The effect of transformational leadership and personal cultural values on creating a learning organization

The study addresses how transformational leadership and personal cultural values influence the creation of learning organizations within higher education institutions in Turkey, specifically in the field of physical education and sports. Drawing on foundational concepts of learning organizations (Senge’s five disciplines; Pedler; Garvin; Watkins & Marsick), the authors argue that leadership supporting learning and a conducive learning culture are critical. The research posits that transformational leadership facilitates organizational learning and transformation, while individual cultural values (adapted from Hofstede’s dimensions at the personal level) may enable or hinder learning culture via mental models. The study formulates two hypotheses: H1: Transformational leadership is effective in creating learning organizations in higher education institutions in the fields of physical education and sports. H2: Personal cultural values are effective in creating learning organizations in higher education institutions in the fields of physical education and sports. The work aims to inform the development of higher education institutions toward learning organization profiles by examining these effects.

Learning organizations are characterized by integrated systems where learning is continuous and supported by leadership and culture. Senge’s five disciplines distinguish learning organizations from traditional ones; related approaches include systems thinking (Senge), learning approaches (Pedler et al.), strategic (Garvin), and integrative approaches (Watkins & Marsick). Prior research emphasizes leadership supportive of learning and indicates transformational leadership’s role in creating learning organizations (e.g., Rijal 2010, 2016; Lam 2002; Khan & Ismail 2017; Adam et al. 2020). Higher education institutions require continuous learning, innovation, and strategic change to evolve from teaching to learning organizations, with performance criteria (research capacity, quality, interaction) aligning with learning organization requirements. While studies link learning organizations with various outcomes and leadership styles in education, fewer integrate leadership and culture concurrently; this study addresses that gap by incorporating personal cultural values (Hofstede-based) at the individual level.

Design: Descriptive, correlational study using structural equation modeling (SEM) with a confirmatory modeling strategy and maximum likelihood estimation. Software: IBM SPSS Statistics 21 and LISREL 8.70. Population and sample: 1,790 academic staff in Faculties of Sports Sciences and Schools of Physical Education and Sports at Turkish state universities. Convenience (appropriate) sampling reached 348 volunteers; after screening, 328 valid respondents were included. Demographics (selected): 75.3% male; most aged 41–50 (35.1%); 76.5% married; 69.2% PhD; 77.1% in Sports Sciences Faculty; 37.2% in Physical Education and Sports Teaching program; 64.0% lecturers; 67.7% no administrative duty; 43.0% tenure 1–6 years at institution; 81.4% worked with current senior manager 1–6 years. Data collection: Online via Google Forms due to COVID-19; emailed Jan–Feb 2021. Emails obtained from official HEI websites. Instruments: - Learning Organization Dimensions Scale (Watkins & Marsick, 1997; Turkish: Basım et al., 2007): 43 items, 7 dimensions (continuous learning; dialog and inquiry; team learning; embedded systems; empowerment; system connections; supportive leadership); 5-point Likert. Reported reliability (Turkish adaptation): α across dimensions 0.84–0.92. In this study: total α=0.98; dimension α: 0.89–0.95. CFA fit: χ²/df=2.41, RMR=0.040, IFI=0.99, NNFI=0.99, CFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.066. - Transformational Leadership Scale (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Turkish: İşcan, 2002): 23 items, 5 sub-dimensions (vision-inspiration/role model; acceptance of group goals; intellectual encouragement; individual interest; high success expectations); 5-point Likert. Reported reliability: total α=0.93; subscales α=0.82–0.93. In this study: total α=0.97; subscales α=0.74–0.95. CFA fit: χ²/df=4.25, RMR=0.036, IFI=0.98, NNFI=0.98, CFI=0.98, RMSEA=0.100. - Personal Cultural Values Scale (Yoo, Donthu, Lenartowicz, 2011; Turkish adaptation by researchers): 26 items, 5 sub-dimensions (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, masculinity, long-term orientation); 7-point Likert. Reported α ranges 0.62–0.83. In this study: total α=0.80; subscales α: PD=0.70, UA=0.83, Collectivism=0.78, Masculinity=0.76, LTO=0.68. CFA fit: χ²/df=1.79, RMR=0.056, IFI=0.96, NNFI=0.95, CFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.049. Data screening and normality: Scatter Plot Matrix distributions were elliptical. Multivariate Mardia kurtosis values: LO=1.178, TL=1.307, PCV=1.201, all data=1.082 (<2), indicating multivariate normality. Overall measurement validity adjustment: After removing two error variances from PD and one from collectivism due to large error variances (>1) and non-significant t-values (>0.05), overall fit: χ²/df=1.661, RMR=0.06, IFI=0.91, NFI=0.80, CFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.045. Analysis: Descriptive statistics and correlations; SEM tested relationships between TL sub-dimensions and LO dimensions (H1a–e) and between PCV sub-dimensions and LO dimensions (H2a–e).

Descriptive: Organizations were rated as moderately learning-oriented; transformational leadership perceived at a moderate level. Personal cultural values profile appeared feminine, with strong uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation, collectivism, and low power distance. Correlations: Inter-dimension correlations among LO, TL, and PCV were all <0.80. H1 (Transformational leadership → Learning organization) Supported across all five TL sub-dimensions. Fit indices for models were acceptable to excellent (e.g., H1a χ²/df=3.61, IFI/CFI=0.98; H1e χ²/df=2.68, IFI/CFI=0.99). Standardized path coefficients from TL sub-dimensions to LO dimensions ranged approximately 0.87–0.96, all positive and significant (p<0.01). Explained variance (R²) for LO dimensions ranged 0.75–0.92 across submodels. H2 (Personal cultural values → Learning organization) Partially supported. Power distance (H2a) and collectivism (H2c) showed strong, positive, significant effects on all LO dimensions with standardized paths ≈0.89–0.95 (p<0.01) and R²≈0.80–0.91. Model fit acceptable to excellent (H2a χ²/df=2.55, IFI/CFI=0.99; H2c χ²/df=2.94, IFI/CFI=0.98). Uncertainty avoidance (H2b), masculinity (H2d), and long-term orientation (H2e) were not supported; their models showed poorer fit indices (e.g., H2b χ²/df=4.23, RMSEA=0.099; H2e χ²/df=3.33, RMSEA=0.084). Overall: Transformational leadership exerts a strong direct effect on all LO dimensions; personal cultural values exert a partial effect, specifically via power distance and collectivism.

Findings confirm that transformational leadership behaviors—articulating vision, modeling appropriate behavior, fostering acceptance of group goals, providing intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and high performance expectations—strongly promote the dimensions of a learning organization (continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, embedded systems, empowerment, system connections, supportive leadership). This aligns with prior work in both educational and other organizational settings that link transformational leadership to organizational learning and learning organization development. Regarding cultural values, the strong positive effects of power distance and collectivism on LO dimensions indicate that, within the studied context, higher respect for authority structures and group orientation may facilitate coordinated learning processes and adherence to learning-supportive systems and leadership. The positive association of power distance with learning organization characteristics was unexpected but may reflect prevailing traditional/authoritarian cultural norms in which authority catalyzes participation and alignment in learning initiatives. Collectivism’s positive effect is consistent with the notion that group cohesion and a sense of “we” enhance shared learning. In contrast, strong uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation did not show effects on LO dimensions. Strong uncertainty avoidance may inhibit risk-taking and experimentation essential to learning; masculine value orientation and long-term orientation effects may be muted in this sample, potentially due to moderate levels of transformational leadership and contextual factors. Overall, results suggest leadership is a primary driver, with certain cultural orientations (collectivism, power distance) shaping how learning organization practices take root.

The study demonstrates that transformational leadership has a robust, positive effect on creating a learning organization in higher education institutions in the field of physical education and sports, while personal cultural values have a partial effect—specifically, power distance and collectivism positively influence learning organization dimensions. Practical implications include the need for administrators to develop and enact transformational leadership behaviors to cultivate a learning culture and systems that support continuous learning. Organizations should assess employees’ personal cultural values and align them with organizational values to support learning initiatives. Capacity building through targeted training to enhance knowledge sharing, professional expertise, and stakeholder engagement can further enable the shift toward learning organizations. Future research should use larger and more diverse samples across different higher education fields and institutions, integrate additional predictors and mechanisms (e.g., different leadership styles, organizational culture types, mediators, organizational commitment, job satisfaction), and adopt qualitative or mixed-methods designs (e.g., case studies, observation, interviews). Including internal and external stakeholders beyond academic staff can provide a fuller understanding of how leadership and cultural values interact to form learning organizations.

- Sampling limited to 328 academic staff in Turkish higher education institutions within physical education and sports; generalizability is constrained. - Cross-sectional, quantitative design; causality cannot be inferred, and depth is limited compared to qualitative approaches. - The proposed model is not comprehensive; potential omitted variables (e.g., mediators, other leadership styles, organizational culture types, organizational commitment, job satisfaction). - Cultural values measured at the individual level may not fully capture organizational/national cultural dynamics. - Data collected via self-report surveys (common method bias risk) and online during COVID-19 period. - External stakeholders were not included; perspectives are limited to academic staff.