A Relationship between Leadership Work Ethic and ... Relationship between Leadership Work Ethic and Organisational Performance in the Public Sector ... A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP

© Kamla-Raj 2013 J Soc Sci, 35(2): 169-180 (2013)

A Relationship between Leadership Work Ethic andOrganisational Performance in the Public Sector

M.C. Vimba, J.E. Coetzee and W.I. Ukpere

Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management, Faculty of Management,University of Johannesburg, South Africa

KEYWORDS Leadership. Work Ethics. Organisation. Public Sector

ABSTRACT This article explores the relationship between work ethics and organisational performance in thepublic sector with special emphasis on Government Funded Organisation (GFO). In addition, the current work is anexposition of the roles of Leadership Work Ethic (LWE) in the strategic management process of an organisation.The application of LWE to managerial decision-making processes helps to accelerate organisational effectiveness.It is part of the objective of this study to scrutinise the concept of LWE and its potency within the public sector.A qualitative research methodology with a variety of data sources was used to assess the applicability of LWE in thepublic sector. The approach enables the researcher to explore how the relationship between individuals and powerdimensions of work ethic contributes to organisational efficacy. Based on the data analysis, six (6) fundamentalthemes from the responses of the GFO executives have been identified namely, leadership, leadership work ethic,organisational strategy, strategic management, organisational learning and organisational structure.

INTRODUCTION

Leadership Work Ethic (LWE) has been rec-ognised as an integral part of strategic manage-ment, which contributes to an organisation’slong-term success and competitiveness (Stew-ard 2008: 123; Bandura 2007: 193) Researcheshave encouraged the scrutiny of aspects relat-ing to the Work Ethic Model (WEM), and howthe two work ethic dimensions, namely powerand individual, influence quality managementand organisational strategy (Hariparsad 2005).

There is always a good case to advocate forLWE, which complements with the dignity ofwork life. Jackson (2004: 67) is of the view thatmanagement should develop an ethic strategyaimed at providing a road map to ensure theongoing development of individual and organi-sational character. Cherrington (2003: 123) seemsto be in the same line with Jackson and observedthat work ethic should stem from good policies,effective strategies, buy-in from internal custom-ers or staff and good leadership/supervision. Inaddition, Cherrington (2003) posited that inclu-sion of LWE leads to greater satisfaction of em-ployees and customers because of improvedproduct quality, which in turn delivers bettervalue for money.

Problem Statement

There has been growing concern regardingpoor performance of organisations within thepublic sector without due consideration to how

leadership work ethic contributes to high per-formance. As it stands, previous researches(Cherrington 2003; Hariparsad 2005) have notentirely explored the relationship between lead-ership work ethic and performance within thepublic sector organisations.

Research Questions

What is the relationship between leader-ship work ethics (LWE) and organisationalperformance in the public sector withingovernment funded organisation?

What is the role of LWE in the strategicmanagement process of an organisation?

What is the role of LWE in managerial deci-sion-making and organisation effective-ness?

What is the potency of LWE in the publicsector?

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study are: To explore the relationship between work

ethics and organisational performance inthe public sector within a Government Fund-ed Organisation (GFO),

To appraise the roles of Leadership WorkEthic (LWE) in the strategic managementprocess of an organisation.

To evaluate roles of LWE in managerialdecision-making and organisational effec-tiveness,

170 M.C. VIMBA, J.E. COETZEE AND W.I. UKPERE

To scrutinise the concept of LWE and itspotency within the public sector.

To propose a model that could enhance thelevel LWE in the public sector

Contribution of the Study

Theoretically the study is anticipated to gen-erate scientific knowledge in the field of HRMand, hence foster a greater understanding of theconcepts of work ethic including leadershipwork ethic, and the application thereof withinthe organizational context. The modified workethic model should be best suited for both pub-lic and private sector as well.

Potential Value-add of the Study

Most research (Cherington 2006; Dewey2007), in the field of work ethic is theoretical.This article will analyse and critique the existingWEM and will attempt to enhance the model byoutlining the relationship between LWE and or-ganisational performance. Practical experienceand input by experts and practitioners in thefield of management at GFOs will constitute animportant facet of the research, which also takesinto account various theories found in the rele-vant bodies of knowledge and in the area ofethics as it informs the creation of value-drivenorganisations. The findings will be extended toother GFOs in order to get a holistic idea on therole of LWE in the public sector.

Literature Review

According to Hariparsard (2005), there aretwo dimensions to leadership Work Ethic, name-ly, the power and individual dimension. The pow-er dimension consists of respect for authority,independent work and autonomous power, whilethe individual dimension consists of job satis-faction, recognition and reward, perseverance,time for work, self-worth and responsibility. It isimportant to elaborate on these dimensions inthe proceeding section

The Power Dimension of Work Ethic

Central to the power dimension is respectfor authority based on the power bestowed onthat authority by the organisation (Rost 2008:63). Vied (2003: 40) has stated that those en-

trusted with authority should exercise such au-thority with a consciousness of the fact thatthey have been assigned a holy function. Daniels(2007: 80) has observed that the respect for au-thority gives rise to power, and power comeswith responsibility. The legitimate power of in-dividuals in an organisation is mainly derivedfrom their authority and responsibilities. Hence,the allocation of authority to organisation’s man-agement should delineate what is required ofthem in order to meet organisational objectives.Daniels (2007) has defined authority as the rightto command and induce compliance, which isderived from the central feature of the formalorganisational structure. Authority is alwaysassociated with leadership.

Leadership is about relationships, authorityand respect, which can be improved in numer-ous ways. Effective leaders nurture teamwork.Teamwork draws on all skills as a ‘people per-son’. Hence, a manager’s skill at teambuildingwill generally relate to how good he/she is as aleader. In other words, the question of ‘how onebecomes a leader’ is really a question of ‘howone can lead a team’. In order to become an ef-fective team builder, a person should be veryconfident in order to command authority andrespect of team members; The person should aswell be able to give orders and ensure that thejob gets done without stepping on toes; He/sheshould be able to coordinate and manage ef-forts without coercing people to take notice ofhim as a manager and should also be enthusias-tic to inspire the team to greater productivity(Dewey 2007).

It is however necessary to draw a distinc-tion between leadership and authority. There maybe certain individuals with authority and powerbut who lack the requisite leadership skills. Atthe same time, some others may display exem-plary leadership skills without holding positionsof power or authority (Kotter 2008).

Individual Dimension of Work Ethic

As earlier stated, the aspects of individualdimension of work ethic include job satisfac-tion; recognition and reward; time at work andself-worth and responsibility. Job satisfaction isattributed to the nature of job as it is believedthat good jobs increase satisfaction (Vahed2001: 231). Researchers such as Youl (2003: 78)and Hendricks (2008: 123) believe that there is a

A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP WORK ETHIC 171

relationship between job satisfaction, motiva-tion and productivity. Job satisfaction occursas a result of job enrichment, improved compen-sation packages and workers’ participation indecision making (Fredericks 2008: 104; Hall 2006:267). A good job is said to increase satisfaction,while repetitive menial jobs are related to bore-dom, alienation and discontent. Work is an im-portant activity that brings meaning, satisfac-tion and fulfilment of life (Rothstein 2006: 431).Work values are positively related to both jobsatisfaction and productivity (Fiedler 2007: 234).According to Graef (2008: 90), job dissatisfac-tion leads to high turnover, tardiness, loafing onthe job, disruptions, poor workmanship and in-difference to customers. He maintained that apopular solution to the problem of job dissatis-faction is job redesign.

However, Rothstein (2006: 461) argues thatjob redesign is not enough and may not neces-sarily ameliorate the problem, and suggests thatsuch a job redesign must incorporates strate-gies that recognise the role of the worker. Howthe worker chooses to respond to the job hasbeen almost entirely disregarded, even thoughit is obvious that job satisfaction or dissatisfac-tion depends on the perception of a work envi-ronment (Hall 2006: 277). Fredericks (2005: 104)states that high performers are very work-ori-ented and derive enormous satisfaction fromtheir work because of either pay or good work-ing conditions. Moreover, the individual workethic dimension is primarily concerned with jobsatisfaction, recognition, rewards, perseverance,and time at work, self-worth and responsibility.

Kanter (2006: 456) has stated: “recognitionand reward are important factors that encourageproductivity”. He further stated that employeesbecome more accountable, develop a sense ofownership and act in the best interests of theorganisation if they are involved in the deci-sion- making process. Pay and taking pride intheir work seem to be the most desirable out-comes that make employees more productive andhappy (Benson 2006: 104). Porter (2005: 34) is ofthe view that people work because of the posi-tive feeling they get from doing a good job. Ac-cording to Lawler (2005: 79), there is no doubtthat pay increase is an important outcome. It ismuch more important than fringe benefits andpromotions and essentially as important as in-trinsic rewards. Carnel (2008: 76) seems to con-cur to the above and remarked that people need

money to live. Therefore, getting more money isa desirable reward for working. If a job did notpay well, no matter how intrinsically rewardingit may be, a worker would probably be forced toleave it for some other form of more profitableemployment.

Grayson (2008: 129) states that the other twoextrinsic rewards, such as fringe benefits andpromotions, are related as slightly desirable butcloser to neutral. Kanter (2006: 479) argues thattop management and manager’s compliments arealways a desirable work outcome while too muchcriticism is highly undesirable. Brenton (2006)argues that an organisation has an importantrole to play in ensuring employee happiness andproductivity. The road to success follows thepath of hard work, diligence, thrift and persever-ance. Time at work improves worker productivi-ty and helps maintain standards of quality atwork (Richards 2007: 321). The perception andexperience of time are among the most centralaspects of how any group functions when peo-ple differ in their experience of time, tremendouscommunication and relationship problems typi-cally emerge (Richards 2007: 231). For example,supervisors get anxious and irritated when some-one is late for work or when he or she feels timehas been wasted on non-work issues. In an anal-ysis of time, De Pree (2003: 14) points out thecentral role of time in human affairs. Time at workis a fundamental symbolic category that a per-son uses for talking about the orderliness ofsocial life. In a modern organisation, just as inan agrarian society, time at work appears to im-pose a structure of work days, calendars, ca-reers and life-cycles that one learn and live in aspart of a culture. Managers should view timevery seriously as it has everything to do withhow one view organisational milestones andhow one perceives organisational future in gen-eral during the planning process.

Self-worth and responsibility is defined asthe degree to which an employee personally feelsaccountable for the results of the work he or shedoes (Malcom 2008: 55). Peter (2009: 89) arguesthat workers not only need to feel accountablefor the result, they also need to feel that the taskis meaningful and they should be motivated todo their task well. Workers determine what theyare worth by getting more money, autonomy,responsibility and opportunities to participatein decision-making. In order to have a feeling ofself-worth, workers seek for more enriched jobs.


Fielder (2007: 123) argues that workers feel self-worth and responsibility when they are offeredmore specialised and efficiently organised jobs.Specialised tools and resources can significant-ly increase performance. Taylor (2007: 239) statesthat specialisation also increases management’sflexibility in allocating job assignments, whichgive workers greater mobility in terms of chang-ing their jobs.

RESEARCH DESIGN ANDMETHODOLOGY

According to Babbie and Mouton (2004: 74),a research design is a plan or blueprint of how aperson intends to conduct his/her research. Theresearchers have adopted a qualitative researchmethodology in order to understand first hand,the social phenomena. By so doing, they striveto describe subgroups (such as senior or middlemanagement workers) from the point of view ofthe persons being studied. Babbie and Mouton(2007: 76) favour qualitative research methodsand posits that the “primary nature of the rela-tionship between the observer and the subjectsallow for an in- depth study of the whole indi-vidual”. Hughes (2006: 321) states that the ad-vantage of qualitative methods is that they areopen to using a range of evidence and discover-ing a whole range of new issues. He states fur-ther that they are very appropriate for a studywhich involves exploration. Qualitative researchis valid when it gives an accurate and usefulrepresentation of the particular instance that hasbeen studied (Stake 2008: 263). Data is rich inthat it has been collected from participants whohave not participated in any other similar study.The trustworthiness of the data in this researchis based on the fact that questions and answersare available for validation.

Qualitative research is primarily intended tobe used in order to understand, describe andsometimes explain social phenomena from theinsiders’ perspective by analysing experiencesof individuals or groups; interactions and com-munications in the making and documents orsimilar traces of experiences and interactions.Qualitative research is often the method ofchoice for the social science enquiry because itusually produces a wealth of detailed data froma small number of participants and the emphasisis placed on words (Maxwell 2005: 432). Accord-ing to Schurink (2004: 14), it stems from a largely

anti-positivistic, interpretative approach that isideographic. Thus, it is holistic and mainly aimsat understanding social life and the meaningspeople attach to it. Neuman (2009: 8) states thatscholars some years ago started debating posi-tivism and the legitimacy of social research basedon the scientific method. They found that prac-titioners of qualitative research came to placeemphasis and value on the human, interpretiveaspects of knowing about the social world andthe significance of their own interpretation andunderstanding of the phenomenon under study.

Case Study as a Research Strategy

A case study is a typical research design ofthe qualitative research tradition (Schurink 2004b:2). A case study approach was as well utilised inthis research Case study has been defined asintensive investigation of a single unit. This unitvaries from individual, people, families, commu-nities, social groups, organisations and institu-tions, studies of events, roles and relationshipsand studies of countries and nations.

According to Babbie and Mouton (2004), anindividual case study entails a detailed accountof one person. Studies of organisations and in-stitutions entail an in-depth study of a firm, com-pany, corporation and trade union. However,organisational studies have many foci includ-ing best practice, policy implementation andevaluation, human resource practices, manage-ment and organisational issues, organisationalculture, processes of change and re-engineer-ing and so on. Case studies are particularly pop-ular in organisational research and are well suit-ed to capturing the social world of people inunderstanding a real life situation (Beer 2005:102). Banks (2008: 153) identifies four character-istics of case studies namely, facilitating the clearidentification and description of boundaries;representing something that is obviously impor-tant so as to determine the unit of analysis; en-suring a specific study focus, which is under-scored by the research questions and usingmultiple sources of data. As this study is explor-atory, the case study approach was utilised. Thispreference was informed by the very character-istics of case studies as advocated by Beer(2005). More specifically the researchers optedfor a single exploratory case study as they in-tended to explore and describe the GFO’s statuson the applicability of LWE, in order to provide


a social science basis for this process and pos-sibly to refine it.

Data Collection

The population of this study were the Exec-utive Board of the Department of Trade and In-dustry (GFO) national office in Pretoria.

Qualitative interviews and ordinary conver-sations share much in common. Qualitative in-terviewing builds on the conversational skillsthat one already have. According to Beebe(2006: 100), interviews entail direct personal con-tact with the participant who is asked to respondto questions. The method used in this studywas that of a semi-structured interview, in whichthe interviewer has a structured plan of investi-gation, namely a set of pre-determined questions(Bennis 2008: 113). The interview focussed onobtaining qualitative data. The use of interviewsis often criticised because of the effect of lead-ing questions. Most often, the way a questionis phrased or the way in which an eye witness isprobed can influence the answer given by theparticipant (Bertodo 2007: 154). The interviewerattempted under all circumstances not to influ-ence the participants either by leading questionsor by means of eye contact. A comfortable re-laxed atmosphere was kept throughout all inter-views, which ensured that the participants werenot influenced in answering questions or givingopinions. A framework of all the GFO ExecutiveBoard members was obtained after which it wasdecided to include all in the study. The reasonfor that was because the GFO is big enough interms of size to be used to represent all othergovernment departments. A pilot study was con-ducted on the executive board members beforethe main interview. All nine (9) GFO Deputy Di-rector Generals (DDGs) were interviewed.

This strategy is closely related to theoreticalsampling, which is mainly associated withgrounded theory. Although phenomenologyemphasises the meaning of an experience for anumber of individuals, the intent of a groundedtheory study is to move beyond description togenerate or discover a theory. It is an abstractanalytical schema of a process (Strauss andCorbin 2003). Participants in the study have allexperienced the process and the developmentof the theory helped explain practice and pro-vided a framework for further research. Ground-ed theory holds that theories should be ground-

ed in data from the field, especially in the ac-tions, interactions, and social processes of peo-ple. Thus grounded theory provided for the gen-eration of a theory of actions, interactions, orprocesses through inter-relating categories ofinformation based on data collected from indi-viduals (Carmaz 2008: 63). Ritchie and Lewis(2004: 80) refer to grounded theory as a strategywhere a researcher samples incidents, people orunits on the basis of their potential contributionto the development and testing of theoreticalconstructs. The process is interactive, as theresearcher picks an initial sample, analyses thedata and selects a further sample in order to re-fine emerging categories and theories. This pro-cess is continued until the researcher reachesdata saturation or a point at which no new in-sights can be extracted by expanding the sam-ple further.

Trustworthiness of Research

A reliability analysis was performed to de-termine whether it is possible to develop com-posite scores for the subjects by combining theirown ratings (for each quadrant, and for flexibili-ty and adaptability) with those of the SeniorManagement, Deputy Directors, Assistant Di-rectors and Team Assistants. Validity refers tothe correctness or credibility of a description,conclusion, explanation, interpretation or someother account, the extent to which the researchaccurately reflects the phenomenon being re-searched (Hubberman and Miles 2008: 123). Theuse of the term ‘validity’ does not imply the ex-istence of any objective truth to which the ac-count can be compared. Validity has more to dowith the relationship of conclusions to realityand there are no methods that can completelyguarantee that the researcher has captured this.Thus, it is more accurate to consider the con-cept of validity threat as a precautionary mea-sure. These threats are often conceptualised asalternative explanations or rival hypotheses.Validity as a component of this research designconsists of strategies used to identify, try andrule out these threats.

FINDINGS

The researchers have identified six (6) themesfrom the responses of the GFO executive board:


Theme 1: Leadership

One of the respondent noted: “Yes, I cancertainly say that government funded organisa-tion (GFO) leadership consult with the employ-ees and in many instances if not all, leadershipalways reach an agreement with employees. “Em-ployees work hard and really adhere to GFO lead-ership decisions” Therefore, effective leadershipis crucial to organisational success (Keller 2010:111). It was evident from the participants’ re-sponses that leadership is a process and not aphenomenon. A leader is a central figure in lead-ership. Hence, without a leader, leadership can-not take place and leadership styles cannot bedetermined. There is also evidence pointing tothe fact that leadership at the GFO has the abil-ity to influence people willingly to adhere todecisions made by the executive and to workhard and do their best in order to achieve organ-isational goals. The leaders also strive for groupinteraction and team work, which is directed to-ward a solution to common problems.

Theme 2: Leadership Work Ethic

Another respondent stated: “Yhaa, I thinkyou can talk of leadership work ethic in the GFOeven though in certain instances we manage toget things done and to meet our targets. We useperformance agreements to get commitment fromthe staff and appraised those who have per-formed well. I can then say that we apply certainelements of leadership work ethic indirectly.”Leadership work ethic (LWE) is defined and anal-ysed with due reference to its role within organ-isational management and hierarchical levels ofresponsibility (Dewey 2007: 124). Therefore, LWErefers to a set of values database on the moralvirtues of hard work and diligence (Cherrington2003: 13). LWE is located within the social dy-namic and action as well as the complex interact-ing components in the organisation (Schwandt2004: 23). It is an understanding of how individ-uals are motivated towards a positive work ethicwithin a milieu of organisational structure andtasks. One respondent observed: “In fact thecorrect answer would be we really know muchabout leadership work ethic, for example, quali-ty of management decisions and how it deter-mines to a large extent the effectiveness ofplans.” Hence, it does not only impact on theperformance outcome of the individual but also

impacts of the extent to which the organisationencourages a positive work ethic of the individ-ual to the benefit of the organisation (Haripar-sad 2005: 79).

Theme 3: Organisational Strategy

Another respondent posited: “The GFO hasa strategy and that is why we continue to growas an organisation. In practice the developmentof strategic plans for the GFO involves takinginformation from the environment and decidingon an organisational mission and objectives,strategies and a portfolio plan. This has helpedin developing a unity of purpose across the or-ganisation; the strategic planning process needsto be tied to objectives and goals at all GFOlevels of management.” It was therefore evidentfrom the responses that an organisational strat-egy brings into play the critical managerial issueof how to achieve the targeted results in light ofthe organisation’s situation and projects. It be-came clear that objectives are the ends whilestrategy is the means. In addition, the respons-es indicated that strategic implementation is fun-damentally an administrative activity, which in-volves, amongst others, organising, budgeting,motivating, culture building, supervising andleading. It was also evident that evaluation ofperformance, reviewing of strategy and imple-mentation of corrective adjustments are onlydone in the next strategic planning session. Hefurther stated: “This we address during strate-gic planning as we consider the environmentand government policies so that we do not devi-ate.” Hence, it was clear that all managers areinvolved in the formation and implementation oforganisational strategy.

Theme 4: Strategic Management

Strategic management was seen as key onlyif it is based on strategic management principleswith a well conceived mission that is aimed atpreparing the GFO for the future by establishinglong term direction, which indicates the GFO’sgoals and how they can be achieved. All respon-dents indicated that strategic management in-volves identification of objectives and the for-mulation of policies. One of the respondents stat-ed: “Yes, the GFO has a clear strategy to achieveits objectives.” They all viewed it as comprisingthree component processes, namely strategic


planning, resource management, control andevaluation. However, they all admitted that thereis no monitoring and evaluation policy in place.Strategic management is not a task, but a set ofmanagerial skills that should be used through-out the organisation, in a wide variety of func-tions (Kotter 2008: 171). Lawler (2007: 123) ar-gues that successful organisations are those thatfocus their efforts strategically and understandthat strategy should be projected over a periodof time and should be reviewed on a yearly ba-sis. Kotter (2008) and Lawler (2007) agree that tomeet and exceed customer satisfaction, an or-ganisation’s team needs to follow an overall or-ganisational strategy. They further noted that asuccessful strategy adds value for the targetedcustomers over the long run by consistentlymeeting their needs better than the competitors.One respondent argued that, “From the man-agement point of view, the desired future out-comes are objectives and they are the end pointsof an organisation’s mission and are what it seeksthrough the on-going, long run operations ofthe GFO.” Likert (2007: 543) states that overallpurpose of the experimental strategic learningand management process is to establish whichstrategic options or elements thereof are robustacross the scenarios, thereby using the healthi-est elements to develop one’s strategic intent.There are various key strategies to consider,namely extended structure of the enterprise, re-configurations, extensions and strategic relation-ships that is necessary to deliver the espousedstrategy; new skills and capabilities that will berequired and how this will affect workforce com-position, talent acquisition, development needs,process and operational capability improve-ments that will be necessary; talent managementpractices necessary to create a high performanceworkforce and adjustments that is needed to cre-ate a climate that stimulates and engages thetotal organisation for peak performance; the op-erating culture of business and how it might needto change to fit the value proposition and oper-ating style required; performance results that willbe needed and what is necessary to achievethem; purposeful integration and fit of all oper-ating activities to ensure total enterprise align-ment to the cause.

Theme 5: Organisational Learning

One of the respondents answered: “Yes, asthe GFO grows it is important that leadershipmust create a space for organisational learning

or development. We as the leaders view this se-riously.” Evidence shows that the GFO execu-tive board facilitates organisational learning inall its divisions, in order to continuously trans-form itself. The essential concern was how toenhance processes of learning so as to improveindividual and collective actions by means ofbetter knowledge and understanding. Anotherrespondent stated: “generally, speaking the GFOis doing everything in its best to address thoseissues and to open up its lines of communica-tion.” From the responses of participants, threethemes have been formulated by the researcherunder organisational learning, namely how tostructure the organisation to enhance perfor-mance; how to facilitate individual learning anddevelopment in the public sector; and how toensure that organisations adapt quickly tochanges in the external environment. One of therespondents noted: “For some of us, we still donot understand the concept of organisationallearning as we were still grappling with organi-sation development. This new concept is saidto be incorporating an element of lessons learnedas opposed to organisational development.” Italso emerged that the GFO does not have anorganisational learning approach strategy inplace. A learning organisation is an organisa-tion which facilitates the learning of all its mem-bers and continuously transforms itself (Braude2009: 56). Boschoff (2008: 342) argues that or-ganisational leaders are designers, stewards andteachers and they are responsible for buildingorganisations, where people continually expandtheir capabilities to understand complexity, clar-ify vision and improve shared mental models.Dumain (2009: 76) describes a learning organi-sation as a process, one which strives to im-prove its performance by detecting and correct-ing errors and adapt to its environment throughevolving knowledge and understanding. Anotherrespondent posited: “As leadership our focusis on ensuring that socio ethical issues are dis-cussed to inform organisational learning”.Hence, learning is the key characteristic as itenables the organisation to sense changes (bothinternal and external) and adapt accordingly inthe face of an increasingly discontinuous envi-ronment. According to Dumain (2009) the cru-cial issues at the heart of a learning organisationare:

Social: - The beliefs about society that arereflected in organisations themselves;

Ethical: - How and why organisations oper-ate and how they establish an environment and


ethos in which people can grow and mature intoeffective human beings; and

Organisational: - The different learning andchange contexts within the organisation, as wellas the impact and management of these learningand change contexts.

Dewey (2007: 32) seems to agree with Du-main (2009) when he stated that the leader’s rolein a learning organisation is that of a designer,teacher and steward who can build the sharedvision and challenge prevailing mental models.He/she is responsible for building organisationswhere people are continually expanding theircapabilities to shape their future. In other words,leaders are responsible for learning. Dickson(2007: 98) outlines the relationship between strat-egy and learning organisation and suggests thatthe key is not getting the right strategy but fos-tering strategic thinking. Dickson (2007) furtherargues that a key ingredient is on how organisa-tions process their managerial experiences andhow managers learn from new experiences rath-er than being glued to past experiences. He statesfurther that a manager is not measured by whathe knows (that is the product of learning), butrather by how he learns the process of learning.Rotherford (2008: 54) echoes Dickson’s viewsand argues that management practices encour-age, recognise and reward openness, systemicthinking, creativity, a sense of efficacy and em-pathy.

Theme 6: Organisational Structure

Under this theme one of the respondent re-marked: “Yes, our organisational structure isperfect and it enables us to organise, lead, con-trol and evaluate.” An organisational structureis mainly a hierarchical concept of subordina-tion of entities that collaborate and contributeto serve one common objective. Organisationsare a variant of clustered entities (Gracious 2008:123). An organisation can be structured in manydifferent ways and styles, depending on theirobjectives and ambience. Another respondentssaid “ Oh yes, the structure of the organisationserves as a catalyst in ensuring that the organi-sation is effective and it delivers according toits mandate.” The structure of an organisationwill determine the modes in which it operatesand performs. Organisational structure allowsthe expressed allocation of responsibilities fordifferent functions and processes to different

divisions such as the business units and indi-viduals (Doyle 2009: 432). Another respondentargued that “Organisational structure is key tothe fluidity of organisational activities and ifproperly done, ensures that everyone contrib-utes to the success of the organisation.” Aneffective organisational structure facilitatesworking relationships between various entitiesin the organisation and may improve the work-ing efficiency within organisational units (Du-main 2009: 76). There was a clear evidence thatthe executive believes in the decentralisation ofpower so as to devolve power to divisional headsto formulate strategies in line with their individ-ual mandates. Each division within a divisionalstructure contains all the necessary resourcesand functions required to fulfil its mandate,which is derived from the GFO’s core functionand strategic goals such as economic develop-ment and job creation.

DISCUSSION AND INTEGRATIONOF FINDINGS

The purpose of this research was to attain aclear understanding of the concept of leader-ship work ethic (LWE) and its relationship withorganisational performance in the public sector.This relationship is discussed as under:

Leadership Work Ethic and Management

The success of any organisation is depen-dent on its leadership and in the manner in whichthe leadership develop its organisational strate-gy. This is one of the primary tasks of manage-ment. If an organisation is to reach its goals, aleader must set certain activities in motion andkeep them going. Leadership work ethic there-fore has to do with how the leader performs eachof the above management functions. As notedearlier on, the concept of work ethic has twodimensions, namely, individual and power.

In terms of the power dimension of work eth-ic, the executive has a critical responsibility andtask of formulating policies and to develop or-ganisational strategies. The executive must in-volve all management levels in the process offormulating polices and developing strategies.Implementation, monitoring and evaluation ofsuch strategies and policies reside with seniormanagement. It further shows that senior man-agement must communicate such strategies to


all staff in the organisation. If the staff membersdo not have the necessary skills and experience,it is the responsibility of the leader to ensurethat there is skills development programme inplace to empower the staff members. The leadershould also make sure that the skills develop-ment programme (SDP) is included in the per-sonal development plan of staff members. Per-sonal Development Plan (PDP) must be designedby the organisation to provide its members withthe opportunities to learn necessary skills tomeet their current and future job demands. Itfurther illustrates that for leadership to be effec-tive, it must adopt participatory, delegative stylesof management and encourage team work.

The above signifies that it is incumbent onthe person appointed to lead the organisationto choose the ways to exercise such power be-stowed on him/her. Work is an integral part of apersons well being. Therefore, workers espousethe work ethic, in that, their work values are pos-itively related to their work ethic. This explana-tion suggests that if people like their work, findssatisfaction and fulfilment in it, they will believethat work is important and that doing a good jobis desirable. It further suggests that people whoaccept ethics in their works are more produc-tive. It is also evident from both literature reviewand responses received from the GFO staff andexecutive members that there is a link betweenstrategic management and leadership work eth-ic. In this case, the executive is expected whenstrategising to take into consideration issues ofemployment equity and intent strategy. It is fur-ther evident that the causal link between strate-gic management and leadership work ethic sig-nificantly contribute to quality management andorganisational learning. This shows that qualitymanagement can only be achieved if it is priori-tised and there is an alignment of work process-es with strategy and values. This can beachieved by defining and measuring key priori-ties, core work processes and criteria for mea-suring outcomes. The above work ethic modelshows the role of leadership work ethic in im-proving production, outputs and quality man-agement in the delivery of services in the publicsector.

There is a distinct relationship between thepower dimension of work ethic and leadershiptasks and organisational strategy. The task of aleader is to influence people to carry out an or-der, provide support, necessary resources and

allegiance to the core functions of the organisa-tion and implement management decisions. Thecredibility and integrity of leaders is very muchdependent on how they use their power andinfluence. Leadership tasks must be carried outin a more cooperative and trustworthy mannerbased on ethical principles with the aim to ac-complish shared objectives. These tasks becomecentral in developing a sound organisationalstrategy, which requires a buy-in from everyonein the organisation. If leadership tasks are car-ried out inefficiently with total disregard of theemployees of the organisation, organisationalstrategy is likely to suffer and the plan is unlike-ly to succeed. Unlike in a situation where leader-ship consulted and involved everyone in orderto gain insight about the leadership’s reasonsor underlying the organisational strategy.

Collaboration may involve an offer from em-ployees to help accomplish the leadership’s ob-jective in a different way. It is much easier togain cooperation and commitment from peoplewhen there is a high level of mutual trust andrespect. Leaders should use their autonomouspower in a subtle, non threatening way to achieveworthwhile objectives, and should not attemptto deceive or manipulate people. Furthermore,leadership must consult and involve peoplewhen developing organisational strategy as thatis critical in ensuring that work processes arealigned with strategy and values by definingand measuring key priorities, core work process-es and criteria for measuring outcomes.

Job Satisfaction as a Tool

Job satisfaction is important both becauseof its bearing on the physical and mental wellbe-ing of individual employees and because of itsdemonstrated implications for job related behav-iour, which accelerates the productivity and prof-itability of organisations. This is the reason whyjob satisfaction is critical to the individual di-mension of work ethic. Job satisfaction is alsocentral to power dimension of work ethic be-cause even executive managers are not exclud-ed from job satisfaction. In order to properlyperform their functions, executive managers alsoneed to be happy with their jobs. Developmentof a tool that can generally be used as a measur-ing yardstick for job satisfaction can go a longway in ensuring that job satisfaction is used asan indicator for effective work ethic. It is for this


reason that development of a job satisfactionmodel is necessary. Research has establishedthat the facet, which correlates most highly withoverall job satisfaction, is the work itself. Satis-faction with the work is usually measured in termsof the core job characteristics. These were pro-posed by Hackman and Oldham (1999: 56), whonoted that the measures of presence of autono-my, skill variety, task identity, risk significanceand feedback in the work itself implicitly addresspresent opportunity.

Training Initiatives

It is imperative to conduct training in all lev-els of the organisation in order to make sure thateveryone is capacitated in his/her field as this iscritical in achieving improved quality of productor output and central to customer satisfaction.For executive management, it is critical that theexecutive receives training on strategic manage-ment, people management, project management,project monitoring and evaluation, talent man-agement, communication skills, time manage-ment, quality management, interpersonal skills,ethical decision making skills and negotiationskills. The aim of training should be to improveorganisational effectiveness and maximise per-formance.

Practical and Managerial Implications

This research has implication for HumanResources management, because it is designedto provide solutions to problems in organisa-tions. It focuses on the relationship betweenleadership work ethic dimensions (individual andpower). This exposition has shown how bestleadership work ethic can be utilised by seniormanagement to provide decision support infor-mation for critical operational as well as for pol-icy decisions. It tests the readiness of the or-ganisation to deal with the issue of lack of lead-ership skills. The treatise has impacted on HRby contributing towards performance manage-ment strategy of organizations, thereby ensur-ing effective performance management system.This is made possible through input in the de-sign of a performance management policy; in-put in developing organizational and divisionalor departmental plans; monitoring of perfor-mance and provision of feedback; formulationof development plan; determination of ratings

of performance; and establishing responsibili-ties. The above, shows the value of the studytowards human resources development.

More than that, the study will go a long wayto assist the GFO to incorporate LWE in its stra-tegic management, in an attempt to improve thequality of service, management capacity andmore significantly the general work environmentin the GFO. In order to ensure that there is sus-tainable tool to assess LWE in the context oforganizational management, the work ethic model(WEM) will be made available for use by othergovernment departments. The work ethic modelwill be tested and adapted for application in adiverse environment and will be validated for ahigh level of acceptance by other public sectordepartments. It is expected that the model willsignificantly contribute to better quality of man-agement and satisfaction of all levels of man-agement, support staff as well as trade unionsand donors and more importantly, to addressthe issue of equity in the workplace. If leader-ship works ethic and organizational managementbecome the priority for all organizations, it willtake care of the imbalances that exist. Organisa-tional values and moral regeneration are expect-ed to be revived for better management effici-ency.

Research Limitations and FutureResearch Opportunities

Government Funded Organisations (GFOs)have become notorious for poor leadership withmany employees lodging grievances againsttheir supervisors, which negatively impacts onservice delivery. In the current study, we haveused qualitative research method to explore therelationship between work ethic and organisa-tional performance. In future, there may be a needto utilise a quantitative method to validate andcompare the current finding, which may neces-sitate good problem formation. According toLandman (2008: 44), problem formulation requiresthe exact formulation of questions that must beanswered by means of questionnaire. Landmanargues that relevant questions serve to directand motivate the researcher to find meaningfulsolutions and to disclose the reality of the phe-nomenon under investigation. In future the fol-lowing research may be worth exploring: To test a model of leadership work ethic in

a sample of GFO employees;


To validate a leadership work ethic ques-tionnaire for the GFO employees;

To use the modified and adapted ques-tionnaire to establish the relationship be-tween LWE and organisational manage-ment in GFO according to WEM;

To gather and analyse data on perceptionsrelating to LWE and organisational man-agement in GFO environments using theWEM;

To show the important role, contributionand the effect of LWE dimensions to qual-ity and organisational management inGFOs from the information gatheredthrough the questionnaire; and

To examine and analyse LWE practices toillustrate the influence of the model onorganisational management in the currentpublic sector.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the study has established thatthere is a relationship between leadership workethic and organizational performance. Analysisof the results show that the development of lead-ership work ethic is dependent on strong workvalues whereas high productive work behavioris highly dependent on development of self dis-cipline, self control, and personal initiative, whichare all correlates of work ethics. This treatisesuggest that effective leadership is critical toorganizational success, and that can be achievedif leadership has the ability to influence peopleto adhere to decisions made by the executive,and endeavor to achieve organizational goals.Thus, an understanding of how individuals aremotivated towards positive work ethic withinthe milieu of organizational structure and tasks,impact on the performance outcome of the indi-vidual. This indicates that strategy implementa-tion is fundamentally an administrative activitywhich to a certain degree involves amongst oth-er things, organising, budgeting, motivating,culture building, supervising and leading. Eval-uation of performance, reviewing of strategy andimplementation of corrective adjustments arecritical for organizational performance and coreto leadership work ethic.

More than that, strategic management in-volves identification of goals and formulationof policies. These comprise three important com-ponent processes such as strategic planning,

resource management and control and evalua-tion. Monitoring and evaluation policy need tobe developed to ensure that there is proper mon-itoring and evaluation in the GFO. It is as wellcrucial to identify the need for organizationallearning as a way of transforming the organiza-tion. This is achieved by enhancing the process-es of learning in order to improve individual andcollective actions by means of better knowledgeand understanding. There is a causal link be-tween leadership work ethic and organizationalperformance because organizational learningfacilitates the learning of all members of the or-ganization and equips them with new skills andcapabilities. Organizational leaders are design-ers, stewards and teachers, and responsible forbuilding organizations where people continual-ly expand their capabilities to understand com-plexity through clarified vision and improvedshared mental models. Organisational structuredetermines the modes in which an organisationoperates and performs. Organisational structureallows the expressed allocation of responsibili-ties for different functions and processes to dif-ferent divisions such as the business units andindividuals. An effective organizational struc-ture facilitates working relationships betweenvarious entities in the organization and may im-prove the working efficiency within organiza-tional units. The relationship between leader-ship work ethic and organizational performanceis reflected in the inclusion of work ethic in deci-sion making process, which is aimed at ensuringthat the organisation operates as a nucleus. Asa matter of fact, a strong relationship seems toexist between leadership work ethic and organi-zational performance.

REFERENCES

Babbie W, Mouton JA 2004. Organisational Research,Processes of Change. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Banks T 2008. Organisational Research . New York:Knopf.

Beer CS 2005. Communicating in Small Groups. NewYork: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.

Bandura M 2007. Organisation Change and Develop-ment: Systems View. Santa Monica, California: Goodyear.

Blackshaw W 2006. Principles of Management. Pren-tice Hall: New Jersey.

Blankenship S, Breen D 2003. Sources of Data Collec-tion. Cambridge: Mass Harvard.

Bennis G 2008. Research methods in “Leadership The-ory and Administrative Behaviour: The Problemof Authority”. Administrative Science Quarterly,4: 259-260.


Benson H 2006. Workplace Ethics. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Bertodo B 2007. Qualitative Research Methods. NewYork: Thosolon University Press.

Bohlman LG, Deal TE 2008. Refraiming Organisa-tions: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. San Fransis-co: Jossey- Bass.

Boschoff JB 2008. Work Without Salvation. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Braude L 2009. Work and Workers. New York: Praeger.Brenton K 2007. Moral Obligation. Perth: The Free

Press.Carmaz DT 2008. Data Collection in Qualitative Re-

search. London: Scarerow.Cherrington D J 2003. The Work Ethic: Working Values

and Values That Work. New York: AMACOM.Cresswell JW 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research

Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thou-sand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Carnel M 2008. Incentive Pay: Impact and Evolution.London, Institute of Personnel Management

Cherington WJ 2006. Improving Organizational Ef-fectiveness through Work Ethic. Thousands Oaks,CA: Sage.

Creswell JW 2007. Designing and Conducting MixedMethods Research. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Dewey RC 2007. Productivity and the new work ethic.In: WB Dickenson, Jr. (Ed.): Editorial ResearchReports on the American Work Ethic. Washington,D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, pp. 1-20.

Daniels F 2007. Effective Strategy Development. NewYork: Bantam.

De Pree M 2003. Pay and Organisational Effective-ness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fidel JD 2009. Work Book on Organisational Manage-ment. New York: Wiley.

Fiedler, J 2007. Job Satisfaction and Productivity. Lon-don: Sage.

Frederciks KH 2008. Limits Can Improve Performance.Westport: Greenwood Press.

Cooper AG 2009. Vocational education and the workethic. Canadian Vocational Journal, 18(3): 7-12.

Grayson D 2008. Job Evaluation in Transition. Lon-don: Work Research Unit.

Grimshaw J 2006. Choosing Work Ethic for Total Qual-ity Management. London: Quality Press.

Fiedler FE 2007. A Theory of Leadership Effective-ness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hall Richard H 2006. Organizations: Structure andProcess. New York: Prentice.

Hariparsad ID. 2005. The Work Ethic of the Principalas an Aspect of Management. PhD Thesis. Johan-nesburg: University of Johannesburg.

Hendriecks J, Miles D 2008. Qualitative ResearchMethods and Analysis of Results. New Delhi: SagePublications.

Jackson H 2004. Sociology and Work. New York: NewJersey.

January B 2006. A comparative analysis of workerparticipation in the United States and Europe. In:G Dlugos, W Dorow, K Weiermair, FC Danesy(Eds.): Management under Differing Labour Mar-ket and Employment Systems. Berlin: Walter deGruyter, pp. 443-454.

Kanter H 2008. Dynamics of Management. New York:Thosolon University Press.

Keller M 2010. Work Ethic and Centrism. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Krause CM 2007. The survival of work. In: J Barbash,RJ Landma (Eds.): The Forces of Work. Canada,Crip Publishers, pp. 123-139.

Kotter JP 2008. The Leadership Factor. New York:Free Press.

Landahl R 2009. Successful Strategies. New Jersey:New York.

Landman SM 2008. The work ethic - then and now.Public Interest, Winter, 61-69.

Lawler N 2007. Management Attitudes. New Jersey:McGraw-Hill.

Malcom T 2008. Organisational Development. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Maxwell G 2005. Research Methods. Oxford: Claren-don Press.

Neuman T 2007. Research Methods. New York: Qual-ity Press.

Oakland R 2000. Critical Ethnography: Methods, Eth-ics, and Performance. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage

Richards H 2007. Organisational Knowledge, Learn-ing and Capabilities. Athens: Free Press.

Ronald PJ 2007. Appraisal System in Organisations.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rothstein Z 2006. Job Satisfaction. London: Sage.Rost B 2008. Physical Setting and Organisational

Development. London: Tavistock.Schwardt DE 2006. The relative importance of work:

Models and measures for meaningful data.The Coun-seling Psychologist, 10(4): 95-103.

Stake JJ 2008. Validity and Credibility in QualitativeResearch. New Jersey: McGraw-Hill.

Steward JA 2008. New work ethic is frightening. Per-sonnel Journal, 69(6): 28-36.

Strauss F, Corbin J 2003. Qualitative Research Meth-ods. New York: Sage Publications.

Vahed B 2003. Job Satisfaction. London: HarvardUniversity Press.

Taylor C 2007. Scientific Management. New Jersey:Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.

Vied X 2003. Organisational Values. New Hempshire:Sage Publishers.

Youl D 2003. New Rules: Searching for Self-fulfill-ment in a World Turned Upside Down. New York:Random House.

Documents

A Relationship between Leadership Work Ethic and ... Relationship between Leadership Work Ethic and Organisational Performance in the Public Sector ... A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP