of both, presented opportunities and to deal with the presented threats (Slater
and Narver, 1995). Thereby, Yuan et al. (2018) state that this learning orientation can
improve performance and enable companies find effective methods to respond
customers’ requests or deal with problems. Then, organisational performance includes
almost all objectives or purposes linked to competitiveness and excellent production,
related to concepts such as costs, flexibility, speed, reliability and quality, leading the
organisation to success (Habibi-Badrabadi and Akbarpour, 2013).
Several positive results can be obtained through the organisational learning process.
In any economic sector, previous literature has shown that organisational learning
achieves an increase in market share (Kumar et al., 2008); an increase in benefits (Kumar
et al., 2008); a strategic renewal (Sun and Anderson, 2008); an increase in efficiency
(Kumar et al., 2008); a growth in sales (Donate, 2007); meeting objectives (Donate,
2007). In addition, creation of new products, services and ways of doing business (Slater
and Narver, 1995; Moorman and Miner, 1997; Saban et al., 2000; Pohlmann et al., 2005),
as well as better quality perceived by the clients when collecting and applying their
preferences in the offered services (Bontis et al., 2002; Dunphy et al., 1997; Kumar et al.,
2008) and a greater capacity for innovation (Helfat and Raubitscheck, 2000; Ugurlu and
Kurt, 2016; Gomes and Wojahn, 2017). Furthermore, a green innovation (Zhang et al.,
2018); an improvement in the competitive position (Kumar et al., 2008) and, finally,
organisational learning has been linked to the creation of new organisational or business
competencies (Dunphy et al., 1997; Sun and Anderson, 2008).
In the tourism sector, likewise the hospitality industry, there is also literature on
organisational learning which can be a source of organisational performance. Thus,
learning can lead to an increase in benefits for tourism companies (Ham et al., 2005); an
improvement in the quality of services offered to clients (Oh, 1999; Kim and Oh, 2004),
which increases their satisfaction (Oh, 1999; Eggert and Ulaga, 2002), and their loyalty
(Oh, 1999; Baker and Crompton, 2000), an increase in innovation (Fraj et al., 2015; Zeng
et al., 2015) and in costs reduction (Ham et al., 2005).
If hotel companies learn and share knowledge quickly, the decision-making process
may become more efficient than in companies that do not adopt similar practices (Yang,
2008). Managers and employees of the hotel industry consider that all the elements which
are part of their business are essential, so they must be understood by analysing and
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 127

collecting as much information and knowledge as possible (Carina and Marnburg, 2008;
Kraleva, 2011).

2.2 Organisational learning based on knowledge creation

Organisational learning is seen as a source for development of new organisational
knowledge (Cheng et al., 2014; Chiva et al., 2014). Knowledge is one of the most
significant assets for the organisation in order to gain a competitive advantage, which
results in a better performance (Nonaka, 1994; Buckley and Carter, 2002; Georgopoulos,
2005; Li et al., 2009; Iebra-Aizpurúa et al., 2011). Thus, in the field of knowledge, the
process of knowledge creation within an organisation (Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka
et al., 2000) is highlighted to achieve greater organisational performance (Davenport and
Prusack, 1997; Gold et al., 2001; Hicks et al., 2007). Today, one of the essential
resources which can be used by organisation linked to the tourism sector to generate a
competitive advantage in relation to its competitors is knowledge (Kraleva, 2011). The
organisational learning has always been linked to knowledge. Thus, organisational
learning as a process of improvement of actions through better knowledge and
understanding was defined by Fiol and Lyles (1985) and Stata (1989) who show how
organisational learning arises through the sharing of ideas, knowledge and mental
models. Lipshitz (1996, p.293) refers to organisational learning as “the process through
which organisation members develop shared values and knowledge based on past
experience of themselves and others.”
Knowledge creation is a process of organisational learning (Spender, 2008). Nonaka
and Konno (1998, p.42) emphasised that “knowledge creation is a spiral process of
interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge.” Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
introduced the concept of organisational knowledge creation, referring to organisation’s
ability to create new knowledge, to expand it within it and to incorporate it into it through
innovations in products, systems, and services. The organisational learning model SECI
proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) is a complete process of knowledge creation
according to the types of tacit and explicit knowledge and it is composed by four types
knowledge transactions between individuals and groups in organisations:
1 socialisation, from tacit to tacit
2 outsourcing/externalisation, from tacit to explicit
3 combination, from explicit to explicit
4 internalisation/interiorisation, from explicit to tacit.
Socialisation is the stage of the process where a conversion of knowledge from tacit to
tacit takes place by living experiences and sharing ideas (Kogut and Zander 1996).
Outsourcing/externalisation is the stage where tacit knowledge becomes explicit through
its articulation and its transference to external supports or understandable materials
(Nonaka and Konno, 1998). In this phase, it is very positive to organise meetings with
external agents, suppliers, customers, etc., as well as with internal agents. The
combination, from explicit to explicit, is the process where explicit knowledge is
synthesised and transferred to a knowledge base to become available for the whole
organisation. Finally, internalisation/interiorisation, requires to update explicit
128 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

knowledge and to transform the acquired explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
(Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
Ramírez et al. (2011) pointed out that the four knowledge transactions of the SECI
process affect directly and indirectly organisational learning. Therefore, generating new
knowledge is crucial for organisational learning (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Knowledge,
which is result of the learning process, implies an improvement in the capacity to respond
to the opportunities and threats of the environment (Dodgson, 1993; Sinkula, 1994). As it
is mentioned before, the ability to create and apply new knowledge is considered as one
of the main sources of the organisation’s competitive advantages (Nonaka, 1991;
Von Krogh, 1998; Zollo and Winter, 2002; Iebra-Aizpurúa et al., 2011) and both will be
sustainable whenever a continuous process of learning and knowledge creation are
carried out (Salmador and Florín, 2013).
The key to companies’ success that generate knowledge lies specifically on the
learning process, on the exploitation of the acquired knowledge and on strategic renewal.
Nonaka and Von Krogh (2009) show how the conversion of knowledge throws three
results:
1 the innovation of a product or a process
2 the enhancement of the capacity to act, in other words, achieving greater
effectiveness in tasks performance
3 the development of different types of tacit and explicit knowledge.

2.3 Influential contingent factors in the tourism sector

According to the literature, there are a number of factors that are out of the organisational
design, but influence it (Rodríguez-Antón and Alonso-Almeida, 2008). Since the 1960s,
authors such as Woodward (1965), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) and Luthans (1977)
have highlighted the importance of these contingency factors in organisational design.
Mintzberg (1984) and Bueno (2007) identify the existence of seven contingency factors:
environment, size, age, technology, power, property and culture.
In the tourism sector, several authors have analysed the contingent factors which can
explain organisational behaviour and ownership is one of the most important
(Rodríguez-Antón, 2012). Another important side of the hotel industry which has to be
pointed out is whether the hotel operates independently or as a part of hotel chain
(Álvarez-Gil et al., 2001; Carmona-Moreno et al., 2004; Garau and Orfila-Sintes, 2008;
Molina-Azorín, 2009; Pereira-Moliner et al., 2012; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2016). The
size is another factor that greatly influences organisational behaviour. The largest hotels,
typically measured by the number of employees or by the number of rooms in the hotel
establishment (Álvarez-Gil et al., 2001; Carmona-Moreno et al., 2004; Garau and
Orfila-Sintes, 2008), usually have more resources that enable them to adopt more
advanced management practices than smaller hotels (Garau and Orfila-Sintes, 2008). The
age of the hotel is another factor, which influences the behaviour of the organisations, but
to a lesser extent, proving that it can affect the adoption of certain management practices
(Álvarez-Gil et al., 2001; Almeida et al., 2016). One of the specific contingency factors
for hotel sector is the hotel category, which determines the services that the hotel
provides (Molina-Azorín et al., 2009; Alonso-Almeida and Rodríguez-Antón, 2011;
Rodríguez-Antón et al., 2012; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2016). The hotels classified into the
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 129

highest categories usually adopt more advanced management practices (Garau and Orfila-
Sintes, 2008). Furthermore, we can add that some of these authors (see Álvarez-Gil et al.,
2001; Alonso-Almeida and Rodríguez-Anton, 2011; Alonso-Almeida et al., 2016) have
found differences in the adoption of management practices when the main client of the
hotel is a business or leisure tourist.

3 Methodology

The present research is focused on the hotel sector of the Valencian Community, since it
is one of the main tourist destinations in Spain. It is the sixth Community in the country
in terms of number of international and national tourists, reaching more than 8.6 million
(INE, 2017a) with sun and beach tourism mainly, its hotel sector is of great relevance.
Thus, in August of 2016, it had 1,075 hotel establishments and 19,644 employees (INE,
2017b).
The research instrument used in our study is a structured questionnaire. It was
designed using the previously mentioned literature. It includes 21 questions in a Likert
scale of 5 points, associated to the two dimensions of interest in this study:
1 the learning processes based on knowledge creation and related to the processes of
socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation
2 organisational performance results, through which the respondents were expected to
assess how the process of knowledge creation influences the performance of these
hotel establishments in Valencia.
We introduced some questions to categorise the interviewees and the hotels in which they
have been working. The specific results of the field design of this study can be seen in
Table 1.
Table 1 Technical details

Field design information Results

Population or universe 395 hotels of 3, 4 and 5 stars in the Valencian Community
Sample size 106 hotel establishments
Analysis units Hotel establishments
Response rate 26.84%
Sampling error 8.1%
Confidence level 95%
Fieldwork period November 2013–April 2014
Tracking Phone
Survey’s delivery method Post, personal, email
Respondents Senior managers or department heads

In order to contrast the validity of the measurement instrument, a panel composed by four
academic experts on the topic was setup to improve the initial questionnaire. Then a
pre-test with three senior managers of 3, 4 and 5 stars hotels was carried out. Considering
130 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

their opinions, we established the final questionnaire. Then, it was sent by ordinary mail,
email or delivered in hand, to the directors of the hotels in the Valencian Community.
After collecting the questionnaires and tabulating the data, and before performing the
statistical analysis, we checked the representativeness of the selected sample. For that
purpose, a cross-validation was used and we concluded that the sample was stable and
did not depend on its own characteristics. Likewise, for the eight questions of block L
and 13 of P, a coefficient of Spearman-Brown of 0.82 and 0.90 and of two halves of
Guttman 0.82 and 0.90, respectively, were obtained, so that the two subscales were
reliable. Then, internal consistency analysis were performed for each block of the study,
using the Cronbach alpha coefficient, obtaining results of 0.86 in block L and 0.95 in P.
In addition, an exploratory factor analysis was performed using the ML method with
the eight questions of L to verify its internal structure, a KMO of 0.86 was obtained with
a single statistically significant eigenvalue explaining 51.0% of the variance. Thus, the
unidimensionality and the validity of the subscale were confirmed. Furthermore, with the
same purpose, another exploratory factor analysis was carried out using the ML method
with the 13 questions of P, we obtained a KMO of 0.93, with a single statistically
significant eigenvalue that explained 61.4% of the variance. Whereby, we reached the
same findings as in the previous block.
According to the results, most of the 106 hotels included in the sample, belonged to
chains: 58.2%; 70.2% of them were owned by national chains; 64.7% were directly
operated by their owners. Most of the clients who were staying there did so for leisure:
57.7%. Higher percentage of hotels 36.3% had between 20 and 50 years in the industry,
26.2% had between 100 and 199 rooms and 54.4% of the hotels studied had between 10
and 49 employees, therefore classified by the European Commission (2003/361/EC)
(Comisión Europea, 2003) as small businesses.
Once the descriptive analysis was conducted, a cluster analysis was carried out in
order to try to determine if there are groups of hotels with characteristics that are
homogeneous among them and heterogeneous with respect to the other groups. This had
been done in two phases using the 13 variables of this subscale. First, Ward’s hierarchical
method was used, and then three groups of hotels were selected from the dendogram
study. Second, the k-means optimisation method was applied with these groups, which
provided the final solution. In order to verify that the solution clearly discriminated three
groups of cases, ANOVA analysis was performed where the independent variable were
the groups resulting from the cluster and the dependent groups, each one of the 13
variables. In this analysis, the null hypothesis of equality of means was rejected (all
significances have values lower than 0.05). Therefore, the groups are clearly
differentiated.

4 Results

4.1 Cluster analysis applied to the generation of organisational performance

results
Here we present the results of the cluster analysis. Table 2 shows the centres of the
conglomerates and there are three perfectly defined groups of hotels in respect of how the
organisational learning in these hotels is created as a source of organisational
performance results, measured through the variables included in block organisational
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 131

performance results of the questionnaire. Group 3 (G3) is composed by those hotels (32
of the 106 considered) in which organisational learning influences to a greater extent all
organisational performance results through the variables considered in the study: market
share increase, increase of profits, strategic renewal, efficiency increase, sales growth,
fulfilment of objectives, development of new products, customers’ loyalty increase,
innovation, quality improvement, competitive position improvement, costs reduction and
creation of new organisational skills, and obtaining a mean value of 4.64. Firstly, it shows
that organisational learning greatly influences the gain of organisational performance
results in these hotels. Secondly, there is group 1 (G1), with 49 hotels, which includes
those hotels in which organisational learning has a significant influence on the
achievement of organisational performance results, obtaining significantly lower values
for all these variables with mean value of 3.76. Finally, we have group 2 (G2) that
includes 25 hotels in which organisational learning moderately influences the
achievement of organisational performance results, with mean values remaining at 2.88.
On one side, the organisational performance results generated largely by the
organisational learning carried out by the hotels framed in the G3 and G1 is the clients’
loyalty increase, with a value of 4.87 and 4.10, respectively. On the other side, the hotels
located in the G2 greatly get to improve their competitive position thanks to their
organisational learning having an estimation of 3.17.
Table 2 Clusters of hotels in terms of the organisational learning influence on different
organisational results

Organisational learning influence on G1 G2 G3

Market share increase 3.42 2.79 4.45
Increase of profits 3.65 2.79 4.55
Strategic renewal 3.60 2.79 4.48
Efficiency increase 4.06 2.88 4.68
Sales growth 3.81 2.87 4.74
Fulfilment of objectives 3.77 2.92 4.74
Development of new products 3.52 2.79 4.48
Customers loyalty increase 4.10 3.13 4.87
Innovation 3.75 2.58 4.45
Quality improvement 4.02 3.08 4.77
Competitive position improvement 4.00 3.17 4.84
Costs reduction 3.85 3.08 4.74
Creation of new organisational skills 3.38 2.54 4.55
Mean 3.76 2.88 4.64

Afterwards, we carried out an analysis of the behaviour of the three groups with respect
to the main characteristics of the considered hotels.
The G3, which we will call “group of very oriented to organisational learning hotels”,
is composed by hotels that belong, to a greater extent than the others, to international
chains, which are dedicated more than the others to a mixed business – holiday and
business – and have high number of employees. Their operating regime is based more on
rental contracts and joint ventures than the hotels of the other two groups.
132 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

The G1, which can be referred to “hotels that are considerably oriented to
organisational learning”, is characterised by including hotels that belong, more than
others, to chains – which are mostly national – and are dedicated more than others to the
business. These hotels have many rooms and file higher occupancy rates than the rest.
Finally, the G2, which can be classified as “a group of hotels moderately oriented to
organisational learning”, are old hotels, holiday type and operate more than the others by
management contracts and franchise. Table 3 shows the proportions of each of the three
groups identified for each of the variables used for their characterisation.
Table 3 Clusters of the 1st analysis and hotels’ characteristics

Hotels characteristics with respect to P G1 G2 G3

Belong to a chain 0.64 0.52 0.53
National 0.76 0.67 0.63
Foreign 0.24 0.33 0.38
Type of business
Holiday 0.58 0.61 0.55
Business 0.38 0.35 0.24
Mixed 0.04 0.04 0.21
Minimum age 10 years 0.65 0.74 0.71
Capacity of at least 100 rooms 0.63 0.58 0.58
Number of stuff at least 50 employees 0.33 0.29 0.36
Average occupancy rate in 2012 higher than 60% 0.61 0.44 0.45
Operations regime
Direct ownership 0.65 0.74 0.58
Rent 0.25 0.09 0.29
Management contract 0.06 0.09 0.07
Franchise 0.00 0.09 0.00
Joint venture 0.04 0.00 0.07

4.2 Cluster analysis applied to the processes of knowledge creation used by

hotels to learn
The same procedure of two stages was used as in the previous cluster analysis and three
groups of hotels clearly differentiated were obtained, as verified by performing ANOVA,
where the dependent variables were the eight items of this subscale and the independent
ones, the three groups.
If we now try to find the existence of differential behaviours related to the processes
of knowledge creation defined by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) used by hotels to achieve
learning, as previously stated, there are also three groups of hotels clearly identified. G3
is composed by hotels (33 out of 106) that, to a large extend, employ these processes to
achieve an appropriate organisational learning: socialisation, outsourcing, combination
and internalisation, obtaining a mean value of 4.47, which proves that these hotels are
strongly committed to the application of that processes when undertaking their
organisational learning. Then, we have G1 composed by 37 hotels, with slightly lower
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 133

values for all these processes, achieving a mean value of 3.72. Finally, G2, with 36
hotels, in last position, remains with a mean value of 2.77 as far as the implementation of
these processes (see Table 4).
Table 4 Clusters of hotels in terms of the influence of knowledge creation processes used for
learning

Learning processes G1 G2 G3
Socialisation Hotel members share beliefs, values and ways of 3.58 3.11 4.27
thinking
Your hotel organises informal meetings such as coffees, 2.36 2.08 3.79
brunches and even other social activities in your free
time
Externalisation The corporate mission, vision, values, as well as the 3.50 2.26 4.76
organisational history of the hotel are found in formal or
official documents
The hotel’s organisational routines are documented in 4.33 2.73 4.91
procedures, organisational charts, etc.
Combination All the information of your hotel available in the 4.00 3.27 4.58
information systems (files, databases, intranets,
corporate networks, computer software, etc.) and on
paper is accessible for the employees
The hotel synthesises, expands, combines and classifies 4.08 2.68 4.39
information already available to develop new written
information
Internalisation Meetings are held in your hotel to explain the contents 3.69 2.62 4.64
of documents related to the organisation’s cultural
policies, procedures and values and to discuss the
contents of procedures or other organisational schemes
The perspectives, views, data and information available 4.19 3.41 4.39
are easy to understand for employees
Mean values 3.72 2.77 4.47

The G3, which we call “group of hotels that decisively implement the process of
organisational learning” defined by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), is characterised by
being integrated by hotels that belong more than the other two groups to hotel chains and
this is a group that has lower percentage of independent hotels than the other groups (see
Table 5). Although there is not much difference, it has a higher percentage of holiday
type hotels than the others; it includes more hotels with 100 rooms than the other groups.
Then, the hotels of this group have a large number of staff and high occupancy rates and
operate on a rental basis. As per Table 4, the most used by G3 hotels process is based on
the fact that hotel’s organisational routines are documented in procedures, organisational
charts, etc., achieving a very high value of 4.91, followed by the fact that the corporate
mission, vision, values and organisational history of the hotel are included in formal or
official documents, i.e., outsourcing predominates, reaching a value of 4.76. That is, these
hotels make a determined commitment to formally document all relevant procedures and
events.
The G1, which we name “group of hotels which implement to a large extent
organisational learning processes” defined by the above mentioned authors is
characterised by hotels that belong greatly than others to foreign chains which are
134 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

dedicated more than the other two groups exclusively to business tourism. Furthermore,
this group includes many hotels that have more than 100 rooms and that use, more than
the other groups, franchise and joint venture regimes. The most used process of
knowledge creation by these hotels is, as in the case of the G3, that the organisational
routines of the hotel are documented in procedures, organisational charts, etc. obtaining a
value of 4.33 (see Table 4). All this followed by the fact that the prospects, points of
view, data and information available are easy to understand by the employees, with a
value of 4.19. These items belong to outsourcing and internalisation processes.
The G2, which we call “group of hotels which implement in a lesser degree the
processes of organisational learning” defined by the same authors, mostly belong to
national hotel chains. Their age is higher then that of the others, and they are operated
more than the others through direct ownership and management contracts. The most used
process of knowledge creation by these hotel establishments is that the perspectives,
points of view, data and available information are easy to understand by employees, with
a value of 3.41. Then, follows the fact that the information of the hotel included in
information systems (files, databases, intranet, corporate networks, computer software,
etc.) and on paper, is accessible to employees, obtaining a value of 3.27; that is to say,
through internalisation and combination.
Table 5 Clusters of the 2nd analysis and hotels’ characteristics

Hotels characteristics with respect to the knowledge creation process L G1 G2 G3

Belong to a chain 0.66 0.37 0.75
National 0.65 0.85 0.67
Foreign 0.35 0.15 0.33
Type of business
Holiday 0.57 0.57 0.59
Business 0.40 0.31 0.26
Mixed 0.03 0.11 0.15
Minimum age 10 years 0.66 0.78 0.61
Capacity of at least 100 rooms 0.71 0.39 0.72
Number of stuff at least 50 employees 0.34 0.17 0.50
Average occupancy rate in 2012 higher than 60% 0.56 0.41 0.60
Operations regime
Direct ownership 0.71 0.78 0.44
Rent 0.15 0.08 0.47
Management contract 0.03 0.11 0.06
Franchise 0.03 0.03 0.00
Joint venture 0.09 0.00 0.03

4.3 Study of the existing association between the two clusters

The contingency Table 6 with the two clustering and it shows that there is a remarkable
association between the three groups established based on organisational performance
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 135

results achieved through organisational learning and those created based on knowledge
creation process equally linked to organisational learning. 21 of the 106 hotels included
in the survey, belonged to both groups 1 (G1), 17 to the two groups 2 (G2) and another
17 to the two groups 3 (G3). That is, no less than 55 hotels – 51.9% – are located in the
same groups for both criteria.
Table 6 Contingency table of the two clusters

Cluster knowledge creation

Total
G1 G2 G3
Cluster organisational learning G1 21 14 14 49
G2 6 17 2 25
G3 9 6 17 32
Total 36 37 33 106

In order to verify this, several measures of association have been found, all of them with
significances of 0.00 (rejecting of the null hypothesis of statistical independence), with
values of 0.46 for phi, 0.33 for Cramer V, and 0.42 for the coefficient of contingency.
Therefore, the association measures are statistically significant, which proves that there is
a relationship between the obtained groupings from the organisational performance
results, achieved thanks to the organisational learning and the groups created on the basis
of the processes of knowledge creation linked to the organisational learning.

5 Discussion and conclusions

This study is focused on advancing the empirical research on the effect of organisational
learning in the organisational performance, specifically in the hotel sector, deepening on
typologies and characterisation of hotel establishments. Three groups of hotels have been
identified: G3 includes hotels in which learning has greater influence on the overall
organisational performance results and which emphasises on the processes of knowledge
creation; G1 is composed by hotels in which organisational learning influences in a
remarkable way the obtaining of organisational performance results and which apply to a
great extent the processes of organisational learning; and finally, G2 includes hotels in
which organisational learning influences moderately the generation of organisational
performance results and implements in an undesirable way the processes of
organisational learning.
With respect to the organisational performance results generated in the groups G3 and
G1, customers’ loyalty is the most linked to organisational learning. The higher value
given to customers relates to their satisfaction (Oh, 1999; Eggert and Ulaga, 2002) and
satisfied customers are more likely to repurchase products and services (Oh, 1999; Baker
and Crompton, 2000). In this line, Yan (2004) states that most of hotels are focused on
the improvement of hotel’s services and the maintenance of customers’ loyalty.
This research shows that knowing and learning from customers’ expectations during
their stay in a hotel, can promote their loyalty, so we recommend to hotel establishments
to obtain an in-depth knowledge of the clients’ preferences and tastes.
136 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

They would tend to repeat the same accommodation if they feel especially
considerate because their tastes and needs have been satisfied. In this context,
personalised treatment will be a factor that enhances the loyalty of customers to feel as
special clients, so this study recommends that the hotel establishments follow these
practices.
Then, in the groups composed by hotels in which organisational learning has more
moderate influence, the organisational performance result most closely linked to
organisational learning is the competitive position (Kumar et al., 2008), indicating that
learning can become one part of the hotels’ capacity to compete in their economic
environment.
As for the group of hotels that tends to create knowledge (G3), outsourcing is the
most appreciated process. This process also appears prominently in the second group
most related to knowledge creation (G1). In the latter group, the internalisation (from
explicit to tacit) is also one of the most used processes. In turn, in the group of hotels that
apply less knowledge (G2), the processes of internalisation and combination (explicit to
explicit) are the most used.
In accordance with the results, it is important to note that outsourcing has been one of
the processes of knowledge conversion that appears most significantly in the literature
(Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Kogut and Zander, 1996; Schulz, 2001;
Hansen, 2002; de Castro et al., 2008). The results obtained in the last study highlight how
explicit knowledge can be transferred and applied more easily. Likewise, Dyck et al.
(2005) point out that outsourcing requires interaction, i.e., sharing knowledge, especially
when employees do not possess sufficient technical skills or capabilities to make explicit
their ideas. In addition, these authors also point out that interaction is necessary for the
transfer of explicit knowledge during the combination. In contrast, it is more difficult to
measure externally internalisation and socialisation, yet knowledge has to be retained,
internalised and owned by individuals before acting on it (Bakken et al., 1992; Nicely
et al., 2011; Basten and Haamann, 2018). Therefore, our study contributes to the
literature stating that the modes of knowledge conversion affect organisational learning
(Ramírez et al., 2011), especially outsourcing and internalisation, which means that these
modes of transition have great presence as processes of knowledge creation in the
learning at organisational level. Thus, our study follows the study of Von Krogh (2009),
which highlights how the knowledge conversion generates the development of forms of
tacit and explicit knowledge.
In this study, outsourcing is the most used by hotels process, which is related to the
processes of knowledge creation. In relation to the process to communicate tacit
knowledge, we should point out that the knowledge management in tourism has to
identify, capture and convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Bukowitz and
Williams, 2000). Moreover, explicit knowledge will be transferred from one organisation
to another through the outsourcing process (Nonaka, 1991) and managers should have to
ensure a consistent distribution of information within the organisation (Nicely et al.,
2011). Therefore, hotel establishments are encouraged to explicitly make the codification
of useful knowledge to the company in handbooks, computer programs, reports and
organisational routines, and information systems. Thanks to this process of outsourcing,
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 137

hotel establishments will be able to have a knowledge base of everything learned, thus
consolidating knowledge within the organisation.
With regard to the characterisation of these hotels and considering that 51.9% are
included in the same groups for both criteria, we can conclude that the group of hotels
more oriented to learning for competitive advantages creation and the group that gives
more importance to the process of knowledge creation corresponds to those which belong
to hotel chains, have a high number of employees and their operating regime is based
more on rental contracts. This may suggest that as hotels with greater capacity, they also
have more resources and, therefore, could invest in learning related processes. The
second group observed after the analysis, is composed by those hotels in which the
organisational learning influences in a remarkable way for the obtaining of organisational
performance results and they apply to a great extent the processes of organisational
learning. The hotels belonging to this group are dedicated more than those in the other
two groups, to the business tourism and have many rooms, which may show that being
hotels where the clients spend fewer nights implies a greater learning from them. In
addition, we should note that in these hotels, the greatest organisational performance
results associated with organisational learning is customers’ loyalty, which can be linked
again to the idea that these hotels need to learn from their customers. By contrast, the
group of hotels less oriented to learning for the creation of organisational performance
results and the group that gives less importance to the process of knowledge creation
includes old hotels that are operated, more than the others, by contracts. It may mean that
being older, they are less updated in applying techniques, tools, methodologies,
processes, etc. linked to the creation of knowledge and organisational learning.
On the one hand, the established typologies in this study generate a way to
differentiate hotels according to their usage of learning which can affect organisational
performance (Petrash, 1996; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Olivera, 2000; Kraleva,
2011; Tajeddini, 2011; Svagzdiene et al., 2013; Fraj et al., 2015), specifically, in the area
of customer loyalty. On the other hand, the aforementioned typologies have also been
used to explain the achievement of organisational learning.
This study is a new contribution to the literature as it identified the hotels’ need to
gather resources and skills, which can improve the learning process in this kind of
organisations. Therefore, our study holds on to the research of Slater and Narver (1995)
which highlights how learning-oriented organisations turn out to be more efficient when
building their structure and also relocating their resources to gain competitive advantages.
According to the results, we corroborate the fact that nowadays learning is seen as a
crucial element for the improvement of organisational performance and as Rebelo and
Duarte (2008) state, the trend of organisational learning should remain of crucial
importance and a concept recognised by both, the organisations themselves and the
academia.
We should add that this paper presents a number of limitations. The main one is that
the empirical study was implemented only in the Valencian Community, as a study on a
larger population would be more representative. Finally, the collected information comes
only from the perceptions of a single informant: senior managers of hotel establishments
and, despite the fact that managers are considered reliable sources of information due to
their experience and knowledge, data could be biased.
138 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

References
Alonso-Almeida, M.M. and Rodríguez-Antón, J.M. (2011) ‘Organisational behaviour and
strategies in adoption of certified management systems: an analysis of the Spanish hotel
industry’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, No. 13, pp.1455–1463.
Alonso-Almeida, M.M., Celemín-Pedroche, M.S., Rubio-Andrada, L. and Rodríguez-Antón, J.M.
(2016) ‘Human and other critical factors in organisational learning in the hotel industry: a
contingency approach’, Tourism & Management Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.97–106.
Álvarez-Gil, M.J., Burgos, J. and de Céspedes, J.J. (2001) ‘An analysis of environmental
management, organisational context and performance of Spanish hotels’, Omega, Vol. 29,
No. 6, pp.457–471.
Azmi, F.T. (2008) ‘Organisational learning: crafting a strategic framework. The Icfai’, University
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.58–70.
Baker, D.A. and Crompton, J.L. (2000) ‘Quality, satisfaction and behavioral variables’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.785–804.
Bakken, B., Gould, J. and Kim, D. (1992) ‘Experimentation in learning organisations: a
management flight simulator approach’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59,
No. 1, pp.167–182.
Basten, D. and Haamann, T. (2018) ‘Approaches for organisational learning: a literature review’,
Sage Open, July–September, pp.1–20.
Bayraktaroglu, S. and Ozen, R. (2003) ‘Transforming hotels into learning organisations: a new
strategy for going global’, Tourism Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp.149–154.
Bello, O.B. and Adeoye, A.O. (2018) ‘Organisational learning, organisational innovation and
organisational performance: empirical evidence among selected manufacturing companies in
Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria’, Journal of Economics & Management, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.25–38.
Bierly, P. and Chakrabarti, A. (1996) ‘Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical
industry’, Strategic Management, Winter, Vol. 17, pp.123–135.
Bontis, N., Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2002) ‘Managing an organisational learning system by
aligning stocks and flows’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.437–469.
Buckley, P.J. and Carter, M.J. (2002) ‘Process and structure in knowledge management practices of
British and US multinational enterprises’, Journal of International Management, Vol. 8,
No. 1, pp.29–48.
Bueno, E. (2007) Organización de Empresas, Estructura, Procesos y Modelos, Pirámide, Madrid.
Bukowitz, W.R. and Williams, R.L. (2000) ‘The knowledge management fieldbook’, Financial
Times, Prentice Hall, London.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1966) The Management of Innovation, Tavistock, London.
Carina, A. and Marnburg, E. (2008) ‘Knowledge management in the hospitality industry: a review
of empirical research’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.366–381.
Carmona-Moreno, E., Céspedes-Lorente, J. and De Burgos-Jiménez, J. (2004) ‘Environmental
strategies in Spanish hotels: contextual factors and performance’, The Service Industries
Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.101–130.
Cheng, H., Niu, M-S. and Niu, K-H. (2014) ‘Industrial cluster involvement, organisational
learning, and organisational adaptation: an exploratory study in high technology industrial
districts’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp.971–990.
Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. (2005) ‘Organisational learning and organisational knowledge: toward the
integration of two approaches’, Management Learning, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp.49–68.
Chiva, R., Ghauri, P. and Alegre, J. (2014) ‘Organisational learning, innovation and
internationalization: a complex system model’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 25,
No. 4, pp.687–705.
Comisión Europea (2003) 2003/361/CE, Diario Oficial de la UE, 20 May [online] http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32003H0361 (accessed 13 May 2018).
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 139

Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R.E. (1999) ‘Organisational learning: from intuition to
institution’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.522–537.
Darroch, J. (2005) ‘Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.101–115.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1997) Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston.
de Castro, G.M., López-Sáez, P. and Navas-López, J.E. (2008) ‘Processes of knowledge creation in
knowledge-intensive firms: empirical evidence from Boston’s route 128 and Spain’,
Technovation, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.222–230.
De Geus, A. (1988) ‘Planning as learning’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp.70–74.
DiBella, A., Nevis, E.C. and Gould, J.M. (1996) ‘Understanding organisational learning
capability’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.361–379.
Dodgson, M. (1993) ‘Organisational learning: a review of some literatures’, Organisation Studies,
Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.375–394.
Donate, M. (2007) Estrategias de Conocimiento e Innovación, CES: Consejo Económico y Social,
Madrid.
Dunphy, D., Turner, D. and Crawford, M. (1997) ‘Organisational learning as the creation of
corporate competences’, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.232–244.
Dyck, B., Stake, F., Mischke, G.Y. and Mauws, M. (2005) ‘Learning to build a car: an empirical
investigation of organisational learning’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2,
pp.387–416.
Eggert, A. and Ulaga, W. (2002) ‘Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in
business markets’, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17, Nos. 2/3,
pp.107–118.
Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A. (1985) ‘Organisational learning’, The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.803–813.
Fraj, E., Matute, J. and Melero, I. (2015) ‘Environmental strategies and organisational
competitiveness in the hotel industry: the role of learning and innovation as determinants of
environmental success’, Tourism Management, Vol. 46, pp.30–42.
Garau, J.B. and Orfila-Sintes, F. (2008) ‘Internet innovation for external relations in the Balearic
hotel industry’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.70–80.
Garvin, D. (1993) ‘Building a learning organisation’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 10, No. 4,
pp.803–813.
Georgopoulos, N. (2005) ‘Knowledge management as an integral part of strategic management in
e-business era’, International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.373–387.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001) ‘Knowledge management: an organisational
capabilities perspective’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1,
pp.185–214.
Gomes, G. and Wojahn, R.M. (2017) ‘Organisational learning capability, innovation and
performance: study in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES)’, Revista De
Administração, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.163–175.
Gupta, A. and Govindarajan, V. (2000) ‘Knowledge flows within multinational corporations’,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.25–41.
Habibi-Badrabadi, H. and Akbarpour, T. (2013) ‘A study on the effect of intellectual capital and
organisational learning process on organisational performance’, African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 7, No. 16, pp.1470–1485.
Ham, S., Kim, W. and Jeong, S. (2005) ‘Effect of information technology on performance in
upscale hotels’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 24, No. 2,
pp.281–294.
Hansen, M.T. (2002) ‘Knowledge networks: explaining effectiveness knowledge sharing in
multiunit companies’, Organisation Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.232–248.
140 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

Helfat, C. and Raubitschek, R.S. (2000) ‘Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge,

capabilities and products’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, Nos. 10–11, pp.961–979.
Hicks, R.C., Dattero, R.D. and Galup, S.D. (2007) ‘A metaphor for knowledge management:
explicit islands in a tacit sea’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.5–16.
Iebra-Aizpurúa, L., Zegarra Saldaña, P.E. and Zegarra Saldaña, A. (2011) ‘Learning for sharing: an
empirical analysis of organisational learning and knowledge sharing’, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.509–518.
INE (2017a) Encuesta de Ocupación Hotelera, Principales Resultados [online]
http://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736177015&
menu=resultados&secc=1254736195376&idp=1254735576863 (accessed 29 may 2018).
INE (2017b) Encuesta de Ocupación Hotelera, Principales Resultados [online] http://www.ine.es/
jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=2066 (accessed 29 may 2018).
Jérez-Gómez, P., Cespedes, J. and Valle, R. (2005) ‘Organisational learning capability: a proposal
of measurement’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp.715–725.
Kasim, A. (2015) ‘Environmental management system (EMS) postulating the value of its adoption
to organisational learning in hotels’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp.1233–1253.
Kim, B.Y. and Oh, H. (2004) ‘How do hotel firms obtain a competitive advantage?’, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.65–71.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996) ‘What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning’,
Organisation Science, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp.502–518.
Kraleva, N. (2011) ‘Learning organisations: prerequisite for successful tourism organisations’,
UTMS Journal of Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.77–82.
Kumar, I., Kumar, V. and De Grosbois, D. (2008) ‘Development of technological capability by
cuban hospitality organisations’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27,
No. 1, pp.12–22.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967) Organisation and Environment: Managing Differentiation
and Integration, Irwin, Homewood, Illinois.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003) ‘Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organisational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination’, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.179–228.
Lee, S., Kim, B.G. and Kim, H. (2012) ‘An integrated view of knowledge management for
performance’, Journal of knowledge Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.183–203.
Li, Y.H., Huang, J.W. and Tsai, M.T. (2009) ‘Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance:
the role of knowledge creation process’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38, No. 4,
pp.440–449.
Lipshitz, R., Popper, M. and Oz, S. (1996) ‘Building learning organisations: the design and
implementation of organisational learning mechanisms’, Journal of Applied Behavioural
Science, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.292–305.
Luthans, F. (1977) Introduction to Management: A Contingency Approach, McGraw Hill,
New York.
Mintzberg, H. (1984) La Estructuración de las Organizaciones, Ariel, Barcelona.
Molina-Azorín, J.F., Claver-Cortés, E., Pereira-Moliner, J. and Tarí, J.J. (2009) ‘Environmental
practices and firm performance: an empirical analysis in the Spanish hotel industry’, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.516–524.
Moorman, C. and Miner, A.S. (1997) ‘The impact of organisational memory of new product
performance and creativity’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.91–106.
Nicely, A., Palakurthi, R. and Gooden, A.D. (2011) ‘Behaviors linked to high levels of hotel
managers’ work-related learning’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp.764–783.
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 141

Nonaka, I. (1991) ‘The knowledge-creating company’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69, No. 6,
pp.96–104.
Nonaka, I. (1994) ‘A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation’, Organisation Science,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.14–37.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998) ‘The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge
creation’, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.40–54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Creates the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.
Nonaka, I. and Von Krogh, G. (2009) ‘Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy
and advancement in organisational knowledge creation theory’, Organisation Science,
Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.635–652.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Nagata, A. (2000) ‘A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new
perspective on the theory of the firm’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp.1–20.
Oh, H. (1999) ‘Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: a holistic perspective’,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.67–82.
Olivera, F. (2000) ‘Memory systems in organisations: an empirical investigation of mechanisms for
knowledge collection, storage and access’, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37,
No. 6, pp.811–832.
Pereira-Moliner, J., Claver-Cortés, E., Molina-Azorín, J.F. and Tarí J.J. (2012) ‘Quality
management, environmental management and firm performance: direct and mediating effects
in the hotel industry’, Journal of Cleaner Production, December, Vol. 37, pp.82–92.
Petrash, G. (1996) ‘Dow’s journey to a knowledge value management culture’, European
Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.365–373.
Pohlmann, N., Gebhardt, C. and Etzkowitz, H. (2005) ‘The development of innovation systems and
the art of innovation management strategy. Control and the culture of innovation’, Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.1–7.
Ramírez, A.M., Morales, V.J.G. and Rojas, R.M. (2011) ‘Knowledge creation, organisational
learning and their effects on organisational performance’, Engineering Economics, Vol. 22,
No. 3, pp.309–318.
Rebelo, T.M. and Duarte, A. (2008) ‘Organisational learning and the learning organisation.
Reviewing evolution for prospecting the future’, The Learning Organisation, Vol. 15, No. 4,
pp.294–308.
Rodríguez-Antón, J.M. (2012) Influencia de los principios organizativos, parámetros de diseño y
factores de contingencia en las estructuras organizativas de las cadenas hoteleras españolas y
mexicanas, Visión Libros, Madrid.
Rodríguez-Antón, J.M. and Alonso-Almeida, M.M. (2008) Dirección y Organización de Empresas
Hoteleras, Editorial Síntesis, Madrid.
Rodríguez-Antón, J.M., Alonso-Almeida, M.M., Celemín, M.S. and Rubio-Andrada, L. (2012)
‘Use of different sustainability management systems in the hospitality industry. The case of
Spanish hotels’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.76–84.
Saban, K., Lanasa, J., Lackman, C. and Peace, G. (2000) ‘Organisational learning: a critical
component to new product development’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 9,
No. 2, pp.99–119.
Salmador, M.P. and Florín, J. (2013) ‘Knowledge creation and competitive advantage in turbulent
environments: a process model of organisational learning’, Knowledge Management Research
& Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.374–388.
Sandberg, B. (2007) ‘Enthusiasm in the development of radical innovations’, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.265–273.
Schulz, M. (2001) ‘The uncertain relevance of newness: organisational learning and knowledge
flows’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp.661–681.
142 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

Sinkula, J. (1994) ‘Market information processing and organisational learning’, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp.35–45.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995) ‘Market orientation and the learning organisation’, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp.63–74.
Spender, J.C. (2008) ‘Organisational learning and knowledge management: Whence and Whither?’,
Management Learning, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.159–176.
Stata, R. (1989) ‘Organisational learning – the key to management innovation’, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.63–74.
Sun, P.Y.T. and Anderson, M.H. (2008) ‘An examination of the relationship between absorptive
capacity and organisational learning, and a proposed integration’, International Journal of
Management Reviews, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.130–150.
Svagzdiene, B., Jasinskas, E., Fominiene, V. and Mikalauskas, R. (2013) ‘The situation of learning
and prospects for improvement in a tourism organisation’, Engineering Economics, Vol. 24,
No. 2, pp.126–134.
Tajeddini, K. (2011) ‘Customer orientation, learning orientation, and new service development: an
empirical investigation of the Swiss hotel industry’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp.437–468.
Ugurlu, Ö.Y. and Kurt, M. (2016) ‘The impact of organisational learning capability on product
innovation performance: evidence from the Turkish manufacturing sector’, Emerging Markets
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.70–84.
Von Krogh, G. (1998) ‘Care in knowledge creation’, California Management Review, Special Issue
on Knowledge and the Firm, Spring, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp.133–153.
Weick, K.E. (1991) ‘The nontraditional quality of organisational learning’, Organisation Science,
Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.116–124.
Williams, M. (2001) ‘A belief-focused process model of organisational learning’, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.67–85.
Woodward, J. (1965) Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Wu, I-L. and Chen, J-L. (2014) ‘Knowledge management driven firm performance: the roles of
business process capabilities and organisational learning’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp.1141–1164.
Yang, J-T. (2004) ‘Qualitative knowledge capturing and organisational learning: two case studies
in Taiwan hotels’, Tourism Management, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.421–428.
Yang, J-T. (2008) ‘Individual attitudes and organisational knowledge sharing’, Tourism
Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.345–353.
Yang, J-T. (2010) ‘Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing international tourist
hotels’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.42–52.
Yuan, Y., Feng, B., Lai, F. and Collins, B.J. (2018) ‘The role of trust, commitment, and learning
orientation on logistic service effectiveness’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 93,
pp.37–50.
Zeng, S.Z., González, J. and Lobato, C. (2015) ‘The effect of organisational learning and Web 2.0
on innovation’, Management Decision, Vol. 53, No. 9, pp.2060–2072.
Zhang, Y., Sun, J., Yang, Z. and Li, S. (2018) ‘Organisational learning and green innovation: does
environmental proactivity matter?’, Sustainability, Vol. 10, p.3737.
Zhao, Y., Lu, Y. and Wang, X. (2013) ‘Organisational unlearning and organisational relearning: a
dynamic process of knowledge management’, Journal of knowledge Management, Vol. 17,
No. 6, pp.902–912.
Zhou, W., Hu, H. and Shi, X. (2015) ‘Does organisational learning lead to higher firm
performance? An investigation of Chinese listing companies’, The Learning Organisation,
Vol. 22, No. 5, pp.271–288.
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 143

Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002) ‘Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities’,
Organisation Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.339–351.

Annexure

Questionnaire (see online version for colours)

 
HOTEL:                                                                                          DATE: 
 
RESPONDENT:                                                              
 
  SURVEY N°:   

Survey on the use of technologies in the process of organisational learning and its
implication on the efficiency of 3, 4 and 5 star hotels in the Valencian Community.
Dear Ms/Mr:
The Autonomous University of Madrid and the University of Alicante are conducting a
research addressed to the management of companies in the tourism sector, specifically,
regarding the use of technologies and learning in hotel establishments in the Valencian
Community. In this line of research, we would like to ask you a set of questions and it
will take up you approximately 10 minutes to answer. We guarantee that the information
you provide will be completely confidential and processed in aggregated form only,
never individually.
Thank you very much for your collaboration.

A Processes that influence organisational learning

In order for an organisation to learn, a series of knowledge conversion processes must
take place. Here below, the following questions are asked.
To what extent do the following processes occur in your hotel in relation to the
organisational learning process? (Where 1 = nothing and 5 = completely).
1 2 3 4 5
1 Hotel members share beliefs, values and ways of thinking
2 Your hotel organises informal meetings such as coffees, brunches
and even other social activities in your free time
3 The corporate mission, vision, values, as well as the organisational
history of the hotel are found in formal or official documents
4 The hotel’s organisational routines are documented in procedures,
organisational charts, etc.
5 All the information of your hotel available in the information
systems (files, databases, intranets, corporate networks, computer
software, etc.) and on paper is accessible for the employees
6 The hotel synthesises, expands, combines and classifies
information already available to develop new written information
144 M.S. Celemín-Pedroche et al.

1 2 3 4 5
7 Meetings to explain the contents of documents related to the
organisation’s cultural policies, procedures and values and to
discuss the contents of procedures or other organisational schemes
are held in your hotel
8 The perspectives, views, data and information available are easy to
understand for employees
Nothing → completely

B Organisational learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantages

The organisational learning process can be a source of sustainable competitive
advantages. Here below, the following questions related to these advantages are raised.
To what extent does organisational learning generate sustainable competitive
advantages in your hotel in relation to? (Where 1 = nothing and 5 = completely).
1 2 3 4 5
1 Market share increase
2 Increase of profits
3 Strategic renewal
4 Efficiency increase
5 Sales growth
6 Fulfilment of objectives
7 Development of new products
8 Customers loyalty increase
9 Innovation
10 Quality improvement
11 Competitive position improvement
12 Costs reduction
13 Creation of new organisational skills
Nothing → completely

C Respondent’s data (see online version for colours)

1 Position:
2 Sex: 0 Male 1 Female
3 Age (years):
Less Between Between 40 Between More
1 2 3 4 5
than 30 30 and 39 and 49 50 and 59 than 59
4 Age of the hotel (years):
Less Between Between 6 Between More
1 2 3 4 5
than 5 2 and 5 and 10 11 and 15 than 15
 Organisational learning and knowledge creation research 145

D Hotel’s data (see online version for colours)

1 Does your hotel belong to a chain? 0 No 1 Yes
2 If the response is yes, the chain is: 0 National 1 International
3 The main hotel’s clients are: 0 Holiday 1 Business
4 Hotel’s operating regime:
Direct Management Joint
1 2 Rent 3 4 Franchise 5
ownership contract venture
5 Age of the hotel (years):
Less than Between Between Between More
1 2 3 4 5
5 6 and 9 10 and 19 20 and 50 than 50
6 Number of rooms:
Less Between Between Between More
1 2 3 4 5
than 50 55 and 99 100 and 199 200 and 299 than 299
7 Number of employees:
Less Between 10 Between 50
1 2 3 4 More than 250
than 10 and 49 and 250
8 Mean occupancy rate in 2012:
1 <30% 2 30%–40% 3 40%–60% 4 60%–80% 5 >80%
9 Mean estimated occupancy rate for 2013:
1 <30% 2 30%–40% 3 40%–60% 4 60%–80% 5 >80%