THE ROLE OF MANAGERS IN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT OF AN ORGANISATION

Chapter Two

Literature Review

2.1 Conceptual Framework

2.1.1 Organizations

Organizations are ubiquitous. This means they are scattered everywhere performing diverse positive functions for the society. They are organized at a particular point in time and space to accomplish certain permanent objective. Hence organization si defined as association of two or more individual working cooperatively together toward the attainment of a common objective under authority and leadership (Scott, 1982). The most important characteristic of an organization is that it has some objectives to attain or else its relevance for the society will not be understood. Hence such organization may loose their legitimacy to operate in the society. The role of management is to help an organization to attain its objective and the objectives which organization pursue are vital for survival of modern societies.

2.1.2 Definition of organization

People define organization from diverse perspectives according to Scott, 1981, there are three perspectives for defining organizations these are:-

1. Organization as a rational systems
2. Organization as natural system
3. Organization as open system

Organization as rational system: Can be defined according to Etzion, 1964 as organizations are social unit deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek special goals. Scott 1981 also defines an organization as a collectively oriented to the pursuit of relatively specific goals and exhibiting a relatively highly formalized social structure.

Definition of organizations as rational system emphasizes two important characteristic of organization – specification of goal and formalization of structure.

Organization as natural system: These criticize the view of rational system, it believes that the organization pursue specific goal which is survival, from this perspective, Scott define organization as:

a. Collectively whose participants are little affected by the formal structure or official goals, but who share a common interest in the survival of the system and who engage in collective activities, informally structured to secure this end.

Organization from open system: Scott (1981) has defined an organization as coalition of shifted interest groups that develop goals by negotiation the structure of the coalition, its activities and its outcomes are strongly influenced by environmental factors. The above three perspective view i.e. rational, national and open system about the definition of organization reveals to us the nature of organization and the basic activities of management in organization.

2.1.3 Basic element of organization

Environment Social Structure

An organization is made of some basic elements. We shall discuss these elements of the organization.

Technology

Basically, an organization is a productive entity. If a productive entity, it then \means that an organization has a core technology through which it produce goods and services. So, technology is the means through which it produces it product.

According to Perrow (1965), technology is the complex of techniques for manipulating materials in a directed manner. There are two components of technology. One is the knowledge for transformation of the materials into a final product.

There are three types of technology namely:-

• Long-linked (Assembly line)
• Mediating (service) and
• Intensive technology.

From the above basic views about technology, we can observe that it is the responsibility of a manager of an organization to direct organizational activities in the direction of technological demand.

Goals

Organizations have goals. Goals are the end towards which organizational actions are directed. Goals are finalist.

According to Ansoff (1984), a strategy is a set of decisions making rules for guidance of organizational behaviour. A goal is a desired end pursued by an organization. According to Stoner, there are three element of goal structure of an organization. These are purpose, mission and objectives.

Participants

Participants are the employees of an organization. They play important roles which helps the organizations to accomplish their goals. The participants include both managers and operatives.

Social Structure

Every organization has organizational structure. Organizational structure is the arrangement of job positions and relationship with non-human position.

According to Chandler (1962) organizational structure is the design of administration through which an organization accomplishes its objective.Organizational structure is the framework (Skeleton) for Accomplishing organizational goals/objectives.

Environment of an Organization

Organizations have environment. The environment of an organization includes individual organization, institutions, credit organizations, independent press, suppliers etc who in one way or the other render productive services to the organization but such organization cannot control the activities of these entities. The environment of an organization is those entities that are not part of the organization but their services are essential for the performance of that particular organization.

2.1.4 Management

Outside organizations management has no relevance. Management exists in the organization in order to help organization to accomplish their objectives effectively and efficiently. The role of managers is to design an appropriate organizational structure that can accommodate the organizational environmental changes in innovation and technology.

Definition of management

Management can be define from diverse perspective e.g. process, organizational theory, administration, leadership, entrepreneurial and planning etc. But for the purpose of this thesis I will briefly look at the process and the organizational theory perspective.

Definition of management from process perspective

The process perspective defines management as the process of organizing, leading, and controlling the efforts of organizational resources to achieve stated objectives. The above definition according to Stonner identify four management process in organization.

• Planning: Is the process of specifying an end, the means to accomplish the end (Implementation).
• Organizing: Allocation of responsibilities and tasks to position within organization structure
• Leading: The process of directing and influencing task related activities of a group member towards goal setting and goal attainment.
• Controlling: Process of assuming that the activities performed are the activities implemented.

Definition of management from organizational theory perspective

According to Onwuchekwa (1994), sees it is the process of organizational designs. An organization design is a process of choosing appropriate organizational structure for a focal business organization. Organizational structure is the framework or the arrangement of task and responsibilities among organizational members for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives. So the role of management in the organization from this perspective is to design the structure of organization, allocate responsibilities to position so that those occupying these position will perform the function which help organizations to accomplish their objectives. Then management will assess the performance of the organization to know the extent their objective has been achieved.

2.1.5 Manager

Managers are the community that visibly stands apart in present-day business organization, although heterogeneous and difficult to unequivocal defining. The reasons for this phenomenon are concerned with the process of ownership and management’s separation, therefore with so called “managerial revolution”. The subject of the presented study is an attempt of defining term “manager” with its typology and presentation of managerial roles in the nowadays business organization.

Notion of manager

The notion of manager is fairly indefinite. This issue is very expanded in economic and organization and management sciences. Tremendous heterogeneity of administration personnel is the reason that there is no, universal and commonly accepted definition in the literature on this subject. In the business encyclopedia, manager is on described as a person, who fulfills the primordial managerial functions (planning, organizing, motivating and controlling) and is the superior of given human team (Encyklopedia biznesu Rocz. AR Pozn. CCCLXXXV, Ekon. 6: 3-12).

Whereas R.W. Griffin defines manager as a person who first of all is responsible for realization of management process. In particular manager is the person, that makes plans and decisions, organizes, supervises and controls human, finance and information resources (Griffin 2000). A. Pocztowski also holds the view that manager is the profession which essence is the management – the art of reaching goals by proper using the finance, material and human resources (Pocztowski 1997).

J. Penc equally conceives the manager, i.e. as a person employed for managing, fulfilling all his functions and making use of all or some part of organization’s resources in order to achieve goals of the whole organization or its given part (Penc 2000). Author points also out that manager is the person employed in the administration position, who has comprehensive knowledge necessary to leading people and managing the organization, in order to achieve optimal realization of their tasks in the confined conditions. Manager – by J. Penc – is also the specialist, who is able to find the solution in complicated conjuncture, who is not afraid to take a risk, who can draw the visions of the future, formulate the strategy of welcome changes and knows how to use the resources for optimal realization of his visions (Penc 2003).

Herby presented ways of defining “manager” term encourage to relate it to the term “supervisor”. Supervisor – by P.F. Drucker – is each white-collar, who in view of his position or knowledge is responsible for work contribution, which physically influence organization achievement’s capability. Most of managers are also supervisors, but not all of them, because there are many managers, who – in spite of being superiors to other employees do not – have in any way impact on organizations achievements capability (e.g. overseers in factories) (Drucker 1994). Another definition for supervisor presents T. Listwan. He holds the view that supervisor is the person, who is placed in formal organization and has subordinates. So, it is the person who the head of the given department and causes – using employees – realization of commissioned to this division tasks (Listwan 1993). Author does not mention in his definition that supervisor has to have impact on organization achievements capability and therefore he does not distinguish between supervisor and manager terms. In the next part of this article the terms “manager” and “supervisor” will be also used exchangeable.

Managing personnel could be divided in to many groups, it depends on the undertaken criterion. The most often referred criterion is the position of manager in the organization’s structure (hierarchy) (Penc 2000). From this point of view one can distinguish:

a) top-management – including managers occupying the highest posts in company’s central administration or in branch establishments; they are responsible for planning and strategic decisions;

b) middle-management – that means managers of departments and services in com-

pany’s central and its branch establishments; they come to operating decisions, pass them on first-line management and control implementation of this decisions;

c) first-line management, supervisory management or junior management – including mainly supervisors of production’s divisions (that is foremen and brigadiers) responsible for implementation of made decisions and direct control of tasks realization’s process.

In another way administration personnel could be divided, when one makes allowance for manager’s sphere of activity and job description. When man takes into consideration this criterion, then it could be marked out:

– functional managers – responsible for one kind of activity in given business organization (e.g. production, marketing, selling or finance),

– overall managers – supervising complicated economic unit, like enterprise, branch establishment or separate department and responsible for whole economic activity of this unit (i.e. production, marketing, selling and finance) (Stoner and Wankel 1997).

Next and also essential partition – pointed out by T. Listwan – makes allowance for management as a decisions process and divides all people from managerial sphere population into:

– assistant personnel – their job includes recording, gathering and storage of information,

– specialists – responsible for transformation and preparation of organization or its division’s activity variants,

– decisions-makers – people who choose aims and ways of reaching them (Listwan 1993).

Beyond above mentioned indexing (that takes into account first of all essence, extension and method of doing one’s duties) managers could be also divided giving consideration to another criterions, like for example: characteristic features, ways of behavior, demographic features or preferred managerial style. It is worth also emphasizing the meaning of another indexing that takes into account managers’ approach to committed and administrated resources. Here one can mention:

a) entrepreneurs – that is contractors, who establish a business, take risk and lead it on

theirs own account; they usually undertake risky business venture hoping to make a success; this undertakings consist in transferring different resources from areas where are little profits and low effectiveness to the areas of high performance and great earnings;

b) intrapreneurs – in other words managers, who have proper knowledge to adminis-

trate the company and reveal initiative and inventiveness in their activity, which they make use of to develop somebody else’s enterprise; the methods of acting (and also knowledge) are often much the same as principles of enterpreneurs’ activities but the potential risk and emotional loading is here considerably lower, because intrapreneur does not lead the enterprise at his own risk and account (Nogalski and Śniadecki 1998).

2.1.6 Typologies of managerial roles

Managers’ roles were being changed in the time distance, because the contexts of enterprises’ activity were also being changed. One hundred years ago the supervisor was only the liaison between the owner and all the staff of the company. He listened to what the employees had to say and used their ideas, but he was concentrated rather on resolving the problems than on discipline. However, along with the growth of an average enterprise size, supervisors got more powerful and theirs managerial style became more autocratic. The contexts of managers’ activity were changed and so called “managers’ revolution” took place. Together with it manager received the right to employ and dismiss people, specify the quantity and quality of their work, specify the required quality of products, etc. Afterwards the status of managers in the enterprise began to change because of changes in the external and internal conditions of company’s functioning. Internal changes, because technological development required employing experts. This people with specialist knowledge be in want of more freedom of action, which autocratic style of management did not provide. However external context was changed because of improvement of subordinates’ situation, as a result of more and more expanding labour rights. One started to pay attention to employees needs and their motivation, which was expressed in behaviour theory. Nowadays management conceptions are concentrated rather on showing the inferior the direction than on tight control. Although the level of knowledge, necessary for effective job processing, has lately enormously increased and methods of its accomplishing are often different, the main purpose of manager became the same – managing in a such way, that hitherto prevailing quantity and quality of production could be sustained by keeping up good interhuman relationships in the enterprice (Mosley et al. 1985).

Manager – which has already been found out – performs many various roles in business organization. Very often they arise as a result of existence of certain behaviour patterns which function in external and internal environment of the company and are related with position of a given person in the organization’s structure. One can therefore distinguish many different typologies of managerial roles in the enterprise, if one take into consideration particular criteria (Nogalski and Śniadecki 1998).

These typologies are presented in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Typologies of managerial roles Source: author’s own elaboration on the basis of Nogalski and Śniadecki (1998).

Ryc. 1. Typologie ról menedżerskich Źródło: opracowanie własne na podstawie Nogalskiego i Śniadeckiego (1998).

According to task priority criterion (enterprise survival oriented and not development oriented) one can present:

– conservative roles – arising from day-to-day problems and as a rule leading to fixation of conservative attitudes; managers such orientation would – in the name of “survival at any price” – avoid any conflicts in the company, restrain it’s development aspiration and theirs own self-realization,

– creative roles – directed on company’s expansion, its adaptation to changing environment and managers self-realization, which makes possible to provide the policy of the long term dynamic development.

When one makes allowance for criterion of market behaviour, one can distinguish:

– strategic roles – identified most often with the program of general defining and realization of organizations aims and fulfillment of it’s mission,

– organizing roles – making possible for manager to accurate organization of the enterprise and it’s functioning according to expectations.

More precisely managers are divided by a Canadian specialist of management Mintzberg (1975). According to his works managers of all levels of hierarchy behave in the same way, carry into effect similar activities and therefore fulfill similar roles. Author groups these activities and defines them as “organized set of behaviours” (Stoner and Wankel 1997). The ten roles are divided into three groups: interpersonal (creating and maintaining of interpersonal relationships), informational (concerned with the information aspects of managerial work – resumption and transmission of information) and decisional (coming to decisions).

1. Interpesonal roles include:

– figurehead role – manager represents the business organization in all matters of formality, legally and socially to those inside and outside of the organization (it depends on his position in the enterprise’s structure) and he is like a company symbol for external environment,

– leader role – he reaches the organization’s aims by using specified type of motivation oriented on employees needs satisfaction,

– liaison role – manger interacts with peers and people outside the organization, he enters into agreements, contracts, gain the orders and therefore perform activity essential for the company.

2. Information roles include:

– monitor role – manager searches for the information concerned with the company’s activity (problems with selling, taxes, production, etc), which are necessary for making decisions; he read professional magazines connected with specificity and selling market of his enterprise,

– disseminator role – manager transmits and propagate special information into the organization; he works up and sends reports, letters, etc,

– spokesperson – disseminates the organization’s information into its environment (central government, local government, different offices, media, etc.) and into the organization (e.g. organized labour).

3. Decision roles include:

– enterpreteur role – manager analyzes possibilities of company’s development and implements systematic changes, initiates different programs and scientific research, encourages employees to make contribution and present individual ideas for developing the organization,

– disturbance handler role – manager improves the organization’s structures, responds to conflicts, all types of criticism and complaints that appear in the company, solves them and counteracts new ones, eliminates disturbances and negative events in the enterprise,

– resource allocator role – he chooses where the organization will expand its efforts, distribute limited resources (finance, technical, human, etc) in the organization, regulate their usage in work, prioritizes tasks and procedures,

– negotiator role – manager negotiates on behalf of the organization in any individual or group, external or internal agreements.

2.1.7 Conditions of managers’ role

The way of fulfilling the social role by the person depends both on subjective factors, his personality traits, the personality as well as on objective, outside factors in the relation to him. It is possible to point out here two approaches to determinants of the fulfilling of the roles by the given manager (Szaban 2000):

– individualistic approach – where the person’s individual features are influencing the specification of him according to his position in the team and the content of his roles, and so the manager has influence on shaping the situation in which he is located but what effects he/she is reaching depends on the general ability to wield managerial duties chiefly,

– situation theory – according to which it is the objective situation that influences the management style, the quality, effects of directing, for fulfilling the managerial roles, because the situation requires the determined decision and individual features are leaving for the other plan here.

Both theories are not staying in the contradiction in reality since working of the manager refers to various contexts. Because he has bigger influence on the situation in which he is operating he has a bigger power, he has the more important role or the high office position in the organizational structure of the given company. It refers to influence on his direct, nearest environment, i.e. for the company and the internal context of his functioning. However the more far-away environment, the global situation, the social and economical system more is influencing the manager, the behaviour of whom is the reaction to the existing outside context.

The economic growth and dynamics of the environment influence the evolution of manager’s roles. Presented in the previous subparagraph taxonomy of Mintzberga roles is classic already with grounds, on which the new manager’s roles are formed. This new formed roles are the answer on the changing of internal and external context of the companies functioning. It is possible to separate among objective, outside conditioning of managers’ roles the five basic factors which exert bigger and bigger influence on the manager’s activity. They are the following:

– broad institutional perspective – growing meaning of the business activity as the social activity on the one hand, and the growing remark of the state from other, they are dictating necessity of the more precise co-operation of the company and the social environment. New social requirements in the face of companies and the limitation are forcing the management of these companies to include variables of social benefits in every significant decision in practice. Systems of purposes and values of the company are also changing;

– widening geographical limits and political perspectives – company operating apart from the country is dealing with various national manners, cultures and levels of the economic development. That is why in the process the following economic, social, political and cultural variables must be taken into consideration;

– information challenge – it is conditioned on the technology, variability of companies and with the global scale of their activity but the result with growing complexity of managerial decisions. The challenge includes both capacity and the topic content of the information necessary in the process of management;

– growing complexity of the company as the system of action – growing participation of scientific and technical examinations are dictating the need to lead the level of management competence to the level of the technology applied. The complexity and the variety of the production’s assortment are leading to decentralization of the decision process and in the effect to the rise of the complex information system;

– the variety and variability of requests in the relation to the company – from one sight increasing competition, increasing the pace of the contact and the transport in the global scale requires quicker reactions to changes of demand, working of competitors, problems tied with production and the technology, from other sight tasks referring to development of new products, new technologies and marketing will bring to changes which will be tied with the past in the smaller and smaller mark.

2.1.8 Managerial roles in the internal and external context

Each manager’s role usually influences the bigger mark for the internal or external context of functioning of the company. Its appears that the proposal of Mintzberg is the most interesting here. His ten manager’s basic roles could be split into those which to a bigger or smaller extent influence the internal and external environment of the companies. So, influence for internal context have: the leader role, monitor role, disseminator role, enterpreteur role, disturbance handler role and resource allocator role. However, remaining manager’s roles influence the external context, i.e.: figurehead role, liaison role, spokesperson role and negotiator role. Two last parts having influence external context, but they also influence the internal context however, they were enumerated in the outside context, because can afford fulfilling of these parts relatively bigger weight in the face of the external than internal environment.

One of the most important manager’s roles is the leader’s role, which influences a lot the internal and indirectly also external context of functioning of the company. The lead is variously defined in literature of the subject. According to the definition of R.M. Stogdilla, the lead is both the process and the property. The process of the lead consists in unconstrained guiding and co-ordinating of work members of the organized group to reach group purposes (Stogdill 1975). However, the lead as the property is the set of personality features possessed by the ones who are perceived as persons successfully applying such an interaction (Kozakiewicz 1996). S.P. Robbins define the lead as the ability to influence the group so that the group can gain determined goals (Robbins 1998). This definition appears to defy whole essence of the lead. Leader will be evaluated before everything for one’s effectiveness in reaching intended purposes. This understanding of lead is based on four pillars which are providing of the leader’s efficiency (Zielnicki 1997):

– creating the vision of what an organization should become in future and this vision should take into consideration the business of all parties concerned,

– creating the strategy which takes into consideration significant chances and threats in the environment and strong and weak sights of the organization,

– creating the supporting coalition, whom participants are followers and people committed to the realization of the vision and the strategy of the company,

– communicating, convincing and inspiring participants to the realization of the mission and the strategy of the organization.

Four above-mentioned pillars are distinguishing manager-leader from ordinary manager-administrator. Manager-administrator is before everything taking such action up how: planning, budgeting (determining of the budget), organizing and controlling. Plans do not have to and they most often contain no visions in themselves. They are most often extrapolation of the situation from the previous years. Similarly little common to oneself the organizational structure and the supporting coalition have. The organizational structure is determining principles of the inferiority and the precedency in the organization and the supporting coalition includes people supporting the vision and the strategy proposed by leader (Zielnicki 1997). Other differences between the leader and the manager are presented in Table 2.

It is necessary to point out also here, that with the leader’s name is often called a person that has the ability to exert influence on other people and win people and it does not matter if it is being determined by right of the position occupied in the hierarchy of the organizational structure, knowledge, interpersonal contacts whether and charisma (Duda-Nowak 1998). It means that a leader does not have to be a person formally appointed to this role (Arnold et al. 1995) but of course, the best effect is certainly giving connection of authority legal with charisma power, because then formal (because of one’s place in the organizational structure) the leader is the leader whom a crew would choose if they had such a possibility. To shape the internal context of the company for such a leader is most easily this way so that the best effects were being reached. A role of the leader-manager in the face of the need to modify the internal context of the company is important especially within a period of economic transformations. In difficult periods, when restructuring is being carried out the manager should by supporting subordinates sketch this way and point new purposes of the company in order to impel them to put the suitable effort on to the realization of these purposes.

2.2 Theoretical framework

2.2.1 Situational theory

The situational leadership theory is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers’ readiness.

The term readiness refers to the extent to which employees have the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task. The followers can accept or reject the leader regardless of what he does.

Four behaviours are identifies in this approach which is:-

1. If the followers are unable and unwilling to perform the task, the manager should restrictive the task.
2. If the followers are unable and willing to perform the task. The manager should be high task and relationship oriented.
3. If the followers are able and unwilling to perform the task. The manager should use participating and supportive style.
4. If the followers are able and will to perform the task. The manager should not do anything.

Fielder Model

It is a part of contingency theory propounded by Fredfielder (1967). He is of the believe that it is difficult for a manager to alter or change the management style that made them successful, that most managers are not flexible in trying to change the managerial style to fit unpredictable situation is useless. He says that the situation can only be change to match the leadership styles that exist in the organization. He uses

LPC to describe leadership styles.

LPC = least preferred co-worker,

He concluded that:

1. Managers that describe their LPC as favourable are managers that are employees oriented.
2. Managers that describe their LPC as unfavourable are managers that are task oriented.

He identifies 3 situational variables through which leadership behaviour can be match with the situation.

1. Leader Member Relations: The degree of confidence, trust and respect subordinates have in their leader.
2. Task Structure: The degree to which job is assign and procedures
3. Position Power: The degree of influence the leader has to promote, give salary, hire, fire discipline, reward etc.

2.2.2 Path goal theory

It is based on motivation. Also an expectancy model (Robert House and Martin Evans 1970), says that an individual motivation depends on their expectancy. That the leader is responsibility is to set a goal, show the subordinate the path and lead them towards accomplishing the goal. That the leader behaviour is accepted by the employees in so far as they view it as source of either immediate or future satisfaction.

Many theoretical concepts have been used to describe leadership. Prominent among them are the traits approach, the situation concepts and combinations traits, and situation concept approach manifestinginto the group dynamic approach.

2.2.3 Theory X And Theory Y

Finally, the popular ‘theory X and theory Y developed by Douglas McGregor (1960) has also made a tremendous impact on the study of leadership. According to McGregor, the relationship between the leadership style adopted by a manager and the latter’s perception of the subordinates is reflected in the two sets of assumptions as stated below:

Theory X Assumptions:

i) Average human beings have an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if they can.

ii) Because of this human characteristic of dislike or work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort towards the achievements of organizational objectives.

iii) Average human beings prefer to be directed, wish to avoid responsibility, have relative little ambition, and want security above all.

The Trait Approach

The trait theory or approach to leadership suggest that the person who emerges as a leader in a group does so because he posses certain traits. This is the basis of saying that “Leaders are born not made”.Lawal,A.A.(1993) . Like all client there are some elements of’ truth in the saying. Although it cannot be taken generally. The approach suggests that effective leaders should have:

Integrity: This is defined as the quality which makes people trust you. It means literally personal wholeness.

Enthusiasm: This is a general characteristic of leaders.

Warmth: A warm personality listens and accommodates, calmness, and tough no matter how valuable the traditional approach might be in the long term, it may not he considered the best approach to the study of leadership in an organization. But the study of leadership in terms of qualities of’ personality and character as it differs from person to person goes a long way in understanding leadership but it is far from being the whole story.

Theory Y Assumptions:

The assumptions under theory Y are seen by McGregor as follows:

i) The expenditure of physical effort and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.

ii) External control and threat of’ punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organization objectives. People will exercise set i-direction and set F control in the service of objectives to which they are committed. iii) Commitment to objectives is a function or reward that is associated with their achievement.

iv) Average human beings learn, under proper conditions not only to accept but also seek responsibility

v ) The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly distributed in the population.

vi) Under the conditions of modern industrial life the intellectual potential of the average human being are only partially utilized.

By this theory McGregor, again demonstrated the factors that influence practical managers in choosing a leadership style, which would in turn impacts positively or negatively on the subordinates, and consequently on the entire organization.

By implications, managers who believe in ‘Theory X assumptions would tend to adopt an autocratic leadership style, while those who view subordinates at theory Y’s angle would tend to adopt a democratic leadership style. However, McGregor warned managers viewing the theory as representing two opposite extreme style of leadership. But instead, recommended that an effective manager should recognize the dignity and capabilities, as well as the limitations of’ people and adjust behaviours as demanded by the situation.

The Situational Concept Approach

A second main approach to the study of leadership by Stogdill,R.M. (1946) emphasizes on the importance of the “situation” in determining who should become the leader of a group. The approach summarizes three main areas of need in working groups.

They are:

The need to achieve a common task

The need to be held together as a working team and

The need which each individuals has by virtue of being human

The group approach was of the opinion that leadership is vested in the function not in a person. That any one who provides a hindwhich is accepted or effective in a group is the leader for that moment. This is because some group do have safety leaders, appointed or elected individuals who would come up with the necessary function if’ no one else did so.

The Contingency Approach

The approach was developed by a group of researchers and consultants who tried to apply the concepts of the approaches of the main schools of thought as highlighted above to real life situations. They found, there is no single design that is best for all situations. Solutions to problems depends on the particular situation or environment. Prominent among the researchers include Woodward,J.et,al (1976) a who theorized the leadershipsituation is contingent upon the position, power, the tasks structure and leadership member relation.

2.3 Empirical Review

Edoka (2012) investigated on the impact of effective leadership on organizational performance in Nigeria using National Youth Service Corps Kogi State office. The evaluation was done through the use of questionnaire and structured interview question, tailored towards: determining the impact of effective leadership on the performance of the organization; assessing the effect of the relationship between effective leadership and organizational performance in promoting maximization of the objectives of the organization examining whether three are leadership obstacles that hamper organizational performance in the Kogi Sate NYSC; finding out if there are possible way of enhancing organisational performance in the Kogi State NYSC. The study employed survey research design in the work. The questionnaire was structured in five point scale in line with the objectives set out to be achieved in the study. The instrument was checked for reliability using test-re-test method. A sample size of 82 was selected from a totalpopulation of 103 and stratified random sampling was used to select the respondents. The data generated from the field survey were presented and analysedusing quantitative method like frequency distribution tables and simple percentage (%). The test of hypothesis was performed using chi-square statistical test. The result arising from the primary data tested at 0.05 co-efficient interval and degree of freedom revealed that there is positive and significant relationship between effective leadership and organizational performance in NYSC Kogi State. The study also revealed that there are no leadership obstacles that hamper organisational performance in the Kogi State NYSC resulting from the structure of the organisation management. However, the study revealed that in-spite of the above, there are other factors that affect organizational performance. These factors are lack of good office, equipments, insufficient funds and poor work environment. Again, the work also revealed that in the Kogi State NYSC there are possible ways of enhancing organisational leadership for effective performance. Above all, the study revealed that there are no empirical evidence to show the relationship between effective leadership and organisational performance. In view of the above, since it is people that make up organisation therefore, it has been recommended among others that all those things the people need to enable them perform at high level should be put in place for them.

Agbor (2009) investigated on the impact of mangerial style and employees performance in the organization. The objective of this research work is to create knowledge about the relationship that exists between leadership styles and employees performance in the organization. Descriptive research method is adopted and data were collected through questionnaire. The major activity of this thesis were directed by the hypothesis formulated in chapter one. The findings of this study pointed out that a serious relationship exists between leadership style and employees performance in the organization. Also that most of the employees in APACO Foam are satisfied with the leadership style that exists in their organization because they were paid promptly and incentives are always given to them as bonuses. The conclusion of this study, from the findings shows that leadership style is one of the several factors that affect employees’ performance in the organization. The following recommendations are made by the researcher. There should be training for manager and employees on some principles that are very important for effective productivity. And also those employees should be effectively motivated. Management should also create enabling environment and rules for both leaders and subordinates to carry out activities together as this will give all employee sense of belonging.

Goddy (2014) emphasis is on how organizations, agencies, parastatals, industries, and countries can get effective leadership style to achieve set goals. There are vacuum of true conscious leaders, whether in politics, religion, organization, business, education, sports or institutions. There is desperate need of competent, principle, sensitive, compassionate and conscious leaders. In this research emphasis will be placed on the need to know what makes a leader and what makes a follower. What are the dualities that distinguish leaders from followers, the various styles of leadership and how sets goals can be achieve. This research is about the missing link in leadership styles, with impact on the performance of the follower or employee of an organization with focus on Nigeria organization.