See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318475003

Leadership styles and organizational learning in UK for-profit and non-profit

sports organizations

Article  in  International Journal of Organizational Analysis · July 2017

DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-07-2016-1042

CITATIONS READS

71 4,905

1 author:

Majd Megheirkouni
Abertay University
28 PUBLICATIONS   340 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leadership in non-profit, for-profit, and public sports sectors View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Majd Megheirkouni on 15 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Leadership styles and organizational learning in UK for-profit and non-profit
sports organizations
Majd Megheirkouni,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Majd Megheirkouni, (2017) "Leadership styles and organizational learning in UK for-profit and
non-profit sports organizations", International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25 Issue: 4,
pp.596-612, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2016-1042
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2016-1042
Downloaded on: 07 November 2017, At: 22:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 97 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 137 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Change management through leadership: the mediating role of organizational culture",
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 723-739 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2017-1117">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2017-1117</a>
(2017),"Sustainability learning challenges in a Brazilian government organization", International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25 Iss 4 pp. 562-576 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOA-02-2015-0842">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2015-0842</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

Token:Eprints:XNNCHVWVXIRJSDV5KANT:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


IJOA
25,4
596
Received 12 July 2016
Revised 19 September 2016
30 December 2016
Accepted 16 February 2017
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)
International Journal of
Organizational Analysis
Vol. 25 No. 4, 2017
pp. 596-612
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1934-8835
DOI 10.1108/IJOA-07-2016-1042
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm
Leadership styles and
organizational learning in
UK for-profit and non-profit
sports organizations
Majd Megheirkouni
Department of Business Systems and Operations,
Business School, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the transformational and transactional leadership
styles and organizational learning at for-profit and non-profit sports organizations, and the impact of these
leadership styles on enhancing organizational learning in these sports organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative questionnaire survey method was adopted. The data
were collected from for-profit and non-profit sports organizations in the UK.
Findings – Management by exception-active in transactional leadership and idealized leadership in
transformational leadership seem to be equally important for facilitating organizational learning. The results
also revealed significant differences between for-profit and non-profit sports organizations in leadership
styles and organizational learning.
Research limitations/implications – The generalizability of the results for different sports settings or
different countries must be examined, given that only some sports organizations under the umbrellas of non-
profit and for-profit sectors were used as the target population. The research is limited to the use of
moderating variables, such as motivation, organizational structure, culture and innovation, that might
attenuate this effect. This study contributes to the field by investigating the direct relationship between
leadership styles and organizational learning in a sports setting.
Originality/value – The originality of this study is its advances of sports leadership research that is
linking leadership styles and organizational learning in for-profit and non-profit sports organizations.
Keywords Sport, Organizational learning, Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership,
Non-profits, For-profits
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Organizational learning has been dealt with widely in the literature and generates many
academic publications in specialized journals and those of a more general scope. The need
for organizational learning has been linked with the growing dynamism and uncertainty
surrounding organizations. It is worth noting that organizational learning has not always
been perceived as a negative force that requires a change in an organization; at times, it has
been perceived as a positive factor that encourages an organization to change for improving
its performance (Rebelo and Duarte Gomes, 2008; Rijal, 2010; Gunasekaran, 2004; Cacioppe,
1998). Given the significance of continuous learning, it is perceived as a key driver of an
organization’s ability to remain adaptive and flexible to compete effectively (Burke et al.,
2006). Given the significance of learning, exploring how a leader influences the learning
process in an organization is rapidly becoming important. Specifically, several authors
(Senge, 1990; Prewitt, 2003; Rijal, 2010) have emphasized the importance of leadership roles
 in the development of the learning organization. Vera and Crossan (2004) go further and Leadership
emphasize the role of a contingent component for leadership and organizational learning. styles
Other researchers (Zagoršek et al., 2009; Snell, 2001; Maani and Benton, 1999) argue that one
of the best means for developing organizational learning is transformational leadership.
The importance of this topic can be illustrated by Burnes and O’Donnell’s (2011) article
entitled “What can business leaders learn from sport”. The results of the study revealed that
there are areas in which business leaders can learn lessons from sports, especially in terms
of change and staff development. More importantly, sports management literature has 597
rarely addressed the direct relationship between leadership and organizational learning in
sports contexts, unlike general leadership and organizational studies. Only a few empirical
studies exist to date and even in these, the impact of leadership on organizational learning
was not the primary research focus (Usefi et al., 2013; Xie, 2005; Moen and Federici, 2013).
Large budgets are being expended on training, databases and new “learning departments”
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

(Stewart, 1998) to develop sports governance and leadership, and ensure that sports
organizations are run efficiently and effectively (UK Sport, 2016).
This suggests that the focus on empirical research on leadership and organizational
learning in the sports context is strongly desirable. This study, therefore, empirically
investigates the relationship between leadership and organizational learning in the for-profit
and non-profit sectors. Specifically, the study examines the impact of transformational and
transactional leadership styles on enhancing organizational learning at a sports
organization in each sector. The study aims at answering the following questions:
Q1. Is there relationship between leadership style (transformational and transactional)
and organizational learning?
Q2. Is there any difference in leadership style between for-profit and non-profit sectors?
Q3. Is there any difference in organizational learning between for-profit and non-profit
sectors?
The article consists of seven sections. Section two provides an overview of
transformational–transactional leadership and organizational learning. It also addresses the
relationship between leadership styles and organizational learning in the sports context.
Section three addresses the method (research sample and instruments), and data analysis.
Sections four and five present the findings and discussion, respectively. Section six presents
the conclusion and contribution and Section seven discusses the limitations and future
research directions.

Literature review
Transformational and transactional leadership
Leadership has been a focus of many research bodies in different research disciplines
because of its importance for individuals, jobs and organizations (Geva and Torpey, 2008;
Harris, 2009). With globally increasing access to information used competitively, the topic of
leadership has become a critical factor in organizations (Hartley and Benington, 2010;
Storey, 2010). More specifically, leadership style (e.g. transformational and transactional)
has captured the imagination of scholars since the 1990s because of its essential role in
leading complex work groups and organizations. The early seminal writing on leadership
was by MacGregor Burns (1978), who conceptualized leadership as either transformational
or transactional, and it was later enriched by Avolio and Bass’s research (Avolio and Bass,
2004; Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1985, 1990, 1998; Bass and Avolio, 1994). Transformational
leaders were perceived as leaders who stimulate and inspire subordinates to develop their
 IJOA own leadership capacity and achieve extraordinary results, while transactional leaders are
25,4 those who lead through social exchange (Burns, 1978).
There are certain components that distinguish between transactional and
transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 1999). The components of transformational
leadership are idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation and individualized consideration. A leader with idealized attributes
598 demonstrates idealized attributes and idealized behaviors, and they are deeply respected by
their followers because of having extraordinary capabilities, determination and the
willingness to take risks. A leader who has inspirational motivation behaves in ways that
motivate and inspire subordinates; creates communicated expectations, which subordinates
want to meet; and demonstrates commitment to the shared vision. A leader with intellectual
stimulation stimulates subordinates to be innovative, and subordinates are encouraged to
provide ideas and suggestions. However, their ideas are not criticized. This is because the
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

subordinates are not leaders. A leader with individualized consideration pays special
attention to each subordinate’s need for achievement and growth (Bass and Avolio, 1994;
Bass and Riggio, 2006).
On the other hand, the three dimensions of transactional leadership are contingent
reward, management by exception-active and management by exception-passive.
Contingent reward refers to the degree to which the leader clarifies expectations with
promised or actual rewards offered for meeting these expectations. Management by
exception-active occurs when the leader arranges to monitor mistakes and errors in
subordinates’ assignments and to take corrective action as necessary, while management by
exception-passive means waiting for mistakes and errors to reach a critical level before
taking corrective action (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Bass and Riggio, 2006).
Although there are plenty of studies on transformational and transactional leadership in
the sports management literature, the author of the present study contends that these
studies are not unorganized, and few studies have investigated direct relationships between
transformational-transactional leadership and other components in an organization. This
implies that there is less research on transformational-transactional leadership than in other
fields, such as healthcare or education that have extended debate of this theory in their
fields. One of the early studies on transformational leadership in a sports setting examined
the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational culture at different
management levels in sports facilities. The results revealed that transformational leadership
is the leading style of the facilities’ leaders. Additionally, high transformational leaders were
more effective in transmitting positive culture throughout the organization (Weese, 1995).
Additionally, transformational and transactional leadership were examined within
Canadian intercollegiate athletic associations. Specifically, research evidence revealed that
transformational leadership is not only the style favored by athletic managers, but leader
effectiveness and leader–follower satisfaction were also positively associated with
transformational leadership (Doherty and Danylchuk, 1996). Another study addressed the
effect of leader characteristics on the perceived transformational/transactional leadership
and the impact of interuniversity athletic administrators. The results of the study revealed
that female and young athletic administrators display more transformational leadership and
less transactional leadership than their male counterparts (Doherty, 1997). Moreover,
transformational leadership was investigated in terms of its relationship with sports
performance through the mediating effects of intrinsic motivation. For example, research
evidence revealed that intrinsic motivation was isolated as a mediator of the relationship
between transformational leadership and sports performance, suggesting that
transformational leadership may enhance intrinsic interest in the task (Charbonneau et al.,
 2001). Unsurprisingly, the transformational leadership style was perceived as the preferred Leadership
style in the intercollegiate sports setting (Burton and Welty Peachey, 2009; Welty Peachey styles
and Burton, 2012). However, previous research that addressed turnover intentions of softball
and volleyball assistant coaches within the (US) National Collegiate Athletic Association
revealed that transformational and transactional leadership styles were associated with
fewer voluntary turnover intentions (Wells and Welty Peachey, 2011). This suggests that
more empirical evidence is needed to determine whether the transformational leadership
style is perceived as the preferred style in a sports setting. 599
It is worth noting that despite the many studies on transformational-transactional
leadership in a sports setting (Peachey et al., 2015), this author in the current research
suggests that research on transformational-transactional leadership is not as organized as in
other research disciplines for the following reasons. First, there is little research examining
the “direct” relationship between transformational-transactional leadership and all aspects
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

of organization, particularly organizational learning. Second, although leadership research

in general and transformational-transactional leadership in particular in a sports setting
have been applied to different leadership roles, different terms were used in reference to
leadership, such as administration, management, leadership, coach and governance. Third,
there is a lack of research on the relationship between transformational-transactional
leadership and organizational learning, which is central to leadership development. This
may make sports management literature confusing to the researcher, which may affect the
progress of the sports leadership literature.

Organizational learning
Leaders in sports organizations know that competition and higher-level performance on the
international stage is a real challenge for most countries because of the rapid change and
evolution of the sports environment. This, in turn, has increased the importance of learning
in an organization. It is suggested that organizational learning is a wide process with
multiple levels: individual, group and organizational (Crossan et al., 1999). In this respect,
developing appropriate capabilities has become an inescapable solution to face the
challenges surrounding an organization, and this is called organizational learning.
Undoubtedly, scholars and researchers have commented on the ambiguities that afflict
the literature on organizational learning and learning organizations. In this respect, it is
argued that research on learning organizations focuses on adopting specific methodological
tools through which they can identify and evaluate the quality of learning in an
organization, whereas research on organizational learning focuses on a detached analysis of
the processes involved in individual and collective learning in an organization (Tsang, 1997).
Similarly, other researchers went further and noted a more widespread ambiguity afflicting
the literature on organizational learning and learning organizations (Popper and Lipshitz,
2000).
More specifically, organizational learning was perceived as the process of change in
thought and action at individual and collective levels and how this process is affected by the
institutions of the organization (Crossan et al., 1999). Scholars adhering to a purely cognitive
perspective view learning as the development of new insights through the revision of
assumptions, causal maps or interpretive schemas (Huber, 1991; Friedlander, 1983; Kim,
1993). Additionally, theorists favoring a dual cognitive-behavioral approach propose that
although cognitive development is required, action is necessary to complete learning
(Argyris, 1976, 1977; Crossan et al., 1999; Huber, 1991; Spector and Kim, 2014). Despite a
variety of explanations of organizational learning in the literature, there is no agreement
about what organizational learning is. In line with this confusion, researchers have adopted
 IJOA broader definitions of organizational learning that link cognition and behavior as an
25,4 important facet of organizational learning (Crossan et al., 1999; Easterby-Smith et al., 2000;
Gherardi, 1999; Nicolini and Meznar, 1995). Although reference to all these definitions is not
the purpose of this study, it is important to highlight the common definition of
organizational learning in literature that is perceived as:
[. . .] a process consisting of four consecutive constructs: Information acquisition is the process by
600 which information is obtained, which may include action learning, shadowing, learning from
experience and learning from the organization itself at birth; Information distribution is the
process by which information is shared within the organization network; Information
interpretation is the process by which the distributed information is given meaning within the
organization; Organizational memory refers to the means by which information is stored for later
use when necessary (Huber, 1991, p. 90).
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

Leadership and organizational learning

Several studies that fall within the general scope of leadership journals have provided
strong evidence on the correlation between transformational leadership, transactional
leadership and organizational learning. For example, empirical studies have shown that
there is a correlation between transformational leadership and organizational learning
(Amitay et al., 2005; Brown and Posner, 2001; Chang and Lee, 2007; Jansen et al., 2009;
Kurland et al., 2010; Lam and Pang, 2003; Lam, 2004; Theodore, 2013). These studies present
transformational leaders as catalysts, facilitating and speeding up information acquisition
and distribution between members, enhancing the process of information interpretation and
encouraging dialogue and communication among members, which are essential factors for
organizational learning. Other studies have investigated the correlations between
transactional leadership and organizational learning. The results of these studies revealed
that transactional leadership positively affects organizational learning (Vera and Crossan,
2004; Jansen et al., 2009; Oluremi, 2008).
It is worth noting that organizational learning can also mediate the relationship between
leadership and other variables such as organizational innovation (Hsiao and Chang, 2011).
Leadership and organizational literature shows that leadership affects, for example,
innovations through the use of organizational learning (Lei et al., 1999; Montes et al., 2005;
Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Undoubtedly, a variable such as organizational innovation is
perceived as an essential element for both for-profit and non-profit sports organizations in
large-scale sporting events such as Olympic Games. It is argued that organizational
innovation still relies on organizational learning to develop innovative strategies and
performance (Liao et al., 2008). This suggests that the relationship between leadership and
organizational learning could be both direct and indirect in a sports setting.
A review of the sports leadership literature (Chelladurai, 1990; Burton and Welty Peachey,
2009; Liu and Wang, 2007; Peachey et al., 2015; Welty et al., 2012) indicates that there is much
research on transformational-transactional leadership behaviors and their influence. Chelladurai
(1993) argues that the leaders should be capable of improving their leadership behaviors or
adapting to different leadership behaviors that can be positively reflected in their subordinates’
performance. In line with this argument, Rowold (2006) suggests that there is an essential need to
explore the outcome of transformational leadership in a sports setting. It may be argued that a
leader should possess the major facets of transformational leadership to achieve an organization’s
objectives. This is because the surrounding environment of a sports setting is becoming more
dynamic and unstable (Lim and Cromartie, 2001; Slack and Hinings, 1992). In this respect, there is
much evidence in sports leadership literature on the correlation between leadership styles and
other variables such as organizational culture (Weese, 1995), performance and motivation
 (Chelladurai and Barling, 2001), organizational commitment and citizenship behavior (Kent and Leadership
Chelladurai, 2001), and commitment and job satisfaction (Kim et al., 2012). styles
Accordingly, it can be stated that a “direct” relationship between leadership
(transformational-transactional behaviors) and organizational learning in sports leadership
literature has not been investigated yet. This suggests that exploring and understanding the
relationship between transformational-transactional leadership styles and organizational
learning in sports organizations will be of increasing value to the research on sports
leadership literature. 601

Method
The author investigated the relationship between transformational-transactional leadership
styles and organizational learning in the non-profit and for-profit sectors in the UK. Lack of
research on leadership styles associated with organizational learning at non-profit and for-
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

profit sports organizations at the national and international levels can be attributed to two
reasons: first, a lack of interest in sports leadership and organizational research is likely to
be because this area is better researched by specialized researchers of leadership and
organizational studies rather than their counterparts in the general scope journals. Second,
given the economic benefits of sports at all levels, research on organizational learning in a
sports setting is still neglected despite the fact that the for-profit sports sector does not differ
from other for-profit sectors in terms of size, budget, organizational structure, number of
employees, business strategies, etc. (e.g. Adidas, Nike, Under Armour, New Balance and Sky
Sport). Similarly, the non-profit sports sector does not differ from other non-profit sectors in
terms of size, budget, organizational culture and the number of employees, both paid and
unpaid staff (e.g. IOC and FIFA). More importantly, sports management researchers are still
relying on leadership and organizational studies literature to support their research and
arguments. These three reasons motivated the current study to investigate the type of
leadership styles and organizational learning in a sports setting. This section discusses the
research context and sample, instruments and data analysis.

Research context and sample

The governance of profit-seeking companies or corporations focuses on protecting and
enhancing shareholder value. In contrast, non-profit governance is concerned with the
governance of voluntary organizations that seek to provide a community service, promote a
charitable cause, raise funds or facilitate the involvement of individuals in a variety of
activities. Both categories of organizations share similar governance elements and have
some important differences. Corporate and non-profit organizations both have boards of
elected or appointed individuals to govern their activities and are subject to a variety of
accountability mechanisms to their stakeholders (Hoye and Cuskelly, 2007). There are a
number of important differences in how for-profit and non-profit organizations are
governed, and consequently, research efforts in these areas have focused on different issues.
Such research covers concepts, theories and practices of boards and their directors, and the
relationships between boards and shareholders, top management, regulators and auditors,
and other stakeholders (Daily and Dalton, 1993; Hoye and Cuskelly, 2003). The prescriptive
literature and the research efforts have concentrated on the two primary roles of the board:
first, ensuring conformance by management, and second, enhancing organizational
performance.
To understand the context of the study, there is an essential need to shed light on the
type of sports organizations. In the general scope, human resource management literature
revealed that there are three types of organizations (Adler, 1991). These types are:
 IJOA (1) domestic organizations that are located in a single country and characterized by a
25,4 centralized structure and a focus on functional divisions (e.g. private leisure
centers, health clubs and golf courses);
(2) multinational organizations with a centralized hub and international affiliates
taking degrees of responsibility for business lines, sourcing, production and
marketing (e.g. SportsDirect in the UK and Europe, and Dorna Sports in Spain, the
602 UK and Japan); and
(3) global organizations typified by a mix of control from the center and push back
from the local centers of excellence (e.g. Adidas, Nike, Reebok, Puma and Patrick).

On the other hand, non-profit sports organizations are divided into:

 international level that includes international independent organizations, e.g. the
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

International Olympic Committee (IOC), Fédération Internationale de Football

Association (FIFA) and the International Association of Athletics Federations
(IAAF);
 national level that includes national independent organizations, e.g. National
Alliance for Youth Sports (NAYS), national governing bodies and local authorities
(Henry and Ko, 2013; Honeybourne, 2005).

For this study, eight sports bodies, including sports clubs/schools, local authorities and
national governing bodies classified as non-profit, were considered: Luton Rugby Club,
Luton Borough Council, Sport for All Centers (3 centers), Newham London Borough Council,
Rounders England, British Water Ski and Wakeboard; with six domestic for-profit
organizations: David Lloyd Leisure, Desborough Leisure, SportsDirect, Stoke Park Country
Club, Queenwood Golf Club and Wembley Football Academy. Overall, for-profit
organizations involved in the study included multinational and national organizations and
varied in terms of size and number of employees, and thus, the leadership role, while non-
profit organizations involved were national organizations and were characterized by their
small and medium size. The reason for selecting these particular sports organizations and
companies in both sectors was the researcher’s previous awareness about them.
Furthermore, these organizations showed interest in participating in this study. It is worth
noting that the author raises the case of organizational units for three reasons in the study.
First, it helps to involve more individuals who have leadership roles across the
organizational structure of each sports body involved in the study. Second, it was difficult to
find more individuals or organizations that would agree to participate in this study. Third,
given the importance of non-profit and for-profit sports organizations in the leadership
styles and organizational learning, there is an essential need for empirical research on sports
organizations in both sectors in sports management literature.
Because of the weaknesses of stratified random sampling (Albright et al., 2010; Skinner
et al., 2015) in some cases such as sports leadership (e.g. the characteristics of sports
organizations tend to be different from one to another in terms of size, level of management,
the number of members, etc.), choosing research samples from non-profit and for-profit
sports organizations reduces the influence of confounding variables. In total, 300 copies of
the questionnaire were delivered to participants from non-profit and for-profit sports
organizations. The survey lasted four months. Sixty-one questionnaires were returned
without answers and 32 were incomplete. In total, 207 questionnaires from the two sectors
(98 from the for-profit sector and 109 from the non-profit sector) were usable for the data
analysis, giving a response rate of 69 per cent.
 Instruments Leadership
Two standardized scales were adopted for this questionnaire. To identify the leadership style for styles
elite and non-elite athletes, as the dependent variable, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(Form 5X-Short/MLQ-5X) developed by Avolio and Bass (2004) was adopted. MLQ Form 5X-
Short was used to describe the leader-perceived leadership styles. The form consists of 32 items:
20 items for transformational leadership and 12 items for transactional leadership. The form was
evaluated on a five-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 to 5, the response choice being: 1 = not at all,
2 = once in a while, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often and 5 = frequently. The reliability analysis
603
revealed Cronbach’s a value ranging between 0.70 and 0.81 for the two leadership styles on the
study sample. The independent variable was organizational learning. This variable was
measured using a scale developed by Lopez et al. (2004) containing 13 items. The response choice
being: 1 = not at all, 2 = once in a while, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often and 5 = frequently. The
Cronbach’s a value for organizational learning was a = 0.889.
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

Data analysis
The data about demographic particulars were gathered simultaneously with the responses
on the survey scales to answer particular questions. The data were coded and entered into
SPSS (version 21). The demographic data of the sample are shown in Table I.

Findings
The effective variables found significant are shown in Table II. A hierarchical regression
analysis was performed to determine how much variance in leadership styles (criterion
variable) is caused by organizational learning (predictor variables).
Four models (two models for each style) were run keeping the transformational and
transactional leadership styles as the dependent variable (DV) and the organizational
learning as the independent variable (IV). In all the models, the effects of age, gender,
education and sector type were controlled through their entry in the first block as control
variables. The b coefficients represent the predictive ability of organizational learning
towards leadership styles. R2 is the attribute of the percentage of variance explained in
leadership styles by organizational learning. The F statistic shows the models’ fit. DR2
represents the unique variance accounted by organizational learning in transformational
and transactional leadership styles. DF represents a significant change in the model fit. As

N (%)
Demographic For-profit sector Non-profit sector For-profit sector Non-profit sector

Sector type 98 109 47.3 52.6

Age (years)
#20 0 0 0 0
21-30 24 29 24 26
≥31 74 80 76 74
Gender
Male 70 64 72 59
Female 28 45 29 42
Education Table I.
Degree or above 53 61 54 56 Demographic data
Others 46 47 46 44 (N = 207)
 IJOA shown in model 2 of Table II, transactional leadership was found to be positively related to
25,4 ( b = 0.26, p < 0.01) organizational learning. Similarly, transformational leadership was
found to be positively related to ( b = 0.20, p < 0.01) organizational learning. It is worth
noting that respondents of organization groups (non-profit and for-profit) had variation in
their leadership styles and organizational learning ( p < 0.01). Post hoc tests were performed
only with the age attribute that included three groups, while post hoc tests were not
604 performed for the following attributes: education, gender and sector because they had only
two groups each. As a result, respondents from the non-profit sports sector and the for-profit
sports sector exhibited significant differences ( p < 0.006). However, no such significant
difference was observed between age groups ( p < 0.26), education levels ( p < 0.13) and
gender type ( p < 0.83).
In response to the question of whether there is any difference in leadership style between
the for-profit and the non-profit sectors, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent-
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

sample t-tests were conducted to compare the two groups (for-profit and non-profit sectors) in
terms of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. For transformational
leadership, the results showed that the mean of transformational leadership of the for-profit
sector was greater than its counterpart in the non-profit sector. The difference between the
two means was statistically significant as assessed by the independent-sample t-test (t-test =
3.43, p = 0.01 < 0.05). Consequently, there is significant difference in transformational
leadership between the for-profit and the non-profit sectors. For transactional leadership, the
results showed that the mean of transactional leadership in the for-profit sector was greater
than its counterpart in the non-profit sector, and statistically significant as assessed by the
independent-sample t-test (t-test = 3.60, p = 0.00 < 0.05). There is, therefore, a significant
difference in transactional leadership in the for-profit and the non-profit sectors. Results are
presented in Table III. ANOVA and independent-sample t-tests were also conducted to
compare the two groups (for-profit sector and non-profit sector) in terms of organizational
learning. The mean of organizational learning in the for-profit sector was a little higher than
in the non-profit sector, and statistically significant as assessed by the independent-sample
t-test (t-test = 3.28, p = 0.01 < 0.05). In response to the question of whether there is a
difference in the organizational learning level between the for-profit sector and the non-profit
sector, the results revealed that there is a significant difference in organizational learning
between the for-profit and the non-profit sectors. Results are shown in Table III.
In response to the question of whether there is a relationship between leadership style
(transformational and transactional) and organizational learning, as shown in Table IV, the
results for transformational leadership showed a significant impact of idealized influence on
organizational learning ( p = 0.00 < 0.01), with a beta weight of 0.24. However, no significant
impact was found for inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation or individualized

Transformational leadership Transactional leadership

Predictor variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Organizational learning – 0.20** – 0.26**

Table II. F 4.033 4.572 4.033 6.543
Hierarchical linear DF 0.004 0.001 0.004 0.000
R2 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.14
regression Adjusted R2 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.12
(transformational DR2 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.09
and transactional
leadership, N = 207) Notes: *p < 0.05 (two-tailed), **p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
 consideration on organizational learning ( p = 0.31, 0.43 and 0.78 > 0.05, respectively). On the Leadership
other hand, the results of transactional leadership showed a significant impact of management styles
by exception-active on organizational learning (p = 0.00 < 0.01), with a beta weight of 0.33.
However, no significant impact was found for either contingent reward or management by
exception-passive ( p = 0.09 and 0.27 > 0.05, respectively) on organizational learning.

Discussion 605
The results of the study revealed that there is a significant impact of only one of the
transformational leadership behaviors – idealized influence – on organizational learning.
However, no significant impact was found for the other behaviors: intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation and individualized consideration. The results of the study confirm
previous findings that showed an impact of transformational leadership on organizational
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

learning. Specifically, the results in the current study revealed that transformational
leadership behaviors are not equal in terms of their influence on organizational learning in
the sports environment. This was also illustrated in previous studies in journals with a more
general organizational and leadership scope that found a significant impact on
organizational learning of “inspirational motivation behavior” (Khalifa and Ayoubi, 2015),
“idealized influence behavior” (Longest et al., 1993) and “intellectual stimulation” (Bass,
1999; Bass and Avolio, 2000; Conger, 1999). Regarding the components of transformational
leadership and their relationship with organizational learning in the current research, the
research findings of Amitay et al. (2005), Al-Smadi et al. (2008), Castiglion (2006), Coad and
Berry (1998), Kurland et al. (2010), Leithwood and Levin (2005), Maani and Benton (1999),
Snell (2001), Johnson (2002) and Zagoršek et al. (2009) support the relationship between
transformational leadership and organizational learning. According to Dibbon (1999),
transformational leadership and organizational learning are interrelated.

Variables Sector type N M SD t p* F p* Table III.

Comparison of means
Transformational leadership For-profit sector 98 2.00 0.43 3.43 0.01 16.203 0.00 of organizational
Non-profit sector 109 1.80 0.47 learning and
Transactional leadership For-profit sector 98 2.90 0.54 3.60 0.00 12.981 0.00 transactional-
Non-profit sector 109 2.61 0.58
Organizational learning For-profit sector 98 2.85 0.51 3.28 0.01 1.991 0.04
transformational
Non-profit sector 109 2.60 55 leadership between
for-profit and non-
Notes: *p < 0.05 (two-tailed), **p < 0.01 (two-tailed) profit sectors

Leadership style Factor b p*

Transformational Idealized influence 0.24 0.00** Table IV.

Inspirational motivation 0.09 0.31 The impact of
Intellectual stimulation 0.06 0.43 transactional
Individualized consideration 0.02 0.78 leadership and
Transactional Contingent reward 0.11 0.09
Management by exception-active 0.33 0.00**
transformational
Management by exception-passive 0.07 0.27 leadership on
organizational
Notes: *p < 0.05 (two-tailed); **p < 0.01 (two-tailed) learning
 IJOA With respect to transactional leadership, the study revealed that there is a significant impact of
25,4 management by exception-active on organizational learning. The results of the study also
revealed that there were no significant impacts of contingent reward and management by
exception-passive on organizational learning. It is worth noting that although most studies that
investigated the relationship between leadership styles and organizational learning showed a
correlation between the contingent reward dimension and organizational learning, the results of
606 this study contradict such studies (Khalifa and Ayoubi, 2015; Vera and Crossan, 2004; Camps
and Torres, 2011). Although previous research did suggest that contingent reward leadership
proves to be more effective in facilitating organizational learning than transformational
leadership (Vera and Crossan, 2004; Zagoršek et al., 2009), the results suggest that contingent
reward may not always be an influential factor for organizational learning in a sports
environment, irrespective of the sector type, but rather organizational learning may occur by
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

paying some attention to deviations from rules and standards and taking corrective action. In
other words, the sports environment is dynamic in nature that requires sports organizations to
change in thought and action at individual and collective levels.
It was also found that there is a difference in leadership styles between for-profit and non-
profit sports organizations. The results of the study support previous research on the difference
in the nature of leaders and the behavior used in non-profit and for-profit sectors. Empirical
research conducted by Taliento and Silverman (2005) revealed that leaders in the non-profit
sector are more entrepreneurial because the resources and employees are less than those in the
for-profit sector. It is worth noting that leaders in the for-profit sector are prepared through
leadership development programs for risk management, which is a natural status in the business
world, irrespective of the business type. This might illustrate why the leadership style is different
between for-profits and non-profits. McClusky (2002) argues that leaders of a for-profit
organization are mainly given special consideration due to their position, while leaders of a non-
profit organization may not be given such consideration. It is argued that the primary difference
between leading in the non-profit and the for-profit sectors may be because of the number and
diversity of the stakeholders. However, this argument may not be precisely generalized to large-
scale sporting events, e.g. Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup, where the number and diversity
of the stakeholders are also evident. Therefore, it can be stated that the difference in leadership
styles between for-profit and non-profit sectors may be related to such traditional reasons as the
level of pressure, risk management, leader-follower relationship, motivation, empowerment,
creativity and competition. Zagoršek et al. (2009) argue that clear theoretical arguments for the
influence of transformational leadership on organizational learning exist, but the role
of transactional leadership is not very clear. In this aspect, Vera and Crossan (2004) propose that
good leaders are those who know how to switch between the transformational and the
transactional styles of leadership in accordance with the situation to facilitate organizational
learning. Although the outcome of transformational leadership may be universally effective
(Bass, 1997), this may vary across different contexts. Similarly, transactional leadership may be
universally effective, but this may vary across different contexts. This proposes, based on the
results of the present study, that it is not necessary whether transformational leadership or
transactional leadership influences organizational learning, but as Pennington (2003, p. 25) says,
“Outstanding leaders exhibit a broad range of dominant and back-up styles”.

Contribution
The study makes significant theoretical and practical contributions to the field. First, it
integrates two currently disparate fields of organizational learning and leadership from
theoretical and empirical perspectives, given the lack of research on leadership behaviors
 and organizational learning in for-profit and non-profit sports sectors in general and sports Leadership
leadership literature in particular (Peachey et al., 2015). styles
Second, the study empirically proves that the idealized influence of transformational
leadership and management by exception-active of transactional leadership affects
organizational learning. Additionally, it highlights the need for both transformational and
transactional leadership for developing organizational learning. Moreover, the study expands
the scope of empirical research by investigating the impact of leadership styles on
organizational learning in the context of for-profit and non-profit sports organizations.
607
Specifically, the implications of the current research for practice in for-profit and non-profit
sports sectors are that both management by exception-active in transactional leadership and
idealized leadership in transformational leadership seem to be equally important for facilitating
organizational learning. The results also have practical implications for the leadership and
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

management development initiatives in the non-profit and for-profit sports sectors. Sports
leadership development programs need to focus on both transformational and transactional
leadership behaviors, given the importance of both behaviors for sports leaders and managers
in non-profit and for-profit sports organizations. Of course, organizational learning has
significant impacts on the development of intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital
and customer capital). Increasing the organizational learning of profit and non-profit sports
organizations reinforces the importance and role of the department of human resource
management in the implementation of organizational learning.

Conclusion, limitations and future research

This study examined the direct relationship between leadership styles and organizational
learning in and between the for-profit and the non-profit sectors. A significant impact of
some but not all features of transformational and transactional leadership styles on
organizational learning was found. Specifically, it was found that only idealized influence in
transformational leadership and management by exception-active in transactional
leadership impact organizational learning. Although the impact of transformational and
transactional leadership on organizational learning can be seen in several studies that fall
within the general scope, the results of this study are in contrast with previous research in
which two components of a leadership style affect organizational learning. Previous studies
showed the relationship between different dimensions of transformational leadership and
organizational learning, but the results of this study showed a relationship between
idealized influence and organizational learning. Additionally, previous studies showed the
relationship between contingent reward and organizational learning, but the results of this
study revealed that there is instead a significant relationship between management by
exception-active and organizational learning. As a result, the study recommends future
research to examine the direct relationship between both management by idealized influence
and exception-active behaviors and organizational learning in sports organizations.
The major limitation is that the generalizability of the results for different sports settings or
different countries must be examined, given that only some sports organizations under the
umbrellas of non-profit and for-profit sectors were used as the target population. Further
expansion of the research internationally to other sports organizations, bodies, associations,
federations, unions, etc., would significantly contribute to the understanding of the correlation
between leadership styles and organizational learning. The research is limited to the use of
moderating variables such as motivation, organizational structure, culture and innovation that
might attenuate this effect. Therefore, this suggests that more research is required for
understanding the impact of leadership on organizational learning through the use of some
 IJOA moderating and mediating variables by using a qualitative view to answer the how and why
25,4 questions that would provide valuable insights into the area of sports management.
Little research has been published on the direct relationship between transformational and
transactional leadership styles and organizational learning in the sports environment. Thus,
more effort is required to confirm the results of the study in that transformational and
transactional leadership have a relationship with organizational learning in sports settings.
608 The results of the present study suggest that transformational leadership cannot replace
transactional leadership, or vice versa. In other words, both transformational and transactional
leadership styles are needed in sports organizations, irrespective of the sector type.

References
Adler, N. (1991), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed., Kent Publishing, Boston.
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

Albright, S., Winston, W. and Zappe, C. (2010), Data Analysis and Decision Making, South-Western
Cengage Learning, Mason.
Al-Smadi, R.T., Qudais, M.A. and Al-Omari, A.A. (2008), “Role of Jordanian schools’ leadership in
transforming schools into organizational learning culture”, International Journal of Applied
Educational Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Amitay, M., Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2005), “Leadership styles and organizational learning in
community clinics”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 57-70.
Argyris, C. (1976), “Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 363-375.
Argyris, C. (1977), “Double loop learning in organizations”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55 No. 5,
pp. 115-125.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2004), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and Sampler Set, 3rd
ed., Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examination the components of transformational and
transactional leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1990), “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19-31.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional – transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 130-139.
Bass, B.M. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational
Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Technical Report, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ.
Brown, L. and Posner, B. (2001), “Exploring the relationship between learning and leadership”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 274-280.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and Halpin, S.M. (2006), “What type of
leadership behaviors are functional in teams?”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 288-307.
Burnes, B. and O’Donnell, H. (2011), “What can business leaders learn from sport?”, Sport, Business and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 12-27.
 Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Leadership
Burton, L.J. and Welty Peachey, J. (2009), “Transactional or transformational? Leadership styles
preferences of division III athletic administrators”, Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 245-259.
Cacioppe, R. (1998), “An integrated model and approach for the design of effective leadership development
programs”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 44-53.
Camps, J. and Torres, F. (2011), “Contingent reward leader behavior: where does it come from?”,
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 212-230.
609
Castiglion, J. (2006), “Organizational learning and transformational leadership in the library
environment”, Library Management, Vol. 27 Nos 4/5, pp. 289-299.
Chang, S. and Lee, M. (2007), “A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the
operation of learning organization and employees’ job satisfaction”, The Learning Organization,
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 155-185.

Charbonneau, D., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K. (2001), “Transformational leadership and sports
performance: the mediating role of intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1521-1534.
Chelladurai, P. (1990), “Leadership in sports: a review”, International Journal of Sport Psychology,
Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 328-354.
Chelladurai, P. (1993), “Leadership”, in Singer, R.N., Murphey, M. and Tennant, L.K. (Eds), Handbook of
Research on Sports Psychology, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 647-671.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K. (2001), “Transformational leadership and sports
performance: the mediating role of intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1521-1534.
Coad, A. and Berry, A. (1998), “Transformational leadership and learning orientation”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 164-172.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Conger, J.A. (1999), “Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s perspective
on these developing streams of research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 145-179.
Crossan, M.F., Lane, H. and White, R. (1999), “An organizational learning framework: from intuition to
institution”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 522-538.
Daily, C.M. and Dalton, D.R. (1993), “Board of directors leadership and structure: Control and
performance implications”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 65-82.
Dibbon, D.C. (1999), “Stages of growth in the organizational learning capacity of schools”, Doctoral
dissertation, University of Toronto, September.
Doherty, A.J. (1997), “The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived transformational/
transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic administrators”, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 275-285.
Doherty, A.J. and Danylchuk, K.E. (1996), “Transformational and transactional leadership in
interuniversity athletics management”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 292-309.
Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M. and Nicolin, D. (2000), “Organizational learning: debates past, present
and future”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 783-796.
Friedlander, F. (1983), “Patterns of individual and organizational learning”, in Srivastava, S. and
Associates. (Eds), The Executive Mind, New Insights on Managerial Thought and Action, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 192-220.
Geva, D. and Torpey, J. (2008), “Citizenship and military service: questioning the link in a post-heroic
age”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Sheraton
Boston and the Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA, 31 July.
 IJOA Gherardi, S. (1999), “Learning as problem-driven or learning in the face of mystery?”, Organisational
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 101-123.
25,4
Gunasekaran, A. (2004), “Benchmarking in the internet era”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 427-430.
Harris, A. (2009), Distributed Leadership, Springer, London.
Hartley, J. and Benington, J. (2010), Leadership for Healthcare, Policy Press, Bristol.
610 Henry, I. and Ko, L.M. (2013), Routledge Handbook of Sport Policy, Routledge, London.
Honeybourne, J. (2005), BTEC First Sport, Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham.
Hoye, R. and Cuskelly, G. (2003), “Board power and performance in voluntary sport organizations”,
European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 103-119.
Hoye, R. and Cuskelly, G. (2007), Sport Governance, Routledge, London.
Hsiao, H.C. and Chang, J.C. (2011), “The role of organizational learning in transformational leadership
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

and organizational innovation”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 621-631.
Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and literatures”,
Organizational Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Jansen, J.J.P., Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2009), “Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: the
moderating role of environmental dynamism”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Johnson, J.R. (2002), “Leading the learning organization: portrait of four leaders”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 241-249.
Kent, A. and Chelladurai, P. (2001), “Perceived transformational leadership, organizational
commitment, and citizenship behavior: a case study in intercollegiate athletics”, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-159.
Khalifa, B. and Ayoubi, R.M. (2015), “Leadership styles at Syrian higher education: what matters for
organizational learning at public and private universities?”, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 477-491.
Kim, D.H. (1993), “The link between individual and organizational learning”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Kim, S., Magnusen, M., Andrew, D. and Stoll, J. (2012), “Are transformational leaders a double-edged
sword? Impact of transformational leadership on sport employee commitment and job
satisfaction”, International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 661-676.
Kurland, H., Peretz, H. and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010), “Leadership style and organizational learning:
the mediate effect of school vision”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 7-30.
Lam, Y. (2004), “Factors for differential developments in organizational learning: a case for Hong Kong
schools”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 155-166.
Lam, T.L. and Pang, S.K. (2003), “The relative effects of environmental, internal and contextual factors
on organizational learning: the case of Hong Kong schools under reforms”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 88-97.
Lei, D., Slocum, J.W. and Pitts, R.A. (1999), “Designing organizations for competitive advantage: the
power of unlearning and learning”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 24-38.
Leithwood, K. and Levin, B. (2005), Assessing School Leader and Leadership Programme Effects on
Pupil Learning, DfES Publications, London.
Liao, S.H., Fei, W.C. and Liu, C.T. (2008), “Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational
learning and organization innovation”, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 183-195.
Lim, J.Y. and Cromartie, F. (2001), “Transformational leadership, organizational culture and
organizational effectiveness in sport organizations”, Sport Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 6-10.
Liu, G. and Wang, B. (2007), “Transformational leadership behaviors and its effectiveness of sports
leaders in colleges”, Journal of Wuhan Institute of Physical Education, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 41-44.
 Longest, B.B., Darr, K. and Rakich, J.S. (1993), “Organizational leadership in hospitals”, Hospital topics, Leadership
Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 11-15.
styles
Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2004), “Strategic knowledge management, innovation and
performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 93-104.
McClusky, J.E. (2002), “Rethinking non-profit organization governance: implications for management
and leadership”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 539-559.
Maani, K. and Benton, C. (1999), “Rapid team learning: lessons from team New Zealand America’s cup 611
campaign”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 48-62.
Moen, F. and Federici, R. (2013), “Coaches’ coach competence and influence on organizational learning”,
Journal of Education and Learning, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 32-47.
Montes, F.J.L., Moreno, A.R. and Morales, V.G. (2005), “Influence of support leadership and teamwork
cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: an empirical examination”,
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

Technovation, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 1159-1172.

Nicolini, D. and Meznar, M.B. (1995), “The social construction of organizational learning: conceptual
and practical issues in the field”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 727-746.
Oluremi, O. (2008), “Principals’ leadership behavior and school learning culture in Ekiti state secondary
schools”, The Journal of International Social Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 301-311.
Peachey, J.W., Damon, Z.J., Zhou, Y. and Burton, L.J. (2015), “Forty years of leadership research in sport
management: a review, synthesis, and conceptual framework”, Journal of Sport Management,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 570-587.
Pennington, J. (2003), “Further lesson in leadership”, Management in Education, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 24-28.
Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2000), “Organizational learning: mechanisms, culture and feasibility”,
Journal of Management Learning, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 181-196.
Prewitt, V. (2003), “Leadership development for learning organizations”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 58-61.
Rebelo, T.M. and Duarte Gomes, A. (2008), “Organizational learning and the learning organization:
reviewing evolution for prospecting the future”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 294-308.
Rijal, S. (2010), “Leadership style and organizational culture in learning organization: a comparative
study”, International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 119-127.
Rowold, J. (2006), “Transformational and transactional leadership in martial arts”, Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 312-325.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization, Doubleday
Currency, New York, NY.
Skinner, J., Edwards, A. and Corbett, B. (2015), Research Methods for Sport Management, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Slack, T. and Hinings, B. (1992), “Understanding change in national sport organizations; an integration
of theoretical perspectives”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 114-132.
Snell, R.S. (2001), “Moral foundations of the learning organization”, Human Relations, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 319-342.
Spector, J.M. and Kim, C.M. (2014), “Technologies for intentional learning: beyond a cognitive
perspective”, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Stewart, T. (1998), “Is this job really necessary?”, Fortune, Vol. 137 No. 1, pp. 154-155.
Storey, J. (2010), Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues and Key Trends, Routledge, New York,
NY, 2nd ed.
 IJOA Taliento, L. and Silverman, L. (2005), “A corporate executive’s short guide to leading nonprofits”,
Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 5-10.
25,4
Theodore, J. (2013), “Absence of transformational leadership in Greek enterprises results in the inability
of forming learning organizations”, International Business & Economics Research Journal
(IBER), Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 701-706.
Tsang, E. (1997), “Organizational learning and learning organization: a dichotomy between descriptive
and prescriptive research”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
612
Usefi, S., Nazari, R. and Zargar, T. (2013), “The relationship between organizational learning and
organizational commitment in sport organizations”, Management and Administrative Sciences
Review, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 682-688.
Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2004), “Strategic leadership and organizational learning”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 222-240.
Weese, W.J. (1995), “Leadership and organizational culture: an investigation of big ten and mid-
Downloaded by Doctor Majd Megheirkouni At 22:45 07 November 2017 (PT)

American conference campus recreation administrations”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 9

No. 2, pp. 119-134.
Wells, J.E. and Welty Peachey, J. (2011), “Turnover intentions: do leadership behaviors and satisfaction
with the leader matter?”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
Nos 1/2, pp. 23-40.
Welty Peachey, J. and Burton, L.J. (2012), “Transactional or transformational leaders in intercollegiate
athletics? Examining the influence of leader gender and subordinate gender on evaluation of
leaders during organizational culture change”, International Journal of Sport Management,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 115-142.
Xie, D. (2005), “Exploring organizational learning culture, job satisfaction, motivation to learn,
organizational commitment, and internal service quality in a sport organization”, PhD
dissertation, Ohio University.
Zagoršek, H., Dimovski, V. and Škerlavaj, M. (2009), “Transactional and transformational leadership
impacts on organizational learning”, Journal of East European Management Studies, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 144-165.

Further reading
Honeybourne, J., Hill, M. and Moors, H. (2000), Advanced Physical Education and Sport for A-level,
Nelson Thornes, New York, NY, 2nd ed.
Newberry, D.B. (2008), Organizational Learning, Leadership and Culture: A Study of Program
Managers in The Department of Defense, ProQuest, Nelson Thornes.

Corresponding author
Majd Megheirkouni can be contacted at: majd.megheirkouni@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats