Microsoft Word Final of Thesis Thai Van Trung Hieu Mbus 2 3 13 04 2014 UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH CITY International School of Business Thai Van Trung Hieu THE LINKAGES AMONG ADAPTIVE LEADERS[.]
INTRODUCTION
Research background
We are living in the world where changing happen continually Currently, organizations confront a turbulent market; business environment becomes fierce competition and unpredictable changing Thus, in order to survive and continue developing, they have to enhance their ability through learning process (Burke et al.,
2006) De Geus (as cited in Dimovski, Skerlavaj, Kimman & Hernaus, 2008, p 3063) states that “ability to learn faster than your competitors might be the only sustainable competitive advantage you have” In addition, according to Haley and Lazouskas
(2008) the learning organization (LO) is that the successful organization must continually adapt and learn in order to respond to changes in environment and to grow
Besides, adapting with changing environment through learning, organization needs leaders who have ability to confront the chaotic conditions This requires one leadership style that can learn and confront new situation that never know before
Therefore, adaptive leadership (AL) becomes a vital factor, because AL relates to learning capability for adaptive challenges which considers matter as difficult to identify, require changes in values, attitude, and beliefs to work In contrast to technical problems that is easy to recognize and carry out available solutions (Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009) Cojocar (2008, p 6) states that “Adaptive leadership is not about individuals and how well they are doing; it is about understanding adaptive pressures and dynamics and being able to use those insights to be more successful in leading change.”
Additionally, when the organization adopt the features described as factors of
LO, it will be improved for performance (Senge, Holton & Kaiser, as cited in Haley &
Lazouskas, 2008) Hence, the positive result of LO is what the enterprises want to achieve It should be improved in outcome when LO is applied in firm
Presently, Vietnam organizations are coping with difficult situation from macro-economy According to Dinh Thanh reporter come from Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) described that “In 2012, thousands of Vietnam’s enterprises suffered losses, bankruptcy and closed down Entering 2013, according to many experts, although the economy will gradually recover, there won’t be many opportunities for enterprises due to tight credit policies maintained by the Government” Thus, firms are under pressure to restructure and enhance competitiveness to be adaptive to the environment and responsive to change
Organizations want to continue surviving and expanding business activities need to absorb knowledge that can help an organization to diagnose the sign of difficulties in become organizational learning A lot of organizations had changed their business model; however, some improvement programs meet fail than succeed One of the reasons, leaders do not realize and commitment to learning to adapt and develop sustainably (Garvin, 1993) Hence, leaders have to know how to learn and choose what appropriate model to learn that helps each individual and organization perceive the important role of learning which will transform a normal organization to learning organization
According to discussion between Dr Nguyen Huu Lam director of Center for Excellence in Management Development (CEMD) belong to Ho Chi Minh University of Economics with Bridge Investment newspaper, he said when business environment changed rapidly and knowledge increase sharply, who learn better and faster will be become winner Beside, learning creates ability to adapt with turbulent market
Vietnamese enterprises should improve considering learning as short term vision
They need to comprehend learning is a strategy that will engage with mission and vision tightly The organization is the same individual, they want to exist they have to learn and learn to live better (Nguyen, 2011).
Research questions
LO has been considered to be one of the most important strategies to gain competitive advantage and organizational performance (Marsick & Watkins, 2003), related literature lacks conclusive to support the effect of learning organization on organizational performance (Moilanen, Weldy, as cited in Alipour & Karimi, 2011)
Beside the influence of LO for performance, the impact of leadership styles on organizational performance (OP) has also been a topic of interest among academics and practitioners working in the area of leadership (Fatima & Al-Balqa, 2012)
Fenwick have devoted considerable attention to the potential effects of leadership on
OP Despite increased research into the leadership-performance relationship, major gaps still remain in our understanding (Fenwick et al., as cited in Fatima & Al-Balqa,
There are many factors affect to the development of learning organization and therein leadership is emphasized as the key element (Senge, Bass, as cited in Milic, Dudjak & Grubic-Nesic, 2012) However, literature rarely addresses the particular relationship between AL and LO
These queries above lead to critical questions what leadership behaviors will have influence in creating and maintaining learning organizations? After selecting adaptive leadership, the research come up with a new question how the relationship between adaptive leadership and learning organization because two notions also support organization face up to turbulent environment and whether developing a learning organization lead to improved organizational performance or not? This is certainly important questions for organizations in all industries
Three vital questions to check linkage among three constructs:
1/ Whether adaptive leadership affect on the learning organization or not?
2/ Whether learning organization have any impact to organizational
3/ Whether adaptive leadership have any effect to organizational performance or not?
By addressing these research questions which will help the reader know more the gap exist in the literature between adaptive leadership and LO as well as the linkages among adaptive leadership, learning organization and organizational performance.
Research objectives
This research aims to endeavor to bridge a gap in literature by examining the three constructs – adaptive leadership, learning organization, and organizational performance since offering insight for these relationships
Moreover, the research will support some necessary information for organizations that are looking for solutions to overcome the crisis, and adapt to change.
Research methodology and research scope
The aim of this study is to test measurement scale and conceptual model This research uses questionnaire to collect data with sample size 128 in the main research that obtains through snowball sampling method The measurement scale is evaluated through two steps First, the preliminary assessment uses Cronbach alpha and EFA method with SPSS software Then, the measurement scale and research model are examined through SEM method by using AMOS software
The research is conducted at companies which do business in the field of chemical products in Ho Chi Minh City This is one of the most important fields and has made significant contributions to development of the economy.
Research contribution
The thesis result supply knowledge for building LO and apply adaptive leadership style in organization to reach the best possible results
Applying measurement scale for adaptive leadership is become meaningful in the further research Also, deploying this measurement scale will bring more advantages than research AL based on case study method.
Research structure
This thesis is divided into five sections:
The first section gives a brief overview of the main reason lead to research topic, some practical information about Vietnamese enterprises, the important of research goals and major contribution for Vietnam context
The second section describes some related concepts and linkages among them Thence, building theoretical model and put forward the hypotheses
In the third section a methodology is presented to appraise measurement scale, research model and hypotheses proposed
Data analysis is described in the fourth section along with research results
Conclusions, implications and limitations are drawn in the final section.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Learning organization (LO)
We need to know who are pioneers to create and disseminate this concept as well as the current theories for LO In literature review, the “founders” in this field such as: Peter Senge, Chris Agyris, Donald Schon, and Margaret Wheatley have made significant contributions (Cors, 2003)
Senge is father of learning organization in 1990 (Haley & Lazouskas, 2008)
According to Senge (1990, p 3) in his publication The Fifth Discipline- The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, learning organization is an organization “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” The five disciplines are:
1/ Systems thinking: understand how their company really works
2/ Personal mastery: learn to be open with others
3/ Mental models: people put aside their old ways of thinking
4/ Shared vision: form a plan everyone can agree on
5/ Team learning: and then work together to achieve that vision
Chris Argyris, is well known for distinguishing between double-loop learning and single-loop learning (Cors, 2003) Single-loop learning mentioned about routine activities which do not require challenging the current situation for organization, it focus on “how” rather than “why” question While double-loop learning deal with complex issues it requires members develop the suitable skills to understand and learn new knowledge throughout asking “why” question Besides two-loop learning, Argyris also explain for triple-loop learning it focus on the ability to use single-loop learning and double-learning effectively by supporting members learn how to learn
Source: Soren, E., & Kellan, L (2005) Models of organizational learning Kollner group
Garvin (1993, p 3) has proposed a definition of learning organization “A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights”
Thus, to transform organization into a learning organization, Garvin proposed five activities:
2/ Experimenting with new approaches to work
4/ Learning from other companies and from customers
5/ Transferring knowledge throughout your organization
Marsick and Watkins (as cited in Milic et al., 2012) define the learning organization as one that is characterized by continuous learning for continuous organizational improvement, and by the capacity to transform itself They developed the Dimension of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) to identify the learning activities in organizations The instrument has been widely employed to determine the characteristics of a learning organization It is organized into seven sections addressing individual level, team level, and organization level learning The seven variables include:
1/ Create continuous learning opportunities: opportunities for continuous learning to support people equip knowledge for themselves and work better
2/ Promote inquiry and dialogue: allow people express their ideas and ability to discuss with the views of others through questioning and feedbacks
3/Encourage collaboration and team learning: work is done through the use of employees' groups; members of the groups can become familiar with different ways of thinking, it is expected from the groups to learn and work together; organizational culture supports collaboration and rewards it
4/ Create systems to capture and share learning: systems for sharing learning are created and used in the work, and employees have free access to accumulated knowledge
5/ Empower people toward a collective vision: People are encouraged to learn, create and shared vision and they are who make decision process and be responsible for their action
6/ Connect the organization to its environment: people in the organization can use necessary sources into their enterprise to solve and adapt their work and the organization is connected to external communities
7/ Provide strategic leadership for learning: Leaders have a significant impact for learning and to get better business results leaders consider learning as completed strategy
The DLOQ is selected for this research since it is the most appropriate instrument for the learning organization According to Ortenblad (as cited in Haley &
Lazouskas, 2008) evaluated some perspectives of learning organization and stated that the theoretical framework which developed by Marsick and Watkins (1993) covers most opinions areas of the concept in the literature
Differences between organizational learning and learning organization
Organizational learning is a process that aims to create a learning organization
(Tsang, as cited in Ortenblad, 2001)
The terms of organizational learning and learning organization have been used interchangeably in the literature However, Mojab and Gorman (as cited in Haley &
Lazouskas, 2008) note different meanings of these two terms They state that organizational learning is the sum of individual learning within an organization, with emphasis on individuals’ responsibility in learning and the collective outcome, while the learning organization is the outcome of organizational learning.
Adaptive leadership (AL)
Leadership has received much attention in the several years It is one of important concepts nowadays with a lot of definitions Leadership is not just about vision, its process is associated with a competency to encourage, motivate people to develop their expertise to fit the around environment and simultaneously bring commitment, loyalty, trust from follower Thus, in order to become effective leader and lead organization overcome difficult situation to continue lasting developing is becoming meaningful for research
The study takes a glance for existing leadership theory According to Sherron
(2000) he mentioned several critical theories of leadership in his dissertation:
1/ Great Man theory: is based on the idea that the leader is born with innate leadership skills
2/ Trait theory: based on assumption leaders have been given superior qualities physical attributes, mental attitudes, and personality characteristics that make them
3/ Behavioral theory: involve the person’s behavior and actions instead of underlying traits
4/ Situational theory: views leadership as specific to a situation rather than to a particular trait, personality, behavior, or some combination of these It is based on the notion that different circumstances require different forms of leadership
5/ Contingency theory: developed from situational theory Contingency theory attempts to select situational variables that best indicate the most appropriate leadership style to suit the circumstances
6/ Transformational theory: Whereas transactional leadership models are based on the extrinsic motivation of an exchange relationship, transformational leadership is based on intrinsic motivation As such, the emphasis is on commitment rather than compliance from the followers
7/ Servant leadership theory: is a practical philosophy that supports people who choose to serve first and then lead as a way of expanding service to individuals and institutions
8/ New science theory: the new sciences provide equally powerful insights for changing the ways of designing, leading, managing, and viewing organizations
The new science theories include adaptive leadership theory It is own theory not derivative theory origin from situational or transformational leadership (Cojocar,
Avolio and Bass proposed (as cited in Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam,
2003) “full range leadership theory” FRLT includes three types of leadership behavior transformational, transactional and nontransactional laissez faire leadership
According to Heifetz et al (as cited in Randall & Coakley, 2007) Adaptive leadership is based on the premise that leadership is more of a process rather than individual personal capabilities This process requires people to focus on the specific problems at hand and to modify the way they have worked in the past This type of leadership should compel all stakeholders involved to work towards a solution through debate and creative thinking, identifying the rewards, opportunities, and challenges they will face Dimensions of adaptive leadership:
1/ Identify the type of problem
5/ Manage stakeholder conflict and maintain stress
Hence, AL characterize learning ability, it acquires knowledge lead to change behavior to obtain goals, mission and vision While transformational leadership emphasizes in culture with changing beliefs, values and attitude
The another definition for Adaptive leadership (AL): The mobilization of people and units that frequently have different needs, priorities and perspectives toward new ways of working and ways of thinking (Heifetz et al., 2009)
AL come from the reality changing environment it required leader has ability to solve difficult problems or complex situation According to Glover (as cited in Hogan,
2008) AL is built based on two terms: assimilation and accommodation He emphasized on theory related to decision making of leader in the changing environment This model gives skill to help leader have alternative choices for decision situation and a lot of choices it means that leader will have ability to choose the best solution This model show with order:
1/ Cultural competency: Leader has to have ability to observe, evaluate the vital of culture as well as variety among cultures then make appropriate changes culture if necessary
2/ Managing knowledge: mentioned to ability to enhance awareness to catch, keep and transfer knowledge that allows leaders to know more their environment
3/ Creating synergy: find win-win solutions for complex cases by involving all members
4/ Holistic vision: require leaders open their vision beyond the old ways of thinking
Torres and Reeves (2011) proposed their model relies on practices you should employ to achieve adaptive leadership with four dimensions of AL:
1/ Navigating the environment: Adaptive leaders embrace uncertainty and adopt new approaches to chart a course and turbulent conditions
2/ Leading with empathy: Adaptive leaders create a shared sense of purpose and manage through influence
3/ Learning through self-correction: Adaptive leaders encourage and even insist on experimentation Some experiments will fail, but that is how they learn
4/ Creating win-win solutions: Adaptive leaders focus on sustainable success for the company and its network of stakeholders
John Clarkeson, former CEO of BCG, anticipated this new model of leadership
20 years ago: Leadership will flow to those whose vision can inspire the members of the team to put their best abilities at the service of the team These leaders will create rather than demand loyalty; use diverse points of view to reach new insights; exert influence by the values they reinforce; and make leaders of their team members (Torres & Reeves, 2011).
Organizational performance (OP)
Performance is a set of financial and nonfinancial indicators which offer information on the degree of achievement of objectives and results (Lebans & Euske,
2006 after Kaplan & Norton, as cited in Gavrea, Ilies & Stegerean, 2011)
The most important goal for all organizations tries to achieve the highest possible output and performance (Alipour & Karimi, 2011) Performance can be defined as the output of goods and services over which the organization exercises considerable control (Scott, as cited in Alipour & Karimi, 2011)
The balanced scorecard and the EFQM excellence model have received wide publicity and have recently been adopted by many organizations worldwide, particular in the USA and Europe (Wongrassamee, Gardiner & Simmons, 2003)
The BSC is a framework containing a set of finance and non-finance measures chosen to aid a company in implementing its key success factors, which are defined in the company’s strategic vision This framework includes four major perspectives: 1/
Financial, 2/ customer, 3/ internal business process, and 4/ learning and growth
The basic of the EFQM model is the principle of total quality management (TQM), this model includes nine criteria to carry out self-assessment, which enables them fully to understand their organizational position and then use this benchmark data to pursue continuous improvement Excellence model contain nine areas: 1/ leadership, 2/ people management, 3/ policy and strategy implementation, 4/ resource management, 5/ process management, 6/ people satisfaction, 7/ customer satisfaction, 8/ impact on society and 9/ business results
Marsick and Watkins (2003) developed two organizational outcome variables include knowledge and financial performance Two variables are considered as key results through learning process Thus, the research uses these factors as representative for organizational performance
Therein, financial performance is used as perceptual measures The reason given for using perceptual measures rather than objective financial data were that confidentiality or unavailability made the latter difficult to obtain from respondents
However, the most frequently cited reason for using perceptual measures was the evidence of their strong correlation to actual measures of financial performance (Covin et al., Dawes, Dess & Robinson, as cited in Goh, Elliott & Quon, 2012) It reflects perceptual measures were considered to be a valid proxy measure for actual financial performance (Dawes, as cited in Goh et al., 2012).
Relationship among AL, LO and OP
According to Haley and Lazouskas (2008) leadership development has impact to learning organization Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) state that leadership reinforces learning and Marsick and Watskin (2003) also think that: strategic leadership has influence to learning In some researches for learning organization, some researchers also point out the relationship between leadership and LO (Berson,
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 performance
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 styles
Hypothesis 3: Adaptive leadership positively influences organizational performance
The hypotheses and 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
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research design
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
Research procedure was presented in Figure 3.1
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
Adaptive leadership Learning organization Organizational performance
Cronbach alpha’s coefficient Item – total correlation test
Total variance extracted test Rotated Component Matrix
Composite reliability, Variance extracted, Unidimensionality test
Convergent validity and discriminant validity test
Theoretical model test Competitive model test Theoretical model estimation by Bootstrap 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 to 41
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.
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
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 three levels
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
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
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
5 Leaders see the world through the eyes of others
6 Leaders create a shared sense of purpose
7 Leaders reward accomplishment with autonomy
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
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 think
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 recommendations
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 performance
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 their work
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
18 My organization encourages people to get answers from across the organization when solving problems
19 In my organization, leaders mentor and coach those they lead
20 In my organization, leaders continually look for opportunities to learn
21 In my organization, leaders ensure that the organization’s actions are consistent with its values
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE Perceptual financial performance
1 In my organization, return on investment is greater than last year
2 In my organization, average productivity per employee is greater than last year
3 In my organization, time to market for products and services is less than last year
4 In my organization, response time for customer complaints is better than last year
5 In my organization, market share is greater than last year
6 In my organization, the cost per business transaction is less than last year
1 In my organization, customer satisfaction is greater than last year
2 In my organization, the number of suggestions implemented is greater than last year
3 In my organization, the number of new products or services is greater than last year
4 In my organization, the percentage of skilled workers compared to the total workforce is greater than last year
5 In my organization, the percentage of total spending devoted to technology and information processing is greater than last year
6 In my organization, the number of individuals learning new skills is greater than last year
For Adaptive leadership, after discussing with target participants via mail and hand phone, the amount of questions remained the same 14 questions However, the content when translated in Vietnamese was corrected many times to easy understand for respondents
Regarding to learning organization, two questions are deleted because the first question, respondents did not state that the organization actually give time for everyone in organization to learn, it did not fit for company current situation The second question, people should find out the answer inside the organization, however, there were still gap between divisions in each organization, therefore it made people feel complicated to discuss and get information at different departments in firm
As concerns organizational performance, four questions were deleted because using many specialized words which caused a complex awareness for many respondents and some questions were stated that not appropriate with culture as well as reality business activities of Vietnamese companies
The detail was showed in Appendix 3.3
Pilot research
The measurement scale was preliminary tested by pilot research before making main research The pilot research used quantitative method with snowball sampling at
90 samples The two tools used in pilot research 1/ Reliability test through Cronbach alpha’s coefficient and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
Reliability was checked with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for all of concepts
Those constructs or observed variables are accepted if the reliability value is greater than or equal to 0.6, on the contrary the value is smaller than 0.6, those constructs should be deleted In addition, items total correlation parameter also consider carefully, and if the corrected item total correlation is lower than 0.3, the item should be deleted if this does not affect to content validity (Nunnally & Burnstein, as cited in Nguyen, 2009) In EFA method, the principal axis factoring with promax rotation was used due to this method evaluated more exactly for the structural model than principal components with varimax rotation (Gerbing & Anderson, as cited in Nguyen &
Nguyen, 2011) and all of factors extracted at eigenvalue 1 In EFA analysis, the observed variables have factor loading lower than 0.5 will continue to delete and total variance extracted should be greater than or equal 50% (Gerbing & Anderson, as cited in Nguyen & Nguyen, 2011) Also, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was used to evaluate the appropriate of the factor analysis with 0.5 ≤ KMO ≤ 1 Bartlett’s test of sphericity with significant level
0.5 However, the component was only have one item will make the main research reduce reliability as well as the content validity, so deleted LO6 was reasonable.) The second time EFA, deleted LO2 and the third time deleted LO8 In third time EFA, extraction two elements at eigenvalue 1.496, total variance extracted was 58.156% and KMO was 0.777
Component 1: LO1, LO3, LO4 and LO5, and component 2: LO11, LO12, LO13, LO15 and LO17 Because some items still jumped into another component to form a new construct so put another name to make these items become meaningful was necessary The component 1 had four items at individual level and based on literature review, individual level include two elements: Create continuous learning opportunities and Promote inquiry and dialogue Due to two elements were described by four items of component 1, so put the specific name was required The new name was supportive learning environment The second component had five items at organization level and based on literature review, organization level included two elements: create systems to capture and share learning, empower people toward a collective vision, due to two elements were described by five items so set the specific name was unavoidable The new name was: embedded systems it means create systems to empower people and share learning, because these items almost showed their meaning belong to this definition
Thus the team level, individual or organization level obviously ignored in this research replace by two constructs was described follows:
Supportive learning environment: LO1, LO3, LO4 and LO5 This construct was equivalent to supportive learning environment was mentioned by Garvin et al (2008)
Embedded systems: LO11, LO12, LO13, LO15 and LO17 (represented for Create systems to empower people and share learning)
The Cronbach alpha coefficient was recalculated for supportive learning environment measurement scale α = 0.805, the lowest value was 0.529 (LO5)
The Cronbach alpha coefficient was recalculated for Embedded systems measurement scale α = 0.762, the lowest value was 0.466 (LO11)
3.3.3 Conduct reliability analysis for OP scale
Perceptual financial performance α = 0.785, Knowledge capital α = 0.678 (see detail in Appendix 3.4) EFA extracted one element at eigenvalue 3.724 and total variance extracted was 46.550% Although total variance extracted was lower than 50% but all of item loadings were high, the lowest was OP8 0.507 Therefore, this measurement scale was accepted Based on the result, two constructs perceptual financial performance and knowledge capital in the literature was discriminant factor, but in reality, these were only one factor This case often happens in science social research (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2011) Consequently, two constructs of the concept OP was considered as one concept in the research Two initial concepts were merged into one and were called a new name: Perceptual performance outcome
The Cronbach alpha’s coefficient was recalculated for this new measurement α
= 0.832 Almost of the corrected item – total correction was high, the lowest value was 0.463 (OP8)
Before conducting main research, the research model was redesigned as follows:
Supportive learning environment Embedded systems
Learn through self-correction Create win-win solutions
Introduce main research
The pilot research showed that adjusted measurement scale was accepted to conduct main research Almost the company were employed the survey belong to manufacturing field occupied 89.65% (26/29 companies) The remaining was trading company The target company was only focus on Ho Chi Minh City included some different production area in chemicals
There were some methods to choose enough appropriate samples The research used the structural equation modeling (SEM) required a large sample size to assure the model fit with data from the market Nevertheless, the scale of sample size was confirmed by different ways According to Hair, Andersen, Tatham & Black (1998) suggested that the maximum likelihood method required the minimum sample from
100 – 150 items Bollen (1989) showed that each observed variables need 5 samples (as cited in Nguyen, 2011), the appropriate sample size was based on equation multiply observed items and 5, this study conducted total 47 observed variables, however, after qualitative pilot research period, six questions were deleted because the content was difficult for respondents to understand and not in accord with Vietnamese context Hence, the total questionnaire was 41 and after quantitative pilot research, the total variables were 23 items, so they required at least 115 samples Therefore, estimating sending questionnaire to 140 participants was suitable for this research
After a period of time, 135 questionnaires were returned, however, 7 questionnaires were deleted because missing value or the respondents gave the answer not integrity
The final result, 128 questionnaires in completed form gave a response rate of 91.4 percent It was high response rate and the good results were achieved by good and voluntary cooperation from friends who had studied together at the University and partners who are working in business with the author (Robson, as cited in Luu, 2013)
The data was collected by different companies in chemical field The respondents were middle manager with diversity of age, qualification, experience, and position A descriptive statistics of the sample was showed in table 3.2
Characteristics – Number (%) / sample size = 128 observations
Briefly, chapter 3 described research method that was used to select target respondents Research method was implemented through two steps: pilot and main research Both of them used snowball sampling method to collect data from chemical companies The pilot research also conducted through two periods: qualitative and quantitative period The in depth-interview used in qualitative method to adjust measurement scale on semantic point of view and preliminary quantitative method assessed reliability and validity at 90 samples In addition, the measurement scale of each concept was introduced in details The pilot research was implemented strictly through Cronbach alpha and EFA to analyze internal consistency reliability, convergent and discriminant validity After adjusting, the research model was revised to keep on using in the main research Descriptive data and sample size in the main study are also discussed Chapter 4 will recheck measurement scale with CFA and test theoretical model by SEM method Moreover, research results will be mentioned there.
RESEARCH RESULTS
Evaluate the measurement by CFA
This part presented the result of measurement and theoretical model by confirmatory factors analysis through AMOS software When running CFA, there is needed to know some criteria to check how the suitability between the research model and collected data from the market
Obviously, CFA method had many strong points than traditional method such as coefficient α, EFA analysis (Bagozzi & Foxall, as cited in Nguyen & Nguyen,
2011) Because CFA support test the measurement scale as between one construct and other constructs without wrong due to measurement error Furthermore, it was strong methodology for accessing convergent validity and discriminant validity (Steenkamp
& van Trijp, as cited in Nguyen & Nguyen, 2011)
Regarding SEM, it also had an advantage over the traditional approach, for instance, the Multi Variate Regression (MVR) method gave assumption that the independent variable was measured correctly, without measurement error But this assumption was not to be realistic because the error always occurs in measurement process Nonetheless, SEM can calculated measurement error Equally important, SEM can consider independent constructs separately or combine with other independent constructs and dependent constructs at the same time Thus, SEM was commonly used in marketing (Hulland et al., as cited in Nguyen & Nguyen, 2011)
In order to measure the suitability between model and market data, the research used some indices such as the ratio of chi-square related to the degrees of freedom (CMIN/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) The model is considered suitability with data when Chi-square (CMIN) has P-value >0.05 On the contrary, Chi-square depends on large sample size Thus, many authors proposed some other appropriate criteria: if the model has GFI, TLI, CFI ≥ 0.9 (Bentler & Bonett, as cited in Nguyen, 2009); CMIN/df ≤ 2, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, in some cases RMSEA ≤ 0.05 lead to the best result (Steiger, as cited in Nguyen, 2009) , these criteria range lead to conclude that model fit with data Nguyen and Nguyen (2011) stated that TLI, CFI ≥ 0.9, CMIN/df
≤ 2, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, the model will be matched with data
In the analysis of CFA, other assessment will be conducted: 1/ composite reliability ( c ≥ 0.6) and 2/ variance extracted ( vc ≥ 0.5) were measured by formulas:
(Joreskog, 1971; Fornell & Larcker, as cited in Nguyen & Nguyen, 2011)
i : standard estimated for observed variable i, 1 i 2 : variance of measurement error for observed item i, p: the number of observed variables
3/ unidimensionality will be achieved if the model fit with market information unless some observed variables error have correlation each other (Steenkamp & van Trijp, as cited in Nguyen, 2009), 4/ convergent validity of measurement scale will be reached if standardized factors loading are high (> 0.5) and significant level (P < 0.05) (Gerbring
& Anderson, as cited in Nguyen, 2009), 5/ discriminant validity, whether correlation coefficient among concepts has any difference with 1 or not If the difference occurs and significant level makes sense, the measurement scale obtains discriminant validity, 6/ nomological validity will be tested in theoretical model, whereas, the assessment from 1 to 5 will be checked in measurement model (Gerbring & Anderson, as cited in Nguyen, 2009)
4.1.1 CFA result for Adaptive leadership
This measurement included two components: Learn through self-correction (LTSC), and Create win-win solutions (CWWS) LTSC was measured by three items and CWWS was the same The CFA result was presented in Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1 CFA result for Adaptive leadership
All of criterions were appropriate TLI = 0.926, CFI = 0.961 and RMSEA 0.086 (the differentiation was a little than 0.08, should accepted) The result demonstrated that AL measurement had a suitable degree with data collected
Moreover, the measurement scale achieved unidimensionality due to the correlations among items error were not occurred All standardized regression weights λ achieved above minimum required (>0.5) and had significant p = 0.000 The observed items used to measure two components LTSC and CWWS achieved convergent validity
LTSC and CWWS reached discriminant validity due to R (LTSC, CWWS) = 0.66, se
= 0.04 different from 1 at significant level p = 0.000 The composite reliability achieved 0.839 and total variance extracted only was 47% (see Appendix 3.5)
Although total variance extracted was lower than expected level 50%, however, the all loading factors had weighted loading satisfied requirement Thus, this measurement scale was acceptable
4.1.2 CFA result for Learning organization
This measurement included two components: Supportive learning environment (SLE), and Embedded systems (ES) SLE was measured by four items and ES was measured by five items The CFA result was presented in Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2 CFA result for Learning organization
The result above showed some information such as: the criteria were proper TLI = 0.910, CFI = 0.935 and RMSEA = 0.079 This measurement scale also achieved unimultinasionlity All standardized regression weights λ got minimum required value (>0.5) and had a significant level p = 0.000 Thus, the observed variables used to measure two components SLE and ES reached convergent validity SLE and ES had discriminant validity due to R (SLE, ES) = 0.678, se = 0.045 at significant level p (see Appendix 3.5) Moreover, the all loading factors had weighted loading satisfied requirement Thus, this measurement scale was acceptable
4.1.3 CFA result for Perceptual performance outcome
Figure 4.3 CFA result for Perceptual performance outcome
The CFA result shown that model was suitable with the market data However, two items OP7 and OP8 were deleted by loading factor lower than 0.50 The appropriate indices from the measurement model were: CFI = 0.970, TLI = 0.943 and RMSEA= 0.084 that represented a relative adequate fit of the model The composite reliability achieved 0.827 and total variance extracted was 82.7% (see Appendix 3.5)
Thus, this measurement had a proper standard for reliability and variance extracted
However, the measurement scale did not achieve unidimensionality because the correlations among items error occurred All standardized regression weights λ got above minimum required (> 0.5) and had a significant level p = 0.000 Thus, the observed variables used to measure component PPO reached convergent validity This measurement also was acceptable
Figure 4.4 SEM analysis results for saturated model
In saturated model, all concepts were freedom to connect together to check discriminant validity between them The results described some criterions TLI 0.887, CFI = 0.902 and RMSEA = 0.062 were appropriate Thus, this result showed that the saturated model had relevance with data market The correlations had estimate value were different from 1.Therefore, these concepts achieved discriminant validity
Table 4.1 Results for discriminant validity of each variable
In addition, the measurement scale of all of concepts in the model achieved the theory validity because each of measurement scale had a relationship with other measurement scale as per expectation in theory (Nguyen, 2007)
The result was presented in Figure 4.5 This model had one independent concept was adaptive leadership and two dependent concepts learning organization and perceptual performance outcome
Figure 4.5 SEM analysis results for theoretical model
The results shown that chi-square = 257.217 and degree freedom = 181 (p 0.000) The criteria were TLI = 0.902, CFI = 0.916 and RMSEA = 0.058 Thus, this model conformed to data from market In this model, the positive relationship between adaptive leadership and perceptual performance outcome were not significant (ϒ 0.295, se = 0.190, p = 0.170, table 4.2) The other relationships were significant
Hence, the result refused one hypothesis and theoretical model accepted two
Table 4.2 Relationship between each concept in theoretical model (standardized)
The competitive model played an important role in studying of social science
Hypothesis testing
The estimated result indicated that the AL had a strong positive influence to
LO (β = 0.814, se = 0.190, p = 0.000) Thus, the first hypothesis was accepted It meant that AL was an element to form LO and this correlation encourages leaders in organization apply AL style instead of other leadership style; it will lead to create a learning organization The relationship between LO and PPO had the same positive strength with AL and LO (β = 0.857, se = 0.201, p = 0.000) Hence, when firm become LO will achieve the PPO and the second hypothesis was accepted This meant that becoming LO will create an optimistic thinking in organization’s mind about positive achieving results
The result above led to conclude that the estimated in the model can believable and the H1 and H2 was accepted
H1: Adaptive leadership positively influences learning organization Accepted
H2: Learning organization positively influences on organizational performance Accepted
The results also showed that AL had a weaker impact to LO (β = 0.814) than
LO affected to PPO (β = 0.857) According to qualitative research of previous researchers for the relationship between AL and LO, this study reconfirmed the relationship were significant The positive relationship between LO and OP had a lot of evidences from Korea, Turkey, and from the researcher of LO measurement scale
Marsick and Watkins However, in Vietnamese context, OP become PPO and LO had a positive impact to PPO
In brief, this chapter presented the testing result of measurement scale and research model in the following way: CFA was used to analyze each concept independently; SEM was used at saturated model, theoretical model and competitive model The result showed that all of measurement scale achieved reliability and validity Beside the result also pointed out the competitive model was more appropriate with market data than theoretical model In addition, hypotheses were mentioned in competitive model as well as theoretical model were accepted, therefore the result confirmed that only two hypotheses were supported Another hypothesis between adaptive leadership and perceptual performance outcome were not significant The next chapter will mention about main findings, implication for manager, limitations and direction for further research.
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Findings
With respect to research method: the research applies quantitative method for
AL constructs instead of qualitative method as other studies which are done by Klonsky (2010); Kaminsky (2010) Therefore, this method gives an additional measurement scale tool to support others researchers have more convenient in the further research
The research only focuses on several firms that are in charge of in chemical products and each company has approximately five people belong to different division attend to survey According to Yang et al (2004), the author did research on DLOQ with different organization and each organization only selected one respondent Thus, that research met difficulty to check the consistency of responses to the instrument
Consequently, this study concentrate on one field at a time and each organization has survey participants enough to guarantee the result to represent that organization’s thoughts
The results of the research show that: AL is measured through two latent variables: learn through self-correction with three items and create win-win solutions with three observed items LO is represented through two latent variables: supportive learning environment with four items and embedded systems with five items OP becomes PPO which is measured by six observed items directly Some of observed items which measured each concept such as AL, LO and OP was deleted and merged between some constructs belong to one concept, this also increase the reliability and validity of measurement scale
The correlation among AL, LO and PPO are interesting because the result is a vindication of the important of applying AL as well as building LO will contribute how to success of organization Nonetheless, almost companies are involve in survey do not note much in building LO completely, the evidence a lot of questions are deleted due to not often use or actually never hear about it in their organization
Moreover, DLOQ does not cover on all aspects; only two in seven dimensions are reliability In comparison with previous researches between LO and OP at different countries such as in Korea (Song, Joo & Chermack, 2009), in Turkey (Basim, Sesen &
Korkmazyurek, 2007) the author realizes that they used all of seven aspects of DLOQ and achieved the high reliability and content validity, but at Vietnam and in particular of these firms only two in seven dimensions are reliability They just apply initial steps in establish LO include creating and supporting learning environment, this is a good condition to promote learning process and thence embedded it into system so that everyone in firm can learn and apply to continue to build LO more fulfillment
The same thing happens to AL and OP when only two constructs form this leadership style and one new factor for OP In my view the result emphasizes the validity of the model Hereby, organizations can use this correlation to improve their adaptability continuously competing in the chaotic market
Equally important are the relationship between learning organization and a part of organizational performance, and adaptive leadership does not affect to perceptual performance outcome This leads to LO is totally mediating variable An additionally, the attainment of some necessary elements LO belong to individual level have an important role Because these elements represent for individual learning and according to Senge (1990, p 236) said that “Organizations learn only through individuals who learn Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning, but without it no organizational learning occurs” Hence, individual level is the foundation of LO.
Implications of research
The findings of the study can be useful for managers who in charge of building learning activities or promoting restructure in organizations to get a better result in performance The basic points which managers can apply as follows:
Firstly, manager should encourage and even insist on experimentation for followers It means that not be afraid to take risks and to not be afraid to make mistakes as long as we learn from them Some experiments will fall, but that is how they learn and willing to take responsibility in their decision-making Moreover, managers have to focus on sustainable success for the company and its network of stakeholder These things lead to the characteristic of leader who has ability to adapt in chaotic market
502 Bad GatewayUnable to reach the origin service The service may be down or it may not be responding to traffic from cloudflared
Thirdly, the perceptual performance outcome will come when manager deploy these aspects above This positive change is always what organization wants
In summary, the result emphasize the important role of the correlation, hence, organization should use it to improve their activities.
Limitations and directions for further research
I aware that my research may have five limitations
502 Bad GatewayUnable to reach the origin service The service may be down or it may not be responding to traffic from cloudflared
502 Bad GatewayUnable to reach the origin service The service may be down or it may not be responding to traffic from cloudflared
Regarding to collected sample method is snowball technique which also has some limitations Because non-probability sampling methods (includes snowball method) based on the relationship and understand of the author for specific area, the result usually shows the author objective characteristic Thus, need to employ another sample method so that the research will achieve a lot of credible validity such as using probability sampling method
The next, measurement scale for AL is not much checked by researchers, almost in the previous researches, Klonsky (2010); Kaminsky (2010) often focuses on qualitative method This method is chosen due to AL is new concept and the researcher need to make many similar studies to understand deeply before proposing a completed measurement scale Therefore, in this thesis, measurement scale for AL that is used to conduct the reality survey make the quantity constructs of this concept reduce dramatically, from four to two (fourteen items to six items) However, these items also jump into right construct as the literature In addition, when using quantitative method and measurement scale for analysis, the author still not find out many research based on this scale
As concern with LO and OP, although these concepts are checked by some authors at different countries and showed the results are good for reliability and discriminant validity so on On the other hand, when using this measurement at
Vietnamese context, the author has to delete a lot of items, they make the measurement scale reduce sharply (LO is third hierarchy measurement, includes three large constructs, and each large construct has seven small dimensions and each of seven dimension is measured by three items The final result, total dimensions are reduced from seven to two) OP is presented by one construct and is measured by six items (reduced eight to six) Some studies divided LO into seven dimensions to analysis, while in Vietnamese context are only two dimensions achieve reliability and content validity There are some reasons make the items drop sharply: the size of the sample is small, not enough to reflect the better result A few questions are translated from English to Vietnamese not clear Because the word in English cannot have an equivalent in Vietnamese or some words have many different meanings where they were used Also, each of middle manager uses their point of view to answer the question; it means that may have different perspectives when considering the same question These limitations are evidence of the difficulty of collecting data on real survey It could also have influenced the results obtained
In term of the future researches, besides discovering how the specific impact between the dimensions of AL and dimensions of LO, we can find out some other factors which also have influence to LO such as: corporate culture, or another style of leadership as authentic leadership or transformational leadership Regarding research on OP, we can make some next researches on readiness change, employee satisfaction, productivity or effectiveness for specific division in organization
Moreover, the researcher can conduct study on the relationship between LO and OP which measures by balanced scorecard term (BSC) It will be an interesting research
The last, I hope that further tests will confirm my findings My method quantitative for AL could be applied to further research Results will be very promising
Alipour, F., & Karimi, R (2011) Mediation role of innovation and knowledge transfer in the relationship between learning organization and organizational performance International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(19) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/904530017?accountidc189
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B J., & Sivasubramaniam, N (2003) Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295
Basim, H N., Sesen, H., & Korkmazyurek, H (2007) A Turkish Translation, Validity and Reliability Study of the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire World Applied Sciences Journal, 2(4), 368-374
Berson, Y., Nemanich, L A., Waldman, D A., Galvin, B M., & Keller, R T (2006)
Leadership and organizational learning: A multiple levels perspective The
Burke, C S., Stagl, K C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S M
(2006) What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta- analysis Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288-307 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200813140?accountidc189 Cojocar, W J (2008) Adaptive Leadership: Leadership Theory or Theoretical
Cors, R (2003) What is a learning organization? Reflections on the literature and practitioner perspectives Engineering Professional Development University of
Dimovski, V., Skerlavaj, M., Kimman, M., & Hernaus, T (2008) Comparative analysis of the organisational learning process in Slovenia, Croatia, and Malaysia Expert Systems with Applications, 34(4), 3063-3070 Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract08617
Dinh, T (Reporter) (2012, December 25) Vietnam Economy in 2013: Still
Challenging Retrieved from: http://vccinews.com/news_detail.asp?news_id'735
Fatima, L Y A., & Al-Balqa (2012) Suggested Adaptive Leadership Principles in
Marketing Environment European Journal of Business and Management, 4(9), 71-74
Garvin, D (1993) Building a Learning Organization Harvard Business Review,
Garvin, D A., Edmondson, A C., & Gino, F (2008) Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86, 109-116 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227773913?accountidc189
Gavrea, C., Ilies, L., & Stegerean, R (2011) Determinants of organizational performance: the case of Romania Management & Marketing, 6(2), 285-300
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/878040710?accountidc189
Goh, S C., Elliott, C., & Quon, T K (2012) The relationship between learning capability and organizational performance The Learning Organization, 19(2), 92-108
Hair, J F Jr., Andersen, R E., Tatham, R L., & Black, W C (1998) Multivariate
Data Analysis, (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Haley, C K., & Lazouskas, L (2008) Leadership development and learning organization: a literature review
Heifetz, R A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M (2009) The practice of adaptive leadership : tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world
Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press
Hogan, T J (2008) The adaptive leadership maturity model Organization
Development Journal, 26(1), 55-61 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197997251?accountidc189
Kaminsky, J B (2010) Impact of non-technical leadership practices on IT project success (Order No 3451852, Webster University) ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 139-n/a Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/863475173?accountidc189
Klonsky, M F (2010) Discussing undiscussables: Exercising adaptive leadership
(Order No 3426112, Fielding Graduate University) ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 164-n/a Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/761367319?accountidc189
Luu, T T (2012) The linkages among leadership, trust, and business ethics Social
Luu, T T (2013) Leading to learning and competitive intelligence The Learning
Marsick, V J., & Watkins, K E (2003) Demonstrating the value of an organization's learning culture: the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire
Advances in developing human resources, 5(2), 132-151
Mazutis, D., & Slawinski, N (2008) Leading organizational learning through authentic dialogue Management Learning, 39(4), 437 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/209883140?accountidc189
Milic, B., Dudjak, L., & Grubic-Nesic, L (2012) The relationship between leadership and learning organization: A review of the literature and research proposal
2(2) 168-173 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328550550?accountidc189 Nguyen, D T (2011) Research method in Business Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam:
Nguyen, D T., & Nguyen, T M T (2011) Marketing Research – Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) Application Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Labor –
Nguyen, H L (2011, October 26) Need to learn to survive and live better Retrieved from http://phamvuluaha.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/learning/#respond
Nguyen, K D (2009) Lecture (1 st draft) practise structural equation modeling with
Amos software University of economics Ho Chi Minh City (internal circulation)
Obiwuru, T C., Okwu, A T., Akpa, V O., & Nwankwere, I A (2011) Effects of leadership style on organizational performance: a survey of selected small scale enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu council development area of Lagos state, Nigeria
Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(7), 100-111
Ortenblad, A (2001) On differences between organizational learning and learning organization The Learning Organization, 8(3), 125-133 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/215660024?accountidc189
Randall, L M., & Coakley, L A (2007) Applying adaptive leadership to successful change initiatives in academia Leadership & Organization Development
Senge, P M (1990) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization New York: Doubleday/Currency
Sherron, C T (2000) Psychometric development of the adaptive leadership competency profile ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 207-207 p Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304631321?accountidc189
Singh, K (2008) Relationship between learning organization and transformational leadership: Banking organizations in india International Journal of Business and Management Science, 1(1), 97-111 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/89161229?accountidc189
Song, J H., Joo, B., & Chermack, T J (2009) The dimensions of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ): A validation study in a korean context
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(1), 43 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/234904442?accountidc189
Soren, E., & Kellan, L (2005) Models of organizational learning Kollner group, 1-
Torres, R., & Reeves, M (2011) Adaptive leadership Leadership Excellence, 28(7),
8 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/884215078?accountidc189
Vera, D., & Crossan, M (2004) Strategic leadership and organizational learning
Wongrassamee, S., Gardiner, P D., & Simmons, J E L (2003) Performance measurement tools: The balanced scorecard and the EFQM excellence model
Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1), 14-29 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/208737481?accountidc189
Yang, B (2003) Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 152-162
Yang, B., Watkins, K E., & Marsick, V J (2004) The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation Human Resource
I am Thai Van Trung Hieu, student of International school of business institute at the University of Economics in Ho Chi Minh City I am making a research” the linkages among adaptive leadership, learning organization and organizational performance”
The research was conducted to contribute a little knowledge for organization and individual to adapt with turbulent market This leads to achieve the positive results in their business activities I would like to thank you in advance for your collaboration
The information is used for academic purpose only and strictly confidential If you interest in this subject, the completed thesis will be sent to you as reference document
Please give me some personal information to get document Full name:
Basing on your business activities, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by circling a number from 1 to 5 The agreement level as follows:
Part 1: Please give your opinions for your direct leader
1 Leaders manage the context in which people interact, not the instruction set 1 2 3 4 5
2 Leaders cultivate a diversity of perspective to generate many options 1 2 3 4 5
3 Leaders allow leadership to be shared and emerge from the given context 1 2 3 4 5
4 Leaders constantly question the world around you 1 2 3 4 5
5 Leaders see the world through the eyes of others 1 2 3 4 5
6 Leaders create a shared sense of purpose 1 2 3 4 5
7 Leaders reward accomplishment with autonomy 1 2 3 4 5
8 Leaders enable people to learn through experimentation 1 2 3 4 5
9 Leaders develop your signal advantage 1 2 3 4 5
10 Leaders increase the agility with which the organization is able to correct itself 1 2 3 4 5
11 Leaders build platforms for collaboration 1 2 3 4 5
12 Leaders deploy leadership influence beyond the boundaries of the firm 1 2 3 4 5
13 Leaders align the business model with a broader ecological context to create social advantage and strengthen business sustainability 1 2 3 4 5
14 Leaders use different leadership styles flexibility for different environment 1 2 3 4 5
1 People help each other learn 1 2 3 4 5
2 People are rewarded for learning 1 2 3 4 5
3 People give open and honest feedback to each other 1 2 3 4 5
4 Whenever people state their view, they also ask what others think 1 2 3 4 5
5 People spend time building trust with each other 1 2 3 4 5
6 Teams/groups have the freedom to adapt their goals as needed 1 2 3 4 5
7 Teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of group discussions or information collected
8 Teams/groups are confident that the organization will act on their recommendations
9 My organization creates systems to measure gaps between current and expected performance
10 My organization makes its lessons learned available to all employees 1 2 3 4 5
11 My organization measures the results of the time and resources spent on training
12 My organization recognizes people for taking initiative 1 2 3 4 5
13 My organization gives people control over the resources they need to accomplish their work
14 My organization supports employees who take calculated risks 1 2 3 4 5
15 My organization encourages people to think from a global perspective 1 2 3 4 5
16 My organization works together with the outside community to meet mutual needs
17 Leaders mentor and coach those they lead 1 2 3 4 5
18 Leaders continually look for opportunities to learn 1 2 3 4 5
19 Leaders ensure that the organization’s actions are consistent with its values
Part 3: Compare between this year and last year
1 In my organization, average productivity per employee is greater than last year
2 In my organization, time to market for products and services is less than last year
3 In my organization, response time for customer complaints is better than last year
4 In my organization, market share is greater than last year 1 2 3 4 5
5 In my organization, customer satisfaction is greater than last year 1 2 3 4 5
6 In my organization, the number of suggestions implemented is greater than last year
7 In my organization, the number of new products or services is greater than last year
8 In my organization, the number of individuals learning new skills is greater than last year 1 2 3 4 5
□ High school or less □ Bachelor’s degree □ Master’s degree
8 Working experience □ Under 3 years □ 3 – 5 years □ Over 5 years
9 Managing experience □ Under 2 years □ 2 - 3 years □ Over 3 years
Thanks for your sincere collaboration!
Appendix 3.2: Questionnaire (in Vietnamese) Kính chào các Anh/Chị:
Tôi tên Thái Văn Trung Hiếu, hiện là học viên của Viện đào tạo quốc tế (ISB) thuộc trường Đại Học Kinh Tế Tp.HCM Tôi đang thực hiện luận văn, nghiên cứu về “quan hệ giữa lãnh đạo thích ứng với việc xây dựng tổ chức học tập và hiệu quả hoạt động của tổ chức” Luận văn được thực hiện nhằm đóng góp một phần kiến thức cho tổ chức và các cá nhân trong việc thích nghi với môi trường kinh doanh đầy biến động và thay đổi như hiện nay, để từ đó mỗi cá nhân cũng như tổ chức sẽ đạt được nhiều hiệu quả hơn trong hoạt động kinh doanh của mình Vì vậy, kính mong quý Anh/Chị giành ra một ít thời gian hoàn thành phần khảo sát này Phản hồi của Anh/Chị sẽ là thông tin rất hữu ích cho nghiên cứu Xin trân trọng cảm ơn sự đóng góp ý kiến của Anh/Chị
Thông tin được cung cấp bởi Anh/Chị chỉ được sử dụng với mục đích nghiên cứu và được giữ bí mật Các thông tin công bố chỉ là những thông tin đã được tổng hợp và không tiết lộ thông tin cá nhân cũng như tổ chức Nếu Anh/Chị quan tâm đến đề tài này thì bài luận văn sau khi hoàn thành sẽ được gửi đến Anh/Chị như là một phần tài liệu tham khảo
Thông tin cá nhân để nhận tài liệu này sau khi luận văn hoàn thành
Họ và tên: Địa chỉ email:
Anh/Chị vui lòng đọc kỹ hướng dẫn trước khi bắt đầu vào bảng câu hỏi
Trên cơ sở thực tế của tình hình tổ chức và hoạt động cụ thể của Anh/Chị Anh/Chị hãy cho biết mức độ đồng ý của mình theo những phát biểu dưới đây Mức độ cụ thể như sau:
Trong mỗi câu hỏi, chỉ khoanh tròn 1 lựa chọn phù hợp nhất Các lựa chọn được đánh số từ 1-5
Phần 1: Vui lòng cho biết ý kiến của Anh/Chị về cấp trên của mình
Rất không đồng ý Rất đồng ý
1 Khi giải quyết vấn đề có sự trao đổi, thảo luận với những người liên quan, chứ không dựa trên những quy tắc cứng nhắc 1 2 3 4 5
2 Đề cao sự đa dạng về quan điểm để đưa ra nhiều lựa chọn, giải pháp đối với các tình huống khác nhau 1 2 3 4 5
3 Cho phép mọi người ở các vị trí khác nhau trong tổ chức được chia sẽ, bộc lộ khả năng lãnh đạo của họ trong các trường hợp cụ thể 1 2 3 4 5
4 Không ngừng đặt câu hỏi về những thay đổi và diễn biến từ môi trường kinh doanh 1 2 3 4 5
5 Xem xét sự việc từ nhiều góc nhìn khác nhau chứ không chủ quan duy ý chí 1 2 3 4 5
6 Tạo ra sự chia sẽ về mục tiêu phát triển của tổ chức 1 2 3 4 5
7 Khen thưởng khi việc hoàn thành nhiệm vụ xuất phát từ tinh thần tự giác 1 2 3 4 5
8 Ủng hộ và tạo điều kiện để mọi người thực hiện ý tưởng của mình 1 2 3 4 5
9 Tạo điều kiện để phát huy những thế mạnh của nhân viên 1 2 3 4 5
Tăng cường sự nhanh nhạy, đổi mới trong cách thức hoạt động để tổ chức có khả năng tự điều chỉnh một cách nhanh chóng với những thách thức từ môi trường kinh doanh
11 Xây dựng hệ thống hoạt động hướng đến sự phát triển lâu dài 1 2 3 4 5
12 Có tầm ảnh hưởng đối với bên trong lẫn bên ngoài tổ chức 1 2 3 4 5
Hướng tới triển khai các mô hình kinh doanh trong một phạm vi rộng hơn để tạo ra lợi ích cho xã hội cũng như tăng cường sự phát triển bền vững
14 Sử dụng linh hoạt các phong cách lãnh đạo khác nhau trong các tình huống khác nhau 1 2 3 4 5
Phần 2: Trong tổ chức của Anh/Chị
1 Mọi người giúp đỡ và học hỏi lẫn nhau 1 2 3 4 5
2 Mọi người được động viên, khen thưởng cho việc học tập 1 2 3 4 5
3 Mọi người cởi mở và chân thành khi góp ý cho nhau 1 2 3 4 5
4 Bất kể khi nào có người nêu quan điểm, họ tôn trọng và quan tâm ý kiến của người khác 1 2 3 4 5
5 Mọi người tổ chức các hoạt động để xây dựng lòng tin với nhau 1 2 3 4 5
6 Các phòng ban tự xác lập mục tiêu để phù hợp với mục tiêu chung của tổ chức 1 2 3 4 5
7 Các phòng ban tiến hành điều chỉnh quyết định sau khi thu thập thông tin thảo luận, góp ý 1 2 3 4 5
8 Các phòng ban tin tưởng rằng, các kiến nghị sẽ được tổ chức tiếp nhận để xem xét hành động 1 2 3 4 5
9 Tổ chức có hệ thống đo lường mức độ hoàn thành công việc hiện tại so với mục tiêu đề ra 1 2 3 4 5
10 Tổ chức sẵn sàng triển khai các khóa học phù hợp cho các đối tượng khác nhau 1 2 3 4 5
11 Tổ chức có đánh giá kết quả của việc sử dụng thời gian và nguồn lực dành cho việc đào tạo 1 2 3 4 5
12 Tổ chức luôn tìm kiếm để phát hiện ra những người có khả năng dẫn đầu trong công việc của họ 1 2 3 4 5
13 Tổ chức hỗ trợ các nguồn lực cần thiết để mọi người thuận lợi hơn trong việc thực hiện công việc của họ 1 2 3 4 5
14 Tổ chức có chính sách hỗ trợ đối với những người thực hiện công việc có nhiều rủi ro 1 2 3 4 5
15 Tổ chức khuyến khích mọi người suy nghĩ vấn đề một cách toàn diện 1 2 3 4 5
16 Tổ chức sẵn sàng hợp tác với cộng đồng bên ngoài để cùng phát triển 1 2 3 4 5
17 Trong tổ chức của tôi, các lãnh đạo hướng dẫn và huấn luyện những người mà họ dẫn dắt một cách nhiệt tình 1 2 3 4 5
18 Các lãnh đạo không ngừng tìm kiếm cơ hội để học hỏi 1 2 3 4 5
19 Các lãnh đạo đảm bảo rằng các hoạt động của tổ chức là phù hợp, nhất quán với giá trị của nó 1 2 3 4 5
Phần 3: So sánh giữa năm nay với năm ngoái
1 Năng suất lao động trên mỗi nhân viên cao hơn 1 2 3 4 5
2 Thời gian để tung sản phẩm và dịch vụ ra thị trường ngắn hơn 1 2 3 4 5
3 Phản hồi khiếu nại của khách hàng nhanh và hiệu quả hơn 1 2 3 4 5
5 Sự hài lòng của khách hàng tốt hơn 1 2 3 4 5
6 Số lượng các đề xuất được thực hiện lớn hơn 1 2 3 4 5
7 Số lượng sản phẩm hoặc dịch vụ mới nhiều hơn 1 2 3 4 5
8 Số người được đào tạo những kỹ năng mới nhiều hơn 1 2 3 4 5
3 Tình trạng hôn nhân □ Kết hôn □ Chưa kết hôn
□ Cấp 3 hoặc thấp hơn □ Đại học □ Thạc sỹ
□ Giám sát □ Khác (hãy nêu rõ ………)
□ Kỹ thuật và nghiên cứu phát triển sản phẩm
7 Lĩnh vực hoạt động chính của công ty
8 Anh/Chị đã làm việc bao lâu trong công ty hiện tại
□ Dưới 3 năm □ 3 – 5 năm □ Trên 5 năm
9 Anh/Chị đã làm việc bao lâu dưới cương vị quản lý
□ Dưới 2 năm □ 2 - 3 năm □ Trên 3 năm
Chân thành cảm ơn sự hợp tác và giúp đỡ của quý Anh/Chị
Appendix 3.3: The qualitative research findings
Details qualitative research results show in below: