Impact Of Leadership Style On Employee Performance.
The impact of leadership style on employee performance in every organization is to influence its employee’s degree of impact on their performance. Leadership styles have varying degree of impact on employee’s performance, which is project work took time to explain very well and other factors that are important to be note on employee performance.
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY OF IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE
The issue of leadership is very important for the survival of any organization. The impact of leadership styles on organizational performance has been a topic of interest among academic, and practitioners working in one area of leadership (Cannella, Giambatista, Barling, Dionne and Rowe et al, 1995).
Perhaps the most prominent reason for this interest is the widespread belief that leadership affects the performance of organizations (Rowe 2003).
The style of leadership adopted by some leaders is considered by researchers to be particular in achieving organizational goals, and in evoking performance among sub-ordinates (Barling, 1996, Benson 2001, Aditya 1997, Guzzo and Dickson 1996 et al).
Consequently, an effective leadership style or programme can be of immense assistance to identify and build leadership qualities among individuals within the organization.
Latest studies provide that organizations heavily invest in Human Resource Development Interventions to update and provide skill to the employees in order to attain job performance, job satisfaction and job involvement.
These skills can be impacted by providing necessary technical and non-technical training and coaching.
Leadership is widely recognized, and verified through research, leadership development can be imparted through experiential learning, vicarious learning and transformational learning and it as imparted as leaders can influence the people and motivate them. (Prooper, 2005).
Leadership development is becoming an increasingly critical and strategic imperative for organizations in the current business environment.
Leadership style remains an importance crux considered and implemented in organizations to increase human capability and other benefits that include gaining competitive advantage.
Against the foregoing, it is clear to note that today’s intensive dynamic markets features, innovation-based competition, price, performance rivalry; decreasing returns, and creative destruction of existing competencies is as a result of the leadership structure organization adopted to run their affairs.
Scholars and practitioners has suggested that effective leadership behaviours can facilitate the improvement of employees’ performance when an organization faces new challenges.
Understanding the effects of leadership style on performance is also important because leadership overtime has been viewed by some researchers as one of the key driving forces for improving a firm’s performance.
Effective leadership is seen as a potent source of management development and sustained competitive advantage for organizational improvement. The focus of this study is to examine the effect of leadership style on employee performance in Owerri Municipal Council of Imo State, Nigeria.
1.2 Statement of the Problems On Impact Of Leadership Style On Employee Performance
The management of people at work is an integral part of the management process. To understand the theoretical importance of people in the organization is to recognize that the human element and the organization are synonymous. Some leaders do not appreciate the fact that employees have to be motivated to ensure they do what they have to do for organizational goals and objectives to be achieved.
Due to the prevalent situation in Owerri Municipal Council and Nigeria in general, where supply of labour is greater than its demand, some employers do not believe much in effective motivation of workers, and in maintenance of good relationship patterns for high organizational performance.
They uphold the view that even if workers are not properly motivated by the leadership style, they cannot leave the job as jobs are scarcely available in the labour market.
Most employers are not effective in their leadership behaviour. They treat workers as machines believing that workers could be treated anyhow to attain their goal.
Some leaders do not also manage their time effectively with their workers to enhance effective job performance from the employees. In response to this, workers do not handle their work properly. There is evidently no proper planning and priority given to tasks and in effect leads to ineffectiveness.
Against this backdrop, it is imperative to state that workers in Owerri Municipal Council, have now formed the attitude of lateness to work, delay in service delivery and have developed the witch hunting attitude etc. Their job performance appears to be influenced by the council’s leadership, with the attendant socio-cultural, political and economic implications.
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The essence of leadership style in every organization is to influence its employee’s degree of impact on the employee’s performance. Leadership styles have varying degree of impact on employee’s performance.
Scholars such as McGraw Hill Curphy and Minberg et al (1973) have explored studies on the above subject matter. Yet such research works are deficient, especially as it lacks acceptance in the changing age of modernity, or globalization.
Their study deficiencies range from theoretical generalization of the research processes especially with their classifications of leaders to be autocratic, thereby implying a total misconception and misuse of the term in explaining leadership style.
Also, the mentioned research studies reveals that they laid much emphasis on statistical indices of the respondents while they failed to imply the FGD method to ascertain first hand result from the group in study.
Against the aforementioned, this research work will serve as a fillip to the deficiencies of studies carried out.
The study is relevant in time, as it will be instrumental to organizations and mostly local government administrations to encourage administrative trends of local government employee administration in Nigeria.
As a direct outcome of the research evaluation resulting from this work.
It will be of great benefit to the Nigerian public and private civil services, trade unions and industrial relations practitioners as a platform for further intellectual findings.
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main objective of this study is to examine leadership style and employee’s performance using Owerri Municipal Council workers as reference.
Other specific objectives of this study include:
1. To identify leadership style in the Owerri Municipal Council
3. To ascertain the extent of corporate failure associated with a given leadership style.
1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The following hypotheses will guide this work
1. There is a significant relationship between leadership style and enhanced performance of employee.
3. There is a significant relationship between leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction.
1.6 DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS
1. Leadership: According to Chemers (1997) leadership is as a process of social influence in which one person is able to enlist the aid and support of other individuals in the achievement of a common task.
According to Wikipedia, leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of other in the accomplishment of a common task”
2) Leadership style: According to Bass, B.M (1985) leadership style means the pattern of behaviour used by a leader in attempting to influence group members and decision regarding as a set organization goals.
3) Performance: Implies human activities which ensure that goals are consistently being met in an effective and efficient manner.
4) Employee: An employee may be defined as “A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written. (Black’s law Dictionary 1979).
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAME WORK
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Early Western History
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries. Philosophical writings from Plato’s Republic to Plutarch Lives have explored the question “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?”
Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess.
This idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as the “trait theory of leadership”.
The trait theory was explored at length in a number of works in the 19th century. Most notable are the writings of Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of research.
In Heroes and Hero worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents, skills and physical characteristic of men who rose to power. In Galton’s Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of powerful men.
After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off when moving from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that leadership was inherited.
In other words, leaders were born, not developed. Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader.
Rise of alternative theories:
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948: Mann, 1959) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership.
In reviewing the extant literature, stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations.
Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for the next few decades.
Reemergence of trait theory:
New methods and measurements were developed after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership.
For example, improvements in researchers’ use of the round robin research design methodology allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situation and tasks.
Additionally, during the 1980s statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array of studies.
This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed the following:
• Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of
situations and tasks
• Significant relationships exist between leadership and such
individual traits as:
While the trait theory of leadership has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks.
Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:
1. Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills expertise, and problem-solving skills
2. Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes:
3. Do not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences;
4. Do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership.
Attribute pattern approach:
Considering the criticisms of the trait theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective of leader individual differences – the leader attributes pattern approach.
In contrast to the traditional approach, the leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists’ arguments that the influences of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of individual variables.
In other words, the leader attribute pattern approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive combinations of multiple attributes.
Behavioral and style theories:
In responses to the early criticisms of the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of behaviors, evaluating the behaviour of successful leaders, determining behaviour taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles.
David McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance.
The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making, praise and criticism (Feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire.
The managerial grid model is also based on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders’ concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.
Positive Reinforcement ;
B.F Skinners is the father of behavior modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behaviour in the future.
The following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforce for a particular employee.
This employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the employee actually shows up to work on time.
As a result, the employee comes to work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised. In this example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently after being praised for showing up to work on time.
The use of positive reinforcement is a successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired behaviors from subordinates.
Organizations such as Friot-lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase productivity.
Empirical research covering the last 20 suggests that reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive, providing higher performance for lower costs.
Leadership Style and performance :
In the literature, leadership has been identified as an important subject in the field of organizational behaviour. Leadership is one with the most dynamic effects during individual and organizational interaction.
In other words, ability of management to execute “collaborated effort” depends on leadership capability. Lee and Chuang (2009), explain that the excellent leader not only inspires subordinate’s potential to enhance efficiency but also meets their requirements in the process of achieving organizational goals.
Stogdill (1957) defined leadership as the individual behaviour to guide a group to achieve the common target. Fry (2003), explains leadership as use of leading strategy to offer inspiring motive and to enhance the staff’s potential for growth and development.
Several reasons indicate that there should be a relationship between leadership style and organizational performance.
The first is that today’s intensive and dynamic markets feature innovation-based competition. Price/performance rivalry, decreasing returns, and the creative destruction of existing competencies (Santora et al., 1999; Venkataraman, 1997). Studies have suggested that effective leadership behaviours can facilitate the improvement of performance when organizations face these new challenges (McGrath and MacMillan, 2000; Teece, Pisano and Sheun, 1997).
On the other hand, organizational performance refers to ability of an enterprise to achieve such objectives as high profit, quality product, large market share, good financial results, and survival at pre-determined time using relevant strategy for action (Koontz and Donnell, 1993).
Organizational performance can also be used to view how an enterprise is doing in terms of level of profit, market share and product quality in relation to other enterprises in the same industry.
Consequently, it is a reflection of productivity of members of an enterprise measured in terms of revenue, profit, growth, development and with their environments, and ccordinating collective action.
This leader centred perspective has provided valuable insights into the relationship between leadership and team performance (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996).
Some studies have explored the strategic role of leadership to investigate how to employ leadership paradigms and use leadership behaviour to improve organizational performance (Judge, Bono, llies, and Gerhardt, 2002; Judge and Piccolo, 2004: Keller, 2006; McGrath and MacMillan, 2000; Meyer and Heppard, 2000; Purcell, Kinnie, Hutchinson and Dickson, 2004; Yukl, 2002).
This is because intangible assets such as leadership styles, culture, skill and competence, and motivation are seen increasingly as key sources of strength in those firms that can combine people and processes and organizational performance (Purcell et al., 2004).
Previous studies led the expectation that leadership paradigms will have direct effects on customer satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and financial performance. In general, however, the effects of leadership on organizational performance have not been well studied, according to House and Adyta’s review (1997), who criticized leadership studies for focusing excessively on superior- subordinate relationships to the exclusion of several other functions that leaders perform, and to the exclusion of organizational and environmental variables that are crucial to mediate the leadership performance relationship.
Another problem with exiting studies on leadership is that the results depend on the level of analysis. House and Aditya (1997), distinguished between micro-level expansion of the organization. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research Vol. No. 7 (100-111) October-2011 102.
Understanding the effects of leadership on performance is also important because leadership is viewed by some researchers as one of the key driving forces for improving a firm’s performance. Effect leadership is seen as a potent source of management development and sustained competitive advantage for organizational performance improvement (Avolio, 1999; Lado, Boyd and Wright, 1992; Rowe, 2001).
For instance, transactional leadership helps organizations achieve their current objectives more efficiently by linking job performance to valued rewards and by ensuring that employees have the resources needed to get the job done (Zhu, Chew and Spengler, 2005).
Visionary leaders create a strategic vision of some future state, communicate that vision through framing and use of metaphor, model the vision by acting consistently, and build commitment towards the vision (Avolio, 1999: McShane and Von Glinow, 2000).
Some scholars like Zhu et al. (2005), suggest that visionary leadership will result in high levels of cohesion, commitment, trust, motivation, and hence performance in the new organizational environments.
Mehra, Smith, Dixon and Robertson (2006) argue that when some organizations seek efficient ways to enable them outperform others, a longstanding approach is to focus on the effects of leadership.
Team leaders are believed to play a pivotal role in shaping collective norms, helping teams cope research that focuses on the leader in relation to the subordinates and immediate superiors, and macro-level research that focuses on the total organization and its environment.
Other scholars have also suggested that leaders and their leadership style influence both their subordinates and organizational outcomes (Tarabishy, Solomon, Fernald, and Sashkin, 2005).
Fenwick and Gayle (2008), in their study of the missing links in understanding the relationship between leadership and organizational performance conclude that despite a hypothesized leadership performance relationship suggested by some researchers, current findings are inconclusive and difficult to interpret.
From this review of related literature, it is evident that although some scholars believe that leadership enhances organizational performance while others contradict this, different concepts of leadership have been employed in different studies, making direct comparisons virtually impossible.
Gaps and unanswered questions remain. Consequently, the current study is intended to re-examine the proposed leadership performance relationship and thus, contribute meaningfully to the body of growing literature and knowledge in this area of study.
Leadership and Organization Structure:
During the past four decades, the impact of leadership styles on organizational performance has been a topic of interest among academics and practitioners working in the area of leadership (Cannella and Rowe 2005, Giambatista, Barling, Dionnel et al. 2000).
They proposed that the most prominent reason for this interest is that leadership can affect the performance of organizations. The leadership style adopted and considered important in achieving organizational goals and in evoking performance among subordinates is sometimes central and controversial.
Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance and value of leadership, when studying the leadership literature, it is striking that the concept of leadership lacks coherence and agreement (Barling, Berson, Zacharatos, Awamleh, Conger, Dubinsky et al., 1993).
Most of the effective literature confuses the definitions of effective leadership literature by failing to make clear distinctions in some definitions such as between leaders and non-leaders, effective and ineffective leaders, as well as overlooking the definition of the levels of leadership.
Bennis (1998), furthered, there has been limited research that has specifically addressed the relationship between leadership behaviour and organizational performance.
Despite these oversight, it is widely believed that leadership cerates the vital link between organizational effectiveness and employees’ performance at an organizational level.
Avolio, Mcgrath (2009), the existing research leaves many unanswered questions and gaps. In additions, much prior research has examined the assumed leadership performance relationship, but it has examined a restricted number of leadership paradigms (e.g visionary and transactional paradigms) while ignoring the potential role of other paradigms (e.g classical and organic paradigms).
Examining the link between leadership and organizational performance; several reasons indicate that there should be a relationship between leadership and employee’s performance especially in today’s intensive, dynamic market feature innovation based competition etc Santora (1999).
Scholars and practitioners suggest that effective leadership behaviour can facilitate the empowerment of performance when organizations face these new challenges.
Pisano and Shuen (1997). Understanding the effects of leadership on performance is also important because leadership is viewed by some researchers as one of the key driving forces for improving a firm’s performance, (Zhu 2005).
Effective leadership is seen as a potential source of management development and sustained competitive advantage for organization performance improvement (Lado 1992).
According to Mehra (2006), when some organization seek efficient ways to enable them, to outperform others, a longstanding approach is to focus on the effects of leadership. This is because team leaders are believed to play a pivotal role in shaping collective norms, helping teams cope with their environments and coordinating collective action.
Exploring the strategic role of leadership, how to employ leadership paradigms and use leadership behaviour to improve organizational performance, it becomes intangible to mention that assets such as leadership styles, culture, skills and competence, and motivation are seen increasingly as key sources of strength in those firms that can combine people and processes and organizational performance Purcell (2004).
Previous research leads to the expectation that leadership paradigms will direct effect on customer satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and financial performance.
Examining the term leadership, it was noted that leader comes in many forms with many styles and diverse qualities. Acts of leadership takes place in variety of setting which are determinant factors of the kind of leadership that emerge and how they play their roles in order to achieve employee’s cooperation.
Luthans (1992) states that besides influence, leadership has been conceptualized in term of group process, personality, compliance, particular behaviour, persuasion, power, goal attainment, interaction, role differentiation, initiation of structure and combination of two or more of these.
The leader in practical sense of leading is important in that, by leading effectively the leader “fulfils his basic needs, his individually and humanity and thus, helps in the development of the human potentialities of the employees or workers as a social being as a creator and as a master of nature (Haralambos, 2005).
The difficulty in conceptualizing leadership is methodological deficiency in which scholars focus attention only on empirically measurable indices.
Incidentally, they lack in depth analysis leadership as a social phenomenon is the outcome of interplay between socio-economic, political, and religions forces.
Hence as he leader labours to bring about result, best employee’s performance multiplies beyond boundaries and his knowledge hasten to impair worker’s productivity consequently, no useful definition of leadership can be formulated without considering the interplay of these socio-economic, political and religious forces.
Anikpo (1995) in his interpretation of leadership as natural phenomenon refers to a “five finger fallcy”. He illustrated the inequality of the five fingers of the human hand as often being used as an analogy to defined the observed inequalities.
In a study carried out at frontline hotel to ascertain the extent to which leadership styles influence the employee, three leadership styles were identified namely; directive, participative and empowering. By examining how leadership style translates the managers’ commitment to service quality and to high quality service, including the employees own commitment to service.
Through this, specific leadership style was noted to affect frontline employees` performance. The research result revealed that the distinctive aspects of service found in the hotel industry demands that managers use creative approaches to ensure that employees possess the flexibility, skills, confidence, and motivation to deliver good service.
Hartline (1996), Kelley (1992), extending this argument by examining the effects of specific leadership style and draw conclusions about their appropriateness in the context of hotel management furthermore, by concurrently examining the effects of these three leadership style individually.
For example, researchers have demonstrated how transformational leadership can improve employee dedication, social behaviours, role clarity and satisfaction while also reducing the effects of job stress and burnout grill. Flaschner and Shachar (2006).
Hughes and Curphy (1999) persisted that leadership styles are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Their previous research indicates, for example, that most managers use both directive and participative leadership styles circumstances.
Densten (1999) noted that the desire to develop better leadership style is becoming a matter of increasing importance in public sector and especially in law enforcement agencies.
He further stressed that police leadership is often not well developed because of the police culture, the law enforcement’s bureaucratic rank and file structure and the civil nature of the job.
As a result, Engel (2001) suggested that supervisory style of leadership have a significant impact on patrol officer’s behaviour.
Too many organizations today; as a result of the absence of good leadership relations lack the required followers mind and muscle.
Schmidt (1977) deposits that the need to recognize personal characteristic of the members is central to learning how to work with them, recognizing their strength and weaknesses and adopting appropriate leadership style in order to maximize their productivity.
Effective leaders are elicit strong performance from their workers are motivators who respect and acknowledge their employee’s humanity.
They listen with empathy and make eye contact and understand that doing so does not make them appear weak. Additionally, they encourage workers to feel they are part of something important: the company’s mission and this tend to direct people towards clear goals and show appreciation for workers efforts inspire their willingness to productivity Mackenzie (2001).
Leadership Styles and Downward Influence Tactics:
Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) conceptualize leadership styles in terms of transactional and transformational characteristics. Burns (1978) views transformational leadership as a process of activating followers` higher level needs by inspiring higher ideals and raising moral consciousness.
He posits that transformational leader heightens subordinates’ motivation to accomplish goals that exceed expectations through inspiration, and by instilling pride and confidence. It also argued that transformational leader can motivate and inspire employees to perform beyond expectations, which is the criteria for success (Bass, 1985).
It may be expected that transformational leaders would employ a more personal and soft influence tactics such as inspirational appeals, consultations and ingratiation (Falbe & Yuk1, 1992; Yukl, 1998).
There are several reasons for suspecting an association between certain influence tactics and transformational leadership. Leaders’ behaviors that inspire others to change their beliefs and values.
(Bass, 1997) are reminiscent of inspirational appeals. Inspirational appeals refer to the use of values and ideals to arouse an emotional response in the subordinates (Yukl, 2002; Yukl & Seifert, 2002).
The request is presented in such a way that resonates with the subordinate’s needs, values and ideals. Inspiration appeals are known to be an effective tool to raise subordinate’s enthusiasm towards the request (Yukl et al., 1996).
Thus, inspirational appeals tactic is expected to be associated with transformational leaders who often communicate with vivid imagery and symbols in a way that generates enthusiasm (Yukl, 2002; Cable & Judge, 2003).
Transformational leader should also be more likely to influence subordinates by getting them personally involved and committed to a project through consultation tactic, such as encouraging them to contribute and suggest ways to improve a proposal, or help plan an activity (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl, 2002; Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Seifert, 2002; Yukl & Tracey. 1992: Cable & Judge, 2003).
Ingratiation involves flattery and doing favor that enhance managerial liking of the subordinate (Higgins, Judge & Ferris, 2003).
Downward influence tactics such as inspiration appeals, consultation and ingratiation are said to be used by transformational leaders to induce employees’ commitment through the transformation of employees’ value systems – the value system that align with the organizational goals (Emans Munduate, Klaver & Van de Vliert, 2003).
An Overview On Leadership Models
Three recent theories to be discussed in this paper are the contingency theory, the transactional theory and the transformational theory.
The contingency theory of leadership suggests the leader’s ability to lead is dependent upon various situational factors, including the leader’s preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of follower and various other situational factors.
The theory assumes leadership behaviours affects outcomes, such as group performance and achieving goals, by influencing the subordinates behaviours.
Butter & Reese (1991) noted that there been several models utilizing the contingency theory concept namely; the normative leadership model (Viam & Yetton 1988 path Goal theory (1971) and the situational leadership model (SLM) by Hersey and Planchard (1977) which stands out in terms of its popularity with practitioners.
The SLM depicts four leadership styles grouped by task behaviour and relationship behaviour. It recommends the appropriate leadership styles based on the maturity of subordinate.
Maturity is the subordinates willingness and ability based on education and or experience to focus their behaviour on task or objective. A manager’s adaptability is measured by a tool called the leader effectiveness and adaptability descriptions (LEAD) Buter opt cited.
The basic assumptions of the SLM created a critical view to question the theoretical soundness of the theory and thus restricted its practical use.
Secondly, the transactional theory, as its name implies, involves a “transaction” or quid pro quo between a supervisor and subordinate.
The type of transaction whether a reward or discipline, depends on the employee’s performance.
Transactional leaders attempt to meet the current needs of their subordinates through the bargaining and exchange.
Transactional leader expects their followers to attain agreed-upon goals without encouraging them to take on greater responsibilities for self-development or leading others.
There is no attempt to change followers’ attitude, values, growth and development on a long-term basis. Both leaders and followers focus on achieving the negotiated performance level (Chan, 2005).
Leadership behaviours that emphasize telling or controlling would be classified as transactional leadership because rewards and discipline are administered according to adherence or deviation from instructions.
Transactional leadership is a reinforcement technique requiring constant application (Engel & Worden 2003). There are two main components of transactional leadership.
Contingent reward and management by-exception. Contingent reward is when the leaders provide rewards if the subordinates performs in accordance with the performance expectations or expands the necessary effort (Densten 1999).
The contingent reward aspect of transactional leadership should also relate positively to performance in that, these leaders clarifies expectations, specify standards for compliance defines what constitutes ineffectiveness, performance, and monitor closely to ensure that deviance and errors are corrected promptly.
Against the foregoing, House (1996) noted that a transactional approach is deficient for long-term development, which normally entails significant individual and organizational change.
Thirdly, on transformational leadership style Murphy and Drodge (2004) states that transformational leadership is the leader’s ability to motivate follower to rise above their personal goals for the greater good of the organization.
They stressed further, that transformational leader go beyond transactional leadership and are characterized as visionary, articulate, assured, and able to engender confidence in others so as to motivate them to surpass their usual performance goals.
Schwarzwald, Koslowsky and Agassi (2001) posited that the transformational leaders attempt to stimulate the undeveloped or dormant needs of their subordinates. Bass (1985) declared that there were four types of transformational leadership behaviour, namely idealized (charisma), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Densten 1999).
Explaining the above, he noted that idealized influence represents role-modeling behaviour. Where the leader instills pride, faith and respect, and has a gift for seeing what is really important and transmits a sense of mission.
He saw inspirational motivation as representing the use of images and symbols that enables the leaders to raise the expectations and beliefs of their followers concerning the organization vision and mission.
Thus, it implies that individualized consideration represents providing experiential learning and occurs when a leader delegates a project, provides coaching and teaching, and treats each followers as an individual.
Intellectual stimulation on the other hand represents cognitive development of the follower and occurs when the leader arouses followers to think in new ways and emphasizes problem solving and the use of reasoning before taking action.
Avolio (1997) saw that transformational leaders continuously show concerns for their subordinates’ needs, treat them with respect and utilize a flexible approach towards them.
This does not imply that transformational leader never resorts to punishment or negative feedback. Transformational leadership involves raising the consciousness of followers by appealing to higher ideals and values, and moving the focus of followers away from their self interests encouraged by transactional leadership. In other words, the leader encourages their followers to consider their actions beyond simply “what is in it for them” The transformational leader motivates subordinates by focusing them on a greater cause.
Reports over the last few decades indicated that organizations have had relatively significant success with various kinds of transformational leadership styles.
The five practice of exemplary leadership are:
(a) challenging the process searching and seizing challenging opportunities to change, grow, innovate, and improve with the willingness to take risk and learn from mistake
(b) inspiring a share vision by enlisting followers support in a shared vision by appealing to the followers, developing competences assigning critical tasks and providing continuous support
(c) Modelling the way: Being a role model and being consistent with shared values and
(e) Encouraging the heart, providing recognition for success and celebrating accomplishments.
From this review of related literature, it is evident that although some scholars believe that leadership enhances organizational performance while others contradict this, different concepts of leadership have been employed in different studies, making direct comparisons virtually impossible.
Gaps and unanswered questions remain. Consequently, the current study is intended to re-examine the proposed leadership-performance relationship and, thus, contribute meaningfully to the body of growing literature and knowledge in this area of study.
2.2 THEORETICAL ORIENTATION ON IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE
Situational and contingency theories
Situational theory also appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argue that history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle suggested.
Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce the person and not the other way around. This theory assumes that different situations call for different characteristics: according to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists.
According to the theory, “what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he functions.”
Some theorists started to synthesize the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works better in.
The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the “hearts and minds” of followers in day-to-day management: the democratic leadership style is more adequate in situations that require consensus building.
Finally, the laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it provides, but as the leaders do not “take charge”, they can be perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.
Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation, which is sometimes, classified as contingency theory.
Four contingency leadership theories appear more prominently in recent years: Fiedler contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-goal theory, and the Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the leader’s effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency. This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational favorability (later called situational control).
The theory defined two types of leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationship with the group (relationship-oriented) and those who have as their prime concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented). According to Fielder, there is no ideal leader. Both task – oriented and relationship – oriented leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation.
When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power the situation is considered a “favorable situation”.
Fielder found that task – oriented leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later with Arthur Jago (1988), developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations which was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining which approach was more suitable to which situation.
This approach was novel because its supported the idea that the same manager could rely on different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency theory.
The path-goal theory of leadership was developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of Victor Vroom.
According to House, The essence of the theory is “the metal proposition that leaders are to be effectively engaging in behaviours that complement subordinates’ environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance”.
The theory identifies four leadership behaviours, achievement – oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, those are contingent to the environment factors and follower characteristics.
In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands.
The path-goal model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory as the theory emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.
The situational leadership model proposed by Heresy and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four levels of followersdevelopment. For effectiveness, the model posits that the leadership- style must match the appropriate level of follower – development. In this model, leadership behaviour becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as well.
Functional Leadership Model
Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1982; Adair, 1988; Kouzes & Posner, 1995) is a particularly useful theory for addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational or unit effectiveness.
This theory argues that the leader’s main job is to see that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often been applied to term leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also be effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well (Zaccaro, 2001).
In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al., (1996), Zaccaro et al., (2001), Hackman and Walton (1986).
Hackman & Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting organization’s effectiveness.
These functions include environmental monitoring, organizing subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates, motivating others and intervening actively in the group’s work.
A variety of leadership behaviours are expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisor’s behaviour in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behaviour involved in fostering effective relationships.
Examples of such behaviour would include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role clarification, setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those standards.
Leadership Behaviour Approach
The Path-goal theory was first presented in a 1971 administrative science by Robert House. It proposes that subordinates characteristics and characteristics of the work environment determine which leader behaviors will be more effective
. Key characteristics of subordinates identified by the theory are locus of control, work experience, ability and the need for affiliation. Important environmental characteristics mentioned by the theory are the nature of the task, the formal authority system, and the work group.
The theory includes four different leadership behaviour models, which include directive leadership model, supportive leadership model, participative leadership model and the achievement-oriented leadership model.
Delineating the above theoretical assumption to the participative leadership model, this proposes the maintenance of good relations among the team members to ultimately achieve effective team work results.
It suggests that if the leader does his work in best possible manner, he will be liked by all employees. It simply means that if the leader has to get the employees to fulfill the company’s objectives, aims and target on time, he has to motivate good relations with the employees and work along with them.
Wright (1996) stressed that it is probably the best type of corporate leadership style that necessarily allows employees to give suggestions and take some of the crucial decisions, along with their manager. However, the final decision rest on the manager himself.
2.2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE
Part-Goal theory has been adopted as the theoretical framework to guide this work.
TO GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT,YOU ARE REQUIRE TO PAY.
FOLLOW THE DETAILS BELOW.