How organizational learning dimensions influence firms’ competitive strategy and performance in a lower-middle-income country: A mediation model

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework.

Source: Authors ‘Construct, 2023

Table 1. Measurements instruments: constructs, items, and sources

Constructs	Number of Items	Likert Scale	Sources
Organizational Learning
Knowledge Acquisitions	3	5-point Likert’s Scale	Karnopp (2022) Mai et al. (2022)
Knowledge Distribution	3	5-point Likert’s Scale	Jimenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle (2011) Karnopp (2022) Mai et al. (2022)
Knowledge Interpretation	3	5-point Likert’s Scale	Jimenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle (2011) Karnopp (2022) Mai et al. (2022)
Organizational Memory	4	5-point Likert’s Scale	Jimenez-Jimenez and Sanz-Valle (2011) Karnopp (2022) Mai et al. (2022)
Competitive Strategy
Cost-Leadership	4	5-point Likert’s Scale	Koçyiğit and Tabak (2020), Keskin et al. (2021)
Differentiation	4	5-point Likert’s Scale	Bayraktar et al. (2016), Koçyiğit and Tabak (2020), Keskin et al. (2021)
Firm Performance
Learning And Growth Performance	4	5-point Likert’s Scale	Meher and Mishra (2022) Igashi et al. (2022)
Financial Performance	4	5-point Likert’s Scale	Karabulut (2015) Meher and Mishra (2022) Igashi et al. (2022)

Source: Authors Compilation, 2023

Table 2. Convergent validity

	Factor Loading	Cronbach ɑ	Composite Reliability (CR)	AVE
OrgMem1	.828	0.861	0.841	0.708
OrgMem2	.841
OrgMem3	.832
OrgMem4	.865
KnoAcq1	.873	0.886	0.904	0.819
KnoAcq2	.939
KnoAcq3	.902
KnoInt1	.814	0.857	0.882	0.781
KnoInt2	.912
KnoInt3	.922
KnoDis1	.898	0.827	0.867	0.757
KnoDis2	.930
KnoDis3	.775
FirmPerf1	.860	0.934	0.830	0.693
FirmPerf2	.775
FirmPerf3	.922
FirmPerf4	.855
FirmPerf5	.757
FirmPerf6	.748
FirmPerf7	.803
FirmPerf8	.922
ComStrat1	.856	0.962	0.829	0.690
ComStrat2	.801
ComStrat3	.881
ComStrat4	.844
ComStrat5	.785
ComStrat6	.758
ComStrat7	.815
ComStrat8	.895

Source: Authors Estimation Using Field Data

Table 3. Discriminant validity

	Composite Mean ±Std D	AVE	OM	KA	KI	KD	CS	FP
Organisational Memory	3.61 ± .93	0.708	0.841
Knowledge Acquisition	3.56 ± 1.03	0.819	0.90	0.904
Knowledge Interpretation	3.69 ± .94	0.781	0.71	0.79	0.883
Knowledge Distribution	3.64 ± .97	0.757	0.78	0.78	0.70	0.870
Competitive Strategy	3.63 ± .93	0.690	0.76	0.76	0.74	0.79	0.830
Firm Performance	3.60 ± .93	0.693	0.70	0.61	0.69	0.72	0.74	.832

Source: Authors Estimation Using Field Data OM=Organisational Memory; KA=Knowledge Acquisition; KI=Knowledge Interpretation; KD=Knowledge Distribution; CS=Competitive Strategy; FP=Firm Performance; Italics values in the diagonal row are square roots of the AVE.

Table 4. Multiple regression

Hypothesized Paths Control:	Firm Performance		Competitive Strategic	Firm Performance
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7
Firm Type	−0.45(1.045)	−0.17(0.86)	0.28 (0.49)	0.08(0.32)	0.03(0.35)	−0.11(0.75)	0.17(0.05)
Firm Age	−0.32(1.041)	−0.11(0.88)	0.23(0.43)	0.09(0.12)	−0.07(0.19)	0.21(0.03)	−0.06(0.09)
Firm Size	−0.34(1.045)	−0.17(0.86)	0.28 (0.49)	0.08(0.32)	0.05(0.11)	0.33 (0.05)	0.19 (0.50)
Direct Effect
OM	−0.043(−0.308^ns)
KA	1.060(7.911***)
KI	0.826(4.968***)
KD	0.712(4.637***)
CS		0.946(43.657***)
OM			0.018(0.094^ns)
KA			0.828(4.613***)
KI			0.479(2.155**)
KD			1.091(5.314***)
Indirect Effect
OM on FP thru. CS				0.712(9.676***)
KA on FP thru. CS					0.902(9.955***)
KI on FP thru. CS						0.872(9.245***)
KD on FP thru. CS							1.034(9.414***)
Model Fit Indices
R	0.954	0.942	0.916	0.959	0.960	0.958	0.959
Adjusted R Square	0.909	0.887	0.837	0.920	0.922	0.918	0.918
∆ R Square	0.911	0.888	0.839	0.920	0.921	0.918	0.919
∆ F-statistics	578.776	1819.609	296.472	1322.983	1347.440	1286.714	1300.724
Durbin Watson	1.773	1.361	1.486	1.543	1.626	1.565	1.557
Sig.	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

Notes: t-values are in parenthesis. OM=Organisational Memory; KA=Knowledge Acquisition; KI=Knowledge Interpretation; KD=Knowledge Distribution; CS=Competitive Strategy; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p< 0.001; ns=not significant; thru=thorughthrough.

Table 5. Hypotheses testing

Statement of Hypotheses	Beta	T-value	Decision
H1: Organizational memory has positive and significant effect on firm performance	−0.043	−0.308	Unsupported
H2: Knowledge acquisition has positive and significant effect on firm performance	1.060	7.911	Supported
H3: Knowledge interpretation has positive and significant effect on firm performance	0.826	4.968	Supported
H4: Knowledge distribution has positive and significant effect on firm performance	0.712	4.637	Supported
H5: Organizational memory has positive and significant effect on competitive strategy	0.018	0.094	Unsupported
H6: Knowledge acquisition has positive and significant effect on competitive strategy	0.828	4.613	Supported
H7: Knowledge interpretation has positive and significant effect on competitive strategy	0.479	2.155	Supported
H8: Knowledge distribution has positive and significant effect on competitive strategy	1.091	5.314	Supported
H9: Competitive strategy has positive and significant effect on firm performance	0.946	43.657	Supported
H10: Competitive strategy significantly mediates the relationship between organizational memory and firm performance	0.712	9.67	Supported
H11: Competitive strategy significantly mediates the relationship between Knowledge acquisition and firm performance	0.902	9.955	Supported
H12: Competitive strategy significantly mediates the relationship between knowledge interpretation and firm performance	0.872	9.245	Supported
H13: Competitive strategy significantly mediates the relationship between knowledge distribution and firm performance	1.034	9.414	Supported

Authors Compilation.

Table A1. Firm profile

	Freq.	%
Firm-Industry
Hospitality	42	18.1
Mining/Extraction	23	9.9
Agribusiness	30	12.9
Manufacturing	67	28.8
Pharmaceutical	21	9.1
Transportation	37	15.9
Oil and Gas	12	5.2
Business Stability (years firm has existed)
5-9 years	72	31.0
10-14 years	99	42.8
15-19 years	41	17.7
20 year and above	20	8.5
Firm Size (number of employees)
1–9	68	29.3
10–49	101	43.5
50–99	38	16.4
100+	25	10.8

Source: Field Data, 2022

Table A2. Multicollinearity test using (Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test

	VIF
OrgMem1	2.018
OrgMem2	2.044
OrgMem3	2.055
OrgMem4	2.313
KnoAcq1	2.796
KnoAcq2	3.726
KnoAcq3	4.217
KnoInt1	2.323
KnoInt2	3.568
KnoInt3	4.078
KnoDis1	2.988
KnoDis2	3.402
KnoDis3	1.513
FirmPerf1	4.325
FirmPerf2	2.179
FirmPerf3	4.232
FirmPerf4	4.186
FirmPerf5	1.971
FirmPerf6	4.128
FirmPerf7	4.272
FirmPerf8	1.000
ComStrat1	4.084
ComStrat2	2.419
ComStrat3	4.650
ComStrat4	4.034
ComStrat5	4.188
ComStrat6	2.018
ComStrat7	4.006
ComStrat8	4.014

Source: Authors Estimation: Org. Mem=Organisational Memory; Kno. Acq=Knowledge Acquisition; KnoInt=Knowledge Interpretation; KnoDis=Knowledge Distribution; ComStrat=Competitive Strategy; FirmPerf=Firm Performance.

Karnopp, J. (2022). Structures and relationships in organizational learning for change. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(5), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2021-0177

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mai, N. K., Do, T. T., & Ho Nguyen, D. T. (2022). The impact of leadership competences, organizational learning and organizational innovation on business performance. Business Process Management Journal, 28(5/6), 1391–1411. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2021-0659

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Koçyiğit, Y., & Tabak, A. (2020). The interaction among organizational flexibility, competitive strategy and competitive advantage: A path analytic study 1. In B. Akkaya (Ed.), Agile Business Leadership Methods for Industry 4.0 (pp. 303–326). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-380-920201017

 Google Scholar

Keskin, H., Ayar Şentürk, H., Tatoglu, E., Gölgeci, I., Kalaycioglu, O., & Etlioglu, H. T. (2021). The simultaneous effect of firm capabilities and competitive strategies on export performance: The role of competitive advantages and competitive intensity. International Marketing Review, 38(6), 1242–1266. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2019-0227

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meher, J. R., & Mishra, R. K. (2022). Examining the role of knowledge sharing on employee performance with a mediating effect of organizational learning. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 52(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-04-2020-0056

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Igashi, M., Smabo, H. S., & Wuen, C. H. (2022). Competitive strategy, organizational learning and SMEs performance. Gusau International Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 5(1), Federal University, Gusau.

 Google Scholar