Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

From Control to Collaboration: The Impact of Participation on Learning

 

Dr. Nilesh Kumar Tiwari

Assistant Professor

Jaipuria Institute of Management, Lucknow

Nilesh.tiwari@jaipuria.ac.in

Orchid Id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7356-3387

 

Dr. Mohit Pahwa

Assistant Professor-HR & OB

SVKM'S NMIMS Deemed to be University

Chandigarh Campus

mohit.pahwa@nmims.edu

Orchid Id: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0082-5964

 

Shailesh Pandey

Associate Professor

Marketing Department

Jaipuria Institute of Management, Indore

Indore,Madhya Pradesh

India

 research.shail084@gmail.com

ORCID ID -0000-0002-6210-6623

 

Sharad Chaturvedi

 Professor

Business Analytics Department

Jaipuria Institute of Management, Indore

Indore, Madhya Pradesh

India

sharad.chaturvedi@jaipuria.ac.in

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

Employee learning and participation have been the significant aspect of organisational restructuring since decade. Drawing on Organisational learning and resource-based theory this article intends to explore the relationship between participative management style and learning at work with moderating role of supervisory communication. The outcome of the study based on the data gathered from 239 managers working in public sector organisations in India, supports the positive association of participative management style, and supervisory communication on learning at work. Furthermore, participation coupled with effective supervisory communication engenders the environment that is conducive for employee development and growth. The study underlines the importance of participation in creating knowledge driven workforce, providing theoretical and practical implications.

Keywords: Employee Participation, Learning, Participative management, Supervisory Communication

 

Introduction

 

For several decades, employee participation and employee learning has emerged as pivotal mechanism of organisational reform in India and across the globe (Errida & Lotfi, 2021). Creating an environment for learning, is conducive for employee development as well as the organisation. Moreover, such environment enhances knowledge, skills, and abilities while promoting innovation and creativity, thereby enabling organisation to sustain in dynamic and competitive market landscape (Deschamps & Mattijs, 2018; Wannapiroon & Pimdee, 2022). Participative management can be defined as an instrument where decisions are jointly taken and having shared influence between employees and employers (Elsetouhi et al., 2022; Kim, 2002). Furthermore, the participation is conducive to employee learning at work, leaders provide an opportunity and provide a platform where employees can learn (Tian & Zhai, 2019; Wang et al., 2022). Nonetheless, participative management is associated with productive employee outcomes such as job performance, creativity, job satisfaction, employee engagement, well-being (Cai et al., 2021; Groen et al., 2017; Tam & Phong, 2024; Uribetxebarria et al., 2021). As per the Kelly Palmer and David Blake (2018), a article published in Harvard Business review (HBR), employees predominantly learn from their colleagues at workplace followed by manager and supervisor being the second most dominant source of learning at work. Supervisory communication facilitates as a bridge between management and employee, and fostering alignment, clarity, and engagement within the organisation (Bucăţa & Rizescu, 2017). As well, these supervisors express their standard and perspectives to their subordinates. On the other hand, they thoughtfully consider needs, opinion and expectation of their subordinates, that encourages a more responsive and inclusive workplace (Zaccone & Pedrini, 2025). While some organisation rely on unidirectional communication between supervisors and subordinates, effective supervisory communication enables knowledge transfer, supports engagement, and aligns organisational goals (Bucăţa & Rizescu, 2017). Earlier studies has explored the association between participation, learning, and performance (Inanc et al., 2015; Oluwafemi & Ametepe, 2023; Shilpi Saha & S. Pavan Kumar, 2017; Tian & Zhai, 2019; Valleala et al., 2014).; limited studies has explored this relationship in public sector organisations, particularly in India. To address this gap, this research examines the association between participative management style and learning at work with moderating effect of supervisory communication. Specifically, it seeks to: (1) Examine the direct effect of participative management on learning at work. (2) analyse how supervisory communication moderate the relationship. (3) explore the boundary conditions that influence this association in public sector organisations in India. To address these research questions, a data of 239 public sector managers working in public sector organisation in Inda has been collected. To the best of authors’ knowledge, this study is among the first to empirically examine this relationship within the context of Indian public sector organisations.

As per organisational learning theory (OL Theory) that lays out how organisations learn, share and utilise information to develop, transform and continually efficient over time (Argyris & Schön, 1997; Tian & Zhai, 2019). In addition, interaction among individuals from distinct experience and background, stimulates creativity and strengthens organisational value creation (Guerra-Gómez & Perez-Sanchez, 2025). Thus, organisation might stimulate knowledge synergies, productivity and performance as a whole by involving manager, supervisor and employee in collective learning approach (Khan et al., 2023; Teece, 2014). In consistent, employees, and managers may exchange knowledge and learn from one another through instrument of participative management which enable organisations to adapt, innovate and sustain (Wang et al., 2022). According to Resource Based Theory (RB Theory) provides strategic lens on how organisations utilise their internal resources to gain competitive advantage (Barney, 2001; Nayak et al., 2023). With this instrument, organisations may strengthen their core competencies, adapt to dynamic market conditions, and yield long term value addition that is challenging for rivals to imitate (Kaur & Kaur, 2021; Tian & Zhai, 2019). This article integrates OL theory and RB theory to provide a comprehensive understanding of how participative management improve learning at work. OL theory describes how organisation acquire, share and apply knowledge to drive innovation, while RB theory provides a strategic perspective on how internal resources like participative management, and supervisory communication, create a competitive advantage. The article commences with a literature review of participative management style, supervisory communication, and learning in public sector organisations of India. Next, it discusses interaction between participation, supervisory communication, and learning at work, testing two key hypotheses. The finding shows an association between participative management learning at work. Finally, this article has a discussion, conclusion, and implication for management leaders.

 

Theoretical perspectives and Hypothesis Formation

Participative Management Style

 Participative management is also known as Employee Involvement and participatory management. Participation is one of the classical concepts in management since the literature on participative management, and the democratic style of management has attracted researchers since 1930s (Lawler & Hackman, 1969; Rybnikova & Lang, 2022). Participative management is a complex management process that can effectively increase performance, job satisfaction, and employee productivity, engagement, wellbeing when appropriately applied (Cai et al., 2021; Groen et al., 2017; Tam & Phong, 2024; Uribetxebarria et al., 2021). Thus, the research claims that if employees observe the work environment is supportive, they are more satisfied and perform better at work (Zhenjing et al., 2022). As per (Lawler & Hackman, 1969), effective participative management is characterised by transparent information sharing, equitable reward dispersion, and delegation of decision-making authority to employees.  This approach enhances employee commitment, cultivate a sense of ownership, and foster a collaborative and highly motivated workforce (Cotton et al., 2016; Miao et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 2006).

 

 

Learning at Work

Learning is the continuous process through which individuals and organisations gather, assess and apply knowledge, information, and skills that influence both individual and organisation (Marsick & Watkins, 2015). It is an essential part of organisational learning and take place through employee interaction at work, self-study, and observation (Marquardt, 2013; Senge, 1991). Moreover, exposure to varied expertise and problem-solving capability engender individual as well as organisational learning, that is embedded in day-to-day task and work challenges (Kaufman, 2001). In addition, organisations that nurture environment for learning empowers employee to be more innovative, incessantly foster competencies, and acclimatise to change (Lemmetty & Billet, 2023; Valleala et al., 2015). Thus, employee can augment their own skill and body of organization’s knowledge if they actively engage in discussions, share their thoughts and solicit feedback (Crans et al., 2021). To create environment that encourages learning through effective leadership especially participative leadership, it is essential as it enables employees to take charge of their own development and growth and involve in ongoing learning initiatives (Felstead et al., 2010; Tian & Zhai, 2019).

 

Participative management style and learning at work

Employee involvement sometimes also referred as participative management or participative leadership has attracted substantial amount of recognition since past few decades (Elsetouhi et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). This management instrument urges managers to include subordinates in organisational decision-making stimulating involvement and shared responsibility (Huang et al., 2010). In this form of leadership, consultation is preferred over direction that integrate management person and employees through resource allocation, motivation, and assistance (Philip & Arrowsmith, 2020). The greatest advantage of implementing this participation management approach is that it promotes collaboration and inclusivity which in turn boost problem solving, employee autonomy, innovation and organisational effectiveness (Lu et al., 2015; Miao et al., 2013; Somech, 2006). Research conducted on employees of China discloses that newer workers with brief tenure reciprocate more progressively to participative management style though revealing a more level of commitment (Huang et al., 2006).  Additionally, participative leadership significantly impacts the work-related performance of employees by causing a greater level of trust (Huang et al., 2010).

Study on workplace learning has remarkably emphasised the significance of learning through interaction and cooperation with co-workers and networks (Poell & Van der Krogt, 2010). Research on the team learning claims that the leader’s behaviour play an essential role in change (Ortega et al., 2013). In continuation, change is the phenomena that is not exclusively initiated by the senior level of management but by leaders of all levels. Nonetheless, some prominent scholars have delved into the management paradigm and tried to explore the effect of participation on employee performance, productivity, job satisfaction, and learning outcomes, however, yielding mixed outcomes (Bhatti & Qureshi, 2007; Inanc et al., 2015; Kim, 2002; Lam et al., 2015; Lam et al., 2002). Researchers have consistently explored the relationship between participation and workplace learning, emphasising its impact on training curriculum, informal learning effectiveness, and overall skill development (Felstead et al., 2010; Gerards et al., 2021).

Numerous research on participative management underscores its vital function in facilitating organizational change, encouraging decision-making, cultivating employee engagement, performance and developing an innovation and continuous learning culture (Ali & Ali, 2022; Cai et al., 2021; Oluwafemi & Ametepe, 2023; Valleala et al., 2014). This style of management i.e. participation develops a collaborative environment that strengthens learning by encouraging interchange of skills and knowledge, consequently promoting individual as well as collective learning (Hasu et al., 2014; Inanc et al., 2015; Shilpi Saha & Pavan Kumar, 2017; Tian & Zhai, 2019).

Kitzmiller et al. (2010) has observed, participative workplace promotes collective learning by harnessing differed skills, knowledge, and experience, causing greater creativity and effectiveness. Furthermore, employee participation facilitates informal approach to learning including supervisor feedback, peer monitoring, that are essential for continual skill advancement (Blume et al., 2024; Inanc et al., 2015). Thus, Employee who involve in decision making are more willing to seek and apply new information, that promote a culture of lifelong learning and career advancement (Oluwafemi & Ametepe, 2023; Tian & Zhai, 2019). According to Salas-Vallina & Fernandez (2017) organisations that foster participative leadership have more motivated employees as there are psychologically safe climate created by shared responsibility and open communication eventually engenders learning. Consequently, participation not only enhance employee competence while also boosting overall potential and adaptability of the organisation (Galeazzo et al., 2021). Based on the above argument, we hypothesize:

 

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive association between participative management style Learning at Work

Moderating effect of supervisory communication

Supervisory communication is transfer of information, offering feedback, and providing guidance when required (Jablin, 1979). Employees are more likely to understand their responsibility, raise concerns, and acquire new skill if supervisor involve themselves in two-way communication. In addition, this two-way communication mechanism not only strengthen manager-employees association, but it also increases job satisfaction, productivity, motivation (Bucăţa & Rizescu, 2017; Naoum, 2016; Nguyen & Ha, 2023).  Furthermore, it is found in research that communication play a significant role in organisational effectiveness.  Nonetheless, communication between superior and subordinate has a long journey in the management field as well as in the field of business communication (Cornelissen, 2011; Pelz, 1952). Thus, communication is an essential instrument in organisational context that affect employee’s performance, engagement (Swanson et al., 2020; Thornton, 2019). Additionally, effective supervisory communication reduces misconceptions, integrates employees with organisational goals, and encourage an employee satisfaction and organisational commitment(Raina & Roebuck, 2016).

As a leadership approach, employee participation enables managers the authority to involve team members in departmental or organisational decision making, resulting in a sense of shared responsibility at workplace (Sauer, 2011; Somech, 2003). Thus, by offering motivation, encouragement, and strategic influence and requisite resources, participative leadership encourage subordinate involvement in management process. It is claimed in research that organisations that encourage participative management are performing better on employee well-being parameters than organisations that do not promote participative management (Lee et al., 2019; Uribetxebarria et al., 2021). Some studies have demonstrated that psychological wellbeing can be amplified when there is effective supervisory communication (Yue et al., 2024).

Supervisory communication serves as a crucial to cultivating an environment in which individuals are engaged, feel informed, and supported, and that in turn contributes to facilitate learning at work (Park et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2024). A study conducted in the field of management founds the mum effect, in which subordinates are unwilling to express disagreement, restricts transparent communication , obstructing organisational learning and adaptability (Bisel et al., 2012). In addition, research conducted by Chou & Ramser (2019) claims a multilevel framework that explain how employee initiated actions, such as upward helping and voice behaviour, improves leadership capital and knowledge management, ultimately promoting organisational learning. Moreover, a study conducted in academia indicate that good communication skills among teachers are crucial for increasing student involvement, improving teaching-learning process, and creating a supportive environment for student learning (Duta et al., 2015). Thus, based on above arguments we hypothesise:

Hypothesis 2. Supervisory communication will be moderating the association between participative management style and learning at work such that participative management style would be strongly related to learning if supervisory communication is high.

 

Research Method

Data collection and Sampling

Understanding the significance of professional growth, learning is seen as crucial aspect of HRM. The data collection for this study has been taken from employees working in public sector organisations of India specially in Mining and Manufacturing, power generation and distribution. A full-time working professional of these organisation have been considered as respondent. In order to raise response variability and assure the generalisability of outcomes, researchers underline the significance of diverse sampling that has been considered for the study (Agarwal & Gupta, 2018; Tomarken & Serlin, 1986). A cover letter outlining the intentions of this research was distributed with the Google for Survey questionnaire, reassuring respondents that all responses would be preserved confidential and used only for academic purposes.

A structured, self-reported questionnaire has been employed as primary means to gather data for the quantitative study (Malhotra, 1999). A complete set of 1270 Google form surveys were sent by email; 239 of the surveys were filled out, generating a 18.70 % response rate. All the response were made compulsory, so no issue with the missing response. The survey form comprises scales of variable used under study and demographic characteristics also. Of the respondents, 73 (30.5) were in the category of 21-35 years of age, 14 (5.9 %) were in the category of 36-50 years of age. In terms of respondent's experience, 223 (93.3 %) have experience up to 1-10 years, 11 (4.6 %) have experience up to 11-20 years, and 5 (2.1 %) have experience more than 20 years. Regarding job position, 25 (10.5 %) were at senior level, 104 (44.5 %) were at middle or intermediate level, and 110 (46 %) were working at junior level positions.

Measure

Participative Management Style

To measure the participative management style, a four-item scale has been developed and validated by (Kim, 2002) has been considered. A seven-pointer liker scale, with 1 signifying “strongly disagree” and 7 signifying “strongly agree,” was adopted for collecting responses. Cronbach’s alpha, an indicator of internal consistency of this scale (participative management style) is 0.86.

Supervisory Communication

To measure the supervisory communication, a three-item scale has been developed and validated by (Kim, 2002) has been considered. A seven-pointer liker scale, with 1 signifying “strongly disagree” and 7 signifying “strongly agree,” was adopted for collecting responses. Cronbach’s alpha, an indicator of internal consistency of this scale (supervisory communication) is 0.85.

Learning at work

To measure the learning at work, a Nine-item scale has been developed and validated by (Porath et al., 2012) has been considered. A seven-pointer liker scale, with 1 signifying “strongly disagree” and 7 signifying “strongly agree,” was adopted for collecting responses. Cronbach’s alpha, an indicator of internal consistency of this scale (learning at work) is 0.88.

 Analysis of Data

This study employs SPSS AMOS 28 to gauge model fit applying structural equation modelling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Further, validity, reliability and descriptive statistics have also been calculated using SPSS statistics 28. Additionally, to address possible data non-normality, a usual challenge with Likert scale response, the PROCESS Macro by Hayes (2018) was applied with 5000 bootstrap resamples.

Result

Measurement Model

All study variable included were incorporated into measurement model and checked with AMOS. The model’s fit indices demonstrate a good match to the data: χ2 (198) = 191, χ2/df = 1.94, p < 0.001, CFI = 0. 995, RMSEA = 0.0, SRMR = 0.075, TLI = 0.994. A self-reported questionnaire has been employed in this cross-sectional research, which is an in established approach to acquire sensitive data while ensuring accuracy and reliability of response (Earl Babbie, 2020). As the data has been collected with the aid of Google form, and all the responses were marked compulsory, so there is no issue of missing response in this study. Adhering to the recommendations of  (Podsakoff et al., 2003), some methodological measures were performed in this study that mitigate the potential influence of CMB. To maintain proximity between dependent and independent variables, psychological measures have been incorporated in the survey intentionally. Furthermore, anonymity of responses was assured, and participants were asked to submit truthful responses only.

 

Discriminant validity & Convergent Validity

Following the testing of measurement model with CFA, the instruments’ discriminant validity (DV) and convergent validity (CV) were checked. The Cronbach’s alpha value and CR (composite reliability)  of all the construct included in this study were higher than recommended cutoff of 0.70, demonstrating the latent constructs’ convergent validity and good internal consistency (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, 1994). Additionally, in the study discriminant validity also fall within range 0.85 to 0.90 as the limit The establishment of discriminant validity (DV) takes place when an Average variance extracted (AVE) of a construct surpasses the squared correlations between that construct and every other construct in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).  DV was verified since the AVE of each construct were more than squared inter-factor correlations. Thus, in the study DV fall within range 0.85 to 0.90 as the limit. The Cronbach-α, AVE, CR and inter-factor correlation shown in Table 1.

 

Add here, Table 1

 

Testing for Hypothesis

Applying SEM IBM SPSS AMOS 28, the proposed hypothesis was investigated. To address any potential concern with multicollinearity, the independent variables were mean centred after moderation analysis. Out first hypothesis was validated based on the data as it displays substantial positive relationship between Participative Management Style and Learning at work (β = 0.190, p < 0.001). Moreover, supervisory communication displays a substantial positive relationship with learning at work (β = 0.436, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant interaction effect between participative management style and supervisory communication (β = 0.106, p < 0.005) on learning at work, fulfilling hypothesis 2. Thus, Fig 1 illustrates the results of the analysis along with unstandardised path coefficient.

Add here, Figure 1

 

An alternative testing took place using Model 1 PROCESS Macro Hayes AF (2018) with 5000 bootstrap resamples at 95% C.I in  order to deal with the non-normality of the data. Additionally, this Hayes PROCESS Macro made it convenient to establish association between independent and dependent variable (participative management and learning at work respectively) at different moderation level (supervisory communication), precisely at +1 SD to -1 SD.

The regression analysis outcome using unstandardised coefficient paths were employed by PROCESS Macro are exhibited in Table 2. The bootstrap findings for the regression model are exhibited in Table 3. This indicate that supervisory communication substantially moderates the association between participative management style and learning at work. In addition, as zero does not lie within either the lower or upper-level CI, so confirming the moderation result. Moreover, the link between participative management and learning would be more robust and profoundly favourable at greater levels of moderator (supervisory communication). The anticipated factor and C.I value at higher or lower of supervisory communication as moderating construct are presented in Table 4. And interaction effect (participation and supervisory communication) on learning at work are exhibited in Figure 2.

Add here, Table 2

 

Discussion

This study delivers empirical evidence that advocate positive association between participative management and learning at work, based on the survey data of 239 employees working in public sector in India. The finding highlights that participative management encourages information sharing and generate a learning environment, validating the notion that integrating employee in decision making processes leads to greater knowledge acquisition and application.  Furthermore, the study examines the moderating role of supervisory communication between participative management and learning at work. Thus, supervisory communication plays a crucial role in this relationship. Moreover, when supervisors clearly convey expectations, provide honest feedback, and advocate for discussion, employees are more likely to involve in self-directed learning, develop skills for problem solving, contributing to workplace learning (Park et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2024). This study is lines up with the previous studies suggesting that participation improves person’s ability to acquire, share, and imply knowledge within the organisation (Inanc et al., 2015; Tian & Zhai, 2019).

Previous studies have predominantly examined the impact of participative leadership on job satisfaction, job performance, productivity, innovation but overlooked its association to the dimension of employee learning (Chang et al., 2021; Elsetouhi et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2014; Wang & Yang, 2015).The impact of participative management style on learning is stronger when supervisory communication is more. The finding further reassures interaction effect, which indicates high supervisory communication combined with participative management enhances learning at work. Conversely, the impact of participative management on learning is significantly reduced in organisational setting with low supervisory communication. Supervisory communication diminishes barriers to information sharing, mitigates the hierarchical mum effect (Bisel et al., 2012), and develops an open learning culture where employees are encouraged to express views, seek feedback, and improve their abilities (Wu et al., 2024). These discoveries advance the theoretical underpinnings of workplace learning dynamics and have implications for organisations that are striving to enhanced employee development.

Add here, TABLE 3

 

Theoretical Implication

This research combines the resource-based theory (RB Theory) with organisational learning theory (OL Theory) and explore how participative management enhances learning at workplace with moderating role of supervisory communication. This study contributes to OL Theory by proving that participation serves as learning catalyst, not only through direct knowledge exchange but also by establishing an inclusive decision-making environment. As per this theory, organisations can enhance their performance by encouraging ongoing learning process both individual and group level (Remy & Sané, 2024). This study demonstrates effective participative management encourages such kinds of learning by actively involving employees in organisational decision making (Tian & Zhai, 2019). When associated with effective supervisory communication, participative management improves problem solving skills, fosters learning oriented workplace, and stimulates knowledge sharing.

INSERT FIGURE 2

As per RB theory, one of the most important organisational resources that supports long term competitive advantage is human capital, that includes the abilities, know-how, and competencies of individuals (Barney, 2001; Nayak et al., 2023). This study highlights that, if supported by supervisory communication, the employee participation fosters a culture of continuous learning, which improves human capital development. In addition, organisations that puts strong emphasis on communication and participation develop a skilled and knowledgeable workforce, eventually strengthens their strategic position in a competitive market. Furthermore, our finding support RB Theory by demonstrating that supervisory communication serves as a strategic asset, assisting organisations in developing internal skills that create a sustained competitive advantage.

Add here, TABLE 4

 

Managerial Implication

The output of the current study has implications for managers and industry practitioners too. The finding of the study suggests that encouraging a participative culture for decision-making can enhance employee’s ability to learn and apply information in the workplace. Thus, the manager ought to implement participative leadership techniques that motivate employees to get involved in organizational decision, eventually cultivating a feeling of psychological ownership and engagement. Employers might employ participative management techniques to actively engage managers and staff in skills development and knowledge sharing. This strategy facilitates both individual as well as collective learning, leading to workplace that is more creative and adaptive.

Furthermore, the moderating effect of supervisory communication emphasises the significance of effective managerial communication to optimise the beneficial effect of participation. Managers should be educated in effective supervisory communication to ensure that participative management yields concrete learning outcomes. In addition, the supervisors should serve as learning facilitator, by encouraging collaborative problem-solving techniques, establishing open lines of communication, and offering prompt feedback. Moreover, organisations should implement structured mechanism for feedback that allow for open and two-way communication between managers and employees. Moreover, organisations need to support leadership development initiatives that brings managers the proficiency they need to interact effectively with employees. Through the integration of structured communicative frameworks and employee participation, organisations may foster a knowledge-driven culture that improves employee development and organisational performance. Public sector organisations ought to consider revising hierarchical communication to promote more participative and inclusion decision-making.

 

Limitation and Future Research

Data employed in this study, gathered from Indian public sector employees. The result display that the participative management has a positive impact on learning, with supervisory communication serving as a moderating variable. Nevertheless, the study uses a cross-sectional approach, which makes it more challenging to establish that one condition cause another. Future studies might employ experimental or longitudinal approaches to validate and understand these associations, given the possible existence of other impacting factors more accurately. In addition, since this study focuses on employees from Indian Public sector companies, raising concerns about its applicability to private sector or multinational companies.

Additionally, the study focuses on employee representation in corporate decision-making bodies in relation to participative management. Majority of the respondents are middle or senior level managers, which raises concerns whether the finding of the study would be applicable to lower level of staff. Ensure a more thorough understanding of participative management’s influence across organisational strata, future study may examine its effects among frontline employees, as its implications may vary depending on the hierarchical level.

Conclusion

Previous studies have majorly focused on how participation can enhance employee performance, job satisfaction, motivation but have overlooked its effect on learning at workplace in public sector organisations of India. To address this gap this study examines at the association between participative management style and learning at work, using supervisory communication as moderating variable. Thus, the result demonstrates that participative management boost learning at workplace, and this outcome further strengthened when supervisory communication is more. The study also shares insights into how effective communication and participative decision making facilitate knowledge acquisition at workplace by investigating 239 managers of public sector organisations of India.

In participative management, management and staff come together to make decisions, which promotes continuous learning and productivity. The process is further supported using effective supervisory communication technique, which facilitates significant interactions that improve learning at work. The finding of the study empirically demonstrates that participative management enhances learning at workplace and eventually organisational performance when moderating effect of supervisory communication is strong.

 

References

Agarwal, U. A., & Gupta, V. (2018). Relationships between job characteristics, work engagement, conscientiousness and managers’ turnover intentions. Personnel Review, 47(2), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2016-0229

Ali, A., & Ali, S. M. (2022). Motivational approach to team service performance: Role of participative leadership and team-inclusive climate. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Volume 52, 75–85.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reis, 77/78, 345. https://doi.org/10.2307/40183951

Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602

Bhatti, K. K., & Qureshi, T. M. (2007). Impact of Employee Participation on Job Satisfaction, Employee Commitment and Employee Productivity. International Review of Business …, 3(2), 54–68. http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/Bhatti.pdf

Bisel, R. S., Messersmith, A. S., & Kelley, K. M. (2012). Supervisor-subordinate communication: Hierarchical mum effect meets organizational learning. Journal of Business Communication, 49(2), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612436972

Blume, B. D., Kevin Ford, J., & Huang, J. L. (2024). Transfer of informal learning: The role of manager support in linking learning to performance. Business Horizons, 67(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2023.12.001

Bucăţa, G., & Rizescu, A. M. (2017). The Role of Communication in Enhancing Work Effectiveness of an Organization. Land Forces Academy Review, 22(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/raft-2017-0008

Cai, W., Lin-Schilstra, L., Yang, C., & Fan, X. (2021). Does participation generate creativity? A dual-mechanism of creative self-efficacy and supervisor-subordinate guanxi. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(4), 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1864329

Chang, Y. Y., Chang, C. Y., Chen, Y. C. K., Seih, Y. T., & Chang, S. Y. (2021). Participative leadership and unit performance: evidence for intermediate linkages. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 19(3), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1755208

Chou, S. Y., & Ramser, C. (2019). A multilevel model of organizational learning: Incorporating employee spontaneous workplace behaviors, leadership capital and knowledge management. Learning Organization, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-10-2018-0168

Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice. In Corporate Communication: A Strategic ….

Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-hall, M. L., Jennings, K. R., & Cotton, J. L. (2016). Employee Participation : Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : Employee Participation : Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes. 13(1), 8–22.

Crans, S., Bude, V., Beausaert, S., & Segers, M. (2021). Social informal learning and the role of learning climate: Toward a better understanding of the social side of learning among consultants. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(4), 507–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21429

Deschamps, C., & Mattijs, J. (2018). How Organizational Learning Is Supported by Performance Management Systems: Evidence from a Longitudinal Case Study. Public Performance and Management Review, 41(3), 469–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1462213

Duta, N., Panisoara, G., & Panisoara, I.-O. (2015). The Effective Communication in Teaching. Diagnostic Study Regarding the Academic Learning Motivation to Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.064

Earl Babbie. (2020). The Practice of Social Research (15th Editi). Cengage.

Elsetouhi, A. M., Mohamed Elbaz, A., & Soliman, M. (2022). Participative leadership and its impact on employee innovative behavior through employee voice in tourism SMEs: The moderating role of job autonomy. Tourism and Hospitality Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/14673584221119371

Errida, A., & Lotfi, B. (2021). The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790211016273

Felstead, A., Gallie, D., Green, F., & Zhou, Y. (2010). Employee involvement , the quality of training and the learning environment : an individual level analysis. 5192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.500489

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Galeazzo, A., Furlan, A., & Vinelli, A. (2021). The role of employees’ participation and managers’ authority on continuous improvement and performance. In International Journal of Operations and Production Management (Vol. 41, Issue 13). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2020-0482

Gerards, R., de Grip, A., & Weustink, A. (2021). Do new ways of working increase informal learning at work? Personnel Review, 50(4), 1200–1215. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2019-0549

Groen, B. A. C., Wouters, M. J. F., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2017). Employee participation, performance metrics, and job performance: A survey study based on self-determination theory. Management Accounting Research, 36, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.10.001

Guerra-Gómez, J., & Perez-Sanchez, E. . (2025). Individual learning in organisational learning contexts: A literature review. Human Systems Management, 44(1), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-2302

Hasu, M., Honkaniemi, L., Saari, E., Mattelmäki, T., & Koponen, L. (2014). Learning employee-driven innovating: Towards sustained practice through multi-method evaluation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(5), 310–330. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2013-0079

Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100

Hayes AF. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.

Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), 122–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.636

Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z., & Cheung, Y. L. (2006). The impact of participative leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: the moderating role of organizational tenure. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 23(3), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-9006-3

Inanc, H., Zhou, Y., Gallie, D., Felstead, A., & Green, F. (2015). Direct Participation and Employee Learning at Work. Work and Occupations, 42(4), 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888415580650

Jablin, F. M. (1979). Superior-subordinate communication: The state of the art. Psychological Bulletin, 86(6), 1201–1222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.6.1201

Kaufman, B. E. (2001). The theory and practice of strategic HRM and participative management antecedents in early industrial relations. Human Resource Management Review, 11(4), 505–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00051-1

Kaur, S., & Kaur, G. (2021). Understanding the impact of human resource practices on employee competencies: evidence from Indian food processing industry. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 43(5), 957–978. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2020-0216

Kelly Palmer and David Blake. (2018, November). How to Help Your Employees Learn from Each Other. Harvard Business Review.

Khan, H. S. ud din, Guangsheng, Y., Chughtai, M. S., & Cristofaro, M. (2023). Effect of supervisor-subordinate Guanxi on employees work behavior: An empirical dynamic framework. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(2), 100360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100360

Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00173

Kitzmiller, R. R., Anderson, R. A., & McDaniel, R. R. (2010). Making sense of health information technology implementation: A qualitative study protocol. Implementation Science, 5(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-95

Lam, C. K., Huang, X., & Chan, S. C. H. (2015). The Threshold Effect of Participative Leadership and the Role of Leader Information Sharing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 836–855. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0427

Lam, S. S. K., Chen, X. P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 905–914. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069321

Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1969). Impact of employee participation in the development of pay intentive plans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(6), 467–471.

Lee, J., Kim, S., Lee, J., & Moon, S. (2019). Enhancing Employee Creativity for A Sustainable Competitive Advantage through Perceived Human Resource Management Practices and Trust in Management. Sustainability, 11(8), 2305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082305

Lemmetty, S., & Billet, S. (2023). Employee-driven learning and innovation (EDLI) as a phenomenon of continuous learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 35(9), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-12-2022-0175

Lu, J., Jiang, X., Yu, H., & Li, D. (2015). Building collaborative structures for teachers’ autonomy and self-efficacy: The mediating role of participative management and learning culture. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(2), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.888086

Malhotra, N. (1999). An applied orientation. Marketing Research, 2, 1–26.

Marquardt, M. J. (2013). Buildiing the Learning Organization Mastering the 5 Element for Corporate Learning 2nd Edition. In Analisis pendapatan dan tingkat kesejahteraan rumah tangga petani (Vol. 53, Issue 9).

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. (2015). Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace (Routledge Revivals). In Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315715926

Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. (2013). Participative Leadership and the Organizational Commitment of Civil Servants in China : The Mediating Effects of Trust in Supervisor. 24, 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12025

Miller, K. I., Monge, P. R., & Miller, K. I. (2014). PARTICIPATION , SATISFACTION , AND PRODUCTIVITY : A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW. 29(4), 727–753.

Naoum, S. G. (2016). Factors influencing labor productivity on construction sites. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(3), 401–421. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2015-0045

Nayak, B., Bhattacharyya, S. S., & Krishnamoorthy, B. (2023). Integrating the dialectic perspectives of resource-based view and industrial organization theory for competitive advantage – a review and research agenda. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(3), 656–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2021-0306

Nguyen, C. M. A., & Ha, M.-T. (2023). The interplay between internal communication, employee engagement, job satisfaction, and employee loyalty in higher education institutions in Vietnam. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 329. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01806-8

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological Theory. In Psychological Theory. McGraw-Hill.

Oluwafemi, O. J., & Ametepe, P. K. (2023). Mediating role of emotional intelligence between organizational climate, and transfer of learning among civil service employees. Journal of Workplace Learning, 35(5), 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-11-2022-0159

Ortega, A., Van den Bossche, P., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Rico, R., & Gil, F. (2013). The Influence of Change-Oriented Leadership and Psychological Safety on Team Learning in Healthcare Teams. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9315-8

Park, S., Kang, H.-S. (Theresa), & Kim, E.-J. (2018). The role of supervisor support on employees’ training and job performance: an empirical study. European Journal of Training and Development, 42(1/2), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2017-0054

Pelz, D. C. (1952). Influence: a key to effective leadership in the first-line supervisor. Personnel, 29(3), 3–11. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1953-06209-001

Philip, K., & Arrowsmith, J. (2020). The limits to employee involvement? Employee participation without HRM in a small not-for-profit organisation. Personnel Review, 50(2), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2019-0457

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Poell, R. F., & Van der Krogt, F. J. (2010). Individual Learning Paths of Employees in the Context of Social Networks. In Learning Through Practice (pp. 197–221). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3939-2_11

Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756

Raina, R., & Roebuck, D. B. (2016). Exploring Cultural Influence on Managerial Communication in Relationship to Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and the Employees’ Propensity to Leave in the Insurance Sector of India. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 97–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525453

Remy, K., & Sané, S. (2024). The effect of humble leadership on the success of international development projects: the mediating role of organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 31(2), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-06-2022-0076

Roberts, J. A., Hann, I. H., & Slaughter, S. A. (2006). Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Science, 52(7), 984–999. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0554

Rybnikova, I., & Lang, R. (2022). Meanings of management in the post-socialist higher education: the case of Lithuania. Baltic Journal of Management, 17(4), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-09-2020-0330

Salas-Vallina, A., & Fernandez, R. (2017). The HRM-performance relationship revisited. Employee Relations, 39(5), 626–642. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-12-2016-0245

Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022741

Senge, P. M. (1991). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization. Performance + Instruction, 30(5), 37–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4170300510

Shilpi Saha, & S. Pavan Kumar. (2017). INFLUENCE OF PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING ON JOB SATISFACTION, GROUP LEARNING, AND GROUP COMMITMENT: EMPIRICAL STUDY OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS IN INDIA. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 22(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2017.22.1.4

Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.225

Somech, A. (2006). The Effects of Leadership Style and Team Process on Performance and Innovation in Functionally Heterogeneous Teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277799

Swanson, E., Kim, S., Lee, S.-M., Yang, J.-J., & Lee, Y.-K. (2020). The effect of leader competencies on knowledge sharing and job performance: Social capital theory. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 42, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.11.004

Tam, V. T., & Phong, V. V. T. (2024). Corporate Sustainability, Employee Engagement, Local Community Participation, Investor Commitment, and The Small and Medium Tourism Business Performance: The Case in Southern Provinces of Vietnam. J. of Business and Management, 29(2), 61–100. https://doi.org/10.1504/JBM.2024.141307

Teece, D. J. (2014). A dynamic capabilities-based entrepreneurial theory of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(1), 8–37. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.54

Thornton, G. S. (2019). Internal Communications Flourishes at the Grassroots: The Growing Importance of Managers in Employee Engagement. In Strategic Employee Communication. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97894-9_9

Tian, X., & Zhai, X. (2019a). Employee involvement in decision-making: the more the better? International Journal of Manpower, 40(4), 768–782. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2017-0090

Tian, X., & Zhai, X. (2019b). Employee involvement in decision-making: the more the better? International Journal of Manpower, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-05-2017-0090

Tomarken, A. J., & Serlin, R. C. (1986). Comparison of anova Alternatives Under Variance Heterogeneity and Specific Noncentrality Structures. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.90

Uribetxebarria, U., Garmendia, A., & Elorza, U. (2021). Does employee participation matter? An empirical study on the effects of participation on well-being and organizational performance. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 29(4), 1397–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-020-00704-7

Valleala, U. M., Herranen, S., Collin, K., & Paloniemi, S. (2014). Fostering Learning Opportunities Through Employee Participation Amid Organizational Change. Vocations and Learning, 8(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-014-9121-0

Valleala, U. M., Herranen, S., Collin, K., & Paloniemi, S. (2015). Fostering Learning Opportunities Through Employee Participation Amid Organizational Change. Vocations and Learning, 8(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-014-9121-0

Wang, Q., Hou, H., & Li, Z. (2022). Participative Leadership: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924357

Wang, W., & Yang, X. (2015). Does Informal Participation Increase Job Satisfaction in Public Organizations? A Study on Civil Servants in Beijing, China. Public Personnel Management, 44(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026015586264

Wannapiroon, N., & Pimdee, P. (2022). Thai undergraduate science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM) creative thinking and innovation skill development: a conceptual model using a digital virtual classroom learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5689–5716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10849-w

Wu, S., Oubibi, M., & Bao, K. (2024). How supervisors affect students’ academic gains and research ability: An investigation through a qualitative study. Heliyon, 10(10), e31079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31079

Yue, C. A., Xu, S., Tao, W., & Huang, L. V. (2024). The Impact of Supervisory Communication on Newcomers’ Adjustment, Well-Being, and Relationships With Their Organization: A Longitudinal Study. Communication Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241234011

Zaccone, M. C., & Pedrini, M. (2025). How to promote workplace inclusion? Needs and meanings through the lens of HR managers. Corporate Governance, 25(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2023-0132

Zhenjing, G., Chupradit, S., Ku, K. Y., Nassani, A. A., & Haffar, M. (2022). Impact of Employees’ Workplace Environment on Employees’ Performance: A Multi-Mediation Model. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.890400

 

TABLE 1. Mean, SD, Correlation of research constructs

 

		α	CR	M	SD	1		2		3		4		5		6		7		8		9		10		11
1	Gender	-	-	0.35	0.479	-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-
2	Marital status	-	-	0.29	0.467	-0.068		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-
3	Age	-	-	0.03	0.184	-0.074		0.289	**	-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-
4	Edu	-	-	1.66	0.603	0.251	**	0.098		0.158	*	-		-		-		-		-		-		-		-
5	Job post	-	-	0.76	0.690	-0.179	*	0.309	**	0.021		0.013		-		-		-		-		-		-		-
6	Experience	-	-	0.03	0.168	0.017		0.263	**	0.722	**	0.154	*	0.111		-		-		-		-		-		-
7	Organisational status	-	-	0.66	0.475	-0.158		0.185	*	0.003		-0.117		0.225	**	0.051		-		-		-		-		-
8	Income	-	-	1.29	1.256	-0.074		0.204	**	0.082		0.113		0.108		0.125		-0.038		-		-		-		-
9	Participative Mgmt. Style	0.86	0.88	5.3035	1.274	0.009		-0.029		-0.157	*	-0.064		0.210	**	-0.096		0.069		0.061		0.658		0.303		0.285
10	Supervisory Communication	0.85	0.90	5.8516	1.095	-0.099		0.020		-0.071		-0.111		0.078		-0.019		0.077		0.271	**	0.551	**	0.734		0.315
11	Learning at Work	0.88	0.95	5.8381	.9016	-0.124		0.090		-0.095		-0.188	*	0.229	**	-0.046		0.104		0.021		0.534	**	0.562	**	0.669
Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; N= 239; α = Cronbach’s alpha reliability; CR = composite reliability; for each variable (Nos 9,10 and 11), AVE is depicted diagonally in Bold. Inter-construct correlations are displayed by value below the diagonals, while square correlations are indicated by value above the diagonal (i.e. above AVE); * p< 0.05 (2-tailed). ** p< 0.01 (2-tailed).

 

 

 

TABLE 2: Moderation analysis from Hayes PROCESS macro

 

 

Dependent construct (Learning)	Co-efficient	S.E	t-statistics	p-value	LLCI	ULCI
PMS	0.190	0.049	3.882	.000	0.093	0.286
SC	0.436	0.065	6.713	.000	0.308	0.564
PMS * SC	0.106	0.033	3.179	.022	0.040	0.172

 

Notes: unstandardised path coefficients; participative management style (PMS); supervisory communication (SC); Upper-level confidence interval (ULCI); Lower-level confidence Interval (LLCI); Interaction term (PMS * SC)

 

Table III Bootstrap outputs for regression model parameters

 

Dependent construct (Learning)	Co-efficient	Boot mean	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
PMS	0.190	0.188	0.053	0.082	0.292
SC	0.436	0.436	0.060	0.317	0.552
PMS * SC	0.106	0.107	0.037	0.033	0.182

 

Notes: unstandardised path coefficients; Upper-level confidence interval (ULCI); Lower-level confidence Interval (LLCI); 5000 bootstrap samples at confidence interval of 95 %.

 

 

 

Figure 1. The structural model with unstandardised path coefficients

 

 

Figure 2. Moderating effect of supervisory communication on Learning