Linking organizational learning with

technical innovation and organizational

culture
Raquel Sanz-Valle, Julia C. Naranjo-Valencia, Daniel Jimenez-Jimenez and
Laureano Perez-Caballero

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effect of organizational learning on technical
innovation and the role of organizational culture as a determinant of the organizational learning
processes.
Design/methodology/approach After reviewing the literature on organizational learning and its
relationship with both, technical innovation and organizational culture, this paper analyzes those
relationships using a sample of 451 firms.
Findings Findings reveal that organizational learning is positively associated with technical innovation
and that organizational culture can foster both organizational learning and technical innovation but can
also act as a barrier. Additionally, findings show that in order to enhance innovation neither a flexibility
focus nor an external focus are enough. Both of them are necessary to characterize organizational
culture.
Raquel Sanz-Valle is
Associate Professor,
Daniel Jimenez-Jimenez is
Associate Professor and
Laureano Perez-Caballero
is a doctoral student all at
the Department of
Management, University of
Murcia. Campus de
Espinardo, Murcia, Spain.
Julia C. Naranjo-Valencia is
Associate Professor at the
Department of Industrial
Engineering, National
University of Colombia.
Campus La Nubia,
Manizales, Colombia.

The authors acknowledge the

funding received from
CajaMurcia Foundation and
from the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Technology
(research project
ECO2009-12825) to undertake
this research.
Received June 2011
Revised July 2011
Accepted July 2011

DOI 10.1108/13673271111179334

Research limitations/implications The main limitations of this paper are the cross-sectional design
of the empirical research and the fact that data were collected from one source only.
Practical implications Findings can guide managers efforts in the development of an organizational
culture which fosters both organizational learning and innovation since they show that adhocracy culture
fosters both of them and that a hierarchy culture may act as a barrier for them.
Originality/value The paper focuses on the little-researched relations between organizational culture,
organizational learning and innovation. Moreover, it focuses on the Spanish context, where there is a lack
of studies on this issue. Finally, the paper provides empirical evidence that these relations exist. In
particular, adhocracy enhances both learning and innovation the most, while hierarchy inhibits them most.
Keywords Organizational learning, Technical innovation, Organizational culture, Empirical research,
Innovation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The rapid changes firms have to face today means their knowledge becomes obsolete and
do away with their existing competences. In this context, firms need to be able to
continuously renew their knowledge. The literature has highlighted the role of organizational
learning in that renewal (Sinkula, 2002).
One of the reasons why learning is considered to be critical for company success is that it
facilitates the development of new products and processes (Baker and Sinkula, 2002).
Organizational learning and its output, knowledge, are frequently cited as antecedents of
innovation (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;
Carneiro, 2000; Darroch and McNaugton, 2002; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). The basic
assumption here is that companies which are able to renew their knowledge stand a better
chance of understanding the consequences of the changes in their environments and are
better suited than competitors to respond faster and better to them (Sinkula, 1994; Slater
and Narver, 1995; Tippins and Sohi, 2003).

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011, pp. 997-1015, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 997

Given the relation between organizational learning and innovation and the recognition that
innovation is important as a source of competitive advantage (Stata, 1989; Dodgson, 1993;
Garvin, 1993; Brockmand and Morgan, 2003), a number of studies have tried to identify the
determinants of organizational learning. One of the variables of high influence on both is
organizational culture. A number of studies point out that culture is a key element for the
organizational learning process (Argote et al., 2003; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; De Long
and Fahey, 2000; Lee and Chen, 2005) since culture strongly influences the behaviors of
employees. Thus, organizational culture can facilitate learning or be a major barrier for it
depending on the values it encourages.
While the importance of these issues has been widely accepted, to date the linkages
between organizational culture, learning, and innovation have scarcely been examined
together in the literature, particularly from an empirical perspective. There is some evidence
that organizational learning is associated to innovation (Forrester, 2000; Darroch and
McNaugton, 2002; Jang et al., 2002; Scarbrough, 2003), but only a few studies have
focused on the effect of culture on learning (Chin-Loy, 2003; Leona, 2004; Lee and Chen,
2005; Chang and Lee, 2007) or innovation (Obenchain, 2002; Lau and Ngo, 2004;
Obenchain and Johnson, 2004). The lack of research on these issues is even more evident in
the Spanish context, where there are only a few studies focusing on the relation between
organizational culture and learning (Perez et al., 2004). Furthermore, learning and
organizational culture (Hofstede, 1980) are mutually dependent on social and cultural
context. Thus, studying the linkages between those variables in Spanish firms would be the
contribution to the literature on how to foster innovation in this context.
The purpose of this paper is to fill this gap. First, it reviews the literature on the relationship
between organizational learning, organizational culture and innovation. Then this study
empirically examines these relationships using a sample of 451 Spanish companies. The
final section of the paper provides the implications of the study and future research lines.

Theoretical framework
Organizational learning and innovation
The literature on organizational learning (OL) has grown exponentially in recent years (Fiol
and Lyles, 1985; Senge, 1990; Huber, 1991; Dodgson, 1993; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;
Slater and Narver, 1995; Crossan et al., 1999). In general, it is considered as the process of
developing new knowledge and insights derived from the common experiences of people
within the organization and it has the potential to influence behaviors and improve a firms
capabilities (Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Senge, 1990; Huber, 1991; Slater and Narver, 1995).
According to Huber (1991), this process includes four phases, the acquisition of information
and existing knowledge from both the internal and external environment of the organization,
its distribution within the company, its interpretation and, finally, its storing for future use in
organizational memory. The result of this process will be the development of organizational
knowledge, which will be reflected in theories in use, shared mental models, information
databases, formalized procedures and routines, and formal cultural models that guide
behavior (Slater and Narver, 1995).
A number of studies have been published relating OL and innovation (Stata, 1989; Cohen
and Levinthal, 1990; Nonaka, 1991; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Nonaka
et al., 1995; Hage, 1999). Some of them suggest that this is the main process by which
technical innovation occurs (Stata, 1989; McKee, 1992; Fichman and Kemerer, 1997).
According to the literature, innovation requires that individuals acquire existing knowledge
and that they share this knowledge within the organization. The acquisition of knowledge
depends upon the organizations knowledge base (Salavou et al., 2003) as well as on the
acquisition of external information and knowledge (Chang and Cho, 2008). The acquisition
of knowledge from outside the company depends on the capacity of the firm to absorb new
ideas, that is, the firms ability to understand, assimilate and apply the new external
knowledge to commercial ends (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Organizational learning
enhances the assimilative capacity of the firm.

PAGE 998 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

Innovation also needs the transformation and exploitation of existing knowledge. That
requires that employees share information and knowledge. As Nonaka (1994) suggests,
innovation occurs when employees share their knowledge with the organization and when
this shared knowledge generates new and common insights.
In short, organizational learning allows the development, acquisition, transformation and
exploitation of new knowledge that enhances innovation.
Although the link between OL and innovation has been conceptually supported in the
literature and some empirical studies have reported aspects of OL as antecedents of
innovation, the literature does not provide enough empirical evidence to link the process of
OL to innovation (Darroch and McNaugton, 2002). In addition, conclusions of previous
studies are difficult to generalize because of the differences among them regarding their
main purpose, samples, methodologies and the measures they use.
There are some case studies showing that the OL process enhances product innovation
(Forrester, 2000) and process innovation (e.g. Jang et al., 2002; Scarbrough, 2003). Some
quantitative studies have also provided evidence that product innovation is positively related
to the OL process as a whole (Darroch, 2005), or to the organizational learning capability of
the firm (Alegre and Chiva, 2008). Regarding process innovation, Murat and Baki (2011) find
that organizational learning capability has a significant and positive impact on process
innovation.
Finally, there are some studies focusing on one phase of the organizational learning process
and its effect on product or process innovation. For instance, Yli-Renko et al. (2001) find a
positive relationship between knowledge acquisition and product innovation.
Weerawardena et al. (2006) show that three types of learning influence innovation
intensity. Lastly, Chang and Cho (2008) find that memory sharing, the use of external
information and the utilization of formal procedures for retaining knowledge enhance
innovation.
Although the above-mentioned studies focus on different aspects of the relationship
between organizational learning and innovation, most find a positive relationship between
them. Therefore, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
H1.

Organizational learning will have a positive effect on technical innovation.

Organizational culture and its impact on organizational learning

Given the importance of OL for enhancing technical innovation in the firms, a number of
studies have tried to identify their main determinants. Among these, the literature highlights
the role of information technologies, firm strategy, organizational design and, more recently,
human resources management and organizational culture (Senge, 1990; McGill et al., 1992;
Harvey and Denton, 1999; Alavi and Leinder, 2001), since human beings are the main
element in knowledge creation (Lang, 2001).
Regarding organizational culture, a number of studies suggest that it plays a key role in the
organizational learning process (De Long and Fahey, 2000; Argote et al., 2003).
Organizational culture can be defined as the values, beliefs and hidden assumptions that
organizational members have in common (Deshpande and Webster, 1989; Cameron and
Quinn, 1999; Miron et al., 2004). These values, beliefs and assumptions influence behaviors
which are central to the OL process, either fostering it or acting as a barrier (Davenport and
Prusak, 1998; De Long and Fahey, 2000). According to De Long and Fahey (2000),
organizational culture affects OL in four ways. First, culture shapes employees assumptions
about whether knowledge is important or not and what knowledge is worth managing.
Second, culture allows individual knowledge to become organizational knowledge, i.e. it
influences the OL process. Third, culture shapes the processes by which new knowledge is
created, legitimated and distributed. Finally, culture creates the context for social interaction
that ultimately determines how effective an organization can be at creating, sharing and
applying knowledge. Consequently, different organizational cultures will have different
influences on OL (Lee and Chen, 2005).

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 999

In order to identify which organizational culture types have a positive effect on OL the
authors use the model proposed by Cameron and Quinn (1999), the Competing Values
Framework (CVF). There are other typologies of organizational culture (Wallach, 1983; Kets
de Vries and Miller, 1986; Reigle, 2001), however the CVF is one of the most extended and
has been used in some empirical studies on organizational culture (Obenchain, 2002;
Obenchain and Johnson, 2004; Lau and Ngo, 2004; Igo and Skitmore, 20065).
Cameron and Quinn (1999) define four cultures adhocracy, clan, market and hierarchy
using two dimensions (see Figure 1): flexibility and discretion versus stability and control,
and external focus versus internal focus and integration. Using these together with six
aspects of the organization dominant characteristics, organizational leadership,
management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphases and criteria of
success they define four types of organizational cultures.
Adhocracy culture emphasizes flexibility and change and is externally orientated. It is usual
in companies operating in dynamic contexts and in those seeking to be leaders in their
markets. The key values characterizing adhocracy culture are creativity, entrepreneurship
and risk taking. Clan culture also emphasizes flexibility but it is internally focused.
Characteristics of clan-type firms are teamwork, employee involvement and corporate
commitment to employees. Market culture is externally focused, but with control and
stability. The core values of firms with this culture are goals achievement, consistency and
competitiveness. Finally, Hierarchy culture is also control oriented but focuses on the internal
organization. Efficiency and close adherence to norms, rules and regulations are its main
characteristics.
Having defined the Cameron and Quinn (1999) types of culture, the relationship between
culture and organizational learning is now examined, starting from a review of the literature
analysing the culture values which foster them.
There are various studies which analyze the characteristics of a learning or
knowledge-oriented culture. According to Gupta and Singhal (1993), organizational
learning demands a high degree of commitment at all levels of the organization, which
Figure 1 Organizational cultures typology of Cameron and Quinn (1999)
Flexibility and discretion

CLAN

ADHOCRACY

Internal
focus

External
focus

HIERARCHY

Stability and control

Source: Cameron and Quinn (1999)

PAGE 1000 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

MARKET

entails a culture that bases its potential on the desire to improve and learn shared by all the
members of the organization. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) underline the importance of
organizational commitment, the desire to improve and learn, the interaction with others,
communication and open dialogue, creativity and openness. De Long and Fahey (2000)
highlight external orientation, intense debate, high levels of participation and autonomy or
orientation to challenge the existing beliefs and existing ways of working. Perez et al. (2004)
suggest that a learning oriented culture, which they call collaborative culture, must include a
long-term vision and continuous change and improvement orientation, communication and
dialogue, trust and respect for all individuals, teamwork, empowerment, risk assumption and
diversity encouragement. They also note that cultures emphasizing hierarchy can be a
barrier for learning. A number of authors point to the importance of teamwork for OL (Hurley
and Hult, 1998; Hult et al., 2004; Senge, 1990).
To summarize, there is an agreement in the literature about the need for a culture which
emphasizes employees desire to improve and learn, openness, autonomy or self-direction,
employee and empowerment, risk assumption and ambiguity tolerance, creativity,
teamwork, interaction with others, open dialogue, long-term orientation, organization
commitment and mutual trust.
The comparison between the above-mentioned characteristics of learning-oriented culture
and the types of cultures in the Cameron and Quinn (1999) model allows some conclusions
to be drawn. First, hierarchy is clearly the culture with a higher negative effect on learning.
This culture emphasizes the achievements of norms and formal procedures and control,
which are considered as the main barriers for learning, since they inhibit autonomy,
continuous change orientation, communication and dialogue, empowerment and
risk-taking. These characteristics define the stability and control (versus flexibility)
dimension of the model of Cameron and Quinn (1999). Taking this into account, clan and
adhocracy cultures, which foster flexibility (versus stability and control), will be those which
enhance OL the most. Other values of clan culture considered enablers of OL are
organizational commitment and teamwork. Adhocracy culture has other values needed for
OL, such as entrepreneurship, openness, risk-taking orientation and change orientation.
Finally, although market culture may facilitate the acquisition of information and knowledge
from outside, its emphasis on goals accomplishment may reduce the long-term orientation
associated to learning. Moreover, this culture focuses on stability and control instead of on
the flexibility required to learn. A negative effect of this culture on OL can therefore be
expected.
There are very few studies on the link between organizational culture and learning (Chang
and Lee, 2007; Chin-Loy, 2003; Lee and Chen, 2005; Leona, 2004). Despite some conflicting
evidence (Lee and Chen, 2005), their results show a positive influence of organizational
culture on OL. In particular, they found that adhocracy and clan culture are positively
associated to OL, while hierarchy culture has a negative relation. Taking into account these
results and the literature review, H2 is proposed:
H2.

Organizational culture will affect organizational learning. In particular:

H2a. Adhocracy culture will have a positive effect on organizational learning.

H2b. Clan culture will have a positive effect on organizational learning.
H2c. Market culture will have a negative effect on organizational learning.
H2d. Hierarchy culture will have a negative effect on organizational learning.
Organizational culture and technical innovation
In the above sections, authors have proposed that OL encourages technical innovation and
that organizational culture is related to both. Then, it is assumed that culture has an indirect
effect on innovation. However, the literature has also argued that culture can impact directly
on innovation. In fact, literature on the organizational determinants of innovation highlights
cultural issues jointly with organizational design (Damanpour, 1991; Arad et al., 1997;
Mumford, 2000; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010).

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1001

In general, literature considers that innovation requires an organizational culture which

enhances creativity and an innovative behavior in the employees (Ahmed, 1998; Mumford,
2000; Martins and Terblanche, 2003; Lau and Ngo, 2004; Jaskyte, 2005; Hartmann, 2006;
Jamrog et al., 2006). Furthermore, the link between organizational culture and innovation has
found support in the resource-based view. According to this perspective, innovation will be
inimitable to the extent that it is sustained by an innovative culture (Lengnick-Hall, 1992;
Galende del Canto, 2002; Vidal and Alcami, 2005).
Empirical research has also provided evidence of a significant relation between culture and
innovation (Mayondo and Farrell, 2003; Miron et al., 2004; Jaskyte, 2004; Obenchain and
Johnson, 2004; Lau and Ngo, 2004; Chang and Lee, 2007). What the literature has not
clarified is which types of cultures enhance or inhibit innovation. This is important because,
as Jaskyte and Kisieliene (2006) suggest, the effect of organizational culture on innovation
depends on the content of the culture. In order to identify the characteristics of an innovative
culture, the VCF model is taken again as our basis.
There is a general agreement in the literature about four characteristics or cultural values
which will enhance innovation: creativity, freedom/autonomy, risk-taking and teamwork
(Wallach, 1983; Claver et al., 1998; Arad et al., 1997; Ahmed, 1998; Martins and Terblanche,
2003; McLean, 2005; Jang et al., 2002; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). Other characteristics
that are usually associated to an innovative culture are availability of resources, customer
orientation, employee participation and cooperation, continuous learning orientation and
flexibility (Arad et al., 1997; Ahmed, 1998; Claver et al., 1998; Martins and Terblanche, 2003;
McLean, 2005; Jamrog et al., 2006).
The comparison of those culture characteristics with the Cameron and Quinn (1999) types of
culture leads to the conclusion, on the one hand, that externally oriented cultures can be
expected to foster innovation more than internal oriented cultures. While the former may
have a greater variety of mechanisms for obtaining information from the market (Kimberly
and Evanisko, 1981), the latter may pay less attention to it (Desphande et al., 1993). This
idea is supported by the study of Kimberly (1978). On the other hand, it seems clear that
innovation requires a culture which focuses on flexibility because it is associated to freedom
and autonomy while cultures which foster stability and control may inhibit innovation (Arad
et al., 1997; Martins and Terblanche, 2003). Empirical research provides evidence for this
relation (Jaskyte, 2004, 2005; Jaskyte and Kisieliene (2006).
Therefore, the type of culture of the CVF which is expected to foster innovation most is
adhocracy culture, since it emphasizes both external orientation and flexibility. Furthermore,
this type of culture is what enhances the more key values for innovation such as creativity
and risk-taking. Hierarchy culture, in contrast, will inhibit innovation since it emphasizes
values which hinder innovation: internal focus and control and stability. These relations find
support in the scarce literature on this issue (Obenchain, 2002; Lau and Ngo, 2004;
Obenchain and Johnson, 2004).
Regarding clan and market cultures, their relation with innovation is not clear. Taking into
account the characteristics of clan culture, it may foster innovation since it emphasizes
teamwork and employee participation. However, this culture is internally focused, which can
reduce the firms access to new external ideas (Lucas and Ferrell, 2000) and the chances of
the innovations being better adjusted to the market requirements (Gatignon and Xuereb,
1997). Thus, the negative effect of its internal focus on innovation may counteract the
positive effect of its flexibility orientation. Therefore, it may be expected that clan culture
does not have a significant effect on technical innovation.
The relation between market culture and innovation is also controversial. On the one hand, it
seems that the external orientation of this culture will enhance innovation because it provides
new ideas from the market (Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981; Lucas and Ferrell, 2000) and allow
the company to know both customer needs and competitive situations better (Salavou et al.,
2004). Although some authors consider that focusing excessively on the current needs of
customers can be a barrier for some types of innovations (Baker and Sinkula, 2002), as was
mentioned above, in general, the literature considers that it fosters innovation. Furthermore,

PAGE 1002 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

the literature on market orientation provides evidence of a positive relation between the two
(Hurley and Hult, 1998; Hult et al., 2004; Sandvik and Sandvik, 2003). However, market
culture, as defined in Cameron and Quinns model, is also characterized by its emphasis on
control and stability rather than flexibility, and this situation has proved to be an obstacle to
innovation. As a consequence, this paper suggests that market culture will not have a
significant effect on innovation.
In short, the relation between innovation and clan culture or market culture is not clear. The
literature only provides clear arguments and evidence for the links between both adhocracy
and hierarchy cultures and innovation. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3.

Organizational culture will affect technical innovation. In particular:

H3a.

Adhocracy culture will have a positive effect on technical innovation.

H3b.

Clan culture will not have a significant effect on technical innovation.

H3c.

Market culture will not have a significant effect on technical innovation.

H3d.

Hierarchy culture will have a negative effect on technical innovation.

Figure 2 depicts the hypotheses formulated in our study. The following section describes the
methodology used to test them.

Methodology
Data collection and sample
Data for this study comes from a more extensive research, financed by the European Union
(FEDER). The population included Spanish organizations with more than 15 employees
located in the southeast of the country. It was designed to cover a range of industries,
excluding the agriculture sector. Its final composition counted 1,600 companies.
The information was collected by a personal interview with CEOs of companies, using a
previously tested questionnaire. A total of 451 valid questionnaires were obtained, yielding a
response rate of 25,2 percent. Approximately 55 percent of responses came from
manufacturing firms and the rest from the service sector. Respondent and non-respondent
Figure 2 Theoretical model

H3b
H3a (+)

Adhocracy
Culture

Clan
Culture

Market
Culture

Hierarchy
Culture

H2a (+)
H2b (+)
Organizational
Learning

H2c (-)

H1 (+)

Technical
Innovation

H2d (-)

Non significant effect

H3d (-)

H3c

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1003

companies were compared in terms of size and performance. No significant differences

were found between those two groups, suggesting no response bias.
Measures
Organizational culture. Our measure of organizational culture is based on the Organizational
Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and Quinn (1999).This
measure has been used in previous research on organizational culture (Desphande et al.,
1993; Obenchain, 2002, Obenchain and Johnson, 2004; Lau and Ngo, 2004) and some
authors have validated it (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991; Howard, 1998). In this research there
were used four of the six key dimensions of organizational culture the OCAI proposes:
dominant characteristics, management of employees, organization glue and criteria of
success since authors did not have information about the other two dimensions: leadership
style and strategic focus. The former is strongly related to the management of employee
dimension and the latter is similar to the criteria of success dimension. Thus, our measure
can be considered as valid even though those two dimensions were excluded. Other
previous studies have also measured organizational culture using fewer dimensions than the
OCAI model proposes (Desphande et al., 1993; Lau and Ngo, 2004; Obenchain and
Johnson, 2004; Obenchain, 2002).
Following the OCAI methodology, the questionnaire included 16 items organized into four
parts (corresponding to the four dimensions used) with four descriptions in each part (see
Appendix). The four descriptions matched the definitions of each of the four culture types
(adhocracy, clan, market and hierarchy). Respondents were asked to distribute 100 points
for each of the parts among the four culture types depending on how similar the descriptions
were to their organization. Scores for each of the four culture types were first transformed into
five-point scales, following Quinn and Spreitzer (1991). The four types of culture were
considered as formative constructs. It is important when using a formative construct to build
the index based on a large number of indicators, thereby ensuring that they have tapped into
the multidimensional and multifaceted domain of the construct (Bollen and Lennox, 1991).
However, dimensions are not necessarily correlated, and consequently, traditional reliability
and validity assessment have been argued as inappropriate and illogical for a formative
factor (Bollen, 1989). Instead, they are judged on content validity (primarily their coverage of
the domain of interest) and their usefulness in explaining variance in other constructs. Thus,
the creation of an index has been built by the mean of the items of each culture.
Organizational learning. This variable was measured using the Perez et al. (2004) scales
which describe the OL phases of Hubers (1991) model. The five-point Likert scale (with
5 completely agree, to 1 completely disagree) was cleaned by a confirmatory factor
analysis. While culture variables were considered as formative measures (where the
measure itself is taken as the true representation of the variables value), a reflective measure
(where the measurement items reflect or are driven by the underlying latent variable they
represent) was used for measuring organizational learning.
Technical innovation. Technical innovation has been measured in a variety of ways (Kimberly
and Evanisko, 1981; Damanpour et al., 1989; Obenchain, 2002, Laursen and Foss, 2003;
Faems et al., 2005, Jaskyte and Kisieliene, 2006). According to Manu (1992), innovation
orientation has to do with outputs (e.g. new products or processes), inputs (e.g. R and D
expenditure) and timing (e.g. pioneers, quick seconds or late followers). In line with Manu, six
five-point scales were used for each type of innovation (product and process). They cover the
number of innovations, the proactive or reactive character of the innovations, and the effort of
the firm in innovation in terms of resources dedicated to it. Technical innovation was measured
as a second order construct including product innovation and process innovation.
Confirmatory factor analysis
Following the two-stage model-building process for applying SEM (Hoyle and Panter, 1995;
Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996; Hair et al., 1999), the data analysis is conducted at two steps:
First, authors use confirmatory factor analysis. Second, the hypotheses were tested using
structural equation models.

PAGE 1004 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) seeks to determine if the number of factors and the
loadings of measured (indicator) variables on them conform to what is expected on the basis
of pre-established theory. To assess the unidimensionality of each construct of
organizational learning and technical innovation, a confirmatory factor analysis of the six
constructs was conducted (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The measurement model
provides a reasonable fit to the data (x2 287:137, df 120; GFI 0:930;
RMSEA 0:058; CFI 0:954; BBNNFI 0:942; IFI 0:955). The traditionally reported fit
indexes are within the acceptable range.
Reliability of those measures was calculated with Bagozzi and Yis (1998) composite
reliability index and with Fornell and Larcker (1981) average variance extracted index.
Regarding technical innovation, the confirmatory factor analysis suggests the use of three
items to measure product innovation (rcSCR 0:82, rcAVE 0:60) and three items for
process innovation (rcSCR 0:84, rcAVE 0:65). A second-order factor analysis
demonstrated that the two dimensions can be modeled by a higher-order construct
(x2 25:306, df 7; GFI 0:981; RMSEA 0:077; CFI 0:984; BBNNFI 0:965;
IFI 0:984), which was named technical innovation.
With regards to organizational learning, the confirmatory factor analysis suggests the use of
three items to measure each construct: knowledge acquisition (rcSCR 0:86, rcAVE 0:68),
knowledge distribution (rcSCR 0:78, rcAVE 0:54); knowledge interpretation
(rcSCR 0:77, rcAVE 0:53) and organizational memory (rcSCR 0:84, rcAVE 0:60).
Again a second-order factor analysis demonstrated that these four dimensions can be
modeled by a higher-order construct (x2 127:189, df 50; GFI 0:952; RMSEA 0:060;
CFI 0:968; BBNNFI 0:958; IFI 0:968).
For all the measures both indices are higher than the evaluation criteria of 0.6 for the
composite reliability and 0.5 for the average variance extracted (Bagozzi and Yi, 1998).
Furthermore, discriminant validity is indicated since the average for every construct is higher
than the square estimated correlation parameter between each two constructs (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981).
Control variables. Two control variables were included in the analysis, firms size (number of
employees) and firms age (number of years since its creation). Logarithm transformations
were used to compute these variables.

Results
For testing hypotheses structural equations modeling (SEM) methodology was employed
and conventional maximum likelihood estimation was used (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996).
Table I shows the results. The fit of the model is satisfactory (x2 486:55, df 224;
GFI 0:912; RMSEA 0:054; CFI 0:935; NNFI 0:920; IFI 0:936), thereby suggesting
that the nomological network of relationships fits our data. This is another indicator of support
for the validity of these scales (Churchill, 1979).
In terms of the hypotheses, the findings for H1 (Organizational learning ! Technical
Innovation; b 0:546, p , 0.001) suggest that OL has a positive and significant effect on
technical innovation. This result supports H1 and the widespread idea that innovation
requires that its members acquire knowledge, that they share this knowledge within the
organization, that new common insights arise from the interpretation of this knowledge and
that they are storing for future use.
The findings also support H2. This hypothesis proposes that organizational culture affects
organizational learning. Authors also suggested that organizational culture, depending of its
key cultural values may have a positive or a negative effect on technical innovation. The
findings provide support for this idea but do not show all the significant effects hypotheses
proposed.
Results provide support for H2a which suggests that adhocracy culture is positively
associated to organizational learning (adhocracy culture ! organizational learning;

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1005

Table I Construct structural model

Linkages in the model

Standardized parameter

t-value

Hypotheses
H1. Organizational learning ! Technical innovation
H2a. Adhocracy culture ! Organizational learning
H2b. Clan culture ! Organizational learning
H2c. Market culture ! Organizational learning
H2d Hierarchy culture ! Organizational learning
H3a. Adhocracy culture ! Technical innovation
H3b. Clan culture ! Technical innovation
H3c. Market culture ! Technical innovation
H3d. Hierarchy culture ! Technical innovation

0.546
0.274
0.027
20.078
20.307
0.096
20.126
20.044
20.099

6.33***
4.32***
0.39
1.27
4.33***
1.57
1.85
0.72
1.45

Control variables effects

Size ! Technical innovation
Age ! Technical innovation
Size ! Organizational learning
Age ! Organizational learning

0.016
0.175
0.081
20.036

0.32
3.45***
1.55
0.69

Indirect effects
Adhocracy culture ! Technical innovation
Clan culture ! Technical innovation
Market culture ! Technical innovation
Hierarchy culture ! Technical innovation

0.150
0.015
20.043
20.168

3.92***
0.39
1.26
3.93***

Notes: *p , 0.10; **p , 0.05;

IFI=0.936

***

p , 0.01; x2224)=486.55; GFI=0.912; RMSEA=0.054; CFI=0.935;

b 0:274, p , 0.001). H2d, which proposes that hierarchy culture has a negative effect on
organizational learning, is also supported by the findings (hierarchy culture !
organizational learning; b 20:307, p , 0.001).
However, the findings do not support the expected effects for neither clan culture nor market
culture. For the former, authors suggested a positive relation with technical innovation and
for the later a negative one, but findings did not show any significant result for these two
organizational cultures.
The results obtained for the four types and culture suggest that culture may affect
organizational learning but in order to do it, culture should foster both flexibility (versus
stability and control) and an external orientation (versus an internal focus). These are the key
cultural values of the adhocracy culture, the only one which was found to have a positive
effect on organizational learning. The findings for hierarchy culture provide also support for
this idea since this culture is found to have a negative effect on organizational learning and
its key values are the opposite. That is to say, hierarchy culture has an internal focus and
fosters stability and control.
Finally, the findings do not support H3 (organizational culture ! technical innovation). This
hypothesis proposed that adhocracy culture would have a positive effect on technical
innovation and that hierarchy would have a negative effect but, according to the findings,
neither of them have a direct effect on technical innovation. However, it is important to note
that an examination of the indirect effects in the model show that adhocracy culture and
hierarchy culture have an indirect effect on technical innovation. That is to say, that
organizational learning intermediates the relation between both adhocracy and hierarchy,
and technical innovation.

Discussion
This paper has focused on the relationship between organizational learning, organizational
culture and technical innovation. Although the literature highlights the relevance of
organizational learning for increasing innovation and that organizational culture is a key

PAGE 1006 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

determinant of both organizational learning and technical innovation, there is a lack of

empirical evidence to support these relations. This paper has explored them.
Our findings provide evidence, first, for the relation between OL and technical innovation.
These results support the theoretical literature (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Kogut and
Zander, 1992; Leonard-Barton, 1995; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and are consistent with
previous empirical research (Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Hurley and Hult, 1998).
The study also provides evidence for the positive link between organizational culture and OL
suggested in the literature (Argote et al., 2003; Chin-Loy, 2003; De Long and Fahey, 2000) as
well as for the Lee and Chen (2005) proposition that the impact of organizational culture on
OL varies with the type of organizational culture. According to our results, the type of
organizational culture which encourages OL is adhocracy, while hierarchy culture is
negatively associated to OL.
Another interesting result of this study is related to clan and market cultures. In the case of
clan culture, it was expected to be have positive effect on OL due to its flexibility (versus
stability and control) orientation but results were not significant for this culture. A possible
explanation for this result is that although flexibility is important for OL, an external orientation
is also required in order to acquire knowledge and the clan culture fosters the opposite
value, an internal focus.
Regarding market culture, authors suggest that due to its emphasis on control and stability
(versus flexibility) it has a negative effect on OL. However the findings do not support this
hypothesis. The reason may be that its external focus may mitigate the negative effect of its
control and stability orientation.
In sum, our findings show that in order to foster OL, the firms organizational culture should
have both an external orientation and a flexibility orientation.
When analyzing the effect of organizational culture on technical innovation, our results show
that, contrary to our expectations, none of the four types of organizational culture defined by
Cameron and Quinn (1999) has a direct influence on technical innovation. This result seems
not to be consistent with theoretical arguments (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Detert et al., 2000)
nor with previous empirical research (Lau and Ngo, 2004; Obenchain, 2002 and Obenchain
and Johnson, 2004). However, findings showed that two types of organizational culture
(adhocracy and hierarchy) have an indirect effect on technical innovation and that OL
mediates the relationships between the former two variables.
To summarize, the main contributions of this paper are the following. First, the links between
OL, organizational culture and innovation are analyzed from a theoretical view, which
contributes to literature. Second, the main contribution of the paper is that it empirically
analyzes the little-researched relations between these three variables with focus on the
Spanish context, where there is a lack of studies on this issue. Moreover, the paper provides
empirical evidence that these relations exist. In particular, the paper provides evidence of
the importance of OL for enhancing technical innovation. The paper also shows that
adhocracy culture fosters organizational learning and, indirectly, technical innovation while
hierarchy inhibits them. Additionally, in order to enhance organizational learning, which is a
key determinant of innovation, neither a flexibility focus nor an external focus are enough.
Both of them are necessary to characterize organizational culture.
The implications of these results for practitioners are clear. An organization hoping to
enhance technical innovation should pay attention to its OL practices. Furthermore
organizational culture can be a key enabler of OL or a major barrier, depending on the values
it includes. If the company has a hierarchy culture, it should be changed, since our findings
provide evidence that it is a barrier for OL. However, our findings also show that adhocracy
culture fosters OL. Some of the main values of this culture are entrepreneurship, openness,
risk-taking, continuous change orientation and flexibility. Thus, in order to foster OL and, as a
consequence, innovation, companies must make efforts to develop an adhocracy culture. It
is also important to highlight that this study shows that neither an external orientation nor a
flexibility orientation are enough. Companies should focus on both. In short, our findings can

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1007

guide managers efforts in the development of an organizational culture, which fosters both,
OL and innovation.
In spite of its contributions, the results of this paper should not be interpreted without taking
into account the limitations of the empirical study. First, the data in the study were collected
from one source only. Although the use of single informants remains the primary research
design in most studies, multiple informants would enhance the validity of the research
findings. A second limitation is the cross-sectional design of this research. Finally, working
with an ad-hoc database with predetermined variables implied evaluating only four of the six
features of the competing value model.
Future studies should address these limitations. For instance, in order to examine the
causality of these relationships, future research should use longitudinal studies. Multiple
informants would also enhance the validity of the research findings.
Authors also suggest including in the model the concept of unlearning since, recently, some
authors have argued that the learning process is not sufficient for the development of
organizational knowledge but it also requires a process of unlearning (Sinkula, 2002; Akgun
et al., 2007a and Akgun et al., 2007b; Rebernik and Sirec, 2007; Becker, 2008), that is to say a
process by which firms eliminate old logics and behaviors and make room for new ones. Some
authors argue that this failure to unlearn old dominant logics is one of the main reasons why
organizations find it difficult to learn. A number of writers, therefore, highlight the importance of
unlearning old knowledge as a prior step to learning something new and the negative
consequences of yielding to inertial forces (Martin de Holan and Phillips, 2004). However, the
literature on this issue is scarce, especially there is a lack of empirical studies on this issue. The
challenge for these studies will be how to measure unlearning. According to Akgun et al.
(2007b), it can be conceptualized as organizational memory eliminating. However, it is known
that organizational memory is important for OL because without an appropriate knowledge
base, new knowledge cannot be acquired (Rebernik and Sire, 2007).
In order to resolve this apparent controversy, authors suggest longitudinal studies focusing
on how organizational memory change and on the dynamics of the learning and unlearning
processes. These studies should also pay attention to the fact that unlearning is not always
positive. Although it is clear that unlearning is a substantive part of the dynamics of
knowledge, its consequences are contingent upon a variety of factors (Martin de Holan and
Phillips, 2004). Thus, while most papers have considered unlearning as positive, that is an
organizational necessity for learning, Martin de Holan and Phillips (2004) suggest that
organizations may unlearn (forget) accidentally, usually with negative consequences. This is
the case of new knowledge and routines, which are not assimilated by the employees and
are forgotten quickly. An interesting issue to research is how to enhance positive and
intentional unlearning and how to avoid negative unlearning.
Additionally, future studies should include information about the radicalness of the
innovation. On the one hand, literature suggests that it affects the relation between
innovation and organizational learning. Baker and Sinkula (2002) suggest that emphasis on
learning process will be different depending on the type of innovation the firm seeks to
achieve. Radical innovations should require generative learning and, as a consequence,
more emphasis on knowledge acquisition and strong interactions with external environment.
Incremental innovations, however, require modeling and adaptative learning and do not,
therefore, always require interactions with external marketing environments (Baker and
Sinkula, 2002). The type of learning required for radical and incremental innovations also has
implications for unlearning. For instance, the research developed by Becker (2008) shows
that discontinuous changes are those, which provide a better environment for unlearning.
Martin and Holan and Phillips (2004) also find that greater unfamiliarity with new knowledge
(e.g. when knowledge requires extensive changes in the organization) increases the need
for processes to forget existing knowledge. Similarly, adaptative and generative learning
require the support of different cultural values (McGill et al., 1992). On the other hand,
according to some recent studies focusing on product innovation, radical innovations
requires a different organizational culture than incremental innovations (McLaughlin et al.,
2008 and Tellis et al., 2009).

PAGE 1008 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

References
Ahmed, P. (1998), Culture and climate for innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Akgun, A., Byrne, J., Lynn, G. and Keskin, H. (2007a), New product development in turbulent
environments: impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 203-30.
Akgun, A., Byrne, J., Lynn, G. and Keskin, H. (2007b), Organizational unlearning as changes in beliefs
and routines in organizations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 794-812.
Alavi, M. and Leinder, D. (2001), Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems; conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-36.
Alegre, J. and Chiva, R. (2008), Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product
innovation performance: an empirical test, Tecnovation, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 315-26.
Arad, S., Hanson, M. and Schneider, R. (1997), A framework for the study of relationships between
organizational characteristics and organizational innovation, The Journal of Creative Behaviour, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Argote, L., Beckman, S. and Epple, D. (2003), The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial
settings, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 140-54.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1998), On the evaluation of structural equation model, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baker, W. and Sinkula, J. (1999), Learning orientation, market orientation, and innovation: integrating
and extending models of organizational performance, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 295-308.
Baker, W. and Sinkula, J. (2002), Market orientation, learning orientation and product innovation:
delving into the organizations black box, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 5-23.
Becker, K. (2008), Unlearning as driver of sustainable change and innovation: three Australian case
studies, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 42 Nos 1/2, pp. 89-106.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bollen, K.A. and Lennox, R. (1991), Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation
perspective, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 305-14.
Brockmand, B. and Morgan, F. (2003), The role of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness
and performance, Decision Sciences, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 385-419.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G. (1961), The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Publications, London.
Cameron, K. and Quinn, R. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture. Based on the
Competing Values Framework, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Carneiro, A. (2000), How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness?,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 87-98.
Chang, D.R. and Cho, H. (2008), Organizational memory influences new product success, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Chang, S-Ch. and Lee, M-S. (2007), The effects of organizational culture and knowledge management
mechanisms on organizational innovation: an empirical study in Taiwan, The Business Review, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 295-301.
Chin-Loy, C. (2003), Assessing the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management
success, Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern University, Davie, FL.
Churchill, J.L.C. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing construct, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Claver, E., Llopis, J., Garcia, D. and Molina, H. (1998), Organizational culture for innovation and new
technological behaviour, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 55-69.

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1009

Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 128-52.
Crossan, M. and Apaydin, M. (2010), A multidimensional framework of organizational innovation:
a systematic review of the literature, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1154-91.
Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R.E. (1999), An organizational learning framework: from intuition to
institutions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 522-37.
Damanpour, F. (1991), Organizational Innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90.
Damanpour, F., Szabat, K. and Evan, W. (1989), The relationship between types of innovation and
organizational performance, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 587-602.
Darroch, J. (2005), Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 101-15.
Darroch, J. and McNaughton, R. (2002), Examining the link between knowledge management
practices and types of innovation, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 210-22.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
De Long, D. and Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management, Academy
of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.
Deshpande, R. and Webster, F. (1989), Organizational culture and marketing: defining the research
agenda, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 3-15.
Detert, J.R., Schroeder, R.G. and Mauriel, J.J. (2000), A framework for linking culture and improvement
initiatives in organizations, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 850-63.
Dodgson, M. (1993), Organizational learning: a review of some literatures, Organization Studies,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 375-94.
Faems, D., Van Looy, B. and Debackere, K. (2005), Interorganizational collaboration and innovation:
toward a portfolio approach, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 238-50.
Fichman, R. and Kemerer, Ch. (1997), The assimilation of software process innovations:
an organizational learning perspective, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 10, pp. 1345-63.
Fiol, C. and Lyles, M. (1985), Organizational learning, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 803-13.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Forrester, R. (2000), Capturing learning and applying knowledge: an investigation of the use of
innovation teams in Japanese and American automotive, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 35-45.
Galende del Canto, J. (2002), El analisis de la innovacion tecnologica desde la economa and direccion
de empresas (Analysing technology innovation from the view of economy and management), Boletn
Economico de ICE, Informacion Comercial Espanola, Vol. 27 No. 19, pp. 23-38.
Garvin, D. (1993), Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 78-91.
Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997), Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Gupta, A.K. and Singhal, A. (1993), Managing human resources for innovation and creativity,
Research Technology Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 41-8.
Hage, J. (1999), Organizational innovation and organizational change, Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 25, pp. 597-622.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.L. and Tatham, W.C. (1999), Multivariate Data Analysis with Reading, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hartmann, A. (2006), The role of organizational culture in motivating innovative behaviour in
construction firms, Construction Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 159-72.

PAGE 1010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

Harvey, C. and Denton, J. (1999), To come the age: the antecedents of organizational learning,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 897-918.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Howard, L. (1998), Validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational
cultures, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 231-50.
Hoyle, R.H. and Panter, A.T. (1995), Writing about structural equation modeling, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.),
Structural Equation Modelling, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 158-76.
Huber, G. (1991), Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures,
Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight, G.A. (2004), Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on
business performance, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 429-38.
Hurley, R.E. and Hult, G.T.M. (1998), Innovation, market orientation and organizational learning: an
integration and empirical examination, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 42-54.
Igo, T. and Skitmore, M. (2006), Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian engineering
consultancy using the competing values framework, Construction Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 121-39.
Jamrog, J., Vickers, M. and Bear, D. (2006), Building and sustaining a culture that supports innovation,
HR Human Resource Planning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 9-19.
Jang, S., Hong, K., Bock, G. and Kim, I. (2002), Knowledge management and process innovation:
the knowledge transformation path in Samsung SDI, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 5,
pp. 479-85.
Jaskyte, K. (2004), Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and innovativeness in nonprofit
organizations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 153-68.
Jaskyte, K. (2005), Organizational Culture and Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations, Research report II,
submitted to the National Science Foundation.
Jaskyte, K. and Kisieliene, A. (2006), Organizational innovation a comparison of nonprofit
human-service organizations in Lithuania and the United States, International Social Work, Vol. 49
No. 2, pp. 165-76.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8 Users Reference Guide, Scientific Software
International, Chicago, IL.
Kets de Vries, M. and Miller, D. (1986), Personality, culture and organization, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 266-79.
Kimberly, J. (1978), Hospital adoption of innovation: the role of integration into external informational
environments, Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 361-73.
Kimberly, J. and Evanisko, M. (1981), Organizational innovation: the influence of individual,
organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative
innovations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 689-713.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992), Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of
technology, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-97.
Lang, J.C. (2001), Managerial concerns in knowledge management, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Lau, Ch-M. and Ngo, H-Y. (2004), The HR system, organizational culture, and product innovation,
International Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 685-703.
Laursen, K. and Foss, N. (2003), New HRM practices, complementarities, and the impact on innovation
performance, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 243-63.
Lee, Ch. and Chen, W-J. (2005), The effects of internal marketing and organizational culture on
knowledge management in the information technology industry, International Journal of Management,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 661-72.

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1011

Lengnick-Hall, C. (1992), Innovation and competitive advantage: what we know and what we need to
learn, Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 399-429.
Leona, L. (2004), Knowledge management and organizational culture: a social action perspective,
Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining The Sources of
Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Lucas, B.A. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000), The effects of market orientation on product innovation, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 239-47.
McGill, M., Slocum, J. and Lei, D. (1992), Management practices in learning organizations,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
McKee, D. (1992), An organizational learning approach to product innovation, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 232-45.
McLaughlin, P., Bessant, J. and Smart, P. (2008), Developing an organizational culture that facilitates
radical innovation, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 44 Nos 3/4, pp. 298-323.
McLean, L. (2005), Organizational cultures influence on creativity and innovation: a review of the
literature and implications for human resource development, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 226-46.
Manu, F. (1992), Innovation orientation, environment and performance: a comparison of US and
European markets, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 333-59.
Martin de Holan, P. and Phillips, N. (2004), Remembrance of things past? The dynamics of
organizational forgetting, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1603-13.
Martins, E. and Terblanche, F. (2003), Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and
innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.
Mayondo, F. and Farrell, M. (2003), Cultural orientation: its relationship with market orientation,
innovation and organizational performance, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 241-9.
Miron, E., Erez, M. and Naveh, E. (2004), Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote
innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 175-99.
Mumford, M. (2000), Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 313-51.
Murat, I. and Baki, B. (2011), Antecedents and performance impacts of product versus process
innovation: empirical evidence from SMEs located in the Turkish science and technology parks,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 172-206.
Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Obenchain, A. and Johnson, W. (2004), Product and process innovation in service organizations:
the influence of organizational culture in higher education institutions, Journal of Applied Management
and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 91-113.
Obenchain, M. (2002), Organizational culture and organizational innovation in not-for-profit, private
and public institutions higher education, Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Davie, FL.
Perez, S., Montes, J. and Vazquez, C. (2004), Managing knowledge: the link between culture and
organizational learning, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 93-104.
Quinn, R. and Spreitzer, G. (1991), The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and
an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life, in Woodman, R. and Pasmore, W.
(Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 115-42.
Rebernik, M. and Sirec, K. (2007), Fostering innovation by unlearning tacit knowledge, Kybernetes,
Vol. 36 Nos 3/4, pp. 407-19.

PAGE 1012 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

Reigle, F. (2001), Measuring organic and mechanistic cultures, Engineering Management Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 14, pp. 3-8.
Salavou, H., Baltas, G. and Lioukas, S. (2004), Organisational innovation in SMEs: the importance of
strategic orientation and competitive structure, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1091-112.
Sandvik, I.L. and Sandvik, K. (2003), The impact of market orientation on product innovativeness and
business performance, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 355-76.
Scarbrough, H. (2003), Knowledge management, HRM and the innovation process, International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 501-16.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Random
House, London.
Sinkula, J. (1994), Market information processing and organizational learning, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
Sinkula, J. (2002), Market-based success, organizational routines, and unlearning, The Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 253-67.
Slater, S. and Narver, J. (1995), Market orientation and the learning organization, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
Stata, R. (1989), Organizational learning, the key to management innovation, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 45-62.
Tellis, G.J., Prabhu, J.C. and Chandy, R.K. (2009), Radical innovation across nations: the preeminence
of corporate culture, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Tippins, M. and Sohi, R. (2003), IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a
missing link, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 745-61.
Vidal, J. and Alcami, R. (2005), Gestion del conocimiento and desempeno innovador: un estudio del
papel del mediador del repertorio de competencias distintivas (Knowledge management and
innovative performance: a study of the mediator role of core competencies), Cuadernos de Economa y
Direccion de la Empresa, No. 23, pp. 117-138.
Wallach, E. (1983), Individuals and organizations: the cultural match, Training and Development
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 29-36.
Weerawardenaa, J., OCass, A. and Craig, J. (2006), Does industry matter? Examining the role of
industry structure and organizational learning in innovation and brand performance, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. and Sapienza, H. (2001), Social capital knowledge acquisition and knowledge
exploitation in young technology-based firms, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 Nos 6-7,
pp. 587-613.

Further reading
Lin, Ch-Y. (2006), Influencing factors on the innovation in logistics technologies for logistics service
providers in Taiwan, The Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 257-63.

Appendix. Measures
Organizational culture
Organization-dominant characteristics:
B

Personal place is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves.

Dynamic and entrepreneurial place where people are willing to stick their necks out and
take risks.

Results oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done. People are very
competitive and achievement oriented.

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1013

Controlled and structured place where formal procedures generally govern what people
do.

Management of employees:
B

Teamwork, consensus, and participation.

Individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.

Hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.

Security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships.

Organization glue:
B

Loyalty, organizational commitment, mutual trust and teamwork.

Commitment to innovation and an emphasis on being at the cutting edge.

Aggressiveness, winning in the marketplace, and goal accomplishment.

Formal rules and policies, thus maintaining and hierarchy importance.

Criteria of success:
B

The development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern

for people.

Having the most original or newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.

Winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market

leadership is the key.

Efficiency, dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are

critical.

Technical innovation
Product innovation:
B

Number of new products/services introduced.

Pioneer disposition to introduce new products/services.

Efforts on products/services innovation in terms of hours/person, teams and training

involved in innovation.

Process innovation:
B

Number of changes in the process introduced.

Pioneer disposition to introduce new processes.

Speed in response to the introduction of competitors new processes.

Organizational learning
Knowledge acquisition:
B

There is a consolidated and resourceful R&D policy.

New ideas and approaches on work performance are experimented continuously.

Organizational systems and procedures support innovation.

Knowledge distribution:

Meetings are periodically held to inform all the employees about the latest innovations in
the company.

The company has formal mechanisms to guarantee the sharing of the best practices
among the different fields of the activity.

PAGE 1014 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011

There are individuals within the organization who take part in several teams or divisions
and who also act as links between them.

Knowledge interpretation:
B

All the members of the organization share the same aim, to which they feel committed.

Employees share knowledge and experience by talking to each order.

Teamwork is a very common practice in the company.

Organizational memory:
B

The company has directories or e-mails filed according to the field they belong to, so as to
find an expert on a concrete issue at any time.

The company has up-to-date databases of its clients.

Databases are always kept up to date.

About the authors

Raquel Sanz-Valle, PhD is Associate Professor at the University of Murcia (Spain). Her
research interests include SHRM, innovation, organizational learning, organizational culture
and expatriates management. She has published her research in different journals such as
Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, International Journal of Manpower,
Management Decision, Management Research and European Journal of Innovation
Management. Raquel Sanz-Valle is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
raquel@um.es
Julia C. Naranjo-Valencia, PhD is Associate Professor at the National University of Colombia.
She received her PhD. from the University of Murcia (Spain). Her research interests include
innovation, organizational culture, organizational learning and SHRM. She has published in
some Colombian journals such as Cuadernos de Administracion, Innovar and Estudios
empresariales and some international journals such as Management Decision and
European Journal of Innovation Management.
Daniel Jimenez-Jimenez, PhD is Associate Professor in the Department of Management and
Finance at the University of Murcia. His main research activity is in the area of HRM,
organizational innovation and organizational learning. He has published widely on these
subjects in publications such as the International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research, International Journal of
Information Management and Management Decision.
Laureano Perez-Caballero is a doctoral student at the University of Murcia (Spain) and,
currently is working in the bank sector. His research focuses on the relations between
organizational learning and culture.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

VOL. 15 NO. 6 2011 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 1015