Leadership Styles, Organisational Culture and Learning Organisational Capability in Education Industry: Evidence from Egypt

We aim in this study to explore the interaction between three constructs: leadership style, organisational culture, and organisational learning capacity. In addition to that, we investigated the validity of this trio relationship in both public and private Egyptian universities situated in Greater Cairo area. A quota sampling procedure was used to recruit 298 academicians 186 from public universities and 112 from private universities. Significant correlations were obtained between transformational and transactional leadership style and organisational learning capacity dimensions. However, the moderating effect of organisational culture in the relationship between leadership styles and organisational learning capacity was not reported. Lastly, researchers recommended to Egyptian leaders and decision makers the leadership style and culture type that may enhance the learning capacity in higher education institutes.


INTRODUCTION
In the fields of public administration and business the topics of leadership and culture remain two of the most popular concepts for both academics and practitioners. This is attributed to explicit and implicit inclinations that both concepts are linked to the capability of the learning organisation, which is an integral variable and a sustainable advantage factor that allows competing organisations to survive in the midst of today's global turmoil and overcome ongoing global and national threats in addition to devastating fluxes (S. Goh & Richards, 1997). Extant literature has proven that leaders' support and commitment are essential triggers in promoting learning organisational cultures in different settings, whether private or public organisations. (Amitay, Popper, & Lipshitz, 2005;Askling & Kristensen, 2000;Nordin & Kasbon) . This study focuses on the interaction effect of leadership style and organisational culture and its impact on learning organisations in Egyptian high education institutions. Extant literature is limited in its western contextual scope. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to the extant empirical literature by filling this important gap. The unit of analysis for this study is the Egyptian universities, divided into two strata; public and private. Within each stratum, the population of academicians was surveyed to ensure maximum return rate of the questionnaires. The academicians were chosen because they are the Egyptian educated elite and the most eligible change agents in the society to adjust and produce learning results in midst of all the occurring turbulences.
This study has twofold purposes. 1) to investigate the relationship between the three constructs: leadership style, organisational culture, and organisational learning capacity (OLC) within Egyptian universities; 2) to examine the moderating role of Egyptian public and private universities on this trio relationship.

LEADERSHIP STYLES
Leadership is a multidirectional social influence. (Hamidifar, 2015). It means leaving a mark. Leaders through their ideas and deeds show the way and influence the behaviour of others to perform in a particular way to reach the required target(s). (Day & Antonakis, 2012a;Wren, 2013;Yukl, 2002). Leadership is not a position; it is an interactional process that comprises three elements-the leader, the followers, and the situation or culture. (Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 1995;Fiedler & Chemers, 1967;Hollander, 1978;Hughes, 1993) . Thus, the study of leadership is deeply attached to culture and reflect the legitimate and appropriate forms of accepted behaviour within a given society. (Shahin & Wright, 2004). Moreover, leadership diverse behaviour and style plays a critical role in educational organisation success(Osseo-Asare, Longbottom, & Murphy, 2005) Much of what was written about the leader, follower and situational characteristics associated with charismatic or transformational leaders and transactional leaders come from research on Bass's theory of transformational and transactional leadership. (Bass, 1985(Bass, , 1997Bass & Stogdill, 1990).
This study applies the ' full-range leadership theory ' as conceptualized by and developed by Avolio and Bass (Avolio, Bass, & Zhu, 2004). They distinguish between three types of leadership style: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire (non-leadership). According to Avolio and Bass there are five dimensions of transformational leadership and three of transactional leadership. (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999;Bass, 1985;Bass & Avolio, 1994). The five dimensions of transformational leadership style comprise: idealized influence behaviour and attributes which connotes the charismatic or emotional aspect of leadership (Day & Antonakis, 2012b); inspirational motivation that is descriptive of leaders who inspire and motivate followers and are capable of communicating high expectations to them (Densten, 2002); intellectual stimulation includes leaders that support their followers to try innovative methods towards problem-solving (Avolio et al., 1999) ; individualized consideration contends when leaders act as coaches and advises to address each follower in accordance to his or her particular needs and capabilities. Transactional leaders are those who basically operate within the existing culture as opposed to those who try to change the culture to meet new expectations. (Zehir, Ertosun, Zehir, & Müceldili, 2011). The three dimensions of transactional leadership style are contingent reward, management by exceptionactive, and management by exception -passive (Zehir et al., 2011). Contingent reward is when the leader sets objectives and the matching rewards upon fulfilment. Management by exception explains the corrective actions taken by the leader to amend occurring errors. According to (Howell & Avolio, 1993) the difference between passive and active management by exception lies in the time of the leader's intervention. In laissez-faire style of leadership there is no exchange relationship between leaders and followers. It represents a passive non-transactional style, in which decisions are delayed, actions postponed, and managerial authority is misused or unutilized, as stated by other researchers (Bass & Stogdill, 1990;Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003;Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007) .

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
In Schein's published book "organisational culture and leadership" (Schein, 2010), culture was perceived as a multi-dimensional and multi-level concept. Schein has explained three main levels of culture. One level of culture can be easily seen and observed, which consists of visible organisational structures, actions (such as dress codes), facilities and procedures. Another level of culture demonstrates the way things are done inside the organisation that includes organisation's strategies, goals, and philosophies. The last and third level of culture reflects the things that are highly valued in the organisation, as its basic assumptions, or unconscious beliefs, perception thoughts and feeling.
According to (Buono & Bowditch, 2003) interpretation the first visible level of culture is considered the objective organisational culture, whilst the second and third levels are concerned with the subjective organisational culture. Many researchers regard this subjective element of organisation culture to be the most significant determinant in shaping and understanding the similarities and differences among people in different cultures. In similar vein, university culture is a particular form of organisation culture that is defined by collective mutually formed patterns of beliefs, practices and values that guide the subjective behaviour of individuals and groups within the context of high education institutes (Kuh & Whitt, 2000;Mozaffari, 2008).
According to the study of (Schneider & Rentsch, 1988) culture differed from climate. Organisational culture described 'why' things take place and happen the way they do; versus organisational climate explained 'what' goes on around here and there.
Different scholars have classified organisational culture with varied names and labels. These scholars used the Competing Values Framework (CVF) as base of analysis. According to (Berrio, 2003;Cameron & Quinn) the culture model CVF reflects two value dimensions that splits the organisation into four types based on two sets of variables, ( flexibility versus stability, external versus internal orientation). The four types of culture were classified as: clan (flexible and internal), adhocracy (flexible and external), hierarchy (stable and internal) and market (stable and external).
This study adopts Deshpande, Farley, and Webster Jr (1993) culture model which indicated four types of culture: Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market. This model held two axes: one focused on (organic vs. mechanistic) which explained the extent to which the organisational emphasis was more on flexibility, spontaneity, and individuality or on control, stability, and order. The second axis (internal maintenance vs. external positioning) described the relative organisational emphasis on internal maintenance, smoothing integration or on external positioning, competition, and environmental differentiation. The Clan culture was more towards family-like orientation, with a focus on mentoring, nurturing, and "doing things together." It had a primary concern on the involvement and participation of the organisation's members.
The Adhocracy culture lied in the quadrant defined by the poles of externality and flexibility and perceived as a culture that applies ad hoc approaches to solving externally imposed problems: it is oriented towards risk-taking, adaptability, entrepreneurship, innovation, and "doing things first." The Hierarchy culture was structured and controlled, with a focus on order, efficiency, stability and "doing things right. The Market culture was result oriented, with a focus on competition, achievement, and "getting the job done".
Ogbonna and Harris (2000) altered the above-mentioned culture labels to read: community, innovative, bureaucratic, and competitive culture, to appeal to a wide-spectrum of practitioners, and be more justifiable theoretically by the researchers.

ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING CAPABILITY (OLC)
Learning remains the core daily activity of all colleges and universities. This means that learning has to be practiced at multi-levels: engaging individuals, groups, departments, and organisational levels; in order to discover and correct errors. (Argyris, 2000). Is also builds on networking and sharing information throughout the organisation so as to reach organisation-shared vision.(S. Goh & Richards, 1997;Kolb & Kolb, 2005). However, the concept of learning organisation got popularized in the 1990's when Peter Senge published his book "The Fifth Discipline". (Senge, 1990).
Literature suggested that organisational learning capability (OLC) is a multidimensional construct and is a useful measurement of organisational learning. (Santos-Vijande, Sanzo-Perez, Alvarez-Gonzalez, & Vazquez-Casielles, 2005;Zagoršek, Dimovski, & Škerlavaj, 2009). This study adopts the scale of (Jerez-Gomez, Céspedes-Lorente, & Valle-Cabrera, 2005), It identifies four dimensions in OLC, which are as follows: Management commitment to develop a learning culture that promotes the creation, acquisition, and transfer of knowledge as the core backbone inside the organisation. Systems perspective entails uniting the organisation's members to pursue one identity (Garcia-Morales, Llorens-Montes, & Verdú-Jover, 2006) and a common language that encourages knowledge integration. In this aspect, organisational learning overpasses individual learning capability and goes towards a collective learning orientation. (Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005). Openness and experimentation welcomes new ideas both internally and externally. Experimentation requires a culture that supports the idea that mistakes are part and parcel of the learning process .(S. Goh & Richards, 1997;Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005). Finally, Knowledge transfer and integration refers to two simultaneous and not successive processes: the transfer and spread of knowledge from individual level to reach all members, and the integration of said bulk of knowledge to allow the formation of a viable organisational memory (Huber, 1991).

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING CAPABILITY (OLC)
Based on extant literature there is a vital relationship between leadership and organisational learning capacity. (Aydin & Ceylan, 2009; S. C. Goh, 2003;Schein, 1993;Senge, 1990;Vera & Crossan, 2004) . Learning organisations necessitate the existence of a leader who brings out the best adaptive and innovative outlook in the followers (Rijal, 2010). Several studies proved the important role of transformational leaders as champions of change and supporters of learning-oriented behaviours and teamwork (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012). Although higher education institutes are naturally learning facilities, nevertheless, transformational leaders are held responsible for improving and empowering the capacity of members of the organisation to continual learning and enhance their ability towards commitment to improvement and development (Hallinger, 2003;Mayer, 2014;Zagoršek et al., 2009). Most of the theoretical research and few of the conducted empirical studies found positive correlation between transformational leadership and organisational learning in sharing information, alterations in individual behaviours and group mentality, and composing in-built mechanisms that institutionalise learning-orientated behaviours and embrace continual learning. (Brown & Posner, 2001;Eisenbach, Watson, & Pillai, 1999;Mayer, 2014;Vera & Crossan, 2004 Other studies, in contrast, showed a negative relationship between transactional leadership and organisational learning (Bass, 1991;Tosuntaş & Danişman, 2015) due to cultural differences between the East and West and the subjective perception of leadership effectiveness that varies in accordance to each society set of values and heritage. The laissez faire style of leadership is not given much attention in connection to learning organisations because it represents a non-transactional kind of leadership style in which the leader displays a form of non-leadership that is in contradiction to the core essence of OLC (Eagly et al., 2003;Hamidifar, 2015).

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING CAPABILITY (OLC)
In today's turbulent and highly competitive environment, where markets and products continue to proliferate, a strong open culture, that encourages innovation, flexibility, and creativity, has proved to be an advantage to a learning organisation. Many studies identified adaptive culture as integral to effective change and optimal to guarantee superior performance over long periods of time (Bluedorn & Lundgren, 1993;Heskett & Kotter, 1992). Also, (Bass & Avolio, 1993) confirmed the importance of adaptive and flexible organisation culture and distinguished between transformational and transactional culture. Transformational cultures promote innovation, creativity, entrepreneurism and support the learning capacity of individuals and working teams. (Bass & Avolio, 1993) Previous research suggested significant positive correlation between transformational cultures and organisational capacity to perform and learn (K. W. Parry & Proctor, 2000). Transactional cultures advocate status quo, focus on implicit and explicit contractual relationships, rely on traditional structures , are governed by pre-defined rules, foster the inclination towards individualism and self-interest, and exhibits limited commitment and low motivation. (Bass & Avolio, 1993) Studies have proved that transactional culture is negatively correlated with organisational and leadership outcomes (K. W. Parry & Proctor, 2000).
Hence, the concept of culture remains as one of the most important variables and essential ingredients in building and developing a learning organisation (Rijal, 2010). The works of (Marsick & Watkins, 2003;Pérez López, Manuel Montes Peón, & José Vázquez Ordás, 2004) have also contended that creating a culture that is conducive to learning is imperative to achieve a rewarding working place that encourages the development of employees' capacity to learn.

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Any researchers have emphasized the linkage between leadership and organisational culture (Alvesson, 2011;Bass & Avolio, 1993;Ogbonna & Harris, 2000;Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008;Schein, 2010;Sergiovanni & Corbally, 1986). In his study, Smircich (1983) identified two contrasting approaches to study the relationship between leadership and organisational culture. One perspective saw culture as the function of leadership. Thus, culture was considered an organisational variable that can be manipulated by leaders pending their competencies and skills. This point of view was also supported by others, such as, (Quick, 1992;Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). On the other hand, organisational culture was studied as the product of industry and environmental demand, and leadership became its function. Hence culture was studied as an integral part of the organisation which allowed leaders' responses and behaviours to be moulded and impacted by it (Bass & Avolio, 1993;Schein, 1996). A compromise was reached by (Hampden-Turner, 1990) who proposed that an interplay existed between culture and leaders, as leaders or the early founders initially help in forming, shaping, and promoting the culture of the organisation. Later on culture becomes the vital catalyst that influences all members, including the leaders themselves. Schein (2010), confirmed this intertwined relationship between organisational culture and leadership, by suggesting an ongoing interplay in which the leader shapes the culture, during the early stage of the organisation life cycle and the creation of its unique cultural profile and value system. Then as time passes and the organisation develops, the leader himself becomes affected by the dominant culture outcome (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000).

THE MODERATING ROLE OF UNIVERSITY TYPE (PUBLIC/PRIVATE) WITHIN THE EGYPTIAN CONTEXT
Extant literature discussed two disputable arguments. Some studies emphasised the nonexistence of significant differences between public and private universities pertaining leadership, culture, and organisational learning capacity. Other researches revealed the existence of significant differences between these two institutes, pending the local context under investigation.
This study aims to address this debate and explore empirically the moderating role of university type (public/private) among the triad relationship of leadership, culture, and learning capacity within the Egyptian context.
Previous studies conducted on the organisational learning capacity of Syrian higher educational sector (Alsabbagh & Khalil, 2016;Khalifa & Ayoubi, 2015) revealed that there was no significant difference in leadership style between both public and private universities. These findings contrast previous studies that revealed significant differences in leadership style between both public and private higher education universities (Allison, 1986;Bodla & Nawaz, 2010).
With concern to organisational culture , Theobald (1997) , suggested that culture in public and private sectors are not equal or similar due to the different strategy and purpose of each sector. He argued that a standardized and controlled bureaucratic culture is needed to insure effectiveness in the public sector.
In the same vein, (Van Wart & Berman, 1999) debated that the move towards more flexibility and openness in the public sector has jeopardized its collective values and classical ethics. On the other hand, (Oshagbemi, 1997) highlighted the need to advocate innovative cultural shift in higher education institutions to help the transition towards a more business-oriented led organisations, capable of embracing global challenges and societal threats. Other studies stated that it may be more worthwhile for both public and private universities to seek a 'best-fit' organisational culture that is capable of integrating all responsibilities and opportunities to serve a specific organisation at a particular time and situation, regardless of its type, size or purpose (K. Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002).
Knowledge Management (KM), climate of innovation, creativity, and others, were also contended in public and private settings. The study of (Patnaik, Beriha, Mahapatra, & Singh, 2013) indicated significant differences between public and private Indian technical education. Also, (McAdam & Reid, 2000) demonstrated the superiority of the public sector in Ireland , over the private , in implementing knowledge management processes in its systems. A comparative study of public and private higher education institutions in Malaysia concluded that there are significant differences in the overall practices of KM processes between the public and private HEIs (Ramachandran, Chong, & Ismail, 2009). Moreover, the study conducted in Korea (Jun Choi & Park, 2014) indicated that private, rather than public organisations, have significantly higher mean scores in learning transfer and innovation. Whilst, (Bessant, 2005) argued that both public and private sectors need to join forces to transfer well-proven adaptive learning capacity, so that to build on the organisational generative learning capacity to ensure ongoing shared experimentation and continual comparison of innovative experiences.
Based on the above discussions, the three hypotheses of this study can be stated as follows: Hypothesis 1: There are significant differences between Egyptian public and private universities regarding leadership style, organisational culture, and organisational learning capacity. Hypothesis 2: There is significant relationship between leadership style, organisational culture and organisational learning capacity in Egyptian public and private universities. Hypothesis 3: Type of university (public / private) moderates the trio relationship between the leadership style, organisational culture, and organisational learning capacity

SAMPLE
The target population in this study was academic staff working in public and private universities in Cairo-Egypt. A quota sampling procedure was used to recruit three hundred and fifty university staff members in two public and two private universities working in greater Cairo area. Only two hundred and ninetyeight of them (186 from public universities and 112 from private universities) responded positively with a response rate of (85.1 percent). Their main characteristics are shown in table1. These characteristics indicate a reasonable mix of demographic groups represented in the collected data.

MEASUREMENTS
This study is based on three scales (Avolio et al., 2004) to measure leadership styles, (Deshpande et al., 1993) scale to measure organisational culture, (Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005) scale to measure organisational learning capacity.
The three-part questionnaire was used to assess the study variables. Leadership styles were measured using 45 items scale developed by (Avolio et al., 2004) to assess three leadership styles, namely, transformational leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership. The scale items were measured on a five-point Likert scale. Answers ranged from 0 (Not at All) to 4 (Frequently, if not always). The Organisational culture scale was measured using the 16 item scale adapted from (Deshpande et al., 1993) to assess four types of organisational cultures, namely, market culture, adhocracy culture, clan culture, and hierarchy culture.
Respondents were asked to distribute 100 points on four aspects of organisational culture: Kind of organisation, leadership, what holds the organisation together, and what is important for the organisation. The four culture scores were computed by adding all four values of the A items for clan culture, of the B items for adhocracy culture, of the C items for hierarchy culture, and of the D items for market culture. Finally, organisational learning capability was measured using 16-item scale developed by (Jerez-Gomez et al., 2005) to assess four main dimensions of organisational learning capability, namely, managerial commitment, systems perspective, openness and experimentation, and knowledge transfer and integration.
The scale items were measured on a five-point Likert scale. Answers ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Demographic variables including age, gender, academic position, and experience were also assessed.
Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficient of these measures are shown in table (2). Furthermore, to test the validity of the used measures, two procedures were used. First, a panel of 8 experts revised the applied questionnaire and assessed the content of each part and evaluated the appropriateness of this content to the Egyptian culture. The comments of all experts indicated that the used questionnaires are valid and culturally appropriate. Second, a confirmatory factor analysis, using Amos 20, was conducted to confirm the factor structure of the used scales in the target population as shown in table (3).
It can be shown from the previous results that all questionnaire' parts have significant factor loadings on their latent variables. The fit indices for these factor structures are shown in table (4).
As can be shown in the previous table, all fit indices were above the recommended level of acceptance. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the factor structures of the used instruments are confirmed in the target population.

PROCEDURE
Participants were approached in their offices in universities' campuses and were asked to complete the questionnaire. Before completing the questionnaire, all participants were assured that their participation was voluntary and anonymity was guaranteed. Latin square procedure was used to control the order of presenting the three-part questionnaire and to minimize the common method bias.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To test the first hypothesis, that proposes that there are significant differences between public and private universities in leadership styles, organisational culture, and learning organisation capability, a student's t-test was conducted as shown in table (5) The results indicated that public universities' staff scored significantly higher in active management by exception and laissez-faire leadership, while private universities' staff scored significantly higher in idealized influence (both behaviours and attributes), and organisational learning capability (dimensions and total score). Hence, the first hypothesis is partially accepted.
The second hypothesis, which proposes that there are significant relationships among leadership styles, organisational culture and organisational learning capability is tested using Pearson correlation coefficients as shown in table (6) It can be shown from the previous correlation matrix that organisational learning capability was significantly correlated with two leadership styles, namely, transformation and transactional leaderships, with higher correlation in case of transformational leadership. No significant differences between public and private universities were observed with this respect. Moreover, the results indicated that organisational learning capability was significantly correlated with three organisational cultures, namely, adhocracy, clan, and market cultures, with highest correlation in case of adhocracy culture. Again, no significant differences between public and private universities were observed with this respect. Therefore, the second hypothesis is partially sustained.
To test the third hypothesis, that proposed the type of the Egyptian university (whether private or public) moderates the relationship among these three constructs: leadership style, organisational culture and organisational learning capability, three-way ANOVA procedure was used to test the interaction effects among dominant leadership styles, dominant organisational culture, type of university on organisational learning capability as shown in the below table (7).

CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Regarding leadership style, this study reveals that there are significant differences between public and private universities in two factors pertaining to transactional and transformational leadership factors. In public universities, transactional leaders are more involved in both dimensions: active and passive management-by-exception style. These results are in concurrence with other previous studies (Palmer, Yassin, & Leila, 1985;Shahin & Wright, 2004), that was attributed to the dominance of the blame culture in Egyptian bureaucratic public settings, where leaders are credited for success and followers are blamed for failures. The interesting part of this study that idealized influence with its dual factors: behaviour and attributes was significant n Egyptian private universities. This finding is in congruent with Shahin and Wright (2004) previous study on leadership style in the context of Egyptian culture. This type of charismatic leadership is different from the type of transformational leadership described in Bass and Avolio's (1994) theory. In the Egyptian context it has as strong element of authoritarianism and one face of what Howell has referred to as 'personalized' charismatic component (Howell, 1988). This can be attributed to the high sense of job insecurity among academicians and other workforce in Egyptian private universities (Hawass, 2015).
Organisational culture has also affected the results of this study. This study found that 'Adhocracy' type followed by 'Market', then 'Clan' types were more associated with organisational learning capacity. This is in congruence with the results of (Ebeid & Gadelrab, 2009).
Moreover, this study revealed that there is significant impact for one dimension of the transformational leadership (idealized influence) and another one dimension of the transactional leadership (management by exception) on learning organisational capacity in both private and public universities alike. This result is partially consistent with previous studies that were tested to identify a positive impact of all transformational leadership dimensions on organisational learning. (Coad & Berry, 1998;Nordin & Kasbon;Zagoršek et al., 2009). Transformational leadership may be universally effective; however, effectiveness may vary across different contexts and contingencies. In Egypt, the rapidly changing transitional economy necessitates the influence of some element of the organisational learning process directly via leaders' transformational charisma, and indirectly via managers' transactional instrumental approaches. Both dimensions are needed to convince followers that learning is a strategic obligation and it does pay off -on both individual as well as organisation -wide levels.
Finally, this study showed there is no significant difference in the extent of the organisational learning capacity between public and private universities. This can be attributed to the fact, that all learning processes in both public and private universities are monitored, scrutinized, and accredited by one state council, that is the, 'Egyptian Supreme Council of Universities' (SCU).
Finally, findings have highlighted that both leadership and organisational culture can positively and significantly enhance the learning capacity of an organisation. Therefore, the practical implications of this study are dedicated to university leaders, who need to adjust their leadership style to support the creation of an organisational culture that is conducive to learning.
Some points in this study may constitute points of strength, but may also be regarded as issues of concern. Pertaining to the methodology, the sample and context may be regarded as limitations. While using Egyptian academicians in public and private universities in Greater Cairo as a target population contributes to the generalization of the research. It is also a weakness. Expanding the research to other countries in other regions, whether East or West, or even universities in other governorates inside Egypt would significantly contribute to the understanding of this trio relationship among leadership, culture, and organisational learning capacity in different public and private settings. Another limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the study. A longitudinal treatment of the data might yield additional insights into this triplet relationship free of time lag or any claims of causality among its constructs. Finally, researchers should also explore investigating other demographic factors, such as, university national and international academic ranking, size, age, curriculum specializations, that may influence the form of interaction between these three concepts leadership, culture, and learning capacity.