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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0143-7720.htm

Employee turnover intentions and Organizational

learning
job performance from a planned culture

change: the effects of an

organizational learning culture and
job satisfaction Received 29 August 2018
Revised 11 February 2019
20 August 2019
Chun-Yu Lin 1 December 2019
22 May 2020
Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, 26 June 2020
New Taipei City, Taiwan, and 27 June 2020
Accepted 28 June 2020
Chung-Kai Huang
Department of International Business, National Taipei University of Business,
Taipei City, Taiwan

Abstract
Purpose – In the face of a changing and turbulent environment, an organizational learning culture (OLC) is
crucial for the long-term operation of an organization. A learning culture provides the capacity to effectively
integrate employees, and it also provides structure so that an organization can move forward via continuous
learning and change. Few empirical results are available from Chinese companies enduring an organizational
change. To bridge this research gap, this study investigated the relationships among an OLC, job satisfaction,
turnover intentions and job performance during organizational change.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative approach with structural equation modeling (SEM) and
bootstrapping estimation was used to test hypotheses developed from a sample of 434 employees in a
restructured telecommunications company in Taiwan.
Findings – Employees who experienced a higher learning culture had lower levels of turnover intentions and
exhibited better job performance. Job satisfaction had a negative impact on employee turnover intentions but a
positive impact on job performance. Moreover, job satisfaction fully mediated the relationships between an
OLC and employee turnover intentions and job performance. When encountering organizational planned
changes, a vibrant learning culture gave employees a higher level of satisfaction in their jobs and workplace.
Although unexpected challenges often appeared during the organizational changes, employees with a higher
level of job satisfaction tended to fulfill their own job duties and showed fewer turnover intentions.
Originality/value – In investigating issues related to organizational change, this study provides managerial
insights and addresses strategies for facilitating the adoption of an OLC into the design and implementation of
a better workplace environment.
Keywords Organizational learning culture, Job satisfaction, Turnover intention, In-role behavior,
Organizational change
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The ever-expanding global economy and the evolution of technology have forced organizations
to constantly adopt change strategies in order to remain agile, responsive and competitive. In a
changing and turbulent environment, the concept of learning organizations has become crucial
because a robust organizational learning culture (OLC) has the capacity to effectively integrate
employees into a new organizational structure (Cummings and Worley, 2015). An OLC

The authors would like to thank our anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. This work was International Journal of Manpower
supported by Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan for its research grant support [MOST-106- © Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7720
2410-H-305-047-SSS and MOST-107-2410-H-141-011]. All errors are exclusively those of the authors. DOI 10.1108/IJM-08-2018-0281
IJM encourages organizational members to learn continuously and collaboratively to improve or
maintain competencies for better job performance. By creating a culture of knowledge inquiry
and sharing, a company can grow constructively and thrive on organizational transformation
with the capability to reshape employees’ work attitudes, behaviors and engagement (Sidani and
Reese, 2018).
The information technology (IT) industry depends on stable human resources for
successful development, and engineers are indispensable assets who contribute
knowledge and experience to an organization’s performance and competitiveness
(Lin et al., 2019; Tong et al., 2015). This is why the high turnover rate of engineers has
remained a troubling issue in Taiwanese IT companies (Chang et al., 2012).When engineers
struggle to assimilate with a changed work environment, new job requirements or new
coworkers, factors such as poor job performance and intentions to leave become inevitable
(Lin and Chen, 2009). Prior studies have found that the environment and culture of an
organization can help promote employees’ learning, job satisfaction and turnover
intentions (Emami et al., 2012; MacIntosh and Doherty, 2010). Nevertheless, the nature of
this phenomenon has not been fully explained in the context of organizational change.
Consequently, the first research question involved the impact that an OLC can have on
employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions during organizational change.
When employees become more capable of adapting to the changing environment, they
tend to feel more satisfied with their jobs, which translates to fulfilling job responsibilities and
better in-role behavior (Lin and Chen, 2009). Employees’ job performance is a viable concern
as the engineers manage to meet their changed job requirements via learning opportunities
and support from the organization. Thus, the second question concerned the impact of an
OLC on employees’ job satisfaction and job performance. Scholars in the field of human
resource development (HRD) have amassed evidence regarding the impact of an OLC on
workforce-related outcomes, such as innovation capabilities, job satisfaction, motivation to
transfer learning, organizational commitment and turnover intentions (Egan et al., 2004; Joo,
2010; Lien et al., 2006; Wang and Ellinger, 2011; Watkins and Kim, 2018). Nevertheless, most
prior research predominantly examined these outcomes within the context of stable
development, yet only a limited number of studies have focused on organizational change
settings (Swart and Kinnie, 2010).
Therefore, this study contributes to the organizational learning research study in
changing workplaces by re-emphasizing the positive impact that an OLC can exert in the
telecommunications industry. With limited research in other industries and regions, this
study can be adopted as a foundation in establishing an OLC during organizational
change by communicating the anticipated values and behaviors based on organizational
theories.

Literature review
Organizational learning culture
An OLC is a collection of organizational conventions, values, attitudes and practices that
encourages continuous learning and professional development (Marsick and Watkins, 2003;
Watkins and Kim, 2018; Watkins and Marsick, 1997). In today’s fast-changing world, creating
an OLC that connects organizational learning to performance improvement has become
critical for an organization’s competitive ability (Lau et al., 2019). In a planned change
environment, a company with an OLC can transform a learning process into a constructive,
communicative and collaborative-based model, in which employees’ learning proceeds
through a structural and task-based format that identifies and addresses specific
organizational earning needs (Cummings and Worley, 2015).
An OLC has been found positively associated with organizational innovation and serves
as a contributor to sustain employees’ job satisfaction and performance, as well as that of
their organization (Camps and Luna-Arocas, 2012; Wang and Ellinger, 2011). However, the Organizational
interaction between an OLC and other workforce-related variables still requires extensive learning
empirical exploration and efforts (Egan et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2019). The existing research
study of an OLC is based on the measurement conceptualized by Watkins and Marsick (1997)
culture
and Marsick and Watkins (2003) in the Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire
(DLOQ), which has been validated in cross-cultural contexts (Watkins and Kim, 2018).
Therefore, we adopted the construct defined in the DLOQ to deepen our understanding of the
implementation of an OLC in the Taiwanese organizational change context, given its scarcity
and the significance of its empirical research.

Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is regarded as the mental, physical and environmental pleasure that members
derive from the workplace (Williams and Hazer, 1986), and it can be described as an
employee’s affective and cognitive reactions to her or his job in the workplace (Huang et al.,
2016). Job satisfaction is commonly used as an indicator to evaluate employees’ job attitudes
as influenced by organizational events such as organizational change (Tong et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, only limited studies have explored the relationship between job satisfaction
and an OLC (Egan et al., 2004; Emami et al., 2012; Islam et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2019), and there
lies the research significance of an understanding of employees’ perceptions of an OLC and
job satisfaction during organizational change.

Turnover intentions
Turnover intentions are considered the strongest precursor to actual turnover (Joseph et al.,
2007). The literature establishes both organizational and individual factors that are the
determinants of employee turnover (Albrecht and Marty, 2020). Turnover intentions can
represent the plans of individual employees to leave their positions or it can refer to an
organization’s attempts to displace employees (Williams and Hazer, 1986). Thereby, turnover
intentions can be either voluntary or involuntary. The present study adopted Mobley and
Fisk’s (1982) definition as the voluntary intention to quit a job or change companies.

In-role behavior
Katz (1964) defined in-role behavior as behavior that is necessary, or expected, for the
accomplishment of job duties. Employees’ in-role performance and contribution can be
managed through reviewing their work quality and productivity (Hamstra et al., 2019). In-role
behavior can be used as an indicator of employees’ performance to evaluate whether
employees are capable of fulfilling their job duties in the organization (Williams and
Anderson, 1991).
Organizational learning culture, job satisfaction, turnover intentions and in-role behavior
Due to organizational change, unpredictable challenges may appear because employees of a
particular work unit must cope with new tasks and frequently communicate and collaborate
with cohorts from other departments. Employees need new skills for new jobs and roles. This
job uncertainty and role ambiguity can lead to career insecurity in the existing workforce and
employees may consider leaving the company, as opposed to keeping their job commitment
(Lin and Chen, 2009). An organization with a learning culture has the capacity to help
employees transform obstacles such as these (Watkins and Marsick, 1997). In this type of
learning culture-driven environment, employees are encouraged to acquire, distribute,
integrate, create and transfer information and knowledge to co-workers and to be open to
different possibilities for the establishment of continuous transformation for the better
(Sidani and Reese, 2018).
IJM An OLC can promote inquiry and dialog at individual, team and organizational levels, and
it can empower employees with a collective vision that connects the organization to a
changing environment, so an OLC is considered positively related to an employee’s
commitment to the organization (Cummings and Worley, 2015). Based on organizational
support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986), if employees perceive that their organization can
provide interactions, can communicate a vision and can assist them in adapting to a changing
environment, they are more likely to be psychologically attached to their organization (Joo,
2010; Garc
ıa-Morales et al., 2012). When employees perceive that their organization values the
mas potential assets and provides a quality learning environment, they tend to cultivate
fewer turnover intentions (Egan et al., 2004; Joo, 2010). Hence, we developed hypothesis 1a:
H1a. An OLC is negatively related to turnover intentions.
An organization with an OLC can create continuous learning opportunities, encourage
knowledge sharing and promote team collaboration so that employees are able to acquire and
develop relevant workplace competencies (Watkins and Marsick, 1997). According to social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when employees perceive that their organization scan provides
sufficient learning that supports their job change and needs, they are willing to fulfill their job
duties and responsibilities as required (Emami et al., 2012; Joo, 2010, 2012). Therefore, we
developed hypothesis 1b:
H1b. An OLC is positively related to in-role behavior.
Grounded in a social information processing perspective (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978),
individuals are adaptive organisms who adjust their behaviors, attitudes and beliefs to their
social context. The contextual impact of an OLC empowers employees to face challenges and
obstacles more positively because the workplace culture increases their willingness to
continuously learn. Therefore, an OLC enables employees to be more responsive and goal-
oriented and to exhibit higher levels of satisfaction in their jobs (Egan et al., 2004; Joo, 2010;
Islam et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2019; MacIntosh and Doherty, 2010). During a changing
environment, the characteristics of an OLC can help improve employees’ adaptability and can
have a significant subsequent impact in their job satisfaction (Emami et al., 2012).
Accordingly, we added H2 to our research context.
H2. An OLC is positively related to job satisfaction.
Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when employees feel that they are treated
impartially and compensated by what they perceive as appropriate relative to their
investment in time and effort, they are likely to perform on a high level and to stay with the
organization (Birtch et al., 2016). Employees’ job satisfaction increases and turnover
intentions diminish when they find that their organizations care about their career planning
and support their professional development, as well as value their contribution (Harden et al.,
2018; Mobley, 1982). Employees may think about leaving when aspects such as their
psychological well-being and their job satisfaction are low (Wright and Bonett, 2007). Thus,
we proposed that job satisfaction can discourage turnover intentions, as reflected in
hypothesis 3a.
H3a. Job satisfaction is negatively related to turnover intentions.
Researchers (i.e. Schleicher et al., 2015) have proved that attitudes can be used to precisely
predict behavior. In the context of organizational change, in-role behavior can be viewed as a
main indicator of individuals’ performance since it is important to know whether employees
can perform their new jobs well (Tremblay et al., 2010). This study assumes that employees
who feel more satisfied with their job are more likely to meet in-role performance
expectations, as reflected in hypothesis 3b.
 H3b. Job satisfaction is positively related to in-role behavior. Organizational
Previous studies have supported the linear relationships between an OLC and job satisfaction learning
(Moradi et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2019) and between an OLC and in-role behavior (Joo, 2012), as culture
well as between an OLC and turnover intentions (Egan et al., 2004; Islam et al., 2016; Joo, 2010).
To date, empirical evidence is lacking in the integrative relationships among an OLC, job
satisfaction, turnover intentions and in-role behavior. The mechanisms featured by social
exchange theory claim that job satisfaction can function as a mediator of the relationship
between various antecedent variables and workplace-related behaviors (Crede et al., 2007).
Nevertheless, only a few researchers (Emami et al., 2012; Islam et al., 2012) have
conceptualized and validated how job satisfaction can play a role in mediating an OLC
and turnover intentions in the workplace setting.
During organizational change, job satisfaction, in addition to employee turnover
intentions and individual performance, is an influential factor that should be considered in
managing employees’ job stability in a transition period (Cullen et al., 2014). Therefore, this
study extended social exchange theory to verify the relationships that exist between an OLC,
turnover intentions and in-role behavior that are mediated by job satisfaction. To examine the
mediating effect that job satisfaction can exert on the relationship between an OLC and
turnover intentions and on the relationship between an OLC and in-role behaviors, we
established hypotheses 4a and 4b.
H4a. Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between an OLC and turnover intentions.
H4b. Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between an OLC and in-role behavior.
Integrating the proposed hypotheses, a research framework is presented in Figure 1.

Methods
Research participants and procedures
The research participants were employees in the two merged branches of a
telecommunications company in Taiwan. A total of two branches of this company were
transformed in response to the merging of two administrative districts due to the national
government’s policy; one branch had 1,200 employees and the other had 300. Convenience
sampling was adopted for data collection one month following the official merger date. Out of
610 distributed paper-based surveys, 434 valid responses were returned, representing a
response rate of 71.15%. The participants consisted of 102 (24%) female and 332 (76%) male.
Their age varied: 11 (2.5%) were 61–70 years of age; 235 (54%) were 51–60 years of age; 136
(31%) were 41–50 years of age; 37 (9%) were 31–40 years of age and 15 (3.5%) were at 20–30
years of age. The participants were at different career stages: 34 (7.83%) had worked less than
10 years; 36 (8.29%) had worked for 1–20 years, 154 (35.48%) had worked for 21–30 years,
195 (44.93%) had worked for 31–40 years and 15 (3.47%) had worked for more than 40 years.

H1a H1b Turnover Intention

OLC
In-role Behavior

H2 H3a H3b

Figure 1.
Job Satisfaction Theresearch
framework
H4a H4b
IJM The data analysis
By using SPSS 19 and AMOS 22 software, three steps were taken for the data analysis. First,
descriptive statistics, correlations and reliabilities of the measurement model were reported.
The validity of each construct was examined via the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Second, structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to examine the fit of the estimated
model to determine how well it explained the data. Last, a mediation analysis with
bootstrapping was conducted and the results of hypotheses testing were addressed.

Measures
All items were assessed via a seven-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Organizational learning culture. The DLOQ is a valid measure that is used to assess the
construct of learning culture in organizations in varied cultural contexts (Joo, 2010; Lin et al.,
2019; Wang and Ellinger, 2011; Watkins and Kim, 2018; Yang et al., 2004). There are seven
dimensions of a learning organization that measure both people- and structure-oriented
components, including continuous learning, dialog and inquiry, team learning,
empowerment, embedded systems, system connection and strategic leadership. Lien et al.
(2006) employed a psychometric analysis and found that the DLOQ developed by Watkins
and Marsick (1997) has reasonable reliability and validity for the Taiwanese context.
Thereby, this study adopted the seven items, as suggested by Marsick and Watkins (2003),
that reflect a single construct of a learning culture from the short form of the DLOQ (see
Appendix) to investigate employees’ perceptions of an OLC at the individual level. At 0.94,
Cronbach’s alpha displayed an adequate level of internal consistency.
Job satisfaction. This variable was assessed using the six items from the Job Diagnostic
Survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1975), which is a commonly used measure that has shown
useful psychometric properties. Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was 0.90. The sample
item was “I feel satisfied with the amount of job security I have.”
Turnover intentions. This variable was measured by using a turnover intentions scale
developed by Kelloway et al. (1999). The measure includes four items, and Cronbach’s alpha
was 0.80. The sample item was “I am thinking about leaving this organization.”
In-role behavior. Seven items developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) were used to
measure in-role behavior. Cronbach’s alpha in the present study was 0.78. The sample item
was “perform tasks that are expected of me.”

Results
Intercorrelations of variables
Table 1 shows the correlation, mean and standard deviation values between the measures of
an OLC, job satisfaction, turnover intentions and in-role behavior. An OLC was positively
related to job satisfaction (r 5 0.53, p < 0.01) and in-role behavior (r 5 0.29, p < 0.01) and was

Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4

1. OLC 5.14 1.04 (0.93)

Table 1.
Mean, standard 2. Job satisfaction 5.68 0.93 0.53** (0.89)
deviation, average 3. Turnover intentions 1.76 0.76 –0.18** –0.35** (0.89)
variance extracted and 4. In-role behaviour 5.96 0.67 0.29** 0.34** –0.40** (0.83)
correlation values of Note(s): The parentheses in the correlation matrix represents the square root of AVE; p < 0.05,
variables **p < 0.01, p < 0.001
negatively related to turnover intentions (r 5 0.18, p < 0.01). Also, in-role behavior was Organizational
positively related to job satisfaction and turnover intentions (r 5 0.34, p < 0.01; r 5 0.40, learning
p < 0.01, respectively), whereas turnover intentions were negatively related to job
satisfaction (r 5 0.35, p < 0.01).
culture

Reliability and validity

In Table 2, Cronbach’s alpha values for each construct ranged from 0.78 to 0.94, which
displayed an adequate level of internal consistency reliability. We used the CFA to measure
the internal consistency reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of the four
constructs. The results indicated that composite reliability (CR) ranged from 0.84 to 0.93,
which exceeded the 0.60 CR threshold value and suggested adequate internal consistency
reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In addition, the factor loadings of the individual items
were all significant, which provided evidence of the convergent validity of the measurement
model. Further, we used the measure of average variance extracted (AVE) to test the validity
of the constructs. The AVE values of the four constructs ranged from 0.58 to 0.67, which
exceeded the 0.5 threshold value (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) for an acceptable level of
convergent validity. To meet the requirements of discriminant validity, the square roots of a
construct’s AVE should exceed the estimated intercorrelations between one construct and the
others in the model. In Table 1, the square roots of all constructs’ AVE values ranged from
0.83 to 0.93 and provided preliminary support for discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010).
Based on these tests, we can conclude that reliability and validity are adequate for both
models 1 and 2.
Because all items were answered by a single source, which could generate common
method variance (CMV), we used Harman’s one-factor test to determine the effect (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). The first principal component in the total explained variance was 34.58 (<50%),
suggesting that there were no serious CMV problems. We further conducted a common latent
factor analysis since the CFA techniques are widely accepted and used for the concerns of
CMV (Williams and McGonagle, 2016). The results indicated that the four-factor model

Variables Items Factor loadings Cronbach’s α AVE CR

OLC OLC1 0.84 0.94 0.67 0.93

OLC2 0.84
OLC3 0.80
OLC4 0.83
OLC5 0.86
OLC6 0.80
OLC7 0.74
Job satisfaction JS1 0.87 0.90 0.59 0.89
JS2 0.85
JS3 0.87
JS4 0.70
JS5 0.72
JS6 0.55
Turnover intentions TI1 0.73 0.80 0.58 0.84
TI2 0.91
TI3 0.81
TI4 0.55
In-role behavior IRB1 0.69 0.78 0.67 0.89 Table 2.
IRB2 0.76 Coefficients for the
IRB3 0.92 proposed
IRB4 0.89 measurement model
IJM (χ 2 5 768.60, df 5 183, χ 2/df 5 4.20, GFI 5 0.85, AGFI 5 0.81, RMSEA 5 0.08) was a better fit
than the one-factor model (χ 2 5 3243.37, df 5 189, χ 2/df 5 17.16, GFI 5 0.48, AGFI 5 0.37,
RMSEA 5 0.19). Thus, the measures we used are distinct constructs with little interference
by CMV (Mossholder et al., 1988).

The Model–data fit

Table 3 shows that both models 1 and 2 fitted the data well according to the fit statistics and
recommended cut-offs for SEM (Hair et al., 2010). The comparative fit index values (CFI) of
models 1 and 2 were 0.92 and 0.89, respectively, which either approximated or was greater
than 0.9, and indicated a good fit. The Tucker–Lewis index values (TLI) of models 1 and 2
were 0.90 and 0.87, respectively, and neither was higher than 0.95, indicating an acceptable fit.
The standardized root mean square residual values (SRMR) for models 1 and 2 were both
0.00, less than 0.08, suggesting a good fit. The root-mean-square error of approximation
values (RMSEA) for models 1 and 2 were both 0.09, and both were within an adequate range
from 0.08 to 0.1, which indicated a mediocre fit (MacCallum et al., 1996).

Structural models
The standardized path coefficients (SPCs) of the direct effect of an OLC on turnover intentions
(SPC 5 0.19, p < 0.001), the SPCs of the direct effect of an OLC on in-role behaviors (SPC 5 0.21,
p < 0.001) and the SPCs of the direct effect of an OLC on job satisfaction (SPC 5 0.58, p < 0.001)
were all statistically significant. Therefore, H1a, H1b and H2 are supported. Furthermore, the
correlation coefficients indicated that job satisfaction was negatively and significantly related to
turnover intentions (r 5 0.35, p < 0.01) but positively and significantly related to in-role
behaviors (r 5 0.34, p < 0.01). The results of the direct effect of job satisfaction on turnover
intentions were also listed (SPC 5 0.34, p < 0.001), along with the results of the direct effect of
job satisfaction on in-role behaviors (SPC 5 0.29, p < 0.001). Hence, H3a and H3b are supported.

Mediating effects
We used bootstrapping to estimate the mediating effects. In model 1, we tested the total, direct
and indirect effects of the relationship of an OLC to turnover intentions (see Table 4). When

Table 3. Hypothesized model χ2 Df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA

The model–data fit of
hypothesized models 1 Model 1 553 116 0.92 0.90 0.00 0.09
and 2 Model 2 810 167 0.89 0.87 0.00 0.09

Bootstrapping
Product of Bias-correlated
coefficients 95% CI Percentile 95% CI
Relationships Point estimation S.E. Z Lower Upper Lower Upper

Total effect
OLC → TI –0.13 0.05 2.78 –0.23 –0.05 –0.22 –0.04
Direct effect
Table 4. OLC →TI 0.00 0.05 0.09 –0.10 0.09 –0.09 0.09
The bootstrapping Indirect effect
analysis results of OLC →TI –0.14 0.03 4.21 –0.21 –0.08 –0.20 –0.08
model 1 Note(s): 1,000 bootstrap samples. OLC: organizational learning culture, TI: turnover intentions
we used job satisfaction as a mediator of hypothesized model 1, the Z-value of the direct effect Organizational
was not significant (Z 5 0.09 < 1.96) and 0 was included between the bias-correlated upper learning
and lower bounds ( 0.10 < 0 <0.09). The results revealed the significant and full mediating
effect in our hypothesized model 1. Thus, the mediating effect that job satisfaction exerted on
culture
the relationship between an OLC and turnover intentions was significant. As for model 2, we
tested the total, direct and indirect effects of the relationship of an OLC to in-role behavior (see
Table 5). When we used job satisfaction as the mediator of hypothesized model 2, the Z-value
of the direct effects did not reach significance (Z 5 0.83 < 1.96) and 0 was included between
the bias-correlated upper and lower bounds ( 0.06 < 0<0.14). Consequently, the full
mediating effect that job satisfaction exerted on the relationship between an OLC and in-role
behavior was significant. H4a and H4b are thus supported.
In order to illustrate the mediating effect of job satisfaction, Figures 2 and 3 listed the
estimates for both measurement and structural portions of the two hypothesized models.
Model 1was examined for turnover intentions, while model 2 was investigated for in-role
behavior. Both models showed the full mediating effect of job satisfaction since both of the
direct effects were not significant.

Discussion and conclusions

Discussion and theoretical implications. Our research framework emphasizing the importance
of an OLC in influencing employees’ job satisfaction, in-role behavior and turnover intentions

Bootstrapping
Product of Bias-correlated
coefficients 95% CI Percentile 95% CI
Relationships Point estimation S.E. Z Lower Upper Lower Upper

Total effect
OLC → IRB 0.14 0.05 3.16 0.06 0.24 0.06 0.24
Direct effect
OLC → IRB 0.04 0.05 0.83 –0.06 0.14 –0.06 0.15 Table 5.
Indirect effect The bootstrapping
OLC →IRB 0.10 0.03 3.27 0.05 0.17 0.05 0.17 analysis results of
Note(s): 1,000 bootstrap samples. OLC: organizational learning culture, IRB: in-role behavior model 2

0.84
OLC I

0.84 0.73
OLC II TI I
0.91
0.80 -0.09(ns) TI II
OLC III Turnover
OLC
Intention 0.81
0.83
TI III
OLC IV
0.62 -0.30 0.55
TI IV
0.86
OLC V

0.80 Job
OLC VI Satisfaction Figure 2.
Parameter estimates
0.74 for a structural
OLC VII
equation model of
0.87 0.85 0.87 0.70 0.72 0.55 turnover intentions
JS I JS II JS III JS IV JS V JS VI (model 1)
IJM OLC I
0.84

0.84
OLC II
0.87
IRB I
0.80
OLC III
0.76
0.07 (ns) IRB II
0.83 In-role
OLC IV OLC
Behavior 0.92
IRB III
0.86 0.89
OLC V 0.62 0.27 IRB IV

0.80
OLC VI
Job
0.74 Satisfaction
Figure 3. OLC VII
Parameter estimates
for a structural
equation model of in- 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.70 0.72 0.55
role behavior (model 2) JS I JS II JS III JS IV JS V JS VI

has been examined through statistical data analyses, which provided empirical contributions
to the relationships between learning dimensions and workforce-related outcomes claimed by
former HRD scholars (Egan et al., 2004; Islam et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2019). The research results
tended to be generally consistent with the results of previous studies conducted under other
workplace conditions (Egan et al., 2004; Emami et al., 2012; Joo, 2010, 2012; Lin et al., 2019;
MacIntosh and Doherty, 2010; Schleicher et al., 2015), yet the specific mediation relationship
was identified through the lens of employees who underwent organizational change.
Based on organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1986) and social exchange theories (Blau,
1964), when employees perceived that their organizations valued them and assisted them with
support for managing their job transition process, they tended to have fewer turnover intentions
(Egan et al., 2004; Joo, 2010). Similarly, the more employees perceive that an organization
provides learning opportunities that allow them to feel encouraged and involved, the more
possible it becomes for them to fulfill their job duties (Joo, 2012). Under the circumstances of
organizational change, an OLC was negatively associated with employees’ turnover intentions
and was positively associated with employees’ in-role behavior. Our study was focused on the
merger of two business branches in a telecommunications company, where employees
involuntarily encountered career uncertainty, co-worker allocations, role ambiguity, norm
conflicts and task rearrangements. An OLC was advantageous for employees to adjust in this
situation since it facilitated the needed accommodation and support through learning within the
company. When an organization helps its employees with coping strategies for the planned
change, they are more willing to remain with the company.
Further, from a social information processing perspective (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978),
these problems derived from a planned change could be more easily resolved through the
implementation of an OLC by decreasing the stress imposed on employees and by
transforming their motivation and attitudes to appropriate levels. Our findings indicated that
employees’ satisfactory perceptions about their jobs fully mediate the relationship between
an OLC and turnover intentions and that between an OLC and in-role behaviors. When
employees face a planned change, they might have lower turnover intentions and better work
performance with the support from a learning organization.
Implications for practice. This study provides valuable insights for managerial practices
for telecommunications organizations undergoing a change. First, the development of an
OLC is important when an organization faces inevitable changes in its structure, strategies
and operational methods. The results indicated that an OLC is a positive predictor of Organizational
employees’ job performance; an OLC imparts employees with a greater level of satisfaction learning
concerning their jobs, and an OLC allows employees to face change in a more positive manner
and makes them more willing to stay. An OLC can help organizations and employees to
culture
prepare for a learning mindset and can provide significant support in reacting to
organizational change. This transformation of facing the new workplace environment
serves as a pragmatic grounding for change processes through scaffolding employees’
needed knowledge, expertise, confidence and attitude.
Further, management should recognize the learning needs of employees and provide a
supportive environment that is conducive to learning not only at the individual level but also
at the group and organizational levels in order to sustain a planned organizational change.
The DLOQ can be adopted as a useful instrument to assess the learning culture of an
organization before launching organizational change initiatives. With well-organized
training or workshops for newly merged workplaces and co-workers, employees are
granted a greater awareness of their roles, capabilities and positions in the organization’s
transformational process. Hence, the retention of talented employees during organizational
change can be expected. During times of change, when an OLC is created to help employees
adjust, adapt and thrive, they are inclined to maintain satisfaction in their jobs and their
loyalty and performance remain high when they encounter transitions in the company.
Limitations and future research. In terms of the research design, this study has some
limitations. First, due to the research scope, this study only collected cross-sectional survey-
based data. Future researchers are encouraged to collect longitudinal and multiple sources of
data to better examine the causal relationship among constructs. Second, participants were
recruited employees from a telecommunication company in Taiwan who experienced
organizational restructuring. The results may be restricted in generalizability. Future
scholars can replicate the same research framework and use it to examine various
organizations and cultural contexts. Last, this study focused purely on employees’ attitudinal
and behavioral variables. Other organizational variables, such as organizational
cohesiveness and effectiveness, can be used to test the OLC’s long-term effect.
Conclusions. Telecommunications companies undergo inevitable changes in restructuring
the business branches and reshaping the nature of organizational dynamics. Employees may
have difficulty in disengaging themselves from the old organizational structure and work
practice. Subsequently, it is favorable to build an OLC to help employees to resocialize and
learn to appreciate the new workplace norms by sharing values and rules clearly. Employees
may not perceive these changes as negative because of the benefits of developing the capacity
to learn together with a continuous improvement mindset. By strategically facilitating
sustainable progress over the change, employees will feel more contented with their new roles
and perform their new assignments better with stronger commitment.

References
Albrecht, S.L. and Marty, A. (2020), “Personality, self-efficacy and job resources and their associations
with employee engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions”, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 657-681.
Birtch, T.A., Chiang, F.F.T. and Van Esch, E. (2016), “A social exchange theory framework for
understanding the job characteristics–job outcomes relationship: the mediating role of
psychological contract fulfillment”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1217-1236.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Camps, J. and Luna-Arocas, R. (2012), “A matter of learning: how human resources affect
organizational performance”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
IJM Chang, C.L.H., Jiang, J.J., Klein, G. and Chen, H.G. (2012), “Career anchors and disturbances in job
turnover decisions–a case study of IT professionals in Taiwan”, Information and Management,
Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 309-319.
Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., Dalal, R.S. and Bashshur, M. (2007), “Job satisfaction as
mediator: an assessment of job satisfaction’s position within the nomological network”, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 515-538.
Cullen, K.L., Edwards, B.D., Casper, W.C. and Gue, K.R. (2014), “Employees’ adaptability and
perceptions of change-related uncertainty: implications for perceived organizational support,
job satisfaction, and performance”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 269-280.
Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2015), Organization Development and Change, 10th ed., South-
Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Egan, T.M., Yang, B. and Bartlett, K.R. (2004), “The effects of organizational learning culture and job
satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
Emami, R., Moradi, E., Idrus, D. and Almutairi, D.O. (2012), “Investigating the relationship between
organizational learning culture, job satisfaction and turnover intention in it SMEs”,
International Journal of Innovative Ideas, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 8-23.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
Garc
ıa-Morales, V.J., Jim
enez-Barrionuevo, M.M. and Guti
errez-Guti
errez, L. (2012), “Transformational
leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and
innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 1040-1050.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis,
7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamstra, M.R., Van Vianen, A.E. and Koen, J. (2019), “Does employee perceived person-organization
fit promote performance? The moderating role of supervisor perceived person-organization fit”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 594-601.
Harden, G., Boakye, K.G. and Ryan, S. (2018), “Turnover intention of technology professionals: a social
exchange theory perspective”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 291-300.
Huang, Y.H., Lee, J., McFadden, A.C., Murphy, L.A., Robertson, M.M. and Cheung, J.H., et al. (2016),
“Beyond safety outcomes: an investigation of the impact of safety climate on job satisfaction,
employee engagement and turnover using social exchange theory as the theoretical
framework”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 55, pp. 248-257.
Islam, T., Khan, S.U.R., Aamir, M. and Ahmad, U.N.U. (2012), “Turnover intentions: the influence of
organizational learning culture and multi foci citizenship behaviors”, Middle-East Journal of
Scientific Research, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 650-661.
Islam, T., Khan, M.M. and Bukhari, F.H. (2016), “The role of organizational learning culture and
psychological empowerment in reducing turnover intention and enhancing citizenship
behavior”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 23 Nos 2/3, pp. 156-169.
Joo, B.K. (2010), “Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: the roles of perceived
organizational learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, and turnover intention”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Joo, B.K. (2012), “Leader–member exchange quality and in-role job performance: the moderating role Organizational
of learning organization culture”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 25-34. learning
Joseph, D., Ng, K.Y., Koh, C. and Ang, S. (2007), “Turnover of information technology professionals: a
culture
narrative review, meta-analytic structural equation modeling, and model development”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 547-577.
Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behavior”, Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 131-146.
Kelloway, E.K., Gottlieb, B.H. and Barham, L. (1999), “The source, nature, and direction of work and
family conflict: a longitudinal investigation”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 337-346.
Lau, K.W., Lee, P.Y. and Chung, Y.Y. (2019), “A collective organizational learning model for
organizational development”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 107-123.
Lien, B.Y., Hung, R.Y., Yang, B. and Li, M. (2006), “Is the learning organization a valid concept in the
Taiwanese context?”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 189-203.
Lin, W.-J. and Chen, H.-C. (2009), “A longitudinal field study of the effects of employees’ perceived
uncertainty, perceived restructuring effect, attitude toward change on their work attitude in the
early stage of organizational restructuring: an organizational socialization theory perspective”,
Sun Yat-Sen Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 295-337.
Lin, C.-Y., Huang, C.-K. and Zhang, H. (2019), “Enhancing employee job satisfaction via e-learning: the
mediating role of an organizational learning culture”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 584-595.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M. (1996), “Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure modeling”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 130-149.
MacIntosh, E.W. and Doherty, A. (2010), “The influence of organizational culture on job satisfaction
and intention to leave”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 106-117.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2003), “Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture:
the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire”, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 132-151.
Mobley, W. and Fisk, M. (1982), Employee Turnover: Causes, Consequences, and Control, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA, Boston.
Moradi, E., Almutairi, D.O., Idrus, D. and Emami, R. (2013), “The influence of organizational learning
culture on job satisfaction among academic staff”, Journal of Global Management, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 56-66.
Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E.R. and Wesolowski, M.A. (1998), “Relationships between
bases of power and work reactions: the mediational role of procedural justice”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 533-552.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224-253.
Schleicher, D.J., Smith, T.A., Casper, W.J., Watt, J.D. and Greguras, G.J. (2015), “It’s all in the attitude:
the role of job attitude strength in job attitude–outcome relationships”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 1259-1274.
Sidani, Y. and Reese, S. (2018), “A journey of collaborative learning organization research: interview
with Victoria Marsick and Karen Watkins”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 199-209.
IJM Swart, J. and Kinnie, N. (2010), “Organisational learning, knowledge assets and HR practices in
professional service firms”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 64-79.
Tong, C., Tak, W.I.W. and Wong, A. (2015), “The impact of knowledge sharing on the relationship
between organizational culture and job satisfaction: the perception of information
communication and technology (ICT) practitioners in Hong Kong”, International Journal of
Human Resource Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 19-47.
Tremblay, M., Cloutier, J., Simard, G., Ch^enevert, D. and Vandenberghe, C. (2010), “The role of HRM
practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment
and in-role and extra-role performance”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 405-433.
Wang, Y.L. and Ellinger, A.D. (2011), “Organizational learning: perception of external environment
and innovation performance”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 512-536.
Watkins, K.E. and Kim, K. (2018), “Current status and promising directions for research on the
learning organization”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1997), Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire,
Partners for the Learning Organization, Warwick, RI.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 601-617.
Williams, L.J. and Hazer, J.T. (1986), “Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment
in turnover models: a reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 219-231.
Williams, L.J. and McGonagle, A.K. (2016), “Four research designs and a comprehensive analysis
strategy for investigating common method variance with self-report measures using latent
variables”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 339-359.
Wright, T.A. and Bonett, D.G. (2007), “Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive
predictors of workplace turnover”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 141-160.
Yang, B., Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (2004), “The construct of the learning organization:
dimensions, measurement, and validation”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 31-55.

Appendix. The construct of a learning culture adopted from the Dimensions of Learning
Organizations Questionnaire (DLOQ) measure
(1) In my organization, people are rewarded for learning.
(2) In my organization, people spend time building trust with each other.
(3) In my organization, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of group decisions or
information collected.
(4) My organization makes its lessons learned available to all employees.
(5) My organization recognizes people for taking initiatives.
(6) My organization works together with the outside community to meet mutual needs.
(7) In my organization, leaders continually look for opportunities to learn.

About the authors

Chun-Yu Lin (PhD, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) is an associate professor in the
Department of Business Administration at National Taipei University in Taiwan. His research interests
focus on technology innovation and human resource management, effectiveness of simulation with Organizational
team-based learning and organizational change and development.
Chung-Kai Huang (PhD, the University of Texas at Austin) is an associate professor of the learning
Department of International Business at National Taipei University of Business in Taiwan. His research culture
interests consist of technology-supported teaching and learning, vocational and business education and
workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Chung-Kai Huang is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: hck2005@ntub.edu.tw

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