WORK STYLES AND EMPLOYEES' PERFORMANCE IN AN ORGANIZATION

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATUREREVIEW

1. Conceptual Defitions
2. Leadership and LeadershipStyle

Although leadership has been well researched over the years, there is still lack of a definition that is universally accepted. Just like Stogdill (1974) puts it, “There are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept”. The following are a few examples of such definitions Talat et al (2020) asserts that leadership is wide spread process, which calls for authority, responsibility and delegation of power. Leaders help to direct, guide and persuade their followers (employees) towards achieving their personal and organizational goals and objectives. Thus, work styles cover all aspects of dealing within and outside of an organization, handling or dealing with conflicts, helping and guiding theworkforcetoachieveandaccomplishtheirtasksandappearingasarolemodel for all. According to Kumar (2014) “leadership is leadership is defined as a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent” (p. 441). These are accomplished through the application of leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Leadership is the integrated sharing of vision, resources, and value to induce positive change. It is the ability to build up confidence and zeal among people and to create an urge in them to beled.

Wammy & Swammy (2014) see leadership as a social influence process in which the leader seeks the voluntary participation of subordinates in an effort to reach organization goals and therefore a leader is a person who delegates or influences others to act so as to carry out specified objectives. Memon (2014) defines leadership as process by which an individual influences the thoughts, attitudes and behaviors of others by taking responsibility for setting direction for the firm, others to see and visualize what lies ahead and figure out how to archive it.

Leslie et al (2013) asserts that leadership is the ability to influence people to willingly follow one’s guidance or adhere to one’s decisions. On the other hand who a leader is; one who obtains followers and influence them in setting and achieving objectives. In Sundi (2013), “Leadership is the ability to convince and mobilize others to work together as a team under his leadership to achieve a certain goal” ( p. 50). Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives through change Lussier and Achua (2009). Theyhave explained in their book that there are five key elements of this definition as illustrated in Figure2.1.

Figure 2.1 Leadership Definition’s Key Elements

Source: Adapted from Lussier and Achua (2009) page 7.

According to Hill (2008). Leadership is the process of motivating, influencing and directing others in the organization to work productively in the pursuit of organization goals. Armstrong (2003), leadership is simply the ability to persuade others willingly to behave differently for achieving the task set for them with the help of the group. Leadership, according to Levine and Crom (1994), “is about listening to people, supporting and encouraging them and involving them in the decision-making and problem-solving processing. It is about building teams and developing their ability to make skillfuldecisions”.

Conger (1992) define leadership as “individuals who establish direction for a working group of individuals who gain commitment from these group of members to this direction and who then motivate these members to achieve the direction’s outcome”.

Basically every leader has a different behavior in leading his followers. It is called leadership style. Cuadrado et al (2007) described leadership style as consistent set of behaviors /patterns, proposing two dimensions in leaders behavior, structure initiation which includes task oriented leaders and consideration which includes relation oriented leaders. Memon (2014) defines leadership style as a leader’s style of providing direction, motivating people and implementing plans. Work styles are seen as approaches that leaders use when leading organizations, departments, or groups (Mehmood & Arif, 2011) Leaders who search for the most effective leadership style may find that a combination of styles is effective because no one leadership style is best (Darling & Leffel,2010).

Based on the above, this study adopts the definition of leadership by Hill (2008). A well-directed employee is a focused employee in terms of expectations and organizational goals, such individual tend to understand product knowledge, procedures and processes, any time we develop our employees we give them the power and the ability to produce and give their best to the organization hence increased productivity. Leadership style application is determined by leaders themselves. If leadership style applied is good and can give a good direction to subordinates, then it create confidence and work motivation to employees, thus increasing employee morale which also effects on better employee performance.

Leaders must work together with subordinates/employees to achieve better performance. Sudi (2013) in his research, employee performance is very influenced by leadership style.

1. EmployeePerformance

The main goal of any organization is to enhance the job performance of its employees so that it could survive in this highly competitive environment. Performance is a multidimensional construct and an extremely vital criterion that determines organizational successes or failures. Prasetya and Kato (2011) define performance as the attained outcomes of actions with skills of employees who perform in some situation. According to Pattanayak (2005), the performance of an employee is his/her resultant behavior on a task which can be observed and evaluated. To Pattanayak, employee performance is the contribution made by an individual in the accomplishment of organizationalgoals.

Here employee performance is simply the result of patterns of action carried out to satisfy an objective according to some standards. This means employee performance is a behavior which consists of directly observable actions of an employee, and also mental actions or products such as answers or decisions, which result in organizational outcomes in the form of attainment of goals. Ibrahim (2004) defined job performance as an important activity that provides both the goals and methods to achieve the organizational goals and also provide the achievement level in term of out-put. El-Saghier (2002) considered it as an effort of an employee to achieve some specific goal, the researcher will adopt this definition.

1. Theoretical LiteratureReview

Globally, leadership has become the most widely studied aspect of organizational behavior and a number of theories have emerged focusing on the strategies, traits, styles and the situational approach to leadership. As a result of ever-growing interest in the field of leadership, behavioral scientists and sociologists began to analyze the possible consequences of leadership behaviors and the variables that are used to predict the leader’s behaviors.

1. Traits and BehavioralTheory

The trait perspective was one of the earliest theories of leadership in the 1940’s which assumes that great leaders are born with distinguished personality traits that make them better suited for leadership and make them different from other people or their followers. Stogdill’s (1948) survey of the leadership literature came up with the most comprehensive list of traits. Stogdill’s observation that leadership situations vary significantly and place different demands on leaders, destroyed trait theory, leading to the emergence of situational and behavioralapproaches.

Behavioral theories of leadership state that it is the behavior of leaders that distinguishes them from their followers. It focuses on the actions of leaders rather than on mental qualities or internal states with the belief that great leaders are made, not born. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through teaching and observation. Behavior theories examine whether the leader is task oriented, people oriented, or both. Studies conducted at the University of Michigan and Ohio State University in 1945, established two major forms of leader behavior namely: employee-centered and production-centered (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988).

1. Situational and ContingencyTheory

Contingency theory is an approach to leadership in which leadership effectiveness is determined by the interaction between the leader’s personal characteristics and aspects of the situation. Contingency theories are based on the assumption that the relationship between leadership style and organizational outcomes is moderated by situational factors related to the environment, and therefore the outcomes cannot be predicted by leadership style, unless the situational variables are known (Cheng and Chan, 2002).

Three models exist in this leadership approach: Fiedler’s (1967) co-worker theory, House’s (1971) path-goal theory, and Heresy and Blanchard (1969) situational leadership theory. From this approach and the three models no leadership style is best in all situations. Success depends upon a number of variables, including the leader’s preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of the followers, and aspects of the situation. Effective leadership requires adapting one’s style of leadership to situational factors, and control is contingent on three factors namely the relationship between the leader and followers, the degree of the task structure and the leaders’ authority, position orpower.

1. Transformational and TransactionalTheory

Over the past twenty five years, a large body of research has emerged around transformational – transactional leadership theory. Transactional theories focus on the role of supervision, organization and group performance and they base leadership onasystemofrewardsandpunishmentsformeetingparticularobjectives.Thetype of transaction, whether a reward or discipline, depends on the performance of the employee. Bass (1985) as cited by Chan (2005) theorized the transactional leaders appeal to the subordinates’ self-interests. Transactional leaders attempt to meet the current needs of their subordinates through bargaining and exchanging. Both leaders and followers focus on achieving the negotiated performance level. Transformational theories focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers. Transformational leadership is the leader’s ability to motivate followers to rise above their own personal goals for the greater good of the organization (Bass, 1985, 1996 as cited by Murphy & Drodge, 2004). Bass (1985) theorized the transformational style of leadership comes from deeply held personal values which cannot be negotiated and appeals to the subordinates’ sense of moral obligation and values. Bass declared there were four types of transformational leadership behavior, namely idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectualstimulation.

1. Transactional Leadership and Employee Performance

Transactional leadership: is a leadership style that emphasizes to transactions between leaders and subordinates. Bass and Avolio (2003) suggest that characteristics of transactional leadership consist of two aspects, namely contingent reward and exception management. Contingent reward is where leaders make agreement about what must subordinate do and promising reward obtained when goal is achieved. While exception management is leader monitor deviations from established standards and take corrective action to achieve organizational goals. Yulk (2007)assertsthattransactionalleadershipstyleisoneleadershipstylethat emphasizes on transaction between leaders and subordinates. Transactional leadership motivates and influencing subordinates by exchanging reward with a particular performance. In a transaction the subordinate promised to be given rewards when subordinate is able to complete their duties in accordance with agreements. In other words, he encourages subordinates to work. Transactional work styles can affect positively or negatively on performance. It depends on employee assessment. Positive effect can occur when employees assess transactional leadership positively and a negative effect can occur if employee considers that transactional work styles cannot be trusted because they do not keep their promises, dishonest or nottransparent.

1. Transformational Leadership and Employee Performance

This seeks to transform of visionary. It becomes collective vision where subordinates work to realize the vision into reality. In other words, transformational process can be seen through a number of transformational leadership behaviors as: attributed charisma, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration Bass and Avolio, (2003). Yukl (2007) states that application of transformational leadership style can improve performance because transformational leadership style wants to develop knowledge and employees potential. Leader with transformational leadership provides opportunity and confidence to his subordinates to carry out duties in accordance with his mindset to achieve organizational goals. Butler (1999) states that a transformational leader encourages subordinates to have vision, mission and organization goals, encouraging andmotivatingtoshowmaximumperformance,stimulatessubordinatestoact critically and to solve problems in new ways and treat employees individually. Suharto (2005) suggests that more frequent transformational leadership behaviors implemented will bring significant positive effect to improve psychological empowerment quality of subordinates. Transformational leader that gives attention to individual will be capable to direct vision and mission of organization, providing motivational support, and creating new ways to work effectively.

1. Laissez Faire Leadership and EmployeePerformance

The leader's ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including the leader's preferred style. Contingency theories to leadership support a great deal of empirical freedom to leadership, (laissez-faire style) North house (2001). Many researchers have tested it and have found it to be valid and reliable to explaining how effective leadership can be achieved. It stresses the importance of focusing on inter personal relationships between the leader's style and the demands of various situations and employees. Under this type of leadership according to Kumar (2020) maximum freedom is allowed to subordinates. They are given freehand in deciding their own policies and methods and to make independentdecisions.

It carries the belief that the most effective leadership style depends on the ability to allow some degree of freedom to employees in administering any leadership style. This study will aim to investigate further how laissez-faire may contribute to employee performance. On the other hand, much has been written in regard to the relation of positive self and effective management. Kerns (2004) discussed the relationship of values to organizational leadership and his study was hugely in support of the laissez-faire style in bridging the gap between the employer and employee where his concern was solely on the fact that laissez-faire would create a positive environment through which employees and employers felt like a family regardless of their positions.

1. Autocratic Leadership and Employee Performance

Autocratic leaders are classic “do as I say” types. Typically, these leaders are inexperienced with leadership thrust upon them in the form of a new position or assignment that involves people management. Autocratic leaders retain for themselves the decision- making rights. They can damage an organization irreparably as they force their ‘followers’ to execute strategies and services in a very narrow way, based upon a subjective idea of what success looks like. There is no shared vision and little motivation beyond coercion. Commitment, creativity and innovation are typically eliminated by autocratic leadership. In fact, most followers of autocratic leaders can be described as biding their time, waiting for the inevitable failure this leadership produces and the removal of the leader that follows Michael(2010).

1. EmpiricalAnalysis
2. GeneralStudies

A large body of empirical evidences has demonstrated that leadership behaviors influence employee performance that strong leaders outperform weak leaders, and that transformational leadership generates higher performance than transactional leadership (Burns 1978; Bass1990; Hater and Bass 1985; Howell and Avolio 1993). Research (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Kotter, 1988 and Meyer & Botha, 2000) in organisational behavior has identified transformational leadership as the most suitable for modern-day organisations. The current business environment requires this innovative kind of leadership style; a style that empowers employees and raises employee performance in an effort to improve organisational performance and continued existence (Kotter, 1988). Evidence has been gathered in service, retail and manufacturing sectors, as well in the armed forces of the United States, Canada and Germany that points towards the marginal impact transactional leaders have on the effectiveness of their subordinates in contrast to the strong, positive effects of transformational leaders (Brand, Heyl & Maritz, 2000). Furthermore, in the Canadian financial industry it was found that transformational leadership is more strongly correlated with higher employee satisfaction and individual/organisational performance than transactional leadership (Meyer & Botha, 2000). On the basis then of the literature, it could be proposed that transformational leadership as opposed to transactional leadership would be more effective in achieving higher levels of employeeperformance.

Under transformational leaders, employees may receive individualized attention from the leader. As a result, they tend to reciprocate by supporting the leader’s agenda and performing beyond expectations. Hence, transformational leaders can develop high quality leader member exchange relationships with followers, through which they influence followers’ performance (e.g., Wang et al., 2005). Although the initial stage of LMX may be transactional, it can be transformational if the last stage is reached (Bass, 1999). In both Bass’s (1985) and Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) conceptualization, transactional leadership clarifies expectations toward followers’ performance and provides rewards to followers contingently on the level of their performance.

Followers will be motivated to meet performance expectations and fulfill their end of the contract in order to be rewarded accordingly (Bass, 1985). A strong empirical support for the relationship between leaders’ contingent reward and employee performance has been found (cf. Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). However, transformational leadership inspires followers with attractive vision, expresses optimism and high expectations for excellence and performance on the part of followers. It should be able to move followers beyond their normal level of performance (Bass,1985).

A positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance has been found in both lab (Howell & Frost, 1989) and field (Bass, 1985) settings. Thus both transformational and transactional leadership are expected to have positive direct effect on employee performance. Raja and Palanichamy (2020) examined the effect of work styles on employee performance in public vs. private sector enterprises in India. From 43 middle-level managers and 156 subordinates, the study results indicate sufficient evidence, at the 5% level of significance, that there is a linear positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance, there is a significant positive relationship between transactional leadership employee performance. However, the study found that laissez-faire leadership had a negative relationship with the employee performance/outcomes”.

Leaders and their work styles is one of the mostly researched topics in the recent past. A number of studies have been conducted on the effects of work styles on employee performance. Rassol et al (2020) studied work styles andits impact on employee's performance in health sector of Pakistan and concluded that transformational work styles have more positive effect on employee performance than transactional leadership. They found out that transformational leadership can perform better in highly organic environment where focus is on competitive advantages. Results of their study also explored that the impact of transactional leadership was not much stronger as compared to transformational leadership on job performance. According to Pradeep and Prabhu (2011), leadership is positively linked with employee performance for both transformational leadership behaviors and transactional contingent reward leadership behaviors. The managers, who are perceived to demonstrate strong leadership behaviors, whether transformational or transactional, are seen to be engaging in increasing the employees’ performance.

1. Empirical Analysis in Africa andLocally

In the South African context Hayward, Davidson, Pascoe, Tasker, Amos and Pearse (2003) found transformational leadership to be more effective than transactional leadership in increasing employee performance. The research (Hayward et al., 2003) found a significant positive linear relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance but no significant linear relationship between transactional leadership and employee performance in a South African pharmaceutical organisation.

Elsewhere in Africa empirical evidence by Nuhu (2004) who sought to study the effect of work styles on employee performance in Kampala City Council reveals that laissez faire leadership was practiced especially in higher offices and also the laissez faire leadership was existent especially in lower offices. Authoritative leadership style has a positive relationship with employee performance (NUHU 2004), most employees believed that authoritative leadership brought about performance the autocratic way (coerced), yet other forms of leadership would approach the employee from a more humanisticmanner.

According to Nuhu (2004) Laissez fare leadership style has a positive relationship with employee performance .. Since most employees believed that they would rather be made comfortable at work rather than coarse them around like kids. Infact this was eminent in some departments that supervisors or managers wherenaturally approachable, friendly and not arrogant at employees. Since the correlation his study showed that laissez-faire leadership leads to performance, this implied that that in these departments, employee performance actually existed however on a slow pace, rather than in the authoritative leadership which was filled with Tension. Tsigu and Rao (2020) in their study “work styles: their impact on job outcomes in Ethiopian banking industry” found that transformational leadership style explained the variation on performance better than transactional leadership style. Hence, the researchers recommended that if banks under study emphasize more on transformational leadership style dimensions, it would enable them to better satisfy and hence gain more output from their employees. A study in Uganda on the effect ofwork stylesonperformanceoflocalgovernments,acaseofMbaledistrict done by Gimuguni, et al (2014) concluded that there is a moderate high positive and significant relationship between the three work styles (autocratic, lassies-faire, democratic), and performance in Mbale local government. The researchers revealed further findings that Mbale local government leaders use autocratic style of leadership to influence employees to perform their duties, but laissez- fair style of leadership dominated Mbale local leadership which could have caused delay in meeting deadlines. The findings also revealed that the local government has realised some performance in terms of increased work forces, high speed of accomplishment of work, effectiveness and timeliness due to democratic leadership. It was therefore concluded that Mbale local government tries to integrate the three work styles though autocratic and laissez fairedominated.