A STUDY ON LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR AND

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING IN HIGHER LEARNING

INSTITUTIONS
Norshidah Nordin
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Faculty of Education,
Seksyen 17, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
Shidah147@gmail.com
Hanisah Kasbon
Universiti Teknologi MARA, Faculty of Education,
Seksyen 17, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract
The forces of tremendous change such as globalisation, technology advancements and
competitive environment forces organisations to adapt to strategic change so that they
could remain relevant and competitive advantages. Nevertheless, as learning is one of
the factors to competitiveness, there is a critical need for the top management as well
as the organizational members to be equipped with organizational knowledge.
Previous studies showed that leaders support is seemed to be an essential factor in
promoting learning cultures in an organisation. However, to what extend this is true in
especially in the local setting. Therefore, this study intends to examine the
relationship between leadership styles and organisational learning among the
academics in Malaysian higher educational institutions. Using a stage cluster
sampling, a total of 120 academics from both public and private higher educational
institutions participated in the study. The result revealed that there was a positive and
moderate relationship between organisational learning and transformational
leadership. The implications of the study will be discussed.
Key words: organizational learning, transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, commitment, openness
Introduction
In todays changing and dynamic environment, many organizations including higher
learning institutions are required to adapt to changes or else be left out in this
competitive world. There are many driving forces that trigger the need for
organizational change such as globalization, deregulation, and the advancement of
ICT and communication technology. Thus, in order for organisational members to
cope with issues external and internal threat, organisational learning is gaining
prevalent attention as a crucial need for global strategic effectiveness (Doz, Santos &
Williamson, 2001). The ability to learn faster is the only significant features for
sustaining organisational advantage in future and thus, this competitive advantage can
be accomplished by employing organisational learning during organisational
transformation (Kapp, 1999). Tsang (1997) and Easterby and Lyles (2003) define
organisational learning as the study of and within an organisation learning processes.
Nevertheless, whether in private or public organisations, organisational learning is a
process of individual learning engaged in initiating and seeking knowledge. This is
done for institutionalisation purposes in facilitating the organisation to be more
GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)
WorldConferences.net

125

adaptable proactively, subject to its developmental level (Castaneda & Rios, 2007).
Accordingly, managers are forced to improve their organisations competiveness by
encountering customer demands, innovating new products and embracing new
technology in current competitive driven era (Akhtar & Ahmad Khan, 2011). In order
to stay ahead of competitors, organisations need to enhance current competencies by
developing organisational productivity and performance. Therefore, it is a must for
organisation to have more flexible, adaptable and proactive organisations. In
achieving this, one requirement has to be fulfilled that is to learn faster than the
competitors (de Geus, 1988). Hence, it is agreeable by many researchers that learn
faster is the only way to remain competitive advantage Senge (1990).
The concepts of organizational learning
Scholars have proposed a variety of definitions of organizational learning. According
to Argyris (1977), organizational learning is a process of detecting and correcting
error. Probst and Bchel (1997) go further, defining organizational learning as the
ability of the institution as a whole to discover errors and correct them and to change
the organizations knowledge base and values so as to generate new problem-solving
skills and new capacity for action. On the other hand, Chiva & Alegre, (2005) suggest
that organisational learning is the process of shared construction of mutual beliefs and
meanings, whereby social context plays a significance role. The outcomes of learning
and behaviour of its people resulted to the development of a learning organisation
(Honey & Munford, 1992; Senge, 1990, in Wang & Ahmed, 2003). Organisations are
places where individuals deliberately network with each others through processes of
knowledge seeking and experience gaining (Kolb, 1984; Honey & Mumford, 1992).
Therefore, valuing, managing and developing individual growth should be the most
important aim in a learning organisation (Scarbrough, Swan & Preston, 1998).
Literature suggested that organizational learning capability is an intricate
multidimensional constructs and is a useful measurement of organizational learning
(Santos-Vijande et al., 2005, Hult and Ferrell, 1997). According to Goh and Richards
(1997) organizational learning capability is the ability of an organization to
implement the appropriate management practices, structures and procedures that
facilitate and encourage learning. In fact, they identifies five dimensions including
clarity of purpose and mission, leadership commitment and empowerment,
experimentation and rewards, transfer of knowledge, teamwork and group problem
solving, and it establishes a learning scale made up of 21 items. On the other hand,
Templeton et al. (2002) asserts that organizational learning consist of awareness,
communication, performance assessment, intellectual cultivation, environmental
adaptability, social learning, intellectual capital management and organizational
grafting.
Jerez-Gmez et al. (2005) define organizational learning capability as an
organization's ability to process knowledge (i.e. create, acquire, transfer and integrate
knowledge) and change its behaviour to reflect the new cognitive situation, with the
idea of improving its performance. They identify four dimensions in this capability:
the managers commitment to learning, the companys strategic vision,
experimentation, and the transfer and integration of knowledge. The first dimension,
managements commitment to learning, supports and encourages the acquisition,
creation and transfer of knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The second
GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)
WorldConferences.net

126

dimension, the firms systematic vision, is key to getting employees to understand that
the organization is oriented to learning (Williams, 2001), because having a common
idea about the degree to which the company is oriented to learning is seen as giving
meaning and generating identity (McGuill et al., 1992). The third dimension,
openness and experimentation, refers to the entry of new ideas and perspectives,
internal and external, allowing for the constant renewal, extension and improvement
of individual knowledge (Slocum et al., 1994). Finally, transfer implies the extension
of knowledge acquired individually to other people (McGuill and Slocum, 1993),
while integration involves creating organizational memory by means of routines and
processes (Huber, 1991). This study adapted Jerez-Gmez et al. (2005) model to
understand organizational learning in a higher learning context.
The relationship between Organizational learning and leadership behaviour
Much of the studies on Organizational leaning have been focused on business entities
and scanty studies in the area of higher learning institutions. Hence, in order for
institutions to remain at competitive edge, it seems pertinent to investigate the
Malaysian higher education institutions for the obstructive factors detection and the
progress strategies development in order to take cumulative steps towards learning
organization. However, in the process of adopting organizational learning framework,
White and Weathersby (2005) listed a number of barriers that hinder universities from
becoming learning organisations. These include crisis of strategy, structure and
culture, plus academic background conflicts. Then, Dill (1999) emphasised that
accountability is required for universities to accomplish their aims to construct
organisational learning. This is significant at different levels, for example Middlehurst
(1999) suggested that academic leadership is supposed to consider social interaction
as a process in facilitating individuals and groups towards specific goals. Leaders
have significant responsibilities in a learning organisation as they not only take up
commitment to change (Senge, 1996), but also improve ability of organisational
members to learn. In addition, Ulrich, Jick and von Glinow (1993) supported that
leader behaviours will reflect upon organisational system and teamwork, also as a
decision maker. Leaders of a learning organisation inspire a clear, mutual sense of
objectives to encourage collaborative work, authorisation investigation and risktaking (Locke & Jain, 1995). Hence, leadership responsibility and empowerment is
recommended as a feature of a learning organisation (Yuraporn Sudharatna & Laubie
Li, 2004).
Zagorsek et al. (2009) illustrated that leadership has the utmost effect on behavioural
and cognitive changes, in fact is the ultimate significant stage of the learning process
in organisation. There are two approaches on how leadership influences change in
behaviour and mind. Firstly, leadership influences them during the prior informationprocessing stage of the organisational learning process. Through the facilitation on
organisational information-processing, changes in the behaviours and mentality of
organisational members are supported simultaneously to deal with changes in
business setting, internally and externally. Nevertheless, leaders also influence the
behaviour and mentality directly in addition to the indirect influence during
information. In terms of strategic point of view, Marsick and Watkins (2003)
discovered on how leadership roles play the most important factor throughout all
organisational level in the process of organisational learning. Brown and Posner
(2001) discovered significant relationship between transformational leadership styles
GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)
WorldConferences.net

127

to composite (challenge, inspire, enable, model, encourage) learning in organisations.

In addition, Farrell et al. (2004) found positive connection between transformational
leadership and organisational learning in the matter of information sharing and
exchanging and hence, showed motivational factors that transformational leaders
acquire in encouraging employees to achieving organisational learning objectives. To
this end, study by Amitay, Popper and Lipshitz (2005) and Jansen, Vera, and Crossan
(2009) also revealed positive correlation of transformational leadership with
organisational learning. Organisational learning has been much discussed in Western
context and the outcomes on organisation always shown positive result. However,
scanty study has been conducted in local context and it is claimed that the
implementation is still misleading and no clear prescription has been specified
(Ahmad, 2009). Therefore, this study intends to examine the relationship between
leadership behaviour and organizational learning in Malaysian learning institutions.
Objectives of the study
The objectives of the study are two-fold, namely to determine (a) the level of
organisational learning and perceived leadership styles of academics of Malaysian
higher educational institutions (b) the relationship between leadership behaviour and
organizational learning among academics of Malaysian higher educational
institutions.
Methodology
This study was based on a conceptual framework that combines part of the adapted
theory of organizational learning capacity (Gomez, et al (2005) and transformational
leadership theory (Bass, 1985). In this study, organizational learning measured the
capability of an organisation to process knowledge. Hence, Gomez et. al (2005)
developed Organisational Learning Capability (OLC) questionnaire which measured
four dimensions respectively managerial commitment, system perspective, openness
and experimentation and knowledge transfer and integration. The questionnaire is a 7Likert Scale ranging from Strongly Disagree = 1 to Strongly Agree = 7. The
perceived leadership behaviour (the independent variable), is reflected in the
transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985). An instrument called the multifactor
leadership style questionnaire (MLQ-5x form) was developed from Bass and Avolio
(1990) and used in the study. The instrument consisted of 45 items which measured
the full-range of leadership styles and behaviours namely Transformational
Leadership, Transactional Leadership and Augmentation Effect among the
Subordinates. The leaders behaviours depicted in each item were measured using 5point scale where 4= frequently, if not always, 3 = fairly often, 2 = sometimes,
1 = once in a while and 0 = not at all. The MLQ is strongly predictive of leader
performance (Bass, 1997). The samples were drawn from the academic staff of the
Malaysian higher learning institutions. Hence, based on Cohens formulas (1992), a
sample size of 150 was determined however, only 120 responded the questionnaires.
Pearsons Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) was used to measure the
strength and direction of the relationship between leadership behaviour and
organizational learning.

GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)

WorldConferences.net

128

Findings
Research objective 1a: Analysis on the level of organizational learning among
the academic staff of the Malaysian learning institutions.
Table 1a: The Levels of Organisational Learning
Level
Low (Less than 2.99)
Moderate (3.00 5.00)
High (5.01 7.00)

Frequency (N = 120)

Percentage (%)

4
76
40

3.3
63.3
33.3

Table 1a showed the levels of organisational learning among academics of Malaysian

higher educational institutions. The result revealed that 63.3% or 76 of the
respondents perceived that organisational learning at theirs organisation was
moderate. Meanwhile, about 40 respondents or (33.3%) perceived that organisational
learning was high. Yet, only four respondents or (3.3%) perceived that organisational
learning was low at theirs organisation. Further analysis was carried out to examine
each of the dimensions of organizational learning and the result is as follow:
Table 1b: Dimensions of Organisational Learning
Dimensions of Organisational Learning

Mean

Std. Deviation

Managerial Commitment
System Perspective
Openness and Experimentation
Knowledge Transfer and Integration

4.665
4.838
4.946
4.444

.861
1.055
1.030
.694

Mean indicator- Low (Less than

2.99)
moderate (3.00 5.00)
High (5.01 7.00)
The means score of the four dimensions of organisational learning measured were
4.665 (managerial commitment), 4.838 (system perspective), 4.946 (openness and
experimentation) and 4.444 (knowledge transfer and integration). Hence, the findings
showed that the respondents capability towards organisational learning were
moderate, indicating that an average capability to support organisational learning
process.
Research objective 1b: Analysis on Transformational Leadership behaviour of the
superior as perceived by the academic staff of Higher learning Institutions in
Malaysia
Based on five-point Likert scale ranged from 0 to 4, the results showed that the mean
score for perceived transformational leadership styles was 2.343 with a standard
deviation of .816. On the other hand, the mean score for transactional leadership style
was 1.73 with a standard deviation of .512. The result indicated that the respondents
GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)
WorldConferences.net

129

perceived that their superior exhibit moderate level of both transformational and
transactional leadership behaviour. However, the finding also suggest that the
academic staff perceived that their leaders were slightly more towards having
transformational leadership behaviour ( mean= 2.343, std dev= .816) as compared to
transactional leadership behaviour ( mean= 173, std dev= . 512)
Table 2: The Transformational Leadership Style Score

Transformational Leadership Style

mean =2.343

std dev= 0.816

Transactional Leadership Style

Mean =1.73

std dev= 0.512

Mean indicator- Low= 0.00 -1.33,

1.34-2.67, high 2.68- 4.0

moderate-

Research objective 2: Analysis on the relationship between organizational learning

and leadership behaviour.
The Pearson product moment correlation analysis was run to analyse the relationship
between organisational learning, leadership styles and emotional intelligence. As
shown in Table 3 below, the study revealed that there was a positive and moderate
relationship between organisational learning and transformational leadership (r = 539,
p <0.01). For perceived transformational leadership style, the correlation with
organizational learning was .539 and the direction of the relationship was positive.
The data showed that there was a moderate and significant relationship between
perceived transformational leadership style and organisational learning (r = .539, p <
0.000). By squaring the correlation and then multiplying by 100, the percentage of the
variability is shared can be determined. 0.5392 = 0.29, multiplied by 100 would be
29%. Hence, perceived transformational leadership shared about 29% of its variability
with organisational learning. As for perceived transactional leadership behaviour and
organisational learning, the study reported that there was weak correlation between
both variables (r = .122, p > 0.01). Lei et al. (1999); Senge (1990), and Swieringa and
Wierdsma (1992) illustrated the importance of leadership for organisational learning.

Table 3: Correlation Matrix Analysis of Organisational Learning and Leadership

behaviour
Variables
1
2
3
1. Organisational
Learning
2. Transformational
3. Transactional

1.00
.539** 1.00
.122 .408**

1.00

Discussion and Conclusion

GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)
WorldConferences.net

130

This study was aimed to investigate the relationship between organisational learning
and perceived leadership behaviour. The conclusions drawn from the study do not
reflect on all academics of higher educational institutions of Malaysia as a whole but
limited to only the small sample studied in selected universities. The finding reveals
that the level of organisational learning among academics of higher educational
institutions of Malaysia was at moderate. With regards to the organisational learning
dimensions, the findings showed that the respondents viewed openness and
experimentation as moderately high indicating a positive attitude towards promoting a
climate of openness whereby individualism is avoided yet readiness is built for
collective opinions and experiences. The result also in line with what Yukl (2009)
described on fundamental key of organisational learning that is collective learning by
members of organisation. Moreover, as suggested by Marsick and Watkins (1990), at
group level of learning, members of organisations gradually enhanced performance
and at the same time open dialogue and group discussion were practiced for diverse
opinions. Thus, for organisations to promote organisational learning, it is essential for
members of organisation to understand the importance of collective opinions and
experiences so that each individual is motivated to seek knowledge for self
development and practice lifelong learning. In addition, the mean score for system
perspective was also moderately high. In relation to this, Hult and Ferrell (1997)
illustrated that system perspective dealt with the efforts by members of organisations
in enhancing performance towards achieving the organisations objective. In this
view, current trends in most higher education systems reflect on the increased
variation in purposes, goals and objectives (Askling & Kristensen, 2000) and this is
significantly relevant to the result shown. This study also found that the academic
staff perceived that their superior s exhibit more transformational leadership
behaviour. In line with leadership paradigm, the finding of the study was supported by
Snell (2001) where the author suggested that transformational leadership ability is one
of the essential keys that contributed to the development of learning organisations.
Another significant result shows that there was a positive and moderate relationship
between organisational learning and transformational leadership. This is in line with
the study done by Brown and Posner (2001). In fact, their study showed that
transformational leadership was significantly linked to composite learning in
organisations. Hence, leaders must prepare followers with learning environment to
support the continuous change to enhance through knowledge acquisition and
understanding. Leadership is defined as process of influencing a group towards the
achievements of goals and a leader as someone who can influence others and who
has managerial authority (Robbins & Coultar, 2005). Respectable leadership
attributes required in learning organisation would be suggested to be transformational
leadership, yet it can also be transactional. Hence, both leaders would be good for
organisational learning but more transformational and less transactional is agreeable
(Bass, 2000). In respect to educational setting, study by Yu and Jantzi (2002) found
that transformational leaders were found to be responsible for initiating changes in
organisational culture, strategies and structures to be competitive as in the corporate
setting. Moreover, Barnett et al. (2001) also argued that transformational leadership is
essential to support trust, respect and stimulate members of organisation towards
change, enhancements and effectiveness in an education environment. In terms of
learning, Brown and Posner (2001) study showed that transformational leadership was
significantly linked to composite learning in organisations. Hence, leaders must
prepare followers with learning environment to support the continuous change to
GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)
WorldConferences.net

131

enhance through knowledge acquisition and understanding. During organisational

change for organisational learning, transformational leadership qualities are required
to generate followers empowerment to change from one condition to another (Shamir
et. al, 1993; Yukl, 1999 in Jones & Rudd, 2007). Although the study showed the level
of organisational learning was moderate, the presence of transformational leadership
hence is a catalyst towards the development process of a learning organization.
Moreover, leadership studies found that transformational leaders are more effective,
innovative and give satisfaction to followers. Hence, in motivating higher educational
institutions in Malaysia, leaders and academics members could be provided with a
fresh and measureable organisational learning programme. The need for
organisational learning programme is at paramount importance to instil learning
culture within organisation. Hence, although higher education is naturally a learning
institution, the learning culture is not much practiced within organisational members.
The directions towards organisational learning could be improved by introducing
Organisational Learning Programme.

References
Askling, B. & Kristensen, B. (2000). Towards the Learning Organisation:
Implications
for institutional governance and leadership. Journal of the
Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education, 12(2): 17-42.
Akhtar, N. & Ahmad Khan, R. (2011). Exploring the paradox of organisational
learning and learning organisation. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in
Business, 2(9): 257-270.
Amitay, M., Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2005). Leadership styles and organizational
learning in community clinics. The learning Organization. (12)1, 57-70.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ). City: Mind Garden. Redwood.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to
share the vision. Organisational Dynamics, 18: 19-31.
Brown, L. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2001). Exploring the relationship between learning
and
leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(5): 274-280.
Castaneda, D. I. & Rios, M. F. (2007). From individual learning to organisational
learning. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4): 363-372.
Chiva, R., & Alegre, J. (2005). Organizational learning and organizational knowledge:
Towards the integration of two approaches. Management Learning, 36(1): 47
66.
De Geus, Arie P. (1988). Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review, MarchApril
Dill, D. D. (1999). Academic accountability and university adaptation: The
architecture
of an academic learning organisation. Higher Education, 38:
127-154.
GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)
WorldConferences.net

132

Doz, Y., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. (2001). From global to metanational: How
companies win in the knowledge economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Easterby-Smith, M. & Lyles, M. A. (2003). Introduction: Watersheds of organisational
learning and knowledge management. Handbook of Organizational Learning
and Knowledge. Oxford, England: Blackwell Press
Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1992). The Manual of Learning Styles. Peter Honey:
Maidenhead.
Hult, G. T. & Ferrell, O. C. (1997). Global organisational learning capacity in
purchasing: Construct and measurement. J Bus Res, 40: 97-111.
Jansen, J., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and
exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The
Leadership
Quarterly, 20(1): 5-18.
Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J. & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organisational
learning capability: A proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research,
58: 715-725.
Jones, D. W. & Rudd, R. D. (2007). Transactional, transformational or laissez-faire
leadership: An assessment of College Agriculture Academic Program Leaders
(Deans Leadership Styles). Proceedings of the 2007 AAAE Research
Conferences, 34: 520-530.
Kapp, K. P. (1999). Transforming your manufacturing organisation into a learning
organisation. Hospital material Management Quarterly, 20(4): 46-54.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lei, D., Slocum, J. W. & Pitts, R. A. (1999). Designing organizations for competitive
advantage: The power of unlearning and learning. Organizational Dynamic,
37(3): 24-38.
Locke, E. A. & Jain, V. K. (1995). Organisational learning and continuous
improvement. The International Journal of Organisation al Analysis, 3(1): 4568.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organizations
learning culture: The Dimensions of Learning Organizations Questionnaire.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5: 132151.
McGill, M. E., Slocum, J. W., & Lei, D. (1992). Management practices in learning
organisations. Organisation Dynamics, 21(1): 5-17.
Robbins, S. P., & Coultar, M. (2005). Management (8th ed.), Pearson Education, Inc.
Scarbrough, H.m San, J. & Preston, J. (1998). Knowledge Management: A Literature
Review. Institute of Personnel and Development: London.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. London: Random House Business Books
Shamir, B., House, R. J. & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of
charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science,
4(4): 577-594.
Snell, R. S. (2001). Moral Foundations of the Learning Organisation. Human
Relations,
54(3): 339-362.
Swieringa, J. & Wierdsma, A. (1992): Becoming a Learning Organization. Reading,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Tsang, Eric W.K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A
dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1).
Ulrich, D., Jick, T. & von Glinow, M.A. (1993). High-impact learning: building and
GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)
WorldConferences.net

133

diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2): 52-66.

Wang C. L. & Ahmed, P. K. (2003). Organisational learning: a critical review. The
Learning Organization, 10(1): 8-17.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization:
Lessons in the Art and Science Of Systemic Change. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
White, J. & Weathersby, R. (2005). Can universities become true learning
organizations? The Learning Organization, 12(3): 292-298.
Yu ,H.K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The effects of transformational leadership on teachers
commitment to change in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration,
40(3): 368-389.
Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organisational learning: Reflections on theory and research.
The Leadership Quarterly, 20: 49-53.
Yuraporn Sudharatna & Laubie Li. (2004). Learning organisation characteristics
contributed to its readiness-to-change: A study of the Thai mobile phone
service industry. Managing Global Transitions, 2(2): 163-178.
Zagorsek, H., Dimovski, V., and Skerlavaj, M. (2009). Transactional and
transformational leadership impacts on organizational learning. Journal for
East
European Management Studies, JEEMS: 14(2): 145-165.

GSE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 2013 (ISSN 2289-3970)

WorldConferences.net

134