Developing Inspiring Leaders in an Oriental Culture: A
Narrative Approach
A. Shirazi1
S. Mortazavi2
Abstract
Leadership is claimed to be the core of success and failure in politics, business or personal life. The latest
focus in leadership study is to describe leaders who can inspire and transform organisation members.
Research show that while some of the leaders' characteristics are personal traits, others can be learned by
doing. Leaders actively and consciously repeat effective behaviours. They use reflection, conceptualisation
and experimentation to internalise these behaviours, including inspiring behaviours. This research focuses on
the characteristics of inspiring leadership and their learning styles.
Key Words: Inspiring Leaders, Experiential Learning, Iranian Culture, Learning Styles, Iranian Leaders
Introduction
The study of leaders' characteristics has been the subject of numerous research and
published work for more than half a century. Leaders are characterised as agent of change,
visionary, creative and achievement-oriented. Bennis (1997) argues that leader's ability and
role is primarily to create an organisational culture that is conducive of learning,
transforming and leading. Recent emphasis on learning organisation or organisational
1
2
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management Science and Economics, Ferdowsi University of Mashad, Iran
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management Science and Economics, Ferdowsi University of Mashad, Iran
learning strengthens the existence of a relationship between leadership and learning as well
as leadership and coaching (French and Bazalgette, 1996). Griffins (2002) goes one step
further by suggesting that Senge's five disciplines might just as well be called the
leadership disciplines as the learning disciplines. In other words, systems thinking, personal
mastery, mental models and building a shared vision together amount to an inspirational
call for the freedom and responsibility of leaders in making themselves. Therefore, it is
important to know how leaders learn and how effective leaders use their learning
experiences to develop themselves and others.
Inspiring leaders
Up to 1990s, leadership was defined as a process of influencing and motivating others
toward a common objective (Robbins, 1989). The study of leadership was still under the
influence of theoretical framework formulated several decades earlier by theorists and
writers such as Fiedler, Drucker and Bennis, until a new breed of thinkers in the 1990s
brought about reformulations in the natural sciences, and in particular a new thinking based
on cybernetics, systems dynamics, and chaos and complexity theory. The writings of Peter
Senge (1990), in The Fifth Discipline, and Lewin and Regine (2000), in The Soul at Work,
were a turning point in the study of organizational science and had a major impact in the
spread of concepts such as learning organization, ethics, and of course, transformational
and inspirational leadership. Hence, today we refer to leadership as the ability to inspire
confidence and gather support among the people to achieve organisational goals.
A review of literature in leadership shows a remarkable degree of overlap and commonality
in relation to leaders' styles and characteristics. For example, vision, trust, warmth and
2
eloquence are popular terms that are used to characterise charismatic or inspiring leaders
(House, 1977; Bass, 1985; Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Yukl, 1989; Shamir et al., 1993;
DuBrin, 1995; Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Whether the interest in inspiring leadership is
due to a distinct characteristics of inspiring leaders, compared to other types of leaders, or
management writers and consultants' fascination with new 'feel good' terms or fads, it is
something that only time will tell. What we can say with some certainty, as some notable
leadership scholars argue, is that motive to inspire is only one of the characteristics of
leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1990). It should be noted here that influencing process, as
used in the old definition of leadership, is achieved through communicating, motivating and
building trust. But they are also the key attributes of inspiring leaders too.
Who are the inspiring leaders? What qualities do they have that set them apart from nonleaders or other types of leaders? Conger (1991) argues that inspiring leaders can articulate
a highly emotional message. They use metaphors and analogies effectively and choose the
level of language to suit the audience. Leaders with these communication skills can offer an
exciting image of where organisation is headed and how to get there. In other words,
inspiring leaders are those who have vision(s) of the future. They can not succeed in this
unless they can inspire: 1) trust, 2) synergy, 3) emotional warmth, 4) willingness to take
personal risk, 5) personal sacrifice, 6) daring strategies and actions, and 7) commitment.
Goffee and Jones (2000) in their research found that for people to want to be led, leaders
need more than just vision, energy, authority, and strategic direction. They should inspire
their followers by 1) showing their weaknesses, 2) relying on intuition to gauge the
appropriate timing and course of action, 3) empathising with employees, and 4) revealing
3
their differences. Adair (2005) suggests that inspiring leaders are wise, fair, high spirited,
visionary, motivating and positive.
But how can inspiring leaders cater for physical, emotional and professional needs of
different people at the same time? They can't, unless they promote self confidence,
autonomy and self development in organisational matters. This requires leaders who are
able to create a working culture and environment where knowledge, skills and abilities are
transferred and permeated throughout organisation. A prerequisite for developing such an
environment is the leader's commitment to share with organisation members his or her
experiences and to inspire them to act upon what they learn.
Experiential learning and leadership
There are still many people, including some researchers and writers, who support the claim
Plato made more than 2500 years ago that 'leaders are born, not made'. Although, people
seldom question the influence of hereditary factors in forming leadership quality,
environmental factors also play a vital role in developing competencies needed to lead
effectively. Over the last fifty years, many researchers have focused on finding a
relationship between learning and leadership development. For example, learning theorists,
such as Dewey, Lewin and Kolb, suggest that there is a relationship between people's
cognitive ability, learning styles and leadership quality. Kolb (1984) argues that process
and style of learning is a reflection of people's personal preference and cognitive ability.
Furthermore, for learning to occur, it must be connected to the learner's experience (Boud,
Cohn & Walker, 1993; Keeton & Tate, 1978). Such a perceived relationship is at the core
of experiential learning theories and models.
4
One of the most influential experiential learning models is the Kolb's learning styles model.
Leaning style involves the investigation of individual differences in perceiving, knowing,
thinking and acting. Kolb (1984) in his seminal work sets out four distinct learning styles
which are based on four–stage learning cycle: 1) Concrete Experience (feeling), 2)
Reflective Observation (watching), 3) Abstract Conceptualization (thinking), and 4) Active
Experimentation (doing). He explains that concrete experiences lead to observation and
reflection. These reflections are absorbed and translated into abstract concepts that have
implications for action, which the person can actively test and experiment with, which in
turn enable the creation of new experiences. Kolb uses this learning cycle to derive fourtype definition of learning styles: 1) Diverging, 2) Assimilation, 3) Converging, and 4)
Accommodating. Table 1 shows the construction of Kolb's learning style in terms of a twoby-two matrix:
Place Table 1 here
Based upon the model, as described above, Kolb developed an instrument to measure
learning style: the Learning Style Inventory or LSI (Kolb, 1976; Kolb, 1985). The model
and its instrument have been popular and the subject of many studies. The instrument,
however, has produced mixed results. It is considered to possess strong face validity and
intuitive appeal (Cornwell et al., 1991; Veres et al., 1991), and the internal consistency of
the scales is reported to be acceptable (Sims et al., 1986 and Willcoxson and Prosser,
5
1996). On the other hand, Cornwell and Manfredo, (1994) and Hayes and Allinson (1997)
question the model's validity, mainly because the scale is ipsative (it asks respondents to
rank rather than rate items). Later, Honey and Mumford (1986) developed a Learning Style
Questionnaire which had much in common with the Kolb's work and had strong
correlations with the learning cycle.
The Kolb's learning style model allows a person to be oriented according to the preferred
method. Form an organisational perspective, the model may be used in selecting individual
to match predefined characteristics or competencies required for different types of jobs,
including managerial and leadership jobs (Sims, 1983; Shirazi, 2000).
Research and clinical observation have shown behavioural patterns that are consistent with
different approach to learning (Kolb, 1984). For example, people who prefer diverging
learning style (feeling and watching) are sensitive, listen with an open mind, gather
information and use imagination to solve problems. They perform better in situations that
call for generation of ideas such as brainstorming session. The assimilation learning
preference (watching and thinking) is for a concise and logical approach. People with this
learning orientation prefer reading, lectures, exploring analytical models and having time to
think things through. Individuals with a converging learning style preference (thinking and
doing) prefer technical tasks, are less concerned with people and interpersonal aspects of
work, and like to experiment with new ideas. They are best at finding practical uses for
ideas and theories. Finally, the accommodation learning style (feeling and doing) relies on
intuition rather than logic. They prefer to use other people's analysis, prefer to take a
practical and experiential approach. They prefer to work in teams to complete tasks, set
targets and actively work in the field trying different ways to achieve an objective.
6
Hence, research that aims to investigate people's preferred learning styles is instrumental in
identifying suitable candidates for specific jobs, including leadership jobs.
Iran
This paper explores the key characteristics that are associated with inspiring leaders in Iran,
a country with a long history and strong culture. Iran has been undergoing tremendous
changes over the last quarter of a century. Its traditional economic base is gradually shifting
from agriculture and trade to industry and services. The State owned enterprises dominate
major economic activities in the country and constitute 80% of the national economy
(Asian Productivity Organisation, 2001). In recent years, support to accelerate the pace of
decentralisation and privatisation to remedy the inefficiency of central control has gained
momentum (Derakhshan and Mehrara, 2004; Behkish, 2002). However, decision to
delegate responsibility in traditional cultures is a complex and difficult proposition for
several reasons. First, key and influential people in the government are often reluctant to
relinquish power and influence they hold over distribution of resources and job
appointments. Second, interest groups in and outside of government circle oppose, on an
ideological or political ground, major changes in the structure of the government and axes
of power. Third, and perhaps the key concern, is the shortage of supply of quality
individuals to manage what has been decentralised or privatised. In other words, policy
makers are concerned that there may not be sufficient supply of politically 'correct' people
in or outside government to lead such a transformation. Therefore, the concept of in-group,
as described in the leader-member exchange theory (Graen et al., 1982), is a prevalent
phenomenon in Iran. Although, Graen and his associates identify time pressure as a primary
7
reason for forming in-group, leaders tend to use it as a mechanism to reduce the need for
control, to avoid trial and error, and to insure jobs get done. From outsiders' perspective,
this is nothing but cronyism, 'job for boys' or outright corruption.
Leadership research in Iran
Leadership is considered a highly important concept in the politics and religion of Iranians.
Numerous books and articles are published on leadership annually, mostly in describing
quality and characteristics of Iranian political and religious leaders of the past and present.
However, these writings are based on authors' religious beliefs and conviction, not
scientific research.
Leadership research, as a field of enquiry in Iran, is relatively new, sparse and fragmented.
Many, if not most, leadership research in Iran is centered on leadership styles in educational
settings. Case study is the dominant form of research in manufacturing and service sectors.
Although, the lack of systematic study of leadership is not uncommon in most developing
countries (Chen and Veslor, 1996), it needs a particular attention in Iran for two reasons.
First, as was mentioned previously, leadership is a fundamental concept in political and
spiritual life of Iranians. Second, leadership research in Iran has the potential to produce
some unconventional and hence interesting results. For example, Mirepasi and Shekari
(2003) in search of the relationship between organisational culture and effective leadership
styles found that this relationship is not strong enough to justify the validity of western
leadership models in Iran. The study identified a new leadership style, called 'covering
style', which is greatly influenced by political culture of organisations in the country,
particularly in public organisations in which the only way to survive and to advance is to
8
adhere to dominant political ideology and/or to know powerful people. Such political and
cultural differences highlight the importance of Handy's 'Theory of Cultural Propriety'.
Handy (1997) argues that we should find suitable approaches when applying general
principals in different situations. Similarly, Hofstede (1980) compares Japan and Iran in
respect to the adoption of western styles of leadership and argues that 'attempts to transfer
leadership skills, which do not take the values of subordinates into account, have little
chance of success'. Dismissing deeply rooted cultural traditions, value systems and beliefs
of the Iranians is considered one of the main reasons for the failure of the Pahlavi's regime
modernisation and development efforts.
Several research in educational settings have shown that relation-oriented leadership style
is positively correlated to teachers' satisfaction (Abdollahi, 1996). Ghani (1994) found
participative leadership style is related to teachers' performance. Ghezelbash (1995) and
Ghaeeni (1999), in two separate studies, found that most school administrators use relationoriented leadership style. Mortazavi et al. (2006) found that managers in automobile and
food processing industry demonstrate the attributes of transformational leadership. The
analysis also showed that transformational leadership and emotional intelligence are
positively correlated.
Another source of leadership literature in Iran is the writings of western researchers and
authors (Forbis, 1980; Hofstede, 1980), and Iranian academics and analysts living abroad
(Javidan, 1996; Dastmalchian et al, 2001). Hofstede (1980) in an attempt to identify
differences in the way people in different countries perceive and interpret their world,
compared 50 countries in terms of four fundamental dimensions: individualism, power
distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity. Interestingly, Iran scored in the middle
9
range of all four dimensions; a unique ranking among the countries under study. It may be
deduced from the findings that the national culture conditions Iranians to think and behave
in moderation. In a similar research project, Javidan and House (2001) found that Iran
scored the highest among 62 countries on in-group collectivism; the importance of being a
member of a family and a close group of friends. However, as research on various cultures
has revealed, movements from rural areas and agricultural cultures to urban centres and
industrial cultures result in rise in individualism (Triandis et al., 1990) and a desire for
change (Dastmalchian, et al., 2001). Such a trend is taken place in all developing countries,
including Iran.
Javidan and Carl (2004) in a comparative study of charismatic leadership among Canadians
and Iranians found that Iranian executives ratings on profile of vision, tenacity, intellectual
challenge, self-sacrifice and eloquence are significantly lower than their Canadian
counterparts. They speculated that while the differences are due to cultural differences, the
similarities may be due to universal intrinsic human desire for morality, autonomy and
achievement.
Finally, Dastmalchian et al. (2001) used the data collected in GLOBE project to identify
leadership attributes in Iran. They duplicated and expanded Hofstede's (1980) work and
found that in terms of the leadership, the results showed seven scales: supportive,
dictatorial, planner, familial, humble, faithful and receptive. The authors argue that while
supportive and dictatorial factors are aspects of leadership that are universally accepted, the
remaining five leadership factors have more of a historical root and can be linked to the role
of family and religion, particularly Zoroastrian and Islam, in the long history of Iran. They
cite Mackey (1996) who suggest that 'In the Iranian concept of leadership, a leader
10
possesses charisma because he [she] is endowed with supernatural powers, or at least
exceptional qualities, that set him apart from ordinary humans'. Although, this conclusion
may be true of ancient Persians, modern Iranians are not swayed only by charisma of their
leaders. Based on historical accounts, it may be proposed that Iranians accept or tolerate the
authoritative styles of charismatic leaders, only if they can be seen to act on the national
interests. In other words, instead of charisma resulting in effective leadership, the reverse
may be true. People who are outstanding leaders are granted charisma (perceived as
charismatic) by their constituents as a result of their success (Bennis and Nanus, 1985)
Our conclusion form reviewing leadership research in Iran is that the dominant leadership
styles and characteristics tend to favour relationship, participation and involvement.
Furthermore, Globalisation and recent social and business changes in the country have
affected Iranian leaders' perception of change and the need for adjustment and adaptation.
Hence, we speculate that as the pace of change in Iran accelerates, leaders will adopt styles
and behaviours that are associated more with visionary, transformational and inspiring
leadership.
Research methodology
Instruments
In understanding the learning styles of inspiring leaders, two steps were taken. First we
designed a 37 items Inspiring Leadership Survey Questionnaire (ILSQ) that included six
variables: 1) belief in followers, 2) encouraging followers' participation, 3) walk the talk, 4)
interpersonal skills, 5) building trust, and 6) recognition (see Appendix 1). A 4 point Likert
11
scale was used to determine the extent of agreement or disagreement with each item (4=
strongly agreed, 3=agreed, 2=disagreed, 1=strongly disagreed). The instrument was
submitted to a sample of employees in a large power generation company to rate their boss.
We used judgmental sampling in our study, as the participants were deliberately selected on
the strength of their experience and knowledge of phenomena under study (Kervin, 1992;
Sekaran, 1992). We applied Cronbach's alpha test to determine the ILSQ reliability. The
results showed very good internal consistency reliability (Table 2):
Place Table 2 here
The individuals with the highest scores on the ILSQ were selected as our target population,
ie. inspiring leaders and were invited to participate in our study.
Second, we used a Learning Style Inventory Questionnaire (LSIQ), based on the Kolb's
model (Lamberski, 2002) and submitted it to our target population. The average respondent
was male (84%), 43.5 years old, with a postgraduate degree. The LSIQ's items was divided
into two groups, each relating to an individual's preference for abstractness over
concreteness (AC-CE) and action over reflection (AE-RO). Respondents were asked to
divide a score of 10 between two elements of each dimension so that the sum of scores adds
up to 10. Table 3 shows Cronbach's alpha for each learning style preference:
12
Place Table 3 here
The results showed good internal consistency reliability, as found in other studies (Weirstra
and DeJong, 2002; Curry, 1987).
Results
Total mean score for six variables on the ILSQ ranged from 3.56 to 3.71. Total mean and
standard deviation for the inspiring leadership were 3.65 and 0.35 respectively (Table 4).
Place Table 4 here
13
Interestingly, female employees' scores were lower than those of their male counterparts,
suggesting somewhat different perceptions of leadership qualities among males and
females. However, Mann-Whitney test at 5% significant level showed no meaningful
difference between male and female leaders.
As for the preferred learning styles of 6 inspiring leaders in our sample, we added
respondents' scores assigned to four learning orientation: Concrete Experience (A),
Abstract Conceptualisation (B), Active Experimentation (C) and Reflective Observation
(D). Total score for each learning orientation was calculated. We then compared A and B
scores and C and D scores separately. We chose the higher score between each pair and
located the respondent's preferred learning style on an AB-CD axis (Figure 1).
Place Figure 1 here
14
Learning orientation scores and preferred learning styles for each leader are shown in Table
5.
Place Table 5 here
We performed Kruskal Wallis test at 5% significant level to investigate whether there was a
difference between total mean of inspiring leaders' scores and their learning styles. The
results showed that there was a meaningful difference between leaders' belief in followers
(=0.0270.05) and leaders' do as say (=0.0330.05) and their preferred learning styles.
Discussion and conclusion
Our research methodology, based on judgmental sampling and case study, limits us to
generalise the results. The current research, however, is unique in its kind, as to our
knowledge, no other study to this time has explored the Iranian leaders' preferred learning
styles. The results showed significant agreements with existing research findings in
leadership and learning styles literature. For example, our findings showed that our sample
of inspiring leaders encourage participation (Department of Trade and Industry, 2003;
15
Bilchik, 2001; Ghani, 1994), have good interpersonal skills (Adair, 2005; Ghezelbash,
1995) and empathise with employees (Goffee and Jones, 2000). Furthermore, the results
showed that accommodating is a dominant learning style among our sample of inspiring
leaders (Kolb, 1984; Sims, 1983).
Our study revealed some interesting results that may be related to Iranians' cultural
characteristics or respondents' personal background. For example, we believe that Iranian
employees' attraction to leaders who are credible and trustworthy is primarily due to a
succession of ineffective regimes and rulers. In fact, untrustworthy and unaccountable
leaders have been the main cause of many upheavals and two revolutions in Iran over the
last 200 years. Today, Iranians are in a critical and transitional period of their history: from
a traditional society ruled by autocratic and unaccountable leaders to a modern society led
by transformational and inspiring leaders.
Our research findings also highlight the importance of researchers' objectivity in
conducting research, particularly in human and social science fields. We believe that some
of the speculative assumptions made about cultural characteristics of societies are not based
on hard data. Some are even discriminative. For example, Hofstede (1980), and Javidan and
Carl (2004) viewed power distance as an important determinant of leadership styles; high
power distance cultures prefer dictatorial leadership. They concluded Iranians with a score
of 58 on Power Distance Index (PDI) prefer dictatorial and directive style of leadership.
However, Hofstede's research also showed that some European countries such as France,
Belgium and Greece scored 68, 65 and 60 respectively on the same index (Hofstede, 1980).
Does it mean that French, Belgians and Greeks prefer dictatorial leaders? Our research
findings question the reliability of PDI as an evidence for classification of leadership styles
16
in different cultures. Respondents in our study indicated a strong preference for
participatory leadership and a desire to be led by someone who values their ideas and
suggestions, and recognise their efforts and good performance. In fact, Iranians' desire to be
involved in decision making was a fundamental reason which led to the Iran's Islamic
revolution in 1979 (Habibi and Amirshahi, 2000).
Our sample population of leaders mainly came from a technical background, particularly
engineering. People with science and technology background tend to be logical and
analytical and therefore prefer assimilating learning style (Kolb, 1984). Therefore, it may
not come as a surprise that a third of our leaders prefer assimilating style of learning. Those
leaders who preferred accommodating learning style held positions in personnel and
training; jobs that require a high degree of human interaction and teamwork. It is interesting
to note that the engineers who had obtained a postgraduate degree in management (eg.
MBA) preferred accommodating learning style. This may suggest that leadership can be
learned and formal education and training is an effective way to alter people's attitude and
behaviours and prepare them for leadership role.
We suggest that future research should focus more on measuring leadership performance
against learning orientation and styles, and compare the relationship between different
types of leadership and learning styles. The findings may put at rest the criticisms laid
against many research that assume inspiring leaders differ from other types of leaders.
References
17
Abdollahi, B. (1996). (in Farsi) A study of teachers' views on leadership styles of school
administrators and its relationship with teachers' satisfaction in Aligodarz. M.A.
dissertation, University of Tehran, Tehran.
Adair, J. (2005). The inspirational leader: How to motivate, encourage and achieve success.
Kogan Page.
Asian Productivity Organisation (2001). Public sector productivity enhancement: Strategies
programs and critical factors. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organisation.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond expectations. New York: the Free
Press.
Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio (1990). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, Ca:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Behkish, M. M. (2002). Iran's economy and globalisation. Tehran: Nay Publication.
Bennis, W. G. (1997). Leader to Leader. Leader to Leader Institute Publication & JosseyBass.
Bennis, W. G. and G. Nanus (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking change. New York:
Harper and Row.
Bilchik, G. S. (2001). Leaders who inspire. Health Forum Journal, v.44, n.2.
Boud, D., Cohen, R. and D. Walker (1993). Introduction: Understanding learning from
experience. In D. Boud, R. Cohen and D. Walker (Eds.). Using experience for
learning. Buckingham, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education and
open University Press.
18
Chen and Veslor (1996). In: Dastmalchian, A., M. Javidan and K. Alam. Effective
leadership and culture in Iran: An empirical study. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, v.50, n.4, pp.532-558.
Conger, A. J. (1991). Inspiring others: the language of leadership. The Executive, February,
p.39.
Conger, J. A. and R. A. Kanungo (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizational settings.
Academy of Management Review, v.12, pp.637-647.
Cornwell, J. M. and P. A. Manfredo (1994). Kolb's learning style theory revisited.
Educational and Psychological Measurement. V.42, n.2, pp.317-328.
Cornwell, J. M., P. A. Manfredo and W. P. Dunlap (1991). Factor analysis of the 1985
revision of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, v.54, n.2, pp.317-327.
Curry, L. (1987). Integrating concepts of cognitive or learning style: A review with
attention to psychometric standards. Ottawa: Canadian College of Health Executives.
Dastmalchian, A., M. Javidan and K. Alam (2001). Effective leadership and culture in Iran:
An empirical study. Applied Psychology: An International Review, v.50, n.4, pp.532558.
Department of Trade and Industry (2003). Competing in the global economy.: The
innovation challenge. UK: Department of Trade and Industry.
Derakhshan, M. and M. Mehara (2004). Iranian economy: Problems and politics. (Eds.),
Tehran: Parliament Research Centre Publication.
DuBrin, A. J. (1995). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. Houghton Mifflin
Company.
19
Forbis, W. H. (1980). The fall of the peacock throne: The story of Iran. New York: Harper
and Row.
French, R. and Bazalgette, J. (1996). From learning organisation to teacher-learning
organisation? Management Learning, v.27, n.1, pp.113-128.
Ghaeeni, S. (1999). Relationship between the leadership styles and organization situation in
secondary schools. Unpublished dissertation, Ferdowsi University of Mashad.
Ghani, S. (1994). (in Farsi). An investigation of relationship between leadership style of
school administrators and teachers' satisfaction and performance at Junior High
Schools in Ahvaz. M.A. dissertation, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz.
Ghezelbash, M. (1995). An investigation of relationship between teachers' views on
relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership styles of school administrators and
students' academic progress in the 15th school district. Tehran: Educational Research
Council.
Goffee, R. and G. Jones (2000). Why should anyone be led by you? Harvard Business
Review, September-October, pp.63-70.
Graen, G., M. Novak and P. Sommerkamp (1982). The effects of leaders-member exchange
and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model.
Organisational Behaviour and human performance, August, pp.109-131.
Griffins, D. (2002). The emergence of leadership: Linking self-organisation and ethics.
London: Routledge.
Habibi, M. and M. Amirshahi (2000). Key cultural factors in management and productivity:
Case studies in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
20
Handy, C. (1997). Gods of management: The changing work of organizations. Oxford
University Press.
Hayes, J. and C. W. Allinson (1997). Learning Styles and Training and development in
work. Education Psychology, v.17, n.1/2, pp.185-192.
Honey, P. and A. Mumford (1986). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead, Berkshire:
Peter Honey Publication.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work related
values. Beverley Hills: Sage.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In: J. G. Hunt and L. L.
Lawson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Javidan, M. (1996). Vision and inspiration: A study of Iranian executives. Journal of
Transnational Management Development, v. 2, n. 2. pp.69-85.
Javidan, M. and D. E. Carl (2004). East meets West: A cross-cultural comparison of
charismatic leadership among Canadian and Iranian Executives. Journal of
Management Studies, v.41, n.4, pp.665-691.
Javidan, M. and R. J. House (2001). Cultural acumen for the global manager: Lessons from
project GLOBE. Organisational Dynamics, v.29, n.4, pp.289-305.
Keeton, M. and P. Tate (1978). Editor's notes: The boom in experiential learning. In: M.
Keeton and P. Tate (Eds.), Learning by experience – what, why and how. San
Francisco: Jossey – Bass.
Kervin, J. B. (1992). Methods for business research. HarperCollins Publishers.
21
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory: Technical manual. Boston: McBer and
Company.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer and Company.
Lamberski, R. J. (2002). Kolb Learning Style Inventory. Indiana University of
Pennsylvania.
Lewin, R. and B. Regine (2000). The Soul at Work, London: Orion Business Books.
Mackey, J. (2001). In: Effective leadership and culture in Iran: An empirical study. A.
Dastmalchian,, M. Javidan and K. Alam. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, v.50, n.4, pp.532-558.
Mirsepasi, N. and G. A. Shekari (2003). An investigation of relationship between
organizational culture and leadership style effectiveness. Quarterly Journal of
Economics and Management, Spring, v.56, 5-18.
Mortazavi, S., S. Nazemi and S. Mahmoodi (2006). (in Farsi and in press). A study of
relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership style (transformational vs.
transactional). Journal of Modaerrs, University of Tarbiat Modarres, Spring.
Robbins, S. P. (1989). Organisational behaviour. Prentice-Hall.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation.
New York: Doubleday.
Sekaran, U. (1992). Research methods for business. (2nd ed.), John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Shamir, B., R. J. House and M. B. Arthur (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organisational Science, v.4, pp.577-594.
22
Shirazi, A. (2000). Perceptions of effective managerial performance in the 21st century.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
Sims, R. R. (1983). Kolb's experiential learning theory: A framework for assessing person –
job Interaction. Academy of Management Review, pp.501-508.
Sims, R. R., J. G. Veres, P. Watson and K. Buckner (1986). The reliability and
classification stability of the Learning Style Inventory. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, v.46, n.2, pp.753-761.
Triandis, H. C.; C. McCusker and C. H. Hui (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism
and collectivism, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. V.59, n.5, pp.10061020.
Veres III, J. G., R. R. Sims and T. S. Locklear (1991). Improving the reliability of Kolb's
revised style inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, v.51, n.1,
pp.143-150.
Weirstra, R. E. and J. A. DeJong (2002). A scaling theoretical evaluation of Kolb's learning
style. Inventory-2. In: M. Valcke and D. Gombeir (Eds.), Learning styles: reliability
and validity, pp.431-440. Proceedings of the seventh annual European Learning Styles
Information Network, June, Ghent: University of Ghent, Belgium.
Willcoxson, L. and M. Prosser (1996). Kolb's Learning Style Inventory (1985): Review and
further study of validity and reliability. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
v.66, n.2, pp.247-257.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of
Management, v.15, n.2, pp.251-289.
23
Appendix 1
Leadership Questionnaire
Instruction:
Please place a cross (X) in the selected box to rate your boss on each of the following items.
Confidentiality of responses is assured.
No
Rating
Item
Strongly
Disagree
Belief in Followers
24
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
2
3
4
5
values everyone's job and position.
does not believe that only a few people are capable of performing tasks well.
considers everyone to be important in achieving organisation's objectives.
believes that high performance is a combination of heart-felt commitment and mental/physical activity.
believes that everyone is capable of performing beyond normal expectations.
Participative Leadership
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
pays a particular attention to people's ideas and suggestions.
creates a climate that everyone could realise his/her maximum ability and potential.
is proactive in securing resources to support plans and ideas.
acts as if no one (or unit) is separate form other people (or units).
creates a climate that encourages people to exchange information/ideas.
enhances feeling of commitment/belongingness by clarifying organisation's vision/plans.
believes that group participation is essential for continuous innovation/flexibility and acts accordingly.
acts as if everyone knows where (s)he stands in organisation/what effects they have on its performance.
Do as Say
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Strongly
Disagree
is committed to help employees realise their potential.
is energetic and hard working.
is brave and daring in facing problems.
tries to convince people that every person could do the impossibles.
does not think to be separate/different from employees.
shows commitment to ethical standards.
direct employees' attention not only to their professional advancement but also organisation success.
acts in such a way that encourages others to do big/difficult tasks.
Continue………..
No
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Interpersonal Skills
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
creates a motivating and pleasant work environment.
listen carefully to others.
shows interest in others by talking with them.
is not indifferent about employees' behaviour/provides feedback.
he follows an open door policy and doesn't hide him(her)self from others.
is able to put himself in other people's position and see things from their perspective.
is considerate of employees and their problems.
Building Trust
29
30
31
32
Strongly
Disagree
values employees' independence in performing their job.
interacts with employees as if they are his/her partners.
encourages employees to make decisions in their day-to-day job.
assures everyone that employees value the organisation's interests as their own interest.
25
Strongly
Disagree
Recognition
33
34
35
36
37
Disagree
Agree
personally thanks employees for good performance/behaviour.
values recognition and appreciation of employees/others.
credits people for their good work/behaviour by mentioning it at meetings, lectures or internal newsletters.
shows personal interests in people's career advancement and job promotion.
recognises everyone who tries its best and contributes to the organisation's performance.
Comments……………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………....................
26
Strongly
Agree
Learning
Orientation
Doing
(AE)
Watching
(RO)
Feeling (CE)
Accommodating
Diverging
Converging
Assimilating
Thinking (AC)
Table 1: A Matrix of Kolb's Learning Styles
27
Variable
Belief in followers
Encouraging followers' participation
Walk the talk
Interpersonal skills
Building trust
Recognition
Inspiring leadership
Alpha
Coefficient
0.8112
0.839
0.8806
0.7537
0.8009
0.922
0.9664
Table 2. Internal Consistency Alphas for the ILSQ
28
Learning Preference
Alpha
Coefficient
CE
0.75
AC
0.75
AE
0.86
RO
0.86
Table 3. Internal Consistency Alphas for the Learning Style Inventory
29
Leader
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Statistical
Test
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
Std. Deviation
Belief in
Followers
Participative
Leadership
Do as
Say
Interpersonal
Skills
Building
Trust
Recognition
Inspiring
Leadership
3.2
0.2
3.73
3.5
0.43
3.75
3.54
0.29
3.83
3.52
0.5
3.86
3.25
0.5
4
3.47
0.5
3.93
3.44
0.39
3.84
0.31
3.6
0.4
4
0
3.8
0.2
3
0.2
0.22
3.67
0.47
3.88
0
3.88
0.13
3.13
0
0.19
3.83
0.29
4
0
3.88
0.13
2.96
0.07
0.25
3.76
0.41
3.9
0.16
3.76
0.08
3.43
0.14
0
3.58
0.38
3.92
0.14
3.83
0.29
3.33
0.52
0.12
3.6
0.35
4
0
3.87
0.23
2.87
0.12
0.17
3.7
0.36
3.95
0.03
3.84
0.1
3.12
0.06
3.56
0.41
3.63
0.36
3.67
0.39
3.71
0.31
3.65
0.42
3.62
0.46
3.65
3.5
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations
30
Table 5. Learning orientation and preferred learning styles
Leader
1
2
3
4
5
6
A
41
29
36
37
27
28
B
19
31
24
23
33
42
C
46
31
44
37
29
36
D
16
29
16
23
31
24
Orientation
AC
BD
AC
AC
BD
BC
31
Learning Style
Accommodating
Assimilating
Accommodating
Accommodating
Assimilating
Converging
A
(CE)
Accommodating
Diverging
D
(RO)
C
(AE)
Converging
Assimilating
(AC)
B
Figure 1. Kolb's four learning orientations and styles
32