Leadership Styles and Their Influence on Learning Culture and Dynamic Capacity in Nonprofit Organizations

Abstract

Leadership is a key element in diverse working environments, contributing to the construction of more competitive and efficient institutions. Its impact transcends different sectors, including non-profit organizations, where it is essential to improve management and achieve institutional objectives. This research aimed to analyze whether leadership styles influence learning culture and dynamic capacity. An explanatory study was carried out involving 300 workers from nine Latin American countries who declared that they carried out work activities in a non-profit institution, aged between 19 and 68 years old (M = 34.10 and SD = 8.88). They were recruited through non-probabilistic sampling for convenience. The theoretical model was evaluated using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM). A measurement model with adequate fit was obtained (α = between 0.909 and 0.955; CR = between 0.912 and 0.956; AVE = 0.650 and 0.923). Based on the results, it was observed that there was a positive impact of servant leadership on learning culture (β = 0.292), of empowering leadership on learning culture (β = 0.189), and of shared leadership on learning culture (β = 0.360). Likewise, there was a positive impact of culture of learning on dynamic capacity (β = 0.701). This research provides valuable insight for leaders in this sector who are seeking to achieve higher levels of learning culture and increase dynamic capability among their workers.

1. Introduction

Studying the behavior of leaders has been a frequent topic of interest throughout history and the main focus of institutions in various business groups (Jung et al., 2021). Taking into account the definitions of leaders by Podgorniak-Krzykacz (2021) as a “caretaker”, “consensus facilitator”, “boss of the town” and “visionary”, it is then essential to analyze how these typologies influence decision making, organizational performance and impact on collaborators. This skill is used to build trust between the leader and team members (Baykal et al., 2018). As history tells it, leadership has existed since ancient times; that is, since the time of the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Babylonians, among other great civilizations (Díaz, 2023). All of these civilizations had a leader, took over large crowds, presided over the government of a nation, controlled wars and promoted collective ideas, being highly educated in the practice of this skill (Díaz, 2023; Sözen & Şar, 2015). And as a response to economic, social, cultural, political, and technological changes, the study of leadership should be viewed with special importance, since its impact is related to the behavior of people and their influence on the achievement of the objectives of an organization (Meirinhos et al., 2023).

A leader is seen as the heart of an organization and cannot be underestimated (Al-Mahayreh et al., 2016). Leadership is recognized by spreading ideas, thoughts, or actions. According to Covey (1994) a leader is one who solves problems in creative ways to achieve sustainable success. Researchers have demonstrated and proposed various forms of leadership (Amini et al., 2019), and with its evolution, renowned authors such as James Burns, Bernard Bass, and Steven Covey, among others, have contributed to the study of leadership styles, (Palafox et al., 2020); each style has methods or patterns of behavior that the leader ought to adopt in order to manage his or her organization effectively (Van Jaarsveld et al., 2019). It is important to note that different leadership styles seem to work for most leaders in various situations, leading to the claim that there is no best leadership style and that the most successful leaders tend to adopt most of the different styles (Espejo-Pereda et al., 2025; Laura-Arias et al., 2024; Mooroŝi & Bantwini, 2016; Van Jaarsveld et al., 2019).

Entities seeking to achieve high levels of effectiveness must proactively adjust to environmental transformations (Ramos et al., 2020). The ability to predict threats, confront adverse situations and adapt to changing circumstances is fundamental to their survival and success. In the present context, marked by continuous innovation, non-profit institutions also need to develop digital skills that will enable them to progress in their digital maturity. To address these challenges, it is essential to employ strategies such as education, effective communication, and active participation of employees in the transformation process, and this is where establishing a learning culture could generate significant changes (Martínez et al., 2020). Constant technological changes have made organizations aware of the competitive markets in which they operate, and which motivate them to seek a competitive advantage in learning and knowledge (Gil et al., 2023; Torgaloz et al., 2023). Organizations can maintain a competitive advantage and be innovative as long as they choose to seek more knowledge and know how to manage it effectively (Ramos et al., 2020; Udin, 2023). A learning-oriented culture aims to create an organizational environment that focuses on the collaboration between individuals and on stimulating creative processes. The organizational structure should support the sharing of knowledge (Gonzalez & Massaroli, 2017; Porcu et al., 2020; Yang, 2003). The organizational structure is responsible for determining the clear formalization of knowledge, the degree of autonomy of employees, connecting people, promoting multidisciplinary and communication channels between individuals, and utilizing the flow of knowledge (Gedifew & Muluneh, 2022; Maggi-da-silva et al., 2022).

For this reason, the learning culture plays an important role in the process of adaptation to a changing environment (Gedifew & Muluneh, 2022; Gil et al., 2023; Troskie-de Bruin et al., 2014). In the 21st century, companies operate in increasingly uncertain contexts (Atanassova & Bednar, 2022; Kelling et al., 2021; Silva & Ferreira, 2017), and they should learn faster and better, as this guarantees sustainability (Torgaloz et al., 2023). Additionally, maintaining a learning culture could optimize management skills, resulting in a good business performance (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2021). A learning culture encourages experimentation and critical thinking (Barabasch & Keller, 2020). When employees feel it is safe to try new ideas and learn from their mistakes, organizations become innovative and can quickly adapt to industry changes (Jung et al., 2021; Porcu et al., 2020). Hence, organizations that value and foster a culture of lifelong learning will achieve better results (Raemy et al., 2023), since their employees, who are constantly acquiring new knowledge and skills, can better perform their functions and contribute to the overall success of the institution (Cavazotte et al., 2015).

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) are a type of organization whose main purpose is not to generate economic profit, but to fulfill a social, cultural, educational, humanitarian, or community mission (Bernstein & Fredette, 2024; Hodges & Howieson, 2017; Tosto & Tcherni-Buzzeo, 2025). This sector is undergoing a profound transformation due to environmental, social, political and economic changes in Europe and Latin America (Hodges & Howieson, 2017). An emphasis on leadership styles has influenced conversations about management and the general perception of leadership within NPOs (Shier & Handy, 2020). In this sense, it has been observed that the leadership style exercised in certain NPOs, such as religious organizations, is critical to their long-term survival, and this is one of the most widely researched topics, due to its impact on behavior (Ortiz-Gómez et al., 2020). This suggests that the success or failure of a NPO development project largely rests with its leaders. There is a growing recognition of importance in the context of NPOs (Aboramadan & Kundi, 2020). Therefore, those in leadership positions at all hierarchical levels should take the necessary precautions to increase the commitment of their members (Erdurmazlı, 2019). While leadership in NPOs presents similarities with that of the business sector, it also faces challenges with volunteer management, donations, limited resources, generally lower remuneration, and competition with other sectors seeking talent (Nave & Correia, 2020; Potluka et al., 2021). It has been shown that leadership in this sector varies according to the culture in which it operates. In addition, the scarcity of scientific research and the complexity of the environment make it necessary to analyze the nature of leadership and to identify the characteristics that favor the success of the sector in relation to the cultural context in which these entities operate (Brunetto et al., 2024; Debnath & Bhowmik, 2022).

Taking into account this background, a diligent review of literature has shown the evident emergence of a growing interest in studying these topics among the leaders of human and academic talent management. Bibliometric indicators reveal that the ten countries that most frequently disclose their scientific results are the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, India, Pakistan, Canada, and Spain. These countries have applied their studies to various areas, sectors and populations, such as business management and accounting, social sciences, psychology, economics, and engineering.

However, in relation to the scientific dissemination of these three topics, no existing studies have been found that allow a more comprehensive scope of leadership behavior, even though evidence supports the idea that studying aspects of leadership and learning culture could not only increase the effectiveness of employee performance but also transform an organization into an agent of continuous learning (Udin, 2023). In fact, there is little research assessing the dynamic capacity of an organization, which could establish both objective and subjective conditions to support the process of innovative development (Santos et al., 2022). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze whether leadership styles influence learning culture and dynamic capacity. The text below comprises the following sections: Section 2 contains the literature review and hypothesis development. Section 3 provides materials and methods. Section 4 describes the results. Section 5 contains the discussion and Section 6 focuses on the conclusions.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Servant Leadership

Servant leadership (SE) is described as an integrative and altruistic leadership style (Laura-Arias et al., 2024), where the leader focuses primarily on the needs of the work team and society as a whole (Page & Wong, 2000), instead of himself/herself and his/her superiors (van Dierendonck, 2011). This is an area of knowledge that deserves further research, as it has achieved many positive results in various work groups (du Plessis et al., 2015) and is committed to high moral and ethical standards that put people first (Gocen & Sen, 2021). In 1970, Robert Greenleaf argued that the most accurate test of servant leadership is making a conscious decision to first be a servant and then to discover a natural desire to lead (Greenleaf, 1977). A servant leader is influential and knows how to favor his/her team before asking them to follow his/her ideals, because deep down everyone wants to be appreciated. The differentiating factor of this leadership model lies in making ethical decisions, in having good relationships with work team (Agustin-Silvestre et al., 2024; Boydak et al., 2017), and in carrying out their tasks (Ngah et al., 2022).

2.2. Empowering Leadership

Empowering leadership (EL) is defined as giving power and responsibility to lower-ranking employees in the organizational structure so that they can make decisions. (Tian & Chae, 2023). This implies that leaders delegate to their workers the ability to make key decisions in their respective work areas, while providing them with the resources, knowledge and adequate support they need in order to perform more effectively (Baykal et al., 2018). Additionally, empowering leadership focuses on the constant growth of employees’ skills and abilities. Leaders who empower their team, dedicate efforts and resources to the training and professional growth of their members, build an environment of continuous education that creates a high-performance organization (Mohammed & AL-Abrrow, 2023).

Empowering leadership is often approached in two ways. First, it includes the behaviors of a formal leader or a leader who holds a position and power in an organization (Naqshbandi & Tabche, 2018), such as encouraging their team to express opinions and ideas, facilitating collaborative decision making, supporting information sharing, and teamwork (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015). Second, recent research conceptualizes empowering leadership as a method of sharing power between leaders, automatically increasing people’s autonomy (both individually and in groups) and leading to more proactive participation in their workplace (Steinmann et al., 2018). Although there are many opinions about empowering leadership, there are differences in the dimensions according to its theoretical model (Hoang et al., 2021). However, management specialists have also studied it in relation to other factors, stating that it is sufficiently distinct from these leadership constructs to justify a single line of academic research (Sharma & Kirkman, 2015).

2.3. Shared Leadership

Much has been said about shared leadership (SD), but what specialists mostly agree on is that it is a leadership model in which the responsibility and authority to make decisions are distributed among all members of a team, instead of focusing on just one individual (Aufegger et al., 2019). This approach promotes collective responsibility, innovation, and commitment. Therefore, it involves increasing organizational adaptability and resilience (J. Zhu et al., 2018), cooperation, empowerment, active participation of all actors, and using different skills and knowledge to achieve common goals more effectively (Chen & Zhang, 2023). It is an organizational dynamic in which leadership is shared among several people on the team who assume roles based on their capabilities and skills to help the team to reach the institutional goals (Van Zyl & Hofmeyr, 2021).

2.4. Learning Culture

A learning culture (LC) can be defined as a culture designed to promote and facilitate employee learning, and the sharing and dissemination of learned knowledge for growth and success within an organization (Lefebvre et al., 2016; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; T. M. Rebelo & Gomes, 2011; Schmitz et al., 2014). Some studies affirm that employees with a desire to learn seek an environment that encourages growth and development. A robust learning system can help retain these key employees by giving them the opportunity to develop and grow within the organization (Miño-Puigcercós et al., 2019; Walan & Gericke, 2023). Additionally, the ability to adapt in a changing business environment has been shown to be critical to the long-term survival of an organization (T. Rebelo et al., 2017). A learning culture encourages flexibility and speed (Barlow et al., 2023; Huang & Asghar, 2018; Khan et al., 2020; Koivula et al., 2022), allowing organizations to quickly adapt to new situations and opportunities (Gedifew & Muluneh, 2022).

Another important factor that focuses on leaders is that they value and encourage continuous learning (Cavazotte et al., 2015). This culture creates a sense of community and collaboration among employees (Hazzam & Wilkins, 2023; Udin et al., 2023), thus promoting commitment, teamwork, a supportive work environment (Tripathi & Kalia, 2022), learning transfer (Maggi-da-silva et al., 2022), dynamic capacity, team performance (Gonzalez, 2022), and corporate identity (Cooper et al., 2016; Mejía-Manzano et al., 2022; Urrutia et al., 2022). Consequently, studying, evaluating, and analyzing learning culture in an organization is essential to foster essential elements such as innovation (Lin & Huang, 2021; Matic, 2022), improving performance, retaining talent, increasing adaptive capacity, promoting effective leadership, and strengthening the organizational culture as a whole (Kucharska & Rebelo, 2022).

2.5. Dynamic Capacity

During the last decade of study, a new approach of strategy theory has emerged that allows organizations to adapt their strategies to fully meet their commitments (Zea-Fernández et al., 2020). This new approach, called dynamic capabilities theory (DBT), focuses on an organization’s ability to create, update, change, integrate, and recreate its portfolio of resources in a rapidly changing environment in order to achieve high performance, sustainability, and long-term competitiveness (Brito-Ochoa et al., 2020; Fernandez-Pinto et al., 2024). When defining dynamic capability (DC), its origin goes back to thinking about a business approach (D. J. Teece et al., 1997). The contributions of D. Teece and Pisano (1994) noted for the first time that companies that can maintain a competitive advantage in the global market often have a timely response and rapid product innovation. This concept is considered an evolution of the resource-based view (RBV), which is based on the assumption that a company is composed of a set of resources and its sustainable competitive advantage is derived from its share of resources (Wang & Zhang, 2021; C. Y. Zhu & Zhang, 2022). In this sense, dynamic capabilities refer to a set of processes and capabilities that enable a company to continuously improve core processes (Gonzalez, 2022).

2.6. Leadership Styles Influence Learning Culture

The development of a firm and respectful leadership can, additionally, enable the development of a learning culture to encourage employees to have experiences that allow them to take risks through creativity and innovation (Rusindiyanto et al., 2024); this means that a leadership style can encourage employees to use their full potential responsibly, creating a scenario where their participation and contribution is significant for the company and/or institution (Bose et al., 2021). Therefore, it is stated that employee participation depends largely on the leader, since he/she is responsible for promoting continuous learning, training and skill development that allows employees to take on challenging situations with confidence and competence (Park & Park, 2019; Siahaan, 2017).

Based on the fact that the people-centered leadership style can be created by all three types, servant, empowering, and shared leadership (Cahyadi et al., 2022), it has been identified that servant leadership positively influences the learning culture (Dalain, 2023; Tsarkos, 2023). To further explain this association, research supports the idea that a leader whose priority of needs is mainly focused on his/her employees, concerned with training human talent and shaping their capabilities, and producing the development of their maximum potential, could influence the sustained creation of a learning culture that significantly benefits the institution (Dalain, 2023). Therefore, the order of priority adopted by the leader will inspire in employees a positive attitude towards the institution, creating an environment where the culture of learning is highly valued (Akgün et al., 2023; Dalain, 2023; Tsarkos, 2023).

On the other hand, research has identified that establishes that servant leadership assumes an important role in the growth and development of employees. Therefore, a dynamic environment is generated where the leader assumes the role of mentor and facilitator while the employee increases his or her individual competencies (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016; Politis & Politis, 2017; Rosnani, 2018). On the other hand, the empowering leadership style has also been analyzed as a factor that positively influences the learning culture; that is when a leader promotes autonomy and delegates responsibilities, he/she awakens creativity, motivation, and the discovery of new skills in his/her work team; the same situation used as an essential tool to create assertive responses to any situation (Hanh & Choi, 2019; Xie, 2019). This is why it is necessary for an empowering leader to promote collaborative processes and to encourage feedback in order to create an environment where sharing knowledge in collaboration with colleagues becomes an activity that improves the skills of employees (Choi et al., 2015; Hanh & Choi, 2019).

Furthermore, studies have explored the concept that a leadership that supports the distribution of responsibilities and active participation of team members (shared leadership) positively influences the learning culture as well (Porter et al., 2024; Zhan et al., 2024). This means that collective efficacy arises as a result of shared leadership where team results are enhanced due to the collaboration and skills of team members, thus generating innovation, assertive problem solving, and the achievement of collective goals (Hoch, 2014; Sabir et al., 2022). Based on the above, the following study hypotheses are proposed:

H1: 

Servant leadership positively influences the learning culture.

H2: 

Empowering leadership positively influences the learning culture.

H3: 

Shared leadership positively influences the learning culture.

2.7. Learning Culture Influences Dynamic Capacity

According to research, when the culture of learning intervenes in dynamic capacity, a panorama is created where the ability of organizations to achieve the integration, construction and reconfiguration of both internal and external competencies are strengthened according to the demands of business environments (Naqshbandi & Tabche, 2018; Sabir et al., 2022). Another theory establishes that the learning culture, independently of allowing team members to exchange ideas, explore and exploit their knowledge, also empowers them, opening an important path to innovation and creativity within the organization, due to the development of a better understanding; this also allows the discovery of new opportunities that keep the organization competitive against the competition, which is called dynamic capability (Tripathi & Kalia, 2022).

Other studies establish that a crucial element to achieve the dynamic capacity of an institution is through the formation of a solid team; an integrated team whose motivation to learn continuously and collaboratively drives adaptation to changes will thus achieve a way to build an organization and allow it to thrive (Lin & Huang, 2021; Tripathi & Sankaran, 2021). Thus, it is important to promote an environment of trust and openness within work teams, providing them with the essential elements to strengthen their individual and collective capacity, called a learning culture (Lin et al., 2019). Based on the above, the following study hypotheses are proposed:

H4: 

Learning culture positively influences dynamic capacity.

2.8. The Culture of Learning in Servant, Empowering and Shared Leadership

As specified in the previous paragraphs, there is an important link between servant, empowering and shared leadership in the learning culture, but how likely could it be that any of these types of leadership maintains an association with dynamic capability, taking as a variable mediator the culture of learning? Although, in the previous paragraphs it was argued that leadership is associated with the culture of learning, there are studies that place special emphasis on leadership as a factor that influences the organizational results that an institution can achieve, and the ability to survive in a competitive business environment; in this way, the leader’s behavior can boost dynamic capacity, facilitating the acquisition of prior knowledge in this process (Khattak et al., 2020). Similarly, other research supports the idea that there is a significant link between leadership and continuous improvement (dynamic capability), which is reinforced through the knowledge acquired by employees.

In general terms, every time a leader displays a behavior that seeks the professional growth of his/her collaborators, making the collaborator a priority and allowing him/her to participate in the decisions that promote the well-being of the institution, individual and organizational benefits are generated (Tripathi & Sankaran, 2021), which are the same ones that are reflected in the positioning of an institution. Since the collaborator participates in decision-making, applying his/her knowledge to facilitate their implementation, this collaborator feels like an important element, which makes him/her exploit his/her skills with greater commitment, thus creating a greater effect on the dynamic capacity of a company (Hilverda et al., 2023; Rehman et al., 2023). Based on the above, the following study hypotheses are proposed:

H5: 

Learning culture plays a mediating role in the positive influence of servant leadership on dynamic capability.

H6: 

Learning culture plays a mediating role in the positive influence of empowering leadership on dynamic capability.

H7: 

Learning culture plays a mediating role in the positive influence of shared leadership on dynamic capability.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Context of the Study

Based on the assumptions presented above, the main objective of the study was to analyze whether leadership styles influence learning culture and dynamic capability or not. The research context was framed by the need to understand how different leadership approaches can foster an organizational environment conductive to knowledge acquisition and application, as well as to strategic adaptation in changing contexts within Latin American NPOs. The most important goal of the study was to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in organizational leadership for NPOs, offering valid and clear scientific evidence to improve institutional effectiveness.

3.2. Design, Procedure and Participants

The design of this study was instrumental (Ato et al., 2013). The population group was made up of workers from a non-profit agency, based in 9 Latin American countries. This institution provides humanitarian aid and development in 130 countries around the world and has a very important impact in Latin America. The inclusion criteria were as follows: to be of legal age (minimum 18 years) and to have worked for more than one year in managerial, administrative and project implementation, and technical functions. To select the participants, non-probabilistic convenience sampling was applied (Otzen & Manterola, 2017), choosing those who were available and willing to participate in the research. This was obtained via a request for participation through the directors of each agency per country. A total of 300 workers aged between 19 and 68 years participated (M = 34.10 and SD = 8.88). The majority of the participants were women (61.67%), single (56%), with an age range of 19 to 29 years (40.33%), worked in the country agency of Ecuador (49%) and had been working for the institution for 1 to 5 years (82%) (

Table 1. Sociodemographic profile of the participants (n = 300).

Category		Frequency	%
Sex	Female	185	61.67
	Male	115	38.33
Marital status	Single	168	56.00
	Cohabitant	10	3.33
	Married	108	36.00
	Divorced	14	4.67
Age range	19–29 years	121	40.33
	30–39 years	105	35.00
	40–49 years	54	18.00
	50–68 years	20	6.67
Country where you work	Ecuador	147	49.00
	Peru	69	23.00
	Chile	26	8.67
	Brazil	47	15.67
	Venezuela	4	1.33
	Mexico	3	1.00
	Colombia	2	0.67
	Argentina	1	0.33
	Paraguay	1	0.33
Years of service	1–5 years	246	82.00
	6–10 years	34	11.33
	11–15 years	5	1.67
	16 years or more	15	5.00

).

3.3. Measurement Scales

The online questionnaire was structured in three sections: the first section included the instructions and informed consent of the participants, the second section included the sociodemographic variables, and the last section contained the measurement scales. All of these were translated from English. Before use, these underwent a semantic validation process with the inclusion of 6 workers who met the profile of the participants, ensuring that the items were understandable in the context of each country. To respond to each item on the measurement scales, a 5-point Likert-type response format was used, ranging from 1 (“Totally disagree”) to 5 (“Totally agree”). The scales used for this study can be viewed in Appendix A.

Leadership styles: To measure this variable, a short instrument of 9 items and 3 factors was used, which consisted of 2 items for servant leadership (SE) taken from previous studies (Cahyadi et al., 2022; Espejo-Pereda et al., 2025; Russell & Stone, 2002), 3 items for empowering leadership (EL) extracted from short scales (Cahyadi et al., 2022; Espejo-Pereda et al., 2025; Naqshbandi & Tabche, 2018), and 4 items for shared leadership (SD) adapted from recent research (Chacón-Henao et al., 2022; Espejo-Pereda et al., 2025). Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach’s Alpha (α = 0.917, 0.955 and 0.934 respectively).

Learning culture: To measure this construct, a recent model of 7 items structured in 3 factors was used (Gonzalez & Massaroli, 2017). The factors were coded as follows: Knowledge Sharing (KS), Management Active Participation (MAP), and Taking Risks and encouraging the Creative Process (RCP). Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach’s Alpha (α = 0.909).

Dynamic capacity: A short scale of 6 items distributed in 3 factors was used. These factors were coded as follows (Gonzalez & Massaroli, 2017): Knowledge Absorption (KA), Knowledge Exploitation (KET), and Knowledge Exploration (KEL). Internal consistency was measured by Cronbach’s Alpha (α = 0.912).

3.4. Ethical Considerations

The research was approved by the Ethics Committee of a Peruvian University (2023-CE-EPG-00153). Subsequently, during the period between January and May 2024, participants were invited to complete an online questionnaire through Google Forms. Before data collection, confidentiality rules and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (Manzini, 2000; Puri et al., 2009) were followed, informing the participants about the purpose of the research and obtaining their informed consent under the statement: “I acknowledge that by completing this questionnaire I am giving my consent to participate in the study”.

3.5. Data Analysis

For statistical analysis of the data, the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) was used. The PLS-SEM consists of two stages: evaluation of the psychometric properties of the measurement scale, such as reliability, convergent and discriminant validity; and the testing of hypotheses through the system of structural equations.

3.6. Common Method Bias

In this research, several strategies were implemented to minimize bias, among them, the application of an anonymous and confidential questionnaire with the objective of reducing social desirability. In addition, the variables were presented in separate sections of the questionnaire, which helped to mitigate common method bias.

Furthermore, to verify that the model was free of common method bias, a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) analysis was performed. According to this analysis, if all VIF values in the internal model, derived from a collinearity test, are equal to or less than 3.3, this indicates that there is no significant collinearity problem (Kock, 2015). As shown in

Table 2. Collinearity statistics (VIF)—inner model list.

	VIF
Empowering Leadership (EL) -> Learning Culture (LC)	2.420
Learning Culture (LC) -> Dynamic Capacity (DC)	1.000
Shared Leadership (SD) -> Learning Culture (LC)	2.157
Servant Leadership (SE) -> Learning Culture (LC)	2.071

, all VIF values were below this threshold, indicating that the model had no common method bias.

4. Results

Evaluating a model using PLS-SEM comprises a two-step process that involves evaluating the measurement and structural models (Chin, 2010; J. F. Hair et al., 2011).

4.1. Convergent Validity

According to J. Hair et al. (2017), to evaluate the measurement model, an estimate of the reliability of the constructs (composite reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha) and validity (discriminant and convergent validity) are used. Cronbach’s Alpha values were between 0.909 and 0.955, and the threshold value of 0.70 falls below these values (J. Hair et al., 2017). Similarly, the composite reliability (CR) showed values between 0.912 and 0.956, which were above the suggested value of 0.70 (Kline, 2015). Based on these findings, all constructs were considered error-free and construct reliability was established (see

Table 3. Convergent validity results.

Construct	Items	Factor Loading	α	CR	AVE
Servant Leadership (SE)	SE1	0.960	0.917	0.917	0.923
	SE2	0.961
Empowering Leadership (EL)	EL1	0.958	0.955	0.956	0.918
	EL2	0.960
	EL3	0.955
Shared Leadership (SD)	SD1	0.906	0.934	0.935	0.835
	SD2	0.921
	SD3	0.916
	SD4	0.912
Learning Culture (LC)	MAP1	0.868	0.909	0.912	0.650
	MAP2	0.863
	MAP3	0.864
	KS1	0.684
	KS2	0.786
	RCP1	0.775
	RCP2	0.786
Dynamic Capacity (DC)	KA1	0.854	0.912	0.916	0.693
	KA2	0.850
	KET1	0.828
	KET2	0.807
	KEL1	0.830
	KEL2	0.824

Note. The convergent validity results ensured acceptable values (factor loading, Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability (CR) ≥ 0.70 and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) > 0.5).

).

Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and factor loading should be tested for convergent validity (J. Hair et al., 2017). Table 3 reveals that all the factor loadings had values above the suggested value (0.70). Table 3 also shows that the AVE performances had indicators between 0.650 and 0.923, which were above the threshold value (0.50). With these results, convergent validity for all constructs was adequately satisfied.

4.2. Discriminant Validity

In order to find the discriminant validity, two criteria had to be taken into account: the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) (J. Hair et al., 2017). According to

Table 4. Fornell–Larcker scale.

	DC	EL	LC	SD	SE
DC	0.833
EL	0.553	0.958
LC	0.701	0.641	0.806
SD	0.595	0.700	0.678	0.914
SE	0.558	0.685	0.651	0.636	0.961

Note. The diagonal values in bold represent the square of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE).

, the Fornell–Larker conditions supported these claims, as all AVEs and their square roots were greater than their correlations with other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

The results of the HTMT relationship are provided in

Table 5. Heterotrait–Monotrait relationship (HTMT).

	DC	EL	LC	SD	SE
DC
EL	0.585
LC	0.760	0.686
SD	0.636	0.740	0.735
SE	0.603	0.732	0.712	0.686

, which shows that the threshold value of 0.85 was greater than the value of each construct (Henseler et al., 2015). Therefore, discriminant validity was determined with these findings. These results confirm the validity and reliability of the measurement model. Consequently, the evaluation of the structural model could continue.

4.3. Structural Model Analysis

The proposed hypotheses were contrasted using the PLS-SEM technique. Predictive relevance values were used for model fitting. Cross-validated redundancy values (R²) represent the predictive relevance of the model. R² values must be greater than 0 for model accuracy (J. F. Hair et al., 2014b; Henseler et al., 2015).

Table 6. R² of the endogenous latent variables.

Construct	R2
Learning Culture (LC)	0.556
Dynamic Capacity (DC)	0.491

shows the endogenous latent variables and their respective R².

Figure 1 graphically represents the structural model, illustrating the relationships between the latent variables and their respective path coefficients (β). The arrows indicate the direction and intensity of the relationships proposed in the hypotheses, and the values of the coefficients reflect the magnitude of the effect between the variables. A higher coefficient implies a stronger relationship, while the p-values and t-statistics help determine the significance of each relationship. This visual representation complements the detailed information in

Table 7. Structural model results.

H	Hypothesis	Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistic (|O/STDEV|)	p-Value	Decision
H1	SE-LC	0.292	0.290	0.071	4.145	0.000	Supported
H2	EL-LC	0.189	0.192	0.065	2.911	0.004	Supported
H3	SD-LC	0.360	0.359	0.078	4.630	0.000	Supported
H4	LC-DC	0.701	0.702	0.033	21.469	0.000	Supported
H5	SE-LC-DC	0.205	0.204	0.050	4.086	0.000	Supported
H6	EL-LC-DC	0.132	0.135	0.046	2.854	0.004	Supported
H7	SD-LC-DC	0.252	0.252	0.057	4.452	0.000	Supported

, which presents the same path coefficients along with statistical significance values in numerical format. Together, both presentations facilitate the interpretation of the results and the empirical validation of the proposed model.

Path coefficient values, p-value and t-statistics were used to accept and reject hypotheses, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 7. Path coefficient values close to +1 indicate a strong association and vice versa (J. F. Hair et al., 2014a). The p-values and the t-statistics refer to the acceptance and rejection of the proposed hypotheses. In this study, the conceptual model contains seven hypotheses. The results of the tested hypotheses are summarized in Table 7. H1, which proposed that servant leadership (SE) has a positive impact on learning culture (LC) (β = 0.292, p < 0.000, t = 4.145), was accepted; H2, which proposed that empowering leadership (EL) has a positive impact on learning culture (LC) (β = 0.189, p = 0.004, t = 2.911), was accepted; H3, which proposed that shared leadership (SD) has a positive impact on the learning culture (LC) (β = 0.360, p < 0.000, t = 4.630), was accepted; and H4, which proposed that learning culture (LC) has a positive impact on dynamic capacity (DC) (β = 0.701, p < 0.000, t = 21.469), was accepted.

In addition, H5, which proposed that learning culture (LC) has a mediating role in the influence of servant leadership (SE) on dynamic capability (DC) (β = 0.205, p < 0.000, t = 4.086), was accepted; H6, which proposed that learning culture (LC) has a mediating role in the influence of empowering leadership (EL) on dynamic capability (DC) (β = 0.132, p = 0.004, t = 2.854), was accepted; and H7, which proposed that learning culture (LC) has a mediating role in the influence of shared leadership (SD) on dynamic capability (DC) (β = 0.252, p < 0.000, t = 4.452), was accepted.

Therefore, all hypotheses were tested, and from these findings it is clear that promoting servant leadership within an institution could strengthen and foster an environment where continuous learning and improvement are valued and practiced. Also, empowering leadership can motivate employees to constantly seek learning and development opportunities. Even more importantly, as shared leadership involves collaboration between multiple leaders or the distribution of leadership roles among different individuals, it is likely to promote diversity of perspectives, experiences and skills within the organization, thus influencing the learning culture. On the other hand, as the learning culture implies that individuals and teams are constantly acquiring new knowledge and skills, this could improve the organization’s ability to quickly adapt to changes in the external environment, such as recent changes in emerging technology. Finally, if learning culture mediates the influence of different leadership styles (service, empowerment, sharing) on the dynamic capacity of nonprofit organizations, this suggests that these leadership styles have a positive impact on the organization’s ability to adapt and change through the promotion of an environment conductive to learning and continuous improvement. Furthermore, establishing a learning culture in nonprofit organizations in Latin America could make employees become increasingly eager to learn and continually strive to develop their potential and perform better.

5. Discussion

The objective of the present study was to analyze whether or not leadership styles influence learning culture and dynamic capacity. This study was developed in the context of nonprofit organizations at the Latin American level, a sector that is undergoing a major transformation as a result of the environmental, social, political and economic changes taking place in Europe and Latin America (Hodges & Howieson, 2017). In the early 1950s, leadership studies emphasized behavioral patterns and leadership styles (Schmid, 2006), focusing on the importance of leaders understanding the various models they can follow, as well as developing skills to identify their own strengths and weaknesses (Schmid, 2006), creating positive emotions, and preventing negative emotions in group members (Rowold & Rohmann, 2009). This is especially relevant in the field of nonprofit community and human service organizations, which face continuous change and transition (Lutz Allen et al., 2013), particularly due to the declining legitimacy of the welfare state (Schmid, 2006). Therefore, the leadership style exercised in certain organizations, such as religious ones, has been recognized as critical, and therefore is one of the most widely researched topics, due to its impact on behavior (Ortiz-Gómez et al., 2020). This sector is commonly characterized by volunteer management, donations, limited resources, typically lower remuneration, and competition with other sectors in the search for new talent (Nave & Correia, 2020; Potluka et al., 2021). Recent studies show that leadership within this sector differs, depending on the culture in which it operates (Brunetto et al., 2024; Potluka et al., 2021).

From a descriptive perspective of the results and statistical analysis, this research analyzes the evaluation of the measurement model, which indicated high levels of reliability of the constructs evaluated, which is essential to guarantee the validity of the conclusions. Cronbach’s Alpha values obtained scores greater than 0.70, indicating solid internal consistency. Likewise, the composite reliability (CR) also exceeded the minimum valid scores, showing that the indicators of each construct adequately reflect the theoretical concept that it intended to measure. In that sense, the fact that Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability have had values higher than the minimum threshold establish the reliability of the construct to continue the process of testing the structural model. Two criteria were used to determine discriminant validity: the Fornell–Larker criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT). In both cases the values obtained showed a robust model.

To verify the hypotheses, the PLS-SEM technique was used. The path coefficient values, p-value, and t-statistics were used to accept and reject the hypotheses. In the case of H1, it was accepted that servant leadership (SE) had a positive impact on the learning culture (LC). Dalain’s (2023) study agrees with the results of this research by showing that servant leadership in association with other variables, such as goal congruence and human talent practices, regulates innovation where learning culture plays an important role (Gonzalez, 2024). Likewise, by accepting H2, agreement is suggested with what was reported in the study by Babaee et al. (2021), who found a close association between empowering leadership and learning culture. In addition, this study accepted H3, which highlights the importance of shared leadership in promoting a learning-oriented organizational culture, which is essential to encourage continuous innovation and adaptation in an organizational environment.

The acceptance of H4 reinforces the idea that a strong learning culture is valued for the development of dynamic capabilities, which is a strategic path for organizations that wish to adapt quickly to changes in the environment through continuous improvement of their critical processes. These results are similar to the scientific dissemination of some recent studies (Gonzalez, 2022; Gonzalez & Massaroli, 2017). On the other hand, the acceptance of H5 suggests that servant leadership can foster dynamic capabilities in nonprofit organizations, mainly when it fosters the formation of a learning culture. This suggests a similarity with some scientific reports from Vietnam and other case studies (Irani et al., 2009; Hanh & Choi, 2019). H6, which was accepted, indicates a significant relationship, although more modest compared to the other leadership models. Finally, accepting H7 highlights the importance of shared leadership, not only in directly promoting a culture of learning, but also in its ability to translate this culture into dynamic capabilities (Gonzalez, 2022).

5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study presents various theoretical and practical implications for the practice of NGO management in Latin American contexts. At a theoretical level, it expands knowledge about the behavior of NGO leaders in Latin America and how it influences the learning culture and dynamic capabilities of these organizations, providing literary support for the confirmed hypotheses. The aforementioned theoretical considerations highlight and reaffirm that leadership is an essential component for the development of dynamic capabilities, demonstrating that it is a dimension whose orientation is related to strengthening the competencies of organizational members for their transformation processes and for the fulfillment of organizational objectives and goals. In this sense, considering leadership as a key component that impacts the learning culture and dynamic capabilities of an NGO is a proposal that adds value to research on this topic.

One of the least discussed, yet most relevant, aspects in the field of leadership is that numerous researchers have analyzed it, often without considering its specific context. Social identity theory suggests that the way leadership is exercised is based on self-perception in relation to one’s social group and collective identity. Thus, the economic, political, and sociocultural environment of Latin America may have affected the manifestation of these attributes among leaders. In this sense, a shift from hierarchical models to horizontal, participatory, and community-based leadership may be more appropriate and effective for NGO settings. Currently, NGOs face challenges such as limited donor funding, volunteer recruitment, and, to a certain extent, the socioeconomic situation in some countries in the region. At the same time, they must assume the responsibility of supporting vulnerable populations living in poverty. Considering this, it is believed that shared, empowered, and servant leadership could counteract these challenges by building trust, ethical alliances, and mobilizing local resources. These types of leadership can also purposefully attract new volunteers, forming genuine human bonds, and may also be capable of promoting emotional resilience, adaptability, and social justice, fostering solutions rooted in dignity and active participation.

On the other hand, leadership is a process that helps and encourages other organizational components to be intensely astute, innovative, collaborative, and transformative, providing organizations with skills to achieve greater managerial effectiveness. In this sense, the results of this study contribute to the strategic field by showing the benefits of promoting servant, empowering, and shared leadership in the pursuit of social added value. From the perspective of organizational practice, these data are important because, in the current context of Latin American NGOs, where the decline in international cooperation funds and high competition for access to resources for the execution of social projects predominate, this forces them to make internal adaptations. The adoption of differentiating, tangible and intangible practices to continue offering their humanitarian aid, being sustainable in the long term, and developing impact capacity are the constant challenges these institutions face. In this sense, this research is of interest to human resources professionals in order to promote the roles of servant, empowering, and shared leadership within their work teams. Investing in the training of effective leaders would develop and strengthen a learning culture and increase the dynamic capabilities of NGOs to achieve organizational sustainability and continue to fulfill their institutional mission.

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

One of the possible limitations of this study is that we used a convenience sample. Despite this, the sample used included different work teams based in different Latin American countries that, in turn, belonged to different organizational and economic realities. Future studies should be aimed at unraveling causal pathways through longitudinal techniques. The use of multilevel methodology is recommended to explore longitudinal studies where the level of the organization and lower-level variables are related, such as human resources, where it would be interesting to explore the differences in perceptions between supervisors and employees regarding servant, empowering and shared leadership.

6. Conclusions

Leadership has been a key element in work environments, contributing to the construction of more competitive and efficient institutions. Its impact transcends different sectors, including non-profit organizations, where it is essential to improve management and achieve institutional objectives. Furthermore, organizations that want to be effective must adapt to certain changes that will take them to where they want to be, and this is where a true learning culture must be built. A learning-oriented culture aims to create an organizational environment that focuses on collaboration between individuals and stimulates creative processes. Additionally, the organizational structure should support knowledge sharing. In this context, this research aimed to analyze whether leadership styles influence learning culture and dynamic capacity.

To address the main objective of the research, an explanatory study was carried out considering 300 workers from nine Latin American countries who declared that they carried out work activities in a non-profit institution, aged between 19 and 68 years (M = 34.10 and SD = 8.88), all whom were recruited through non-probabilistic convenience sampling. The theoretical model was evaluated using the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM). A measurement model with adequate fit was obtained (α = between 0.909 and 0.955; CR = between 0.912 and 0.956; AVE = 0.650 and 0.923). Based on the results, a positive impact of servant leadership on the learning culture (β = 0.292), of empowering leadership on the learning culture (β = 0.189), of shared leadership on the learning culture (β = 0.360), and the culture of learning on dynamic capacity (β = 0.701) was demonstrated.

The findings of this study highlight the critical role that leadership plays in fostering a culture of learning within nonprofit institutions, ultimately enhancing their dynamic capabilities. Given the specific challenges faced by nonprofit institutions, such as volunteer management, donations, limited resources, generally lower compensation, competition with other sectors seeking talent, and the need for sustained social impact, leadership styles that prioritize collaboration, empowerment, and service-oriented values allow a pathway to success for institutions in the sector.

Servant leadership fosters a people-centered approach that nurtures trust and commitment, while empowered leadership enhances autonomy and decision-making, both of which are essential for adapting to changing environments. Additionally, shared leadership promotes collective responsibility and reinforces the cooperative nature of non-profit work. Furthermore, a robust learning culture in these contexts not only enhances internal knowledge sharing, but also strengthens their ability to innovate and effectively respond to new societal needs.

Through the development of leadership strategies that connect with a learning-focused mindset, these institutions can optimize their resilience, increase their impact and ensure long-term sustainability in an increasingly complex and dynamic global environment. Finally, this research offers valuable insight for leaders in this sector seeking to achieve higher levels of learning culture and increase dynamic capability among their workers. Therefore, this study suggests important managerial implications for nonprofit managers, human talent staff, and academic professionals.