Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.Lãnh đạo, học tập tổ chức và hiệu suất cao – bằng chứng thực nghiệm tại các doanh nghiệp du lịch.
ResearchBackground
According to World Travel and Tourism Council (2022), tourism is one of the largest profitable industries that improves exports and drives prosperity worldwide In
2021, travel and tourism’s total contribution to global GDP was 6.1% For the same year, this sector has supported 289 million jobs worldwide In Vietnam, travel and tourism in 2021 have impressive contribution to GPD (2.6% of total economy) and employment (3.9 million jobs created ,accounting for 8.0% of total employment) The country has received a huge interest from both domestic and international tourists for the past 20 years and is expected to grow even more rapidly and prosperously in the future (Huynhet al., 2021) Tourism sector in Vietnam has been known as one of the main contributors to economic development, which has witnessed an increasing trend over the years thanks to the inheritance of history, tourist attractions and high level of service providers (Quanget al., 2022) Over the past 20 years, Vietnam has received a huge interest from both domestic and international tourists and is expected to grow even more rapidly and prosperously in the future (Huynhet al., 2021) The soaring number of global travelers and increasing demand of accommodation and services has created favorable opportunities for tourism firms in Vietnam The Vietnamese Government has taken many initiatives to promote domestic travels and make tourism a key economic industry The spectacular development of the sector, combined with the support from the Government, has created valuable opportunities for tourism enterprises to develop.
However, challenges still exist According to Dinhet al.(2019), tourism firms in Vietnam are facing many challenges related to high demand for quality services,tough competition, and lack of high quality human resources These factors have hindered the performance of these enterprises and the potential development of the whole sector Added to this, the industrial revolution 4.0 and globalization have caused many difficulties for tourism firms to survive and remain competitive. Previous studies have found that organizations operating in the globalization context, which contains uncertainties and competition, are forced to desperately seek strategies that enable them to achieve high organizational performance and gain competitive advantage (Cuiet al., 2022; Ahmad Qadri, 2021; Yuliansyah, 2021; Barney, 1991; Vargas, 2015) Furthermore, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many tourism organizations have been stalled to a near standstill and the questions of whether they can survive after the demise of the crisis is still unknown (Falket al., 2021) In Vietnam, the unexpected and severe effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have forced tourism businesses to temporarily close or even shut down, which led to several consequences, including decline in tourism revenue, severe loss of profit and human capital, and increase in unemployment rates Quanget al.’s (2022) study pointed out that in early 2020 tourist arrivals in Vietnam fell approximately 22%, tourism business revenue dropped by around VND 143.6 billion, and 98% of employees in tourism firms left their jobs Given the current situation, tourism firms during the crisis are increasingly in search of business strategies to maintain operational efficiency, achieve superior performance, and remain competitive (Goffiet al., 2022; Lim and Ok, 2021) However, there has been a great deal of confusion regarding how to foster high organizational performance of tourism firms, which requires much effort to offer a fuller understanding of this issue.
In the extant literature, leadership has been recognized as one of the most critical factors in driving high organizational performance (Prabhu and Srivastava,2023; Meirinhoset al., 2023; Shinet al., 2023; Hoet al., 2022; Shuklaet al., 2022;Mintzberg, 1973; Garget al., 2003) In this regard, leaders dynamically integrate internal resources into superior performance and transform their firms to adapt with the current complex and unusual situations Previous researchers have characterized leadership as a dynamic capability and acknowledged the importance of leaders in managing resources and outcomes in organizations (Overstreetet al., 2013; Pavlou and El Sawy, 2011) An earlier study by Rajagopalan and Spreitzer (1997) stressed that leaders play a vital role in formulating and executing corporate strategies that enable firms to enhance their performance and remain responsive in the market. Recent studies have found that leadership really matters to the achievement of superior performance (Para-Gonzálezet al., 2018; Jinget al., 2019) Recognizing the critical connection between leaders and high organizational performance, many tourism enterprises have focused on cultivating and sustaining effective leadership (McGeheeet al., 2015) Most of the leadership studies in tourism have examined the effects of various leadership approaches on employees’ job satisfaction (Mohamed, 2016; Rothfelderet al., 2012), job performance (David, 2018), and organizational citizenship behavior (Hayat Bhattiet al., 2019; Noermijati and Azzuhri, 2018) Recent attempts have also been made to answer the question of how leaders in the tourism industries lead their organizations toward desirable outcomes such as work- life balance and employee commitment (Lamprinouet al., 2021; Leeet al.,2020).
However, leadership research in tourism at an organizational level is scarce, marked by barely any studies investigating the impact of leadership on high organizational performance of tourism firms In addition, the foremost problems with leadership research have been the conceptual weaknesses of existing leadership theories and inconclusive empirical findings (Northouse, 2018; Yukl, 1989) Previous researchers usually adopt a narrow focus on studying leadership, thus failing to build comprehensive models that combine different leadership approaches, let alone provide an integrated understanding of leadership in organizations (Uhl-Bienet al., 2007; Yukl, 1989) According to Tyssenet al.(2013), the complex and ever-changing nature of organizations has led to myriad problems in the application of many leadership theories, which are based on the premise of environmental stability These authors also called for studies that further examine combinations of different leadership theories to fill in the foregoing gap In a similar vein, several authors also argued that researchers need to explore some leadership traits that are relevant in the ever-changing and complex world (Bonoet al., 2014; Hiller and Beauchesne, 2014).
In a recent systematic review of leadership in tourism, Elkhweskyet al.(2022) emphasized that the characteristics and competences of leaders and how they affect organizational performance demand scholarly attention and further investigation.
In the Vietnamese context, very little effort has been made to investigate leadership and its influences in tourism sector (Khuong and Khanh, 2016; Khuong and Nhu, 2015) Leadership in Vietnam is said to be influenced by traditional culture of Confucianism (Viengkhamet al., 2018; Renet al., 2014) So rather than using punitive measures, Vietnamese leaders build trust, act as a role model with moral virtues, maintain a harmonious relationship with employees, create a friendly work environment, and place organizational benefits above their personal gains (Renet al.,2021) According to The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam
(2018), the search for effective leaders who can lead their organizations toward superior performance and continuous development has become an urgent matter. Added to this, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Vietnam, including its tourism enterprises, has showed resilience, and strived to overcome the crisis and the way the country responded to pandemic “has been among the most effective in the world and has attracted much attention from world leaders” (Quanget al., 2022, p 117). Therefore, the context of Vietnam, including its contemporary economic and long- standing cultural values, complicate implicit mindsets of how leaders of tourism firms exhibit effective leadership and run their businesses toward superior performance. This is also “an under-researched area that becomes increasingly critical to enriching the global knowledge base for companies, both domestic and global, and the country at large” (Renet al.,2021, p 197).
Besides, existing literature has identified knowledge and learning as critical resources for organizations to sustain success and competitive advantage (Gomesetal., 2022; Chandler, 1992; Friesen and Johnson, 1995; Weldy, 2009).Senge (1996, p. 413) stated that over the long run superior performance depends on superior learning. Many recent studies have shown growing interest in organizational learning, emphasizing that organizations have to promote learning to achieve improved performance( J a i n a n d M o r e n o , 2 0 1 5 ; Z h o ue t a l ,2 0 1 5 ; O h , 2 0 1 8 ; N a r s a , 2 0 1 9 ;
Zgrzywa-Ziemak and Walecka-Jankowska, 2021; Soomroet al., 2021) Organizational learning is also an intriguing field to study in the tourism industry (Kraleva, 2011; Blackman and Ritchie, 2008; Tajeddini, 2009; Imani Khoshkhoo and Nadalipour, 2016) Previous studies in this field showed that organizational learning helps tourism organizations deal with crises (Ghaderiet al., 2014), foster innovation (Fu, 2017), and improve competitiveness (Bayraktaroglu and Kutanis, 2003) In Vietnam, traditional culture of Confucianism and a popular motto “Study, study more, study forever” have long been pervasive in the country and reflected the motivation to learn and develop of people (Renet al.,2021) A recent study found that Vietnamese organizations that devote to learning and nurture a culture that foster learning initiatives can seize the opportunities in that marketplace, adapt to the changing environment, as well as innovate, achieve superior performance, develop, and become successful (Doet al., 2022) Although organizational learning has been recognized as a catalyst for achieving superior performance and competitive advantage, its impacts on tourism firms in developing countries like Vietnam remainunexplored.
Overall, researchers and practitioners have paid increasing attention to the notion that leadership organizational learning determines and enhances performance of organizations over the last decades According to Yukl (2013), leaders can create appropriate environments to facilitate knowledge learning and sharing - a significant factor for the emergence of improved performance In other words, the connection between leadership and high organizational performance is mediated by organizational learning (Para-Gonzálezet al., 2018; Ur Rehmanet al., 2019) Although the linkages among leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance have been mentioned by several authors, empirical studies that further explore the connections between these phenomena simultaneously in a specific context have been found lacking Hence, more studies are needed to advance research in these fields and provide a boarder understanding of how leadership directly and indirectly relates to high organizationalperformance.
To address the foregoing gap, this study aims to test a proposed theoretical framework and empirically validate hypotheses about the relationship between leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance of tourism firms in Vietnam.
Rationales fortheResearch
Earlier scholars stated that a firm’s resource-based view emphasizes achieving competitive advantage and superior long-term performance by utilizing the available resources such as knowledge, processes, and other capabilities (Barney, 1995) Added to this, Grant (1996) argued that a firm’s knowledge-based view highlights the use of the knowledge base of a firm as a strategic resource to augment sustainable performance and gain competitive advantage In the workplace, leadership is a critical function of management in all businesses since strong leadership facilitates the alignment of people and resources to accomplish organizational goals and objectives (Northouse, 2018) Added to this, organizational learning has been found to affect the success and survival of businesses (Weldy, 2009) As reported in past findings (Narsa, 2019; Oh, 2018; Zhou et al., 2015), organizational learning contributes to several organizational outcomes and thus firms need to promote learning and give it a great priority. Through the lens of the resource-based view and knowledge-based view theories, leadership and organizational learning are two intangible resources and enable organizations to achieve superior performance However, there exists research gaps in theseareas.
First, although previous studies have examined the relationship between leadership and organizational outcomes, the findings are still inconsistent and inclusive towards simple methods (questionnaires) and replications of familiar leadership approaches (Yukl, 2013) The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is no clear answer to the question of which aspects (traits, competencies, or behaviors) of leaders are important to organizational outcomes In addition, while notable research has investigated the association between leadership and organizational learning on high organizational performance independently, yet previous researchers infrequently integrated them to make a more comprehensive framework In the context of tourism industry, many attempts have been made to search for novel strategies that help tourism firms overcome such harsh and turbulent situations Various recent studies have also pointed to the role of leader in supporting tourism firms to achieve better outcomes during COVID-19 pandemic (Nazarianet al., 2022; Hoet al., 2022; Hahanget al., 2022) For example, Talu and Nazarov (2020) found that leaders relied on their competences such as emotional intelligence and goal orientation to lead their tourism firms through economic uncertainty In Giousmpasoglouet al.’s (2021) study, leadership was emphasized as a strategic tool tourism managerial executives can use to engage employees under social distancing and lockdown conditions Although leadership emerges as an important topic in tourism research in recent years (Guchaitet al., 2020), debates continue as to which components of leadership “make the leader more effective in managing today’s organizations” (Samul, 2020, p 9) To that end, this study provides a comprehensive model to examine the relationships between leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance The leadership model developed in this study incorporates leadership traits and competencies, as well as the newly emerged complexity leadership in predicting high organizational performance of firms operating in the current complex and ambiguous environment
- a study not yet appeared in the literature Moreover, this model brings together some essential but understudied leadership traits as suggested by Hiller and Beauchesne (2014), namely narcissism, core self-evaluation, need for achievement, and risk propensity Hence, this study also contributes to filling previous theoretical gaps and answering the call from several authors (e.g., Crawford and Kelder, 2019; Mendeset al., 2016; Hiller and Beauchesne, 2014; Yukl, 2013).
Second, in addition to leadership, some businesses also paid attention to organizational learning since this concept has been recognized as another essential source of competitive advantage and superior performance (Farooq Sahibzada et al.,2021) Due to the influence of COVID-19 pandemic, tourism firms faced up with “a series of barriers hinders the learning process and prevents them from having the knowledge and willingness to cope with change and adapt quickly to unexpected situations” (Toubeset al., 2021, p2) According to these authors, how organizational learning affects the performance of organizations in the tourism industry is a topic of growing importance and concern and more specific research is needed to provide more in-depth knowledge To that end, this study provides empirical evidence on the role of organizational learning as a source of continuous knowledge that enables tourism firms to achieve superior performance and handle turbulent situations more effectively Furthermore, most research in leadership and organizational learning has been carried out in developed countries, especially in the Western context (Bayraktaroglu and Kutanis, 2003; Clark et al., 2008; Rothfelder et al., 2012) Since leadership and organizational learning are universal phenomena (Bass, 1996; Chiva and Alegre, 2005), it is interesting and necessary to validate the applicability of Western leadership and organizational learning concepts to other parts of the world such as South Asia (Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar, 2018) Hence, the theoretical framework of this research is expected to explain how well leadership and organizational learning models developed in the Western fit the context of tourism firms in Vietnam, and to add to body of knowledge on thesefields.
Finally, the development of tourism firms and the entire industry contributes greatly to the socio-economic growth of Vietnam However, no previous research has investigated the influences of leadership and organizational learning on high organizational performance of tourism firms in Vietnam This research presents empirical findings for the connections between leadership and leaders’ perspectives on their firms’ organizational learning, and how these factors foster high organizational performance Based on the above evidence, practical implications and organizational developmental policies are recommended to assist tourism leaders to improve their leadership effectiveness, as well as the organizational learning and high organizational performance of theirfirms.
Finally, the development of tourism firms and the entire industry contributes greatly to the socio-economic growth of Vietnam However, no previous research has investigated the influences of leadership and organizational learning on high organizational performance of tourism firms in Vietnam This research presents empirical findings for the connections between leadership and leaders’ perspectives on their firms’ organizational learning, and how these factors foster high organizational performance Based on the above evidence, practical implications and organizational developmental policies are recommended to assist tourism leaders to improve their leadership effectiveness, as well as the organizational learning and high organizational performance of their firms.
ResearchObjectives
This research primarily aims to examine the roles of leadership and organizational learning in fostering high organizational performance in tourism firms in Vietnam By investigating how leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance affect one another; the author seeks to develop a comprehensive model of direct and indirect relationships between these factors to provide managerial implications, organizational developmental policies for tourism firms in Vietnam, as well as guidelines for future research.
Specific objectives of this study include:
- To explore the components of leadership that manifest in the tourism context inVietnam;
- To examine the relationship between leadership and high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam;
- To test the relationship between leadership and organizational learning of tourism firms inVietnam;
- To investigate the relationship between organizational learning and high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam;
- To examine the mediating role of organizational learning on the relationship between leadership and high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam.
ResearchQuestions
To fulfill the research objectives, this study aims to answer the following research questions (RQ):
- RQ1: How do leadership manifest in the tourism context inVietnam?
- RQ2: How does leadership have an impact on organizational learning of tourism firms inVietnam?
- RQ3: How does leadership influence high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam?
- RQ4: How does organizational learning affect high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam?
- RQ5: How does organizational learning mediate the relationship between leadership and high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam?
Contribution oftheResearch
Academiccontribution
First, the outcome of this study will contribute to the existing literature on leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance Although there are many studies on leadership, the research in Vietnam’s tourism sector remains limited (Khuong and Khanh, 2016; Khuong and Nhu, 2015) This study could potentially provide a more profound understanding of effective leadership approaches and organizational learning practices for tourism leaders in Vietnam to foster high organizational performance in their firms Moreover, by combining different leadershipt h e o r i e s a n d u s i n g n e w c o n c e p t i o n s o f l e a d e r s h i p , t h i s s t u d y e x p e c t s t o contribute a comprehensive leadership model that fosters organizational learning and high organizational performance.
Second, earlier studies in these fields have been almost exclusively conducted in Western or developed nations, so the empirical findings of this research will demonstrate the feasibility of applying these concepts to Vietnam – a developing country in Asia In this study, western-developed leadership concepts will be qualitatively evaluated and adjusted to better fit the culture and business environment of the tourism industry in Vietnam.
Third, from a methodological perspective, previous studies have examined the relationships among leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance However, those studies merely quantitatively tested the influences of theory-based leadership concepts with narrowed perspectives on leaders’ competencies Yukl (2013) said that leadership studies are inconclusive and biased towards simple methods (questionnaires) and replications of familiar topics In a similar vein, Stentzet al.(2012) highlighted a gap in leadership studies, stating that much of current knowledge about leadership has been merely deprived from quantitative methods, and that multiple theories/methods should be used to capture the multifaceted nature of leadership To that end, the current study goes beyond earlier work and responds to this research gap by employing both qualitative and quantitative methods to study leadership and its influences.
Practicalcontribution
From a practical perspective, globalization and technology are changing the dynamics in organizations; thereby making established theories and practices no longer relevant (Tyssenet al., 2013) The findings from this study can also be used to offer powerful and scientifically proven recommendations for promoting high organizational performance in tourism firms and supporting the development of tourism industry in Vietnam.
ResearchMethodology
To explore components of leadership and develop a comprehensive framework examining how leadership and organizational learning facilitate the achievement of high organizational performance in organizations, a sequential, mixed-methods approach for data collection and analysis was employed According to Parry (1998, 87), researchers are encouraged to use both quantitative and qualitative methods in leadership research Creswell (2003) stated that the application of mixed- methods approach in a study can help address both exploratory and confirmatory questions and minimizes any potential biases ofeach.
After building a conceptual framework from a careful review of existing literature, this study proceeded in two phases The qualitative phase was used to explore whether leadership components identified in the literature manifest in the context of tourism firms in Vietnam To achieve this objective, semi-structured interviews were used According to Lamont and Swidler (2014), interview is an efficient way of collecting focused rich data and can enable researchers to understand and probe an individual’s perspectives Semi-structured allows researchers to focus on the conversation on issues that they consider important for their research topic (Brinkmann, 2013) Following the guidelines of Jacob and Furgerson (2012), an interview protocol was developed for this study The researcher personally contacted prospective participants by telephone and email using personal contacts and references Thematic analysis method was used to analyze data in the qualitative study Data was transcribed and transcripts were sent to participants for their review and confirmation of accuracy Afterwards, each transcript was coded and analyzed by extracting raw data themes from each interview and identifying quotes relating to the commonthemes.
The quantitative method was applied to confirm the major themes or leadership components developed from the qualitative interviews and test their relationships with organizational learning and high organizational performance Based on qualitative data and a review of existing literature, the researcher designed an instrument to survey leaders in the sector Before launching the survey, the researcher conductedpre- testsbyinterviewingmanagersoftourismfirmsandacademicsinthe fields The participants in the pre-tests were asked to help validate the questionnaire and evaluate if the survey questions were clearly understood A randomly selected list of tourism firms in Vietnam, including tourist attractions, restaurants and bars,retailers for tourists, hotels and resorts, tourism event companies, travel agencies, and tourist transportation companies, were contacted via telephone, email, Zalo and Viber app The researcher delivered the questionnaires via mail and Google Forms to the managers of these companies since they are reliable key informant and play a vital role in developing company policies, governing operating processes, and allocating resources (Junget al., 2008) Afterwards, PLS-SEM statistical techniques were applied with responses from surveyquestionnaire.
Scope oftheResearch
This study is subject to the following delimitations.
First, regarding the context, the research setting is in the tourism sector; therefore, applications of research findings to other industries might not be the same. The scope of tourism enterprises is limited to formal firms in tourism sector in Vietnam, including travel agencies/companies, tourist transportation companies, tourist attractions, retailing system (souvenirs/arts ) for tourism, food and beverage (formal restaurants and bars) for tourism, accommodation (hotels and resorts) for tourism and tourism event companies These types of firms are selected because they have long been functional sectors and industrial elements of tourism (Leiper, 1979) and have impressive contribution to tourism development in Vietnam This study is conducted in Vietnam When applied to other firms outside Vietnam, the research findings might be different.
Second, performance of organizations is a controversially discussed concept among scholars (Jenatabadi, 2015) It has been defined as the actual output of an organization as compared to its desired goals (Kotlaret al., 2018; Škrinjaret al., 2008). The literature shows that there has been a diversity of performance concepts.
“Financial performance” is the narrowest conception of performance and has been dominant in empirical studies (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986; Hofer, 1983).Typical financial performance indicators involve sales growth, return on investment, earnings per share and so on (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986) However, the use of financial ratios is insufficient to measure the potential influences of learning on performance of organizations (Prieto and Revilla, 2006) Neely (2002) suggested that
“non-financial performance” indicators such as learning and customer satisfaction should be used to reflect the performance of organizations As a result of several discussions, a variety of approaches that encompass both financial perspectives with the non-financial perspectives have been provided For example, Weerakoon (1996) introduced a multi-model performance framework involving productivity, market performance, employee motivation, and societal impact The dynamic and complex business environment has given rise to the thirst for understanding on a new concept called high organizational performance, which is characterized by an alignment between strong culture, strategy, structure, leadership, and employees’ skills (Peters and Waterman, 1982), or how an organization “achieves results that are better than those of its peer group over a longer period of time” (de Waal, 2021, p 304) A review of existing studies on performance of organizations revealed no difference in the use of performance-related terms (e.g., firm performance, organizational performance, business performance, high performance, or high organizational performance) In other words, most of previous research have used these terms interchangeably, which implies that there are no conceptualization differences among these concepts (Alrazehiet al.,2021; Lim and Ok, 2021; Hizarci‐Payne, 2021; Manfredi Latilla, 2018; Arielet al., 2013, de Waalet al., 2009; Shoobridge, 2006). Based on conceptualization evidence from earlier studies, this study finds secured to use performance-related terms (e.g., firm performance, organizational performance, business performance, high performance, or high organizational performance) interchangeably; and adopts the term “high organizational performance” to describe improved organizational or business performance of firms In this study, “high organizational performance” is defined as the achievement of satisfactory financial and non-financial performance compared withcompetitors.
Finally, the scope of the proposed research framework in this study is defined as follows This organizational behavior study is conducted at an organizational level,meaning that the impacts of leadership and organizational learning on the behavior of employees (e.g., job satisfaction, job performance, well-being, etc.) are not observed.The current research framework only forecasts the leaders’ perspectives on how their leadership influences organizational outcomes such as organizational learning and high organizational performance This study also acknowledges that other factors such as organizational culture and organizational innovation might affect high organizational performance other than leadership and organizational learning.However, these factors are not included in the scope of the research framework of this study.
Structure oftheDissertation
This dissertation includes five chapters Chapter 1 provides an overview of the dissertation, including research background, rationales for the research, research objectives, and research questions Besides, the chapter also presents the contributions and scope of the research.
Chapter 2 is a review of previous literature on research topics The chapter begins with a literature review of high organizational performance, leadership, and organizational learning, then discusses earlier findings on the relationships among the three domains in order to propose research hypotheses and develop a conceptual model.
Chapter 3 presents the research methodology of this study, involving qualitative and quantitative research design to refine measurement scales and test hypotheses The chapter begins with research paradigm, followed by mixed methods research design This chapter also presents the research design of qualitative phase and quantitativephase,as well as how reliability, validity, and utility are ensured, and ethical concerns areconsidered.
Chapter 4 reports results and findings from qualitative and quantitative studies After qualitative data from interviews was transcribed, coded, and analyzed,core themes depicting leadership preferences of leaders of tourism firms in Vietnam and their outcomes were identified Once themes from the interviews were determined and confirmed that all the leadership components identified from the literature manifest in tourism firms in Vietnam, the researcher proceeded withquantitative phase SmartPLS software version 3.0 was used to process PLS-SEM for 638 cases. The data analysis of quantitative study includes descriptive characteristics of respondents, followed by measurement and structural model assessment This chapter ends with the discussion on several key issues that the examination of the research hypotheses in the context of tourism firms in Vietnam has brought forward.
Chapter 5 includes conclusions, implications, limitations, and directions for future research The chapter begins with the conclusion Besides, this chapter also presents several implications that this research made to both theory of leadership,organizational learning and high organizational performance literature and practice.This chapter ends with limitations of this research and areas for future studies to focus on.
TheoreticalFoundation
The earliest acknowledgment of the profound impact of firm-specific resources can be found in seminal work of Chamberlin’s (1933) entitled “The
Theoryof Monopolistic Competition” and Robinson’s (1933) entitled “The Economics ofImperfect Competition” In their publications, these economists emphasized firm heterogeneity and stated that firms’ unique assets and capabilities act as critical determinants of imperfect competition and the achievement of superior performance. Chamberlin (1933) also elaborated on the key assets and capabilities of firms, which involve brand awareness, technical know-how, patents and trademarks, reputation, and, particularly, the ability ofleaders.
The resource-based view theory was subsequently developed by Penrose (1959) in his work named “The Theory of Growth of the Firm” and then emerged in Wernerfelt’s (1984) article According to Wernerfelt (1984), acknowledging the importance of developing resources rather than products, the resource-based view theory of firm contends that ‘‘firms possess resources, a subset of which enables them to achieve competitive advantage, and a further subset which leads to superior long- term performance’’ (p.108) After being remained dormant for much of the 1980s, the resource-based view theory received increased interest among scholars, evident by
“the number of contributions claiming to adopt a “resource-based perspective” mushroomed” (Fahy, 2000, p 95) In the extant literature, several studies highlighted how firms with specific assets and capabilities outperform their competitors in the market (Ghemawat, 1986; Grant, 1991; Stalket al., 1992) In a seminal work
“FirmResources and Sustained Competitive Advantage” published in Journal of
Management, Barney (1991) stated that the resource-based view theory derives from two assumptions of heterogeneity and immobility of resources that foster improved performance and competitive advantage of a firm Resources can also be defined as capabilities, assets, knowledge, processes, and other capabilities that enable a firm to achieve and sustain its effectiveness, competitiveness and continuing organizational performance (Barney, 1995; Galbreath, 2005) They can be tangible resources (e.g., facilities and equipment) or intangible resources embedded in the organizations such as competence of business owners and leaders (Ulrich, 1998; Saffuet al., 2008) In other words, the resource-based view illustrates how owners and managerial executives generate superior performance and sustained competitive advantage for their organizations from the unique bundle of resources or capabilities that they currently possess such as management skills and knowledge (Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Dollinger, 1999; Castanis and Helft, 1991; Polanyi, 1966).
The resource-based view theory was frequently used to evaluate firm performance (Newbert, 2007) and has gained enormous popularity in tourism research (e.g., Hossainet al., 2022; Hauglandet al., 2011; Duarte Alonso, 2017; Espino- Rodríguez and Padrón-Robaina, 2005; Huy and Khin, 2016; Denicolaiet al., 2010). For example, several studies have been done on some costly-to-copy resources that are important for the competitiveness and high organizational performance of tourism firms (Camisón and Forés, 2015; Camisónet al., 2015) According to Kruesi and Bazelmans (2022), the RBV theory has been directly or indirectly invoked as the central theoretical grounding in several tourismstudies.
Since the resource-based view theory addresses firms’ assets and capabilities as underlying determinants of high organizational performance, the researcher deemed it a suitable theory to use in the current study Drawing on the resource-based view theory, the researcher hypothesized a relationship between the characteristics, competences, and styles of leaders in tourism firms and high organizational performance (Wilderom and Van Den Berg, 2000; Chamberlin, 1933; Ulrich, 1998; Saffue t a l , 2 0 0 8 ; C a s t a n i s a n d H e l f t , 1 9 9 1 ) I n o t h e r w o r d s , t h i s s t u d y c o n s i d e r s leadership as an internal intangible resource that contributes to the achievement of high organizational performance in tourism firms.
The emergence of the knowledge era has brought changes to resources required to achieve high organizational performance and sustain competitiveness in business The knowledge-based view theory is an extension of the resource-based view theory, which postulates that the knowledge base of a firm is the most critical and invaluable source of sustainable performance and competitive edge (Grant,1996).
Under the knowledge-based view theory perspective, knowledge is perceived to be an asset that resides within the individuals and can be aggregated, transferred and incorporated at the organization level (Denford and Chan, 2011) The primary purpose of organizations is to acquire, transfer, apply, and integrate knowledge necessary for effective adaptation to the ever-changing business environment (Chenget al., 2014) According to Farzanehet al.(2021), the knowledge-based view theory “is an important approach to organizational learning” and “has inevitably given rise to this general understanding that firms should become learning organizations to maximize their knowledge base” to gain sustainable competitive advantages and superior organizational performance (p 657) Therefore, knowledge capabilities of a firm are found to drive its performance (Darroch, 2005) In other words, high organizational performance of firms is associated with their abilities and capabilities to create, absorb, integrate, apply, manage, and store knowledge (Magnoet al.,2017).
Since the extant literature extensively addresses knowledge-based view theory in exploring the impact of knowledge on firms’ performance and competitiveness, this area has received attention in the field of tourism and hospitality firms (Toylanet al.,2020; Nieveset al., 2014; Utamiet al., 2017) Earlier studies pointed out that tourism firms can capitalize on organizational learning and knowledge assets to gain competitive advantage (Cooper, 2015; Zaei and Zaei, 2014) The extant literature also extensively addresses KBV theory in exploring the impact of knowledge on business performance of tourism firms (Toylanet al., 2020; Duarte Alonsoet al., 2020).
Consequently, the current study adopts the knowledge-based view theory to examine knowledge as a driver of superior performance of tourism firms in the context of an emerging market (Grant, 1996; Farzanehet al., 2021; Darroch, 2005; Magnoet al., 2017; Toylanet al., 2020) In other words, this study considers organizational learning as an internal intangible resource that contributes to the achievement of high organizational performance in tourism firms.
Originated in organizational psychology field, the Ability-Motivation- Opportunity theory suggests that Ability (skills and knowledge necessary for good performance), Motivation (individual’s impetus to perform); and Opportunity (contextual and situational factors that enabled performance) are core antecedents in explaining behaviors and performance (Appelbaumet al., 2000; Baileyet al., 2001).
There is limited research on organizational learning using Ability-Motivation- Opportunity theory and framework The study of Argoteet al.(2003) identified ability, motivation, and opportunity as mechanisms of knowledge management and concluded that these mechanisms have an impact on how knowledge is created, retained, and transferred Recently, Soomroet al.(2021) and Vashdiet al.(2019) applied the Ability- Motivation-Opportunity framework to empirically examine the connection between leadership and organizational learning In these studies, it is argued that each leadership dimension could be classified as the ability, motivation, or opportunity mechanism which are related to organizationallearning.
This study extends earlier work (Argoteet al.,2003; Vashdiet al., 2019; Soomroet al., 2021) by using Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory to propose a theoretical model linking leadership dimensions to organizational learning.
Table 2.1 illustrates how the three theories contribute to the conceptual model in this study.
Table 2.1 Summary of theoretical framework
Resource-based view Knowledge-based view AMO theory
Origin The Theory of theGrowthof theFirm
The resource-based view of the firm
Discourse between industrial and social psychologists
Heterogeneity and immobility of resources can foster performance and competitive edge.
Knowledge base of a firm is the most critical source of improved performance and competitive edge.
Leaders’abilitya nd motivation impact how knowledge is createdand transferred.
Appli- cation in this research
(internal intangible resource) leads to high organizational performance.
Explain how organizational learning (internal intangible resource) leads to high organizational performance.
Explain how leadership leads to organizational learning.
Application of the theory to evaluate firm performance in tourism firms
Padrón-Robaina, 2005; Huy and Khin, 2016;
This theory has received attention in the field of tourism (Toylanet al., 2020; Nieveset al., 2014;
Tourism enterprises can capitalize on organizational learning to gain competitive advantage (Cooper, 2015;
(Toylanet al., 2020; Duarte Alonsoet al., 2020).
Application of the AMO theory to empirically examine the connection between leadership and organizational learning(Soomro et al.,2021;
Leadership
There is a variety of leadership definitions in the literature Northouse (2018) defined leadership as a process in which leaders influence their followers to accomplish a common goal Yukl (2013) came up with a broader definition of leadership, which considers leadership as an influential process that facilitates the success of a group or an organization and ensures its readiness to handle future challenges Many scholars agreed that leadership is an influencing process to support activities and relationships at group or firm level, but this still includes ambiguity and confusion in meaning (Alvesson and Spicer, 2014; Yukl, 2013) This is a result of the efforts of scholars to sharpen up the concept of leadership by adding different aspects that fit with their perspectives or the context of their studies.
To overcome the endemically vague concept of leadership, it is important to select an appropriate definition for it This study defines leadership ashow leadersmaintain and strengthen activities and processes that enable the organizations to achieve superior performance and thrive in ambiguous environment In this study, leadership is measured through self-perception of leaders in tourism firms, and this definition is appropriate since it helps leaders to evaluate how their characteristics and styles influence organizational outcomes.
In addition, the evolution of leadership research is marked by the emergence of various theories over the decades Previous studies on leadership have shown that different leadership approaches lead to diverse influences on organizational outcomes. Therefore, a review of both prevailing and emerging theories of leadership is critical for identifying components of leadership in thisstudy.
The earliest theory on leadership (frequently referred to as “traittheory”) assumest h a t s u c c e s s f u l l e a d e r s a c q u i r e i n n a t e p e r s o n a l i t i e s a n d a t t r i b u t e s t h a t differentiate them from non-leaders (Stogdill, 1948) Although trait theory has dominated leadership research in the early 20 th century, studies on this theory provide mixed results and skepticism due to the large number of leadership traits available and a lack of a unified personality framework (Colbertet al., 2012) As a result, the five- factor model was introduced and has emerged as the most mutually agreed and supported model of personality among scholars (Digman, 1990; Northouse, 2018). Leaders’ traits in the model are categorized into five factors: openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness.
However, Bonoet al.(2014) argued that the use of five-factor traits may overshadow the importance of other traits that are not included in the framework.According to these authors, much is known about leadership traits using five-factor theory and scholars need to further explore the traits that are relevant in the future business environment To advance the line of research on trait theory, several researchers have turned their attention to more personality traits that account for characteristics above and beyond the five-factor personality traits (e.g., Judgeet al.,2006; Judgeet al., 2003) Hiller and Beauchesne (2014) identified core self- evaluation, narcissism, need for achievement, and risk propensity as understudied traits that could provide a better conceptual explanation of leadership and how it predicts organizational-level outcomes such as strategy, culture, and performance.Recent literature showed that many researchers have expanded the domain of leaders’ personality and employed core self-evaluation and narcissism (Ding and Lin, 2020;Wang and Xu, 2019; Resicket al., 2009), as well as need for achievement and risk propensity (Yu and Chen, 2016; Luoet al., 2016; Marco and John, 2013; Tang andTang, 2007) in their studies Moreover, several authors argued that although leadership traits are stable human personalities that undergo little change over time,some traits, for example, core self-evaluation and need for achievement, can be developed and strengthened through coaching and training (Di Fabioet al., 2012;McClelland, 1990) Therefore, studies pursuing to investigate the relationship between these leadership traits and organizational outcomes are indeedneeded.
Core self-evaluation.In the last two decades, tremendous research attention has been paid to core self-evaluation (Wang and Xu, 2019), which is defined as an individual’s overarching self-concept and refers to people’s evaluations of their ability, effectiveness, and values (Judge and Bono, 2001; Judgeet al., 2003) Core self-evaluationsubsumesfourwell- knownandinterrelatedcharacteristics ofleaders:
(1) self-esteem, described as beliefs about the leaders’ self-worth; (2) neuroticism, which is the leaders’ ability to control over emotional reactions; (3) generalized self- efficacy, or leaders’ beliefs about their performance across situations; and (4) internal locus of control, that is, leaders’ beliefs about the causes of their life events (Flynnetal., 2016; Gardner and Pierce, 2009) Recent studies have documented that core self- evaluation of leaders exhibits a positive relationship with a variety of outcomes, such as strengths use (Ding and Lin, 2020); leadership styles (Huet al., 2012); employee performance (Ahnet al., 2016) and creativity (Chianget al., 2014; Zhanget al., 2018), to name a few Despite the call of Aryeeet al.(2017, p 948) for future research to study core self-evaluations in relation with factors “that have become important in light of the dynamic environment in which organizations operate”, little attempt has been made to examine the effects of leaders’ core self- evaluation on organizational learning and high organizationalperformance.
Narcissism Narcissism is among the most perplexing traits that have been investigated in literature (Asad and Sadler-Smith, 2020; Reinaet al., 2014) Originated from Greek myth and firstly adopted by a physician, narcissism is explored as an abnormal state of psychology and later expanded to the impact of leaders’ narcissism on firm performance (Kim, 2018; Brunellet al., 2008) In social science research,
“narcissism is widely conceptualized as a personality dimension that manifests among all individuals in varying degrees” (Liuet al., 2019a, p 498) Previous scholars classified narcissism into two dimensions: grandiose and vulnerable narcissism(Wink, 1991; Miller and Campbell, 2008) The former refers to the extent to which an individual has high level of entitlement, self-absorption, arrogance, dominance and is preoccupied by a desire to become the center of attention and continuallyreinforcepositiveself- view(RosenthalandPittinsky,2006;Milleretal.,
2011) The latter characterizes individuals as highly neurotic and biased such that they think others always do oppressive/malicious actions to them and thus respond in a skeptical and aggressive manner (Milleret al., 2011) In line with the focus of prior studies on leaders’ narcissism (Zhanget al., 2017; Chatterjee and Hambrick, 2007; 2011) and the interest of the current research in understanding how narcissistic leaders affects firm’s learning and performance, grandiose narcissism is adopted in this study.
Need for achievement.Originating from the list of 20 needs developed by
Murray (1938), need for achievement is a basic need that has an impact on behavior of individuals Commonly defined as “the expectations of doing something better or faster than anybody else or better than the person’s own earlier accomplishments”, this personality trait is identified as “a process of planning as striving for excellence” (Hansemark, 2003, p 302) Leaders scoring high on need for achievement tend to fulfill high goals and achieve high organizational performance (Marco, 2013; Spangler, 1992; Robbinset al., 2004) They are motivated to undertake difficult tasks, face challenges, and tolerate ambiguity to attain better performance, success, and excellence (Grote and James, 1991; Sagie and Elizur, 1999; Tajeddini and Tajeddini, 2008).
Risk propensity.Risk propensity is defined as leaders’ risk seeking behavior and orientation towards uncertain decision-making (Koh, 1996) or their tendency to take risks (Sitkin and Weingart, 1995; Tang and Tang, 2007) According to Tajeddini and Tajeddini (2008, p 441), “risk-taking usually points out the willingness to invest resources in opportunities with possibilities of costly failure” Prior studies revealed that leaders’ risk-taking behavior has positive effects on fostering effective leadership (Frostet al., 1983), firms’ performance (Yu and Chen, 2016; Dansoet al., 2016), and new venture performance (Liuet al., 2019b).
2.2.2.2 Skills and Competencies Approach toLeadership
Similar to trait theory, skill theory of leadership adopts a leader-centered perspective to leadership and suggests that leaders achieve certain skills, knowledge,and competencies to be effective (Northouse, 2018) Katz’s (1955) seminal article entitled “Skills of an effective administrator” published onHarvard Business
Reviewargued that “what is important is not an executive’s traits or personality characteristics, but what the executive can accomplish” (Peterson and Van Fleet,
2004, p 1298) Katz (1974) then introduced a set of core skills that leaders employ to pursue organizational goals, namely technical, human, and conceptual skills In a leadership skills model, Mumfordet al.(2000) suggested three competencies that leaders need to acquire in order to become effective, namely problem solving, knowledge, and social judgment According to Mumfordet al.(2007), leaders need to exhibit different leadership competencies such as interpersonal, cognitive, business, and strategic to be successful inorganizations.
Over decades, several studies have focused on identifying effective competencies of leaders Leadership competencies refer to a group of “essential skills,knowledge, and personal characteristics” (Lucia and Lepsinger, 1999, p 1) that enable leaders to achieve superior performance (Spencer and Spencer, 1993) and gain the results they expected (Bartram, 2005) Several authors identified three clusters of leadership competencies that contribute greatly to leadership effectiveness and performance of organizations in a variety of contexts: emotional intelligence, social intelligence, and cognitive intelligence (Pham and Kim, 2019; Amedu and Dulewicz,2018; Almatrooshiet al., 2016; Boyatziset al., 2012; Boyatzis, 2011; Boyatzis andRatti, 2009; Young and Dulewicz, 2008; Ryanet al., 2009).Cognitive intelligenceis defined as how leaders exhibit critical thinking and pattern recognition in order to support learning and decision making (Sun and Hui, 2012; Amedu and Dulewicz,2018; Boyatzis, 2011; Leeet al., 2013).Social intelligencerefers to the abilities of leaders related to relationship management and understanding of social environment,for example, teamwork and empathy (Boyatzis and Ratti, 2009; Boyatzis,2009).Emotional intelligenceis the ability of individuals to express, control, and utilize emotions in problem solving and performance improvement (Amedu andDulewicz, 2018; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Mustaffaet al., 2013) This competence includes “self-awareness and self-management competencies, such as emotional self- awareness and emotional self-control” (Boyatzis, 2009, p 754).
OrganizationalLearning
The concept of organizational learning dates back to the 1960s by the work of Cangelosi and Dill (1965) on individual and organizational learning and then expanded significantly after the book by Argyris and Schửn (1978),Organizationallearning: A Theory of Action Perspective Some seminal studies of organizational learning in the 1980s and 1990s include Hedberg’s (1981) study on learning and unlearning, Fiol and Lyles’ (1985) research on different levels of organizational learning, Argote and Epple’s (1990) description of learning curves, March’s (1991) work on knowledge exploration and exploitation, and Huber’s (1991) introduction of four organizational learning constructs (knowledge acquisition, distribution, interpretation, and organizational memory).
Over the past decades, many concepts and definitions of organizational learning have flourished in the literature Organizational learning was mostly defined as a process of gaining new insights from experiences that consequently impact individual behaviors and organizational dynamics (Fiol and Lyles, 1985; Huber, 1991) A few authors referred to organizational learning as a process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge (Argote, 2011); a capability to create and use knowledge (DiBellaet al., 1996; Limpibunterng and Johri, 2009), or a culture that promotes exploration and exploitation of knowledge (Naqshbandi and Tabche, 2018). Recently, Realet al.(2014) stated that organizational learning is a process of creating, sharing, and utilizing knowledge to enhance firm performance and outcomes.
Another related concept is learning organization By definition, learning organization is a new kind of successful organization whose environment promotes constant learning through creating, acquiring, transferring knowledge and modifying behaviors (Senge, 1990; Garvin, 1993) According to ệrtenblad (2001, p 125), “a learning organization was simply an organization that learned” Some scholars have distinguished between organizational learning and learning organization, arguing that learning organization is an organizational form that requires efforts to be developed, whereas organizational learning is learning activities/processes that effortlessly exist in organizations (Tsang, 1997) There are also a few who considered organizational learning “as a special case – or a version – of learning organization” (ệrtenblad,2018, p 152), and those who thought the opposite (Easterby-Smith, 1997).
Although there are diverse perspectives on organizational learning in the literature, this study concentrates on a very distinct, precise definition of organization learning to achieve depth of analysis Organizational learning in this study is defined asthe learning processes that enable organizations to achieve improved outcomes(Huber, 1991; Fiol and Lyles, 1985).
The conceptualization of organizational learning has been broadly discussed by scholars In the 1980s, Argyris and Schửn (1978) described organizational learning as single-loop and double-loop learning The former considers changes to the expected outcomes of the organization, whereas the latter challenges and redefines these changes and expectations Single-loop and double-loop learning can also be considered as adaptive and generative learning according to Senge’s (1990) classifications Earlier studies assume that adaptive learning is suitable for firms operating in a slow-changing environment and generative learning is essential for firms operating dynamic markets (Wijnhoven, 2001).
March (1991) categorized learning processes into exploitation of existing routines from previous knowledge, and exploration for new routines and knowledge.Huber (1991) addressed some deficiencies in earlier organizational learning approaches and postulates four constructs of information systems in organizations.Information acquisition is about learning from a variety of sources such as experiences within the organizations, experiences of other organizations, and knowledge from internal and external environment Information distribution deals with the sharing of knowledge across the organization Information interpretationis how organizations make sense of acquired and shared information Organizational memory refers to the storage and retrieval of information Besides, previous scholars advocate a notion that organizational learning occurs at different levels (individual, group, organization) and the learning outcomes are facilitated by two types of learning flows called feedforward and feedback (Crossanet al., 1999; Di Milia and Birdi, 2009; Lloria and Moreno-Luzon,2014).
Drawing on different works on organizational learning, Pérez Lópezet al. (2005) proposed that organizational learning involves four processes: (1) knowledge acquisition, which is the process where knowledge is generated from either inside or outside the organizations; (2) knowledge distribution, that is, the process where information is transferred or shared among individuals and groups, thereby creating new knowledge or understanding; (3) knowledge interpretation, which is how the organizations process acquired/distributed information to make sense of it; and (4) organizational memory, which means the process through which organizations store information or knowledge to use in the future The four processes of organizational learning were said to cover all previous categorizations and have been frequently examined in relation to firm performance (Jiménez-Jimenezet al., 2008; Pérez Lópezet al., 2005).
Organizational learning has been recognized as an essential factor that influences the development and competitiveness of organizations in the turbulent context (Yuet al., 2022; Thomas and Machado, 2022; Chadwick and Raver, 2015;Liao and Wu, 2010) Many authors indicated that organizational learning plays a vital role in performance excellence and success (Yuliansyahet al., 2021; Zgrzywa-Ziemak and Walecka-Jankowska, 2021; Waqaset al., 2019; Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011; Gohet al., 2012; Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle, 2011) Similar to organizations in other industries, tourism firms concentrate on their performance It is argued that organizational learning provides tourism enterprises with new insights needed to improve performance and survive in the ever-changing environment( I m a n i
Khoshkhoo and Nadalipour, 2016) Prior research on organizational learning also suggested that this factor enables tourism firms to achieve high organizational performance, innovation, and competitiveness (Bayraktaroglu and Kutanis, 2003; Fu, 2017) In Vietnam, knowledge acquisition in organizational learning is found to contribute significantly to the performance of 173 Vietnamese international joint ventures in (Anhet al., 2006) This finding is similar to the study of Tsanget al.’s (2004) study, which postulates that knowledge acquisition in organizational learning have a significant relationship with Vietnamese ventures’ performance Pham and Hoang (2019) also found that organizational learning capability plays a vital role in business performance of Vietnam firms.
Given the critical role of organizational learning in high organizational performance, a considerable body of literature has examined its antecedents. According to Chou and Ramser (2018), leadership has a profound impact on organizational among various antecedents in the literature Earlier scholars found that leadership is responsible for learning at organizations (Amitayet al., 2005; Popper and Lipshitz, 2000; Chang and Lee, 2007) Other studies have also focused on examining the connection between leadership and organizational learning (Horchani et al., 2022; Buhagiar and Anand, 2021; Khurosani, 2018; Nyukoron, 2016; Park and Kim, 2018; Uddinet al., 2017) Vashdiet al.’s (2018) study of firms in Israel revealed that each component of organizational learning was affected by different leadership behaviors. Domínguez-Escrig and Mallén-Broch (2021) highlighted the role of leadership in fostering organizational learning, which enables organizations to compete in a globalized and turbulent context.
In the tourism industry, the role of leaders in facilitating organizational learning has been highlighted in many studies Narayanan and Rajaratnam (2019) examined the relationship between leadership and organizational learning among tourism firms in Klang Valley, Malaysia The study found that leadership acted as the driving force towards organizational learning processes, including information acquisition, distribution, interpretation, and memory Similarly, Yulianeueta l
(2021) conducted a study in tourism firms operating in East Piranga, Indonesia and found that leadership has a profound impact in energizing organizational learning processes in dynamic situations.
In this study, a research framework for investigating the relationship between leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance is proposed. Contrary to prior studies that mostly examined only two out of the three phenomena (Tandon, 2021; Soomroet al., 2021; Waqaset al., 2019; Uddinet al., 2017; Vashdietal., 2018), this research is unique because it incorporates all three variables in a single research model to examine their relationships By doing so, this study aims to provide researchers and practitioners with a fuller understanding of the dynamics among leadership, high organizational performance, and organizational learning as a mediator.
HighOrganizational Performance
2.4.1 Defining and Conceptualizing High OrganizationalPerformance
Performance of organizations has captured the attention of both managers and academics; and remains one of the most controversial concepts debated among scholars and theorists (Jenatabadi, 2015) For many years, researchers have been preoccupied by discussions on terminology and conceptual basis for assessment of performance in organizations (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986; Ford and Schellenberg, 1982) According to Dess and Robinson (1984), the debate has been around the three following topics: (1) what performance is all about or what is the definition of performance; (2) how do researchers call or conceptualize performance; and (3) how can researchers possibly measure performance of organizations.
First, performance of organizations is commonly defined as the actual output of an organization as compared to its desired goals (Kotlaret al., 2018; Škrinjaret al.,2008) Armstrong and Baron (1998) defined performance of organizations as an integrated approach to achieve and sustain success through performance improvement and capabilities development According to Dess and Robinson (1984), firm performance is referred to the firm’s efficiencies and effectiveness inutilizing resources and achieving desired goals In a similar vein, Daft (2020) defined performance of organizations or organizational performance as the organization's ability to use its resources efficiently and effectively in order to attain its goals.
In the face of dynamic and complex business environment caused by social and economic changes, the concept of performance has evolved remarkably The publication “In Search of Excellence” written by Peters and Waterman (1982) is said to give rise to the thirst for understanding on a new term called high performance of organization or high organizational performance In their book, Peters and Waterman (1982) believed that high performance of organizations is characterized by an alignment between strong culture, strategy, structure, leadership, and employees’ skills Following the work of Peters and Waterman (1982), there is a plethora of books and articles aiming to explore and provide a description of what high organizational performance really is Lacyet al.’s (2009) study of more than 6,000 firms revealed that high organizational performance is how organizations generate impressive business value through the execution of five sustainability strategies: organization change, leadership development, learning, performance management, and employee engagement In a recent systematic review of high performance of organizations, de Waal (2021, p 303) found that 33.3% studies did not define the term, 9.5% “can be seen as basically meaningless” since the researchers defined this term based on their own model, and the rest of it focus on the performance in comparison with competitors, as well as attributes of performance and long-term sustainability rather than what it is To that end, de Waal (2021) synthesized past literature on high performance of organizations and defined it as how an organization
“achieves results that are better than those of its peer group over a longer period of time” (p 304) In essence, one common thing among previous studies when trying to define performance in the organizational context is that they focus on what foster organizational output than rather than looking at the performance of organizations as a complete set initself.
Second, a review of existing studies on performance of organizations revealed no difference in the use of performance-related terms (e.g., firm performance, organizational performance, business performance, high performance, or high organizational performance) In other words, most of previous research have used these terms interchangeably, which implies that there are no conceptualization differences among these concepts For example, the two terms “organizational performance” and “firm performance” were used interchangeably and referred to improved or high organizational performance in the studies of Hansen and Wernerfelt (1989); Richard (2000); and Vithessonthi and Thoumrungroje (2011) In the study of Alrazehiet al.(2021), “organizational performance has been used interchangeably with other terms such as company performance and business performance” (p 2) In the studies of Gil‐Padilla and Espino‐Rodríguez (2008), Arielet al.(2013), and Qu (2013), the terms “organizational performance”, “business performance”, and “firm performance” were used with the same meaning, illustrating how organizations achieve improved, superior, or high organizational performance In a study about high performance in Vietnam, de Waalet al.(2009) used “relative performance”,
“organizational performance”, and “firm performance” interchangeably throughout their study to illustrate increased or high performance and improved competitiveness of Vietnamese firms Besides, the interchangeable use of performance-related terminologies also applies to literature or systematic review paper on performance of organizations For example, several papers used only “performance” as the main keyword in the literature search for publications on business performance(Shoobridge, 2006), firm performance (Inkinen, 2016; Hizarci‐Payne, 2021), and organizational performance (Manfredi Latilla, 2018) In the meta-analytic review ofHancock et al (2011), “organizational performance” and “firm performance” were used in the list of search terms Recently, a meta-analytic review of antecedents of tourism firms’ performance conducted by Lim and Ok (2021) used “firm performance,” “financial performance,” “organizational performance,” “business performance,” “market performance,” and “hotel performance” as searchedk e y w o r d s to identify studies exploring antecedents of firm performance of tourism organizations.
Third, the importance of achieving high organizational performance has spurred the development of many approaches to accurately measure it, witnessed by an ever-increasing number of studies on performance measurement in the last twenty years (de Waal, 2021; Folan and Browne, 2005; Jenatabadi, 2015) Financial performance is the narrowest conception of firm performance and has been dominant in empirical studies (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986; Hofer, 1983) It involves ratios (e.g., sales growth, return on investment, earnings per share, etc.) collected from company records or stock exchanges (Singhet al., 2016) Another stream of literature advocates the use of non-financial performance (e.g., quality and satisfaction) or the combination of both financial and non-financial indices (Weerakoon, 1996; Gohet al., 2012; Neely, 2002; Prieto and Revilla, 2006) Non- financial performance can be measured with the help of subjective information collected from key informants, for example, managers (Singhet al., 2016) Zhouet al. (2015) recognized that there are advantages in using objective measures of performance, but accounting calculation in financial metrics is limited in terms of managerial discretion and evaluation of intangible resources This view is congruent with Dess and Robinson (1984) and Phillips (1999), who emphasized that objective data insufficiently and incorrectly reflects the actual performance of firms To surmount these problems, subjective measures are encouraged to be used as good alternatives (Kunkel and Hofer, 1993; Wallet al., 2004) Singhet al.(2016) gathered information on organizational performance from the perception of managers of different sets of firms in different countries After conducting in-depth statistical tests on these subjective measures, the group of authors found that managers provide accurate evaluation of the performance of their firms In a similar vein, de Waal(2018a) made a notable attempt to review existing literature on measures of high organizational performance The findings of de Waal’s (2018a) study highlight a strong correlation between the perception of respondents on performance (subjective performance) and actual performance (objective performance) This author then concluded that high organizational performance should be subjectivelymeasured based on managerial perspectives, especially “when access to objective performance data is restricted or collection of the information is just not feasible” (de Waal, 2018a, p 3) In tourism industry, several authors argued that globalization and competition have urged tourism firms to utilize non-financial performance such as customer satisfaction and competitive advantage in addition to the traditionally financial evidence (e.g., return on investment, profitability, etc.) (Qu, 2013; Gil‐Padillaet al., 2008; Arsezen-Otamiset al., 2015).
Added to this, looking at how performance of organizations was measured brought interesting findings The extant literature showed that “organizational performance”, “business performance”, “firm performance”, “high performance” or other performance-related terms were approximately measured using similar indices. For example, several studies on “business performance” used financial indices (e.g, profitability, return on assets, and return on investment) and non-financial indices (e.g., satisfaction, labor turnover, market performance, operational performance, and firm overall performance) to measure performance of organizations (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986; Fairozet al., 2010; and Aziz et al., 2013; Pham and Hoang, 2019) Similarly, studies which used the term “organizational performance” to label performance of organizations such as Dess and Robinson (1984); Bolaji Bello and Adeoye (2018); and Ur Rehmanet al.(2019) applied similar measurements to capture superior or high performance (e.g., overall performance, new product development, profit, sales volume, etc.) Studies which labelled performance as “firm performance” also used the same scales to measure the achievement of high performance of organization such as overall performance, profitability, sales growth, improved new products and services, and customer satisfaction (Mohammad, 2019; Waqaset al., 2019; Narsa, 2019) In a study about high performance in Vietnam, de Waalet al. (2009) labeled high organizational performance as “competitive performance” or
“relative performance” and used subjective measures of organizational performance compared to competitors to measure thisconcept.
In sum, at the apex of the performance conceptualization paradox, a thorough analysis and synthesis of earlier studies irrespective of the label researchers attached toperformanceoforganizationsrevealedinterestingfindings.Itmaybedueto complexity and multidimensional nature of “performance” in the organizational context or the fact that most definitions and conceptualizations were stretched to fit the argument and interpretations of each scholar In light of the conceptualization evidence from earlier and recent studies, the current research finds secured to use performance-related terms (e.g., firm performance, organizational performance, business performance, high performance, or high organizational performance) interchangeably.
Based on the foregoing premises, to achieve simplicity and clarity, this study adopts the term “high organizational performance” to describe improved organizational or business performance of firms and defines it as the achievement of satisfactory financial and non-financial performance compared with competitors. High organizational performance in this study includes both financial and non- financial indicators and is subjectively measured through the perception ofmanagers.
Over the past decades, many attempts have been made to identify relevant practices that contribute to high organizational performance (Guptaet al., 2019; Pattanasinget al., 2019) Recent literature reviews of past studies into this domain (de Waal, 2021; Do and Mai, 2021) revealed a diversity of perspectives on the definitions, characteristics, antecedents, and outcomes of high organizational performance, depending on the researcher’s interpretations and the angle of research In fact, previous studies into this domain have yielded varying results and, maybe because of this, made it difficult to develop a fully understanding of high organizational performance, especially in tourism firms operating in developing economies (Do and Mai, 2020).
Earlier studies on high organizational performance have been conducted to test the feasibility of this concept in practice The common method used to conduct these studies is to distribute questionnaires in workshops Several researchers have tested and confirmed the suitability of high organizational performance in Vietnamese andNepalese banking sector (de Waalet al., 2009; de Waal and Frijns, 2011); in a multinational retailer (de Waal, 2012); and in insurance sector in Ghana (Honyenugaet al., 2014) In the last five years, scholars continued to evaluate the applicability of high organizational performance in a variety of contexts One published in 2016 examined the suitability of high organizational performance in information and communications technology companies in Egypt (de Waalet al., 2016) Six 2017 studies were conducted in Dutch supermarket (de Waalet al., 2017); in Dutch agricultural sector (de Waal and Meingast, 2017); in Chinese enterprises (de Waal and Wang, 2017); in a service company based in the Netherlands (de Waal and Goedegebuure, 2017); in the North American (de Waal, 2017a); and in a social care and rehabilitation firm in the Netherlands (de Waal, 2017b) Several recent publications also addressed how firms in Egypt, in Zambia, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates achieved high organizational performance (Ateia et al., 2021; Mroueh and de Waal, 2018; de Waal, 2018b; de Waal and de Haas,2018).
Besides, there are some empirical studies on the relationship between high organizational performance and its determinants Bagorogoza and de Waal (2010) conducted a study at financial institutions in Uganda and found that knowledge management plays a key role in sustaining high organizational performance Using a mixed methods approach, Melchar and Bosco (2010) empirically validated the effects of servant leadership on high organizational performance Another research was carried out by de Waal and Sivro (2012), aiming to study the linkages among servant leadership and high organizational performance on 116 managers and staff from VrijeUniversiteit medical center After quantitative analyses, no direct relationship between servant leadership and firm performance was found This result is contrary to what Melchar and Bosco (2010) found in their study In Hazy and Uhl-Bien’s (2015) study, leadership was positively associated with organizational capabilities and later with firms’ performance and adaptability in a changing environment In particular,leadership encouraged broad adoption of innovative ideas, provided resources to try new things and long-term directions, and embraced openness to learn and thus creating favorable conditions for entrepreneurial orientation, experimentation, new product/servicelaunchesandadaptationtotakeplaceinorganizations.Besides, leaders also provided clear tasks, specific training, and follow-up on activities, which were important for integration, consistent routines, clear chain of responsibility, role clarity, efficiency, and performance of organizations Ugheoke’s (2017) quantitative research on small and medium-sized enterprises in Nigeria revealed that best recruitment practices positively and significantly relate to the achievement of high organizational performance In the study conducted by Jirangkul (2018), culture, leadership, change management, people, and organizational design were found to act as determinants of high organizational performance in Thailand Honyenuga and colleagues (2019) surveyed 186 managers from insurance firms in Ghana and found a connection between management innovation and high organizational performance. Notably, Guptaet al.(2019) made a great contribution by applying information technology to the management field and providing the correlations between big data analytics and high organizational performance.
An overview of empirical research on high organizational performance reveals that previous studies have focused on evaluating the applicability of high organizational performance concept and testing the relationships between high performance and its antecedents At the present time, research on high organizational performance is currently in the next stage where scholars applied more complicated research models and designs to go beyond simple relationship with antecedents to understand the mediating mechanism Therefore, future studies need to capture mediating variables in the research model and empirically examine high organizational performance concepts in a variety of organizations, in different sectors (e.g., tourism), and in other developing economies To that end, this study aims to address the foregoing gaps by examining the mediating effects of organizational learning on the relationship between leadership and high organizational performance of tourism firms in the Vietnamesecontext.
Table 2.2 and Figure 2.1 below summarize the literature that has been reviewed on the research topic.
Concepts Definitions Relationship with OL Relationship with HOP
Leadership How leaders maintain and strengthen activities and processes that enable their firms to achieve superior performance (Northouse, 2018; Yukl, 2013)
Positive impact (Buhagiar and Anand; 2023; Buhagiar and Anand, 2021; Ali et al., 2021;
Positive impact (Prabhu and Srivastava, 2023; Zahari et al., 2021; Farooq Sahibzada et al., 2021; Hilton et al., 2021)
Innate personalities that differentiate them from non- leaders (Stogdill, 1948)
Strong significant positive relationships (Matošková et al., 2018)
Positive impact (Peterson et al., 2003; Boehm et al., 2015)
Leaders’ self-esteem, neuroticism, generalized self- efficacy, and internal locus of control that reflect the evaluations of their ability and effectiveness (Judge and Bono, 2001; Flynn et al., 2016; Gardner and Pierce, 2009)
Positive relationship with knowledge sharing and creativity (Zhang et al., 2018)
Positive association with performance (Adams and Jiang, 2017; Simsek et al., 2010)
HypothesesDevelopment
Leaders play a significant role since they facilitate the collective improvement of organizational learning and decide strategies to respond to market demands. According to Buhagiar and Anand (2023, p 425), “leaders are responsible for managing a variety of codependent tasks in parallel”, including creating an environment of flexibility and cultivating an environment of continuous learning. Matoškováet al.’s (2018) study revealed strong significant positive relationships between leaders’ characteristics and knowledge sharing in firms operating in the Czech Republic Drawing on the approach/avoidance theoretical framework, Zhangetal.(2018) argued that core self-evaluation affects knowledge sharing and creativity at organizations Besides, while some scholars pointed out that vulnerable narcissism or arrogant narcissistic disorder inhibits learning at organizations (Liuet al., 2019a; Godkin and Allcorn, 2009a, 2009b), empirical evidence for the positive effect of grandiose narcissism on organizational learning is lacking However, extant literature proved that healthy narcissism or grandiose narcissism can improve organizational outcomes (Yoo, 2016; Reinaet al., 2014; Waleset al., 2013; Kim, 2018; Huanget al., 2019) This appreciation makes it essential to consider the positive influences of leaders’ narcissistic personality on organizational learning As regards need for achievement, it has long been found to positively relate to learning and speed of performance (Lowell, 1952) Risk propensity was found to be embedded in the concept of organizational learning capability with an assumption that organizational learning will be fostered when people take risks and accept mistakes (Onağet al., 2014; Alegre and Chiva, 2008; Goh and Richards,1997).
Amy’s (2008) study revealed that leaders exhibit a variety of characteristics and competencies, which enable them to become facilitators of learning at organizations Previous studies showed that emotional intelligence contributes to learning at organizations (Bettis-Outland and Guillory, 2018; Ghoshet al., 2012) In a
52 study conducted in a thermal power generation firm in India, Jain andJeppeJ e p p e s e n
(2013) found a positive influence of leaders’ adaptor cognitive styles on the practices of managing knowledge In addition, several studies have found that leaders social or interpersonal intelligence plays a vital role in leadership performance, knowledge acquisition, innovation, creative performance (Siswantiet al., 2018; Kong, 2015; Rahim, 2013) Kong (2015) stated that social competencies contribute to the analysis, utilization, and deployment of knowledge, which are beneficial for the organizations.
In addition, through generative leadership, leaders encourage others to experiment and learn from varying viewpoint, which consequently generates new knowledge and more knowledge sharing within the organizations (Arena and Uhl- Bien, 2016; Hazy and Protttas, 2018; Chowdhury, 2005) Džinić (2015) conducted a study in three Croatian city governments and found that administrative leadership style has a significant positive relationship with organizationallearning.
Besides, there are other studies that discuss the effects of leadership on organizational learning in the extant literature (Buhagiar and Anand, 2021; Aliet al., 2021; Pasamaret al., 2019; Asif, 2019; Park and Kim, 2018; Vashdiet al., 2019; Hassonet al., 2016; Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt, 2016; Imranet al., 2016; Noruzyetal., 2012; Hsiao and Chang, 2011; Zagorseket al., 2009) In the context of Vietnam, Haet al.(2018) carried out a study with top management from 250 Vietnamese small and medium-sized enterprises This study supported the idea that leadership has a significant impact on organizational learning Son and Phong (2023) collected data from service firms in Vietnam and found that leadership had significant influences on organizational learning there Hence, based on these argued, the following hypotheses areproposed:
H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d: Leaders’ perceptions of their leadership traits, including coreself-evaluation (H1a), narcissism (H1b), need for achievement (H1c), and risk propensity (H1d) are associated with organizational learning.
H2a, H2b, H2c: Leaders’ perceptions of their leadership competencies,includingresults-orientation (H2a), cognitive competence (H2b), and interpersonal competence (H2c) are associated with organizational learning.
H3a, H3b: Leaders’ perceptions of their complexity leadership, including generativeleadership (H3a) and administrative leadership (H3b) are associated with organizational learning.
Earlier studies emphasized that leadership is essential for organizations to maintain the operation and improve performance (Crottset al., 2005; Fiedler, 1996).
An empirical study by Petersonet al.(2003) concluded that leaders’ characteristics ultimately affect firm performance Nadkarni and Herrmann’s (2010) study revealed that leadership traits are predictive of improved performance through strategic flexibility According to Hambrick and Quigley (2014), leadership play a critical role in shaping performance and strategic outcomes of organizations Boehmet al.(2015) surveyed 20,639 employees in 150 German companies on the leaders’ personality and firm performance One key finding from this study was that the charisma of top-level leadership had a positive relationship with performance of these organizations Adams and Jiang (2017) found that leaders’ traits affect financial performance of insurance companies in the UK Using core self-evaluation scale developed by Judge and colleagues (2003), Simseket al.(2010) found that the core self-evaluation of leaders has a connection with entrepreneurial orientation of organizations Some researchers have pointed out that leaders’ grandiose narcissism has positive impact on firm performance (Yoo, 2016; Reinaet al., 2014; Waleset al., 2013) Chatterjee andHambrick (2007) postulated that narcissistic leaders foster strategic changes in firm performance In a later study, Chatterjee and Hambrick (2011) argued that,narcissistic leaders who receive praise and awards are emboldened to engage in large- scale growth of firms According to Maccoby (2000), narcissistic leaders provide a strong vision that benefits and leads their firms to new directions Kim (2018) conducted a study on 30 public institutions in South Korea and found that personal characteristics of executives (narcissism) positively affects the performance of these firms Huanget al.’s (2019) empirical study emphasized the role of leaders’ narcissismontheinternationalization strategyandperformanceofChinese construction firms Need for achievement has also been acknowledged as a factor that positively affects organizational performance (Lee and Tsang, 2001) Relating risk propensity and firm performance, many studies suggested that leaders who are willing to take risk produced more desirable performance for their organizations (Cain and McKeon, 2012; Sidek and Zainol, 2011; Han and Jung, 2022).
Earlier studies contended that leaders’ competencies positively affect the performance and success of organizations (McClelland, 1973; Pickett, 1998) The contingency theory of performance suggested that leaders’ capabilities (e.g., talents, knowledge, and competencies) are important in maximizing the performance of firms (Fiedler, 1967; Boyatzis, 2008) Grounded by this theory, several researchers paid much attention to examine leaders’ competencies and their effects on employee and organizational outcomes Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) found that leaders’ competencies play a vital role in the success of the airline firm Sadler-Smith (2004) conducted a study on small and medium-sized firms and noted a positive impact of leaders’ intuitive style on both financial and non-financial performance Some studies contended that emotional intelligence contributes to managerial performance (Côté, 2017; Cavazotteet al., 2012), high organizational performance practices (Cuéllar- Molinaet al., 2019) Recently, Almatrooshiet al.(2016) conducted a systematical review on determinants of firm performance and suggested that leadership competencies (cognitive, emotional, and social intelligence) have positive effects on both employee and organizational performance Megheirkouni (2017) used qualitative approach to identify four clusters of leadership competencies, namely understanding the whole, change, general management relation, and communication, that benefit non-profit sports organizations in Syrian Amedu and Dulewicz, (2018) investigated three core clusters of leadership competencies (interpersonal, cognitive, and results- orientation) and found that these competencies positively affected firm performance.
Nienaber and Svensson (2013) made a conceptual analysis of complexity science and introduced a framework facilitating an understanding of leadership- performance relationship Hazy and Uhl-Bien (2015) asserted that generative leadership is positively associated with organizational capabilities and later with firms’ performance and adaptability in a changing environment Administrative leadership was found to help the organization “bring requisite resources, like raw materials, human resources, and financial capital into the organization” (Hazy and Prottas, 2018, p.328).
Besides, recent studies have also provided empirical evidence on the influences of leadership on high performance of organizations in contemporary business setting (Prabhu and Srivastava, 2023; Meirinhoset al., 2023; Shinet al., 2023; Zahariet al., 2021; Farooq Sahibzadaet al., 2021; Hiltonet al., 2021; Tanikawa and Jung, 2019; Para-Gonzálezet al., 2018) In the context of Vietnam, Linet al.’s (2016) research findings also confirmed the relationship between leadership and firm performance Cong and Thu (2021) collected data from 200 respondents who hold management positions of tourism firms in Vietnam The findings revealed that the performance and competitiveness of Vietnamese tourism firms are affected by leadership experience and competencies of leaders (e.g., interpersonal competence in relationship building and cognitive competence in developing a strategic vision). Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H4a, H4b, H4c, H4d: Leaders’ perceptions of their leadership traits, including coreself-evaluation (H4a), narcissism (H4b), need for achievement (H4c), and risk propensity (H4d) are associated with high organizational performance.
H5a, H5b, H5c: Leaders’ perceptions of their leadership competencies,includingresults-orientation (H5a), cognitive competence (H5b), and interpersonal competence (H5c) are associated with high organizational performance.
H6a, H6b: Leaders’ perceptions of their complexity leadership, including generativeleadership (H6a) and administrative leadership (H6b) are associated with high organizational performance.
2.5.3 Organizational Learning and High OrganizationalPerformance
Earlier studies contain implicit assumptions that organizations should adopt learning to achieve superior performance and outperform their competitors (Shaw and Perkins, 1991; DeGues, 1988) Interestingly, firm performance is embedded in one of three key aspects of learning organization: learning, change, and improvement (Garvin, 1993) According to this author, firms can enhance both individual and firm- level performance based on learning Besides, organizational learning is also a key factor that was found to contribute greatly to the achievement of high organizational performance (Kirkmanet al., 1999) After a validated instrument for measuring organizational learning was reported in 1997, there has been a growing number of empirical evidence in organizational learning and its influences on high organizational performance Goh and Ryan (2008) examined the financial performance of listed organizations and found that they demonstrate strong long-term financial performance compared with their closest competitors Notably, Godet al.(2012) conducted a meta- analysis on 33 empirical studies that link learning capability with both financial and non-financial indices of firm performance Their research findings indicate a positive connection between learning and high organizational performance, which is in line with Brockman and Morgan’s (2003) suggestion that organizational learning is a key factor in improving firmperformance.
In the face of globalization and its complexity, the strengthening of organizational learning is vital for firms to remain responsive and competitive(Chadwick and Raver, 2015) Bellet al.(2009) explored the linkage between organizational learning and performance of 113 retail stores Their research outcomes are consistent with earlier studies (Hanvanich, 2006; Lin and Kuo, 2007) in supporting the notion that organizational learning is associated with superior performance Tippins and Sohi (2003) gathered data from managers in 271 firms and indicated that organizational learning has a vital part to play on the performance of these firms Zhaoet al.’s (2009) study of 607 firms in China also revealed that organizational learning positively affected the performance of thesefirms.
In addition, several researchers have provided evidence of the impact of organizational learning on high performance of organizations in the last five years (Csath, 2023; Chaithanapatet al., 2022; Gomeset al., 2022; Waqaset al., 2019; Valdez-Juárezet al., 2019; Ur Rehmanet al., 2019; Mohammad, 2019; Narsa, 2019; Bolaji Bello and Adeoye, 2018; Oh, 2018; Oh and Han, 2018; Pedrocheet al., 2017; Canessa-Terrazaset al., 2017; Chahalet al., 2016; Zhouet al., 2015; Jain and Moreno, 2015) Recently, Yuliansyah et al (2021) analyzed 157 survey responses from Indonesian financial service firms and found that organizational learning has a positive influence on firm performance Their research findings are consistent with earlier studies (Waqaset al., 2019; Valdez-Juárezet al., 2019; Ur Rehmanet al., 2019). Zgrzywa-Ziemak and Walecka-Jankowska (2021) carried out an empirical examination of the relationship between organizational learning and sustainable performance of 694 Polish and Danish companies The findings from their research have shown a positive, statistically significant relationship between the two phenomena Another recent cross-sectional study of Soomroet al.(2021) also revealed that organizational learning has a positive and significant impact on firm performance. Hussainet al.(2023, p 1) in a recent study conducted at five service industries in Pakistan found that organizational learning “is a better instrument for enhancing organizational performance, as well as in dealing with today’s indeterminate and continuously challenging economic atmosphere” Pham and Hoang (2019) conducted a survey of 160 respondents working in different firms in Vietnam and found that organizational learning had a positive effect on high organizational performance. Therefore, this study hypothesizesthat:
H7: Organizational learning is associated with high organizational performance.
2.5.4 Leadership, Organizational Learning, and High OrganizationalPerformance
Bryant (2003) stated that leaders invest time and resources to develop organizational learning mechanisms, which in turn enhance effectiveness of firms In other words, organizational learning was found to have a mediating influence on the leadership – performance connection (Camps and Rodríguez, 2011; Mallénet al., 2015; Theodorakopoulos and Figueira, 2012) García‐Moraleset al.(2008) conducted a study of 164 pharmaceutical firms in Europe and America and found that organizational learning mediates the connection between leadership, innovation, and firm performance Similarly, García‐Moraleset al.(2012) found that organizational learning mediates the connection between transformational leadership and firm performance In particular, transformational leaders engage and promote the organizational learning by eliminating the barriers that restrict the learning process. Based on this process, firms can improve its performance and expertise to respond to uncertainties and technological changes within the industries.
Limpibunterng and Johri (2009) posited that leadership reinforces the development of organizational learning, which in turn enhances the performance of service companies in Thailand According to Noruzyet al.(2012), transformational leaders stimulate organizational learning, which in turn foster long-term performance and competitive advantage of manufacturing firms Sayyadi (2019) found that transformational leadership impacts knowledge management to enhance firm performance This author further argued that managers can use leadership and knowledge management to foster high organizational performance at organizations. Similar findings were found about the mediating role of organizational learning on the relationship between leadership and firm performance in recent studies (e.g., Para- Gonzálezet al., 2018; Ur Rehmanet al., 2019) Recently, Sawaean and Ali’s (2020) study at 384 SMEs in Kuwait revealed that leadership and learning had positive and significant impact on firm performance Soomroet al.(2021) found positive and significant relationship between leadership as a strategic factor with organizational learning, and between organizational learning and increased firm performance of organizations in Pakistan.
In the tourism context, studies that examine the relationships between leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance simultaneously have been found lacking However, the findings discussed previously are important evidence that the impact of leaders on high organizational performance are mediated by organizational learning In Nguyen and Luu’s (2019) study in 314 Vietnamese firms, leadership was found to foster high organizational performance through organizational learning Based on the above reasons, the following hypotheses areproposed:
H8a, H8b, H8c, H8d: Organizational learning mediates the relationship betweenleadership traits, including core self-evaluation (H8a), narcissism (H8b), need for achievement (H8c), and risk propensity (H8d), and high organizational performance.
H9a, H9b, H9c: Organizational learning mediates the relationship betweenleadership competencies,including results-orientation (H9a), cognitive competence(H9b), and interpersonal competence (H9c), and high organizationalperformance.
H10a, H10b: Organizational learning mediates the relationship between complexityleadership, including generative leadership (H10a) and administrative leadership (H10b), and high organizational performance.
ResearchFramework
The conceptual framework of this study, underpinned by the reviewed literature in previous sections, is proposed for empirical validation (Figure 2.2) As can be seen in Figure 2.2, there are ten main hypotheses; with Hypothesis 1-4-8 divided into four hypotheses, Hypotheses 2-5-9 divided into three hypotheses,Hypotheses 3-6-10 divided into two hypotheses In total, we have 28 hypotheses in thisstudy.
* Hypotheses for mediating effects of organizational learning on the relationship between leadership dimensions and high organizational performance
Proposed Research Framework of this Study
Summary
Chapter 2 reviewed the key publications on leadership, organizational learning and high organizational performance Based on a review of earlier leadership theories and existing gaps identified in the literature (Crawford and Kelder, 2019; Mendesetal., 2016; Hiller and Beauchesne, 2014; Yukl, 2013), the researcher integrated trait, competencies and complexity theories of leadership in a single study to build a more comprehensive leadership model and determine which are key drivers of organizational outcomes This chapter also discussed related theories used to explain how superior performance of firms can be achieved through leadership and organizational learning Ability-Motivation-Opportunity theory, resource-based view theory, and knowledge-based view theory are integrated to propose a theoretical model linking leadership dimensions to organizational learning and high organizationalperformance.
After a review of existing literature, specific objectives of this study include:
- To explore whether leadership traits, leadership competencies, and complexity leadership manifest in the tourismcontext;
- To examine the relationship between leadership traits, leadership competencies, and complexity leadership and high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam;
- To test the relationship between leadership traits, leadership competencies, and complexity leadership and organizational learning of tourism firms in Vietnam;
- To investigate the relationship between organizational learning and high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam;
- To examine the mediating role of organizational learning on the relationship between leadership traits, leadership competencies, and complexity leadership and high organizational performance of tourism firms inVietnam.
Accordingly, the research questions (RQ) of this study include:
- RQ1: How do leadership traits, leadership competencies, andcomplexity leadership manifest in the tourismcontext?
- RQ2: How do leadership traits, leadership competencies, andcomplexity leadership have an impact on organizationallearning?
- RQ3: How do leadership traits, leadership competencies, and complexity leadership influence high organizationalperformance?
- RQ4: How does organizational learning affect high organizationalperformance?
- RQ5: How do organizational learning mediate the relationship between leadership traits, leadership competencies, and complexity leadership and high organizationalperformance?
Chapter 3 presents the research methodology of this study, involving qualitative and quantitative research design to refine measurement scales and test hypotheses The chapter begins with research paradigm, followed by mixed methods research design This chapter also presents the research design of qualitative phase and quantitativephase,as well as how reliability, validity, and utility are ensured, and ethical concerns areconsidered.
ResearchParadigm
Research paradigm contains philosophical assumptions that guide decisions of researchers Creswell (2017) presented four categories of paradigm that were most agreed among scholars Post-positivism is associated with quantitative research. Within this paradigm, scholars begin with a theory then carefully gather empirical data to test this theory (Neuman, 2014) Constructivism refers to qualitative research approach, which highlights meaningful social action and socially constructed reality (Mertens, 2014) In this paradigm, researchers gain insights from the respondents’ perspectives to generate theory or pattern of meaning (Creswell, 2017) Participatory is associated with qualitative more than quantitative approach and involves “shared ownership of research projects, community-based analysis of social problems, and an orientation toward community action” (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2005, p 273).Pragmatism is a proper philosophical position for mixed methods (Creswell and PlanoClark, 2017) In this paradigm, researchers employ multiple approaches to gather data relevant to the research questions and produce implications of the findings (Creswell,2017) Mukherji and Albon (2018) posited that doing research is about asking questions and seeking evidence to answer those questions Reflecting on the four paradigms and the research questions of this study, a pragmatic paradigm isadopted.
Mixed MethodsResearch Design
There are many rationales for employing mixed methods in this study First,previous authors advocated the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods to collect and analyze data since researchers can capitalize on the strengths and reduce the weaknesses of both designs to gain deeper understanding of the research problems (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Creswell, 2017) Second, Greeneet al.(1989) found that integrating the two research approaches helps improve validity of the research and the interpretability of inquiry findings Third, Stentzet al.(2012) highlighted a gap in leadership studies, stating that much of current knowledge about leadership has been merely deprived from quantitative methods, and that multiple theories/methods should be used to capture the multifaceted nature ofleadership.
According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), mixed methods design is categorized into sequential and concurrent designs Sequential designs refer to the collection of either qualitative or quantitative data in the first research stage, followed by that of the other data set in the next phase Concurrent designs relate to the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously in the same study phase and prioritization of one approach over another one (Molina-Azorín, 2007; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) This study applies the sequential design with the dominant status given to quantitative approach (qual→QUAN) In this design,ther e s e a r c h e r c o l l e c t s a n d a n a l y z e s q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a t h r o u g h i n t e r v i e w s a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a t h r o u g h s u r v e y s i n t w o c o n s e c u t i v e p h a s e s T h e r e a s o n i s t h a t q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a p r o v i d e s b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f r e s e a r c h c o n s t r u c t s a n d e n h a n c e s t h e v a l i d i t y a n d r e l i a b i l i t y o f m e a s u r e s t o a s s e s s c o n s t r u c t s i n t h e f r a m e w o r k B e s i d e s , q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a i s u s e d t o t e s t t h e h y p o t h e s e s a n d p r o v i d e a n s w e r s t o t h e r e s e a r c h questions.
Figure 3.1 shows the research process of this study This study begins with a literature review of leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance in order to develop research objectives, research questions, research framework, and hypotheses Then, the constructs in the conceptual model are operationalized, followed by the development of research instruments, questionnaire,and sampling frames For qualitative phase, the author develops an interview schedule before conducting semi-structured interviews with leaders in tourism and experts in the fields This step is used to explore whether leadership traits, leadership competencies, and complexity leadership manifest in the tourism context and to identify any problems in the survey questions design The results of qualitative studies are used to modify the constructs and measurement items The next phase is quantitative research Pilot test is conducted with the revised questionnaire to address any issues in survey instruments design The finalized questionnaires are then distributed to participants Afterwards, data entry and analysis are conducted to test the hypotheses Finally, findings are presented and discussed, from which theoretical and managerial implications can beproposed.
QualitativeResearch Design
The qualitative phase is used to explore whether leadership dimensions in this study manifest in the context of tourism firms in Vietnam, thereby providing a better understanding of the operationalization of research framework and engender new insights on constructs and linkages between variables To achieve this objective, semi- structured interviews are used According to Lamont and Swidler (2014), interview is an efficient way of collecting focused rich data and can enable researchers to understand and probe an individual’s perspectives Semi-structured allows researchers to focus on the conversation on issues that they consider important for their research topic (Brinkmann, 2013) The qualitative data from semi-structured interviews are expected to provide reliable information on identification of leadership dimensions manifesting in the tourism sector inVietnam.
Nonprobability and purposive sampling strategies are used to ensure that the right participants are interviewed, and relevant information is provided (Neuman, 2014; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017) In other words, target groups or specific types of respondents that can offer data and information of the researcher’s interest are chosen (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016) In this study, leaders in tourism firms who have personal contact with the researcher are invited to participate in qualitative phase. These leaders need to have at least one year of leadership experience in the tourism industry and obtain master’s or PhD degrees By doing so, the respondents have enough experience to relate their leadership practices with performance and other organizational outcomes Moreover, since the respondents completed master’s degree or higher, they were familiar with and also had good understanding of scientific research; thereby being able to provide relevant and insightful perspectives during the interview Besides, one leader in each tourism company was chosen to participate in the interview They are CEOs and managers of the human resource department.
In terms of sample size, Sekaran and Bougie (2016) recommended that qualitative research usually employs relatively small samples because of its in-depth nature, and that the scholars should proceed with sampling until they gain no new insights Therefore, the sample size for qualitative study in this research depends on the quality of interviews and the saturation of data collected After eight interviews, seeing that responses in each interview were clearly aligned with the others and there were no new insights emerged, the researcher did not conduct additional interviews.
According to Patton (2015), an interview protocol is a list of questions and concerns to be explored in an interview It helps researchers to cover all relevant topics and ensure that each participant is interviewed by similar lines of inquiry.Following the guidelines of Jacob and Furgerson (2012), an interview protocol is developed for this study This protocol includes: (1) introduction and collection of consentforms;(2)warmupandquestionsonintervieweebackground;(3)main questions and prompts and probes; (4) summary and conclusion; and (5) interview process feedback (Appendix 1).
The researcher personally contacts prospective participants by telephone and email using personal contacts and references The respondents who agree to participate in the qualitative study can decide on an interview schedule and location that are convenient for them A consent form is also sent to the respondents (Appendix1).
Face-to-face semi-structured interviews are conducted by the researcher with leaders in tourism and experts in the fields Each interview is expected to last 30-60 minutes Phone interviews are also used for the convenience of the participants and the researchers Each interview starts with the introduction of the purpose of the study and collection of consent forms Next, background questions related to job title, job tenure, firm type, and firm size are asked For the main questions, participants will be asked to describe their personality and leadership approach and identify drivers of high performance of their organizations The researcher will end the interview by asking the participants to evaluate the interview process To ensure that the participants feel comfortable in expressing their opinions, the language used in interviews is Vietnamese The researcher uses digital devices/smartphones to record the interviews (with permission fromparticipants).
Thematic analysis method was used to analyze data in the qualitative study.Data was transcribed and transcripts were sent to participants for their review and confirmation of accuracy Afterwards, each transcript was coded and analyzed by extracting raw data themes from each interview and identifying quotes relating to the common themes The results of interviews were compiled and evaluated, from which relevant modifications will be made to refine the constructs and survey instruments.
QuantitativePhase
The target population of this study involves formal firms in tourism industry in Vietnam, including travel agencies/companies, tourist transportation companies, tourist attractions, retailing system (souvenirs/arts ), food and beverage (formal restaurants and bars), accommodation (hotels and resorts) and event companies This population is chosen because these types of firms have long been functional sectors and industrial elements of tourism and have contributed greatly to the development of this sector (Leiper, 1979) Government websites and information from personal contacts will be used to develop a list of firms and potential participants.
The purpose of this study is to examine leadership and its effects on organizational learning and high organizational performance from managerial perspectives Therefore, the owners, chief executive officers, and managers of tourism firms in Vietnam are target sample of the population and are the ones who respond to the survey questionnaire According to Junget al.(2008), these people play a vital role in developing company policies, governing operating processes, and allocating resources They receive information from a variety of sources, thus becoming well- informed to evaluate different workplace issues and decide proper strategies that the organizations can utilize to respond to environmental turbulence In this study, in order to investigate the effect of leaders on firm performance, the leaders in the sample must be able to exert strong controlling power over the entire firm and understand its performance To filter out the leaders who were not able to do so, a specific question asking about the respondents’ strategic role in their organization was included at the beginning The selection of this sample ensures that responses from respondents in this study are accurate andrelevant.
The findings from quantitative study are expected to be generalized to the entire population Therefore, simple random sampling is used, and every unit of the population has an equal opportunity to be selected as the sample (Neuman, 2014).
Using information on yellowpage website, the researcher compiles a list of tourism firms in Vietnam and randomly chooses samples from the list Convenience sampling (a convenient and efficient method to collect data) and snowball sampling (use of direct or indirect relationships between people/organizations as referrals to further contact points) are also used to contact potential participants (Neuman, 2014).
As for sample size, Hairet al.(2014) suggests that the ratio of 5:1 is the rule of thumb in determining minimum sample size in a quantitative study Based on the number of measurement items in the survey, the researcher can determine the minimum sample size for the quantitative phase of this study (73 x 5 = 365) To achieve this sample size, at least 400 questionnaires should be distributed However, the researcher also attempted to collect as many samples as hecan.
3.4.3 Operational Definitions, Instrumentation, and SurveyDesign
After the conceptual framework and assumptions about relationships of concepts are developed, researchers need to operationalize these concepts (Eisend andKuss, 2019) In other words, each abstract concept in the study needs to be given an operational definition and a measure to make it measurable (Kerlinger and Lee, 2000Bridgman, 1927) Eisend and Kuss (2019, p 123) described the operationalization process as “the narrowing of quite general concepts to concrete objects of investigation” The operational definitions and measurements of concepts in this study are summarized in Table 3.1.
Concepts Constructs Definitions Sources of measurements No of
Core self-evaluation involves self-esteem, neuroticism, generalized self- efficacy, and internal locus of control that reflect people’s evaluations of their ability, effectiveness, and values (Judgeet al., 2008; Flynnet al., 2016)
Core Self-Evaluation Scale (Judgeet al., 2003; Henderson and Gardiner 2019)
The extent to which an individual has high level of entitlement, self- absorption, dominance and a desire to become the center of attention and continually reinforce positive self-view (Milleret al., 2011; Wink, 1991)
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin and Terry, 1988;
“The expectations of doing something better or faster than anybody else or better than the person’s own earlier accomplishments” (Hansemark, 2003, p.
Risk propensity “The willingness to invest resources in opportunities with possibilities of costly failure” (Tajeddini and Tajeddini, 2008, p 441) Stewart et al (2001); Sidek and
Leaders “who are practical, focused, resilient and concentrates on achieving organizational performance in face of adversity or unfairness” (Amedu,
How leaders exhibit critical thinking and pattern recognition in order to support learning and decision making (Sun and Hui, 2012; Amedu and Dulewicz, 2018; Boyatzis, 2011; Leeet al., 2013)
Board Assessment Scale (Amedu, 2016; Amedu and Dulewicz, 2018)
The abilities of leaders about relationship management and understanding of social environment, for example, teamwork and empathy (Boyatzis and Ratti, 2009; Boyatzis, 2009)
How leaders bring new information about conflicting perspectives into the knowledge sharing and encourage involved agents to experiment and learn from these perspectives (Hazy and Prottas, 2018) Complexity Leadership
Interaction Modes (Hazy and Uhl- Bien, 2015; Hazy and Prottas, 2018)
How leaders “help to promote clarity of action and accountability and would thus contribute to value potential realized through efficacy” (Hazy and
Learning processes involving the acquisition, distribution, interpretation, and storing of knowledge that enable organizations to achieve improved outcomes (Huber, 1991; Fiol and Lyles, 1985)
García-Moraleset al.(2012) and Jiménez-Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2011)
The achievement of satisfactory financial results, responsiveness to market needs, competitiveness in the business environment, and better performance as compared with competitors
Rodríguez (2008); Qu (2013); Arsezen- Otamiset al.(2015)
Instruments used in this study are adapted from previously validated measures published in peer-reviewed journals They are used to measure the following constructs: high organizational performance as the main dependent variable; organizational learning as mediating variable; and core self-evaluation, narcissism, need for achievement, risk propensity, results-orientation, cognitive competence, interpersonal competence, generative leadership, administrative leadership as independent variables As for leadership traits, core self-evaluation was measured based on the Core Self-Evaluation Scale (Judge et al., 2003; Henderson and Gardiner, 2019) and narcissism was measured based on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin and Terry, 1988; Ames et al., 2006) Need for achievement and risk propensity measurement items were adopted from Zahra (1989), Stewart and Roth (2001), and Sidek and Zainol (2011) The measurement scale of leadership competencies, including results orientation, cognitive and interpersonal competence was primarily adopted from Amedu (2016) and Amedu and Dulewicz (2018). Generative leadership and administrative leadership behaviors in complexity leadership were measured using the 10-item Complexity Leadership Interaction Modes (Hazy and Uhl-Bien, 2015; Hazy and Prottas, 2018) Organizational learning was measured by 5 items adapted from García-Morales et al (2012) and Jiménez- Jiménez and Sanz-Valle (2011) The measurement scale of high organizational performance was adapted from Gil‐Padilla and Espino‐Rodríguez (2008), Qu (2013), and Arsezen-Otamis et al.(2015).
These constructs are measured with a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 - Strongly disagree to 5 - Strongly agree Elmore and Beggs (1975) suggested that the use of a 5-point scale is good since 7-or-9-point scale does not enhance the reliability of the survey answers Questions related to the demographics of respondents and organizations are also included in the questionnaire, including gender, age, level of education, field of education, position, firm size, firm type, and firm location According to Hiller and Beauchesne (2014), these types of demographic information could be used to improve the researchfindings.
This study uses a self-reporting survey instrument (questionnaire) to collect quantitative data The questionnaire includes six parts: Demographics Data, Leadership Traits, Leadership Competencies, Complexity Leadership, Organizational Learning, and High Organizational Performance After drafting an initial questionnaire based on the literature review, the author has it reviewed by academic experts (university lecturers/researchers) and tourism experts (leaders of tourism firms) in order to gather their suggestions and feedback on wording, format, and scale constructs They are asked to review all the questionnaire items and give constructive feedback on their relevance, readability, comprehensiveness, and clarity; as well as to address identical variables, inappropriate variables, and issues of translations in the questionnaire Afterwards, these comments are reviewed, and adjustments are made. The final version of the questionnaire is translated from English into Vietnamese, then is reviewed by translators and lecturers/researchers in the field of tourism to ensure that it is correct and appropriate By doing so, it helps ensure the quality of the questionnaires from multiple perspectives: review of existing literature, qualitative interviews, academic scholars, and leaders in tourismfield.
To receive authentic, genuine, and unbiased feedback from survey respondents, the researcher recognized some survey bias issues and applied some techniques to avoid them (Table 3.2).
Types of survey biases issues
Description Techniques applied to handle
The subjects who refused to take part in the survey represented a large portion of opinions that are systematically different from the opinions of those who participated.
Minimize non-response by ensuring survey delivery and convenience in accessing and answering the survey (keeping the surveys short and easy tounderstand)
The flow/orders of survey questions can impact how a survey taker willreact.
Start the survey with information on high organizational performance, followed by organizational learning and leadership.
Sampling bias The characteristics of the sample does not accurately represent the target population.
Ensure the sample is randomized and keep surveys short and accessible to all.
The survey takers tend to answer questions in ways that is perceived as being socially acceptable.
Emphasize anonymity in the introduction of survey and avoid using extreme wording in the questions.
The survey takers tend to lean toward positive choices more frequently than negative ones.
Emphasize anonymity in the introduction of survey and use red herrings (reserved questions in Core Self- evaluation scale) to identify survey takers who agreed with both of contrasting options.
In this study, a pilot test is used to evaluate the clarity and accuracy of the revised questionnaire after expert reviews, to assess the amount of time required to complete the questionnaire, and to figure out any issues related to the survey instrument design The pilot tests are conducted with 15 leaders from tourism firms who are proficient in both Vietnamese and English, which satisfies the criteria of 10-
30 participants proposed by Hill (1998) The participants are selected using convenience sampling By following the above steps, the researcher aims to make the questionnaire better fit the tourism context in Vietnam and improve its reliability and validity before sending it to the target respondents of the research Subsequently, SmartPLS version 3.0 was used to perform factor analysis and examine the correlations between factors in the study If there are any factor items with low Cronbach alphas (below 6), they will be modified or removed The result revealed the reliability of the constructs, and confirmed that the measures are satisfied for further quantitative analysis.
Both face-to-face and online approach were employed to collect data for this study Regarding face-to-face approach, the researcher used emails and phone calls to get in touch with the directors/representatives of tourism firms and asked for permissions to gather data for the study Once everything is finalized, the researcher visited each firm to meet the managers to give out the survey questionnaires A brief review of the research is introduced before the participants take the survey Each participant is required to complete the survey and return it to the researcher After all questionnaires are gathered, they are counted and stored in a safe and secure area for data input and analysis Besides, considering the geographical distribution of the target population and social distancing during COVID-19 pandemic, the researcher also sent online self-administered surveys (available through Goggle Forms andSurveyplannet) to participants via email in order to collect data from organizations that the researcher cannotvisit.
Besides, the researcher also recruited participants from tourism firms via personal contacts and snowballing The researcher asked for support from Dr Le Xuan Nhi – Dean of School of Business in Nguyen Tat Thanh University, HCMC to distribute surveys during the University’s conferences and meetings for leaders of tourism firms in Ho Chi Minh City Furthermore, three MBA students were recruited and trained to support the collection of data in Nha Trang and Can Tho Province The researcher also contacted Binh Duong Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism to ask for their support in distributing surveys to tourism firms in Binh Duong Province. Friends and colleagues who are working in the tourism industry were also contacted for completing and then distributing the surveys to theirnetwork.
No Data collection approaches Surveys sent
1 Print surveys sent in conferences and meetings for leaders in tourism firms organized by
Nguyen Tat Thanh University, HCMC.
2 Print surveys sent to tourism firms in Nha
3 Print surveys sent to tourism firms in Binh
4 Print surveys sent to tourism firms in Can Tho
5 Online surveys (Surveyplanet) sent to leaders of hotels and restaurants in HCMC, leaders in tourism firms in Binh Duong.Duration:
6 Online surveys (Google Forms) sent to leaders of tourism firms in Vietnam.Duration:07/2020
Among 1633 questionnaires sent to more than 233 tourism firms, 638 questionnaires are fully completed and valid, representing a response rate of 39 percent According to Hairet al.(2012), this sample is a good size for structural equation modeling analysis A summary of data collection for this study is presented in Table3.3.
Reliability, Validity,and Utility
According to Bannigan and Watson (2009), reliability, validity, and utility are techniques that researchers can use to evaluate the accuracy of measurement scales. Reliability (or consistency) explains how far the measurement scale will give the same results when used in different occasions and is evaluated using stability, internal consistency, and equivalence Validity refers to whether the measurement reliably measures what it aims to measure (Utwin, 1995) Utility is the practicality of the measurement scale in the field.
Since there will always be random errors in how measurements are administered (e.g., raters being distracted), researchers need to conduct reliability assessments in terms of stability, internal consistency, equivalence, and scalability(Bannigan and Watson, 2009) Thestabilityof a measurement scale is how the instrument gives the same results after repeated administrations of the scalea n d c a n be assessed by a commonly used indicator called test-retest reliability (Polit and Beck, 2004; Utwin, 1995).Internal consistencyis the degree to which different items in a measurement scale measure the same characteristic (Utwin, 1995, Polit and Beck, 1995) Among many techniques to measure internal consistency (e.g., coefficient alpha, split-half technique and Kuder – Richardson formula 20), coefficient alpha is the best procedure (Nunally and Bernstein, 1978).Equivalencerefers to the consistency of a measurement scale when administered on two or more forms of a test and can be addressed using inter-rater reliability or alternate-form reliability In this study, the measurement scale is administered twice to the same sample at different times and the scores are correlated using Pearson Correlation Coefficient A correlation coefficient of 6 to 9 would indicate good reliability Cronbach’s alpha or coefficient alpha is used to measure the internal consistency of measurement scale According to Hairet al.(2014), Cronbach’s alpha value between 6 and 7 and average variance extracted
(AVE) values larger than 5 are consideredacceptable.
Validity refers to the meaning and interpretation of a scale and should be assessed by many forms of validity tests rather than a single one (Bannigan andWatson, 2009; Bolarinwa, 2015; McDowell, 2006) These forms of validity tests are illustrated in Figure 3.3.
Validity Tests, adapted from Bolarinwa (2015)
According to Hairet al.(2014),face validityis subjective judgment on how “the content of the items is consistent with the construct definition” (p 601) andcontent validityconsiders “the degree of correspondence between the items selected to constitute a summated scale and its conceptual definition” (p 90) Researchers can assess face validity and content validity based on experts’ options on the relevance,clarity, and completeness of the measurement scale (Bannigan and Watson, 2009) To ensure that the measures of constructs in this study possess content validity and face validity, measures in this study are selected from validated measures from previous studies that were published in top ranking journals Then, these measures are evaluated and modified using a qualitative approach (interviews with tourism leaders and experts in the fields to gain their opinions on the researchinstrument).
Criterion validityis the accuracy of a measure by comparing it with another one which has been demonstrated to be valid Concurrent validity and predictive validity are two variants of criterion validity (Bolarinwa, 2015; Dulewiczet al., 2003).Concurrent validityrefers to how a scale being developed correlates with the currently accepted and already valid scale (Polit and Beck, 1995).Predictive validityallows researchers to demonstrate that the current measure is valid by correlating its results with that of another measure administered later (Utwin, 1995).
In this study, to achieve criterion validity, pilot studies are carried out with the the questionnaire after qualitative phase Then, the researcher compares the results between the two measurements to re-evaluate and refine the surveyinstrument.
Construct validityis how an empirical measurement accurately reflects the concept under study and can be assessed through convergent validity, discriminant validity, factorial validity, known-group validity and hypothesis testing (Bolarinwa, 2015; Dulewiczet al., 2003).
According to Hairet al.(2014, p 124),convergent validitytests “the degree to which two measures of the same concept are correlated” anddiscriminant validityrefers to “the degree to which two conceptually similar concepts are distinct”.Factorial validityis a statistical extension of content validity (Bolarinwa,2015) and refers to the use of techniques to establish whether the set of variables in the scales measure one or more common themes (McDowell, 2006) In this study,statistical tests are carried out and rules of thumbs to achieve high construct validity adopted from Hairet al.(2014, p 605) are applied: standardized loading estimates equal or larger than 5, AVE and composite reliability value equal or larger than 5(convergent validity), and AVE for each factor greater than the average shared squared variance (discriminantvalidity).
Known-group validityinvolves comparing two groups of samples known to demonstrate differ on a particular variable (Deniz and Alsaffar, 2013) According to DeVellis (2016), the measured construct is expected to be higher in the group with that variable compared to the group unrelated to that variable This study addresses know-group validity by discriminating between tourism firms with better performance than those without and expecting that the construct of high organizational performance will be higher in the formergroup.
Hypothesis-testing validityis defined as the degree to with the research outcomes demonstrate the theoretically derived hypotheses about the linkages among measured concepts (Wampoldet al., 1990) This study involves a hypothesis-testing process to measure and examine theoretical concepts related to leadership, organizational learning, and high organizational performance as well as their relations.
McDowell (2006) suggested that the practicality of measurement scale being developed should be evaluated in terms of time and ease of administration, as well as language used to enhance the clarity of phrasing McDowell (2006) also recommended that researchers should re-test new measurements in many settings.This study follows the suggestion of McDowell (2006) and conducts pilots test to assess the amount of time required to complete the questionnaire and to figure out any issues related to the survey instrumentdesign.
EthicalConsiderations
The author addresses ethical considerations seriously to make sure that there will be no harm to the respondents and/or any relevant stakeholders of this study.Privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality are considered No sensitive and unacceptable questions will be asked in the interviews/survey and participants are allowed to withdraw at any stages of the research Data collected is kept strictly confidential in locked boxes and can only be accessed by the researcher himself and his advisor.
Summary
Chapter 3 discussed the research methodology and methods applied to examine how leadership, organizational learning and high organizational performance affect one another in tourism firms in Vietnam The mixed-method research design approach was clearly described, involving how qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analyzed in this study First, in-depth interviews were employed to explore leadership dimensions manifesting in the tourism firms Based on these qualitative data and a review of existing literature, the researcher designed an instrument to survey leaders in the sector Second, PLS-SEM statistical techniques were applied with 638 responses from survey questionnaire to test the proposed hypotheses The analyses and results of qualitative and quantitative phases will be presented in the nextchapter.
ANALYSISANDRESULTS
QualitativeResults
Summary of Participants in Qualitative Study
Business type Position Age Gender Tenure Degree
Firm 1 Restaurants and bars CEO 40-45 Male 7 years Master’s Firm 2 Restaurants and bars CEO 40-45 Male 5.5 years Master’s Firm 3 Restaurants and bars CEO 25-30 Male 1 year Master’s
Firm 4 Tourism company CEO 40-45 Male 1 year Master’s
Firm 5 Tourism company Manager 35-40 Female 2 years Master’s Firm 6 Hotels and resorts CEO 40-45 Male 3 years Master’s Firm 7 Hotels and resorts Manager 35-40 Female 4 years Master’s Firm 8 Tourist attractions Manager 35-40 Female 2 years Master’s
In this study, eight leaders in tourism firms are invited, who have at least one year of leadership experience in the industry They are representatives of eight tourismfirms,whichareaddressedasFirm1toFirm8inthisstudy.Theresearcher used such acronyms to illustrate how this study is conducted at an organizational level Summary of participants in qualitative study is shown in Table4.1.
The interview questions in qualitative study were used as guidelines for the researcher to gather facts and information from the participants The interview questions and the researcher’s expected results after qualitative data analysis are shown in Table 4.2.
Interview Questions and Expected Results
No Interview Questions Expected results
1 What is your present job title and how long have you been in this role?
Background of the interviewees and their firms
2 What type of your organization?
What do you think about the performance of your firm and key attributes of your firm’s high organizational performance?
4 What do you think about learning in your firm and its impact on your firm’s performance?
What are the characteristics of a leader that can foster learning and superior firm performance? And which of those characteristics do you believe you have?
Perspective onleadership approaches thatfoster learningandhigh organizational performance
What are the competencies of a leader that can foster learning and high organizational performance? And which of those competencies do you believe you have?
7 Can you describe the leadership behaviors or styles that you use to foster learning and high organizational performance?
Thematic analysis technique was applied in analyzing qualitative data(Attride-Stirling, 2001) This qualitative analysis technique refers to “coding of qualitative data into clusters of similar entities, or conceptual categories and the identification of consistent patterns and relationships between themes” (Figgou and Pavlopoulos, 2015, p 546) The researcher followed the phases of thematic analysis identified by Braun and Clarke (Braun and Clarke, 2006) First, since qualitative phase was conducted to identify leadership components manifesting among leaders in tourism firms, the researcher read and re-read the data in the transcripts carefully to identify information relevant to the topic Second, the researcher grouped information that referred to the same issue together and gave provisional definitions In the third step, the qualitative data were systematically reviewed before drawing the conclusions After analysis, tourism leaders’ perspectives on organizational learning and high organizational performance in their organizations were revealed Besides, three core themes depicting leadership preferences of leaders of tourism firms in Vietnam were also identified Although the stories and management experiences of the interviewees differed, their leadership approaches werealigned.
4.1.2 Leaders’ Perspectives on High Organizational Performance inTourismFirms
When asked about their perspectives on the performance of their firms, all participants stated that their firm has high organizational performance, illustrated by good feedback from customers and steady growth in revenues during the recent past. For example, Firm 5 stated: “I think our firm has high organizational performance.During the 2016-2019 period, we had steady growth in both revenues and earnings Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the performance of our firm is a little bit below expectation.”Firm 1 shared that “We have high organizational performance.Throughout the year, we received positive customer feedback, and we are planning to introduce new products and services in the near future”.
The leaders used the words “positive profits and revenues”, “satisfactory sales and market share”, “good cash flow”, “high customers satisfaction”, “new product development”, “competitive advantage” to explain key attributes of high organizational performance in tourism firms For example, Firm 3 stated: “To me, ourfirm has high organizational performance I think that key attributes of high organizational performance include positive profits and revenues, customersatisfaction and employee commitment Besides, our firm also introduce new products based on trends from the regions or foreign countries.
Besides, the analysis showed that most of the leaders perceived that their leadership contributed greatly to the achievement of superior performance of their firms For example, the participants stated:“I think that I and other leaders play animportant role in the performance of our firm We have a good vision and frequently set objectives for employees to strive for We promptly changed our business orientation in accordance with the actual situation and performance We always renew the menu sets and promotions We always inspire employees to help them achieve the best performance And I think these leadership actions help improve the performance of our firms”(Firm 2);“I used to be both strict and harmonious inmanaging my business I inspired positive energy and working behaviors to my staffs I think that my leadership or the way I lead my staff and lead my business contribute to achievement of superior performance in recent years”(Firm4).
These quotations confirmed that high organizational performance is not only about the financial performance (e.g., profitability, market share, etc.) but also about achieving non-financial performance such as customer satisfaction, new product development, and competitive advantage To achieve this, all respondents expressed the view that leaders play an imperative role.
4.1.3 Leaders’ Perspectives on Organizational Learning in TourismFirms
When asked about their perspectives on organizational learning in their firms, all participants stated that their firm supported learning and have implemented many initiatives to foster learning The participants also highlighted the importance role of organizational learning in the achievement of superior performance of their firms For example, the participants stated that:
“We try to make sure that information is shared within the organization.
Forexample, when the board of directors makes decisions, the information will be shared to managers so that they can shared with employees from different teams I myself think that knowledge and learning is important to renew thecompany, attract more customers, and achieve high organizational performance” (Firm 4)
“We foster learning in our firms in many ways We ensure that business andmarketing knowledge are always updated and conveyed to employees We encourage employees to learn and regularly train them in the F&B profession and problem solving skills We also encourage teamwork to acquire knowledge and improve expertise, which eventually contributes to the company’s performance When we receive feedback from customers, we learn from them to make relevant changes to the company services” (Firm2)
“We used weekly meetings as well as frequent sharing and discussionsthrough
Facebook and Zalo to make sure that information are shared within our firms.
It enables information and knowledge to be shared and helps strengthen the bonds between employees, which contributes to our firm performance We also constantly learn from the competitors to recognize the pros and cons to readjust” (Firm5)
“I think it is based on the type of knowledge and information To make surethat information is shared and foster learning within our firm, after the company owner discusses something with team leader, the team leader will organize meetings with their employees to share information with them We also use meetings to ask for feedback and learn from them to the adjust company’s strategy” (Firm 1)
“When we develop a new product or process, we usually share it with one keyperson and that person will share the information with team leaders and their staff We also organize training for staff to familiarize themselves with new knowledge or processes The company owner will visit foreign companies to learn new things and develop creative ideas, then share with other people in the company Employees are encouraged to contribute new ideas to be considered for implementation […] I think organizational learning have a profound impact on high organizational performance of my organization.Learning through collaboration directly affect the quality of the product and services of the company, which consequently contributes to customer satisfaction and superior performance.” (Firm 3)
Besides, the analysis showed that most of the participants perceived that their leadership contributed greatly to learning activities or processes within their firms. This is evident in the following quotes from the participants: “I always communicatewith my employees and create a perfect learning culture within my firm.
QuantitativeResults
Once we determined the themes from the interviews and confirmed that all the leadership components identified from the literature manifest and have relationship with organizational learning and high organizational performance in tourism firms inVietnam, we proceeded our survey questionnaire The questionnaire used to collect quantitative data involves an instrument designed to empirically investigate whether these leadership components (themes) relate to organizational learning and high organizational performance SmartPLS software version 3.0 was used to process PLS-SEM for 638 cases The non-parametric bootstrapping was measured with 1000 replications (Hairet al., 2013) It has two sub-models including the inner model and outer model While the former explains the relationships between the exogenous and endogenous latent variables, the latter explains the relationships between the latent variables and their observed indicators The structural equation model is used to test the hypotheses through the evaluation of the Inner model (β) path coefficient sizes) path coefficient sizes and significance The data is analyzed in the following steps, including demographics and descriptive statistics, measurement model results (measurement of validity and reliability), and structural model results Each part is presented as follows.
According to Salkind (2010), demographic information of research participants “is necessary for the determination of whether the individuals in a particular study are a representative sample of the target population for generalization purposes” (p 346) The presentation of research participant demographics has become more essential since it enables the researchers to gain a fuller understanding of the studies objects and analyze the research findings more precisely In this study, the researcher used gender, age, education level, major of education, position to illustrate characteristics of participants and company size, company type to illustrate characteristics of the company they are working at.
Table 4.4 presents the demographic information of 638 respondents in this study The results indicates that over half number of participants in the quantitative studyweremale(67.1%,nB8),whilefemaleparticipantsaccountedfor32.9%(n
= 210) Regarding the age of participants, the largest group was from 31 to 40 year old (47.2%, n = 301), followed by 41 to 50 year old (24%, n = 153), below 31 year old (21.2%, n = 135), and over 50 year old (7.7%, n = 49) For education level, most of research participants had bachelor’s degree (61%, n = 389), followed by master’s degree 21% (n = 134), college degree (17.7%, n = 113), and doctor degree (0.3%, n 2) Besides, the participants in this study had a variety of majors and the largest was tourism, which accounted for 45.5% (n = 290) The number of participants who majored in economics, management and humanities are 149 (23.4%), 139 (21.8%),and 60 (9.4%), respectively For company size (according to decree 39/2018/NĐ-CP dated March 11, 2018 of the Government on detailing a number of Articles of the laws on small and medium-sized enterprises), the small size firms (10-50 employees) got the largest portion of 45.9% (n = 293), compared with medium size firms(50-100 employees) (32.6%, n = 208), large size firms (>100 employees) (13.2%, n = 84), and finally super small size firm (