Tải bản đầy đủ
4 Relationship among AL, LO and OP
Nemanich, Waldman, Galvin & Keller, 2006; Vera & Crossan, as cited in Mazutis &
However, what leadership style has an influence to LO and its strong or weak
impact still lack of much research. Some researches mention leadership style
including transactional and transformational leadership affect to learning organization
(Singh, 2008; Vera & Crossan, 2004; Milic et al., 2012). Mazutis and Slawinski
(2008) research about authentic leadership impact to learning organization.
Previous works have only focused on transactional or transformational
leadership is an effective way for organizational learning without paying attention on
adaptive leadership. Therefore, in order to examine influence of adaptive leadership
on characteristics of the learning organization, at the individual, group and
organizational levels, the proposal relationship is drawn with employing of the
Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) (Marsick & Watkins,
2003) along with applied Adaptive Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ). It is possible to
discover correlations among them that are statistically significant. By linking these
two concepts researchers could provide a new insight on learning organization and
leadership that has not been considered previously.
Hypothesis 1: Adaptive leadership positively influences learning organization.
In accordance with many similarities as well as update new proper elements
between different concepts for AL, AL based on the concept of Torres and Reeves
(2011) is chosen. Because it covers almost every aspect of Heifetz who is considered
create the AL concept. For instance, the construct: navigating the environment of
Torres and Reeves has a lot of similar points for “identify the type of problem” of
Heifetz, two constructs also mention the role of leader who has to identify the
adaptive challenges to handle it in the context flexible. It is similar to most of other
constructs of the researchers.
Leadership and organizational learning are both fundamental to effective
organizational functioning (Berson et al., 2006).
According to Yang (2003), there is important potential relationship between
learning organization and perceived changes in knowledge and financial performance.
In the next research is done by Yang, Watkins, and Marsick (2004) show that having
positive relationship between learning capability and financial performance.
Moreover, LO is considered as a valuable strategy for creating enhancement in OP to
remain competitive in market (Davis & Daley, as cited in Alipour & Karimi, 2011).
Additional study of Goh et al. (2012) conclude that there is a positive relationship
between learning capability and organizational performance with a stronger results for
non-financial than financial performance. Some above studies lead to the hypothesis
for learning organization and organizational performance.
Hypothesis 2: Learning organization positively influences on organizational
In the same way to choose appropriate construct for LO, the measurement scale
of Marsick and Watkins is selected instead of Garvin. Because there are many similar
points between two researchers’ outlook. Nonetheless, measurement scale is
developed by Marsick and Watkins is tested by some different researchers and it also
contains questionnaire for organizational performance. Thus, the direction of research
will be employed conveniently.
In regard to leadership style and organizational performance aspect, some
studies have suggested that effective leadership style can increase performance in
difficult circumstances. (McGrath & MacMillan, Teece et al., as cited in Obiwuru,
Okwu, Akpa & Nwankwere, 2011). Additionally, leadership behavior has considered
as potential management tool as well as sustained competitive advantage for
organizational performance (Avolio, Lado et al., Rowe, as cited in Obiwuru et al.,
2011). The particular relationship has found out as follows: transactional leadership
makes organizations fulfill current goals effectively (Zhu et al., as cited in Obiwuru et
al., 2011), visionary leadership also creates the high levels of performance such as
commitment, trust, motivation, satisfaction, and so on. (Zhu et al., Avolio, McShane
& VonGlinow, as cited in Obiwuru et al., 2011). According to Obiwuru et al. (2011)
showed that transactional leadership and transformational leadership had positive
impact on performance, however, transactional leadership had stronger effect on
performance than transformational leadership.
As a result, leadership style is viewed as one of the key driving forces for
improving a firm’s performance. Hence, AL is proposed as one of those leadership
Hypothesis 3: Adaptive leadership positively influences organizational performance.
The hypotheses and research model.
These relationships above lead to research model and following hypotheses:
Figure 2.2 Research model
There are total three hypotheses established for this study:
H1: Adaptive leadership positively influences learning organization.
H2: Learning organization positively influences on organizational performance.
H3: Adaptive leadership positively influences organizational performance.
In summary, this chapter shows conceptual background of each notion in
research model. Besides, it also points out the positive effect on linkages among three
concepts adaptive leadership, learning organization and organizational performance
on the basic of previous researches. These concepts are studied and analyzed seriously
to find out the suitable constructs correspond to each concepts such as LO and OP will
use some dimensions of Marsick and Watkins, the other AL will use some variables of
Torres and Reeves. From the discussion and argument in literature above, three
hypotheses are proposed for this study. The next chapter will discuss about research
procedure, methodology that used to analyze the data collected.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter introduced research method used to adjust and evaluate
measurement scale, theoretical model and hypotheses. This chapter included four
parts: 1/ research design, 2/ measurement scale for each of concept, 3/ pilot research,
4/ introduce the main research.
3.1 Research design
3.1.1 Research method
The research was conducted by two periods: pilot research and main research.
The sample of this study was chemical companies worked in the fields of foodstuff,
rubber, paper, paint & coating, dyeing, trading, packaging, gypsum, synthetic
polymer, detergent, etc. These enterprises were appropriate structure to assure that
organizational and strategy variables apply. (Miller, as cited in Luu, 2013). There
were 29 companies altogether which attended the survey and reached two criteria:
1/ revenue is at least Vietnam Dong 25 billion. According to Ministry of Planning and
Investment, 2008 (as cited in Luu, 2013) based on average sales of small enterprises in
Vietnam market context.
2/ at least 100 employees are working.
In regard to survey sampling, the data was collected by snowball sampling
method; it based on the relationship with old friends who are working at chemical
companies. The hard copies were printed and send to some target middle managers
through introducing from the author’s friends. Additionally, the respondents were
encouraged to recommend the questionnaire to other managers who belonged to the
target population of interest (Malhotra & Birk, as cited in Luu, 2013), i.e. sale &
marketing, finance, accounting, human resource, and technical department. In
addition, the soft questions also sent via email to respondents, however, this form was
account for only 13.28 percent. Middle management members involved in the survey
since they have a great advantage to observe high as well as low levels of
organizational structure than would lower level members. (Luu, 2013). Moreover,
middle managers were considered as bridge to exchange of ideas a learning culture
(Rush, as cited in Luu, 2013). Another reason was the measurement scale for
performance that individuals at different level in organization can take the survey,
however often; only middle or higher level manager will feel comfortable giving
answer for performance questions (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). All of the responses
had been collected within six weeks.
3.1.2 Research procedure
Research procedure was presented in Figure 3.1
Cronbach alpha’s coefficient
Item – total correlation test
research (n = 90)
Total variance extracted test
research (n = 128)
Rotated Component Matrix
Theoretical model test
Competitive model test
Theoretical model estimation
Convergent validity and
discriminant validity test
Figure 3.1 Research procedure
The pilot research was implemented through two methods: qualitative and
quantitative method. The aim of pilot qualitative found, modulated to increase
suitability level in the context of Vietnam and determined other factors the
participants interested in to add some suitable observations. The step made the
measurement scale become more proper for Vietnam context and easy to understand
for respondents. This method conducted deeply interview with five target participants
who were in charge of manager position and had experience for the research topic,
along with instruction, comments, and advices from supervisor. In order to adjust
wording, received their comment to explain queries more clearly and ignore some
puzzling questions. Total six questions were deleted due to not appropriate with
business activities in organization and difficult for participants to understand. These
questions were shown in Appendix 3.3. Therefore, the questionnaire reduced from 47
The pilot quantitative evaluated preliminary reliability and validity of
measurement scale and adjusted to make it more fitting for target respondents. The
sample for pilot research was 90 samples; the data was collected by snowball
sampling method from the 18 chemical companies. After this step, the questionnaire
reduced from 41 to 23.
In main quantitative research, total 29 companies attended survey with total
128 people; the snowball sampling was also used to collect data. The questionnaire
included 23 items.
3.2 Measurement scales
The LO and OP measurement scale was used from the existing scale in the
market. As concerns AL measurement scale was used based on the new standpoint in
3.2.1 Learning organization
This construct was measured by Dimension of Learning Organization
Questionnaire (DLOQ-A) (Marsick &Watkins, 2003), this was a short version which
consisted of 21 statements and used a six-point rating system. These questions divided
into three levels: learning at an individual, team, and organizational level. The first
level was the individual level, which composed of two dimensions of organizational
learning: continuous learning along with dialogue and inquiry. The second element
was the team or group level, which was reflected by team learning and collaboration.
The third factor was the organizational level, which had four dimensions of
organizational learning: embedded systems, system connections, empowerment, and
provide leadership for learning. (Marsick & Watkins, as cited in Yang, 2003).
The short version included three adequate measurement items for each of the
seven dimensions and had better psychometric properties in terms of the formation of
an adequate measurement model. This was multidirectional measurement scale with
3.2.2 Adaptive leadership
A 14 items instructed adapted from Torres and Reeves (2011) was utilized to
measure Adaptive leadership dimensions. And 14 items was divided into four
dimensions included: navigating the environment, leading with empathy, learning
through self-correction, creating win-win solutions.
3.2.3 Organizational performance
Organizational performance was measured through Marsick and Watkins
(2003) diagnostic survey questionnaire, which encompassed 12 statements under two
dimensions: perceptual financial performance (6 statements), knowledge capital (6
statements) and used a six-point rating system.
These concepts had different Likert scale and had been transformed to scores
on a scale from 1 to 5 to ensure consistency.
Table 3.1 Measurement scale
Navigating the environment
1. Leaders manage the context in which people interact, not the instruction set.
2. Leaders cultivate a diversity of perspective to generate many options.
3. Leaders allow leadership to be shared and emerge from the given context.
4. Leaders constantly question the world around you.
Leading with empathy
5. Leaders see the world through the eyes of others.
6. Leaders create a shared sense of purpose.
7. Leaders reward accomplishment with autonomy.
Learning through self-correction
8. Leaders enable people to learn through experimentation.
9. Leaders develop your signal advantage.
10. Leaders increase the agility with which the organization is able to correct itself.
Creating win - win solutions
11. Leaders build platforms for collaboration.
12. Leaders deploy leadership influence beyond the boundaries of the firm.
13. Leaders align the business model with a broader ecological context to create social
advantage and strengthen business sustainability.
14. Leaders use different leadership styles flexibility for different environment.
Individual level composed: create continuous learning (1->3);
promote inquiry (4->6)
1. In my organization, people help each other learn.
2. In my organization, people are given time to support learning.
3. In my organization, people are rewarded for learning.
4. In my organization, people give open and honest feedback to each other.
5. In my organization, whenever people state their view, they also ask what others
6. In my organization, people spend time building trust with each other.
Team level was reflected by team learning and collaboration (7->9)
7. In my organization, teams/groups have the freedom to adapt their goals as needed.
8. In my organization, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of group
discussions or information collected.
9. In my organization, teams/groups are confident that the organization will act on their
Organization level included: embedded systems (10->12),
empowerment (13->15), system connections (16->18), and provide
leadership for learning (19-> 21)
10. My organization creates systems to measure gaps between current and expected
11. My organization makes its lessons learned available to all employees.
12. My organization measures the results of the time and resources spent on training.
13. My organization recognizes people for taking initiative.
14. My organization gives people control over the resources they need to accomplish
15. My organization supports employees who take calculated risks.
16. My organization encourages people to think from a global perspective.
17. My organization works together with the outside community to meet mutual needs.