Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085

DOI 10.1007/s00170-012-4038-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Relations between transformational leadership, organizational

learning, knowledge management, organizational
innovation, and organizational performance: an empirical
investigation of manufacturing firms
Ali Noruzy & Vahid Majazi Dalfard & Behnaz Azhdari &
Salman Nazari-Shirkouhi & Aliasghar Rezazadeh

Received: 12 November 2010 / Accepted: 10 January 2012 / Published online: 16 March 2012
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Abstract The aim of this study is to determine relations
between transformational leadership, organizational learning,
knowledge management, organizational innovation, and orga-
nizational performance among Iranian manufacturing compa-
nies through structural equation modeling. Two hundred
eighty senior, executive, administrative, and other-level man-
agers are selected from among 106 companies having more
than 50 employees. Data are analyzed using structural equation
modeling. The following findings are found: transformational
leadership directly influenced organizational learning and
knowledge management. Organizational learning directly
and positively influenced knowledge management of
A. Noruzy
Department of Educational Administration,
Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran,
Tehran, Iran
V. M. Dalfard
Young Researchers Club, Kerman Branch,
Islamic Azad University,
Kerman, Iran
B. Azhdari
Department of Political Science, Baft Branch,
Islamic Azad University,
Baft, Iran
manufacturing firms. Transformational leadership positively
influenced organizational innovation and organizational per-
formance of manufacturing firms. Organizational learning
and knowledge management directly influenced organiza-
tional innovation; whereas organizational learning and orga-
nizational innovation directly influenced organizational
performance among manufacturing firms. Meanwhile, trans-
formational leadership positively and indirectly influenced
organizational innovation through organizational learning
and knowledge management. Knowledge management and
organizational learning effected organizational performance
indirectly by organizational innovation. The fit indices
shows that the proposed model have an appropriate fit
(χ2/df 02.33, RMSEA 00.069, NFI 00.95, NNFI 00.95,
CFI097). If leaders of manufacturing firms undertake a
transformational role and use organizational learning and
knowledge management, this will facilitate organizational
innovation and will consequently improve organizational
performance to a great extent in manufacturing firms.
Keywords Transformational leadership . Organizational
learning . Knowledge management . Organizational
innovation . Organizational performance . Manufacturing firms

S. Nazari-Shirkouhi 1 Introduction
Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering,
University of Tehran,
Tehran, Iran In today's world of ever-increasing competition, organiza-
tions are forced to look for new ways to improve their
A. Rezazadeh (*) performance. Improving the firm's performance requires that
Department of Technical Engineering, Ahar Branch,
multiple characteristics be already embedded in a firm.
Islamic Azad University,
Ahar, Iran Many previous studies usually focus on important factors
e-mail: a-rezazadeh@iau-ahar.ac.ir influencing on firm performance [1, 2]. It is especially
1074
important to gain a better understanding of factors influenc-
ing the successful development of firm performance. Previ-
ous findings emphasize the key role of innovation [1–10]
organizational learning [1, 11–15] and transformational
leadership [16–18] in improving organizational perfor-
mance. However, few studies have investigated the effects
of transformational leadership on organizational perfor-
mance through the mediating effects of different strategic
variables such as knowledge management, learning organi-
zation, and innovation. In this research, structural equation
modeling (SEM) has been applied to investigate casual
influence of organizational characteristics on manufacturing
companies' performance.
The SEM, introduced by Joreskog [19], is the most general
multivariate method. Recently, this approach has been widely
used in many various fields, including supply chain manage-
ment [20–22], marketing [23], healthcare [24], and psycholo-
gy [25]. Generally, SEM is the most multivariate method and
an extension of multiple regression analysis, factor analysis,
and path analysis. SEM is also known as covariance structure
analysis, latent variable analysis, confirmatory factor analysis,
and LISREL analysis. SEM is the result of a combination of
multi equation models from measurement and econometrics
models from psychology [26].
Structural equation modeling is a causal modeling ap-
proach that combines cause–effect information with statistical
data to provide a quantitative assessment of relationships
among the studied variables. When these relationships are
significant, the theoretical construction is considered valid
and can be used to provide guidelines for practical application
of the model [27]. The SEM is an appropriate and practical
method for empirical validation of causal relationships. In
addition, to some extent, the SEM could be used for predic-
tion. Structural equation modeling is a technique to specify,
estimate, and evaluate models of linear relationships among a
set of observed variables in terms of a generally smaller
number of unobserved or latent variables [28, 29].
The abilities of SEM to study direct and indirect relation-
ships between variables and to analyze relationships between
latent variables without random error distinguish SEM from
other simpler and relational modeling processes. Other major
characteristics of structural equation models are that they ex-
plicitly take into account measurement error that is ubiquitous
in most disciplines, and typically contain latent variables [30].
The SEM approach provides a mechanism for explicitly con-
sidering the measurement error in the observed variables (both
dependent and independent) in a given model. In contrast,
traditional regression analysis effectively ignores potential
measurement error in the explanatory (predictor, independent)
variables. As a consequence, regression's results can be incor-
rect and possibly entail misleading substantive conclusions. In
addition to handling measurement error, the SEM enables
researchers to readily develop, estimate, and test complex
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
multivariable models, as well as to study both direct and
indirect effects of variables involved in a given model [30].
Therefore, this study aimed at studying the mediating
effects of organizational learning, knowledge management,
and organizational innovation in the relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational performance
using SEM analysis so as to shed light on the direct and
indirect influences of these variables on organizational per-
formance in a causal model.
2 Framework and hypotheses
In this study, transformational leadership, organizational
learning, knowledge management, and organizational innova-
tion were considered as antecedents of organizational perfor-
mance. This study also explores whether transformational
leadership affects organizational learning and knowledge
management, with an emphasis on the mediating roles of
organizational learning, knowledge management, and organi-
zational innovation in the relationships between transforma-
tional leadership and organizational performance. Finally, this
study tests a model suggesting the way transformational lead-
ership, organizational learning, knowledge management, and
organizational innovation influence organizational perfor-
mance both directly and indirectly. The proposed model is
presented in Fig. 1. Studying these variables within a causal
model will shed light on the interrelationships between these
variables, in addition to help in explaining the organizational
performance in great detail.
2.1 Transformational leadership and organizational learning
Transformational leadership is a managerial style that seeks
to inspire employees by charismatic speech, motivation, and
intellectual stimulation. Seaver [31] defined transformation-
al leadership as a leadership style where one or more per-
sons engage with others in such a way that leaders and
followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation
and morality. This style of leadership occurs when the
leaders inspire an atmosphere of trust resulting in the em-
ployee performing beyond expectations [32]. Seaver [31]
indicated that transactional leadership occurs when one per-
son takes the initiative in making contact with others for the
purpose of an exchange of something valued.
The transformational leadership is based on more than
the compliance of followers; it involves shifts in the beliefs,
the needs, and the values of followers. Transformational
leaders have charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration of employees [33].The
leader's ability to inspire trust seems to be one of the central
components in the success of these leadership styles [34].
Such leadership motivates followers to take into account all
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
Fig. 1 The proposed model
Organizational
H1(+)
H3(+)
Transformational
leadership
Knowledge
Management
H2(+)
stakeholders of the organization. Nowadays, transformation-
al leadership can play a key role in enabling individuals and
organizations to create, exploit, renew, and apply knowledge
in order to create the essential competences required for
improvement of organizational learning [1].
Templeton et al. [35] defined organizational learning as
the set of actions (knowledge acquisition, information dis-
tribution, information interpretation, and organizational
memory) within the organization that intentionally and un-
intentionally influence positive organizational change. In
addition, Zollo and Winter [36] defined organizational
learning as a collective capability based on experiential
and cognitive processes and involving knowledge acquisi-
tion, knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization. Cur-
rently, organizational learning is being explained within the
context of strategic management, and considered as a source
of competitive advantage [37–39].
Berson et al. [40] indicated that the specification of learning
processes at different levels of analysis provides an opportu-
nity to uncover a detailed picture of the role of leaders in
facilitating organizational learning. They focused on the role
of leaders in motivating organizational learning. They showed
that leadership facilitates organizational learning to ultimately
affect organizational performance. Transformational leaders
must be able to create teams and provide them with direction,
energy, and lead them to create the processes of change and
especially organizational learning [41].
Amitay et al. [42] showed transformational leadership
was significantly related to organizational learning. Many
other studies confirm a positive relationship between trans-
formational leadership and organizational learning [1, 43,
44]. Thus the first hypothesis of the study is:
Hypothesis 1 Transformational leadership positively influen-
ces organizational learning.
2.2 Transformational leadership, organizational learning,
and knowledge management
Knowledge management includes activities involving the use,
sharing, and capture of knowledge within an organization
1075
H9(+)
Learning
H5(+)
H8(+)
H4(+) Organizational
Organizational
Performance
Innovation
H6(+)
H10(+)
[45]. Knowledge management is a technique of using a set
of management tools to add or create knowledge value. In
fact, knowledge management is the mechanisms that creates
and stores data to increase an organization's response time and
create innovation through the collection, storage, and study of
organizational information [46]. More and more organizations
have recognized the importance of efficient enterprise knowl-
edge construction, extraction, and management [47]. Jennex
[48] believed that institutions or organizations become more
effective if they are capturing, sharing, retaining, and reusing
organizational knowledge to create a successful business en-
vironment. Leadership is very important in knowledge man-
agement efforts. Team leaders, by using their transactional and
transformational behaviors and characteristics, may help fa-
cilitate these collective knowledge management actions [49].
Results of a study by Vincent [49] showed transforma-
tional leadership was significantly related to knowledge
management. Along the same lines, Amitay et al. [42]
showed significant correlations between employees' percep-
tions of transformational leadership and the extent to which
organizational arrangements supported the processing of
knowledge.
Generally, results of studies, as a whole, show knowledge
management behaviors are significantly predicted by trans-
formational leadership and that transformational leaders are
better suited to handle and engage in knowledge manage-
ment [50]. On the other hand, some authors have cast doubt
on the relationships between organizational learning and
knowledge management [40, 51, 52]. However, a few stud-
ies have addressed the influence of the organizational learn-
ing on knowledge management [1]. Aragon-Correa et al. [1]
and Skerlavaj [53] showed organizational learning had a
strong impact on knowledge management. According to
the aforementioned points, one can see that the literature
studying the relationships between organizational learning
and knowledge management is contradictory.
Can organizational learning give rise to knowledge man-
agement or is it the other way round? Authors are not
unanimous in response to this question. Some believe orga-
nizational learning and knowledge management can be both
cause and effect; while some others regard either of the
variables being the cause of the other [54]. This research
1076
assumes organizational learning is the factor which can
influence knowledge management in the manufacturing
firms. There are some studies supporting this idea [55, 56].
Therefore the second hypothesis of this study proposes:
Hypothesis 2 Transformational leadership positively influ-
ences knowledge management.
Hypothesis 3 Organizational learning positively influences
knowledge management.
2.3 Transformational leadership, organizational learning,
knowledge management, and organizational innovation
Innovation has become widely recognized as a key to com-
petitive success [57]. Organizational innovation refers to the
creation or adoption of an idea or behavior hence successful
implementation of them within the organization [58, 59].
The goal of innovation is to create business value by
developing worthwhile ideas into a customer-centric mar-
ketable reality. This, for most companies, is difficult to
achieve due to the lack of a methodology and tools for
systematic innovative thinking [60]. Studies show that the
ability to innovate is influenced by factors external and
internal to the organizations [61] and is considered as an
important organizational capacity to secure long-term com-
petitive position [62]. Only if firms can continually create
new products, systems, and service items to make every
department meet the demands of the customer will they be
able to obtain long-term success [63].
Transformational leaders could increase innovation with-
in the organizational context and they could use inspiration-
al motivation and intellectual stimulation, which are
important factors for organizational innovation [64]. Trans-
formational leadership may also have a positive impact on
the market success of the innovations [65]. Several studies
have shown that transformational leadership positively
influences organizational innovation [65–69]. Some authors
believe transformational leaders can directly decide to intro-
duce new ideas into an organization, set specific goals, and
encourage innovation of subordinates [1]. A few studies
have addressed the relationship between organizational
learning and organizational innovation, as well as between
knowledge management and organizational innovation in
manufacturing firms. Many authors believe innovative
organizations are intelligent and creative, and have high
capacity for learning effectively as well as building up
new knowledge [70–72]. Cohen and Levinthal [73] argued
innovative outputs depended on the prior accumulation of
knowledge which enabled innovators to assimilate and
make use of new knowledge. Some recent studies have
suggested that knowledge management is positively related
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
to organizational innovation [74]. Alberto et al. [74] showed
leadership style and organizational learning both had a
positive influence on firm innovation. Liao et al. [75] and
Aragon-Correa et al. [1] also found organizational learning
directly influenced innovation; transformational leadership
had a direct and positive influence on organizational learn-
ing and an indirect influence on organizational innovation
through organizational learning in manufacturing firms.
Thus, we propose the next hypotheses as follows:
Hypothesis 4 Transformational leadership positively influ-
ences organizational innovation.
Hypothesis 5 Organizational learning positively influences
organizational innovation.
Hypothesis 6 Knowledge management positively influences
organizational innovation.
Hypothesis 7 Transformational leadership positively and
indirectly influences organizational innovation through or-
ganizational learning and knowledge management.
2.4 Transformational leadership, organizational learning,
knowledge management, organizational innovation,
and organizational performance
Different variables have studied organizational perfor-
mance; these variables are categorized into internal and
external variables. External (environmental) as well as in-
ternal (organizational) factors have direct impacts on orga-
nizational performance [8]. Among internal variables being
studied in this paper are transformational leadership, orga-
nizational learning, knowledge management, and organiza-
tional innovation in manufacturing firms. Walker [76, 77]
reviewed 30 papers on organizational innovation and orga-
nizational performance empirically; he suggests that organi-
zational innovation is a route to better organizational
performance. In summary, results of various studies show
that organizational innovation positively influences organi-
zational performance [1, 8, 10, 76, 78–80]. In addition,
Darroch [81] and Liao and Wu [82] indicated that knowl-
edge management is positively related to organizational
innovation. Thus, we hypothesize that the influence of
knowledge management on organizational performance is
mediated by organizational innovation. On the other hand,
some researchers concluded that there was positive relation-
ship between organizational learning and organizational
performance [1].
Although few studies have focused on the direct influ-
ence of transformational leadership on organizational per-
formance, some research has indicated that the influences of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
transformational leadership and organizational learning on
organizational performance are mediated by other manage-
rial variables [16–18]. For instance, Aragon-Correa et al. [1]
found organizational learning influenced innovation directly
whereas transformational learning exerted an indirect influ-
ence on innovation through the mediation of organizational
learning. Moreover, organizational learning exerted an indi-
rect positive influence on organizational performance
through innovation. Garcia-Morales et al. [10] found trans-
formational leadership impacted organizational performance
through organizational learning and innovation. Therefore,
we propose the following hypotheses in line with the
literature:
Hypothesis 8 Organizational innovation positively influences
organizational performance.
Hypothesis 9 Organizational learning positively influences
organizational performance.
Hypothesis 10 Transformational leadership positively influen-
ces organizational performance.
Hypothesis11 Transformational leadership positively and
indirectly influences organizational performance through
organizational learning, knowledge management, and orga-
nizational innovation.
Hypothesis12 Organizational learning positively and indi-
rectly influences organizational performance through
knowledge management and organizational innovation.
Hypothesis13 Knowledge management positively and indi-
rectly influences organizational performance through organiza-
tional innovation.
3 Methods
3.1 Sample and procedure
Population in this study included managers of large- and-
small-scale manufacturing companies such as food indus-
tries (26%), car-utility manufacturing companies (17%),
pipe and faucet industries (22%), electric utility companies
(16%), and clothing industries (19%) that accepted in Teh-
ran Stock Exchange (TSE). In Iran and particularly in the
level of listed companies in TSE, there are many companies
which tolerate weakness of performance. For example, some
companies cannot pay their debts and their insufficient
return could not cover their expenses. In TSE, the measure
for manufacturing companies exiting capital market is
1077
commercial law of 141 acts. According to this act, the
companies are known as bankrupt whose retained losses
are more than 50% of their capital. If this financial defect
is discovered quickly, the chance of care and recovery will
be higher.
One hundred eighty companies were selected randomly
from among all these companies and industries that had
more than 50 employees. We contacted senior, executive,
administrative, and other-level managers of the companies
and asked them to participate in the study. One hundred six
companies agreed to take part in the study. Three hundred
eighty questionnaires were distributed among the sample
group, of which 280 (73%) were returned having been
completed. In addition, a non-response bias test was per-
formed between early and late respondents and results
showed that non-response bias is not a problem.
3.2 Measures
Our multi-item scales were drawn generally from prior
studies, the structure of the instruments was examined using
confirmatory factor analysis and reliabilities of the resulting
scales were assessed with Cranach's alpha. Meanwhile,
questionnaires had been translated and used in a pilot study
prior to final administration. Eighty managers from the
manufacturing companies completed the questionnaire and
provided helpful comments. Based on the respondents' feed-
backs, we prepared changes to the questionnaire to improve
its legibility and guarantee its exactness and suitability. In
addition, in the pilot study, we assessed the validity and
reliability of the scales. A factor analysis was performed on
the data from the pilot study. The results showed that all the
factors were loadings ranging (0.7 to 0.9) and all Cronbach's
alpha values (greater than 0.70) were adequate. The Appendix
provides a measurement summary with all remaining items
and their sources.
Transformational leadership Transformational leadership
was measured by the scales developed by Podsakoff,
Mackenzie, and Bommer [83]. The transformational leader-
ship scale consisted of five items. All items used a five-point
Likert scale anchored from 1, strongly disagree to 5 strongly
agree. We developed a confirmatory factor analysis to val-
idate our scales (χ2/df01.77, RMSEA00.05, NFI00.99,
NNFI00.99, CFI01). The scale showed high validity and
reliability (α00.86).
Organizational learning Organizational learning was mea-
sured by the scales developed by Garcia-Morales et al. [84].
The scale comprises four items. Each item is answered using
a five-point response anchor numbered from 1 (Never) to 5
(always). Results of confirmatory factor analysis (χ2/df0
1.50, RMSEA00.04, NFI00.98, NNFI00.98, CFI00.99)
1078
indicated the considerable and significant contribution of
each of the items in measuring organizational learning.
The scale showed unidimensionality and high validity and
reliability (α00.88).
Knowledge management Knowledge management was
measured by using the scales developed by Gold et al.
[85]. This scale consists of four interrelated processes:
knowledge acquisition, knowledge transfer, knowledge in-
tegration, and knowledge conversion. A five-point Likert-
type scale was used to measure knowledge management,
choices ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree.
We developed a confirmatory factor analysis to validate our
scales (χ2/df 00.26, RMSEA 00.03, NFI 00.99, NNFI 0
0.99, CFI01). The scale showed high validity and reliability
(α00.84).
Organizational innovation To assess organizational innova-
tion in manufacturing firms, the scale of Miller and Friesen's
[86] was used. The scale comprises four items. Each item is
answered using a five-point response anchor numbered from
(strongly disagree01, to strongly agree05). Using a confir-
matory factor analysis scales (χ2/df01.27, RMSEA00.03,
NFI00.97, NNFI00.97, CFI099). The confirmatory factor
analysis required deletion of one item from our scale. We
validated our scales and then verified each scale's unidimen-
sionality and its high validity and reliability (α00.75).
Organizational performance Organizational performance
was measured by using the scales Cho, Ozmentand, and
Sink [87]. A five-point Likert-type scale was used to mea-
sure organizational innovation, choices ranging from 1
strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree. We developed a con-
firmatory factor analysis to validate our scales (χ2/df01.56,
RMSEA 00.05, NFI 00.97, NNFI 00.97, CFI 099). The
scale showed high validity and reliability (α00.79).
3.3 Analysis
Structural equation modeling was conducted to assess the fit
of the hypothesized model using the LISREL 8.52 program.
Using structural equation modeling, we assessed how well
this hypothesized model fitted the data. SEM is a family of
statistical techniques which incorporates and integrates path
analysis and factor analysis. It is usually viewed as a con-
firmatory rather than exploratory procedure, using one of
three approaches: strictly confirmatory approach, alternative
model approach, and model development approach [88].
SEM can handle a large number of endogenous and exog-
enous variables, as well as latent variables specified as linear
combinations of the observed variables [89]. χ2/df, GFI,
CFI, NFI, NNFI, and RMSEA were the fit indices used to
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
evaluate the model. In general, the recommended level of
acceptable fit for GFI, CFI, NFI, and NNFI is 0.90 or more.
The chi-square test is a measure of exact fit. A significant
chi-square value (alpha00.05) indicates that the model does
not fit the data. The RMSEA is a measure of approximate
fit. RMSEA values lower than 0.08 indicate satisfactory fit,
and values lower than 0.05 indicate close fit [90].
4 Results
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and correlations for all the
measured variables. As expected, transformational leadership
was positively correlated to organizational learning, knowl-
edge management, innovation, and performance. Also, orga-
nizational learning was positively related to knowledge
management, innovation, and performance. Finally, both,
knowledge management and innovation were found to posi-
tively correlate to performance. Among all the variables,
organizational learning had the strongest correlation with
performance.
Table 2 shows the direct, indirect, and total effects and their
level of significance between predictor and dependent varia-
bles in the final model. With respect to the predicted paths, our
hypotheses were generally supported. Organizational perfor-
mance in manufacturing firms was significantly and positively
predicted by transformational leadership (β00.43), organiza-
tional learning (β00.73), and innovation (β00.52). This set of
predictors accounted for a combined 69% of the variance in
organization performance. As hypothesized, transformational
leadership exerted a direct effect on organizational learning
(β00.35) and knowledge management (β00.29). Transfor-
mational leadership also effected knowledge management
indirectly (β00.13) through the mediation of organizational
learning. In addition, transformational leadership has an indi-
rect effect (β00.30) on organizational performance through
organizational learning, knowledge management, and organi-
zational innovation.
As expected, innovation was predicted by transformational
leadership (β00.52), organizational learning (β00.24), and
knowledge management (β00.16). Overall, 55% of the vari-
ance in innovation is explained by the set of predictors. Trans-
formational leadership also effected innovation indirectly
(β00.15) by organizational learning and knowledge manage-
ment. Furthermore, organizational learning exerted an indirect
effect on the innovation (β00.16) through knowledge man-
agement. Furthermore, organizational learning influenced on
organizational performance indirectly (β00.15) by knowledge
management and organizational innovation. As hypothesized,
knowledge management influenced on organizational perfor-
mance indirectly (β00.08) by organizational innovation.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2. As
shown in Table 3, the model results in an acceptable fit.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085 1079

Table 1 Means, standard devia-

tions, and correlations Variables MD SD 1 2 3 4 5

Transformational leadership 16.75 4.35 1

Knowledge management 12.27 4.67 0.37** 1
Organizational learning 13.17 4.61 0.31** 0.46** 1
Innovation 19.32 4.63 0.50** 0.52** 0.55** 1
Performance 13.31 3.60 0.53** 0.34** 0.59** 0.33** 1
**p<0.01

5 Discussion responsibilities, motivation, skills, and competences for

A major contribution of the study was the empirical exam-
ination of the conceptual model on manufacturing compa-
nies shown in Fig. 2. The first main contribution of this
study is its confirmation that transformational leadership
aids to improve a base of organizational learning in the
organization. Consistent with the view of Berson et al.
[40] on organizational learning, transformational leadership
was significantly related to organizational learning. Berson
et al. [40] emphasized the role of leaders in organizational
learning and showed that the specification of learning pro-
cesses at different levels of analysis provided an opportunity
to uncover a detailed picture of the role of leaders in facil-
itating organizational learning. Densten [91] and Slater and
Naver [43] argued that transformational leaders are central
to integrating processes to construct a learning organization.
They are strategic in producing a surrounding condition that
stimulates the disciplines of organizational learning and
their interaction.
As we discussed in our research results transformational
leadership and knowledge management were positively re-
lated. These results support previous literature stating such
positive effects of innovation [49, 50]. Transformational
leaders communicate a common vision and create a benefi-
cial organizational social context that can urge followers to
engage in a higher degree of knowledge management activ-
ities [92]. Transformational leaders provide information,
subordinates in creating, acquiring, sharing, storing, and
implementing knowledge. Another finding shows that orga-
nizational learning positively influences knowledge man-
agement. Manufacturing firms which have a successful
performance in terms of organizational learning are more
likely to be successful at creating, sharing, storing, applying,
and totally managing knowledge.
Our results also show that transformational leadership has an
important relationship to organizational innovation in manufac-
turing firms. On the other hand, our results support the impor-
tance of transformational leadership in organizational
innovation in manufacturing firms. Conducted studies have
supported a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational innovation [66–69]. Elkins and
Keller [64] argued that transformational leaders could increase
innovation inside the organizational context and they could use
inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation, which are
important factors for organizational innovation. Our empirical
model demonstrated that organizational learning had positive
effects on organizational innovation in manufacturing firms.
This finding is consistent with the past findings [1, 74, 75].
Transformational leadership is important in forming organiza-
tion potential to generate innovation by nurturing the environ-
ment and decision-making that foster successful generation and
implementation of knowledge [93]. The results show that
knowledge management has positive relationship with organi-
zational innovation in manufacturing firms. This finding is in

Table 2 Structural model results (direct, indirect, total effects, and R2)

Path Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect R2

To organizational learning from transformational leadership 0.35** – 0.35** 0.12

To knowledge management from transformational leadership 0.29** 0.13** 0.42** 0.30
Organizational learning 0.38** – 0.63**
To innovation from transformational leadership 0.52** 0.15** 0.67** 0.55
Organizational learning 0.24** 0.06* 0.30**
Knowledge management 0.16** – 0.16**
To organization performance from transformational leadership 0.43** 0.30** 0.73** 0.69
Organizational learning 0.73** 0.15** 0.88**
Knowledge management – 0.08* 0.08*
Innovation 0.52** – –

*p<0.05, **p<0.01
1080 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085

Table 3 The measures of model fit
χ /df
2
GFI CFI NFI NNFI
2.33 0.90 0.97 0.95 0.95
accordance with researchers such as Davenport and Prusak
[94], Darroch [81], and Liao and Wu [82]. It should be taken
into consideration that the management of knowledge is an
important antecedent of innovation [82]. Therefore one can
say by applying knowledge management strategies it would
be possible to facilitate the creation and application of new
genuine behaviors and policies in manufacturing firms. In
addition, the results show that organizational learning and
knowledge management positively and indirectly influences
organizational performance through organizational innovation.
Therefore, organizational innovation plays a bridge role to
connect organizational learning and knowledge management
with organizational performance.
Moreover, the results of this study show that transformation-
al leadership positively and indirectly influences organizational
innovation through organizational learning and knowledge
RMSEA management in manufacturing firms. Therefore, organizational
learning and knowledge management, play a bridge role to
0.069 connect transformational leadership and organizational innova-
tion. If transformational leaders in manufacturing firms ignore
the organizational learning and knowledge management they
cannot improve organizational innovation directly.
As expected from previous research [1, 4, 8, 76, 80, 95],
organizational innovation had direct effect on organizational
performance. Hurley and Hult [96] have argued that organ-
izations with higher innovation will gain better results from
the environment, obtaining the skills needed to raise orga-
nizational performance and consolidate maintainable com-
petitive advantages easily. In the organization, the leader's
support for innovation is crucial. Leaders can do much to
prepare the minds of their organization. Because innovation
is not an individual act but a collective achievement, it takes
work to create a context that lawful innovative behavior
dedicates resources to innovation and assumes the structure
and culture that supports the growth and execution of
innovation [10].

* p< 0.05 and ** p < 0.01

OL OL

OL OL
.83 .80
.80 .80

Organizational OP OP OP
learning
TL
OP .72 .52
.72
TL **
.63
.78 .73
.35** **
.82 .24
Transformational Organizational
.66 leadership .43** performance
TL
.52**
.52**
77 .71
.29** Organizational
innovation
**
TL .38
TL
.16** .73

Knowledge .76
OI
Management
.67
.63 OI

KM
.75 .79 OI
.79
.76
KM KM
KM KM
**p<0.01
Fig. 2 Results of the structural equation model
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
Another important finding in this study was relationship
between organizational learning and organizational perfor-
mance. Our study suggests that the level of organizational
learning in the organizations is going to be the one of the
substantial criteria for determining their development and
success. Thus organizations that show a greater of organiza-
tional learning have higher performance levels. In addition, in
manufacturing firms that learn and learn speedily gain a higher
strategic capability that enables them to hold on to a situation
of competitive advantage and enhance long-term performance
[71]. In general, this finding shows that organizational learn-
ing demonstrates an important path to performance, success,
and competitive advantage for manufacturing firms.
Finally, the results of the structural equation model indicate
that transformational leadership positively influences organi-
zational performance in manufacturing firms. This finding is
parallel to Aragon-Correa et al. [1], Garcia-Morales et al. [10],
and Xenikou and Simosi [97]. Transformational leadership
might create group expectations for higher performance
which, in turn affect levels of performance [97].
6 Managerial implication
This study provided some guidelines to aid managers to
comprehend how to enhance employee organizational learn-
ing, knowledge management, organizational innovation,
and organizational performance. Our research has several
implications for managers. First, our research shows the
importance of transformational leadership for improving
and promoting organizational performance through organi-
zational learning, knowledge management, and organiza-
tional innovation. It recommends organizations to promote
transformational leadership. Transformational leadership
has a key role in enabling individuals and organizations to
create, exploit, renew, and apply knowledge in order to
create the essential competences required for improvement
of organizational performance in manufacturing firm.
Second, this study shows that transformational leadership
is an important determinant of organizational learning and
innovation. This appears that managers' support for organiza-
tional learning and innovation is crucial in the organization.
Thus, managers should engage in transformational leadership
behaviors in order to foster organizational learning and inno-
vation. In organizations, managers have to concentrate on
building a context helpful to innovation and organizational
learning. Managers can do much to make ready the minds of
their organization. Innovation occurs in contexts that legiti-
mates innovation behavior and devotes resources to innova-
tion. Ulrich et al. [98] argued that organizational learning
occurs when the managers not only create ideas but also are
capable of sharing them and of achieving a commitment to
learning among members. Thus, leaderships must know and
1081
administer practically the strategic factors that influenced
organizational learning and innovation and that results in
improvements in the organizational performance.
Third, results of this study show that innovation had direct
effect on organization's performance. Transformational leader-
ship is important in forming organization's potential to generate
innovation by nurturing the environment and decision making
that foster successful generation and implementation of knowl-
edge [93]. Bass and Avolio [33] argued that in innovative
organizations, leaders learn ceaselessly, and commence
changes in the organization and its environment. Transforma-
tional leadership supports innovative behavior and strengthens
motivation to enhance the organization's results. Van de Ven
[93] stresses that leaders play a key role in organizational
innovation and in creating conditions that encourage the abili-
ties/practices needed to promote organizational innovation.
Thus, managers should remember that transformational leader-
ship is important to growth the performance employee in
manufacturing firms producing increase innovation.
Fourth, results of this study reflect that transformational
leadership positively and indirectly influences organizational
innovation through organizational learning and knowledge man-
agement. Therefore, organizational learning and knowledge
management play a medium role to connect transformational
leadership and organizational innovation. If transformational
leaders of a given organization ignore the organizational learn-
ing and knowledge management, they cannot directly improve
organizational innovation. In order to increase organizational
innovation, transformational leadership should be applied via
organizational learning and knowledge management. In sum-
mary, the present study provides the managers better understand
how to increase organizational learning and innovation and
improve the performance of the employees by transformational
leadership.
7 Conclusions, limitations, and future research
directions
Using data collected from manufacturing firms' managers, the
present study investigated effects of organizational character-
istics on organizational performance through structural equa-
tion modeling
The study results indicate that transformational leadership
was a significant determinant of organizational learning,
knowledge management, organizational innovation, and orga-
nizational performance. These findings demonstrate that trans-
formational leadership impacted organizational performance
both directly and indirectly. The study results also show that
organizational learning influenced on organizational perfor-
mance both directly and indirectly through knowledge man-
agement and organizational innovation. According to the
results of path analysis, knowledge management has an indirect
1082 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085

effect on organizational performance through organizational
innovation. In this study, the organizational innovation was also
found to be positively connected to organizational perfor-
mance. It should be noted that the direct effect of organizational
learning on organizational performance was higher than that of
others variable. In general, our research indicates the important
of an integrated analysis of direct and indirect influences of
organizational characteristics on organizational performance
and strengthens previous literature on the importance of the
relationships between aforementioned variables.
There are several limitations that should be considered when
interpreting these results. First, survey data based on self-
reports may be subject to social desirability biases, common
method variance, and response distortion due to ego defense
tendencies were a concern [99]. Second, the data were cross-
sectional in nature and this limitation prevents the inference of
causality. This allows us to analyze only a specific situation in
time of the manufacturing companies studied, not their overall
conduct over time [10]. Thus, future research should focus on a
longitudinal study.
Third, the sampling of the study imposed limitations as to
the generalizability of the obtained results. We concentrated
only on five manufacturing companies (food industries, car-
utility manufacturing companies, pipe and faucet industries,
electric utility companies, and clothing industries). Firms from
other sectors may supply different results. Furthermore, cau-
tions should be taken while using the results in different
cultures. It is important to note that readers should be cautious
when generalizing the results to different cultural contexts.
Thus, more research in this field can investigate relationships
between those variables in different cultural and organizational
setting. Finally, our model analyzes only some factors affected
by transformational leadership. It is suggested that future re-
search should focus on other antecedent and consequences
transformational leadership in manufacturing companies.
Acknowledgment The authors are grateful for the valuable com-
ments and suggestion from the respected reviewers. Their valuable
comments and suggestions have enhanced the strength and signifi-
cance of our paper.

Appendix

Table 4 Measurement summary with all remaining items and sources

Measures and items Source

Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with the following statements (1 “strongly disagree”, 5 “strongly agree”).
❖ Transformational leadership Podsakoff et al. [83]
The firm’s management is always on the lookout for new opportunities for the Unit/department/organization.
The firm’s management has a clear common view of its final aims
The firm’s management succeeds in motivating the rest of the company.
The firm’s management always acts as the organization’s leading force.
The organization has leaders who are capable of motivating and guiding their colleagues on the job.
❖ Organizational learning Garcia-Morales et al. [84]
The organization has learned or acquired much new and relevant knowledge over the last three years.
Organizational members have acquired some critical capacities and skills over the last three years.
The organization’s performance has been influenced by new learning it has acquired over the last three years.
The organization is a learning organization.
❖ Knowledge management Gold et al. [85]
Our firm has processes for integrating different sources and types of knowledge
Our firm has processes for converting competitive intelligence into plans of action
Our firm has processes for acquiring knowledge about our business partners
Our firm has processes for exchanging knowledge with our business partners
❖ Organizational innovation Miller and Friesen [86]
The rate of introduction of new products or services into the organization has grown rapidly.
The rate of introduction of new methods of production or delivery of services into the organization has grown
rapidly.
In comparison with its competitors the organization has become much more innovative.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
Table 4 (continued)
Measures and items
❖ Organizational performance
Five-point scale, in which 5—excellent and 1—poor; four items construct.
How well does your company perform in the following areas?
Profitability
Sales growth
Customer satisfaction
Overall performance
References
1. Aragón-Correa JA, García-Morales VJ, Cordón-Pozo E (2007)
Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and
performance: lessons from Spain. Ind Mark Manag 36(3):349–359
2. Jiménez-Jiménez D, Sanz-Valle R (2011) Innovation, organiza-
tional learning, and performance. J Bus Res 64(4):408–417.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010
3. Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1995) Product development: past
research, present findings, and future directions. Acad Manage
Rev 20(2):343–378
4. Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis
of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manage J 34
(3):550–590
5. Roberts P (1999) Product innovation, product–market competition
and persistent profitability in the U.S.pharmaceutical industry.
Strateg Manage J 20(7):655–670
6. Thornhill S (2006) Knowledge, innovation and firm performance in
high- and low technology regimes. J Bus Venturing 21(5):687–703
7. Weerawardena J, O'Cass A, Julian C (2006) Does industry matter?
Examining the role of industry structure and organizational learn-
ing in innovation and brand performance. J Bus Res 59(1):37–45
8. Nam S (2007) How innovation willingness influences the public
organizational performance relationship: developments in how
stakeholders (external organizational factors) and internal manage-
ment affect performance. Rutgers The State University of New
Jersey—Newark, Newark, NJ
9. Cho YJ, Leem CS, Shin KT (2007) The relationships among
manufacturing innovation, competitiveness, and business perfor-
mance in the manufacturing industries of Korea. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 38(7–8):840–850
10. Garcia-Morales VJ, Lloréns-Montes FJ, Verdú-Jover AJ (2008)
The effects of transformational leadership on organizational per-
formance through knowledge and innovation. Br J Manag 19:299–
319
11. Bontis MM, Hulland J (2002) Managing an organizational
learning system by aligning stocks and flows. J Manag Stud
39(4):437–469
12. Zahra SA, Ireland RD, Hitt MA (2000) International expansion by
new venture firms: international diversity, mode of market entry,
technological learning, and performance. Acad Manage J 43
(5):925–950
13. Brockman BK, Morgan RM (2003) The role of existing knowledge
in new product innovativeness and performance. Decis Sci 34
(2):385–419
14. Keskin H (2006) Market orientation, learning orientation, and
innovation capabilities in SMEs. Eur J Innov Manage 9(4):396–
417
1083
Source
Cho et al. [87]
15. Ussahawanitchakit P (2008) Impacts of organizational learning on
innovation orientation and firm efficiency: an empirical assessment
of accounting firms in Thailand. Int J Bus Res 8(4):1–12
16. DeGroot T, Kiker DS, Cross TC (2000) A meta-analysis to review
organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Can J
Adm Sci 17(4):356–371
17. Hancott D (2005) The relationship between transformational lead-
ership and organizational performance in the largest public com-
panies in canada. Dissertation, Capella University
18. Boerner S, Eisenbeiss SA, Griesser D (2007) Follower behavior
and organizational performance: the impact of transformational
leaders. J Leadersh Org Stud 13(3):15–26
19. Jöreskog KG (1967) Some contributions to maximum likelihood
factor analysis. Psychometrika 32:443–482
20. Li S, Ragu-Nathan B, Ragu-Nathan TS, Subba Rao S (2006) The
impact of supply chain management practices on competitive
advantage and organizational performance. Omega 34(2):107–124
21. Ou CS, Liu FC, Hung YC, Yen DC (2010) A structural model of
supply chain management on firm performance. Int J Oper Prod
Manag 30(5):526–545
22. Heydari J, Baradaran Kazemzadeh R, Chaharsooghi SK (2009) A
study of lead time variation impact on supply chain performance.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 40(11):1206–1215
23. Talke K, Hultink EJ (2010) The impact of the corporate mind–set
on new product launch strategy and market performance. J Prod
Innov Manag 27(2):220–237
24. Yanuar F, Ibrahim K, Jemain AA (2010) On the application of
structural equation modeling for the construction of a health index.
Environ health Prev Med 15(5):285–291
25. Vecchio RP, Justin JE, Pearce CL (2010) Empowering leadership:
an examination of mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical
structure. Leadersh Q 21(3):530–542
26. Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R (2010) Multivariate
data analysis: a global perspective, 7th edn. New Jersey,
Pearson Prentice Hall
27. Mittal A, Kassim A (2007) Bayesian network technologies: appli-
cations and graphical models. Idea Group Inc (IGI)
28. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J (2006)
Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor
analysis results: a review. J Educ Res 99(6):323–338
29. Roberts N, Thatcher JB, Grover V (2010) Advancing operations
management theory using exploratory structural equation model-
ling techniques. Int J Prod Res 48(15):29–43
30. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA (2000) A first course in structural
equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah
31. Seaver DS (2010) Effect of transformational leadership in a cross-
cultural organization: a case study. Dissertation, Capella University.
32. Yukl G (2002) Leadership in organizations, 5th edn. Prentice-Hall,
New York
1084
33. Bass B, Avolio BJ (2000) MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire
technical report. Sage, Thousand Oaks
34. Embry k (2010) A subordinate description of the experience of
working with a supervisor that is using transformational leadership:
a qualitative study. Dissertation, Capella University
35. Templeton GF, Lewis BR, Snyder CA (2002) Development of a
measure for the organizational learning construct. J Manag Inf Syst
19(2):175–218
36. Zollo M, Winter SG (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution
of dynamic capabilities. Organ Sci 13(6):339–351
37. Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.
Strateg Manag J 17:109–122
38. Montes FJL, Moreno AR, Morales VG (2005) Influence of support
leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, inno-
vation and performance: an empirical examination. Technovation 25
(10):1159–1172
39. Liao S, Fei W, Liu C (2008) Relationships between knowledge
inertia, organizational learning and organization innovation. Tech-
novation 28(4):183–195
40. Berson Y, Nemanich LA, Waldman DA, Galvin BM, Keller RT
(2006) Leadership and organizational learning: a multiple levels
perspective. Leadersh Q 17(6):577–594
41. McDonough EF (2000) Investigation of factors contributing to the
success of cross-functional teams. J Prod Innov Manag 17(3):221–235
42. Amitay M, Popper M, Lipshitz R (2006) Leadership styles and
organizational learning in community clinics. Learn Organ 12
(1):57–70
43. Slater SF, Narver JC (1995) Market orientation and the learning
organization. J Mark 59(3):63–74
44. Snell RS (2001) Moral foundations of the learning organization.
Hum Relat 54:319–342
45. Aguiar L (2009) Applying knowledge management for research
and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Dissertation,
University of Phoenix
46. Frappaolo C (2006) Knowledge management. Capstone Publishing
Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex, UK
47. Hou J, Sun M, Chuo H (2004) An intelligent knowledge manage-
ment model for construction and reuse of automobile manufacturing
intellectual properties. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 26(1–2):169–182
48. Jennex ME (2005) Knowledge management in modern organiza-
tions. Idea Group, Hershey
49. Vincent C (2006) Leadership in a knowledge society:an examina-
tion of the relationship between perceptions of leadership and
knowledge management actionsusing a social action theory ap-
proach. Dissertation, George Washington University
50. Crawford CB (2005) Effects of transformational leadership and
organizational position on knowledge management. J Knowl
Manag 9(6):6–16
51. Senge PM, Roberts C, Ross RB, Smith BJ, Kleiner A (1994) The
fifth discipline fieldbook: strategies and tools for building a learn-
ing organization. Nicholas Brealey, London
52. Tushman ML, Nadler D (1986) organizing for innovation. Calif
Manage Rev 28(3):74–92
53. Skerlavaj M (2009) Transactional and transformational leadership
impacts on organizational learning. J East Eur Manag Stud 14
(2):144–165
54. Liao S, Wu C (2009) The relationship among knowledge manage-
ment, organizational learning, and organizational performance. Int
J Bus Manag 4(4):47–76
55. McElroy W (2003) The new knowledge management: complexity,
learning, and sustainable innovation. Butterworth-Heineman,
Burlington, pp 6–16
56. Firestone JM, McElroy MW (2004) Organizational learning and
knowledge management: the relationship. Learn Organ 11(2):177–
184
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
57. Francis D, Bessant J (2005) Targeting innovation and implications
for capability development. Technovation 25(3):171–183
58. Amabile TM (1998) How to kill creativity. Harv Bus Rev 6(5):77–87
59. Damanpour F (1996) Organizational complexity and innovation:
developing and testing multiple contingency models. Manag Sci
42(5):693–716
60. Lee J, AbuAli M (2010) Innovative product advanced service
systems (I-PASS): methodology, tools, and applications for dom-
inant service design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 52(9–12):1161–
1173
61. Cravens DW, Piercy NF, Low GS (2002) The innovation chal-
lenges of proactive cannibalization and discontinuous technology.
Eur Bus Rev 14(4):257–267
62. Hernández-Mogollon R, Cepeda-Carrión G, Cegarra-Navarro JG,
Leal-Millán A (2010) The role of cultural barriers in the relation-
ship between open-mindedness and organizational innovation. J
Organ Chang Manag 23(4):360–376
63. Chang S, Lee M (2008) The linkage between knowledge accumu-
lation capability and organizational innovation. J Knowl Manag 12
(1):3–20
64. Elkins T, Keller RT (2003) Leadership in research and develop-
ment organizations: a literature review and conceptual framework.
Leadersh Q 14:587–606
65. Gumusluoglu L, Lisev A (2009) Transformational leadership and
organizational innovation: the roles of internal and external sup-
port for innovation. J Prod Innov Manag 26:264–277
66. Sosik JJ, Kaha SS, Avolio BJ (1998) Transformational leadership
and dimensions of creativity: motivating idea generation in
computer-mediated groups. Creativity Res J 11(2):111–121
67. Waldman DA, Atwater LE (1993) The nature of effective leader-
ship and championing processes at different levels in an R&D
hierarchy. J High Technol Manag Res 5(2):233–245
68. Keller RT (1992) Transformational leadership and the performance
of research and development project groups. J Manag 18:489–501
69. Jung DI, Chow C, Wu A (2003) The role of transformational
leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses
and some preliminary findings. Leadersh Q 14:525–544
70. Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creating company.
Oxford University Press, New York
71. Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline. Doubleday Publication,
New York
72. Woodman RW, Sawyer JE, Griffin RW (1993) Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Acad Manage Rev 18(2):293–321
73. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new
perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152
74. Alberto AJ, Victor GJ, Eulogio C (2007) Leadership and organi-
zational learning's role on innovation and performance: lessons
from Spain. Ind Mark Manag 36(3):349–359
75. Liao SH, Fei WC, Liu CT (2008) Relationship between knowledge
inertia, organizational learning, and organization innovation. Tech-
novation 289(4):183–195
76. Walker RM (2004) Innovation and organizational performance:
evidence and aresearch agenda. AIM Research Working Paper
Series, June 2, 2004
77. Walker RM (2005) Excellence, performance and innovation. In:
Hartley J, Pike A (eds) Managing to improve public service. AIM
Research
78. Damanpour F (1991) Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis
of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad Manage J 34
(3):555–590
79. Hage JT (1999) Organizational innovation and organizational
change. Annu Rev Sociol 25:597–622
80. Gopalakrishnan S (2000) Unraveling the links between dimensions
of innovation and organizational performance. J High Techn
Manag Res 11(1):137–153
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1073–1085
81. Darroch J (2005) Knowledge management, innovation, and firm
performance. J Knowl Manag 9(3):101–115
82. Liao S, Wu C (2010) System perspective of knowledge management,
organizational learning, and organizational innovation. Expert Syst
Appl 37(2):1096–1103
83. Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Bommer WH (1996) Trans-
formational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership
determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust
and organizational citizenship behaviors. J Manag 22:259–
298
84. García-Morales VJ, Lloréns-Montes FJ, Verdú-Jover AJ (2007)
The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
performance through knowledge and innovation. Br J Manag
19:299–319
85. Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH (2001) Knowledge manage-
ment: an organizational capabilities perspective. J Manag Inf Syst
18(1):185–214
86. Miller D, Friesen PH (1983) Strategy-making and environment:
the third link. Strateg Manag J 4:221–235
87. Cho JJ, Ozment J, Sink H (2008) Logistics capability, logistics
outsourcing and firm performance in an e-commerce market. Int J
Phys Distrib Logist Manag 38(5):336–359
88. Garson GD (2007) Structural equation modeling, Statnotes: topics
in multivariate analysis. http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/
pa765/statnote.htm. Accessed 09 April 2007
89. Lu CS, Lai K, Cheng T (2007) Application of structural
equation modeling to evaluate the intention of shippers to use
1085
internet services in liner shipping. Eur J Oper Res 180:845–
867
90. Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York
91. Densten IL (2005) The relationship between visioning behaviours
of leaders and follower burnout. Br J Manag 16:105–118
92. Bryant SE (2003) The role of transformational and transactional
leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational
knowledge. J Leadersh Organ Stud 9(4):32–44
93. Van de Ven AH (1986) Central problems in the management of
innovation. Manag Sci 32:590–607
94. Davenport TH, Prusak L (1998) Working knowledge: how organiza-
tions manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
95. Damanpour F, Szabat KA, Evan WM (1989) The relationship
between types of innovation and organizational performance. J
Manag Stud 26(6):587–601
96. Hurley RF, Hult GT (1998) Innovation, market orientation, and
organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination.
J Mark 62:42–54
97. Xenikou A, Simosi M (2006) Organisational culture and transfor-
mational leadership as predictors of business unit performance. J
Manag Psychol 21(6):566–579
98. Ulrich D, Von Glinow MA, Jick T (1993) High-impact learning:
building and diffusing learning capability. Organ Dyn 22(2):52–66
99. Sy T, Tram S, O'hara LA (2006) Relation of employee and manager
emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and performance. J Vocat
Behav 68:461–473