Building Networks for University
Success: Essay on the Role of Organizational Culture and Social Capital
Construyendo redes para el éxito universitario:
Ensayo sobre el papel de la cultura organizacional y el capital social
Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar
sede Ecuador
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3723-0729
Luisa
Nicole Quiñónez Caicedo
Universidad Técnica “Luis
Vargas Torres” de Esmeraldas
luisa.quinonez.caicedo@utelvt.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7290-8662
This essay explores the interaction between
organizational culture and social capital within Ecuadorian universities,
highlighting their impact on institutional performance, innovation, and
sustainability. Through a systematic review of indexed scientific literature,
the study identifies the key characteristics of both dimensions and proposes a
theoretical model that explains how cultural values, organizational structures,
and interpersonal relationships influence the development of trust-based,
reciprocal, and collaborative networks. The research follows a qualitative,
descriptive-analytical approach, without primary data collection, prioritizing
conceptual integration and critical synthesis. Findings reveal a predominance
of hierarchical cultures and fragmented social networks in the Ecuadorian
higher education system, which hinders institutional collaboration and
adaptability. The proposed model conceptualizes the interaction between organizational
culture and social capital through three interdependent dimensions: structural,
relational, and cultural. The study also incorporates recent contributions on
gender equity, strategic planning, social responsibility, and knowledge
sharing, expanding the model's relevance to broader organizational contexts.
It concludes that institutional transformation
requires integrative strategies that simultaneously enhance cultural and social
dimensions, promoting participatory structures, distributed leadership, and
sustainable collaborative practices. The proposed framework provides a
theoretical foundation for future empirical research and serves as a strategic
guide for inclusive and resilient university governance.
Keywords: organizational culture, social capital, university
management, institutional networks, sustainability.
Resumen
Este articulo analiza la interrelación entre la
cultura organizacional y el capital social en el contexto
de las universidades ecuatorianas,
destacando su influencia en el
desempeño institucional, la
sostenibilidad y la innovación.
A partir de una revisión sistemática de literatura científica indexada, se identifican las principales características de
ambas dimensiones y se propone un modelo
teórico que explica cómo los valores
culturales, las estructuras
organizativas y las relaciones
interpersonales inciden en la generación de redes de confianza, reciprocidad y colaboración. La investigación adopta un enfoque cualitativo de tipo descriptivo-analítico, sin recolección
de datos primarios, priorizando el análisis argumentativo y la síntesis conceptual. Los hallazgos
revelan la presencia predominante de culturas jerárquicas y redes sociales fragmentadas dentro del sistema universitario, lo que limita la cooperación institucionalizada y dificulta la
innovación. El modelo
propuesto organiza la interacción entre cultura organizacional y capital social
en tres dimensiones: estructural, relacional y cultural, las cuales se
retroalimentan mutuamente. Se concluye que la transformación de las
universidades requiere estrategias integrales que fortalezcan simultáneamente
la cultura organizacional y el capital social, promoviendo estructuras más
participativas, liderazgos distribuidos y prácticas colaborativas sostenidas.
Este estudio ofrece una base teórica útil para futuras investigaciones
empíricas y para la formulación de políticas universitarias inclusivas y
sostenibles.
Palabras clave:
cultura organizacional, capital social, gestión universitaria, redes
institucionales, éxito universitario.
Introduction
In the contemporary context of higher
education institutions, organizational culture and social capital have been
positioned as fundamental categories for understanding the factors that
influence university efficiency, sustainability, and innovation. Organizational
culture represents the set of shared values, beliefs, norms, and practices that
guide the behavior of an institution's members (Schein, 2010), while social
capital refers to the networks of trust, reciprocity, and collaboration that
facilitate collective action (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000).
In Latin America, and particularly in
Ecuador, multiple studies have highlighted limitations in the articulation
between hierarchical organizational structures and the generation of effective
social capital (Cabrera & Fuenzalida, 2016; Narváez et al., 2017). The
absence of participatory cultures prevents the consolidation of solid internal
networks, which has a direct impact on academic performance, governance, and
the relationship between universities and society (De Boer et al., 2015).
This phenomenon is particularly relevant in
the context of university management reforms promoted by quality assurance
bodies, which demand greater transparency, collaboration, and social relevance.
Despite this, bureaucratic structures persist that limit the development of
social capital, hindering the implementation of institutional innovation models
(Deem et al., 2007).
Various studies have explored how a
collaborative organizational culture can enhance social capital and vice versa
(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Adler & Kwon,
2002). However, a greater theoretical understanding of how these variables
interact in specific university contexts is still needed. In the case of
Ecuador, there are empirical approaches, but there is a lack of integrative
models that account for the bidirectionality and synergistic effects of this
relationship (Saltos et al., 2016; Saravia & Peña, 2019).
This article is framed within a
constructivist and relational perspective, assuming that both organizational
culture and social capital are dynamic social constructs, influenced by the
historical and contextual trajectories of each institution. It draws mainly on
the contributions of Schein (2010) in the in-depth understanding of cultural
levels (artifacts, values, and assumptions), and those of Nahapiet
and Ghoshal (1998) in the articulation between structural, relational, and
cognitive dimensions of social capital.
Based on this theoretical foundation, a
conceptual model is proposed that synthesizes the main findings in the
literature, identifying the mechanisms through which organizational culture
influences the consolidation of university social capital, and vice versa. This
model will be developed in the following sections of the article.
In light of the above, this article aims to
analyze the role of organizational culture and social capital in Ecuadorian
university management, proposing a theoretical model that explains their
interrelationship and impact on institutional performance. This purpose is
addressed through a systematic review of indexed scientific literature,
prioritizing verifiable sources of high academic rigor.
Organizational culture in higher education
institutions has been widely studied as a determining factor in shaping
institutional behavior, decision-making processes, and strategic orientation
(Schein, 2010). In general terms, it refers to the shared patterns of beliefs,
values, and norms that shape the daily functioning of an organization
(Hofstede, 1980).
In the university environment, organizational
culture is particularly relevant because of its influence on aspects such as
academic management, teacher-administrator work dynamics, perceptions of
leadership, and the degree of institutional innovation (Cameron & Quinn,
2011). According to comparative studies, universities with cultures oriented
toward collaboration and participation tend to be more adaptive and resilient
in the face of environmental changes (Deem, Hillyard & Reed, 2007).
Authors such as Cabrera and Fuenzalida (2016)
have shown that in Ecuador, vertical cultural patterns persist, with little
participation by intermediate actors and weak institutionalization of values
such as trust and autonomy. These traits hinder educational innovation and
consensus building for institutional development.
has been conceptualized as the set of social
networks characterized by trust, cooperation, and reciprocity, which facilitate
coordination and collaboration between individuals and groups (Coleman, 1988;
Putnam, 2000). In the university setting, this construct acquires strategic
value by influencing the formation of cohesive academic communities and
coordination with actors in the environment.
Empirical research has identified that the
existence of solid social capital translates into higher levels of innovation,
research productivity, and social engagement (Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998). Indeed, universities with strong horizontal and
interinstitutional links manage to generate more inclusive and sustainable
academic ecosystems (Narváez et al., 2017).
In the Ecuadorian context, studies such as
that by Saltos, Vera, and León (2016) show the prevalence of informal networks
based on personal affinities rather than shared institutional objectives. This
fragmentation weakens cross-cutting cooperation and limits the development of
long-term collaborative projects.
Various theoretical approaches have
highlighted the interdependence between organizational culture and social
capital. According to Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998),
institutional culture conditions the types of social relationships that are
established within an organization, and these relationships, in turn, influence
the reproduction of certain cultural patterns.
This bidirectional link has been represented
in models such as that proposed by De Boer, Enders, and Schimank
(2015), who argue that university performance is influenced by the quality of
social interactions mediated by cultural elements. For example, institutions
that promote transparency and shared leadership tend to consolidate networks of
trust that facilitate collective action.
From an applied perspective, various authors
recommend simultaneously considering cultural diagnosis and social network
mapping as key tools for strengthening university governance (Putnam, 2000;
Cameron & Quinn, 2011). This integration makes it possible to identify
critical nodes of collaboration, as well as cultural values that can enhance or
limit institutional development.
Recent studies reinforce the idea that
organizational culture not only shapes internal behavior but is also deeply
connected to sustainability and social responsibility. Bravo et al. (2023)
analyze how organizational culture and corporate social responsibility
interrelate, highlighting their impact on the work environment and the
perception of institutional legitimacy. Similarly, Galindo (2023) emphasizes
the relevance of organizational culture in higher education institutions as a
factor linking management practices and commitments to society.
Castro et al. (2024) offer a systematic
review showing that an organizational culture oriented toward participation and
internal coherence facilitates better implementation of strategic plans. These
findings are key for the university system, where many reforms fail due to the
dissonance between institutional discourse and dominant cultural practices.
Espinosa et al. (2024) address an
often-overlooked component: the need to incorporate a gender perspective into
the analysis of organizational culture. In their study, they show that the
failure to recognize structural inequalities within organizations reproduces
forms of exclusion that hinder the construction of decent working environments.
This perspective enriches the approach to organizational culture in
universities, where gender equality still faces serious limitations.
Social capital, understood as an intangible
resource based on trust and collaboration, has recently been analyzed by
authors such as Garro and Li Bonilla (2025), who argue that it can be decisive
for the viability of emerging cooperative initiatives. Through their analysis
in the Costa Rican context, they demonstrate that organizational social capital
is key to the consolidation of solidarity-based and sustainable networks.
For their part, the study by Núñez et al.
(2022) delves into the relationship between social capital and scientific
performance in research groups. The findings show that the practice of
knowledge sharing is a manifestation of social capital that directly impacts
academic productivity and visibility.
The incorporation of this research
strengthens the theoretical model proposed in this study by broadening its
applicability to different types of organizations and highlighting new
variables, such as gender equality and social responsibility. Taken together,
these contributions allow us to understand organizational culture and social
capital as complex, interdependent dimensions with high transformative
potential when managed consciously and strategically.
Methodology
This research adopts a qualitative approach,
with a descriptive and analytical design. This choice responds to the need to
gain an in-depth understanding of the theoretical interrelationships between
organizational culture and social capital within the Ecuadorian university
context, without resorting to the collection of primary empirical data.
The study is based on a critical review of
indexed scientific literature. Academic articles, books, and comparative
studies addressing the concepts of organizational culture and social capital,
as well as their applications in university management, were selected. The
inclusion criteria considered the thematic relevance, methodological rigor, and
current relevance of the publications, covering a time range between 1980 and
2023.
The analysis strategy consisted of intensive
reading, systematization, and synthesis of the selected documents. A thematic
approach was used to categorize the findings according to the conceptual
dimensions of each variable, identifying patterns of interrelation, theoretical
convergences, and significant empirical contributions. This process allowed us
to structure an explanatory theoretical model that guides the interpretation of
the bidirectional relationship between organizational culture and social capital
in higher education.
As this was a documentary study, no data
collection instruments or statistical techniques were applied. Instead,
priority was given to argumentative consistency, validation of the sources
used, and logical construction of the proposed conceptual model. The
methodology adopted provides a solid basis for future empirical research
seeking to validate or contrast the approaches developed here (Knight, 2004).
Results
The results of this research are organized
around the systematization of conceptual and empirical findings identified in
the specialized literature, which allow us to structure a theoretical model
explaining the interaction between organizational culture and social capital in
Ecuadorian universities.
The document review identified that, in many
Ecuadorian universities, a hierarchical organizational culture predominates,
characterized by vertical structures, centralized decision-making, and limited
collective participation (Cabrera & Fuenzalida, 2016; Saravia & Peña,
2019). This type of culture is often accompanied by fragmented institutional
communication, resistance to change, and limited openness to innovation.
It was also evident that organizational
cultures focused on regulatory compliance or operational efficiency, while they
may contribute to administrative order, tend to limit spontaneous
collaboration, a sense of belonging, and the creation of resilient academic
communities (Deem et al., 2007; Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
The studies analyzed agree that social
capital in Ecuadorian higher education institutions is weakly structured. There
is a strong presence of informal networks, based on personal affinities or
political loyalties, which sometimes hinder transparency, meritocracy, and
institutionalized cooperation (Saltos et al., 2016; Narváez et al., 2017).
However, some notable experiences show that
when practices such as collaborative research, community outreach, or peer
mentoring programs are promoted, bonds of trust and reciprocity are
strengthened, generating positive social capital that enhances organizational
performance (Putnam, 2000; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Based on the analysis of the findings, a
theoretical model was constructed that explains the bidirectional relationship
between organizational culture and social capital.
This model identifies three main dimensions
of interaction:
· Structural dimension: refers to the
organizational mechanisms that regulate interaction, such as hierarchical
structures, internal regulations, communication channels, and collegiate
bodies. A flexible and participatory structure tends to facilitate the
generation of social networks.
· Relational dimension: encompasses the
quality of relationships among members of the university community. Elements
such as trust, reciprocity, and cooperation are fundamental to consolidating
institutional social capital.
· Cultural dimension: refers to the
shared values and assumptions that shape institutional behaviors. A culture
based on openness, equity, and commitment fosters collaborative practices that
are sustained over time.
Figure 1. Diagram of the theoretical
model of interaction between organizational culture and social capital
Source: Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., & Ryan,
J. (2003)
This model suggests that strengthening a
positive organizational culture has a direct impact on the development of
social capital and vice versa. Consequently, any institutional improvement
strategy should address both dimensions comprehensively and simultaneously.
The findings allow us to outline some
practical recommendations for universities:
· Implement participatory cultural diagnoses
to identify structural weaknesses.
· Foster spaces for inter-institutional
dialogue, learning networks, and communities of practice.
· Promote distributed leadership that
reinforces organizational trust.
· Establish indicators for evaluating
institutional social capital as part of the quality system.
These strategies could contribute to more
inclusive, flexible, and sustainable results-oriented university governance,
strengthening the articulation between internal processes and the demands of
the socioeconomic environment.
The results obtained allow for a critical
dialogue with the revised theoretical framework, which makes it possible to
articulate conceptual, empirical, and strategic reflections on the interaction
between organizational culture and social capital in the Ecuadorian university
environment. This section is structured around four areas of analysis:
theoretical convergences, empirical validation, institutional implications, and
implications for university management.
First, the empirical findings and the
literature reviewed confirm the existence of a bidirectional relationship
between organizational culture and social capital, as proposed by Nahapiet and
Ghoshal (1998). These authors argue that organizational structure and shared
culture directly influence the configuration of social networks, as well as
levels of trust, cooperation, and sense of community within an institution.
Evidence from Ecuadorian and Latin American studies reinforces this view,
showing that universities with more horizontal structures and participatory
models consolidate greater institutional cohesion (De Boer et al., 2015).
Likewise, Schein's (2010) theory on levels of
organizational culture (artifacts, values, and underlying assumptions) is
useful for understanding why many universities have difficulty transforming
their internal culture: superficial changes in procedures or regulations do not
automatically modify the deep-seated beliefs that underpin organizational
behavior. Hence, structural transformations must be accompanied by reflective
and inclusive processes that challenge traditional logics of power and
leadership.
The results reveal empirical regularities
that validate the theoretical contributions reviewed. For example, it has been
found that hierarchical and authoritarian organizational culture, still present
in much of the Ecuadorian university system, tends to generate institutional
environments with low levels of participation and limited capacity for
innovation (Cabrera & Fuenzalida, 2016). This is consistent with the
studies by Saravia and Peña (2019), who document how vertical structures hinder
the formation of cohesive and committed academic communities.
Likewise, successful institutional
experiences are identified where the implementation of transparency policies,
distributed leadership, and practices of engagement with society have enhanced
university social capital. Such is the case with peer mentoring programs,
inter-institutional research networks, and spaces for faculty-student
participation, which have been identified as effective practices for
consolidating bonds of trust and reciprocity (Putnam, 2000; Narváez et al.,
2017).
In this context, the proposed theoretical
model draws not only on international literature but also on contextualized
empirical contributions, which reinforces its relevance for guiding
organizational transformation processes in public and private universities in
Ecuador.
A critical reading of the results also
suggests that organizational culture should not be understood as a static or
homogeneous phenomenon. Universities are complex systems where subcultures,
institutional tensions, and power dynamics coexist and influence the way social
relationships are constructed (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
In this sense, cultural transformation
requires recognizing the historical trajectories of institutions, their
governance structures, and the regulatory frameworks that govern their
operation. Social capital, for its part, should be conceived as a strategic
institutional resource that cannot be imposed through regulations but must be
cultivated through genuine practices of collaboration, participation, and
mutual recognition.
The studies reviewed show that, in contexts
where inclusion and equity are promoted, more favorable conditions are created
for the emergence of sustained networks of trust and cooperation (Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998).
In practical terms, this research offers
concrete guidelines for university management. First, it highlights the need to
design institutional diagnoses that integrate cultural and social variables,
allowing for the mapping of relational dynamics that strengthen or weaken
change processes. In addition, it proposes including qualitative indicators of
social capital in internal evaluation and quality assurance systems in order to
capture aspects related to institutional cohesion and interdepartmental collaboration.
Another relevant implication is the
importance of distributed leadership as a catalyst for cultural change.
Academic leaders who promote deliberation, networking, and relational
horizontality play a key role in consolidating more democratic and resilient
organizational practices (Deem et al., 2007).
Finally, it is reaffirmed that university
reform processes should not focus exclusively on administrative efficiency or
the fulfillment of quantitative indicators, but should incorporate ethical,
symbolic, and social dimensions that give legitimacy and sustainability to the
transformations. The theoretical model proposed in this study represents a
useful conceptual tool to guide such reforms from a systemic and integrative
perspective.
In short, the discussion leads to the
conclusion that the relationship between organizational culture and social
capital is central to understanding the challenges and opportunities facing
Ecuadorian universities in their transition to more inclusive, participatory,
and sustainable management models.
This study is based exclusively on secondary
sources, which limits the possibility of observing real organizational dynamics
in the present. Furthermore, the country's institutional diversity requires
more specific studies by type of university (public, private, community,
intercultural). We suggest the development of empirical research, using social
network approaches, case studies, and longitudinal analyses, to validate the
proposed model and analyze its applicability in specific contexts (Astin, 2011).
Conclusions
This research has allowed for a deeper
analysis of the interaction between organizational culture and social capital
in the context of Ecuadorian higher education, providing an integrative
theoretical framework that articulates structural, relational, and cultural
dimensions. Through a critical review of indexed academic literature, common
patterns, persistent challenges, and relevant experiences were identified that
support the need to address both constructs jointly as key factors in
institutional strengthening.
First, it is confirmed that organizational
culture strongly conditions the configuration of university social capital.
Institutions with participatory structures, distributed leadership, and
institutional values oriented toward inclusion, transparency, and collaboration
tend to develop networks of trust and reciprocity that enhance organizational
performance, innovation, and links with the environment. Conversely,
hierarchical, top-down, and prescriptive cultures inhibit the generation of
social capital, creating fragmented institutional environments that are
resistant to change.
Second, social capital should not be
conceived as a spontaneous or incidental phenomenon, but rather as a strategic
resource that directly affects educational quality, institutional well-being,
and the sustainability of university processes. The literature consulted and
the systematized findings show that strengthening collaborative networks,
promoting interpersonal relationships based on trust, and building a shared
institutional identity are fundamental elements for moving toward a more
democratic, open, and socially committed university.
Third, the theoretical model proposed in this
study represents a relevant conceptual contribution by integrating different
dimensions of analysis into a framework that can be used as a diagnostic and
policy-guiding tool. Its usefulness lies in its ability to show how changes in
organizational culture can strengthen social capital and how the latter can, in
turn, positively feed back into cultural processes within universities.
Finally, it is recommended that the
management teams and collegiate bodies of higher education institutions
implement strategies aimed at participatory cultural diagnosis, the promotion
of distributed leadership, the design of mechanisms for evaluating social
capital, and the institutionalization of collaborative practices. These actions
would contribute to overcoming the traditional barriers that limit
organizational development and would allow for the consolidation of management
models that are more resilient, inclusive, and consistent with the challenges
of the contemporary environment.
In short, the analysis reaffirms the
importance of comprehensively understanding and managing the relationship
between organizational culture and social capital, recognizing its strategic
nature for institutional success. Future research could complement this study
through comparative empirical approaches, case studies, and mixed methodologies
that would allow the theoretical model to be validated in different contexts
and with different types of universities.
Reference
Adler,
Paul S., y Seok-Woo Kwon. 2002. “Social Capital: Prospects for a New
Concept.” Academy of Management Review 27 (1): 17–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314.
Astin,
Alexander W. 2011. Cultivating the Spirit: How College Can Enhance
Students' Inner Lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bravo, Yessenia Johana
Márquez, Benigno Javier Alcívar-Martínez, Ernesto Negrín Sosa, y María Belén
González García. 2023. “La Importancia de la Responsabilidad Social
Empresarial y la Cultura Organizacional en una Empresa Constructora.” Uniandes
Episteme. Revista de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. https://doi.org/10.61154/rue.v10i4.3230.
Cabrera, Ángel F., y
Verónica Fuenzalida. 2016. “Cultura Organizacional y su Influencia en el
Desempeño de la Universidad.” Estudios Gerenciales 32 (138): 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.estger.2016.06.003.
Cameron, Kim S., y
Robert E. Quinn. 2011. Diagnosing and
Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework.
3.ª
ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Castro, Mauricio
Alejandro Becerra, Alex Paz Becerra, José Luis Condom
Bosch, y Gabriel Soriano Soriano. 2024. “Impacto de
la Cultura Organizacional en la Implementación Efectiva de Planes
Estratégicos en Organizaciones: Una Revisión Sistemática.” Revista
Internacional de Organizaciones. https://doi.org/10.17345/rio33.446.
Coleman, James S.
1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human
Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94 (Suplemento):
S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943.
De
Boer, Harry, Jürgen Enders, y Uwe Schimank. 2015.
“A Conceptual Model of University Performance: A Social Capital Perspective.”
Higher Education 69 (3): 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9780-4.
Deem,
Rosemary, Sam Hillyard, y Michael Reed. 2007. Knowledge, Higher Education,
and the New Managerialism: The Changing Management of UK Universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Espinosa, Irma López,
Irene Vázquez Ibarra, José de Jesús González Hernández, y Laura Fierro
Rosales. 2024. “El Alcance del Trabajo Digno en la Cultura Organizacional: La
Necesidad de una Perspectiva de Género.” LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de
Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades 5 (6). https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v5i6.2991.
Galindo, Franklin
Manuel Osorio. 2023. “La Cultura Organizacional en Instituciones de Educación
Superior: Conceptos, Importancia y Relación con la Responsabilidad Social.” Revista
de Investigaciones de la Universidad Le Cordon Bleu 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.36955/riulcb.2023v10n1.006.
Garro, Oscar Sanabria,
y Federico Li Bonilla. 2025. “El Capital Social Organizacional como
Herramienta para Potenciar la Viabilidad de Cooperativas Recién Creadas en
Costa Rica Dentro del Spin-Off Social Entre 2019 y 2024.” CIRIEC-España,
Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa (113). https://doi.org/10.7203/ciriec-e.113.29353.
Hargreaves,
Andy, Lorna Earl, y Jim Ryan. 2003. “Cultures of Professionalism:
International Differences in the Practice of Teacher Professionalism.” Teachers
College Record 105 (3): 451–485.
Hofstede,
Geert. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in
Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Knight,
Jane. 2004. “Internationalization Remodeled: Definition, Approaches, and
Rationales.” Journal of Studies in International Education 8 (1):
5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832.
Nahapiet,
Janine, y Sumantra Ghoshal. 1998. “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and
the Organizational Advantage.” Academy of
Management Review 23 (2): 242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225.
Narváez, María José,
Andrea Elizabeth Jara, y Patricia Paredes. 2017. “Capital Social en la
Gestión Universitaria: Una Aproximación Desde el Enfoque de Redes Sociales.” Revista
Digital de Investigación en Docencia Universitaria 11 (1): 13–29. https://doi.org/10.19083/ridu.11.546.
Núñez, Claudia
Benítez, Paola García Sánchez, Nieves Lidia Díaz-Díaz, y Petra de Saá Pérez. 2022. “El Papel del Capital Social de los
Grupos de Investigación en su Rendimiento Científico: La Importancia de
Compartir el Conocimiento.” Revista de Trabajo y Seguridad Social. CEF.
(4665). https://doi.org/10.51302/rtss.2022.4665.
Putnam,
Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Saltos, Jaime, Andrés
Vera, y Maribel León. 2016. “Análisis del Capital Social en la Gestión
Universitaria: Una Aproximación Desde la Percepción de los Docentes.” Gestión
de la Educación 7 (2): 81–98. https://doi.org/10.26423/gae.v7i2.140.
Saravia, Paola, y
Diana Peña. 2019. “Cultura Organizacional y su Influencia en el Clima Laboral
en una Universidad Ecuatoriana.” Revista Ciencia y Tecnología 12 (2):
44–55. https://doi.org/10.53766/rct.v12i2.61.
Schein, Edgar H. 2010. Organizational
Culture and Leadership. 4.ª ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.