Asia Pacic Business Review Vol. 18, No.

4, October 2012, 607630

The impact of learning and leadership management styles on organizational outcomes: a study of tyre rms in Thailand
Jonathan Michiea* and Vissanu Zumitzavanb
a Kellogg College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PN, UK; bDepartment of Management, Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, Thailand

This study examines the relationship between managers learning and leadership styles on the one hand, and organizational outcomes on the other. Small retail tyre rms in north-east Thailand are taken as a case study. Questionnaires were distributed to managers covering demographics, learning styles, leadership styles and organizational effectiveness. Follow-up interviews gathered further, more detailed, data. The questionnaire results suggested that leadership styles do indeed impact upon organizational outcomes. Learning styles were also found to impact upon organizational outcomes. Specically, the reector and pragmatist learning styles and the transformational and transactional leadership styles were found to be the most effective. The impact of learning styles was found to be mediated by leadership styles. Keywords: high commitment work systems; leadership; learning

1.

Introduction

The role of leadership has long been recognized within the management literature as playing a crucial role in corporate performance (see e.g. Day and Lord 1988) and for a discussion of some of the key contributions to this literature, see Hess 2001).1 By contrast, there is little evidence that board leadership structures play such a role the evidence relates to leadership by owners and managers (see e.g. the meta-analysis by Dalton et al. 1998, Ulrich and Ulrich 2010). The role of learning within organizations is also recognized to be important (see e.g. Archibugi and Lundvall 2002, Rowley 2011, and the literature on the learning organization discussed by Gardiner 2001). The current research seeks to contribute to both these literatures by analysing the relation between the learning and leadership styles of owners of small businesses, and how the interaction of these learning and leadership styles impacts upon organizational outcomes. Brown and Posner (2001) found that how people learn is signicantly correlated with how they act as managers, and that the managers who frequently engaged in all four learning styles (action, thinking, feeling and assessing others) also engaged more frequently in a greater variety of leadership styles such as challenging, inspiring, enabling, modelling and encouraging. They conrmed that the combination of the above four learning styles (action, thinking, feeling and assessing others) was signicantly correlated with transformational leadership. Managers who know how to learn effectively and to use their leadership effectively would also be able to develop the capacity of their employees, which may enhance organizational effectiveness.2 In this research, the learning and

*Corresponding author. Email: jonathan.michie@kellogg.ox.ac.uk

ISSN 1360-2381 print/ISSN 1743-792X online q 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602381.2012.694724 http://www.tandfonline.com

608

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

leadership styles of managers were studied with the purpose of investigating these relationships, including the impact upon organizational effectiveness.

2. Literature on organizational learning and leadership For a review of theoretical and empirical developments in the leadership literature, see, for example, Avolio and Yamamario (2002) who conclude that a priority for future research needs to be determining the causal mechanisms that link leadership to outcomes. This study attempts to contribute to such a research agenda by analysing the learning approaches of leaders. Guest et al. (2003) argue that the association between HRM and performance may be based on two linked arguments. The rst link may be that the effective deployment of human resources offers one of the most powerful bases for competitive advantage. The second may be that the effective deployment of human resources depends on the application of a distinctive combination of practices, sometimes described as bundles of practices (MacDufe 1995). Research that questioned over 200 manufacturing rms to investigate the relationship between a rms use of exible work practices, human resource systems and industrial relations with corporate performance found that a lack of employer commitment to job security, low levels of training and low levels of human resource sophistication are negatively correlated with corporate performance, while high commitment in organizations is positively correlated with good corporate performance (Michie and Sheehan-Quinn 2001). An organizations resources can be the source of sustainable competitive advantage (Dierickx and Cool 1989). Such resources must be rare, valuable, without substitutes and difcult to imitate (Guest et al. 2003). To sustain such competitiveness and success, organizational learning needs to facilitate and enhance levels of productivity (Dunphy et al. 1997, Nicholas 2005, Ghobadian and ORegan 2006). At the same time, organizational effectiveness can determine organizational learning in different areas (Pemberton and Stonehouse 2000, Vakola and Rezgui 2000, Vincent and Ross 2001, Murray 2003, Szarka et al. 2004, Spicer and Sadler-Smith 2006, Panayides 2007). Organizational effectiveness can be assessed through surveys or from existing data: some studies use objective measures of company performance, such as productivity, prot or return on assets, typically taken from externally recorded and audited accounts; many rely on subjective measures as reported by respondents (Wall et al. 2004, p. 96). Research to date has used both objective and subjective indicators, with the results being highly correlated (Guest et al. 2003, Wall et al. 2004). The concept of leadership has become increasingly familiar in discourses on management development over the last 20 years (Mumford and Gold 2004, p. 9). Bryman (1986) proposed that leadership has a variety of denitions. For Stogdill (1948), leadership describes the relationship between managers and subordinates who intend real changes and outcomes that reect their shared purpose. Rauch and Behling (1984) dened leadership as the process of inuencing the activities of an organized group towards goal achievement (Rauch and Behling 1984). Similarly, Yukl (1989) proposed that leadership involves the use of inuence and is used to attain goals. Jaques and Clement suggested that leadership is the process in which one person sets the purpose or direction for one or more other persons, and gets them to move along together with him or her and with each other in that direction with competence and full commitment (1991, p. 4). Shackleton (1995, p. 2) described leadership as the process by

Asia Pacic Business Review

609

which an individual inuences members of the group towards the attainment of group or organizational goals. Elaborating on the leadership role, Goleman (2000) asserted it may consist of creating agendas, establishing direction, and aligning and motivating people, as well as encouraging collaborative working, and producing positive and dramatic change. Thus, leadership may be dened as the process by which a person who serves as a manager assumes a distinctive responsibility for a wide range of tasks that are achieved chiey through the efforts of other people (Bowditch and Buono 2001). As such, Daft (2000, p. 502) suggested that leadership comprises an ability to inuence people towards the attainment of goals. Bedeian and Hunt (2006) recommended that leadership is a subset of management, and both are important to facilitate organizational effectiveness. Nonetheless, Shriberg et al. (2005, p. 138) argued that leadership may be perceived as part of the management pie, but emphasized that there is a good part of leadership that cannot be considered a subset of management. Generally, leadership could be dened as the capability of the manager to direct, inspire and motivate their employees to produce greater work than their normal level of performance, with this contributing to organizational effectiveness. It could be argued that organizational learning is capable of continual regeneration as a result of a variety of knowledge, experience and skills of individuals within a culture where mutual questioning is encouraged and challenged around a shared purpose or vision (Johnson and Scholes 2002). Hence, to increase organizational effectiveness, the organization needs to explore new ways and simultaneously exploit what they have learned. In this respect, exploration is dened as variance-seeking and includes the constructs of creativity and innovation, whereas exploitation is reliability-seeking and includes the learning of standard routines, transfer of existing knowledge and incremental variation (Lewin et al. 1999, Tushman et al. 2002). The manager thus plays a key role in transferring knowledge and encouraging the learning environment in the organization (Handy 1995). The sort of changes needed in the creation of organizational learning need real leadership (Senge 2006). Arguably, it appears that leadership plays an important role in shaping and maintaining organizational culture (Schein 1985). Hypothesis 1: There will be no relationship between number of employees and demographics of respondents, learning styles, leadership styles and organizational effectiveness. Hypothesis 2: Learning styles will impact upon organizational effectiveness. Hypothesis 3: Leadership styles will impact upon organizational effectiveness. According to the literature on leadership, it remains unclear how it is specically formed or developed. Grint (1991, pp. 6 7) suggested that it may refer to the ability and skills to intervene in new situations regardless of previous experiences, and also to the role of the leader in problem-solving. For Torrington et al. (2005), leadership is predominantly an innate ability that cannot be achieved simply through training; they argue leadership skills could be further enhanced through education. Grint agreed with this view: it would be strange if leadership was the only human skill that could not be enhanced through understanding and practice (1991, p. 2). Arguably, leadership is a key factor to create organizational learning. This could be accomplished by building a sense of commitment among members of the organization based on a shared vision (Senge 1990). Daft (2000) suggested that leadership is predominantly signicant in organizations seeking to transform into learning organizations. It is important to note, however, that different styles of leadership may develop different ways of encouraging employees (Bass 1985). William et al. (1993)

610

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

recognized that although everyone has the potential to be a leader, there is no single style or personality that is best for all situations. Hypothesis 4: The combination of learning and leadership styles will impact upon organizational effectiveness. Hypothesis 5: The combination of number of employees, demographics of respondents and learning styles will impact upon organizational effectiveness. Kotter and Heskett (1992) were among the rst to demonstrate that the single most important factor in successful organizational change is competent leadership. Leaders offer the highest leverage point for changes to take place because they are critical to establishing the strategic direction of the organization as well as in creating and maintaining its culture (Kotter and Heskett 1992). Leadership and performance are interrelated variables and there is a need to examine the relationship. Referring to contemporary research linking organizational effectiveness and leadership styles, Colbert et al. (2008) highlighted the lack of literature on intervening mechanisms that may shape this relationship. Therefore, in this study, the indirect inuences of potential variables specically the learning styles of managers will be considered. This study thus tests the mediating effects of the leadership style towards organizational effectiveness. Hypothesis 6: The combination of number of employees, demographics of respondents, learning styles and leadership styles will impact upon organizational effectiveness.

3.

Theoretical framework

Figure 1 illustrates potential linkages between the four learning styles (activist, pragmatist, reector and theorist), three leadership styles (transformational, transactional and laissezfaire) and organizational effectiveness. Thus, organizational leadership may be impacted directly by one of the learning styles, or by one of the leadership styles. In addition, a learning style may impact upon organizational effectiveness mediated by leadership. The purpose of this study is to explore the attributes of managers in terms of learning and leadership styles that may have an impact upon organizational effectiveness, whether directly, mediated, or both. Tyre rms in Thailand were selected as the unit of study. A questionnaire and follow-up interviews were used to test the following six linked hypotheses. 4. Research methods A questionnaire was used comprising four sections: demographics of respondents, learning styles, leadership styles and organizational effectiveness. Questionnaires were distributed to the managers of small tyre rms in Northeast Thailand, the countrys most densely populated region with approximately 21,386,000 people. A pilot study was conducted, following which the questionnaire was revised before being circulated to the full cohort of rms. Twenty rms were subsequently selected for in-depth interviews. Nvivo was used to help manage the data (QSR International 2003). A variety of statistical methods were applied: independent samples t-test, one-way ANOVA, correlation and multiple regression analysis. Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to examine the effects of number of employees, demographics of respondents, learning styles and leadership styles on organizational effectiveness. Number

Asia Pacic Business Review

Learning Styles

611

Leadership Styles

Activist

Transformational Leadership

Pragmatist

Transactional Leadership

Organisational Effectiveness

Reflector

Laissez-faire Leadership

Theorist

Figure 1. Theoretical framework.

of employees and a set of demographics (age, gender, education and experience) were initially entered, followed by four stylized learning styles (activist, pragmatist, reector and theorist) and nally three stylized leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire). Three hierarchical regression analyses were required to test for organizational effectiveness.3 4.1. Questionnaire survey Our aim was to determine the relation between managers learning styles, their leadership styles and the effectiveness of their organizations. We distributed a questionnaire with four sections: (1) Learning style: 20 Likerts scale questions, with ve questions in each learning category designed to identify the respondents attitude to activist, pragmatist, reector and theorist styles. (2) Leadership style: transformational, transactional or laissez-faire.

612

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

(3) Organizational effectiveness. (4) Demographics of the respondents and backgrounds of the rm. The north-eastern part of Thailand hosts 297 tyre rms. Questionnaires were sent to 220 of these companies and 140 completed questionnaires were received, a response rate of 64%. Because of the highly competitive nature of their businesses, managers were not willing to provide detailed nancial data. However, Wall et al. (2004) showed that subjective and objective measures of nancial performance can be closely aligned, so managers were asked to evaluate the nancial performance of their rms. 4.2. Follow-up interviews Twenty rms were interviewed, 10 from less effective rms and the rest from more effective rms, based on the mean score of organizational effectiveness. These follow-up interviews took place in the managers private ofce, lasting from 40 minutes to an hour. Permission for written notes and tape recordings was obtained before the interviews. Learning in an organization requires three areas of consensus: the centrality of environmental alignment; the necessity of individual learning and its transfer to the organizational level; and the priority of maximizing the impact of contextual factors such as strategy, structure and culture (Garratt 1987). Learning also emphasizes ve activities: systematic problem-solving, experimentation, learning from their own and others experience, and effective knowledge transfer (Garvin 1993). Learning therefore plays a major role in the development of the system while forming the key element in its connectivity (Michie 2001). To create organizational learning within the rm, the manager is one of the most important resources in generating knowledge and transferring or sharing it within the rm (Jumara 2005). The interviews thus sought to understand the background and behaviour of each manager (see Table 1). 5. Results Table 2 shows that Model 1, with number of employees, age, experience, gender and education as independent variables, has an R 2 0.217. After learning variables are added to create Model 2, R 2 increases to 0.708. Once the leadership styles were added (Model 3), R 2 increased to 0.800. Hypothesis 1: No relationship between number of employees and demographics of respondents, learning styles, leadership styles and organizational effectiveness. For Model 3, ANOVA gives a p-value of less than 0.05, so the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, number of employees and demographics of respondents, learning styles, and leadership styles do indeed impact on organizational effectiveness. With independent variables impacting upon the dependent variable, the prediction equation can be ascertained: Y b0 b1 X 1 b2 X 2 b3 X 3 b4 X 4 b5 X 5 b6 X 6 b7 X 7 b8 X 8 b9 X 9 b10 X 10 b11 X 11 b12 X 12 where b0 constant, X1 number of employees, X2 age, X3 experience, X4 gender, X5 education, X6 activist, X7 pragmatist, X8 reector, X9 theorist,

Asia Pacic Business Review

613

Table 1. Responses to questions on leadership styles. Leadership style 21. I like to make others feel good. 22. I would prefer to communicate using uncomplicated language. 23. I tend to persuade others to think of new ways to solve problems. 24. I usually help others to develop themselves. 25. I prefer to let others know exactly what they should do in order to achieve their goals. 26. I am satised when I perceive that others have performed well. 27. I would let others do their work in the way they think best. 28. Others tend to have a lot of respect for me. 29. I make others feel that they can accomplish their assigned tasks. 30. I usually provide others with new ideas to solve tough problems. 31. I provide feedback when others are performing their assigned tasks. 32. I reward others and make them feel appreciated when they have completed assigned tasks. 33. As long as the tasks have been accomplished, I will not make any changes to the working method. 34. I tend to support whatsoever method others have decided to employ in order to complete their tasks. 35. Others feel that I am pleasant to work with. 36. I help others nd ways to accomplish their assigned tasks. 37. I tend to encourage others to think in different and unconventional ways. 38. I am aware and try to pay special attention to others who have been isolated from the workplace. 39. I usually reward others after their assigned tasks have been accomplished. 40. I provide others with standard approaches to accomplish their assigned tasks. 41. I prefer not to ask anything from others unless it is necessary. Always 54 (38.6%) 54 (38.6%) 58 (41.4%) 55 (39.3%) 56 (40.7%) 61 (43.5%) 8 (5.7%) 61 (43.5%) 58 (41.5%) 57 (40.7%) 58 (41.4%) 60 (42.8%) 68 (48.5%) Never 86 (61.4%) 86 (61.4%) 82 (58.6%) 85 (60.7%) 83 (59.3%) 79 (56.5%) 132 (94.3%) 79 (56.4%) 82 (58.5%) 83 (59.3%) 82 (58.6%) 80 (57.2%) 72 (51.5%)

9 (6.5%) 56 (40.0%) 61 (43.5%) 59 (42.1%) 66 (47.1%)

131 (93.5%) 84 (60.0%) 79 (56.5%) 81 (57.9%) 74 (52.9%)

64 (45.7%) 71 (50.7%) 8 (5.7%)

76 (54.3%) 69 (49.3%) 132 (94.3%)

614

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

Table 2. Model summary. Model predictors Model 1. Number of employees, age, experience, gender, education Model 2. Activist, pragmatist, reector, theorist Model 3. Transactional leadership, transformational leadership, laissez-faire leadership
Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000

R2 0.217 0.708 0.800

Change in R 2 0.217 0.491 0.092

X10 transformational leadership, X11 transactional leadership, X12 laissez-faire leadership and Y organizational effectiveness (see Table 3). Learning styles: Reector and pragmatist have the highest coefcient values, 0.297 and 0.296, suggesting positive relationships with organizational effectiveness. The coefcient values on theorist and activist are negative, at 2 0.207 and 2 0.455 respectively, suggesting negative relationships with organizational effectiveness. Leadership styles: Transformational leadership has the highest coefcient value, 1.229; transactional leadership is 0.155, and laissez-faire eadership is 2 0.606. Beta coefcient Y b1 X 1 b2 X 2 b3 X 3 b4 X 4 b5 X 5 b6 X 6 b7 X 7 b8 X 8 b9 X 9 b10 X 10 b11 X 11 b12 X 12 Organizational effectiveness 0.056 (number of employees) 0.030 (age) 2 0.057 (gender) 0.024 (education) 0.002 (experience) 2 0.386 (activist) 0.200 (pragmatist) 0.266 (reector) 2 0.175 (theorist) 0.336 (transformational leadership) 0.054 (transactional leadership) 2 0.123 (laissez-faire leadership). The coefcient beta (b) assists in determining whether the averaging process used in calculating coefcient alpha is masking any inconsistent item (Malhotra and Birks 2003). b is the standard unit of each independent variable that explains the signicance value of
Table 3. Coefcients. Variables (Constant) Number of employees Age Gender Education Experience Activist Pragmatist Reector Theorist Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Laissez-faire leadership Unstandardized coefcients B 65.919 0.045 0.022 2 0.057 0.060 0.002 2 0.455 0.296 0.297 2 0.207 1.229 0.155 2 0.606 Standardized coefcients b 0.056 0.030 2 0.003 0.024 0.002 2 0.386 0.200 0.266 2 0.175 0.336 0.054 2 0.123

Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Asia Pacic Business Review

615

each predictor in the Equation (Auamnoy 2002). From the prediction equation above, the b-coefcient indicates that once all independent variables have been standardized in the same unit, they can be ranked as follows: the most powerful predictor in the standardized coefcient equation is activist (b 2 0.386), indicating a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness. Transformational leadership (b 0.336) has a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness, suggesting such managers to be useful to the organization. The b-coefcient values of reector and pragmatist are respectively 0.266 and 0.200, suggesting that these, too, have a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness and that reector and pragmatist managers are likely to be helpful to the organization. However, the b-coefcient value of theorist is 2 0.175 and of laissez-faire is 2 0.123. The b-coefcient value of transactional leadership is 0.054, suggesting a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness. Thus, transactional leadership is likely to be supportive to the rm, but approximately seven times less powerful than transformational leadership. Hypothesis 2: Impact of learning styles on organizational effectiveness. The results of ANOVA show a p-value of less than 0.05, so the null hypothesis is rejected: Learning styles do have an impact on organizational effectiveness (see Table 4). Beta coefcient Y b 1 X 1 b2 X 2 b3 X 3 b4 X 4 Organizational effectiveness 2 0.553 (activist) 0.305 (pragmatist) 0.324 (reector) 2 0.200 (theorist). The most powerful predictor in the standardized coefcient equation is activist (b 2 0.553), having a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness, followed by reector (b 0.324) that has a positive relationship. The b-coefcient value of pragmatist is 0.305 and of Theorist is 2 0.200. Hypothesis 3: Impact of leadership styles on organizational effectiveness. The results of ANOVA show a p-value of less than 0.05, so the null hypothesis is rejected, and it is concluded that leadership styles do have a statistically signicant impact upon organizational effectiveness (see Table 5). Beta coefcient Y b1 X 1 b2 X 2 b3 X 3 Organizational effectiveness 0.707 (transformational leadership) 0.056 (transactional leadership) 2 0.124 (laissez-faire leadership).
Table 4. Coefcient (learning styles). Independent variables Activist Pragmatist Reector Theorist
Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Standardized coefcients b 2 0.553 0.305 0.324 2 0.200

616

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

Table 5. Coefcient (leadership styles). Independent variables Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Laissez-faire leadership
Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Standardized coefcients b 0.707 0.056 2 0.124

The most powerful predictor in the standardized coefcient equation is transformational leadership (b 0.707), followed by the b-coefcient value of laissez-faire leadership at 2 0.124. The b-coefcient value of transactional leadership is 0.056, suggesting a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness (see Table 6). The adjusted R 2 of learning styles is 0.682 whilst the adjusted R 2 of leadership styles is 0.546. Thus, learning styles are more impactful upon organizational effectiveness than are leadership styles. Hypothesis 4: Impact of learning styles and leadership styles on organizational effectiveness. The results of ANOVA show a p-value of less than 0.05, so the null hypothesis is rejected and it is concluded that learning styles and leadership styles do indeed have an impact upon organizational effectiveness (see Table 7). Model 1, composed only of activist, pragmatist, reector and theorist as independent variables, has R 2 0.691. After transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles are added to this model (i.e. it becomes Model 2), the R 2 increases to 0.797. The general linear model Y b0 b1 X 1 b2 X 2 b3 X 3 b4 X 4 b5 X 5 b6 X 6 b7 X 7 where b0 constant, X1 activist, X2 pragmatist, X3 reector, X4 theorist, X5 transformational leadership, X6 transactional leadership, X7 laissez-faire leadership, and Y organizational effectiveness (see Table 8).
Table 6. The strength of adjusted R 2 for learning and leadership styles. Independent variables Activist, pragmatist, reector and theorist Transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership Adjusted R 2 0.682 0.546

Table 7. Model summary (learning styles and leadership styles). Model predictors Model 1. Activist, pragmatist, reector and theorist Model 2. Transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership
Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Sig. 0.000 0.000

R2 0.691 0.797

Change in R 2 0.691 0.106

Asia Pacic Business Review

617

Organizational effectiveness 67.588 2 0.463 (activist) 0.318 (pragmatist) 0.302 (reector) 2 0.219 (theorist) 1.282 (transformational leadership) 0.147 (transactional leadership) 2 0.609 (laissez-faire leadership). Of learning styles, pragmatist is the most powerful predictor of organizational effectiveness with the highest coefcient value, 0.318. This is followed by reector, at 0.302, suggesting a positive correlation with organizational effectiveness. The coefcient values for theorist and activist, 2 0.219 and 2 0.463 respectively, suggest a negative correlation with organizational effectiveness. Of leadership styles, transformational leadership is the most powerful predictor of organizational effectiveness, with the highest coefcient value, 1.282. Transactional leadership is second, at 0.147. Laissez-faire leadership (coefcient value 2 0.609) is the least powerful predictor of the set of leadership styles, with a negative correlation with organizational effectiveness. Beta coefcient Y b 1 X 1 b 2 X 2 b3 X 3 b4 X 4 b5 X 5 b6 X 6 b7 X 7 Organizational effectiveness 2 0.393 (activist) 0.215 (pragmatist) 0.271 (reector) 2 0.186 (theorist) 0.350 (transformational leadership) 0.051 (transactional leadership) 2 0.124 (laissez-faire leadership). The most powerful predictor in the standardized coefcient equation is activist (b 2 0.393), having a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness. Transformational leadership has a b-coefcient value of 0.350, suggesting a positive relationship. Reector has a b-coefcient value of 0.271, suggesting a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness, and pragmatist has a b-coefcient value of 0.215, suggesting a positive relationship. Theorist has a b-coefcient value of 2 0.186, suggesting that theorist has a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness. It is approximately two times less powerfully related to the organizational effectiveness than is activist. Next, laissez-faire leadership has a b-coefcient value of 2 0.124, suggesting a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness. Last, transactional leadership has a b-coefcient value of 0.051, suggesting it is approximately seven times less powerfully related to organizational effectiveness than is transformational leadership. Hypothesis 5: Impact of number of employees, demographics of respondents and learning styles on organizational effectiveness.
Table 8. Coefcient (learning styles and leadership styles). Unstandardized coefcients (Constant) Activist Pragmatist Reector Theorist Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Laissez-faire leadership B 67.588 2 0.463 0.318 0.302 2 0.219 1.282 0.147 2 0.609 Standardized coefcients

b
2 0.393 0.215 0.271 2 0.186 0.350 0.051 2 0.124

Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

618

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

The results of ANOVA indicate a p-value of less than 0.05, so the null hypothesis is rejected: number of employees, demographics of respondents and learning styles do have an impact on organizational effectiveness (see Table 9). Beta coefcient Y b 1 X 1 b 2 X 2 b 3 X 3 b4 X 4 b5 X 5 b6 X 6 b7 X 7 b8 X 8 b9 X 9 where Y organizational effectiveness, b1 b-coefcient, X1 number of employees, X2 age, X3 gender, X4 education, X5 experience, X6 activist, X7 pragmatist, X8 reector and X9 theorist. Organizational effectiveness 0.143 (number of employees) 0.005 (age) 2 0.018 (gender) 0.030 (education) 0.003 (experience) 2 0.515 (activist) 0.264 (pragmatist) 0.308 (reector) 2 0.155 (theorist) (see Table 10). The most powerful predictor in the standardized coefcient equation is activist (b 2 0.515), having a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness. Reector has a b-coefcient value of 0.308, suggesting a positive relationship. Pragmatist, with a bcoefcient value of 0.264, also has a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness. The b-coefcient value of theorist is 2 0.155, suggesting a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness. Hypothesis 6: Inuence of number of employees, demographics of respondents, learning styles and leadership styles on organizational effectiveness. The results of ANOVA show a p-value of less than 0.05, so the null hypothesis is rejected: number of employees, demographics of respondents, learning styles and leadership styles do impact on organizational effectiveness (see Table 11).
Table 9. styles). Model summary (number of employees, demographics of respondents and learning Sig. 0.000

Independent variables Number of employees, gender, education, experience, activist, pragmatist, reector and theorist
Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Table 10. Coefcient (number of employees, demographics of respondents and learning styles). Independent variables Number of employees Age Gender Education Experience Activist Pragmatist Reector Theorist
Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Standardized coefcients b 0.143 0.005 2 0.018 0.030 0.003 2 0.515 0.264 0.308 2 0.155

Asia Pacic Business Review

619

Table 11. Model summary (number of employees and demographics of respondents, learning styles, leadership styles). Independent variables Number of employees, age, gender, education, experience, activist, pragmatist, reector, theorist, transformational, transactional, laissez-faire leadership
Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Sig. 0.000

Beta coefcient Y b1 X 1 b2 X 2 b3 X 3 b4 X 4 b5 X 5 b6 X 6 b7 X 7 b8 X 8 b9 X 9 b10 X 10 b11 X 11 b12 X 12 where Y organizational effectiveness, b1 b-coefcient, X1 number of employees, X2 age, X3 gender, X4 education, X5 experience, X6 activist, X7 pragmatist, X8 reector, X9 theorist, X10 transformation leadership, X11 transactional leadership and X12 laissez-faire leadership (see Table 12). Organizational effectiveness 0.056 (number of employees) 2 0.030 (age) 2 0.003 (gender) 0.024 (education) 0.002 (experience) 2 0.386 (activist) 0.200 (pragmatist) 0.266 (reector) 2 0.175 (theorist) 0.336 (transformational leadership) 0.054 (transactional leadership) 2 0.123 (laissez-faire leadership). The most powerful predictor in the standardized coefcient equation is activist (b 2 0.386), suggesting a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness. Transformational leadership (b 0.336) has a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness, suggesting such managers are useful to the organization. The b-coefcient values of reector and pragmatist are respectively 0.266 and 0.200, suggesting that these, too, have a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness. The b-coefcient value of theorist is 2 0.175, suggesting a negative relationship with organizational effectiveness. Laissez-faire leadership, with a b-coefcient value of 2 0.123, has a negative relationship
Table 12. Coefcient (number of employees and demographics of respondents, learning styles, leadership styles). Independent variables Number of employees Age Gender Education Experience Activist Pragmatist Reector Theorist Transformational leadership Transactional leadership Laissez-faire leadership
Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Standardized coefcients b 0.056 0.030 2 0.003 0.024 0.002 2 0.386 0.200 0.266 2 0.175 0.336 0.054 2 0.123

620

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

with organizational effectiveness. Transactional leadership (b 0.054) has a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness. In relation to organizational effectiveness, transformational leadership is seen to be at least seven times more inuential as compared to transactional leadership (see Table 13). 5.1. Summary of results from questionnaire Adjusted R 2 for the second equation is 0.781 that is greater than the adjusted R 2 of the rst Equation (0.688). In addition, when adding the leadership styles variables into the equation, the b-coefcient values of the learning styles variables change. Thus, it was found that the effect of learning styles on organizational effectiveness is mediated by leadership styles. 5.2. Results from follow-up interviews

In follow-up interviews, nearly all managers in the more effective rms agreed that operations and people are the key factors driving the success of the rm. They emphasize that technology and cost reduction are useful in maintaining productivity. While realizing that it may take time to build the skills of employees, they regarded this as supportive to their business. They seek to nd ways of developing the skills of employees, sending employees to attend workshops, encouraging them to practise skills by learning from simulation in the work environment, persuading them to share ideas and knowledge, and motivating them to work at their best. It was found that 90% of interviewees in the more effective rms regularly spend time discussing employees problems, such as matters occurring in the workplace. In the event of a conict between employees, an inuential and experienced person is called in. Of interviewees 90% considered that delegating power is a necessary skill; especially in decision-making, employees need substantial support from the manager if they are to be condent in the decision-making process. Of interviewees 80% emphasized that task allocation is necessary. They emphasized that different employees have different skills, and it is necessary to assign the appropriate task to each employee. To maintain productivity, interviewees sought to inuence their employees behaviour. For instance, one interviewee emphasized that he usually starts work early, to check and clean everything before the workers arrive, and to set a good example of punctuality and responsibility. He said that if one expects his or her employees to perform their tasks effectively, one should rst put effort into his or her own work to guide and provide feedback to employees. Additionally, to enhance the organizations performance,
Table 13. Adjusted R 2 and b-coefcients for rst and second equations. Equation (First equation): Number of employees, demographics of respondents and learning styles 0.688 2 0.515 0.264 0.308 2 0.155

Independent variables Adjusted R 2 Activist Pragmatist Reector Theorist

(Second equation): Leadership Styles 0.781 2 0.386 0.200 0.266 2 0.175

Note: Dependent variable: organizational effectiveness.

Asia Pacic Business Review

621

several interviewees emphasized that they always empower and help employees in overcoming obstacles. For example, if a worker faces a situation that requires further assistance, such as additional technical skills, encouraging employees to deal with the problem and make decisions by themselves would lead them to develop their condence and skills. In summary, it was found that, in the more effective rms, the roles of managers are related to their ability to cope with conict among employees, forecasting the current market, delegating power, organizing and stafng, and empowering and encouraging employees. 5.3. Less effective rms

The interviews suggested that managers in the less effective rms did not have a clear direction for the organizational goals. Most did not establish guidelines for their employees. For example, one supposed that, We believe that we do our best for today, and then we will eventually succeed. These interviewees failed to establish their business strategies in terms of nancial planning, HRM, operational management or stock management. Of interviewees 60% stated that they do not recommend that anticipation is necessary. They were not aware of market trends and recently had not realized that the price of petroleum had increased, which increased the price of products and transport, so they could not avoid increasing the price of their rms products and services. Of interviewees 70% thought that task allocation was not a necessary skill for the manager. They generally did not allocate an exact position to their employees because they emphasized that everyone is supposed to be able to work in any position, such as changing tyres, wheel alignment and balancing. Interviews suggested that 80% of interviewees in the less effective rms prefer not to spend time in discussion with their employees; they presume that nearly all their employees had practised in the real situation of the workplace, so it was not necessary to waste time in further discussion. Nor did they encourage good relationships among employees because they emphasized that good quality of work should be produced from the experience of each worker, not from working as a team. To avoid mistakes, 80% of interviewees said that they preferred not to delegate power to employees. They remain the only ones who make decisions in every situation. For example, if the customer asks for a discount, the employee should come to the manager to consider how much to offer. One manager said that the employees should only do what they had been assigned, suggesting he was not likely to support and encourage employees to contribute ideas. Interviewees in this business group are more likely to encourage their employees through competition rather than collaboration. They emphasized that competition among employees could create strength in their rms, reducing dishonesty and accelerating the working period. In conclusion, in the less effective rms, owners do not establish goals and general guidelines for their employees, and they do not attempt to understand employees problems. Instead, most interviewees are more likely to be self-centred and prefer not to listen to others. Relevant issues are not raised or openly discussed. Moreover, they do not concentrate on taskoriented functions such as planning and scheduling the work, coordinating subordinates activities, or providing necessary supplies and technical assistance. 5.4. Effective and less-effective rms It is clear that there are differences in terms of management style between interviewees in the more effective rms and those in the less effective rms. The interviewees in the more

622

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

effective rms are more aware of the highly competitive nature of todays business, and put effort into investing in high technology and developing employees skills. Conversely, the interviewees in the less effective rms are not familiar with complicated structures or high technology. They prefer to work in the old way, refusing to accept changes within their organization, and fail to persuade their employees to work at their best, tending not to provide effective activities to develop their employees skills. Further, in the more effective rms, the roles of owners are related to their ability to cope with conict among employees, forecasting the current market, delegating power, organizing and stafng, and empowering and encouraging employees. For example, one manager said that, I believe that the best way to solve the problem occurring in the workplace is to communicate with employees by talking to them straightforward. This is also consistent with the statement of the transformational leadership that managers are supposed to communicate with employees by using uncomplicated language. Furthermore, in the more effective rms, most interviewees are relatively well educated; several have technical experience from previous work and some have learnt by observing their colleagues; some interviewees prefer to test their ideas and techniques in the workplace to see if they work. For example, one manager said that, I always test new ideas and techniques to see if they work in the real situation. This is consistent with one of the components of pragmatist that they are likely to try out their ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. In summary, interviewees in the more effective rms tend to be energetic in trying out new ways of operating and managing their organizations. They are well organized in setting organizational goals and generating general guidelines for their employees. They are also more open to discussing employees problems. Thus, the interviewees in the more effective rms practise transformational leadership. In relation to their learning style, they tend to learn by observing and practising, so managers in the more effective rm are likely to be related to pragmatist learning style. In contrast, interviewees in the less effective rms are more likely to be self-centred. They are likely to be inactive and avoid assisting their employees, related to laissez-faire leadership. In relation to their learning styles, with rst-hand experience, they are likely to learn by doing which is related to one of the element of the activist learning style. Thus, our qualitative and quantitative results are relatively consistent. 6. Discussion

The results of Pearsons correlation suggest that activist has a strong negative correlation with transformational leadership, implying that the manager who has a high level of activist in their learning style tends to have a low level of transformational leadership. In contrast, pragmatist and reector have a medium positive correlation with transformational leadership, implying that the manager who has a high level of pragmatist and reector would also have a high level of transformational leadership qualities. Theorist, on the other hand, has a weak positive correlation with transformational leadership. These results are consistent with Bass (1985, Bass and Avolio 1989), who proposes that transformational forms of leadership are particularly important in promoting organizational learning. Honey and Mumford (1992) proposed that the nature of pragmatist, reector and theorist tends to encourage their employees to develop skills by practice, reection and through logical considerations. Hence, it shows that these three learning styles are related to transformational leadership in terms of creating and transferring knowledge to employees. Interviewees who display these three learning styles

Asia Pacic Business Review

623

would also tend to have transformational leadership. Furthermore, it was found that there was no correlation between transactional leadership and any of the four learning styles. It was also found that a weak positive correlation between activist and laissez-faire leadership suggests that the manager who has a high level of Activist tends also to have a high level of laissez-faire that is, activist managers tend to avoid making decisions, hesitate to take action and are less likely to be supportive in terms of developing employees skills. The results of Pearsons correlation suggest that activist has a strong negative correlation with organizational effectiveness, suggesting that the manager who has a high level of activist would be unlikely to be supportive in producing a high level of organizational effectiveness. This could be explained by the work of Ames (2003), which argues that specic learning styles are related only to certain activities. 6.1. Leadership styles

The results of Pearsons correlation suggest that there is a strong negative correlation between transformational leadership and activist, and a medium positive correlation between transformational leadership and pragmatist as well as between transformational leadership and reector. This suggests that interviewees who exhibit transformational leadership are not likely to jump quickly to conclusions, but take time to consider the different circumstances before trying out a method to see if it solves the problem. To elaborate, in the Thai context seniority is moderately important, so it is possible that the interviewees who have predominant transformational, pragmatist and reector leadership styles may be good at transferring knowledge to employees in appropriate ways. For example, the transformational manager is likely to respect others and be willing to provide feedback to employees. So, this may help to reduce the gap between manager and employees, thereby creating a learning environment in the workplace. There is a strong positive correlation between transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness, but no correlation between transactional leadership and organizational effectiveness. These ndings are consistent with Colbert et al. (2008) who found that transformational leadership has a positive correlation with organizational effectiveness. Similarly, Howell et al. (2005) found that transformational leadership was positively related to business performance, while transactional leadership was not signicantly related to performance. There is a weak negative correlation between laissezfaire leadership and organizational effectiveness. These ndings are consistent with those of Corrigan et al. (2000), that laissez-faire leadership is likely to result in damaging consequences for the working environment. 6.2. Multiple regression analysis We found transformational leadership to have a positive relationship with organizational effectiveness. There is evidence suggesting that transformational leadership helps to increase levels of individual performance (Bass 1985, 1990, Avolio and Yamamario 2002) and organizational performance (Howell et al. 2005, Weichun at al. 2005, Colbert et al. 2008). Managers who create vision and a learning environment are also likely to increase their employees skill levels, which in turn leads to organizational effectiveness. Transactional leadership was also positively correlated with organizational effectiveness. Kuhert (1994) proposed that the transactional leadership manager is likely to provide appropriate rewards to employees, but less likely to support employees in terms

624

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

of developing their skills. Such managers may need to consider playing a more active role in encouraging employees to develop skills, and provide rewards when needed. The bcoefcient of transactional leadership is approximately seven times less correlated to organizational effectiveness than is transformational leadership. This is consistent with the research by Jens and Kathrin (2007), who found transformational leadership having a stronger correlation with organizational effectiveness than does transactional leadership. 6.3. Leadership role The majority of interviewees in the more effective rms tend to spend time discussing and listening to their employees problems, and provide prompt, useful suggestions. In terms of anticipation, the majority of the interviewees in the more effective rms emphasize that it is necessary to pay attention to market trends, particularly because the tyre market is highly competitive. In terms of task allocation, the majority of the interviewees in the more effective rms argued that it is necessary to allocate tasks to specic employees because they emphasized that different employees have different skills. The majority of the interviewees in the more effective rms also recognized that power delegation is important to help build condence in their employees, for example, by giving them opportunities to deal with different problems occurring in the workplace. For instance, one of the interviewees said that, I always give advice to my employees to accomplish their tasks. Kahn et al. (1964) found that the differences in organizational role expectations and role pressures recognized by different managers may lead them to use different leadership behaviours within the same contexts. To a large extent, their ndings are consistent with the results from this study, with interviewees prioritizing leadership roles differently, resulting in different levels of organizational effectiveness. 6.4. Learning and experience

Variyam and Kraybill (1993) argued that management education leads to greater use of planning and technology, while Kristy et al. (2007) found that learning from experience is correlated with effective learning and leadership for the manager. In this research, it was observed that interviewees in the more effective rms are comparatively well educated, and they directly applied this knowledge to deal with problems in the workplace. For example, one manager said that, I always test new ideas and techniques to see if they work in the real situation. This is compatible with one of the constituents of pragmatist, tending to try out their ideas, theories and techniques to see if they work in practice. Hofstede (2001, p. 29) suggested that individualism versus collectivism is about the integration of individuals into primary groups, and reects peoples expectations to take care of themselves or receive care from their peers (Hofstede 1980). Employees may perceive a manager is taking care of them by being energetic in transferring knowledge, techniques and ideas on how to solve problems, and this may lead employees to enhance their individual performance since they recognize that they are important to the organization. 6.5. Independent sample t-test

Independent sample t-test was used to analyse the relationship between learning and experience, organizational management, leadership role and the organizational effectiveness. Senge (1992) argued that the main purposes of organizational learning are to develop new knowledge in the organization and to create more efcient and effective management

Asia Pacic Business Review

625

of the resulting organizational assets. Our results show that job description, training and development, and collaboration are correlated with organizational effectiveness, consistent with studies which have found that HRM supports organizational learning and improves organizational effectiveness (Gail and Russell 2001, Michie and Sheehan-Quinn 2001, Vincent and Ross 2001, Szarka et al. 2004, Kersley et al. 2005, Torrington et al. 2005). Guest et al. (2003) proposed that since organizational learning takes place at different levels of organization and helps to improve organizational performance, providing appropriate human resource policies and practices is one of the most important challenges for organizations in reaching out to their employees. Pemberton and Stonehouse (2000) argue that managers play an important role in improving the process of building and applying new knowledge, and Smith and Lyles (2005) proposed that knowledge comes from both formal teaching and personal experience. This is consistent with our nding that managers in the successful organizations sustained the learning environment through discussion, power delegation and task allocation to encourage and transfer knowledge to their employees. 7. Implications Our key conclusions for theory are that pragmatist and reector learning styles, and transformational and transactional leadership styles, are positively associated with organizational effectiveness. Both learning and leadership styles were found to be important for organizational effectiveness, with learning styles mediated by leadership styles. Michie and Oughton (2001) suggest that if organizational members have a stake in the organization in which they work, they may be better motivated and committed, with positive outcomes in terms of productivity and organizational performance: interviewees in the more effective rms were indeed found to be more likely to motivate their employees through commission systems. Highlighting the importance of collaboration, the majority of interviewees in the more effective rms emphasized that good teamwork could lead to improved quality of work. In contrast, the other interviewees did not encourage their employees to foster close ties among themselves as this might make it difcult to manage them as a whole. However, Tichy et al. (1992) emphasized that collaboration is needed to develop employees knowledge and learning. Indeed, the majority of interviewees in the more effective rms encouraged collaboration among their employees by working as a team. Aouni (2007) highlighted the importance of encouraging a learning environment throughout the entire organization. Similarly, Vincent and Ross (2001) argue that HRM is one of the most essential aspects in sustaining organizational learning. Interviewees in the more effective rms applied HRM strategies to encourage their employees. Arguably, this has helped them to further expand and develop their employees knowledge and skills, and subsequently contributed to further improvements in organizational effectiveness. The key implications for management practice are, rst, that policies to promote employee engagement and motivation can impact positively on organizational outcomes; second, that teamworking and collaboration can promote quality of work, including through improved organizational learning; and that fostering a learning environment can enhance employee skills, contributing to organizational effectiveness. 8. Conclusions The aim of this research was to investigate the relationship between learning styles, leadership styles and organizational effectiveness, and to provide greater understanding of what

626

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

attributes of learning and leadership styles are useful for managers, in contributing towards organizational effectiveness. In addition to the factors analysed explicitly, more disparate phenomenon such as culture will also, of course, inuence the translation of managers learning and leadership styles into organizational effectiveness (Hofstede 1993, p. 92). Our results suggest that the number of employees has a positive correlation with learning styles, leadership styles and organizational effectiveness, while respondents demographics have little correlation with these factors. The implications of this research for managers is, rst, the need to consciously contribute to creating a learning environment, while, second, at the same time seeking to improve their own leadership style and practice, and third, that it is the combination of these two factors that are found to most consistently enhance organizational effectiveness. The key conclusions for theory is that attempts to theorize or measure possible links between leadership on the one hand and organizational outcomes on the other will be inadequate if they do not take proper account of the learning styles of managers and the way that these learning styles will interact with leadership practice. Conversely, attempts to theorize or measure possible links between the learning organization on the one hand and organizational outcomes on the other will be inadequate if they do not take proper account of the leadership styles of managers and the way in which those leadership styles will interact with the learning organization. The impact of learning organizations and practices is mediated by leadership styles and practices. The key conclusions for public policy is that measures to improve organizational outcomes, corporate performance and economic growth need to focus upon leadership abilities, learning capabilities and, crucially, upon the interaction between the two sets of attributes, to create learning organizations able to create and recreate over time sustainable competitive advantages. In the case of the Thai tyre-rm sector, this means mediating pragmatist and reector learning styles through transformational and transactional leadership.

Notes
1. By leadership, we refer to more than just being able to play a senior management role, to doing this in a way that successfully organises employees to achieve a common goal. 2. By organizational effectiveness, we refer to how effective the company is in achieving its intended outcomes (Etzioni 1964), but with the caveat from Richard et al. (2009) that organizational effectiveness includes the internal performance outcomes associated with effective operations, plus external measures that relate to considerations beyond those simply associated with economic valuation. 3. Full details of the research methods chosen, the data collected and the results generated including measures of all the variables, sample details, and correlation, reliability and validity analyses are available from the authors on request. These further details cover both our pilot work and the full methods used: why these methods (and not others), the dates of our questionnaire survey and interviews, the location chosen, how individual respondents and interviewees were selected, how our interviews were conducted and by whom and when and where, why we chose to undertake 20 interviews and why it was these 20, the measures used, and details of the rms (size) and respondents (demographics).

Notes on contributors
Jonathan Michie is Professor of Innovation and Knowledge Exchange at the University of Oxford, where he is the Director of the Department for Continuing Education and President of Kellogg College. He has published extensively on economic, management and business issues, including

Asia Pacic Business Review

627

High Commitment Work Systems and the link between management practices on the one hand, and organizational outcomes and corporate performance on the other. Vissanu Zumitzavan was awarded a Ph.D. from the University of Birmingham, UK, in 2011. The research was supervised by Professor Jonathan Michie, and the topic was The impact of managers learning styles and leadership styles and the effectiveness of their organizations: a case study from small retail tyre companies in Thailand. The work reported here draws upon the original research that was undertaken for the Ph.D. thesis. He lectures in Thailand.

References
Aouni, F., 2007. Human resource management and knowledge management: a road map toward improving organisational performance. Journal of American academy of business, Cambridge, 11 (2), 124 130. Ames, P.C., 2003. Gender and learning style interactions in students computer attitudes. Educational computing research, 28 (3), 231 244. ., eds, 2002. The globalizing learning economy. Oxford: Oxford Archibugi, D. and Lundvall, B.-A University Press. Auamnoy, T., 2002. Statistics and SPSS for 21st century research. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. Avolio, B.J. and Yamamario, F.J., 2002. Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership good, better, best. Organisational dynamics, 13, 26 40. Bass, B.M., 1990. Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J., 1989. Potential biases in leadership measures: how prototypes, lenience, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and psychological measurement, 49, 509527. Bedeian, A.G. and Hunt, J.G., 2006. Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our forefathers. The leadership quarterly, 17, 190 205. Bowditch, J.L. and Buono, A.F., 2001. A primer on organisational behaviour. New York: Wiley. Brown, M.L. and Posner, Z.B., 2001. Exploring the relationship between learning and leadership. Leadership and organisational development journal, 22 (5 6), 274 280. Bryman, A., 1986. Leadership and organisations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Colbert, A.E., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Bradley, B.H. and Barrick, M.R., 2008. CEO transformational leadership: the role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of management journal, 51 (1), 81 96. Corrigan, P.W. et al., 2000. Mental health team leadership and consumers satisfaction and quality of life. Psychiatric services, 51 (6), 781 785. Daft, R.L., 2000. Management. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers. Dalton, D.R. et al., 1998. Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and performance. Strategic management journal, 19, 269 290. Day, D.V. and Lord, R.G., 1988. Executive leadership and organizational performance: suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of management, 14 (3), 453 464. Dierickx, I. and Cool, K., 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management science, 35, 1504 1511. Dunphy, D., Turner, D. and Crawford, M., 1997. Organisational learning as the creation of corporate competencies. Journal of management development, 16 (4), 232 244. Etzioni, A., 1964. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gail, K. and Russell, K., 2001. The role of motivation to learn in management education. Journal of workplace learning, 13 (3 4), 132 143. Gardiner, P., 2001. Learning organization. In: J. Michie, ed. Readers guide to the social sciences. London: Routledge/Fitzroy Dearborne, 932 933. Garratt, B., 1987. The learning organisation, and the need for directions who think. London: Fontana. Garvin, D.A., 1993. Building a learning organisation. Harvard business review, 71 (4), 78 91. Ghobadian, A. and ORegan, N., 2006. The impact of ownership on small rm behaviour and performance. International small business journal, 24 (6), 555 586. Goleman, D., 2000. Leader that gets results. Harvard business review, 78 (2), 78 90.

628

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

Grint, K., 1991. War and peace. In: K. Grint, ed. Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1 17. Guest, D.E. and Conway, N. 1997. Employee motivation and the psychological contract. (Issues in People Management No. 21: 1 60). London: Institute of Personnel and Development. Guest, D.E. Michie, J., Conway, N. and Sheehan, M., 2003. Human resource management and corporate performance in the UK. British journal of industrial relations, 41 (2), 291 314. Handy, C., 1995. Managing the dream. In: S. Chawla and J. Renesch eds. Learning organisation. Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 45 55. Hess, D., 2001. Leadership. In: J. Michie, ed. Readers guide to the social sciences. London: Routledge/Fitzroy Dearborn, 927. Hofstede, G., 1980. Cultures consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., 2001. Cultures consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organisations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G., 1993. Cultures constrains in management theories. Academy of management executive, 7 (1), 81 94. Honey, P. and Mumford, A., 1992. The manuals of learning styles. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Peter Honey Publications. House, R.J. and Javidan, M., 2004. Overview of GLOBE. In: R.J. House et al., eds. Culture, leadership, and organisations: the GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 926. Howell, J.M., Neufeld, D.J. and Avolio, B.J., 2005. Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. Leadership quarterly, 16, 273 285. Jaques, E. and Clement, S.D., 1991. Executive leadership: a practical guide to managing complexity. Oxford: Blackwell. Jens, R. and Kathrin, H., 2007. Transformational and charismatic leadership: assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leadership quarterly, 18 (2), 121 133. Johnson, G. and Scholes, K., 2002. Exploring corporate strategy. Essex: Pearson Education. Jumara, J.J., 2005. A case study of the inuence of organisation theory on organisational change, Thesis (PhD). University of Missouri, Kansas City. Kahn, R.L. et al., 1964. Organisational stress: studies in role conict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley. Kersley, B. et al., 2005. Inside the workplace: ndings from the 2004 workplace employment relations survey. London/New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Kotter, J. and Heskett, J., 1992. Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press. Kristy, T., Jill, K.M. and Darlene, G.M., 2007. Learning strategies as predictors of transformational leadership: the case of nonprot managers. Leadership & organisation development journal, 28 (3), 269 287. Kuhert, K.W., 1994. Transformational leadership: developing people through delegation. In: B.M. Bass and B.J. Avolio eds. Improving organisational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 10 25. Lewin, A.Y., Long, C.P. and Carroll, T., 1999. The co-evolution of new organisational forms. Organisation science, 10, 535 550. MacDufe, J.P., 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organisational logic and exible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and labour relations review, 48 (2), 197 221. Malhotra, N. and Birks, D., 2003. Marketing research. Scotland: Pearson Education. Michie, J., 2001. Learning economy. In: J. Michie, ed. Readers guide to the social sciences. London/Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 930 932. Michie, J. and Oughton, C., 2001. Employee share-ownership trusts and corporate governance. Corporate governance: the international journal of effective board performance, 1 (3), 4 8. Michie, J. and Sheehan-Quinn, M., 2001. Labour market exibility, human resource management and corporate performance. British journal of management, 12 (4), 287 306. Michie, J. and Sheehan, M., 2003. Labour market deregulation, exibility and innovation. Cambridge journal of economics, 27 (1), 123 143. Mumford, A. and Gold, J., 2004. Management development strategies for action. London: The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Asia Pacic Business Review

629

Murray, P., 2003. Organisational learning, competencies, and rm performance: empirical observations. The Learning Organisation, 10 (4 5), 305316. Nicholas, G.P., 2005. Learning orientation and leadership quality: their impact on salespersons performance. Management decision, 43 (7 8), 1054 1063. Panayides, P.M., 2007. The impact of organisational learning on relationship orientation, logistics service effectiveness and performance. Industrial marketing management, 36 (1), 68 80. Pemberton, J.D. and Stonehouse, G.H., 2000. Organisational learning and knowledge assets an essential partnership. The learning organisation, 7 (4), 184 193. QSR International, 2003. NVivo. (Version 2.0) [computer software]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Scolari Sage Publications Software. Rauch, C.F. and Behling, O., 1984. Functionalism: basis for an alternate approach to the study of leadership. In: J.G. Hunt et al., eds. Leaders and managers: international perspectives on managerial behaviour and leadership. New York: Pergamon, 45 62. Richard, P.J. et al., 2009. Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practice. Journal of management, 35 (3), 718 804. Rowley, C., 2011. Organisational learning. In: C. Rowley and K. Jackson eds. HRM: the key concepts. London: Routledge, 142 146. Schein, E., 1985. Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P.M., 1990. The fth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. New York: Doubleday Currency. Senge, P.M., 1992. The fth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. London: Century Business. Senge, P.M., 2006. The fth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation. London: Random House Business Books. Shackleton, V., 1995. Business leadership. London: Routledge. Shore, L.M. and Tetrick, L.E., 1994. The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the employment relationship. In: C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau eds. Trends in organisational behaviour. New York: Wiley, 91 103. Shriberg, A., Shriberg, D. and Kumari, R., 2005. Practicing leadership: principles and applications. New York: Wiley. Smith, M.E. and Lyles, M.A., 2005. Handbook of organisational learning and knowledge management. Oxford: Blackwell. Spicer, D.P. and Sadler-Smith, E., 2006. Organisational learning in smaller manufacturing rms. International Small Business Journal, 24 (2), 133 158. Stogdill, R.M., 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35 71. Szarka, F.E., Grant, K.P. and Flannery, W.T., 2004. Achieving organisational learning through team competition. Engineering Management Journal, 16 (1), 21 31. Tichy, N.M. et al., 1992. Leadership development as a lever for global transformation. In: V. Pucik, N.M. Tichy and C.K. Barnett eds. Globalising management. New York: Wiley, 107 118. Torrington, D., Hall, L. and Taylor, S., 2005. Human resource management. Essex: Pearson Education. Tushman, M.L., OReilly, I. and Charles, A., 2002. Winning through innovation: a practical guide to leading organisational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Ulrich, D. and Ulrich, W., 2010. The why of work: how great leaders build abundant organisations that win. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vakola, M. and Rezgui, Y., 2000. Organisational learning and innovation in the construction industry. The learning organisation, 7 (4), 174 177. Variyam, J.N. and Kraybill, D.S., 1993. Small rms choice of business strategies. Southern economic journal, 60 (1), 136 146. Velde, M.V.D., Jansen, P. and Anderson, N., 2004. Guide to management research methods. Oxford: Blackwell. Vincent, A. and Ross, D., 2001. Personalize training: determine learning styles personality types and multiple intelligence online The Learning Organisation, 8 (1), 36 43. Wall, T.D. et al., 2004. On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel psychology, 57 (1), 95 118.

630

J. Michie and V. Zumitzavan

Weichun, Z., Chew, I.K.H. and Spangler, W.D., 2005. CEO transformational leadership and organisational outcomes: the mediating role of human capital-enhancing human resource management. Leadership quarterly, 16 (1), 39 52. William, E.R., Robert, L.T. and Howard, T.P.I., 1993. Contemporary issues in leadership. Oxford: Westview Press. Yukl, G.A., 1989. Leadership in organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Copyright of Asia Pacific Business Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.