Navigating turbulence: building resilient workforce with dynamic capabilities

In today’s rapidly changing business environment, employee resilience is increasingly recognized as an important capability associated with maintaining work performance during periods of adversity, disruption, and uncertainty (Dogra and Parrey, 2024; Malik and Garg, 2020; Malik and Singh, 2024). Resilient employees are typically described as those who adapt to dynamic conditions, recover from setbacks, and sustain productive functioning under pressure, often serving as stabilizing influences during turbulent periods (Maley, 2019; Siebert, 2005; Stoverink et al., 2020; Tonkin et al., 2018; Van Der Vegt et al., 2015). Prior research has identified several factors that appear to support resilience, including supportive leadership, a positive work climate, access to resources, work-life balance, and organizational learning (Dogra and Parrey, 2024; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Malik and Garg, 2020; Malik and Singh, 2024).

However, despite this growing body of research, existing studies largely assume that resilience is a direct outcome of supportive organizational contexts. This assumption has received limited critical inquiry. By focusing primarily on identifying antecedents, prior research risks over-attributing explanatory power to contextual conditions while undervaluing the processes through which employees interpret challenges, mobilize resources, and enact adaptive responses (Cooke et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2019; Van Der Vegt et al., 2015). As a result, we still lack a clear understanding of how resilience actually develops at the employee level, particularly in turbulent environments where adaptive capabilities are continually tested.

To contribute to this discussion, our study shifts attention from contextual determinants to the microfoundational processes through which resilience is enacted. In this study, we adopt a mechanism-dominant perspective, in which organizational learning culture may influence resilience not only directly, but also through individual-level capabilities. Specifically, we argue that employee resilience is not simply a direct reaction to organizational learning culture, but an enacted capability that emerges through employee behavioral flexibility and psychological confidence as they engage with and respond to their work environment.

To examine this perspective, we focus on two complementary microfoundations: employee ambidexterity and employee self-efficacy. Employee ambidexterity reflects the capacity to shift between exploration and exploitation, representing a behavioral capability relevant for working in dynamic environments (Jyoti and Choudhary, 2024; Luger et al., 2018; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013). Employee self-efficacy reflects employee beliefs in their ability to manage challenges and persist when facing obstacles (Bandura, 1997). Together, these mechanisms represent behavioral and psychological dimensions of adaptive capability. We further conceptualize organizational learning culture as a contextual condition that may enable these microfoundations by fostering knowledge sharing, experimentation, and skill development (Jo and Joo, 2011). By integrating these elements, we move beyond identifying correlations of resilience toward explaining how it is enacted at the employee level.

Our study draws on the dynamic capabilities perspective (Salvato and Vassolo, 2018; Teece et al., 1997; Winter, 2003) which emphasizes that adaptation involves not only organizational-level processes but also individual-level capabilities embedded within the workforce. We test this integrative model in Egypt’s dynamic and turbulent hospitality sector, a setting characterized by economic volatility, political fluctuations, and high levels of environmental unpredictability, making it an appropriate context for studying resilience.

The study makes three main contributions. First, we advance resilience research by showing that the relationship between organizational context and employee resilience is mechanism-dominant rather than context-dominant, thereby challenging the implicit assumption that supportive contexts directly produce resilient outcomes. Second, we integrate the resilience and ambidexterity literatures by positioning individual-level ambidexterity together with self-efficacy as core microfoundations through which resilience is enacted rather than as parallel predictors. In doing so, we also extend prior work (e.g. Abdelhamid and Sposato, 2019) by specifying the individual-level processes through which organizational learning translates into adaptive workforce capabilities. Third, we contribute to the dynamic capabilities perspective by demonstrating how microfoundational mechanisms translate contextual conditions into employee-level adaptive outcomes in a turbulent environment.

In what follows, we first discuss the conceptual links between organizational learning culture, employee ambidexterity, employee self-efficacy, and employee resilience, aligning our arguments with the dynamic capabilities and organizational learning literatures. We then develop hypotheses, describe our data and analytical approach, report empirical findings, and conclude with implications and directions for future research.

The dynamic capabilities perspective is often used to describe how organizations adapt, integrate, and reconfigure internal and external resources in response to changing environments (Ahmad et al., 2025; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Salvato and Vassolo, 2018). These adaptive processes require continuous updating of knowledge and skills, which may create conditions under which employees learn to anticipate, absorb, and respond to disruption (Easterby-Smith and Prieto, 2008; Stoverink et al., 2020). At the individual level, these capability-related processes are understood to manifest through employee ability to integrate new knowledge, experiment, and adjust their behaviors. This aligns with recent work positioning resilience as a dynamic and resource-based construct rather than a fixed trait (Kossek and Perrigino, 2016). Learning practices such as knowledge sharing, reflective problem-solving, and cross-functional collaboration are frequently associated with higher levels of self-efficacy and ambidexterity, two mechanisms identified as central to functioning adaptively in volatile contexts (Jo and Joo, 2011; Luger et al., 2018; Malik and Garg, 2020).

Despite this alignment, existing resilience research often implicitly assumes that supportive organizational contexts employ a relatively direct influence on employee resilience. This assumption remains theoretically underdeveloped, as it does not fully account for how employees interpret and enact these contextual conditions in practice. As a result, current explanations risk over-attributing adaptive outcomes to context alone, while under-specifying the individual-level processes through which resilience is generated.

Although both resilience and ambidexterity have been linked to adaptive outcomes, these literatures have largely developed in parallel. Resilience research typically examines psychological and contextual predictors, whereas ambidexterity research has often focused on organizational structures or performance outcomes. As a result, we know relatively little about how these capabilities operate together at the individual level to generate resilient responses in dynamic work environments. Addressing this gap requires an integrated perspective on the microfoundations through which employees interpret and respond to disruption.

Importantly, dynamic capabilities frameworks emphasize that resource reconfiguration occurs not only at the organizational level but also through the actions of individuals who innovate, reprioritize, and adjust work practices when new challenges emerge (Abou Kamar et al., 2023; Girod and Whittington, 2017; Kossek and Perrigino, 2016; Salvato and Vassolo, 2018). This view aligns with contemporary resilience research, which positions resilience as involving cycles of resource gains, learning, and adaptability rather than simple “bouncing back” (Siebert, 2005). From this perspective, resilience merges through processes of continuous learning and adaptive action.

Dynamic capabilities research also highlights the role of microfoundations, emphasizing that sensing and reconfiguring depend on employee psychological capabilities (Al-Husain et al., 2025). This implies that organizational conditions do not translate directly into adaptive outcomes. Rather, they become meaningful to the extent that they activate these individual-level mechanisms. Within this view, organizational learning culture is considered a foundational contextual condition that may support capability development, help avoid resource loss spirals, and nurture employee constructive adaptation to disruption (Kossek and Perrigino, 2016; Malik and Garg, 2020).

Overall, the dynamic capabilities perspective provides a theoretically coherent lens for re-specifying how organizational contexts relate to employee resilience. Rather than viewing resilience as a direct outcome of contextual conditions, this perspective suggests that such conditions shape resilience primarily through the development and enactment of individual-level capabilities such as self-efficacy and ambidexterity. In this sense, resilience is better understood as an enacted outcome of microfoundational processes rather than a direct product of the organizational environment alone.

Alternative perspectives, including Conservation of Resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and the Job Demands–Resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001), also offer useful insights into how employees acquire, protect, and deploy resources under adversity. However, these perspectives primarily emphasize resource allocation and depletion. In contrast, the dynamic capabilities lens focuses on how employees actively reconfigure and enact capabilities in response to changing demands. Because organizational learning culture, ambidexterity and self-efficacy can all be understood as microfoundations shaping adaptive functioning, the dynamic capabilities perspective is particularly well suited for examining the mechanisms through which employee resilience develops.

The dynamic capabilities perspective emphasizes that organizational learning is often viewed as a foundational capability associated with the skills and knowledge relevant for employee resilience, and as part of the broader resource environment in which resilience-related responses may emerge (Hung et al., 2010). Within this view, organizational learning processes are understood to support continuous skill development, reflective problem-solving, and knowledge acquisition, which may provide employees with cognitive and behavioral resources useful for navigating novel challenges (Evenseth et al., 2022; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011).

Organizational learning has also been linked to an organization’s capacity to integrate and reconfigure resources, which may help employees access, mobilize, and recombine resources when facing setbacks (Siebert, 2005; Tonkin et al., 2018). Further, learning-oriented practices are frequently associated with stronger problem-solving tendencies, enabling employees to engage more effectively with complex situations, an aspect that has been connected to resilience (Jyoti and Choudhary, 2024).

A culture oriented toward learning is often described as fostering a supportive environment in which employees feel encouraged to take risks and learn from setbacks (Cannon and Edmondson, 2005; Siebert, 2005). Such an environment has been linked to higher resilience by shaping confidence, perceived capability, and constructive responses to adversity (Evenseth et al., 2022). This perspective also suggests that learning cultures may buffer against resource loss cycles in volatile environments by providing ongoing opportunities for knowledge renewal and interpersonal support (Degbey and Einola, 2020).

Several empirical studies have reported positive associations between organizational learning and employee resilience within the dynamic capabilities framework. For example, Bishop et al. (2022) found that organizational learning was strongly related to employee dynamic capability and performance in NGOs and private enterprises in South Sudan, highlighting the relevance of learning initiatives for employee adaptability. Thus, equipped with dynamic capabilities lens and supported by empirical evidence on related matters, we propose the following hypothesis:

The dynamic capabilities perspective posits that an organizational learning culture is often associated with environments where continuous skill development and knowledge acquisition are emphasized (AL-Khatib et al., 2024; Hung et al., 2010). Such a culture is understood to relate to employee tendencies to explore new opportunities and draw on existing routines, which are key elements linked to employee ambidexterity (Luger et al., 2018; Mikalef et al., 2019). Recent ambidexterity scholarship also suggests that individual-level ambidexterity functions as a microfoundation of dynamic capabilities, as employees make ongoing decisions about how to balance innovative and routine tasks under dynamic conditions (Stoverink et al., 2020). From this perspective, a learning-oriented culture is seen as an enabling context that may shape how individuals sense opportunities, experiment, and refine existing practices (Stoverink et al., 2020).

Organizational learning has additionally been linked to employee ability to navigate changing environments by continually updating their skills and knowledge. This adaptability is relevant for ambidexterity, as it may support employees in shifting between exploratory and exploitative tasks (Luger et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2020). Furthermore, learning-oriented cultures are often described as promoting the integration and reconfiguration of resources. Employees in such contexts may find it easier to access and utilize diverse resources, thereby supporting their ability to balance exploration and exploitation (Greco et al., 2019; Gupta et al., 2006).

Learning cultures are also characterized as fostering supportive environments where employees feel encouraged to take risks and learn from failures (Cannon and Edmondson, 2005). Such environments have been associated with greater confidence and perceived capability in handling both innovative and routine tasks, factors frequently connected to ambidexterity (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004). From the dynamic capabilities standpoint, an organizational learning culture is therefore viewed as a contextual condition that may facilitate the skills and knowledge relevant for ambidexterity and support employees in enacting it.

In this sense, ambidexterity reflects not only a behavioral outcome of learning-oriented environments but also a core mechanism through which employees translate contextual opportunities into adaptive action. By enabling employees to continuously shift between exploration and exploitation, learning cultures help develop the behavioral flexibility that is necessary for responding effectively to changing demands.

The theoretical connection between organizational learning culture and employee ambidexterity has also been reported in empirical work within the dynamic capabilities tradition. For example, Hung et al. (2010), using survey data from Taiwan’s high-tech industry, found positive associations between learning culture and performance, with dynamic capabilities mediating this association. This work suggests that learning-oriented cultures may be conducive to balancing exploration and exploitation, core aspects of ambidexterity. Complementing this, Brix (2019) explored how the processes of exploration and exploitation are developed and sustained through organizational learning. In line with the dynamic capabilities perspective and supported by these prior studies, we hypothesize the following:

While early ambidexterity research focused primarily on organizational structures, a growing body of work conceptualizes individual-level ambidexterity as an important microfoundation of dynamic capabilities (Luger et al., 2018). Prior studies indicate that employee tendencies to engage in both exploration and exploitation are associated with contextual enablers such as learning culture, networks, and cross-functional interactions. This underscores that individual ambidexterity is theoretically distinct from (but complementary to) organizational-level ambidexterity (Luger et al., 2018; Zada et al., 2025).

Within resilience scholarship, adaptability linked to ambidexterity is increasingly described as a component of resilient functioning, as it is associated with employee capacity to shift between innovative problem-solving and efficient execution depending on situational demands (Stokes et al., 2019). Employees who demonstrate ambidextrous behaviors tend to draw on a broad repertoire of skills, diverse knowledge structures, and flexible cognitive orientations (Birkinshaw and Gibson, 2004). By participating in both exploratory (innovative) and exploitative (routine) tasks, employees may develop behavioral variety and situational awareness that are commonly associated with their ability to withstand, navigate, and recover from setbacks (Greco et al., 2019; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013; Siebert, 2005; Tonkin et al., 2018).

From the dynamic capabilities perspective, ambidexterity is not limited to behavioral breadth. It reflects employee tendencies to integrate new knowledge, adjust priorities, and reconfigure existing resources when facing emerging challenges (Teece et al., 1997). These adaptive reconfiguration processes align with contemporary views that conceptualize resilience as a dynamic, resource-oriented phenomenon in which individuals draw on evolving resource sets to respond constructively to adversity (Kossek and Perrigino, 2016). Employees who regularly balance exploration and exploitation are therefore often described as operationalizing the sensing and reconfiguring activities central to dynamic capabilities.

In this sense, ambidexterity can be understood not only as a behavioral capability but also as a core mechanism through which employees develop and sustain resilience as it enables continuous adjustment between stability and change in response to shifting work demands.

Empirical studies also report associations between ambidexterity and resilience-related outcomes. At the organizational level, Zhaxylyk (2020) found that ambidextrous strategies were positively associated with resilience in turbulent economic contexts. At the individual level, Hanu and Khumalo (2024) showed that employee ambidexterity strengthened the relationship between high-performance work systems and employee resilience, suggesting that ambidexterity functions as an adaptive capability in demanding environments. Thus, rooted in the dynamic capabilities perspective and reinforced by empirical studies exploring related concepts, we hypothesize the following:

Aligned with the dynamic capabilities lens, it can be posited that an organizational learning culture is associated with higher levels of employee resilience partly through its influence on employee ambidextrous behaviors. Such a culture is typically characterized by continuous skill development and knowledge acquisition, conditions that are often linked to employee tendencies to explore new opportunities while drawing on established routines (Hung et al., 2010; Stoverink et al., 2020). Through repeated exposure to learning routines and adaptive practices, employees may develop the behavioral flexibility relevant for shifting between exploratory and exploitative modes of work, an ability frequently discussed as important for navigating uncertain and rapidly changing environments (Stokes et al., 2019).

Furthermore, learning-oriented cultures are frequently described as settings in which employees engage in the integration and reconfiguration of resources, consistent with the central tenets of the dynamic capabilities perspective (Teece et al., 1997). Employees in such environments may gain access to diverse information, cross-functional insights, and supportive structures that facilitate the application of existing knowledge while simultaneously experimenting with new approaches (Majchrzak et al., 2012). Learning-oriented cultures are also associated with psychological safety, a willingness to take risks, and opportunities to learn from failure, conditions that can support employee confidence, curiosity, and adaptive problem-solving (Stoverink et al., 2020). These psychological and behavioral tendencies are often viewed as important to the development and enactment of ambidexterity. In this way, ambidexterity is conceptualized as a key microfoundation through which learning-oriented contexts are translated into adaptive employee responses, including employee resilience. Rather than employing a uniformly strong direct influence, organizational learning culture is expected to shape resilience primarily by enabling employees to develop and enact ambidextrous behaviors that support ongoing adjustment to changing conditions.

Empirical work provides support for these conceptual linkages. For example, Farzaneh et al. (2021) found that organizational learning was positively related to dynamic capabilities, which were themselves associated with innovation performance, a core element of ambidexterity. Accordingly, we assume the following:

In line with the dynamic capabilities perspective, we argue that an organizational learning culture is associated with higher levels of employee self-efficacy by providing conditions that support continuous learning, resourcefulness, and a generally supportive environment. Learning-oriented cultures are often described as environments in which employees engage in ongoing development activities, which may relate to heightened perceptions of competence and confidence. As employees encounter opportunities to acquire new skills and knowledge, their self-efficacy, the belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations, may strengthen (Bandura, 2023; Dogra and Parrey, 2024).

Organizational learning cultures are commonly viewed as contexts that support these capabilities by exposing employees to practices that involve gathering, interpreting, combining, and repurposing resources to meet evolving demands. These opportunities may reinforce employee confidence in their problem-solving and decision-making abilities, which is frequently linked to higher self-efficacy (Parker, 1998).

Moreover, learning-oriented cultures are often characterized by norms that encourage risk-taking, experimentation, and learning from failure rather than penalizing it (Wallo et al., 2024). Such experiences are understood to relate to the development of self-efficacy by providing employees with repeated opportunities to test their abilities, cope with adversity, and adapt to changing circumstances, conditions that are theorized to strengthen efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 2023).

From the dynamic capabilities perspective, self-efficacy can therefore be understood as a key psychological mechanism through which employees internalize and act upon learning-oriented cultures. Rather than being a passive outcome of context, it reflects employee confidence in their ability to mobilize and reconfigure resources when facing challenges. Prior empirical studies provide support for these theoretical connections. For example, Chen and Zheng (2022) reported positive associations between organizational learning, resource integration and reconfiguration capabilities, and employee self-efficacy. In this way, we hypothesize the following:

Aligned with the dynamic capabilities perspective, we propose that self-efficacy is associated with employee resilience through its links to confidence, adaptability, and emotional regulation, factors that are often discussed as relevant for functioning effectively under conditions of uncertainty and strain. Employees with higher self-efficacy generally perceive themselves as more capable of handling difficult tasks and recovering from setbacks, which may shape their tendency to view challenges as manageable rather than overwhelming (Maurer, 2001; Nguyen et al., 2017; Siebert, 2005). Such confidence is frequently described as supporting a problem-solving mindset, a cognitive orientation often connected to resilient behavior (Bandura, 1997).

From the dynamic capabilities standpoint, self-efficacy is also understood to relate to employee likelihood of engaging in adaptive learning behaviors, such as seeking new information, experimenting with alternative approaches, and applying recently acquired skills to address work obstacles. These learning-oriented behaviors mirror the sensing and reconfiguring processes emphasized in the dynamic capabilities literature and are often linked to employee ability to respond constructively to adverse or rapidly changing situations (Gashi Tresi and Mihelič, 2018). As employees accumulate experience managing uncertainty, their efficacy beliefs may strengthen, creating a reinforcing cycle between learning, adaptation, and resilient functioning (Dogra and Parrey, 2024).

Self-efficacy is further associated with emotional regulation, a psychological capacity frequently identified as important for resilience (Alessandri et al., 2018). Employees who believe in their capabilities tend to manage stress more effectively and maintain a more positive outlook during challenging circumstances (Luthans, 2002). This emotional stability is often viewed as supporting sustained focus and persistence, both of which are linked to resilient responses.

In this way, self-efficacy functions as a core psychological mechanism through which employees translate learning and experience into adaptive responses. This mechanism shapes how they interpret, manage, and respond to adversity in their work environment. Empirical studies also report associations between self-efficacy and resilience. For instance, Li et al. (2023) found that higher levels of self-efficacy were positively related to employee resilience and performance outcomes. So, we hypothesize the following:

The dynamic capabilities perspective provides a compelling framework for considering how an organizational learning culture may be associated with employee resilience through its relationship with self-efficacy. Learning-oriented cultures are commonly described as environments that emphasize continuous learning, experimentation, and knowledge sharing (Jo and Joo, 2011; Teece et al., 1997). In such contexts, employees are frequently exposed to new technologies, processes, and ideas, experiences that may normalize change and reduce threat appraisals. Through repeated engagement in skill development and adaptive problem-solving, employees may develop stronger beliefs in their ability to navigate uncertainty, master novel situations, and influence desired outcomes. Over time, such exposure may also shape employee tendency to view ambiguity as manageable and interpret change as an opportunity for growth rather than a source of threat, patterns often associated with resilient functioning during organizational transitions and external shocks (Seibert et al., 2016).

Organizational learning cultures are also understood to shape how employees interpret challenges. In environments that emphasize growth and advancement, employees may be more inclined to perceive difficulties as opportunities for learning and development (Baldwin et al., 1997). This constructive cognitive orientation has been linked to higher levels of self-efficacy, as employees come to view obstacles as temporary and surmountable rather than enduring barriers (Heslin et al., 2019).

In addition, learning-oriented cultures are often characterized by access to training programs, developmental assignments, and structured opportunities for knowledge exchange (Swart and Kinnie, 2003). Exposure to increasingly complex tasks and new competencies can be associated with greater confidence in one’s ability to handle challenges (Carter et al., 2018). These developmental experiences are understood to contribute to stronger feelings of efficacy, which are frequently linked to adaptive responses to adversity. Organizational learning practices such as recognizing contributions, celebrating progress, and acknowledging effort (Madsen and Desai, 2010) may further support efficacy beliefs by validating employee sense of competence (Carter et al., 2018).

In this way, self-efficacy operates as a key psychological mechanism through which learning-oriented contexts are translated into resilient employee responses. Rather than exerting a strong direct influence, organizational learning culture is expected to shape resilience by strengthening employee confidence in their ability to interpret challenges, mobilize resources, and respond to changing conditions. Taken together, these processes illustrate how learning-oriented environments contribute to resilience through the development and enactment of self-efficacy. Hence, we hypothesize the following:

It is important to note that, while we anticipate a positive association between organizational learning culture and employee resilience, a relationship traditionally considered relevant when examining indirect effects (Baron and Kenny, 1986), we do not conceptualize this association as the only potential pathway linking the two constructs. As mediation scholars emphasize, demonstrating full mediation would require identifying all possible mediators and suppressors and measuring them without error, an expectation that is rarely achievable in applied research (Rucker et al., 2011). More importantly, our theoretical approach departs from a strict mediation logic by viewing resilience as emerging through multiple overlapping mechanisms rather than a single fully specified causal chain. Accordingly, in Hypotheses 4 and 7, we focus on indirect associations rather than formal mediation. This approach acknowledges that organizational learning culture may relate to employee resilience through multiple mechanisms, allowing for the coexistence of both direct and indirect associations within the broader nomological network (Vancouver and Carlson, 2015).

The conceptual framework of the study is presented in Figure 1 below.

It is also important to note that, although resilience is typically portrayed as beneficial (Tugade et al., 2004), recent work highlights potential downsides, such as over-persistence or the maintenance of maladaptive conditions (ChamorroPremuzic and Lusk, 2017; Stoverink et al., 2020). These insights point to boundary conditions under which high levels of resilience may not be associated with uniformly positive outcomes. This suggests that resilience is not simply a direct outcome of supportive contexts but depends on the underlying mechanisms through which it develops and is enacted. Recognizing these complexities underscores the value of examining the mechanisms, such as employee ambidexterity and self-efficacy, which contribute to employee resilience.

Data on organizational learning and related concepts are typically not accessible through archival sources. Therefore, to examine the associations proposed in our conceptual model, we employed a cross-sectional survey design conducted in Egypt, targeting key organizational informants knowledgeable about these aspects. Given the design, all relationships in the study are interpreted as associations rather than causal effects, consistent with methodological guidance cautioning against causal language in cross-sectional mediation research (e.g. VanderWeele, 2015).

Egypt’s emerging, turbulent, and dynamic economy offers a unique and rich context for studying the focal associations for several reasons. Firstly, the country has experienced significant economic fluctuations, including political instability, currency devaluation, and varying levels of economic growth (Korotayev and Zinkina, 2022). This volatility creates an environment where organizations must continuously adapt and innovate to survive, making it an ideal setting to examine how learning cultures relate to employee-level adaptive capabilities. Secondly, the dynamic nature of Egypt’s economy and its diverse cultural landscape require organizations to be agile and responsive to changes (Bloxam and Kelany, 2020). This underscores the importance of employee resilience in navigating uncertainties and leveraging opportunities.

The empirical setting of the study was the hospitality sector, targeting full-time employees in Egypt’s five-star hotels and category-A travel agencies. Due to limited resources and the widespread distribution of enterprises across the country, a convenience sampling approach was utilized. This approach is common in organizational behavior research conducted in emerging economies where probabilistic sampling frames are rarely available (Wright et al., 2005). At the same time, we acknowledge the potential for selection bias. To address this concern, we compared early vs late respondents on all focal study variables, following the recommended procedure for nonresponse bias assessment (Scheaf et al., 2023). No statistically significant differences emerged, suggesting that nonresponse bias is unlikely to compromise our results.

Both business categories are committed to delivering high-quality services to foreign visitors, promoting a culture of continuous learning, and fostering employee resilience. In the Greater Cairo region alone there are 30 five-star hotels and 1,666 category-A travel agencies.

To ensure participants had sufficient familiarity with their organization’s learning culture, we required a minimum tenure of one year, as employees generally understand and internalize organizational culture within six months (Morrison, 1993). Participation was voluntary and confidential. To reduce common-method bias, several procedural remedies were applied following best-practice guidelines (Podsakoff et al., 2003): anonymity was assured; neutral instructions emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers; predictor and outcome variables were separated within the survey; and varied response anchors were used across scales.

Furthermore, all measures underwent a rigorous translation and cultural adaptation process. Following Brislin’s (1970) back-translation procedure and Beaton et al.’s (2000) cross-cultural adaptation guidelines, items were translated from English to Arabic by two bilingual experts, reconciled by an expert panel, and then back-translated into English by an independent translator. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved to ensure semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalence across cultures.

With the consent of human resources management, the survey was conducted on the premises of the investigated organizations in an anonymous manner. Consequently, the questionnaire was distributed to 20 five-star hotels and 50 travel agencies and resulting in 410 valid responses. In total, 500 questionnaires were distributed, of which 410 valid responses were retained for analysis, yielding a response rate of 82%. Of these, 170 responses (41.5%) were from travel agencies, and 240 responses (58.5%) were from hotels. The sample included 155 women (37.8%) and 255 men (62.2%). In terms of age distribution, 130 respondents (31.7%) were between 18–30 years old, 198 respondents (48.3%) were between 30–45 years old, and 82 respondents (20%) were over 45 years old. Regarding educational background, 252 respondents (61.5%) held a bachelor's degree, 132 respondents (32.2%) had completed high school, and 26 respondents (6.3%) obtained a master's or PhD degree. This composition provides a diverse sample for examining the proposed relationships.

Finally, we clarified the multi-level nature of constructs in our model. Organizational learning culture was conceptualized as an organizational-level climate perception (Rebelo and Duarte Gomes, 2011), while employee resilience, ambidexterity, and self-efficacy were conceptualized at the individual level. The dynamic capabilities perspective justifies linking these levels through microfoundational mechanisms (Helfat and Peteraf, 2015; Salvato and Vassolo, 2018). The analytic strategy reflects this cross-level structure, with measurement conducted at the individual level in line with standard practice for related research.

Measurement scales for our study were obtained from prior studies. Organizational learning culture was assessed by a 7-item scale adapted for Lin and Huang (2021). Sample items include: “In my organization, people are rewarded for learning” and “In my organization, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of group decisions or information collected”. In addition, employee resilience was assessed by a 6-item scale suggested by Luthans et al. (2007). For example, “When I have a setback at work, I have no trouble recovering from it, moving on” and “I believe that I can analyze long-term problems and find solutions”. Moreover, employee ambidexterity was measured by a 6-item scale adapted from Mom et al. (2009). For example, “In general, I engage in searching for new possibilities concerning my work” and “In general, I engage in activities requiring me to learn new skills or knowledge”. Furthermore, self-efficacy was evaluated by an 8-item scale developed by Chen et al. (2001). For instance, “I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself” and “I believe I can succeed at any endeavor to which I set my mind”.

As presented in Table 1, all constructs demonstrate satisfactory reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Manley et al., 2021). Convergent validity is also supported, as all average variance extracted (AVE) values exceed 0.5 (Hair et al., 2020). In addition, variance inflation factors (VIFs) for all latent variables are below 3.3, which indicates that multicollinearity is not a concern and suggests that common method bias is unlikely to affect the results. Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criterion (See Table 2). The square root of each construct’s AVE exceeds its correlations with other constructs, which confirms discriminant validity. Further, the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratios were generally within acceptable limits, see Table 3. Although the HTMT value between employee resilience and employee ambidexterity slightly exceeded the stricter threshold of 0.85 (HTMT = 0.897), it remained below the more liberal cutoff value of 0.90 recommended for conceptually related constructs in social and behavioral research (Henseler et al., 2015). Additionally, Table 4 shows that the corresponding confidence interval did not include 1.0, providing further evidence that discriminant validity was adequately established.

The conceptual model was tested using WarpPLS software 7.0, a method widely applied in tourism and hospitality research (Alsetoohy et al., 2026; Hair et al., 2020). All model fit and quality measures meet the recommended criteria (see Table 5), which indicates that the model provides an adequate representation of the data.

Figure 2 and Table 6 present the results of the structural model. Organizational learning culture shows a positive association with employee resilience (β = 0.12, P < 0.01), employee ambidexterity (β = 0.69, P < 0.01), and self-efficacy (β = 0.81, P < 0.01). These results provide support for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 5. Employee ambidexterity (β = 0.47, P < 0.01) and employee self-efficacy (β = 0.20, P < 0.01) are also positively associated with employee resilience, supporting Hypotheses 3 and 6. Notably, while the direct association between organizational learning culture and resilience is relatively modest, the associations with ambidexterity and self-efficacy are substantially stronger, which suggests that these capabilities play a central role in translating learning-oriented contexts into employee resilience.

In addition to statistical significance, effect sizes (f²) were examined to assess the practical relevance of the relationships (see Table 6). Following Cohen’s (1988) guidelines (0.02 = small, 0.15 = medium, 0.35 = large), the direct association between organizational learning culture and employee resilience is small to moderate (β = 0.12, f² = 0.086). In contrast, organizational learning culture demonstrates large effects on employee ambidexterity (β = 0.69, f² = 0.469) and employee self-efficacy (β = 0.81, f² = 0.658). Both ambidexterity (f² = 0.368) and self-efficacy (f² = 0.216) show moderate-to-large effects on employee resilience, highlighting their substantive role as key mechanisms through which learning culture is linked to resilience.

The indirect associations were examined using bootstrapping procedures following Preacher and Hayes (2008). Results indicate a significant indirect association between organizational learning culture and employee resilience through employee ambidexterity {β = 0.324 (0.690 × 0.470), SE = 0.033, p < 0.01, t-value = 9.827}, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.260–0.389, supporting Hypothesis 4 (see Table 7).

Similarly, a significant indirect association is observed between organizational learning culture and employee resilience through employee self-efficacy {β = 0.235 (0.810 × 0.290), SE = 0.033, Ρ < 0.01, t-value = 7.118}, with the 95% bootstrapped confidence interval (0.170–0.300) did not include zero, providing clear evidence of a robust indirect pathway. These results support Hypothesis 7 (see Table 7).

Together, these findings indicate that organizational learning culture is linked to employee resilience primarily through indirect pathways, thereby reinforcing the role of ambidexterity and self-efficacy as central behavioral and psychological mechanisms.

The aim of this study was to examine how an organizational learning culture is associated with employee resilience through the individual-level capabilities of ambidexterity and self-efficacy. Drawing on the dynamic capabilities perspective, we argued that learning-oriented environments may relate to employee adaptive functioning not only through supportive contextual conditions but also through the psychological capacities that help them manage uncertainty. The findings of our study are consistent with this reasoning and provide empirical support for these associations. Importantly, they also suggest that the role of organizational context in explaining resilience may be overstated when individual-level mechanisms are not explicitly considered.

Importantly, the pattern of results does not reflect a traditional mediation structure in which organizational learning culture operates through clearly bounded mediators that fully explain its association with resilience. Instead, in line with contemporary mediation scholarship (e.g. Rucker et al., 2011), the findings reveal what can be described as a mechanism-dominant pattern. Organizational learning culture demonstrated a statistically significant but relatively modest direct association with employee resilience, whereas its associations with ambidexterity and self-efficacy were substantially stronger. These individual-level capabilities, in turn, showed meaningful associations with employee resilience and accounted for robust indirect pathways. This pattern departs from what would be expected under a context dominant explanation, where direct effects would play a more central role.

This pattern suggests that organizational learning culture is primarily consequential for employee resilience through the activation of underlying psychological and behavioral mechanisms through which employees interpret and navigate dynamic work conditions. Ambidexterity and self-efficacy therefore function as core microfoundational pathways rather than mediators in the strict statistical sense. Their value lies in explaining how learning-oriented contexts become relevant for employees, aligning closely with the microfoundational logic of the dynamic capabilities perspective (Helfat and Peteraf, 2015). Accordingly, the modest direct association should not be interpreted as evidence of partial mediation, informative evidence that contextual conditions alone may be insufficient to generate strong resilience outcomes.

At the same time, the residual direct association is theoretically informative rather than incidental. It likely captures aspects of learning-oriented contexts that shape employee responses to adversity without necessarily operating through the development of stable behavioral or psychological capabilities. From the dynamic capabilities perspective, such an effect may reflect immediate contextual affordances, including access to informational resources, social support or psychologically safe environments, which can enable employees to respond adaptively in the short term. In such cases, resilience may emerge not because employees have developed ambidexterity or strong efficacy beliefs, but because the environment temporarily reduces uncertainty or facilitates problem solving.

This interpretation suggests that organizational learning culture may influence resilience through both capability-based pathways (as reflected by ambidexterity and self-efficacy) and more direct context-based pathways that provide situational support. However, the comparatively small magnitude of the direct effect indicates that such context-based influences are secondary to the deeper, capability-driven mechanisms identified in our model. Accordingly, while this pathway is meaningful, it reinforces rather than challenges our central argument that resilience is best understood as an enacted outcome of capability development rather than a direct reaction to organizational context.

First, this study extends the dynamic capabilities perspective by illustrating that an organizational learning culture is associated with employee resilience primarily through individual-level mechanisms, specifically ambidexterity and self-efficacy, rather than through a strong direct pathway. By conceptualizing these mechanisms as microfoundational pathways rather than statistical mediators, the findings shift attention from contextual determinants of resilience to the processes through which resilience is enacted. This reinforces the view that dynamic capabilities are realized through employee flexibility and psychological resources rather than existing solely in organizational routines. Recent studies similarly emphasize the microfoundational underpinnings of dynamic capabilities (e.g. Helfat and Peteraf, 2015; Luger et al., 2018; Näswall et al., 2019), and our findings extend this perspective by showing how such microfoundations translate contextual conditions into adaptive outcomes.

Second, the findings contribute to the resilience literature by offering a more process-oriented and integrative understanding of how resilience develops. Prior research has largely focused on identifying antecedents of resilience, often treating contextual factors and individual capabilities as separate predictors. By contrast, our results highlight how these elements are interconnected. We show that the effects of learning-oriented environments depend on the extent to which they activate employee behavioral and psychological capabilities. This mechanism-dominant pattern suggests that prior research may overestimate the direct role of organizational context by not explicitly modeling the processes through which resilience is enacted. Accordingly, resilience emerges through ongoing capability development and resource reconfiguration rather than only directly from contextual support alone.

Third, this study contributes to ambidexterity research by positioning individual-level ambidexterity as a central mechanism of employee resilience rather than primarily as a performance related capability. While ambidexterity has traditionally been examined at the organizational level (Luger et al., 2018; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2013), our findings demonstrate its relevance as an enacted individual capability that enables employees to navigate competing demands and adapt to changing conditions. In parallel, the findings also highlight self-efficacy as a critical complementary psychological mechanism, which shapes how employees interpret and respond to challenges. Together, these results advance a more integrated view in which behavioral flexibility and psychological confidence jointly underpin resilience at the employee level.

The effect size results further suggest that while changes in organizational learning culture alone yield modest direct improvements in employee resilience, practically meaningful resilience gains occur when learning culture fosters employee ambidexterity and self-efficacy. This reinforces the idea that managerial interventions should prioritize capability development rather than relying on contextual improvements alone. In practical terms, initiatives that strengthen learning-oriented practices (such as encouraging experimentation, reflection on errors, and continuous skill development) are likely to produce substantial resilience benefits by enhancing employee confidence and ability to balance exploration and exploitation.

Finally, the empirical setting of Egypt’s hospitality sector offers contextual insights that further support the relevance of the dynamic capabilities perspective in environments characterized by turbulence and volatility (Zaki and Elnagar, 2025). Prior work in this setting similarly highlights the importance of capability-related processes under conditions of uncertainty (e.g. Omar, 2021). Our findings show that the mechanism-dominant pattern identified in this study also holds in such a high-turbulence context, suggesting that capability-building processes may be particularly salient in emerging economies where employees routinely encounter dynamic conditions. This further supports the broader theoretical claim that adaptive outcomes in such environments depend less on context alone and more on how employees enact available resources.

The results of this study offer several implications for managers seeking to support employee resilience in turbulent environments. Although organizational learning culture showed only a modest direct association with resilience, its strong associations with employee ambidexterity and self-efficacy, both of which were meaningfully related to resilience, suggest that managerial attention should focus on the specific mechanisms through which learning-oriented environments translate into adaptive employee capabilities. This implies that improving resilience is less about strengthening contextual conditions alone and more about ensuring that such conditions actively develop employee capabilities. In practice, this means that cultivating a learning culture requires deliberate, operationalized actions rather than broad statements of support for learning.

A central implication concerns the design of daily work practices that embed learning into routine operations. Given the strong association between organizational learning culture and employee ambidexterity observed in our model, managers may enhance resilience by creating conditions that allow employees to move flexibly between established procedures (exploitation) and novel problem-solving (exploration). When employees regularly engage in exploration alongside efficient execution, they become better equipped to respond to fluctuating demands. These findings suggest that ambidexterity should be actively designed into roles and workflows, rather than assumed to emerge automatically from a supportive environment. In hospitality contexts, this may involve structured opportunities for staff to reflect on service challenges, share insights across departments, or test improvements to guest-facing processes. Such practices provide employees with repeated exposure to knowledge-sharing, experimentation, and cross-functional collaboration, core elements associated with ambidextrous behavior.

The strong relationship between organizational learning culture and self-efficacy further underscores the importance of developmental practices that reinforce employee confidence in their ability to navigate demanding situations. Managers can support this by ensuring that employees have access to progressive skill-building opportunities, timely and constructive feedback, and visible examples of successful adaptation within their teams. In hospitality settings, where staff frequently encounter unpredictable customer demands and operational disruptions, self-efficacy may be strengthened through supportive supervision, developmental performance conversations, and opportunities to master increasingly complex tasks. Together, these practices highlight that resilience is strengthened when employees not only have access to resources, but also develop confidence in their ability to use them effectively. These practices may help employees perceive challenging situations as manageable and reduce threat appraisals, thereby contributing to more resilient responses during day-to-day operations.

The strong associations observed between organizational learning culture, ambidexterity, self-efficacy, and employee resilience suggest that the development of adaptive workforce capabilities is not only a managerial concern but also a broader societal priority. Consistent with our findings, resilience at scale may depend less on the presence of supportive structures alone and more on how effectively individuals are equipped to enact adaptive capabilities. In environments characterized by recurrent economic shocks, political uncertainty, and fluctuating levels of tourism, a workforce that is able to navigate uncertainty and maintain performance may contribute to greater economic stability and social well-being.

One key implication concerns workforce development policy. Since the findings indicate that resilience is associated with learning-oriented cultures and with employee psychological capabilities, policymakers may play an important role in supporting capacity-building initiatives that enable organizations to embed such practices more systematically. National tourism authorities, labour ministries, and vocational training institutions could integrate modules on adaptive problem-solving, cross-functional learning, and confidence-building into training curricula for hospitality workers. These initiatives may help develop employee capabilities that are particularly valuable in sectors exposed to economic or environmental volatility.

The findings further suggest that educational institutions can contribute to sector-level adaptability by placing greater emphasis on experiential learning approaches. Integrating scenario-based training, simulations of turbulent service environments, and opportunities for students to engage in both exploratory and efficiency-oriented tasks may help develop ambidexterity and self-efficacy early in employee careers. Embedding these elements into vocational and university-level hospitality programs could enhance graduates’ ability to respond constructively to dynamic conditions and, in turn, increase the sector’s overall adaptive capacity.

Our study has limitations, but these also point to promising avenues for future research on how employee resilience develops. A first important direction concerns the temporal dynamics of the proposed relationships. Although the model specification was grounded in the theoretical perspective, the cross-sectional design limits insights into how these mechanisms unfold over time. Accordingly, our findings reflect immediate associations among organizational learning culture, employee ambidexterity, self-efficacy and resilience at a single point in time. Future research could build on this by applying longitudinal or time-lagged designs to examine how these microfoundations develop and interact over time. In particular, an important question concerns whether ambidexterity and self-efficacy reinforce each other in cumulative cycles of learning and adaptation, or whether these capabilities evolve differently as organizational conditions change. Such work would help clarify how resilience unfolds as an ongoing process rather than a static outcome.

Building on this temporal perspective, a second direction involves examining how these processes vary across contexts. The study was conducted within a single national setting, Egypt, and relied on a convenience sample, which may limit generalizability. Institutional environments shape the types of capabilities organizations prioritize and the conditions under which those capabilities are enacted (Peng et al., 2009). Future research could therefore examine whether the mechanism-dominant pattern identified in this study holds across different institutional and cultural contexts. Comparative studies may be particularly valuable for identifying conditions under which resilience is primarily driven by individual-level mechanisms versus those where contextual factors exert stronger direct effects. In addition, future work could refine the measurement of individual-level dynamic capabilities by incorporating multi-source data, behavioral indicators or longitudinal assessments of adaptive behaviors (Fainshmidt and Frazier, 2017). This could unfold more directly how these mechanisms are enacted across settings.

Finally, extending these insights, future research should examine boundary conditions under which these mechanisms produce different outcomes. While resilience is often treated as inherently beneficial, emerging work suggests that it may, under certain conditions, sustain maladaptive situations (ChamorroPremuzic and Lusk, 2017). This raises important questions about when and how ambidexterity and self-efficacy contribute to adaptive versus counterproductive outcomes. Their effects may depend on contextual conditions such as leadership practices, psychological safety, or job autonomy. Moreover, the presence of a small direct association between organizational learning culture and resilience suggests that additional, unobserved mechanisms may exist. Exploring these boundary conditions would provide a more nuanced understanding of how and when learning-oriented environments translate into desirable forms of employee adaptation.