Linking transformational leadership and individual learning behavior: Role of psychological safety and uncertainty avoidance

Zaman, Umer; Abbasi, Maha Article Linking transformational leadership and individual learning behavior: Role of psychological safety and uncertainty avoidance Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) Provided in Cooperation with: Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK) Suggested Citation: Zaman, Umer; Abbasi, Maha (2020) : Linking transformational leadership and individual learning behavior: Role of psychological safety and uncertainty avoidance, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp. 167-201 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/216869 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 2020, Vol. 14 (1), 167-201 Pak J Commer Soc Sci Linking Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior: Role of Psychological Safety and Uncertainty Avoidance Umer Zaman (Corresponding author) Endicott College of International Studies, Woosong University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea Email: [email protected] Maha Abbasi Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan Email: [email protected] Abstract The personal learning cloud is reshaping companies across industries despite the vast gap in the locus of knowledge acquisition and locus of knowledge application. While knowledge and best practices become moving targets, the modern-organizations have swiftly moved to psychological safety culture that fosters growth, innovation and individual learning. In context, transformational leadership fosters innovative behaviors and learning abilities, successful organizational transformations and effective actions for performance beyond expectations. Hence, the study aims is to examine the impact of transformational leadership on individual learning behavior, under mediating conditions of psychological safety and moderating influence of uncertainty avoidance. Using partial least squares (PLS) based structural equation modeling (SEM) and survey of 350 telecom-employees, the results reveal that transformational leadership and individual learning behavior relationship is partially mediated by psychological safety. Alternatively, uncertainty avoidance reveals an insignificant role as a moderator. Our findings generate managerial implications for advancing individual learning cultures and guiding continuous improvements in diverse work settings. In line with the theoretical base of “too much of a good thing (TMGT) effect”, our study highlights potential avenues for future research to explore the dark side of psychological safety and its counter-productive effect on workplace behaviors. Keywords Transformational leadership, individual learning behavior, uncertainty avoidance, psychological safety, telecom sector and Pakistan. 1. Introduction Modern organizations in the increasingly dynamic and competitive environment gain success by some major breakthroughs in developmental advancements relying upon continuous improvement, learning, innovation and effective leadership. As the innovative capacity of organizational processes remain marginal (Mastio, 2019; Mendenhall et al., 2017; Örtenblad, 2018), the organizational learning behavior becomes crucial in advancing systematic process to adapt to environmental threats and sustain competitive position (Ocasio et al., 2020). Moreover, the learning process is considered to have Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 168 fruitful effect on organizational performance despite its challenging and tough nature (Mastio, 2019; Ocasio et al., 2020). However, in order to stay abreast of changing market trends and technological revolution, learning behavior is vital for organizations (Ocasio et al., 2020). The worldwide telecommunication industry has stayed remarkable throughout the most recent decade, basically as a result of technical and industrial advancements and emerging demand of android phones. Similarly, the telecommunication industry of Pakistan has also developed due to easing trade and investment, vigorous competition and friendly policies. The economy of Pakistan has grossed monetary, economic and societal reimbursements from the telecommunication sector during the last decade. As of December 2019, the telecom sector in Pakistan has achieved a customer base of subscribers for cellular services (165 million), 3G/4G services (76 million), basic telephony (3 million) and broadband services (78 million) respectively. As the Pakistani telecom industry has transitioned from a stateowned regulated monopoly to a much deregulated and competitive telecom structure, it had recently attracted US$ 288 Million of foreign direct investments (PTA, 2019). Despite showing significant growth figures, the telecom infrastructure in Pakistan has not maintained a fair economic growth due to the inconsistent learning behavior and uncertain avoidance culture (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Imtiaz et al., 2015; Lawrie et al., 2020). In dynamic organizational conditions, transformational leadership emerges as an effective leadership style for fostering change (Zaman et al., 2019b) and to stimulate learning in which the conventionality is challenged (Vera & Crossan, 2004). If the managers aim for their employees to progress and accomplish their mission, they first help them in attaining new information pertinent to the needs and integrate them within their processes and operations. Hence, the constant need for change and development has evolved attention in the area of organizational learning (Kumar & Ganesh, 2011; Mastio, 2019; Örtenblad, 2018). In the context of Pakistan, due to the culture of dictatorship and prevalence of anxiety and stress, the tolerance towards negative behavior, conflict and resentment is high. Uncertainty avoidance is fairly related to psychological safety owing to the focus on uncertainty, tolerance, threat and challenging status quo (Frazier et al., 2017). A culture having high uncertainty avoidance often has a counter effect on work related outcomes and psychological safety as compared to low uncertainty avoidance culture (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Sherf et al., 2020). A culture with high uncertainty avoidance shows inclination towards formal rules and instructions (Hofstede, 2001). Psychological safety has also gained significant interest by scholars and practitioners (Yin et al., 2019) as it permits employee “to feel safe at work in order to grow, learn, Zaman & Abbasi 169 contribute, and perform effectively in a rapidly changing world” (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Regardless of the increasing support and experimental work for investigating psychological safety at work (Zeng et al., 2020), the concept has still received limited attention and some significant questions are yet to be explored for further understanding the effect of psychological safety (Sherf et al., 2020). Hence, there is a need to fill the gap by addressing the shortcomings and extend the existing research on the construct of psychological safety. Therefore, current research investigates the impact of transformational leadership and uncertainty avoidance on individual learning behavior under mediating conditions of psychological safety. Moreover, it is vital for telecommunication sector to flourish the concept of psychological safety in the workplace (Zeng et al., 2020), to capture an environment and culture of continuous learning and information sharing, that encourages organizations to maintain core competencies and outperform as a learning organization (Mastio, 2019; Mendenhall et al., 2017; Örtenblad, 2018). 2. Literature Review 2.1 Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership has been initially defined by Bass (1990). Idealized influence or charisma is the first factor in the definition by Bass for explaining transformational leadership. It means leaders act as role models for their followers and they have high ethical standards and moral conduct. The second factor is inspirational motivation that describes communication of a shared vision and motivation to the followers for their own self-development and organizational growth. The third factor is intellectual stimulation that encourages innovation and creativity amongst followers. It is an element that initiates reasoning and vigilant problem solving with the help of the transformational leader. The fourth factor of transformational leadership is individualized consideration. In this role the leaders acting as mentors, coach and advisors, they pay special emphasis towards the follower’s personal needs (MacKenzie et al., 2001, Zaman et al., 2019b). It is argued that the transformational leadership style is distinct from other typical leadership paradigms (Kim et al., 2019; Zaman, 2020). The transformational leaders belong to the heroic or charismatic leadership paradigm, hence they exhibit qualities such as ethical standards, change agents, motivators, charismatic, and compassionate (Zaman et al., 2019b; Zaman et al., 2020). The transformational leaders are recognized for their Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 170 unique traits and tactics other than the transactional leadership style that is merely based on exchange relationship with their followers (Zaman, 2020; Zaman et al., 2020). According to Bennis and Nanus (1985), the transformational leaders can be identified and differentiated on the basis of four features. First, they possess clear vision and mission. Second, for facilitating the change process they have effective communication skills. Third, they are consistent in their attitude and behaviors, hence, resulting in winning the trust and respect from their followers. Lastly, they have a high degree of self-efficacy and self-awareness (Zaman et al., 2020). 2.2 Psychological Safety Schein and Bennis (1965) pioneered the psychological safety concept and defined it as a complex part of the unfreezing process that is essential for organizational learning and change. The authors suggested that psychological safety diminishes fear perceptions, eliminate obstacles to change, encourages provisional ties and create tolerance towards failure without fear of guilt, renunciation or retaliation (Schein and Bennis, 1965). Other studies defined psychological safety as the feeling of showing one's self without fearing negative consequences towards career, self-image and status (Kahn, 1990). As viewed by Edmondson (1999), psychological safety plays a central role in activating learning within organizations at both individual and group levels. At the group level, psychological safety is a source of providing support and healthy climate that results in improving innovation and creativity within entire team. In the environment of psychosocial safety, the individuals feel safe, fearless, and they are encouraged for recognizing their capabilities and unique skills (Cannon and Edmondson 2001). Psychological safety activates reflection, cognitive and unique thinking abilities within group and individuals that lead to better performance, learning behavior and outcomes (Edmondson, 1999; West 1996). 2.3 Individual Learning Behavior Learning behaviors in organizations is referred as a process of, “regularly pursuing new information, speaking up to assess the strength of work assumptions and allocating time in figuring out ways to advance work processes along with capturing the enduring process of reflection and action (Edmondson, 1999) through which knowledge is assimilated, shared and combined” (Argote, 1999; Argote et al., 2001). When the management of human resource started receiving scholarly attention, the first thing established regarding workforce development was employee behavior in an organization and leadership response. The perspective was to make the organization a learning organization, and for this process the two important factors are the individual approach Zaman & Abbasi 171 towards learning and the other is organizational level learning (Schweder, 2020; Yadin & Or-Bach, 2019). Distinct focus is required for learning at individual level as it is the social factor which is affected by its surroundings and culture. This approach fosters learning, information seeking behavior, knowledge simulation, improvement and advancement of work processes at the individual level (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Cook & Yanow, 1993; Kolb, 2001; Senge, 2006). Along with the individual learning, organizational learning and its importance was another important factor which was debated during the primary phase of development. It was the idea that learning should be at organizational level, and for that organizational learning systems should be established and strengthened (Cook & Yanow, 1993; Schweder, 2020; Senge, 2006; Yadin & OrBach, 2019). 2.4 Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty avoidance involves the degree of individuals’ feelings about being fearful of complex, unknown and/or uncertain situations” (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Patterson & Smith, 2001; Lawrie et al., 2020). The concept of uncertainty is based upon “a situation in which anything can happen to anyone and one cannot predict or control it” (Hofstede, 2001). Among all other Hofstede’s cultural dimensions such as power distance, collectivism, and masculinity, the uncertainty avoidance culture has gained recognition by scholars and academicians (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Lawrie et al., 2020; Wang, 2018; Watts et al., 2020). The scope of uncertainty avoidance as a moderator is highly significant pertaining to cross-cultural research (Liu et al., 2010). Key features of culture having high level of uncertainty avoidance are; (1) less common voice behaviors among employee, (2) low flexibility and more inclination towards formal rules and work schedules, (3) experimentation or creativity is less common, and (4) people are less engaged in seeking information, and learning at their own (Lawrie et al., 2020; Wang, 2018; Watts et al., 2020). Therefore, the social costs of speaking out, challenging the status quo, risk taking are high (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Friedman et al., 2006; Watts et al., 2020). 2.5 Theoretical Gap Various research attempts have been made to examine outcomes pertaining to organization, team, and individuals in attitudinal, behavioral and emotional dimensions (e.g. work engagement, organizational commitment, employee motivation, organizational learning, organization citizenship behavior, and organizational performance). However, the role of individual learning has been marginalized as an outcome of leadership Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 172 behavior and psychological safety (Chamberlin et al., 2017). Hence, the present study focuses on exploring the behavioral dimension such as individual learning behavior as a criterion variable in relation with transformational leadership and psychological safety. Moreover, another important contribution of the current research is studying the role of uncertainty avoidance in the context of Pakistan’s telecom sector. As the people tend to show high uncertainty avoidance, hence, it is another significant gap in the literature of leadership and psychological safety (Pacheco et al., 2015). A meta-analysis carried out by Frazier et al. (2017) provided a psychological safety comprehensive assessment, involving antecedents and outcomes. The findings provide preliminary support regarding the role of culture in psychological safety, and promote future research to explicitly investigate the issue in countries having a culture of high uncertainty avoidance (Frazier et al., 2017). Therefore, the present research initially highlights the research gap and then examines psychological safety under the moderating influence of uncertainty avoidance. The current study tends to answer another important question that has remained unattended in the literature is by what mechanism leaders may affect the learning behavior of employees. Therefore, it is the situational factor i.e. psychological safety that facilitates the learning potential of individuals (Schweder, 2020; Yadin & Or-Bach, 2019). Newman et al. (2017) did a conceptual study that addressed the issues in the existing literature, and provided new avenues for future studies. The research further suggested to investigate the role of leadership in relation to psychological safety (Newman et al. 2017). There is a slight difference in the extent each of the leadership constructs impact psychological safety, an emerging area to which the scholars have recommended to focus in the future research. Hence, the current research only focuses on the transformational leadership in relation to psychological safety and individual learning behavior, and suggests inclusive leadership for future research avenues. (Frazier et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2010). Importantly, as social learning and social network theories suggest that individual learning behavior is an outcome of interactions among social actors, that facilitates knowledge acquisition and adaption of new behaviors (Bandura & Walters, 1977; Krause et al., 2007). Hence, an inquiry becomes critical to understand the linkages between transformational leadership and individual learning behavior under influence of psychological safety and uncertainty avoidance. Moreover, the social contagion theory also reinforces the impressions of transformational leadership on individual learning behavior, as the followers develop the propensity to adapt to those behaviors exhibited by their leaders (Christakis & Fowler, 2013). Zaman & Abbasi 173 2.6 Contextual Gap Duan et al. (2017) examined the linkage between transformational leadership and employee voice in Chinese firms representing multiple industries, e.g. manufacturing, technology and finance etc. The authors called for a similar research to be undertaken in other cultural settings. However, the current research is filling this contextual gap by examining the same variables and their implications in the context of Pakistan’s telecom sector. Several studies have focused on the emerging problem of learning behavior process in manufacturing, services and telecom sectors (Rasheed et al., 2012; Yuniarto & Tjakraatmadja, 2017). The study findings validate the problems associated with learning behavior that prevails in the telecom sector, attracting further improvements through scientific inquiry. Hence, individual learning behavior has to be taken into account for further investigation in the telecom sector in Pakistan. The research carried by Frazier et al. (2017) and Newman et al. (2017) categorically stressed upon examining the impact of uncertainty avoidance in the cultures having high index of uncertainty, as it is assumed to undermine the psychologically safe climate in the workplace. Therefore, the present research is fills the existing gap in the area of psychological safety by examining the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in telecom sector in Pakistan. 2.7 Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior Avolio et al. (1999) proposed that in order to influence the group’s and individual’s development related work processes, the five facets and/or four behavioral constituents of transformational leadership can prove very effective. As identified by Berson and Avolio (2004), to achieve higher performance, motivation is the main factor, and to motivate groups to attain high level performance, practical and effective form of leadership is critical. Transformational leadership style is justified and more suitable for motivating employees, as suggested by some famous transformational leadership theorists (Bass et al., 2003). The typical characteristics of transformational leadership lead to motivate the groups and individuals to attain greater performance (Zaman et al., 2019b). Transformational leaders exert their inspirational capabilities like influencing, challenging and encouraging in order to motivate employees for a greater level of success. For instance, employees can improve their skills needed at their workplace through experiential motivation, skills and capabilities in making right and efficient decisions at individual level, and further improved through intellectual stimulation (Wong et al., 2010). Moreover, transformational leadership gives quick response during challenging and changing circumstances that make transformational leadership Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 174 characteristic more preferable for learning organizations (Bass et al., 2003). Therefore, it can be said that transformational leadership style; due to its suitable characteristics, may be more helpful and fitting in prompting employees to change through organizational and individual learning (Zaman et al., 2020). Productive relationships can be established through transformational leaders, according to latest research (Bono & Anderson, 2005). Leaders set their examples and let the followers to support and learn from each other while getting the work done. These types of actions facilitate unique learning experiences for employees and helps them in growing together as a single unit. Organizations gather individuals to make groups and follows the mutually shared cultural approach (Cook & Yanow, 1993). It has been suggested that learning in groups is more favorable and effective as compared to individual level, as working in groups enables everyone to get equal amount of shared knowledge and thus produce something more acceptable and intellectual. Yet, the current research is undertaken to analyze the effect on individual learning behavior. Researchers have been interlinked leadership style and learning organization’s culture more often. Hence, capable leader can provide the influential atmosphere for the followers to learn (Rijal, 2010; Sahaya, 2012; Zaman, 2020, Zaman et. al, 2019b). Therefore, it can be said that any organization can develop learning behavior and motivate learners through transformational leadership style (Kim, 2011; Zaman et. al, 2019b). Role of leadership and individual learning depends on each other, efforts of transformational leader in making an organization a learning one, is vital (Loon et al., 2012). Therefore, the first hypothesis is stated on the basis of the above arguments.  H1: Transformational leadership has a significant and positive impact on individual learning behavior. 2.8 Transformational Leadership and Psychological Safety Leaders are seen to have positive impact on the perception their subordinates have of psychological safety (Kahn, 1990; Edmondson, 1999). It is therefore necessary for employees to have strong and positive relationships with their leaders as this leads them to have access to the necessary information, resources, support, trust, consistency, and competence (Kahn, 1990). When it comes to what is acceptable and what is an appropriate behavior between the leaders and followers, the social exchanges have a lasting impact on formalization of these expectations (Edmondson et al., 2004). Thus, it makes sense to see how various forms of leadership, such as transformational leadership, ethical leadership, leader member exchange, managerial orientation and trust in leader, acts as predecessors of psychological safety (Coombe, 2010; Detert & Burris, 2007; Zaman & Abbasi 181 of age, followed by 30.3% (between 26-35 years), 15.4% (between 36-45 years), 9.4% (between 46-55 years) and 11.7% were above 55 years. The highest education level of the respondents was doctorate (1.7%), followed by MPhil (13.1%), Masters (37.4%) and Bachelor’s degree (47.7%). The respondent with highest experience ranging above 20 years were 2.6%, followed by 2.9% (between 16-20 years), 4.3% (between 11-15 years), 15.1% (between 6-10 years), 34.6% (between 2-5 years) and 40.6% of the respondents had experience less than one-year. 4.2 Pilot Testing of Instrument For this research an initial pilot test is undertaken on a sample of 30 in order to examine the reliability of questionnaire. Table 1 shows the results of pilot test. Nunnally (1978) has argued on the acceptable range of Cronbach’s alpha i.e. above 0.60 to confirm reliability of the measures. Using the survey-based sample data (n=30) for preliminary analysis, a pilot test was conducted to establish reliability of used measures. Table 2 shows the reliability statistics of all measurement instruments used for this study. Transformational leadership was measured by 20 items and the measurement scale reported adequate reliability (α = 0.876). Psychological safety was measured by using 5 items and the calculated values confirmed acceptable reliability (α = 0.724). Learning behavior was measured while using 7 items and the calculated values confirmed the reliability of the measure (α = 0.731). Lastly, uncertainty avoidance was measured by 4 items in total and the calculated reliability value was within the acceptable range (α = 0.637). Table 1: Reliability Statistics Name of Variable Cronbach’s Alpha No of Items Transformational Leadership 0.876 20 Psychological Safety 0.724 5 Learning Behavior 0.731 7 Uncertainty Avoidance 0.637 4 Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 182 4.3 Instrumentation 4.3.1 Transformational Leadership Transformational leadership was assessed by using a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X-Short) that comprises of 20 items (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Sample items include: “My supervisor displays a sense of power and confidence, and my supervisor talks about most important values and beliefs”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the transformational leadership measure reported 0.796. 4.3.2 Psychological Safety Psychological safety was measured by averaging 6 items based on Edmondson’s (1999) work. The items evaluate whether the individual feel contented and express their opinions at work or whether there is an intimidating environment at work. The Cronbach’s alpha for the psychological safety measure reported 0.786. 4.3.3 Individual Learning Behavior A scale constructed by Edmondson (1999) was used to measure individual learning behavior. Sample items contain: “I regularly take time to figure out ways to improve the work processes” and “in this organization, someone always makes sure that I stop to reflect on the organization’s work process”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the individual learning behavior measure reported 0.781. 4.3.4 Uncertainty Avoidance The CV-SCALE (Yoo, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011) has previously been used successfully to measure Hofstede's (1991) five cultural dimensions at the individual level. The sample item for measuring uncertainty avoidance includes, “it is important to closely follow instructions and procedures”. Cronbach’s alpha for uncertainty avoidance measure reported 0.80. 4.4 Data Analysis The study used Smart PLS version 3.2.7 for testing of research hypotheses and conceptualized model through partial least square (PLS)-structural equation modeling (SEM) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Ringle et al., 2005; Zaman, 2020; Zaman et al., 2019b). PLS-SEM enable researchers to undertake their research even with smaller sample sizes (Zaman, Nadeem & Nawaz, 2020). There are no assumptions of normality and independence, while using PLS-SEM owing to the nonparametric approach (Chin & Newsted, 1999; Zaman, 2020). This is a most commonly accepted technique in social and management sciences research, moreover it has gained wider recognition by scholars for Zaman & Abbasi 183 academic research and it is considered significant for theory and prediction-oriented model testing (Hair et al., 2014; Henseler et al., 2009; Zaman et al., 2019a). The analysis is distributed into phases of assessments of measurement model and then the structural model for hypothesis testing (Hair et al., 2014; Zaman et al., 2020). 4.4.1 Measurement Model Assessment In the first step of “partial least squares-structural equation modeling” technique it is suggested to assess the measurement model (Ringle et al., 2005; Zaman et al., 2020). Similarly, in the present study, it ensured the validity and reliability of the measurement model. The convergent validity, discriminant validity and reliability of the constructs have been undertaken as a pre-requisite of the measurement model assessment process (Gefen and Straub, 2005; Zaman et al., 2020). 4.4.2 Convergent Validity Convergent validity specifies the level to which the items of the constructs that are related, as in the theory they are also correlated in reality. The convergent validity assesses whether the items of a construct are highly corelated, as cross loadings of the respective variables are observed (Hair et al., 2014; Zaman et al., 2020). Therefore, a prerequisite for examining the measurement model is to assess the cross loading and factor loadings of all the items. The indicators for analyzing the convergent validity of constructs are item loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR). Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 184 Table 2: Reliability and Convergent Validity Constructs & Items Loadings α CR Individual learning behavior LB1 .793 0.781 0.859 LB2 .804 LB3 .765 LB4 .744 Psychological safety PS1 .792 0.786 0.862 PS2 .842 PS3 .782 PS4 .700 Transformational leadership TL1 .739 0.796 0.867 TL2 .830 TL3 .781 TL4 .798 Uncertainty avoidance UCA1 .811 0.80 0.885 UCA2 .868 UCA3 .864 Fornell and Larcker (1981) argued that the cut off value for the loadings is 0.70. The table 2 indicates that the factor loadings are significant and meets the satisfactory range i.e. 0.70. There were total 39 items of the scale and 15 falls within the desired range. Moreover, the Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability of all the variables also fulfill the recommended range i.e. greater than 0.70 (Hair et al., 2014). Therefore, this statistical test indicates that the measurement scales used for the theoretical model under study depicts a high degree of confidence (Zaman et al., 2020). 4.4.3. Discriminant Validity Discriminant validity is referred to analyzing the external consistency of the model, and it examines whether the items of one particular construct are loading in the respective construct or under other variables. The table 3 indicated the discriminant validity of the Zaman & Abbasi 185 model by verifying the validity through correlation matrix analysis. The square root of average variance extracted (AVE) are displayed in “bold diagonally” those are greater than the “off-diagonal” values in the correlation matrix, hence indicating a suitable range of the discriminant validity for the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The table 3 represents that the lowest value for AVE of the individual learning behavior (0.603) was considerably higher than the highest correlation between variables (0.512), hence validating the discriminant validity. Table 3: Discriminant Validity of Constructs Variables AVE 1 2 3 4 LB 0.603 0.777 PS 0.610 0.512 0.781 TL 0.621 0.491 0.477 0.788 UCA 0.719 0.326 0.393 0.309 0.838 4.5 Structural Model Assessment The second phase of the PLS-SEM technique constitutes structural modeling for testing the hypothesis (Hair et al., 2014). The path coefficients represent the strengths of relationships, whereas R2 indicates the degree of variance predicted by independent variables, and tvalues are computed through bootstrapping for assessing the significance of the model. Figure 2 demonstrates the results of the hypothesized structural model of the present study. The table 4 exhibits the results for the structural model. H1 postulated that transformational leadership has a positive relationship with individual learning behavior. The R2 exhibit that 34% variation (R²=0.341 p<0.001) is predicted in individual learning behavior. The path co-efficient (β=0.320 t=5.635) specifies a positively significant relationship between transformational leadership and individual learning behavior, showing empirical support for acceptance of the first hypothesis. The findings for the first hypothesis are in line with the prior research that support the significantly positive effect of transformational leadership on individual learning behavior (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Cook & Yanow, 1993; Kolb, 2001; Senge, 2006; Berson & Avolio, 2004; Wong et al., 2010; Bono & Anderson 2005; Loon et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2017). Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 186 Table 4: Direct Hypothesis Testing Variables/ Hypothesized paths Path coefficient R-square t-values TL -> PS 0.477** 0.228 11.151 PS -> LB 0.360** 0.341 7.045 TL -> LB 0.320** 5.635 **P<0.001 H2 proposed that transformational leadership has a positive relationship with psychological safety. The results indicate that 22% change (R²=0.228, p<0.001) is predicted by transformational leadership in psychological safety. The path co-efficient (β=0.477, t=11.151, p<0.01) indicates a positive and significant impact on psychological safety, therefore, creating support for acceptance of the second hypothesis. The findings are consistent with the previous studies that support the significantly positive effect of psychological safety (Kahn, 1990; Edmondson, 1999; Detert & Burris, 2007; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009; Halbesleben & Rathert, 2008; May et al., 2004; Isaksen & Akkermans, 2011; Tynan, 2005; Wanless, 2016; Carmeli et al., 2014). The path coefficient (β=0.477, t=11.151, p<0.01) in the current research is very much closer to the meta-analysis conducted by Frazier et al. (2017) in USA (β= 0.42). Yet, indicating the significance of the leadership beyond the geographic boundaries remains the same. Moreover, H3 postulated that psychological safety has a positive relationship with individual learning behavior. The R2 indicates 34 % variation (R²=0.341, p<0.001) in learning behavior. The path co-efficient (β=0.360, t= 7.045, p<0.01) suggests positive and significant relationship between psychological safety and individual learning behavior, making empirical support for acceptance of our third hypothesis. The findings do not support the research conclusion drawn by Choo et al. (2007) that suggests that psychological safety has no impact on learning behavior of employees. However, the present study findings are consistent with the broad understanding offered by prior research (Schein & Bennis, 1965; Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Sanner & Bunderson, 2015; Kumako & Asumeng, 2013). Moreover, a recent research by Frazier et al. (2017) specify that learning behavior shows greater effects in high uncertainty avoidance cultures (β = 0.77 in contrast to low UA cultures (β = 0.60), however, the strength of relationship (β=0.360, t= 7.045, p<0.01) is moderate in Pakistan’s telecom sector. Zaman & Abbasi 187 4.6 Mediation Analysis Structural model has been applied in PLS to investigate the mediating effect of psychological safety between transformational leadership and individual learning behavior. Bootstrapping was calculated to examine the significance of the model. The table 5 demonstrates the mediation analysis as specified in the form of total effect, direct effect and indirect effect (Hair et al., 2014). Table 5: Mediation Analysis Hypothesized Path Path Coefficient t-values p-values Direct effect 0.320 5.636 0.000 Indirect effect 0.172 5.675 0.000 Total effect 0.492 10.440 0.000 VAF = Indirect effect / Total effect 0.350 H4 postulated that psychological safety mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and individual learning behavior. The total effect indicates (β =.492, t=10.440, p<0.001) a positive and significant relationship. Transformational leadership has a significant direct positive impact on individual learning behavior (β =0.320, t=5.636, p<0.001). The results specify that the positive indirect effect is also significant (β =.172, t=5.675, p<0.001). The mediation has been analyzed by calculating variance accounted for (VAF= 35% > 20%) illustrating a partial mediation (Hair et al., 2014; 2012). Therefore, the above results provide strong empirical support for the acceptance of the fourth hypothesis, showing that psychological safety mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and individual learning. Hence, the current research study took a step forward in analyzing the mechanism between relationship transformational leadership and individual learning behavior. Mostly the previous research work examined group level psychological safety climate as mechanisms. The study finding shows that psychological safety acts as a partial rather than full mediator, which identifies that other processes also may illuminate the relationship between transformational leadership and individual learning behavior. The results show support for the hypotheses in line with the prior findings (Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009; Carmeli & Gittell, 2009; Wong, Tjosvold, & Lu, 2010, Sarin and McDermott, 2003; Edmondson, 2003; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 188 4.7 Moderation Analysis Structural model has been applied in PLS for calculating the moderation effect on psychological safety. Bootstrapping was calculated to examine the significance of the model. Moderation analysis is exhibited in the table 6 for testing H5 proposing that uncertainty avoidance moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological safety, such that when uncertainty avoidance is high the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological safety becomes weaker and vice versa. The PLS-SEM results shown in table 6 indicate that the uncertainty avoidance has a positive and significant effect on psychological safety (β= 0.271, p<0.001, t= 5.330). But, the assumption for moderation to be significant is to examine the interaction effect of moderating and independent variable on the dependent variable (Lowry & Gaskin, 2014; Leech et al., 2008; Hair et al., 2014). Table 6: Moderation Analysis Hypothesized Path Path coefficient t-values p-values UCA-> PS 0.271 5.330 0.000 TL*UCA -> PS -0.004 0.100 0.920 The interaction of transformational leadership and uncertainty avoidance indicates the moderating effect on psychological safety. The PLS-SEM results indicate that the moderating effect (TL*UCA) on psychological safety is negative, however, it does not significantly impact the relationship between transformational and psychological safety (β= -0.004, p>0.05, t>1.64), hence showing insignificant evidence to empirically support our final (i.e. fifth) hypothesis. The findings are inconsistent with the previous literature, as the fifth hypothesized moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in the relationship of transformational leadership and psychological safety has not been supported (Friedman, Chi, & Liu, 2006; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010; Hofstede, 2001). The results demonstrate that at the individual level psychological safety almost 73% (24 out of 33) were not significant in their meta-analytical review (Frazier et al., 2017). However, the present theoretical model findings assessed by structural model (PLS-SEM) do not show support for significance of high uncertainty avoidance as a buffer in the context of Pakistan; an important aspect in this regard could be occupational or professional settings and the telecom sector of Pakistan is characterized as one of the most advanced and highly competitive industries may influence employee perceptions of uncertainty avoidance and Zaman & Abbasi 189 Figure 2: Structural Model its effect on psychological safety (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Wimbush & Shepard, 1994). Furthermore, the insignificant role of uncertainty avoidance between psychological safety and transformational leadership may be attributed to the strong and effective leadership support for the employees of the telecom sector, thus leading to abate the cultural and social norms (Tipu, Ryan, & Fantazy, 2012). 5. Discussion The study purpose was to investigate the mediating role of psychological safety between transformational leadership and individual learning behavior (Kim et al., 2019; Schweder, 2020; Sherf et al., 2020). Moreover, it examined the role of uncertainty avoidance as a moderator between the transformational leadership and psychological safety (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Kim et al., 2019; Lawrie et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2020) in the telecom sector of Islamabad, Pakistan. Moreover, relying on the tents of social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1977) the researcher examined the underlying phenomenon for the current theortecial model. The current research was conducted in the telecom industry targeting employees with the help of convenience sampling to carry an empirical research. The research postulated five hypotheses out of which first three were indicating direct relations, and the other two proposed mediating and moderating relations. The forth hypotheses proposed the mediating role of psychological safety and the last hypotheses investigated moderating role of high uncertainty avoidance between Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 190 transformational leadership and psychological safety, as it tends to weaken the relation. PLS-SEM provided the empirical findings on the hypothesized relationships, using selfadministered survey of telecom-sector employees. 5.1 Theoretical Implications The present research has initiated the disentanglement of the complex relationship between transformational leadership and psychological safety while exploring the buffering role of uncertainty avoidance (Kim et al., 2019; Sherf et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2020). A significant contribution of this study is extension of literature on social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1977) through emphasizing the impact of psychological safety as a mediating mechanism (Sherf et al., 2020). The research is integrating transformational leadership and learning streams of research by illustrating the causal attributions. Moreover, plethora of research in this domain examines other organizational and individual outcomes i.e. work engagement, organizational commitment and job satisfaction, but there has been limited literature on learning behavior (Pacheco et al., 2015). Another important contribution of the present theoretical framework is analyzing the role of high uncertainty avoidance on psychological safety for illuminating its impact in the context of non-western countries, as the existing literature on the notion of psychological safety is weak and in early stages of development in developing countries (Zeng et al., 2020). The present study is the first to conceptualize the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in Pakistan (Frazier et al., 2017; Steele & Hartog, 2020). Hence, the current findings do not show congruence of the phenomenon of high uncertainty avoidance leading to influence the psychological safety in the context of Pakistan, yet the co-efficient value indicate that the negative moderating effect of uncertainty avoidance on psychological safety exist (Lawrie et al., 2020; Sherf et al., 2020) and influence the construct marginally, but the relationship is non-significant. 5.2 Practical Implications As economic disruptions continue to grapple the telecom sector, the fast-paced telecom competition is attracting high waves of challenges as well a tremendous opportunity. Hence, the present research has significant implications for practice in terms of the benefits of transformational leadership for stimulating individual learning behavior in the telecom-oriented companies (Kim et al., 2019; Yadin & Or-Bach, 2019; Zaman, 2020). First, the findings illustrate that the transformational leadership strategies have the potential to instill the required contextual or situational cues for telecom employee’s wellbeing and facilitates in promoting a psychologically safe environment (Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2014). Second, in order to create a psychologically safe climate, Zaman & Abbasi 197 Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles, 1(8), 227-247. Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. Krause, J., Croft, D. P., & James, R. (2007). Social network theory in the behavioral sciences: potential applications. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62(1), 15-27. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610. Kumako, S. K., & Asumeng, M. A. (2013). Transformational leadership as a moderator of the relationship between psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams in Ghana. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1), 1–9. Kumar, A. & Ganesh, L. (2011). Inter‐individual knowledge transfer and performance in product development. The Learning Organization, 18 (3), 224-238. Lawrie, S. I., Eom, K., Moza, D., Gavreliuc, A., & Kim, H. S. (2020). Cultural Variability in the Association between Age and Well-Being: The Role of Uncertainty Avoidance. Psychological Science, 31(1), 51–64. Leech, L., Barrette, K. C., & Morgan, G. (2008). SPSS for Introdutory Statistics: Use and Interpretation. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Leiner, D. J. (2014). Convenience samples from online respondent pools: A case study of the SoSci Panel. International Journal of Internet Science, 20(5), 1-18. LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., Crawford, E. R., & Methot, J. R. (2011). A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 311-330. Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189-202. Loon, M., Mee Lim, Y., Heang Lee, T., & Lian Tam, C. (2012). Transformational leadership and job-related learning. Management Research Review, 35(3/4), 192-205. Lowry, P. B., & Gaskin, J. (2014). Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(2), 123-146. Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 198 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115-134. Madjar, N., & Ortiz-Walters, R. (2009). Trust in supervisors and trust in customers: Their independent, relative, and joint effects on employee performance and creativity. Human Performance, 22(2), 128-142. Mastio, E., Chew, E., & Dovey, K. A. (2019). The learning organization as a context for value co-creation. The Learning Organization. May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37. Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J., Bird, A., Oddou, G. R., Stevens, M. J., Maznevski, M. L., & Stahl, G. K. (Eds.). (2017). Global leadership: Research, practice, and development. Routledge. Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173-197. Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521-535. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods. 2nd, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Ocasio, W., Rhee, L., & Milner, D. (2020). Attention, knowledge, and organizational learning. The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Örtenblad, A. (2018). What does “learning organization” mean? The Learning Organization. 25(3), 150-158. Pacheco, D. C., Moniz, A. I. A., & Caldeira, S. N. (2015). Silence in organizations and psychological safety: a literature review. European Scientific Journal, 5(7), 293-308. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (2019). Overview of Pakistan's Telecommunication Industry. https://www.pta.gov.pk//en/telecom-indicators Zaman & Abbasi 199 Patterson, P. G. and Smith T. (2001). “Modeling Relationship Strength across Service Types in an Eastern Culture”. International Journal of Service Industry Management. 12(2), 90-113. Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 401-411. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Rasheed, A., Ali, Q., Masood, S., & Shah, M. M. (2012). A Comparison of Learning Processes and Practices between Manufacturing and Services Sectors of Pakistan. Oman Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 2(1), 125-135. Rijal, S. (2010). Leadership style and organizational culture in learning organization: A comparative study. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 14(5), 119-128. Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). Smart-PLS Version 2.0 M3. University of Hamburg. Sahaya, N. (2012). A learning organization as a mediator of leadership style and firms' financial performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(14), 96113. Sanner, B., & Bunderson, J. S. (2015). When feeling safe isn’t enough: Contextualizing models of safety and learning in teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(3), 224243. Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross‐functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 707-739. Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach. Wiley. New York, NY. Schweder, S. (2020). Mastery goals, positive emotions and learning behavior in selfdirected vs. teacher-directed learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(1), 205-223. Transformational Leadership and Individual Learning Behavior 200 Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Broadway Business, New York, NY. Sherf, E. N., Parke, M. R., & Isaakyan, S. (2020). Distinguishing Voice and Silence at Work: Unique Relationships with Perceived Impact, Psychological Safety, and Burnout. Academy of Management Journal (in press), https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1428. Tipu, S., Ryan, J., & Fantazy, K. (2012). Transformational leadership in Pakistan: An examination of the relationship of transformational leadership to organizational culture and innovation propensity. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(4), 461-480. Tynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic psychological safety and upward communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(2), 223-247. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222-240. Wang, P. (2018). Core Job Characteristic and Uncertainty Avoidance: Into the Black Box of Transformational Leadership Effect on Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, l, 1–12. Wang, C. S., & Leung, A. K. Y. (2010). The cultural dynamics of rewarding honesty and punishing deception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1529-1542. Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275-1286. Wanless, S. B. (2016). The role of psychological safety in human development. Research in Human Development, 13(1), 6-14. Watts, L. L., Steele, L. M., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2020). Uncertainty avoidance moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation: A metaanalysis. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(1), 138-145. West, M.A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp. 555–579). UK: Wiley. Whetzel, D. L., McDaniel, M. A., Yost, A. P., & Kim, N. (2010). Linearity of Personality–Performance Relationships: A large‐scale examination. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(3), 310-320. Wimbush, J. C., & Shepard, J. M. (1994). Toward an understanding of ethical climate: Its relationship to ethical behavior and supervisory influence. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(8), 637-647. Zaman & Abbasi 201 Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., & Lu, J. (2010). Leadership values and learning in China: The mediating role of psychological safety. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 48(1), 86-107. Yadin, A., & Or-Bach, R. (2019). The importance of emphasizing individual learning in the “collaborative learning era”. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 185-194. Yin, J., Ma, Z., Yu, H., Jia, M., & Liao, G. (2019). Transformational leadership and employee knowledge sharing: explore the mediating roles of psychological safety and team efficacy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24 (2), 150-171. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210. Yuniarto, Y., & Tjakraatmadja, J. H. (2017). Toward learning organization in a telecom operator network operation center. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(11), 148-154. Zaman, U. (2020). Examining the effect of xenophobia on “transnational” mega construction project (MCP) success: Moderating role of transformational leadership and high-performance work (HPW) practices. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Ahead-of-print. Zaman, U., Jabbar, Z., Nawaz, S., & Abbas, M. (2019). Understanding the soft side of software projects: An empirical study on the interactive effects of social skills and political skills on complexity–performance relationship. International Journal of Project Management, 37(3), 444-460. Zaman, U., Nadeem, R. D., & Nawaz, S. (2020). Cross-country evidence on project portfolio success in the Asia-Pacific region: Role of CEO transformational leadership, portfolio governance and strategic innovation orientation. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1-26. Zaman, U., Nawaz, S., Tariq, S., & Humayoun, A. A. (2019). Linking transformational leadership and “multi-dimensions” of project success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 13(1), 103-127. Zeng, H., Zhao, J. L., & Zhao, X. Y. (2020). Inclusive Leadership and Taking Charge Behavior: Roles of Psychological Safety and Thriving at Work. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(2), 1-11.