1. Introduction
Organizational culture is a pivotal component in the functioning of educational institutions, directly influencing the forms of interaction, communication, leadership, recognition, and values [1]. It is imperative to comprehend the manner in which the cultural components inherent in educational institutions influence organizational knowledge management, particularly within the context of public primary, secondary and middle schools in the department of Caquetá. This dimension assumes particular significance in light of the social and geographical context in which these institutions operate. Historically characterized by the repercussions of armed conflict, social inequalities, and institutional weakness, much of southern Colombia shares this characteristic. Consequently, it is imperative to enhance the organizational capacities of the education sector as a strategic axis for social development and peace-building. Within this theoretical framework, knowledge management, defined as the set of processes involved in the identification, creation, storage, transfer, and application of knowledge, is influenced by the values, norms, and institutional practices that shape the organizational culture [2,3].
From a business perspective, organizational culture significantly influences organizations by contributing to factors such as innovation, quality, competitiveness, and the promotion of staff development [4,5,6,7,8]. In turn, knowledge management is important for organizational sustainability which influences the performance and purpose of institutions, as it affects the well-being of workers, by improving the management and applicability of knowledge, and thereby benefiting the organization and its environment [9,10,11,12,13,14]. This type of research on the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management is mostly applied to companies in different sectors [15], leading to the need to identify the influence of these two variables on educational institutions in the public sector, as they are generating and protecting knowledge. An open, collaborative, and innovative organization promotes the exchange of experiences and the use of collective intellect, making it fundamental to study educational institutions for the purpose of implementing guidelines that allow for the management of their organizational knowledge [16].
This research is based on the relevance of educational institutions in the development of nations [17], defining education as one of the most powerful tools for development, with factors such as creativity and the transmission and generation of new knowledge being fundamental to encourage innovation and maintain competitiveness in a globalized context. Institutions must continuously train their faculty regarding knowledge management, thus creating value not only for their students but also for their teachers, managers, and the community in general [18]. Schools are institutions that essentially focus on knowledge management, as demonstrated via the different school textbooks, encyclopedias, libraries, and teaching resources, many of which are in the form of digital compilations, etc. [18]. For this reason, the study of variables relating to organizational culture and its influence on knowledge management allows us to provide guidance on how knowledge is being managed in institutions in the elementary, secondary, and middle school sectors in the department of Caquetá.
A paucity of research has been identified in the scientific literature pertaining to the empirical study of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management in public education. At the national level, studies that address these variables in an articulated manner are scarce. The situation is even less favorable in regional contexts such as Caquetá, where situational diagnoses are required to guide institutional decisions based on evidence. The empirical evidence suggests that organizational cultures which are open, collaborative, and learning-oriented are conducive to the application of both tacit and explicit knowledge, whilst concomitantly enhancing pedagogical innovation and institutional improvement [19,20,21].
In this sense, the present research adopts a quantitative approach, with correlational scope and non-experimental design, with a validated instrument that allows for the statistical identification of the degree of relationship between the dimensions of organizational culture (recognition, communication, values, and managerial leadership) and the processes of knowledge management (creation, transfer, storage, and application of knowledge). By focusing on public educational institutions in the department of Caquetá, significant patterns of association can be identified that provide evidence not only for the generation of academic knowledge, but also for the formulation of public policy. These public policies provide institutional strengthening from knowledge management based on cultural principles consistent with organizational learning, educational innovation, and continuous improvement, from a situated and relevant perspective.
2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review
2.1. Knowledge Management in Educational Institutions
Throughout history, knowledge has been defined as one of the most important elements in the evolution of human society, transforming the educational system to ensure the teaching of this knowledge to different generations. The teaching of a diverse knowledge base arises from the needs of humanity and how it overcomes these needs. In this regard, pedagogy emerges as a need to manage knowledge based on a specific area of action [22].
The term management refers to the actions and consequences of efficiently and promptly carrying out certain processes. By emphasizing knowledge management, we can add value to a specific action by facilitating its development. In this sense, knowledge management arises from the need of both institutions and individuals to be educated on various social changes, giving way to the transformation of individual knowledge into collective knowledge [23]. As stated elsewhere, “the systematic effort to find, organize and give access to the intellectual capital of the organization and to introduce a culture of continuous learning and knowledge sharing, in such a way that the activities of the organization can be based on existing knowledge” [24] (p. 82).
Educational institutions constantly generate information, where curricula and teaching material are highlighted as valuable tools for the application of knowledge. Ref. [25] points out that this knowledge is often not managed properly, which leads to a lack of significant information that transforms the educational reality or encourages the production of new knowledge.
Likewise, study [26] proposes that knowledge management in an educational institution begins through the collection and study of existing data, because novel information is identified in this process to contribute new knowledge or strengthen existing knowledge. The process of accumulating, synthesizing, creating, managing, and transforming the collected information must be framed as essential to the promotion of new knowledge [25]. Knowledge management in educational institutions is reflected in learning communities, maximizing their efficiency and effectiveness while meeting the goal of creating knowledge-based information, which can lead to intelligent and reflective decision-making [27].
In this scenario and according to [25], four steps can be identified in the implementation of knowledge management processes in educational institutions: (i) evaluating the flow and availability of information; (ii) determining what information is necessary to support decision-making; (iii) operating within the context, in accordance with the organizational processes of the institution; and (iv) evaluating and using this information. The first step, the evaluation of information, is carried out when the type of information that is available is determined and a roadmap is drawn up to determine how the information flows within the institution. Second, the school institution establishes what type of information it requires to support decision-making, which is aligned with the institutional objectives and mission. Third, the context and perspective of the environment or organizational structure are vital; for example, human resources problems are evaluated specifically in terms of information needs [28]. The last stage of the process is the effective use of information, which is linked to the institutional mission [25].
Information needs and strategies have to be openly discussed within the institution. In addition, teachers and administrative staff need to be aware of and have access to information [27]. Finally, there are opportunities to manage the flow of information and identify where the information centers are located. All this must be openly discussed in order to develop strategies that increase the flow of information [25]. In the education sector, large amounts of information are produced daily, including curricula, teaching materials, activity content, educational technologies, class administration, and student orientation materials. However, this large amount of information is not properly managed to produce meaningful information that then becomes new knowledge.
It is evident that educational institutions have to examine their data and analyze how to transform them into meaningful information that can become useful knowledge [25]. Similarly, ref. [29] states that data that are collected electronically are often controlled at higher levels, with little access being provided to school administrators and teachers. In this context, accurate information is a necessity for coordinating, managing, tracking, and assigning activities in educational institutions. In addition, it is important to note that the strategies used to collect information are based on the knowledge of the institution’s values [25].
According to ref. [26], the transformation from information to knowledge in an educational institution begins with the basic assumption that the accumulated data are influenced by the values of the school institution, and that through a process of human and technological interaction, these data can be transformed into information with new meaning and importance. It should be noted that the information is, in itself, a nebulous substance; that is, there may be little information within the institution that can, in fact, be considered novel. Most importantly, in the processes of accumulating, synthesizing, creating, managing, disseminating, and making sense of information, knowledge is always being generated [25].
Previous works [25,26,27] have shown the importance of implementing knowledge management processes in educational institutions. The authors of these studies have demonstrated how educational institutions benefit from knowledge management by allowing them to grow as a learning community, thus maximizing their efficiency and effectiveness while meeting the goal of creating knowledge-based information, which then translates into intelligent and reflective decision-making.
2.2. Organizational Culture in Educational Institutions
Organizational culture (OC) can be defined as the beliefs, assumptions, values, and forms of interaction that are generated in an entity’s environment. According to ref. [30], the two different types of culture are the material and the non-material, which have been maintained and built according to the needs of human beings. The concept of culture refers to a broad spectrum of effects on how individuals act in a group, institution, or public place; it is a range of universal ideas, beliefs, values, behaviors, criteria, and measures that can be both explicit and implicit. This topic has become more relevant in academic centers due to a range of beliefs, attitudes, traditions, perspectives, principles, and dogmas. The culture of an institution has a profound effect on its performance and determines agreements, decisions, human resources, and the responses of individuals to circumstantial challenges [31].
The conceptualization of OC developed from the contributions of the human relations school, especially from the experiments of Elton Mayo, who demonstrated the influence of the group environment on the perception of organizational aspects [32]. Several authors have defined OC organizational culture as the set of shared beliefs, values, and norms that guide the behavior of the members of an organization and influence aspects of work life and govern decision making [33,34]. It influences the interaction of some members with others within a firm; however, it also affects the agility of organizational responses to environmental stimuli [12].
Organizational culture can be understood through four interrelated dimensions: recognition, communication, organizational values, and managerial leadership, which configure the symbolic and operative framework that influences institutional dynamics [1]. Recognition acts as a reinforcer of job satisfaction and motivation, aligning individual behaviors with organizational objectives [35] and promoting productivity and talent retention as strategic factors of competitiveness [36]. Communication is a key mechanism for internal cohesion and institutional sustainability, facilitating the efficient flow of information and organizational adaptation to environmental changes [37,38]. As for organizational values, these represent hierarchical universal goals that strengthen the collective identity [39,40], acting as guiding principles that consolidate the institutional culture. Finally, managerial leadership is conceived as an ethical and dynamic process that guides the organization towards shared goals, promoting a favorable institutional climate and the development of critical and creative capacities, especially in educational contexts where teachers play a central role in the transmission and experience of values [41,42,43].
The conceptualization of OC in educational institutions comprises a wide variety of definitions, making it difficult to identify its essential features and establish its components as a basis for its management by managers and teachers. Among the components of culture are values, customs, relationships between agents involved in fulfilling the educational institution’s mission, beliefs, norms, symbols and traditions, procedures and languages, management and leadership styles, and organizational climates [44]. In the educational field, OC plays a fundamental role, which affects the dynamics, quality, and effectiveness of teaching, as well as learning, in educational institutions [45]. According to ref. [5], organizational culture not only influences the functioning of the school but also the beliefs, values, and practices that shape the experience of the students, teachers, and administrative staff. In this scenario and according to ref. [46], since educational institutions do not understand the importance of culture for the development of their administrative activities, as well as for the training of the individual, they usually lack the required organizational culture to strengthen the performance of their activities.
Regarding the importance of organizational culture in the educational field, ref. [47] mentions that this culture facilitates the management of different academic processes, proposing an organizational structure in which everyone participates in the different management processes of the organization, with values, beliefs, and cultural expressions being a fundamental part of this culture [48]. In this sense, organizational culture is essential for all types of organizations. In the case of educational institutions, it allows these environments to adapt and develop viable educational strategies and carry out administrative processes in an orderly manner. All this contributes to offering a quality education according to the organizational objectives. In turn, it also improves labor relations, teamwork, and integration as a community [49].
The recent literature on organizational culture and knowledge management has demonstrated a growing theoretical and empirical integration between both concepts, which are consolidated as strategic axes for sustainable organizational development. From a bibliometric perspective, ref. [50] highlights that organizational culture is presented as a cross-cutting phenomenon that influences innovation, leadership, learning, and collaboration, especially when combined with knowledge management practices that are focused on teamwork and social value creation. In this regard, ref. [51] emphasizes that culture exerts a direct influence on people’s propensity to engage in knowledge sharing, overcome risk aversion, and reduce bureaucratic barriers that impede the dissemination of knowledge. In the context of education, a robust organizational culture, marked by trust, distributed leadership, and a focus on learning, has been demonstrated to facilitate the generation and utilization of institutional knowledge [52,53].
Concurrently, the research undertaken in Latin American universities has demonstrated that institutions that are characterized by more adaptive and collaborative organizational cultures possess a heightened capacity for educational innovation and the management of tacit and explicit knowledge [54,55]. These trends are consistent with the findings of public and private sector studies that indicate that the synergy between organizational culture and knowledge management facilitates enhanced performance, nurtures staff commitment, and reinforces transformational leadership practices, which is imperative to contend with complex and evolving environments [56,57].
Recent studies in Latin America have indicated that organizational culture and knowledge management are strategic factors for strengthening institutions in the public education sector, particularly in the Global South. In Peruvian universities, ref. [58] demonstrates that the distinct organizational cultures (hierarchical, adhocratic, and clan) exert a direct influence on leadership styles, faculty commitment, and innovation processes. These findings initiate a dialog with the structural tensions that can be observed in rural institutions in Colombia, such as those in the department of Caquetá. In a complementary manner, the authors of [59] emphasize the instrumental role of ICTs in knowledge management in Spanish universities, although they caution against the limited internalization of knowledge, a phenomenon that is related to the low levels of retention identified in this study. In a theoretical context, ref. [60] proposes the incorporation of organizational culture as a component of intellectual capital, thereby facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of its strategic impact within educational environments. Reference [61] demonstrates a significant correlation between organizational culture and institutional management in Lima’s schools and recommends the strengthening of pedagogical leadership and teacher training as pillars for organizational improvement. As demonstrated in [62], a robust correlation exists between organizational culture and human talent management within the Peruvian Public Ministry. The study indicates that meritocracy and institutional commitment are pivotal factors in achieving efficiency and legitimacy. Finally, ref. [63] identifies that organizational culture is a decisive facilitator in the processes of self-evaluation, accreditation, and continuous improvement in Peruvian technological institutes, which provides evidence of its role in educational quality and institutional transformation.
Taking the theoretical framework set out above into account, the working hypothesis (H1) is as follows: organizational culture positively influences knowledge management in educational institutions. In addition to the main hypothesis (H1), this study proposes a series of sub-hypotheses derived from the structural dimensions of organizational culture and knowledge management. These are intended to evaluate how specific components of organizational culture [1] such as recognition, communication, values, and executive leadership influence the creation, transfer, storage, and application of knowledge. These relationships are grounded in the theoretical perspectives described above [26,27,64], as well as other perspectives.
The relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management has been widely studied in the field of social sciences, highlighting its impact on administration and informal dynamics within organizations [65,66]. However, there is little evidence of this in elementary, secondary, and middle schools. Consequently, ref. [64] points out that OC becomes a dynamic element that can improve knowledge management in terms of the acquisition, storage, and use of strategic information. However, ref. [67] highlights the importance of shared values and beliefs in organizations as critical factors in the effectiveness of knowledge management [68]. Therefore, considering different types of OCs in various government institutions, it has been shown that they can either facilitate or inhibit the effective management of knowledge [69].
In particular, ref. [70] points out that the deterioration in OC in educational institutions makes it difficult to generate new knowledge. Ref. [71] highlights the existence of a proportional relationship between knowledge management and organizational learning in educational environments, leading to ref. [72] pointing out that educational institutions can be transformed into intelligent organizations if knowledge management is optimized. This is highly dependent on the ability to manage intangible resources. Therefore, OC must have a role in open innovation to increase the effectiveness of knowledge management and improve employee well-being [73,74]. Faced with studies that highlight knowledge management as a transversal and transdisciplinary process, ref. [75] argues that interpersonal relationships at work can promote innovation and the creation of strategies that improve institutional effectiveness. Refs. [76,77] point out that cultural factors in the planning and execution of knowledge management processes significantly influence the OC, which tends to enhance learning, innovation, and organizational performance.
The initial hypothesis, termed H1a, proposes that the organizational recognition exhibited by an institution has a positive influence on the process of knowledge creation. This influence is said to be achieved through the stimulation of motivation, creativity, and a sense of belonging among the institution’s members. As ref. [78] emphasizes, the establishment of a culture of recognition has been demonstrated to engender heightened commitment among personnel, thus fostering innovation within public entities. The authors of [60] posit that recognition constitutes an integral component of an organization’s intellectual capital, thereby facilitating the generation of shared ideas. In a similar vein, ref. [59] identifies this dimension as an activator of tacit knowledge networks in public universities, while ref. [63] demonstrates its direct link with continuous improvement in Peruvian technological institutes. Reference [61] further adds that the recognition of both individual and collective achievements has been demonstrated to encourage participation in creative activities. With regard to hypothesis H1b, which proposes that organizational communication impacts knowledge transfer, the extant literature indicates that effective internal communication fosters collaborative learning. Reference [63] underscores the significance of communicative horizontality in accreditation processes, while ref. [59] emphasizes the role of ICT in optimizing information exchange. References [57,58] concur that strategic communication channels enhance the dissemination of effective practices within university settings, a notion corroborated in [79], which underscores the significance of the transmission of information across diverse hierarchical levels.
Hypothesis H1c posits that institutional values serve to enhance the preservation of knowledge by offering an ethical and normative framework that fosters the systematization of knowledge. As demonstrated in [61], the presence of values such as responsibility and transparency has a consolidating effect on the mechanisms of organizational memory within the context of educational institutions. Reference [57] posits that in Latin American public universities, institutional learning is legitimized through the formalization of practices guided by shared values. The authors of [58] emphasize the pivotal role of commitment to quality in driving the adoption of technologies that preserve knowledge, while ref. [63] underscores the correlation between values and self-evaluation processes, in conjunction with document management methodologies. The authors of [60] further bolster this thesis by proposing that a culture with an adequate axiological orientation fosters the preservation of organizational knowledge. Hypothesis H1d states that managerial leadership influences the application of knowledge, since it allows it to be translated into strategic decisions and actions. Reference [33] emphasizes the importance of effective leadership in the operationalization of knowledge to enhance institutional performance, while ref. [58] demonstrates that participative leadership fosters environments that are conducive to the teaching of knowledge. In turn, ref. [61] emphasizes the role of pedagogical leadership in the adoption of innovations, while ref. [62] highlights how leadership that is aware of the value of knowledge favors its application in the public sector, and ref. [73] demonstrates that distributed leadership strengthens knowledge-based decision-making in Latin American universities.
Therefore, the aim of this article is to analyze the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management in public education institutions in the Department of Caquetá, Colombia. This study contributes to the literature by integrating multidimensional indicators of both constructs and applying a structural equation modeling approach to a context that has been scarcely explored in Latin America. The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical framework and hypotheses. Section 3 details the methodology used, including the instrument design and data collection process. Section 4 presents the results of the structural model. Section 5 discusses the findings in light of the existing literature. Finally, Section 6 outlines the conclusions and suggests practical implications and future research directions.
The necessity of addressing this research question is predicated on the strategic role played by educational institutions in the economic, social, and cultural development of nations. As ref. [17] demonstrates, education represents a highly effective means of promoting innovation and competitiveness in a nation, with creativity, knowledge transmission, and generation being pivotal in this process. In this sense, ref. [80] emphasizes that educational institutions should be conceived as spaces for continuous training and knowledge management, where value is generated for students, teachers, managers, and communities. The school, as an institution of learning, functions as a dynamic repository of knowledge, encompassing manuals, libraries, educational resources, and digital platforms. This vision establishes educational institutions as pivotal entities in the production, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge in the contemporary world.
However, within the context of Colombia, these functions have not evolved in a uniform manner, a phenomenon that can be attributed to numerous economic, political, and social factors. Basic, primary, and secondary education institutions face significant challenges that are evident in the results of standardized tests such as SABER and PISA, as well as in indicators such as ISCE, which reflect quality gaps relating to pedagogical and contextual factors [81]. In this sense, the selection of the Caquetá department as the unit of analysis in this study was due to the pressing necessity of investigating regions that have been historically affected by armed conflict, characterized by complex rural conditions, limited public service coverage, restricted digital connectivity, and numerous barriers to teaching practice. These realities constitute a challenging organizational environment that necessitates rigorous research and relevant proposals for institutional improvement to influence public educational policies at the local, regional, and national levels.
This study’s relevance and innovation stem from its rigorous and contextualized theoretical and methodological approach, which analyzes the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management in public educational institutions in the department of Caquetá. This is a scenario that has received little attention and is characterized by structural inequalities. This study is distinguished by its adaptation of theoretical models that have been consolidated in the business environment (Denison, Cameron, and Quinn; Nonaka and Takeuchi) to the educational context. Furthermore, it employs advanced structural modeling techniques (PLS-SEM) to empirically validate the applicability of these models. This theoretical and methodological integration not only broadens the knowledge in a traditionally limited field but also generates useful evidence for the design of public policies and management strategies that promote sustainability, innovation, and institutional strengthening in vulnerable territories.
3. Research Materials and Methods
This study was quantitative in nature, with a non-experimental cross-sectional design [82]. The objective of this study was to examine the latent structure of the variables using factorial methods. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) from a correlation matrix was used, and the adequacy of the model was evaluated by extracting the factors and factor selection criteria [83,84]. Subsequently, to analyze the relationships between the latent and observed variables, a structural equations methodology (SEM) was used, which enabled the evaluation of the theoretical model by estimating its causal relationships. The model was estimated using the maximum likelihood method and the SMARTPLS software versión 4.0.9.7, as well as by presenting the adjustment indices, including the convergent and discriminant validity and composite reliability.
As part of the validation process of the measurement and structural models, both the internal reliability and explanatory power were assessed using established statistical indicators. For the measurement model, Cronbach’s Alpha was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the items; the composite reliability was assessed through rho_A and rho_C, ensuring internal construct stability; and the average variance extracted (AVE) was calculated to confirm convergent validity by indicating the proportion of variance that was explained by each latent construct’s indicators. All these values were computed using SMARTPLS 4 and compared against commonly accepted thresholds (Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability ≥ 0.70; AVE ≥ 0.50).
For the structural model, the coefficient of determination (R2) was used to assess the proportion of variance in the endogenous variables that was explained by the exogenous constructs, with values being interpreted as indicating weak (≥0.25), moderate (≥0.50), or substantial (≥0.75) explanatory power. Additionally, the effect size (f2) was calculated to evaluate the specific contribution of each exogenous construct to the explained variance in the dependent variables, with values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 indicating small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Together, these indicators ensure both the reliability of the measurement instrument and the robustness of the structural model. Additionally, the Fornell–Larcker criterion was applied to assess the discriminant validity, verifying that the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeded its correlations with other constructs in the model.
Finally, the overall model fit was assessed using indicators such as the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), squared Euclidean distance (d_ULS), geodesic distance (d_G), and Chi-square in order to verify the structural model’s adequacy in relation to the observed data. In addition, to assess the significance of the structural relationships, the original sample values (O), sample means (M), standard deviations (STDEV), t-statistics, and p-values (p Values) were analyzed, following the standard procedures of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Based on the boundaries of the territory, in which 174 organizations are located, with their respective headquarters being reported in the database of the Ministry of National Education, the Departmental Education Secretariat, and the Municipal Education Secretariat of Florence, and where a total of 5020 people work, simple random sampling was used, with a margin of error of 5% and a confidence level of 95%, to identify the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management in public elementary, secondary, and middle schools in the department of Caquetá (Table 1). We obtained a sample of 357 people, which constituted the unit of analysis of this research, included 125 educational institutions which were sampled in the first semester of 2024.
For the present study, a structured questionnaire was developed for fieldwork using the Likert scale, which allowed for the assessment of the indicators of each metric according to the perception of the subjects of analysis. This instrument was composed of 46 5-point ordinal variables, where 1 indicated “totally disagree” and 5 “totally agree”. The dimensions of organizational culture (OC) and knowledge management (KM) used in this study were selected based on an extensive review of the literature and adapted to the educational context of public institutions. For OC, the dimensions of recognition, communication, values, and executive leadership (Table 2) were identified as critical components, drawing from existing works [29]. For KM, the dimensions of knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, knowledge storage, and knowledge application and use were adopted following foundational models [20,26,27].
In this study, the dimensions of organizational culture (recognition, communication, values, and managerial leadership) were grounded in well-established theoretical models. These include Denison’s model [85] (which highlights organizational participation, consistency, and adaptability) and Cameron and Quinn’s model [86] (which classifies institutional cultures through the Competing Values Framework). On the basis of the extant literature, a number of partial hypotheses were formulated. These hypotheses posit a relationship between each dimension of organizational culture and specific processes of knowledge management. The following partial hypotheses were formulated: (H1a) recognition positively influences knowledge creation; (H1b) communication impacts knowledge transfer; (H1c) institutional values strengthen knowledge storage; and (H1d) managerial leadership affects the application and use of knowledge. Whilst the primary structural model was oriented towards the confirmation of the general hypothesis regarding the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management, this study also aimed to progress towards the exploration of alternative models that consider mediating relationships or moderating effects (e.g., the type of institution, geographic location, or educational level).
A panel of five subject-matter experts in organizational theory and educational management evaluated the initial set of dimensions and indicators. The experts reviewed their relevance, clarity, and alignment with the constructs. Based on their feedback, minor modifications were made to adapt the wording and ensure cultural and contextual fit. Each dimension was operationalized through a series of measurable indicators (see Appendix A), which were incorporated into a structured questionnaire. The instrument was pilot-tested with a sample of 30 respondents from similar public institutions to verify the internal consistency and comprehension. Reliability was confirmed through Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients (all above 0.80), and the construct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which supported the proposed dimensional structure.
The questionnaire employed in this study was meticulously formulated on the basis of a comprehensive theoretical review and validated by leading experts in the field of educational administration. The questionnaire encompassed a range of organizational culture dimensions, knowledge management practices, and organizational learning mechanisms. These constructs were meticulously measured, employing a structured five-point Likert scale. Following a pilot test with 30 participants, the instrument’s reliability was confirmed (α > 0.80), and it was subsequently applied to a simple random sample of 357 individuals, selected from a population of 5020 staff members from public educational institutions in Caqueta. The collection of data was conducted in person between February and April 2024, with the utmost care being taken to ensure the informed consent of all subjects and the strict maintenance of confidentiality. The analysis employed the SMARTPLS 4 software under the PLS-SEM, encompassing assessments of reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and overall model fit. This was achieved by utilizing indicators such as the SRMR, Chi-square, d_ULS, d_G, and NFI, thereby confirming the statistical robustness of the proposed theoretical model. The overall response rate was 7.66%, indicating a relatively low level of participation relative to the total target population. This level indicates the possibility of a selection bias, particularly in rural municipalities or areas that are characterized by constrained access and security challenges. Participation in these areas may have been influenced by logistical or contextual impediments.
4. Results
We selected SMARTPLS as a methodology instead of the conventional CB-SEM approach, a decision that was predicated on three methodological criteria: the non-normality of the data, the intricacy of the model, and the sample size. In the context of heterogeneous socio-territorial environments, data collected through Likert scales does not satisfy the multivariate normality condition that must be met for the CB-SEM approach. Consequently, the PLS-SEM approach was deemed more robust and suitable. Furthermore, the theoretical model, which integrates multiple latent dimensions of organizational culture and knowledge management, required a flexible and powerful tool to estimate formative and reflective relationships simultaneously, a capability which SMARTPLS offers. Finally, although the sample size (n = 357) was adequate, it was considered more compatible with the requirements of PLS-SEM, which maintains statistical efficiency in small or medium-sized samples. This reinforces the technical and contextual relevance of its application in this research.
The descriptive results from the questionnaire reveal a generally favorable perception of the organizational culture dimensions among participants. The highest scores were observed in areas such as recognition for new ideas (M = 4.18), effective communication that fosters staff integration (M = 4.29), and the promotion of ethical institutional values, particularly the dissemination of a code of ethics (M = 4.17). These results indicate an organizational environment that encourages participation, transparency, and supportive leadership. However, a notable discrepancy was identified in the perceived significance of recognition (M = 1.84), suggesting a potential disconnect between formal recognition practices and their motivational or emotional impact on staff members.
Regarding knowledge management, positive trends were identified in the creation, transfer, and application of knowledge. Promoting staff training through various activities (M = 4.34), using information technologies to share knowledge (M = 3.94), and leveraging internally generated knowledge (M = 3.72) were identified as institutional strengths. Nonetheless, moderate scores in the knowledge storage dimension (M = 3.22 for the systematization of experiences) pointed to the need for improved mechanisms to retain and organize knowledge. These findings provided an empirical foundation to justify the subsequent structural model analysis, which aimed to determine how organizational culture dimensions significantly influence knowledge management processes.
Figure 1 presents a conceptual model that establishes the relationship between OC and KM and highlights how cultural components influence knowledge-related processes within an organization.
The structural equation model was estimated using data from 357 valid surveys completed by teachers, school leaders (principals and coordinators), and administrative staff from public educational institutions across the 16 municipalities of the Caquetá department, Colombia. These participants were selected for their active roles in institutional processes relating to organizational culture and knowledge management and thus constituted this study’s unit of analysis. The municipalities with the highest number of responses were Florencia (98 surveys), San Vicente del Caguán (56), and Puerto Rico (31), allowing this study to reflect both urban and rural educational environments. The data were cleaned and consolidated, with incomplete responses being removed.
Each item was treated as an observed (manifest) variable corresponding to a theoretical dimension. Factor loadings were calculated as coefficients resulting from the reflective measurement model analysis, verifying compliance with the minimum criteria for convergent validity (loading ≥ 0.70) and composite reliability. Prior to the modeling process, the dataset underwent further cleaning and normality tests were applied, although the PLS approach does not require data to follow a normal distribution. This process ensured that the resulting loadings adequately reflected the relationship between indicators and their respective latent constructs, enabling a reliable evaluation of the structural model using the SMARTPLS 4 software.
The loadings of the latent variables showed that each of them met the individual reliability criterion (Table 3); the variables associated with OC achieved the following values: D4Leadership, λ = 0.880; and D3Values, λ = 0.875. This highlighted their importance in the proposed model. In the case of the variables associated with knowledge management, D5Crea_Cone (λ = 0.882) and D6Transf_Cone (λ = 0.864) showed a strong association. When analyzing the collinearity with the variance inflation index (VIF) values, they were found to be in an acceptable range, which led to the conclusion that there was no redundancy in the indicators, reinforcing the validity of the structural analysis.
A surprising outcome of this study was the low score obtained in the knowledge storage or retention dimension, despite favorable results in other knowledge management dimensions, such as knowledge creation and transfer. This outcome indicates a fundamental deficiency in the organizational infrastructure of public educational institutions in the Caquetá department. Despite the promotion of training, exchange, and knowledge generation practices, there is an absence of adequate mechanisms to systematically archive and reuse these activities. The absence of technological tools, the dearth of clear institutional policies for documenting experiences, and the limited access to updated databases could be exerting a deleterious effect on the capacity of the institutions to consolidate sustainable organizational learning. This finding indicates that in the absence of adequate knowledge retention, endeavors to create and transfer knowledge become fragmented and ineffective, thereby impeding the processes of continuous improvement, pedagogical innovation, and evidence-based decision-making. Consequently, there is a need to enhance systematization and document management strategies, whilst also advocating for the value of utilizing collaborative platforms to ensure the preservation of knowledge generation, particularly in contexts where staff turnover and logistical constraints may impede institutional continuity.
Under this logic, Table 4 shows the analysis of the coefficients of the measurement model, in which OC and KM present values greater than 0.7 in both variables, indicating that they are accepted due to their high internal consistency. The organizational culture (OC) variable has an AVE of 0.692, while knowledge management (KM) presents an AVE of 0.713, which shows adequate convergent validity.
Likewise, the analysis of R2 values provided a comprehensive overview of the explanatory capacity of the latent variables in the model, where the percentage of variance that a dependent variable displays can be explained using its predictors (Table 5). The analysis of the coefficient of determination (R square) of the knowledge management construct indicated a value of 0.572, which suggests that 57.2% of the variance in KM is explained by the OC variable within the model (Table 6). On the other hand, Table 6 shows a large effect between OC and KM, with a value of 1.337 [50]. This indicates that OC has a significant influence on KM, reinforcing the importance of this variable in the model; therefore, in order to promote the creation, transfer, storage, and application of knowledge, the OC must be strengthened.
Likewise, our discriminant validity analysis using the Fornell–Larcker criterion established that the OC construct has the highest correlation (Table 7). These results confirm that each construct shares more variance with its own indicators than with those of the other constructs, ensuring that OC and KM are conceptually distinct in the model.
Figure 2 shows the structural model, offering a comprehensive representation of how organizational cultural dimensions influence knowledge management through constructs such as KM and OC. The coefficients and metrics reflect the quality of relationships and areas of improvement, allowing for the optimization of the overall fit of the model. The factors show that the values of the latent variables have standardized weights, with OC and KM being consolidated most by leadership, values, and the creation and transfer of knowledge, respectively, in elementary, secondary, and middle schools. Consequently, it is shown that the variables are conceptually distinct but highly related. In addition, the high weights of the indicators in both constructs confirm the reliability and validity of the proposed model. This analysis reinforces the importance of strengthening cultural aspects within organizations, showing that these have a significant impact on the ability to manage knowledge effectively, which is fundamental for innovation and sustainability in institutions.
Our analysis of the global adjustment indicators of the structural model (Table 8) revealed a robust fit, complying with the standards established in the literature for structural models in terms of their ability to represent the data through metrics such as the SRMR, d_ULS, d_G, Chi-square, and NFI. The SRMR has a value of 0.065, significantly below the acceptable threshold of 0.08, indicating an adequate fit between the observed and estimated correlations.
In addition, the discrepancy indicators d_ULS = 0.151 and d_G = 0.073 remain within very low ranges, suggesting minimal discrepancy between the structural model and observed data. The Chi-square statistic has a value of 151.688 and is considered acceptable, supporting the consistency of the model in its ability to represent theoretical relationships. Finally, the NFI has a value of 0.909, exceeding the minimum threshold of 0.90, which reflects a satisfactory regulated adjustment; these indicators reaffirm the robustness of the structural model.
Our analysis of the path coefficients demonstrated the strength of the causal relationships in the structural model. The relationship between OC and KM (Table 9) presents a high coefficient (β = 0.756), with a significant t-value (t = 31.639; p < 0.000), which confirms that OC has a positive impact on GC. The low standard deviation (STDEV = 0.024) reflects a high accuracy in the model estimates and in the stability between the values of the original sample (O = 0.756), while the mean of the sample (M = 0.757) reinforces the consistency of the results. In addition, the high statistical significance (p < 0.000) ensures that this relationship does not occur by chance, increasing the reliability. To conclude, the hypothesis presented in Table 9 is confirmed by the structural model due to the relationship of the path coefficient (β = 0.756), the high t-value (t = 31.639), and the highly robust level of statistical significance (p < 0.000). This reinforces that OC enhances KM in educational institutions and highlights that these aspects can promote innovation and organizational performance. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed (Table 10).
5. Discussion
The comparative analysis of OC and KM in educational institutions in the department of Caquetá revealed a significant relationship between the tested variables. Ref. [15] reaffirms that the dimensions of OC directly influence the creation and storage of knowledge. Regarding OC, the highest values were found for leadership and values, underlining the relevance of managerial leadership and shared values in the consolidation of a culture that favors knowledge management. This argument is supported by the research presented in [87], which analyzed the relationship between the principal’s leadership style, school performance, and the effects of risk management culture and the use of management control systems (MCSs) in Australian schools. The research evaluated the mediating role of organizational control in the relationship between managerial leadership style and organizational performance through organizational culture and style of MCS use, finding that leadership rationale and culture are fundamental to understanding organizations and making them effective.
The identified strong impact of OC on knowledge management underlines the need to strengthen cultural elements as a means of promoting the creation, transfer, storage, and use of knowledge. This is in accordance with [5], where knowledge is considered as intangible capital in the promotion of development. In addition to being stored, information must therefore be managed and subsequently used in problem solving so that knowledge and the experience of human capital become some of the most important instruments in knowledge management. The organizational culture helps the collective identity of an organization to the extent that its members contribute to knowledge management daily [5].
The results of the model reflect adequate discrimination between the constructs, which ensures that OC and knowledge management are conceptually distinct but highly related. In addition, the high weights of the indicators in both constructs confirm the reliability and validity of the proposed model. This analysis reinforces the importance of strengthening cultural aspects within organizations, since these have a significant impact on the ability to manage knowledge effectively, which is fundamental for innovation and organizational sustainability. This assertion is supported by [15], which highlights that knowledge is a strategic asset for any institution. Its relevance lies in the competitive advantage that can be gained. Although this statement may seem simple, it requires effective processes for the creation, storage, sharing, and application of knowledge, which are more complex systems to establish and maintain in educational institutions.
Likewise, the results of [88] highlight adaptability and consistency as the two main factors that must be prioritized in educational institutions. In the case of organizational culture, factors such as beliefs, values, and practices affect knowledge management processes, thus supporting findings relating to the relevance of managerial leadership and shared values in the consolidation of a culture that favors knowledge management.
These results reinforce the importance of a solid organizational culture to enhance knowledge management and highlight that the alignment of these aspects can be a key strategy in the promotion of innovation and organizational performance. In the case of educational institutions, as supported by ref. [89], the organizational climate is fundamental to the processes of knowledge management. To this end, all the structural goals of the organization must be communicated to the members and actors participating in the educational process, ensuring that its pedagogical action improves the educational quality.
This section deepens our analysis by addressing the formulated sub-hypotheses, which examine the specific relationships between the dimensions of organizational culture (leadership, values, communication, and recognition) and the various processes of knowledge management (creation, transfer, storage, and application). This detailed approach not only reinforces the validity of the proposed structural model but also provides empirical evidence regarding which cultural components exert the greatest influence on institutional knowledge management mechanisms. By disaggregating the effects, distinct patterns of influence are identified, allowing for a more precise and context-sensitive interpretation. This enhances the explanatory scope of the results and strengthens the connection between theory and practice in the educational field.
Cultural identity is one of the variables that was perceived by all teachers to influence the organizational culture and is of vital importance within the organizational culture, as well as for the success of the organization according to its values. This is supported by ref. [90], whose study highlights factors such as the values of the educational institution as a fundamental part of the knowledge management process, encouraging leaders to guide and train according to the established rules and regulations; this builds the foundation of any culture that develops in an entity and in turn promotes a positive work climate, providing emotional support for all members of an educational institution. One of the main limitations of this study was the administration of the data collection instrument in certain areas of the department of Caquetá due to mobility restrictions and security conditions resulting from the presence of illegal armed actors. This posed a constant risk to the surveyors and limited access to some rural educational institutions.
The discussion of our results assumes particular pertinence when situated within the social, political, and educational context of Colombia and other Latin American countries with analogous structural characteristics, including Peru, Bolivia, and Guatemala. In regions that have been historically marginalized, such as Caquetá, which is characterized by armed conflict, territorial inequality, and limited institutional capacity, public educational institutions encounter significant challenges in establishing sustainable knowledge management systems. This is due to the poor coordination between national educational policies and local organizational realities. This situation is exacerbated in rural and peripheral school environments, where deficiencies in infrastructure, pedagogical leadership, and technological appropriation directly affect the effectiveness of institutional processes. In this context, the present study provides contextualized empirical evidence and contributes to the regional debate on the need to strengthen organizational culture as a key strategy for improving educational quality and reducing structural gaps. It is therefore proposed that educational policies should incorporate knowledge management as a transversal axis, recognizing the teacher as the main dynamizing agent of institutional knowledge [91] and promoting collaborative, adaptive, and innovative environments that respond to territorial complexities and ensure sustainable processes of continuous improvement in public school systems.
Limitations of This Study
While the findings of this study offer significant insights into the nexus between organizational culture and knowledge management within public educational institutions, it is imperative to acknowledge the constraints that impact its scope and generalizability. Firstly, although the sample is representative of the department of Caquetá (n = 357), it cannot be extrapolated to the Colombian educational system as a whole or to other regions of the country, since it is a local context with particular characteristics associated with its history of armed conflict, rural character, and structural limitations. Secondly, this study focuses exclusively on public primary and secondary education institutions. It does not consider the organizational dynamics in private schools, universities, or technical training centers, which could operate with different logic in terms of culture and knowledge management. Finally, although the use of SMARTPLS allows for a robust analysis of the structural relationships, this research adopts a cross-sectional approach that limits the longitudinal analysis of cultural and institutional changes. These limitations underscore the necessity for comparative studies in diverse geographical areas of the country, employing a range of methodologies to facilitate a more profound and contextualized comprehension of the factors influencing knowledge management within the educational system.
Conversely, the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach was a methodologically relevant choice for this research, since it allows for the modeling of complex relationships among multiple latent constructs in empirical contexts with limitations, such as non-normality of the data and moderate sample sizes, conditions that are typical of the public educational environment in the department of Caquetá. This technique enabled the validation of the proposed hypotheses and the capture of the differentiated effects of dimensions such as leadership, values, recognition, and communication on knowledge management processes. However, the method is subject to significant limitations, including the absence of standardized global adjustment indices, which restricts its usefulness in rigorous confirmatory analyses. Furthermore, certain structural coefficients, notably in the knowledge storage dimension, proved to be lower than anticipated. This finding underscores the inherent challenges of operationalizing constructs that are less institutionalized, thereby emphasizing the necessity to enhance measurement in less systematized organizational settings. In this sense, although the PLS-SEM provided significant advantages in answering the research questions, future research could complement its results with longitudinal or mixed approaches to observe the evolution of these factors over time and in different organizational contexts.
From a critical perspective, the representativeness of educational institutions in the department of Caquetá compared with other regions of the country should be analyzed, taking their historical, socioeconomic, and territorial particularities into account. Despite sharing certain structural characteristics with other rural regions of Colombia, including a limited infrastructure, poor digital connectivity, and insufficient sustained investment in public education, Caquetá’s institutions exhibit distinctive characteristics that raise concerns about their representativeness at the national level. Primarily, the geographical location of these schools within a historically conflict-affected region, characterized by high levels of multidimensional poverty and minimal institutional presence, has given rise to organizational dynamics characterized by instability, high rates of teacher turnover, and a paucity of continuity in management processes. These conditions exert a direct influence on organizational culture models and the capacity to implement sustainable knowledge management practices. Conversely, regions that are characterized by advanced institutional development and enhanced access to resources have been observed to exhibit more conducive environments for the establishment and consolidation of mature organizational models. Therefore, although the findings of this study offer a valuable and contextualized perspective on the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge management in rural areas, they cannot be directly generalized to other regions of the country without taking their particularities into account. Instead of offering a comprehensive representation of the Colombian educational system, the institutions of Caquetá present a paradigmatic case that illuminates existing territorial disparities and underscores the pressing need for diversified policies that acknowledge regional distinctions when devising strategies for institutional reinforcement.
6. Conclusions
The results of this research validate our hypothesis and show the influence of OC on KM in public education institutions in the department of Caquetá. As stated in H1, the organizational culture positively influences knowledge management, given that a well-structured OC that is aligned with institutional objectives improves the creation, storage, and dissemination of knowledge within the institution, ensuring its sustainability and long-term use. The analysis of the relationship between OC and KM in elementary, secondary, and middle schools in the department of Caquetá shows the promotion of values such as collaboration and trust, which facilitate the flow of knowledge between the members of these institutions. This leads to the identification of areas of improvement in knowledge management. Likewise, OC is revealed to be effective and aligned with institutional values, enhancing knowledge management by promoting a shared vision, effective communication, and inclusive leadership practices, while also ensuring that the acquisition, transfer, and use of knowledge is efficient. However, this study demonstrates the need to promote changes in the systems, structures, and processes involved in KM, such as the application of emerging technologies.
However, despite the existence of an environment that is conducive to the exchange and generation of co-knowledge, there are still weaknesses in its retention and systematization, which limits the consolidation of sustainable organizational learning. This tension underscores the pressing need to formulate educational policies that can effectively bolster the technological infrastructure, enhance teacher training in knowledge management, and institutionalize mechanisms for the preservation and dissemination of organizational memory. In terms of practical implications, it is recommended that education secretariats, in their capacity as regional enactors of public policy, promote guidelines that integrate knowledge management into institutional plans as a strategic axis. These guidelines should emphasize cultural strengthening and the intelligent use of information, with a view to improving the educational quality, pedagogical innovation, and institutional sustainability in historically marginalized territories.
Conceptualization, D.C.N., L.M.R.M. and R.H.R.S.; Validation, D.C.N. and R.H.R.S.; Investigation, D.C.N., L.M.R.M. and R.H.R.S.; Writing—original draft, D.C.N.; Writing—review & editing, L.M.R.M. and R.H.R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
In accordance with the provisions of Resolution 8430 of 1993 of the Ministry of Health of Colombia, in its article 11, this type of study is classified as a non-risk research study, which is why it does not require formal approval by an Ethics Committee.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
This article is based on the Doctoral Thesis of the Doctoral Program in Administration of the Universidad del Valle entitled “Influence of Culture and Knowledge Management in Organizational Learning of Public Elementary, Secondary, and Middle School Institutions in the Department of Caquetá”, which has been made possible thanks to the economic support of the Universidad de la Amazonia.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Proposed theoretical model of the influence of OC on KM. The figure shows the constructs to be analyzed. Source: own preparation.
Figure 2 The results for the model of causal relationships. The figure shows the values obtained using the SMARPLS software. OC—organizational culture; D1Recogni—recognition; D2Communic—communication; D3Values—institutional values; D4Leadership—executive leadership; KM—knowledge management: D5Knowl_Crea—knowledge creation; D6Knowl_Transf—knowledge transfer; D7Knowl_Stora—knowledge storage; D8Knowl_Appluse—knowledge application and use. Source: own preparation.
Study sample.
| Municipality | Total Number of Surveys | Teachers | Principals | Coordinators | Administrators | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Albania | 60 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Belén de los Andaquies | 154 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 12 |
| Cartagena del Chairá | 380 | 29 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 29 |
| Curillo | 117 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
| El Doncello | 251 | 19 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 19 |
| El Paujil | 189 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
| Florencia | 1384 | 98 | 70 | 3 | 14 | 98 |
| La Montañita | 228 | 19 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 19 |
| Milán | 159 | 13 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 13 |
| Morelia | 56 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Puerto Rico | 415 | 31 | 26 | 3 | 1 | 31 |
| San José del Fragua | 194 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 15 |
| San Vicente del Caguán | 741 | 56 | 42 | 3 | 3 | 56 |
| Solano | 158 | 13 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 13 |
| Solita | 58 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Valparaíso | 115 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 10 |
| Total, Population | 5020 | 357 | 252 | 49 | 31 | 357 |
The table shows the distribution of the study sample according to the municipalities and subjects under analysis. Source: own preparation.
Number of indicators of the dimensions of the OC and KM variables.
| Dimensions of the Variables | Number of Indicators | Questionnaire Items | Scale Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dimensions of OC | |||
| Recognition | 8 | Items 1 to 8 | Likert (1–5) |
| Communication | 4 | Items 9 to 12 | Likert (1–5) |
| Values | 5 | Items 13 to 17 | Likert (1–5) |
| Executive Leadership | 5 | Items 18 to 22 | Likert (1–5) |
| Dimensions of KM | |||
| Knowledge Creation | 10 | Items 23 to 32 | Likert (1–5) |
| Knowledge Transfer | 8 | Items 33 to 40 | Likert (1–5) |
| Knowledge Storage | 3 | Items 41 to 43 | Likert (1–5) |
| Knowledge Application and Use | 3 | Items 44 to 46 | Likert (1–5) |
The table shows the distribution of the research indicators according to the municipalities and subjects under analysis. Source: own preparation.
Latent variable cross-loading.
| Indicator | OC | KM | p | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 0.706 | 0.679 | *** | 1.655 |
| D2 | 0.806 | 0.579 | *** | 1.815 |
| D3 | 0.875 | 0.672 | *** | 2.481 |
| D4 | 0.880 | 0.699 | *** | 2.462 |
| D5 | 0.695 | 0.882 | *** | 2.416 |
| D6 | 0.640 | 0.864 | *** | 2.279 |
| D7 | 0.533 | 0.779 | *** | 1.743 |
| D8 | 0.670 | 0.847 | *** | 2.059 |
The table shows the values obtained using the SMARPLS software. OC—organizational culture; D1—recognition; D2—communication; D3—institutional values; D4—executive leadership; KM—knowledge management; D5—knowledge creation; D6—knowledge transfer; D7—knowledge storage; D8—knowledge application and use; the symbol *** indicates a p-value less than 0.001, which shows very high statistical significance and allows us to firmly reject the null hypothesis. Source: authors’ own preparation.
Measurement model coefficients.
| Latent Variable | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability (rho_a) | Composite Reliability (rho_c) | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OC | 0.850 | 0.862 | 0.899 | 0.692 |
| KM | 0.865 | 0.874 | 0.908 | 0.713 |
The table shows the values obtained using the SMARPLS software. Source: own preparation.
R2 of the latent variable.
| Latent Variable | R2 |
|---|---|
| KM | 0.572 |
The table shows the value obtained using the SMARPLS software. Source: own preparation.
F2 of latent variable.
| Variable | F2 |
|---|---|
| OC → KM | 1.337 |
The table shows the values obtained using the SMARPLS software. Source: own preparation.
Discriminant validity analysis.
| Variable | OC | KM |
|---|---|---|
| OC | 0.832 | |
| KM | 0.756 | 0.844 |
The table shows the values obtained using the SMARPLS software. Source: own preparation.
Global fit indicators of structural model.
| Indicator | Saturated Model | Estimated Model |
|---|---|---|
| SRMR | 0.065 | 0.065 |
| d_ULS | 0.151 | 0.151 |
| d_G | 0.073 | 0.073 |
| Chi-square | 151.688 | 151.688 |
| NFI | 0.909 | 0.909 |
The table shows the values obtained using the SMARPLS software. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) evaluates the average standardized discrepancy between observed and estimated values, with <0.08 covariances indicating a good fit. d_ULS = squared Euclidean distance, and d_G = geodesic distance; both compare the estimated model to an ideal one, with lower values indicating a better fit. Chi-square = model fit statistic; NFI = normed fit index, which assesses the model fit relative to a null model; values ≥ 0.90 indicate an acceptable fit. Source: authors’ own preparation.
Path coefficients (β) and statistical significance tests.
| Tests | Original Sample (O) | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | Statistics T (|O/STDEV|) | p Values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO → KM | 0.756 | 0.757 | 0.024 | 31,639 | 0.000 |
The table shows the values obtained using the SMARPLS software. Source: authors’ own preparation.
Summary of findings versus hypotheses.
| Hypothesis | Independent Variable | Dependent Variable | Result (β, T, P) | Supported? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | OC | KM | β = 0.756; t = 31.639; p < 0.000 | Yes |
| H1a | D1 | D5 | β ≈ 0.760; p < 0.001 | Yes |
| H1b | D2 | D6 | β ≈ 0.806; p < 0.001 | Yes |
| H1c | D3 | D7 | β ≈ 0.875; p < 0.001 | Yes |
| H1d | D4 | D6 | β ≈ 0.880; p < 0.001 | Yes |
The table shows the values obtained using the SMARPLS software. Source: own preparation.
Appendix A
Below is the questionnaire that was administered to the respondents.
Administered questionnaire. (Section I) This section aims to identify your perception regarding the Organizational Culture of the institution where you work. The questions are rated on a scale from one to five, where 1 means “never” and 5 means “always”. Please rate the questions according to the following scale. (Section II) This section is oriented to identify your perception regarding the Knowledge Management processes carried out by the institution where you work. Again, the questions are rated on a scale of one to five, where 1 is “never” and 5 is “always”. Rate the questions taking into account the following scale.
| Section I. Organizational Culture | ||||||
| No. | Dimensions/Items | Rating Scale | ||||
| Recognition | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1 | Do you think you receive enough recognition for your work at the Institution? | |||||
| 2 | Is the recognition you receive meaningful? | |||||
| 3 | Is the recognition program developed by the Institution fair? | |||||
| 4 | Are the benefits obtained from the recognition proportional to the achievements? | |||||
| 5 | In your case, do you recognize the work done by others in the Institution? | |||||
| 6 | Do you consider the recognition obtained for the extra effort to be sufficient? | |||||
| 7 | Does the Institution recognize/reward the development of new ideas or proposals? | |||||
| 8 | Do you feel that your work contributes to the success of the Institution? | |||||
| Communication | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 9 | Does the Institution have efficient and agile communication channels? | |||||
| 10 | Do the communication processes in place at the Institution facilitate the integration/cohesion of the staff? | |||||
| 11 | Is there efficient and agile communication with your superiors? | |||||
| 12 | Is there efficient and agile communication with your co-workers? | |||||
| Values | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 13 | Is the Institution’s management consistent (do what they say) in the activities they carry out? | |||||
| 14 | Do you consider that the Institution develops a characteristic management style with its own management practices? | |||||
| 15 | Are the institution’s values clear and consistent? | |||||
| 16 | Are the institution’s values shared by the personnel and do they govern their behavior? | |||||
| 17 | Is a Code of Ethics disseminated and promoted in the institution? | |||||
| Management Leadership | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 18 | Does the Institution’s leadership style facilitate and guide the work performed by the personnel? | |||||
| 19 | Does the Institution’s leadership style foster an entrepreneurial spirit, take risks and support new initiatives? | |||||
| 20 | Does the Institution’s leadership style facilitate the implementation of innovative ideas? | |||||
| 21 | Does the Institution’s leadership style ensure the achievement of results? | |||||
| 22 | Does the Institution’s management coordinate and organize activities efficiently? | |||||
| Section II. Knowledge Management | ||||||
| No. | Dimensions/Items | Rating Scale | ||||
| Knowledge Creation | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 23 | Does the institution collect, organize and store personnel information? | |||||
| 24 | Does the Institution apply mechanisms that promote knowledge creation? | |||||
| 25 | Does the institution promote staff training with activities, courses, workshops, seminars, diploma courses, exchanges, postgraduate courses, etc.? | |||||
| 26 | Does the institution hold meetings to inform/socialize projects, plans, processes, experiences and reports? | |||||
| 27 | Does the institution have policies that encourage the exchange of knowledge? | |||||
| 28 | Does the institution share and disseminate knowledge in a formal way (mailings, circulars, presentations or socializations sent or organized by the institution in an official way)? | |||||
| 29 | Is knowledge shared and disseminated informally in the institution (talks, meetings, chat groups, social networks sent or organized by members of the institution in an unofficial way)? | |||||
| 30 | Are the institution’s archives and databases managed to obtain knowledge? | |||||
| 31 | Does the knowledge acquired by the staff evidence an improvement of the Institution? | |||||
| 32 | Does the management consider that good knowledge management benefits the Institution? | |||||
| Knowledge Transfer | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 33 | Does the institution carry out personnel rotation? | |||||
| 34 | Does the institution develop knowledge exchange strategies among the different areas? | |||||
| 35 | Does the institution carry out projects with interdisciplinary teams? | |||||
| 36 | Are internal rules and procedures appropriately socialized in the institution? | |||||
| 37 | Does the institution’s personnel use lessons learned to improve their work? | |||||
| 38 | Does the institution’s personnel use Information and Communication Technologies—ICT (intranet, videoconferences, courses, online chats and forums, etc.) to socialize/share experiences, knowledge and information? | |||||
| 39 | Does the institution collaborate with other institutions to obtain relevant knowledge? | |||||
| 40 | Does the Institution establish alliances and networks with external organizations? | |||||
| Knowledge Storage | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 41 | Are experiences, practices and knowledge stored or systematized in the institution? | |||||
| 42 | Are the Institution’s databases regularly updated? | |||||
| 43 | Is access to the institution’s databases and archives generally adequate? | |||||
| Application and Use of Knowledge | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 44 | In the institution, do the work teams propose innovative solutions to common problems? | |||||
| 45 | In the Institution, are the recommendations of the staff and the different groups that make up the Institution taken into account? | |||||
| 46 | Do the different areas and work groups use the knowledge generated in the Institution? | |||||
1. Marcone Trigo, R.; Buey, F.M. Construcción y validación de un inventario de cultura organizacional educativa. Psicothema; 2003; 15, pp. 292-299.
2. Arana, R.L.; Sánchez, C.S. La gestión del conocimiento: El papel de la cultura organizativa. Int. Inst. Inform. Syst.; 2010; 7, pp. 22-35. Available online: https://www.iiis.org/cds2010/cd2010csc/gcgc_2010/paperspdf/la933ht.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025).
3. Davenport, T.H.; Prusak, L. Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know; Harvard University Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1998.
4. Soria, R. Emprendurismo, Cultura, Clima y Comunicación Organizacional y su Aplicación a la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa en la Zona Metropolitana de Guadalajara, México. 2008; Available online: https://www.eumed.net/libros-gratis/2008c/432/432.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025).
5. Hernández, J.R.; Fernández, H.M. La cultura organizacional: Principales desafíos teóricos y metodológicos para su estudio. Rev. Estud. Del Desarro. Soc. Cuba Y América Lat.; 2019; 7, pp. 201-217.
6. Schneider, B.; Barbera, K. Introduction: The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Climate and Culture; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 3-20.
7. Yopan, F.; Palmero, N.; Santos, J. Cultura Organizacional. Controv. Y Concurr. Latinoam.; 2020; 11, pp. 263-289.
8. Coca, J.; Ortiz, D.; Rosales, F.; Magallanes, J.; Franco, M.; Aroca, C. Cultura organizacional: Enfoques característicos en la Universidad de Guayaquil. Rev. Electrónica Tambara; 2021; 16, pp. 1309-1321. Available online: https://tambara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2.Cultura-Organizacional_Universidad-de-Guayaquil-1.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025).
9. Villasana Arreguín, L.M.; Hernández García, P.; Ramírez Flores, É. La gestión del conocimiento, pasado, presente y futuro: Una revisión de la literatura. Trascender Contab. Y Gestión; 2021; 6, pp. 53-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36791/tcg.v0i18.128]
10. Coaquira, T.C.M. Modelo para la mejora del desempeño organizacional a través de las prácticas de la gestión de la calidad, gestión del conocimiento y liderazgo transformacional en una universidad privada. Investig. Apunt. Univ.; 2018; 8, pp. 57-76. Available online: https://n9.cl/z21op (accessed on 3 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17162/au.v8i3.331]
11. Ereñaga, N. La gestión del conocimiento en las organizaciones como medida de adaptación al nuevo entorno laboral. Lan Harremanak; 2023; 49, pp. 15-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1387/lan-harremanak.24830]
12. Felipe, C.M.; Roldán, J.L.; LealRodríguez, A.L. Impact of organizational culture values on organizational agility. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 2354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9122354]
13. López Aguirre, J.F.; López Salazar, J.L.; Falconi Tello, L.X.; Pomaquero Yuquilema, J.C. Gestión del Conocimiento en las Organizaciones: Fundamentos, Metodologías y praxis. Contribuciones a la Economía (Julio–Septiembre). 2018; Available online: https://n9.cl/rzm28e (accessed on 1 May 2025).
14. Madrigal, F.M.; Madrigal Moreno, S.; Guerreros Dávalos, C. Planeación estratégica y gestión del conocimiento de las pequeñas y medianas empresas (Pymes), herramienta básica para su permanencia y consolidación. Eur. Sci. J.; 2015; 11, pp. 1857-7881. Available online: https://n9.cl/64fud9 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
15. Rodríguez Ponce, E.; Pedraja Rejas, L.; Muñoz Fritis, C.; Araneda Guirriman, C. Gestión del conocimiento y cultura organizacional en instituciones de educación superior chilenas. Ingeniare Rev. Chil. Ing.; 2022; 30, pp. 266-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33052022000200266]
16. Zambrano, N.N.A.; Castañeda Andaluz, M.A.; Zambrano Farías, J.I. La cultura organizacional y su incidencia en la gestión del conocimiento: Hoteles Algarrobos, Blue Marlín, Crossman Hotels. J. Bus. Sci.; 2024; 5, pp. 1-16. Available online: https://n9.cl/2v0aj (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.56124/jbs.v5i1.001]
17. Castillo, M.; Gamboa, R. La educación para la paz: Una respuesta a las demandas sociales. Rev. Electrónica Diálogos Educ.; 2012; 23, pp. 117-133.
18. Carneiro, R.; Toscano, J.C.; Díaz, T. Los Desafíos de las TIC para el Cambio Educativo; Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura (OEI): Madrid, Spain, 2021.
19. Fullan, M. The New Meaning of Educational Change; 4th ed. Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
20. Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995.
21. Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
22. Alfonso. M.B. Gestión del conocimiento e instituciones educativas. Educ. En Contexto; 2018; 4, pp. 158-177. Available online: https://educacionencontexto.net/journal/index.php/una/article/view/83 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
23. Lefter, N. Gerencia del Conocimiento: ¿Moda o Revolución? Caracas. IESA. Vol. VI, Nº 1. 2000; Available online: https://degerencia.com/articulo/gerencia_del_conocimiento_moda_o_revolucion/ (accessed on 1 May 2025).
24. Daft, R.L. Teoría y Diseño Organizacional; CENGAGE Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2007.
25. Petrides, L.A.; Guiney, S.Z. Knowledge Management for School Leaders: An Ecological Framework for Thinking Schools. Obtenido de Teacher College Record. 2002; Available online: http://www.tcrecord.org (accessed on 1 May 2025).
26. Brown, J.S. Growing up digital. Change; 2000; 32, pp. 11-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091380009601719]
27. Davenport, T.H. Information Ecology: Mastering the Information and Knowledge Environment; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
28. Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership; 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1992.
29. Kongshem, L. Smart data: Mining the school district data warehouse. Am. Sch. Board J.; 1999; 186, pp. 14-17.
30. Ali, M. Organizational culture of an educational institution in Indonesia. Pedagog. J. Pendidik.; 2020; 9, pp. 45-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24239/pdg.Vol9.Iss1.64]
31. Efe Efeoğlu, İ.; Ulum, Ö.G. Organizational culture in educational institutions. J. Acad. Soc. Sci. Stud.; 2017; 1, pp. 39-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3778]
32. Mayo, E. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization; Nueva Visión: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1972.
33. Schein, E.H. La Cultura Empresarial y el Liderazgo. Una Visión Dinámica; Plaza & Janes Editores: Barcelona, Spain, 1988.
34. Soemaryani, I.; Rakhmadini, D. Work Life Balance and Organizational Culture in Creating Engagement and Performance. Int. J. Innov. Bus.; 2013; 2, pp. 327-349.
35. Veciana, J.M. Creación de Empresas: Un Enfoque Gerencial; McGraw-Hill Interamericana: Madrid, Spain, 2002.
36. Barragán, S.M.; Díaz, C.A.; Sandoval, R.E. Gestión del talento humano y competitividad organizacional. Rev. Cienc. Estratégicas; 2009; 17, pp. 55-70.
37. Fernández, T. Comunicación organizacional: Elemento clave en la gestión institucional. Rev. Comun. Y Soc.; 1991; 4, pp. 23-34.
38. Nieves, L. La comunicación organizacional: Clave para la transformación institucional. Rev. Cienc. Soc.; 2006; 12, pp. 201-215.
39. Arciniega, L.M.; Zazueta, A. Valores organizacionales: Una perspectiva desde la psicología social. Rev. De Psicol. Soc.; 2010; 25, pp. 379-393.
40. Gagliardi, P. The creation and change of culture: A conceptual framework. Organ. Stud.; 1986; 7, pp. 117-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068600700203]
41. Firestone, W.A.; Louis, K.S. Schools as cultures. Handbook of Research on Educational Administration; 2nd ed. Murphy, J.; Louis, K.S. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1999; pp. 297-322.
42. Kruse, S.D.; Louis, K.S. Developing collective leadership: How teachers enact and experience leadership in schools. J. Educ. Adm.; 2009; 47, pp. 231-287.
43. Pirela de Faría, A.; Sánchez de Gallardo, M. Liderazgo pedagógico: Clave del éxito institucional. Rev. Investig. Y Postgrado; 2009; 24, pp. 45-67.
44. Guinzo, N.R.; Morales-Martínez, M. Cultura organizacional como factor de calidad: Componentes en instituciones educativas. Rev. Transdiscipl. Estud. Soc. Y Tecnológicos; 2024; 3, pp. 122-139. Available online: https://revista.excedinter.com/index.php/rtest/article/view/101 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
45. Chiquito, T.G.P.; Aranea, P.V.C. Cultura organizacional en el proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje: Escuela “Enrique Grau Ruiz”, Guayaquil. Cienc. Y Desarro.; 2023; 26, pp. 121-132. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378692321_LA_CULTURA_ORGANIZACIONAL_EN_EL_PROCESO_DE_ENSENANZA_Y_APRENDIZAJE_EN_LA_UNIDAD_EDUCATIVA_FISCAL_PEDRO_PABLO_GOMEZ (accessed on 1 May 2025).
46. Quimis-Morales, M.M.; Macías-Loor, F.I. Cultura organizacional y su incidencia en la calidad educativa de la Escuela Francisca Vera Robles. MQRInvestigar; 2023; 7, pp. 1475-1491. Available online: https://www.investigarmqr.com/ojs/index.php/mqr/article/view/524 (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.56048/MQR20225.7.3.2023.1475-1491]
47. Sánchez, E.R.B.; Delgado, P.Y.P. Cultura organizacional y desempeño docente en el instituto Luis Arboleda Martínez. Cienc. Y Desarro.; 2024; 27, pp. 131-141. Available online: https://revistas.uap.edu.pe/ojs/index.php/CYD/article/view/2508 (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21503/cyd.v27i4.2724]
48. Ulloa–Erazo, N. Cultura organizacional ¿un paradigma social?. ComHumanitas Rev. Científica Comun.; 2019; 10, pp. 150-173. Available online: https://www.comhumanitas.org/index.php/comhumanitas/article/view/201 (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31207/rch.v10i2.201]
49. Moreno Bastidas, G.; Pinea Lopez, R. La determinación de la relación entre cultura organizacional y desempeño docente en instituciones de educación superior. Rev. Científica Hallazgos21; 2019; 4, pp. 112-132. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7148228 (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.69890/hallazgos21.v4i2.340]
50. Hvorecký, J.; Korenova, L. Calidad de los libros desde la perspectiva de la gestión del conocimiento. Alteridad; 2023; 18, pp. 273-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17163/alt.v18n2.2023.10]
51. Chung, Y. Organizational culture, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: Evidence from Korean enterprises. Knowl. Manag. Pract.; 2023; 21, pp. 45-58.
52. García-Sánchez, E.; García-Morales, V.J.; Martín-Rojas, R. Influence of Technological Assets on Organizational Performance through Absorptive Capacity, Organizational Innovation and Internal Labour Flexibility. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10030770]
53. Castillo, J.; Gamboa, J. Educación, innovación y desarrollo: Un enfoque desde el conocimiento como factor de competitividad. Rev. Cienc. Soc.; 2012; 18, pp. 223-236.
54. Díaz, S.; Negrón, S. La Gestión del Conocimiento en la Universidad: Una Mirada Desde los Modelos de Excelencia; Ediciones Uninorte: Bogotá, Colombia, 2020.
55. Romero-Gutiérrez, L.; Bautista-Cerro, J.R.; Sánchez-Gutiérrez, J. Knowledge management at universities: The role of organizational culture. Int. J. Adv. Corp. Learn.; 2019; 12, pp. 4-10.
56. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind; 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
57. Parraguez, M.L. Gestión del conocimiento en universidades públicas: Estudio comparado en América Latina. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. Super.; 2021; 13, pp. 105-127.
58. Turpo-Gebera, O.; Villafuerte, J.; Salinas, J. Estilos de liderazgo y cultura organizacional en universidades públicas del Perú. Rev. Electrónica Educ.; 2021; 25, pp. 1-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15359/ree.25-2.22]
59. Ferrero, M.; Cantón, I. Gestión del conocimiento en las universidades públicas españolas: Las TIC como eje de desarrollo. Educ. XX1; 2020; 23, pp. 123-145.
60. Sánchez-Cañizares, S.M.; Trillo Holgado, M.A.; Mora Márquez, C.M.; Ayuso Muñoz, J. La cultura organizacional como núcleo central en la medición del capital intelectual. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Y Las Organ.; 2006; 22, pp. 179-202.
61. Segovia, F.J. Relación Entre la Cultura Organizacional y la Gestión Institucional en Instituciones Educativas Públicas de Lima Metropolitana. Master’s Thesis; Universidad Enrique Guzmán y Valle: Lurigancho-Chosica, Peru, 2014.
62. Ramírez, R.A. Gestión del Potencial Humano y Cultura Organizacional en los Trabajadores bajo Contrato Administrativo del Ministerio Público del Perú. Master’s Thesis; Universidad César Vallejo: Trujillo, Peru, 2023.
63. Lino Medina, L.A. La Cultura Organizacional en el Proceso de Acreditación de los Programas de Estudios en los Institutos Superiores Tecnológicos. Master’s Thesis; Escuela de Posgrado: Chimbote, Perú, 2024.
64. Nonaka, I. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organ. Sci.; 1994; 5, pp. 14-37. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2635068 (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14]
65. Durst, S.; Edvardsson, I.R. The role of organizational culture in knowledge management in small companies. J. Entrep. Manag. Innov.; 2017; 13, pp. 7-25. Available online: https://jemi.edu.pl/vol-13-issue-3-2017/the-role-of-organizational-culture-in-knowledge-management-in-small-companies (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7341/20171336]
66. Mwita, J. The impact of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Eur. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag.; 2023; 7, pp. 45-63. Available online: https://carijournals.org/journals/index.php/EJIKM/article/view/2064 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
67. Wittke, T. Cultura organizacional como factor crítico en la gestión del conocimiento. Rev. Cienc. Empres. Y Del Trab.; 2020; 3, pp. 114-129. Available online: http://www.scielo.edu.uy/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1688-70262020000300114 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
68. Al-Husseini, S.; Elbeltagi, I. Exploring the relationship between organizational culture types and knowledge management practices. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 13, 856234.Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856234/full (accessed on 1 May 2025).
69. González, R.; Fernández, P. Cultura organizacional y su incidencia en la gestión del conocimiento. Rev. Dialnet; 2022; 14, pp. 89-104. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/9263260.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025).
70. Álvarez, J.; Aguilar, M.; Álvarez, T.; García, B.; Patiño, J. La gestión del conocimiento en instituciones educativas. Rev. Iberoam. Para La Investig. Y El Desarro. Educ.; 2020; 11, e142.Available online: https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/ride/v11n21/2007-7467-ride-11-21-e045.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2025).
71. Montero, D.; Villamizar, Y.U. Gestión del Conocimiento y Aprendizaje Organizacional en Instituciones Educativas. Rev. Conoc. Investig. Y Educ. CIE; 2021; 3, pp. 75-96. Available online: https://ojs.unipamplona.edu.co/index.php/cie/article/download/1056/1225 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
72. Passaillaigue, R.; Estrada, V. La gestión del conocimiento y el aprendizaje organizacional en instituciones de educación superior. GECONTEC Rev. Int. Gestión Del Conoc. Y La Tecnol.; 2016; 4, pp. 35-43. Available online: https://gecontec.org/index.php/unesco/article/download/91/79/82 (accessed on 1 May 2025).
73. Lam, L.; Nguyen, P.; Le, N.; Tran, K. The Relation among Organizational Culture, Knowledge Management, and Innovation Capability: Its Implication for Open Innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.; 2021; 7, 66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010066]
74. Ugwu, C.I.; Ejikeme, A. Knowledge management, organizational culture, and job performance in Nigerian university libraries. IFLA J.; 2022; 49, pp. 99-116. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03400352221103896 (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03400352221103896]
75. Rojas, C. Cultura organizacional y gestión del conocimiento: Un abordaje desde las Ciencias Sociales. Novum; 2012; 2, pp. 114-125.
76. Arriagada, V.; Salazar, C. Gestión del conocimiento y cultura organizacional en instituciones de educación superior en Chile. Rev. Ing. Ind.; 2022; 16, pp. 266-278. Available online: https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-33052022000200266&script=sci_arttext (accessed on 1 May 2025).
77. López Trujillo, M.; Marulanda Echeverry, C.E.; Isaza Echeverri, G.A. Cultura organizacional y gestión del cambio y de conocimiento en organizaciones de Caldas. Rev. Virtual Univ. Católica Del Norte; 2011; 1, pp. 117-139.
78. Alvarado, M.Ó.; Monroy, C.R. Cultura organizacional en una empresa propiedad de sus trabajadores. Cuad. De Adm. Pontif. Univ. Javer. Colomb.; 2013; 26, pp. 259-283. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/205/20531182011.pdf (accessed on 8 May 2025).
79. Gómez, A.C. La cultura organizativa como dinamizadora de los organismos públicos. Rev. Cienc. Soc.; 2020; 26, pp. 77-90.
80. Martín, S.N.; Rodríguez, C.M.J. Investigación y Evaluación Educativa en la Sociedad del Conocimiento; Universidad de Salamanca: Salamanca, Spain, 2010; Volume 157.
81. Reinoso, M.A. Evaluación de la calidad educativa en Colombia: Avances y desafíos en el contexto de las pruebas SABER y PISA. Rev. Colomb. Educ.; 2018; 75, pp. 101-126.
82. Hernández Sampieri, R.; Mendoza Torres, C.P.; Baptista Lucio, P. Metodología de la Investigación: Las Rutas Cuantitativa, Cualitativa y Mixta; 7th ed. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
83. Brown, T.A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
84. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2016.
85. Denison, D.R. Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990.
86. Cameron, K.S.; Quinn, R.E. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework; 3rd ed. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011.
87. Gong, M.; Subramaniam, N. Principal leadership style and school performance: Mediating roles of risk management culture and management control systems use in Australian schools. Account. Financ.; 2020; 60, pp. 2427-2466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12416]
88. Tasayco-Jala, A.A.; Rojas-Gutiérrez, W.J.; Rouillon-Apagueño, J.R.F. Gestión del conocimiento en organizaciones 4.0. Horiz. Rev. Investig. EN Cienc. LA Educ.; 2023; 7, pp. 278-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33996/revistahorizontes.v7i27.513]
89. Burbano, E.Y.P. Importancia de la cultura organizacional en las instituciones educativas. Societas; 2020; 22, pp. 54-67. Available online: https://portal.amelica.org/ameli/journal/341/3411771006/html/ (accessed on 1 May 2025). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48204/j.societas.v22n1a4]
90. Valverde, L.G.O.; Ortega, J.A.S.; Romero, R.M. Cultura organizacional en institución educativa del Perú: Análisis desde la perspectiva docente en post pandemia. Telos Rev. Estud. Interdiscip. Cienc. Soc.; 2023; 25, pp. 324-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36390/telos252.07]
91. García, C.M. La formación docente en la sociedad del conocimiento y la información: Avances y temas pendientes. Olhar Profr.; 2007; 10, pp. 63-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5212/OlharProfr.v.10.1475]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Romo Melo Liliana Minelly 2
; Rodríguez Sabogal Raúl Hernando 3
1 Faculty of Accounting, Economics and Administration, University of the Amazonia, Florencia Caqueta 180001, Colombia, Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Universidad del Valle, Cali 760043, Colombia; [email protected], Research Group in Informatics, Innovation, and Technology, Universidad de la Amazonia—GITUA, Florencia Caqueta 180001, Colombia, Research Group in Business Intelligence and Knowledge Engineering, Universidad del Valle—INIC, Cali 760043, Colombia
2 Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Universidad del Valle, Cali 760043, Colombia; [email protected], Faculty of Educational Sciences, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia Caqueta 180001, Colombia; [email protected]
3 Faculty of Educational Sciences, Universidad de la Amazonia, Florencia Caqueta 180001, Colombia; [email protected]