Influence of Learning Style and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour on Leadership Effectiveness -Conceptual Analysis
Zubair Hassan
PhD Scholar (IIUM)
Kulliyya of Economics and Management Sciences
International Islamic University, Malaysia
Corresponding Author
AAhadM.Osman-Gani
Professor of Management, HRD and Leadership
Deputy President Academic & Dean’s Office
INCEIF Global University, Malaysia
ZabedaBt Abdul Hamid
Assistant Professor
Kulliyya of Economics and Management Sciences
International Islamic University, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of Learning Style and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour on Leadership Effectiveness among the leaders. This study has proposed Learning Style and Knowledge Sharing as independent variables in this study. Leadership Effectiveness is the dependent variable. This conceptual paper has several research papers and articles to conceptualise the proposed framework. The study has reviewed more than fifty (50) scholarly articles on the subject matter to examine the effect of Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and Learning Style on leadership effectiveness. All the articles reviewed in this papers are empirical and conceptual papers design to collect quantitative data. The conceptual analysis shows that learning style and knowledge sharing behaviour has a positive and significant effect on the leadership effectiveness. However the most of the studies referred in this analysis are based in education and service sector. From the review, it was also found that there is lack of studies examining knowledge sharing behaviour and learning style effect on leadership effectiveness. This study will contribute by establishing the link between knowledge sharing behaviour, learning style and leadership effectiveness simultaneously. Also this study will be able to use by training and development of companies to design the training program to enhance, knowledge sharing and to adopt appropriate learning style to improve leadership. In this study, it was proposed to examine the effect of learning style and knowledge sharing behaviour on leadership effectiveness among leaders simultaneously, while in the past knowledge sharing was conducted to examine the effect on leadership effectiveness, while there was a lack of literature on learning style and leadership effectiveness.
Keywords: Learning Style, Knowledge Sharing Behaviour Leadership Effectiveness
Introduction
Since long, it was argued that leadership is not about one person, but it implied followership (Sogunro, 1998). Based on the past literature, it was claimed that it takes both the leader and the subordinates to get things done (Kouzes & Posner, 2018; Rost, 1991; Clark & Clark, 1994). In the past leadership has conceptualised in number of practices, which are grouped to form theories and styles and the way leadership is defined (Randel et al, 2018). As a result, many leadership theories and styles have been examined in order to enhance leadership effectiveness in work environment (Choi et al, 2017). Leadership effectiveness is a topic that continues to stimulate attentionin scholarly literature (Waldman, Ramirez, House & Puranam, 2001). The increasing integration of economics and societies and the challenges of operating in the global economy have heighten the need of leadership effectiveness (Osman-Gani, & Hassan, 2018). However it was always a difficult and challenging to develop and understand of what really constitutes leadership effectiveness. The debate has ranged from the belief that leadership is a “useless concept” (Pandey, 1976) to leadership is the key to ‘improve performance (Tabassi et al, 2017; Fleenor & Bryant, 2002).
In the past, the view on leadership effectiveness on performance were divided between ‘Individualists and ‘Contextualists’ (Alabi & Alabi, 2014). The Individualists generally debated that leadership effectiveness have a significant and crucial influence on organisational performance(Thomas, 1988). Those who are in favour of Contextualise, emphasises that the leadership effectiveness depends on situational factors (Trichandhara et al, 2019). However some argued that leadership effectiveness depends on organisational success, whereby it requires 360-degree assessments which attempt to establish relationship between leadership effectivness and desired organisational outcomes (Fleenor & Bryant, 2002; CCL, 2000). Also previous researchers found that transformational leasdership attributes exists in the eye of the beholders (Yammarino& Dubinsky, 1994, p. 805). It was suggested that leadersh should be aware of themselves of their self-perception of their own behaviour andcompetence (Dabke, D. (2016).)
Management researchers have made little attempts in examining the effect of the learning styles of leaders or on leadership effectiveness and knowledge sharing behaviour. Sharing knowledge which they gained through experience is considered as very important (Kolb & Smith, 1996). Similarly, the role of experience is found to be strongly related to leadership styles, and role of leaders are associated with the way they learn and lead (Kouzes & Posner, 1995). This is confirmed by Brown and Posner (1995) where they found that how people learn is significantly associated with how they act as leaders. Furthermore, they confirmed that leaders who frequently engaged with Kolb’s four learning styles such as accommodators, diverges, assimilators and converges are more frequently in utilising various leadership styles (Brown & Posner, 1995). Therefore, as leaders may formally or informally learn through experience, learning styles have a positive association with leadership effectiveness that may help leaders to apply and learn more effectively through their experience (Posner, 2009). It was argued that a leader who can learn from more than one category, or is capable of approaching and learning from a variety of situations than those leaders who are more narrowly focused, have a greater propensity of learning styles that would enable them to lead and become a better leader (Posner, 2009). In addition, it was argued that learning styles may help leaders to understand how to learn effectively and would utilise leadership styles to manage the firm’s productivity, resulting in more effective leadership (Posner, 2009). Furthermore, the learning process involves obtaining existing knowledge, combining knowledge, data and experience to generate new knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This means that leaders or leaders should encourage others to continually develop the sharing of ideas, trust, experimentation and external vision (Karl & Philip, 1987).
This shows that knowledge sharing is essential to the creation of new knowledge and effectiveness, as well as in the transfer of new knowledge throughout the organisation (Pemberton & Stonehouse, 2000). To become effective, it was argued that leaders need to train employees effectively and understand employee learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1992; Stevens & Frazer, 2005). In addition, academic researchers have demonstrated that learning styles provide leaders more insights into facilitating a learning environment for their employees and developing their learning experiences effectively to transfer knowledge to their employees (Honey & Mumford, 1992). Marquardt (2004) also asserted that what leaders learn, and knowing their appropriate learning style helps leaders to understand how they learn, which will help them to learn more effectively. Informal learning is mostly found to be the preferred way of learning by leaders, which significantly contributes to knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) (Ellinger et al, 2002; Fox, 1997). As leadership development is a learning process (Posner, 2009) learning styles may help leaders to develop an understanding on how to learn effectively; hence leaders may utilise their leadership style to manage the firm more productively. It is important to note that careful development of leaders might have a positive effect on organisational effectiveness (Mabey & Ramirez, 2005). Leaders who know how to learn effectively would be able to sustain the inimitable capabilities of their employees through relevant HRM practices. In the long term, this would enhance KSB and leadership effectiveness. Since previous research has confirmed that when leaders engage in their preferred LS such as reflector, pragmatists positively influence the leadership or leadership effectiveness (Zumitzavan, 2011). This means that those leaders who engage in more reflective LS tends to spend time reading around a subject and watching others try things out increases leadership effectives. Similarly those leaders who preferred pragmatist are those who engage in solving case studies and time to think about the practical applications of what they have learnt to increase their leadership effectiveness.It is crucial to have highly capable, effective, smart and high-performing leaders or leaders to ensure a firm‘s business sustainability. However, there are several management issues and operational challenges facing firms today in using leaders, particularly sales and marketing leaders. Managing and motivating sales and marketing leaders are challenging tasks and require a huge amount of time, money and efforts (Sinha &Zoltners; 2005). Ineffective and unproductive manger or employee can cost firms to suffer losses due to loss of customers, loss of business opportunities, re-hiring and re-training employees (Walker, Churchill, & Ford, 1977). A firm‘s long-term growth and profitability are highly dependent on the effectiveness of its mangers’ performance (Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, 1985). Hence, according to Corcoran, Petersen, Baitch, and Barrett (1995), leaders performance warrants rigorous examination when studying factors affecting a firm‘s financial performance.
Leaders of yesteryears were seen to control, plan, and inspect the overall running of the organization. But in today’s changing times and with predominance on service orientation, leaders are expected to motivate and inspire followers, generate a sense of belongingness and positive association among employees and yet meet stiff targets (Dabke,2016).) Despite a lot of interest and research in the field of leadership, there is still a lack of consensus over what makes a leader effective (Higgs, 2003; Kets de Vries, 1993). TL behaviors have been consistently related to leadership effectiveness (Lowe et al., 1996; Waldman et al., 1987) and business unit outcomes. Leaders are not just what they think they are. The limited studies done to examine the effect of LS on leadership effectiveness and KSB on leadership effectiveness in developing countries have been producing inconsistent results due to differences in socio-cultural background, income, and culture (Piercy, Low, & Cravens, 2011). Also in the past, there were few studies that examined the effect of KSB on leadership effectiveness (Srivastava, Bartol& Locke, 2006; Politis, 2001; Lee, Gillespie, Mann & Wearing, 2010). Hence, it would be worthwhile to conduct the present study to understand the effect of LS and KSB on leadership effectiveness of pharmaceutical leaders’ effectiveness in terms of their performance in Malaysia. Based on the above-mentioned issues and problems, the present study seeks to bridge the research gaps, and thereby aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge on leadership effectiveness. The present study attempts to identify the effect of LS and KSB on leadership effectiveness in the pharmaceutical industry of Malaysia.
Literature Review
Definitions
Leadership Effectiveness:
For decades, researchers in the field of leadership and management put efforts in defining leadership effectiveness and what constitutes to leadership effectiveness (Madanchian et al, 2018). The definition of leadership effectivenessdiffers among the scholars. This situation is exacerbated in that there is ‘neither a universally accepted approach to nor definition of’ leadership effectiveness (Mesterova et al. 2015:109). Accordingly, leadership effectiveness is manifested as a relative judgement predicated upon both description and evaluated characteristics (Oyinlade 2006).
|
Author |
|
Focus |
|
Dhar and Mishra (2003) |
leadership effectiveness is the outcome when individuals in leadership positions are able to influence a group to perform their roles with positive organizational Outcomes. |
groups and positive organisation outcomes |
|
Madanchian |
As stated by Madanchian, Hussein [10] if a leader is able to influence his/her subordinates or unit in such a way that positive outcomes are realized, the leader can be referred as an effective leader |
subordinates and positive outcomes |
|
Cicero, Pierro& Van Knippenberg 2010, p.411) |
Leadership effectiveness represents the ‘ability of a leader ‘to mobilize and influence followers’
|
Ability and followers |
|
Manamela,Cassim&Karodia (2016) |
Leadership effectiveness is about ‘recognising and positively utilising both the competencies and limitations of their subordinates in the achievement of organisational objectives” |
organisational outcomes |
|
Dorfman et al. (2012) |
Argued that leadership effectiveness is when leaders ‘behave and act in accordance withexpectations’ of organisation and subordinates’ |
Expectations |
|
Manning (2003:21) |
Leadership effectiveness is about being effective in cross-cultural leadership possess ‘relationship competence’: that is, they are able to emotionally connect with diverse individuals and establish mutually attractive relationships |
Relationship competences and emotions |
|
Visser (2013, p.17-18) |
Leadership effectiveness is when‘leader benefits to the organization as well as the followers’. |
Benefits |
|
Kouzes & Posner, (1995). |
Define leadership effectiveness based on leaders characteristics and behaviour stating five attributes such as challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, enable others to act, model the way, and encourage the heart |
Characteristics and behaviour |
Learning Style
Learning style is being defined in various ways and terms were used in the past literature. Terms such as divergent, cognitive, sensory and personality types were used inter-changeably and in some occasions these terms have been differentiated (Cassidy, 2004).
|
Author |
|
Focus |
|
Dunn (1984, p. 12), |
Learning styles are “the way each person absorbs and retains information and/or skills” |
process |
|
James and Gardner(1995: 20) |
Learning style are defined as “the complex manner in which, and conditions under which, learners most effectively perceive,process, store, and recall what they are attempting to learn” |
Situation and process |
|
Mortimore (2003) |
Learning styles are seen more in terms of the strategies that learners use to deal with learning, and are considered to be less stable |
Strategies |
|
Kolb and Kolb (1984) |
Learning Style is a process and viewed as a series of experiences with cognitive additions: concrete experience, reflection and observation, abstract concepts and generalizations, and active experimentation |
Process |
|
Nja Umali, Asuquo and Orim,(2019, p.619). |
Learning styles is a term that is used to explain various ways that learners acquire knowledge.Learning styles is an individual’s unique way of absorbing, processing, comprehending and retaining information |
Ways acquiring knowledge |
|
keffe (1979, p.4) |
example defines Learning styles as ''cognitive, affective, and physiological traits that are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to learning environment’’.
|
Personality traits |
|
Stewart and Felicetti (1992, p.5) |
Define learning styles as those educational conditions under which a student is most likely to learn |
Educational condition |
|
Reid (1987, p.89) |
According to Dun and Dun (1979) learning styles is''a term that describes the variations among learners in using one or more senses to understand, organize, and retain experience'' |
Variations with learners |
Knowledge Sharing Behaviour
According to perspectives, situations, needs, and circumstances, different definitions of KSB are presented.Ho and Hsu [15] argue that the reason for the difficulty in presenting a standard definition of “knowledge sharing” is due to KS consists of many elements. The three key elements tabbed from them are: 1-objects, which refer to the kind of shared knowledge, 2-the way of sharing includes; face to face, conference, knowledge network, and organizational learning, 3-and finally, level of sharing: involving individuals, teams, or organizations.
|
Author |
|
Focus |
|
Yen et al (2013, p.13) |
Knowledge sharing behaviour measures an employee’s action of acquiring and exchanging knowledge, intellectual assets, and intangible capital with other employees in an organization |
Acquisition and sharing of knowldge |
|
Ryu et al (…….) |
knowledge sharing Behaviour occurs when a member diffuses her/his acquired knowledge to others within an organization |
Diffusion of acquired knowldge |
|
Razak, Pangil, Zin, Yunus, and Asnawi (2016). |
Knowledge sharing behaviour is related with the employees‟ willingness to share their knowledge with the others in business. |
Willingness to Share |
|
Hislop (2002) |
Knowledge sharing behaviour is willingness to share knowledge |
Willingness to share |
|
Sugashwarprashanth and Thenmozhi (2016,p.70) |
Knowledge sharing behaviour is viewed as the degree to which employees actually share their knowledge with their colleagues for organisational tasks and goals |
Dgree to share the knolwdge |
|
De Ridder (2006) |
Define knowledge sharing is a as the process where individuals mutually exchange their tacit and explicit knowledge thereby jointly creating new knowledge. |
Mutual exchange of knowledge |
|
Bock and Kim (2002)
|
Knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) is defined as the degree to which an employee actually shares knowledge with other organizational members |
Degree which employee shares knowledge |
Theoretical Review
Various perspectives and models were employed in measuring and conceptualising leadership effectiveness. According to Kang and Jin (2015), leadership effectiveness can be evaluated in various ways and at different levels. Leadership effectiveness is measured in two different perspectives of individual perception and group perception (Kaiser, Hogan & Craig 2008). Those who measures leadership effectiveness using individual perceptions split into leadership emergence and perceived effectiveness (Kaiser et al. 2008). Alternatively group performance to measure leadership effectiveness comprises of group process and group achievement (Kaiser et al. 2008). Several theoretical approaches were developed and discussed to conceptualise leadership effectiveness. Some of the approaches were discussed below
The first approach is trait approaches to leadership. Theories related to this approach emphasis on determining the traits that distinguishes leaders from followers (Aalateeg, 2017; Sutherland et al, 2020; Torney, 2019). Leadership trait theories argued that leadership effectiveness achieved through demographic related attributes such as gender, age, education and personal abilities such as intelligence and individual’s own abilities (Zaccaro et al, 2018). However later the researchers shift their focus on leader’s skills and abilities than the traits, where they argued that leadership effectiveness depends on leader’s ability to develop their own skills sets and abilities to influence the subordinates and colleagues to attain the goals successfully (Farahnak et al, 2020). Also it was argued that gaining relevant knowledge and abilities to improve performance of employees and leader him/her-self results leadership effectiveness (Oman, 2018). Since the leadership effectiveness directly influences individuals ability to solve multi-complex organisational problem (Robinson et al, 2020), ability and knowledge of leaders significantly influence leadership effectiveness (Dong et al, 2017). Another prominent leadership approach is behavioural which emphasis on leader’s actions to assess the leadership effectiveness (Madanchian et al, 2017). This approach view that leadership effectiveness depends on the leaders actions towards their subordinates or followers (Owens et al, 2019). Behavioural approach of leadership determines leadership effectiveness through task oriented behaviour, change oriented behaviour, and relational oriented behaviour, passive leadership behaviour (Borgmann et al, 2016). Behavioural approaches to leadership effectiveness explains different behaviour of leaders which influence subordinates and others in their effort to attain the goal (Miao et al, 2018). Situational leadership approaches indicates directive leaders must apply the most appropriate leadership behaviours such as directive and supportive dimensions based on the given situation to make leadership effectiveness (Li et al, 2018). Since followers and subordinates skills and motivation changes over time, situational approaches of leadership emphasis on leaders to change the directive style of leadership to supportive leadership style to meet the changing needs of the employees (Cote, 2017). In other words, situational approaches of leadership theories demands leaders to match their styles to the motivation and commitment of the followers enabling leadership effectiveness (Thompson &Glasø, 2018). The last approach of leadership is contingency approaches of leadership. This approach emphasis on leaders to fit themselves in a given context to enable leadership effectiveness (Reiche et al, 2017). According to Fiedler (1971), it is very important for leaders to understand the situation which they are leading to enable leadership effectiveness. Therefore leadership effectiveness is enhance and improved by matching the leadership style with the right setting (Gaikwad, 2019). Based on the review of all the approaches, one of the key model that emphasis on leadership effectiveness was five exemplary leadership practices developed by (Kauses& Posner, 2018). These 5 practices are mostly considered as an advocate of effective leadership and Kouzes and Posner (1988) investigated in-depth what effective leaders do when they are in their best. The five (5) exemplary practices of leadership includes Modeling the Way, inspiring a Shared Vision, Challenging the Process, Enabling Others to Act, and Encouraging the Heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2018).In a review article investigating the reliability and validity of the Leadership Practices Inventory concluded that the instrument is essentially robust and practical in a variety of settings and populations (Posner, 2016).
It was believed that after the publication of Kolb’s learning style inventory, many experimental studies in examining the influence of learning style on academic performance, job performance and leadership styles (Vizeshfar&Torabizadeh, 2018;Yasmeen et al, 2020; Akyürek et al, 2018). It is worthy to mention that most of these causal studies conducted were aimed to examined in educational setting to identify the effect of learning style on academic performance or alearning styles and other variables such as job performance, leadership decision making, and speed of decision making (Bhalli et al, 2016). Alternatively some of the correlated studies have examined the relationship between learning styles and other variables such as job performance, leadership decision making, and speed of decision making ((Bhalli et al, 2016).Most of the past literature focus on three aspect of the learning style which can be divided into types of learning styles, models of learning styles, and learning theories. The most three popular types of learning styles are visual, auditory and kinaesthetic learning styles (Ibrahim & Hussein, 2016). Auditory learners are considered to be good at solving problems (Zarrabi, 2020). This style combines the Kolb’s experiential learning modes of abstract Conceptualization (AC) and Active Experimentation (AE) (Dantas& Cunha, 2020). Visual learning style normally emphasis on combines the learning steps of Reflective Observation (RO) and Abstract Conceptualization (AC) (Dantas& Cunha, 2020). Kinaesthetic learners combines the experiential learning modes of Concrete Experience (CE) and Active Experimentation (AE) (Dantas& Cunha, 2020). In terms of learning models that determines learning style includes Felder Silverman Learning Style Model andDunn and Dunn Learning Styles Model (Kanadlı, 2016). Among the theories, learning style theoretical approaches developed by Kolb (1984) were very influential among the Academia. In Kolb’s model, there were four set of learning skills namely Concrete Experience (CE), Reflective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC) and Active Experience (AE). Learning styles was derived from the score of these four skills including accommodating, assimilating, diverging and converging (Vizeshfar&Torabizadeh, 2018).This means that Kolb’s learning theory model is divided into two level. The first level is that the learning cycle is a four (4) stage cycle of learning, and the second level indicated that is a four separate learning style (Kolb & Kolb, 2017). The Kolb’s learning style theory focus on internal cognitive process of individual learners (Kolb & Kolb, 2017). In Kolb’s theory the learner learns when they are motivated to develop a new concept from the new experience (Kolb & Kolb, 2017).The Kolb’s experiential learning theory has a vast range of application, including helping employees, managers and leaders to realise themselves, helping leaders and coaches in the workplace become reflexive leaders, identifying learning styles of employees, co-workers, and leaders , and development of key skills that enables leaders to become more effective (Sulistiyarini&Sukardi, 2016).
Many researches were conducted to examine the key determinant of KSB among the employees, students and managers including leaders in the past. Most of these researches were derived the determinants or willingness of individuals to share the knowledge using various theoretical approaches such as Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Aliakbar et al, 2012). Dalati and Alchach (2018) established seven key determinants of KSB among the leaders. These seven key determinants are plan to share knowledge, sharing work knowledge, sharing results, sharing new ideas, answering questions by colleagues, allocating time for sharing knowledge and displaying difficult methods of work to co-workers (Dalati&Alchach, 2018). Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is being used to determine the behavioural intention reasons (Karnowsk et al, 2018). The review of past literature indicated that TRA is a successful theory in determining KSB intention among the individuals such as leaders (Razak et al, 2016). TRA represents attitudes and social norms influences on leader’s intention of KSB (Matić et al, 2017). In the past some studies suggested that attitude and subjective norms have significant and positive influence on KSB (Matic et al, 2017). More recently a study found that social social-psychological and organisational climate related factors have positive influence on KSB whereas extrinsic rewards have negative significant influence on KSB (Al-Kurdi et al, 2020). The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is an extension of TRA which measures perceived behavioural control (Ajzen &Kruglanski, 2019). This theory defines the intention of leaders to perform a particular behaviour (Ajzen &Kruglanski, 2019). TPB assumed that when leader’s intention is stronger, the likelihood of increasing to engage with KSB increase the performance of leaders (Al-Kurdi et al, 2020). Research carried out in the past suggested that factors influence knowledge sharing intention and behaviour by leaders fitted the data to the research model of TPB (Lin & Lee, 2004). Also Lin and Lee (2004) found that leader’s subjective norms and attitude along with perceived behavioural control have positive effect on KSB. Another theory that focus on KSB is Social Exchange Theory (SET). SET describes the leader’s rational behaviour to believe in the probability of reward they would gain through social exchange (Oparaocha, 2016). A study done during 2010, revised the orginal concept of SET and found that social exchange theory depends on perception of leader’s propensity to share and leader’s attitude on social value (Cry & Choo, 2010). This means subjective attitudes and norms of leaders. This suggests that SET has regarded the maximum values and reduced costs when leaders share their knowledge with subordinates (Xiao et al, 2017). In this regard, many studies were done based on SET to examine the link between leader’s communication and KSB. One of the study based on SET found that mutual communication, understanding and trust have indirect impact on KSB of leaders in workplace (Wu & Lin, 2006). Similarly they found that mutual influence, commitment and conflict have direct influence on KSB (Wu & Lin, 2006). Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) also being tested to examined the KSB among the individuals or leaders. TAM emphasises on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to determine leader’s behavioural intention to share knowledge through the use of technology (Shao et al, 2017). A study conducted using TAM found that perceived sharing and perception of trust has a positive and significant influence on KSB (Noor, 2005; Omotayo& Babalola, 2016). However if leaders perceived risk of sharing knowledge, they do not wish to engage in KSB (Gaikwad, 2019). Hu and Lin (2008) found that ease of use and enjoyment and reputation of social media, then leaders engage in KSB and continue with such positive behaviour.
Theoretical Propositions
Learning Styles and Leadership Effectiveness:
The relationship between learning style and leadership effectiveness is merely established.Also, leaders can become more effective by selecting a specific learning style to acquire and disseminate knowledge (Boyle, 2005). Once leaders identify their learning style, it will help them to understand the process making them more effective in learning and acquiring knowledge (Brown, 1996). This also enables leaders to increase their own learning processes and skills, opening the opportunity to improved performance and personal development (Gilbert et al., 2008). Learning style also make it easier for the leaders to know how to attain the skills or knowledge involved in their everyday responsibilities (McGuire, 2001). As argued by Posner (2009), individuals who can learn from more than one category and thus have a greater repertoire of learning styles at their disposal are better able to learn about leading and becoming leaders. The reviewed research indicated that Kolb’s Learning Styles such as concrete experience has positive and significant relationship with leadership effectiveness in terms of strategic decision making (Akyürek&Guney, 2018). They also found that the learning styles such as abstract, active and reflective observation has a positive and significant association with leadership effectiveness in terms of effective decision making (Akyurek&Guney, 2018). With reference to the past literature, it is evident that each learning style poses challenges and also enable to exploit various opportunities for leaders to become more effective by adopting the most suitable learning style. For example it was reported that the divergent learning style hasthe strength and liability of lie in leaders desire to search unceasingly for new possibilities and solutions (Turesky& Gallagher, 2011). On the negative side the divergent learning style may diverge leaders from the problem or situation at hand and go off on a tangent, straying significantly from the task (Alvesson, 2019) making leaders become less relevant and ineffective. In terms of Convergers, they are very technical rather than interpersonal (Ata &Cevik, 2019). However leaders with convergent learning style tend to make decisions without complete information causing those leaders become less effective (Harrison, 2016; Gemmell, R. M. (2017). However, the leaders with the learning style of converges tend to be more effective when they work in groups (Labib, Canós&Penadés, 2017). In terms of assimilators, those leaders with assimilator learning style tend to gather information and data to make decisions, while they tend to think a lot and concerns about the people (Turesky& Gallagher, 2011). Assimilators are less effective in decision making as assimilators normally will make decision when they only obtain the complete set of information (McCarthy, 2016). Leaders with accommodative learning style tend to responded quickly to respond the needs, especially when other are involved (Jena, 2016). Accommodators are very effective in their decision makings and focus on whole problem results improvement in leadership effectiveness (Avsec, &Szewczyk-Zakrzewska, 2017)Therefore, the following proposition is being proposed:
P1: Learning Styles have positive and significant effect on leadership effectiveness
Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness
In the past, it was argued that creativity is the key elements that enables KSB among the leaders (Mihardjo&Alamsjah, 2019). Team creativity enables through KSB of leaders. Therefore leaders influence team members to share tacit knowledge creating a flow of novel ideas such as new product, process and patents that contributes to successful outcomes (Mihardjo&Alamsjah, 2019). The leader’s attitude on KSB encourages team members to cosider more options of knowledge sharing (Mihardjo&Alamsjah, 2019). It was reported that KSB of leaders within the team in a better way leads to an improvement in the decision-making process ( (Hussain, Sallehuddin, Shamsudin, &Jabarullah, 2018). Several studies have reported that the KSB of leaders improves leadership effectiveness in terms of problem solving, and team performance (Jamshed & Majeed, 2018). Also individual employee performance were reportedly improved due to the leader’s willingness to engage in KSB (Mahmood et al., 2016; Pangil& Moi Chan, 2014). When leaders engage in KSB it causes members of the team to improve their performance resulting leadership effectiveness Mihardjo&Alamsjah, 2019). One of the research indicated that leadership effectiveness can be achieved through leadership empowerment in allowing them to engage in KSB (Wu & Lee, 2017). Also they argued that the leadership effectiveness and KSB is harnessed by degree of empowerment (Wu & Lee, 2017). Leaders to become more effective, it is important for them to encourage KSB among the employee which should lead to better performance (Wu & Lee, 2017). Technology enables leadership empowerment and engage in KSB in the recent years more than most of the other resources utilize in the organisation (Srivastava & Joshi, 2018). The information technology mediates the role of internet self-efficacy in improving leadership engagement in KSB (Srivastava & Joshi, 2018). As a result leadership effectiveness increases in service oriented industry due to the information technology enabled KSB among the leaders (Srivastava & Joshi, 2018). A study done by Le and Lei (2019) found that KSB of leaders mediates the relationship between transformational leadership behaviour (effectiveness) on innovation capabilities. Also leadership effectiveness depends on how leaders KSB contributes to the performance with regards to their satisfaction and autonomy (Coun, Peters &Blomme, 2019). The study concluded that shared leadership supplement leadership effectiveness (transformational leadership) as an important element to foster employee performance and engage in KSB (Coun et al, 2019).Therefore the following proposition is being made
P2: Improved knowledge sharing behaviour will significantly increase leadership effectiveness
Conceptual Framework
Conclusion
Based on the review of the related theories, concepts and past literature, it can be concluded that Learning styles (LS) and knowledge sharing are two crucial constructs that can influence leadership effectiveness. LS and KSB was found to have significance effects on leadership effectiveness from the past literature. Although there are very few studies that focus on examining the learning style and leadership effectiveness, it was argued in the past that learning style of leaders are important for them to become effective. Also the overall effect of learning styles dimensions on leadership effectiveness. Therefore it is very important to empirically examine effects of LS and KSB on leadership effectives thereby identify the appropriate human resource development interventions to develop leadership effectiveness through five exemplary practices of leadership proposed by Kauses and Posner (1995).
This study will enable managers in various sectors to develop and design their human capital programs as well as in training programs to enhance the KSB and LS adoption among the managers, particularly senior managers or leaders in the organisation.
Theoretical and Practical Implication
The main contribution of this study is to formulate conceptual framework to reflect the causal effect of learning style and knowledge sharing behaviour of leaders on leadership effectiveness. In addition this conceptual study emphasis on testing both LS and KSB simultaneously on leadership effectiveness whereas in the past, knowledge sharing is being examined to identify the effect on leadership effectiveness. In the past learning style was tested to identify its effect on academic achievements and teachers teaching effectiveness. However very little or no attempt was made in examining the effect of learning style of leaders on their leadership effectiveness. Despite it is very vital for leaders to adopt appropriate and relevant learning style to improve their decision making and capacity to improve productivity continuously in their work environment. In addition, this conceptual paper enriches the area of leadership effectiveness and contributes to the literature by highlighting the significant role of LS and KSB as key determinants of leadership effectiveness in commercial setting such as pharmaceutical sector rather than educational sector. Moreover, the causal effect of LS and KSB with Malaysian pharmaceutical or commercials sectors’ can be an extension to the existing literature in this field, particularly in Malaysia.
The conceptual study is expected to provide various practical implications to strengthen and promote KSB among the leaders or managers in the commercial settings, especially in pharmaceutical sector in Malaysia. Since LS and KSB are expected to have a significant and positive influence on leadership effectiveness, it is critical for commercial sector organisations, particularly pharmaceutical companies to allocate resources to deal with the manager’s or leader’s learning style and KSB in order to enhance the leadership effectiveness (managerial effectiveness) in terms of productivity, commitment and decision making. Organisations should set up a suitable social setting to enhance and increase KSB to enable managers or leaders to build a strong social relationship with colleagues and subordinates. This will enable to activate the values, morality and personal attributes to strengthen the KSB. In terms of learning style, leaders working in different commercial settings seems to be necessary for an increase in the rate of creativity of the managers and reduction of creativity differences of managers. Through familiarity with learning style of leaders, and training and development mangers and human resource planners can confirm the planning and training methods to the learning style of the leaders. Leaders should accept the fact that each colleague or subordinates might adopt a special style of learning for different projects and tasks, so they have to adopt an appropriate style and methods of learning for each manager or subordinates. Therefore by enhancing learning style and KSB will enhance leadership effectiveness.
References:
Aalateeg, S. (2017). Literature Review on Leadership Theories. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 19(11), 35-43.DOI: 10.9790/487X-1911033543
Abdollahimohammad, A., &Ja’afar, R. (2014). Learning Style Scales: a valid and reliable questionnaire. Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 11.https://www.jeehp.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3352/jeehp.2014.11.22
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., &Kruglanski, A. W. (2019). Reasoned action in the service of goal pursuit. Psychological Review, 126(5), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000155
Alabi, G., & Alabi, J. (2014). Understanding the factors that influence leadership effectiveness of Deans in Ghana. Journal of Higher Education in Africa/Revue de l'enseignementsupérieuren Afrique, 12(1), 111-132.
Al-Kurdi, O. F., El-Haddadeh, R., &Eldabi, T. (2020). The role of organisational climate in managing knowledge sharing among academics in higher education. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 217-227.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.018
Akyürek, S., Guney, S., Alomeroglu, E., Sundu, M., Yasar, O., &Akyurek, S. (2018). Effects of Learning Styles and Locus of Control on the Decision-Making Styles of Leader Managers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2317-2328.https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/89515
Aliakbar, E., Yusoff, R. B., & Mahmood, N. H. N. (2012). Determinants of knowledge sharing behavior. In A paper presented at the International Conference on Economics, Business and Marketing Management held in Singapore, 208-215. 2012 International Conference on Economics, Business and Marketing Management IPEDR vol.29 (2012) © (2012) IACSIT Press, Singapore.
Alvesson, M. (2019). Leadership: Convergence and divergence in leadership relations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(3), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617717339
Ata, R., &Cevik, M. (2019). Exploring relationships between Kolb’s learning styles and mobile learning readiness of pre-service teachers: A mixed study. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1351-1377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9835-y
Avsec, S., &Szewczyk-Zakrzewska, A. (2017). Predicting academic success and technological literacy in secondary education: a learning styles perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9344-x
Barry, M., & Egan, A. (2018). An adult learner’s learning style should inform but not limit educational choices. International Review of Education, 64(1), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9694-6
Bhalli, M. A., Khan, I. A., & Sattar, A. (2016). Learning style of medical students and its correlation with preferred teaching methodologies and academic achievement. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 27(4), 837-842.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2002040102
Borgmann, L., Rowold, J., & Bormann, K. C. (2016). Integrating leadership research: A meta-analytical test of Yukl’s meta-categories of leadership. Personnel Review. 45 (6), 1340-1366. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2014-0145
Cicero, L., Pierro, A. & Van Knippenberg, D (2010)'Leadership and uncertainty: How role ambiguity affects the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness', British Journal of Management 21(2), 411-421.
Choi, S. B., Kim, K., & Kang, S. W. (2017). Effects of transformational and shared leadership styles on employees' perception of team effectiveness. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 45(3), 377-386.https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.5805
Cote, R. (2017). Vision of effective leadership. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 14(4), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v14i4.1486
Dabke, D. (2016). Impact of leader’s emotional intelligence and transformational behaviour on perceived leadership effectiveness: A multiple source view. Business Perspectives and Research, 4(1), 27-40.https://doi.org/10.1177/2278533715605433.
Dalati, S., &Alchach, H. (2018). The effect of leader trust and knowledge sharing on staff satisfaction at work: investigation of universities in Syria. Business, Management and Education, 16, 190-205.
Dantas, L. A., & Cunha, A. (2020). An integrative debate on learning styles and the learning process. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2(1), 1-5.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100017
Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual‐focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2134
Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 504-518.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004
Dorsey, D. W. (2003). Hiring for knowledge-based competition. Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource management, 21(155), 22.
Farahnak, L. R., Ehrhart, M. G., Torres, E. M., & Aarons, G. A. (2020). The influence of transformational leadership and leader attitudes on subordinate attitudes and implementation success. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(1), 98-111.https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818824529
Fleenor, J. W., & Bryant, C. (2002, April). Leadership effectiveness and organizational culture: An exploratory study. In Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Gaikwad, A. G. (2019). Significance of situational leadership style for improving effectiveness and productivity of subordinates-A case study approach. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 9(6), 125-131.
Husmann, P. R., & O'Loughlin, V. D. (2019). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical sciences education, 12(1), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777
Harrison, D. T. (2016). An examination of the relationship between experiential learning styles and the development of global competence in leaders. Indiana Wesleyan University.
Hislop, D. (2002, April). Managing knowledge and the problem of commitment. In The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities. Astir Palace. Athens (pp. 5-6).
Ibrahim, R. H., & Hussein, D. A. (2016). Assessment of visual, auditory, and kinaesthetic learning style among undergraduate nursing students. International Journal Advance Nursing Studies, 5(1), 1-4. DOI: 10.14419/ijans.v5i1.5124
James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New directions for adult and continuing education, 1995(67), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.36719956705
Jena, R. K. (2016). Investigating the interrelation between attitudes, learning readiness, and learning styles under virtual learning environment: a study among Indian students. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(11), 946-957. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1212930
Kanadlı, S. (2016). A meta-analysis on the effect of instructional designs based on the learning styles models on academic achievement, attitude and retention. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(6), 2057-2086. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.6.0084
Kannapiran, S., Kob, C. G., Rus, R. C., &Sulaiman, N. L. (2018). Perception of Mechanical Engineering Students According to a Subject on Felder Silverman Learning Styles. Development, 7(4), 1-12.
Karnowski, V., Leonhard, L., &Kümpel, A. S. (2018). Why users share the news: A theory of reasoned action-based study on the antecedents of news-sharing behavior. Communication Research Reports, 35(2), 91-100.https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1379984
Keefe, J. (1979). NASSP's Student Learning Styles: Diagnosing and Prescribing Programs, chapter Learning style: An overview. National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA, (1-37). Reston, VA. National Association of Secondary School Principle. URL: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles.html#sthash.SbepFXmt.dpuf
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). Experiential learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in higher education. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 7-44. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/elthe/vol1/iss1/7
Labib, A. E., Canós, J. H., &Penadés, M. C. (2017). On the way to learning style models integration: a Learner's Characteristics Ontology. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 433-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.054
Li, G., Liu, H., & Luo, Y. (2018). Directive versus participative leadership: Dispositional antecedents and team consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 645-664. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12213
Madanchian, M., Hussein, N., Noordin, F., &Taherdoost, H. (2018). The impact of ethical leadership on leadership effectiveness among SMEs in Malaysia. Procedia Manufacturing, 22, 968-974.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.138
Madanchian, M., Hussein, N., Noordin, F., &Taherdoost, H. (2017). Leadership effectiveness measurement and its effect on organization outcomes. Procedia Engineering, 181, 1043-1048.doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.505
Madanchian, M., Hussein, N., Noordin, F., &Taherdoost, H. (2016). The Relationship between ethical leadership, leadership effectiveness and organizational performance: A review of literature in SMEs context. European Business & Management, 2(2), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ebm.20160202.11
Manamela, M. M., Cassim, N., &Karodia, A. M. (2016). The impact of change management on the implementation of organisational strategy: A case study of National Home Builders Registration Council. Singaporean Journal of Business, Economics and Management Studies, 51(3523), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.12816/0028358
Manning, T. T. (2003). Leadership across cultures: Attachment style influences. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(3), 20-30.https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190300900304
Matić, D., Cabrilo, S., Grubić-Nešić, L., &Milić, B. (2017). Investigating the impact of organizational climate, motivational drivers, and empowering leadership on knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(3), 431-446.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-017-0063-9
McCarthy, M. (2016). Experiential learning theory: From theory to practice. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER), 14(3), 91-100. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v14i3.9749
Mortimore, T. (2003) Dyslexia and Learning Style. A Practitioner’s Handbook. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd
Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2018). A cross-cultural meta-analysis of how leader emotional intelligence influences subordinate task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of World Business, 53(4), 463-474.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.01.003
Nja, C. O., Umali, C. U. B., Asuquo, E. E., &Orim, R. E. (2019). The influence of learning styles on academic performance among science education undergraduates at the University of Calabar. Educational Research and Review, 14(17), 618-624.DOI: 10.5897/ERR2019.3806
Oman, O. (2018). The Leadership Effectiveness and Organizational Performance of Gog Woreda Education Office, Gambella Regional state (Doctoral dissertation, Addis Ababa University).
Osman-Gani, A. M., & Hassan, Z. (2018). Impacts Of Spiritual And Cultural Intelligence On Leadership Effectiveness: A Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Islamic Management Studies, 1(2), 12-23.
Owens, B. P., Yam, K. C., Bednar, J. S., Mao, J., & Hart, D. W. (2019). The impact of leader moral humility on follower moral self-efficacy and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 146.https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000353
Rahman, A., & Ahmar, A. (2017). Relationship between learning styles and learning achievement in mathematics based on genders. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 15(1).
Razak, N. A., Pangil, F., Zin, M. L. M., Yunus, N. A. M., &Asnawi, N. H. (2016). Theories of knowledge sharing behavior in business strategy. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37(1), 545-553.
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., &Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190-203.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle&Heinle Publishers
Reiche, B. S., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M. E., &Osland, J. S. (2017). Contextualizing leadership: A typology of global leadership roles. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5), 552-572.ttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0030-3
Robinson, V., Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D., &Sinnema, C. (2020). The Quality of Leaders’ Problem-Solving Conversations: Truth-Seeking or Truth-Claiming?. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-22.https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1734627
Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with applications, 25(1), 113-122.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(03)00011-3
Sogunro, O. A. (1999). Leadership effectiveness and personality characteristics of group members. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(3), 26-40.https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199900500303
Solomon, A., & Steyn, R. (2017). Leadership style and leadership effectiveness: Does cultural intelligence moderate the relationship? Acta Commercii, 17(1), 1-13.http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ac.v17i1.453
Stewart, K. L., &Felicetti, L. A. (1992). Learning styles of marketing majors. Educational Research Quarterly, 15(2), 15-23.
Sugashwarprashanth, R.S &Thenmozhi, R (2016). Attitude towards Knowledge Sharing Behaviour. International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences, 4(11), 68-71. http://www.ijetmas.com/admin/resources/project/paper/f201611101478763276.pdf
Sutherland, J. E., Cojocariu, A. M., Day, D. M., &Hehman, E. (2020). Youths’ Facial appearance Distinguishes leaDers From Followers in group-perpetrateD criminal oFFensesanD is associateD with sentencing outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(2), 187-207.https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819889645
Sulistiyarini, D., &Sukardi, S. (2016). The influence of motivation, learning styles, teacher leadership , and teaching intensity on student’s learning outcomes. Jurnal Pendidikan Teknologi dan Kejuruan, 23(2), 136-143. https://doi.org/10.21831/jptk.v23i2.13181
Tabassi, A. A., Roufechaei, K. M., Bakar, A. H. A., & Yusof, N. A. (2017). Linking team condition and team performance: A transformational leadership approach. Project Management Journal, 48(2), 22-38.https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800203
Thomas, A. B. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance?. Administrative Science Quarterly, 388-400.https://www.jstor.org/stable/2392715
Thompson, G., &Glasø, L. (2018). Situational leadership theory: a test from a leader-follower congruence approach. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 527-544.https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0130
Torney, D. (2019). Follow the leader? Conceptualising the relationship between leaders and followers in polycentric climate governance. Environmental Politics, 28(1), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1522029
Trichandhara, K., Somrongthong, R., &Rinthaisong, I. (2019). Influence of Transformational Leadership and Public Service Motivation on Job Performance of Nurses in Thailand. Asian Social Science, 15(6).https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v15n6p59
Turesky, E.F & Gallagher, D (2011). Know thyself: Coaching for leadership using Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(1), 5-14.
Visser, V (2013). Leader Affect and Leadership Effectiveness How leader affective displays influence follower outcomes. Doctoral Thesis. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Url:
Vizeshfar, F., &Torabizadeh, C. (2018). The effect of teaching based on dominant learning style on nursing students' academic achievement. Nurse education in practice, 28, 103-108.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.10.013
Yasmeen, S., Batool, I., &Bajwa, R. S. (2020). Learning Styles and Employee Creative Behavior; An Exploration Through Cognitive Styles. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, 6(1), 43-54.https://doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v6i1.1024
Zaccaro, S. J., Green, J. P., Dubrow, S., &Kolze, M. (2018). Leader individual differences, situational parameters, and leadership outcomes: A comprehensive review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 2-43.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.10.003
Zarrabi, F. (2020). Investigating the Relationship between Learning Style and Metacognitive Listening Awareness. International Journal of Listening, 34(1), 21-33.https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1276458
