Leadership style affect on employee work performanceFor assignment help please contact

at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com

According to Khurana, R. (2002) leadership is essentially the "secret" to

successfully fulfilling demanding roles in today's society. A

leadership style encompasses a consistent combination of individual

behaviors and attitudes towards group members in order to achieve

goals. Effective leadership can be a fundamental tool in maximizing

company performance and has elicited an abundance of research.

Employee performance comprises of two components: "performance on

the job and withdrawal from the job" (Brayfield, A.H. and Crockett, W.H.,

1955). "Performance on the job" refers to factors such as efficiency and

overall quantity and quality of output. "Withdrawal from the job"

demonstrates adverse occurrences including absences, accidents and

turnover. Subsequent definitions have marked performance as the ability

to accomplish a purpose and produce the desired result (Chatman and

Flynn, 2001).

This essay seeks to outline types of leadership styles projected by various

researchers. In a culture that has denoted the immense importance of

effective leadership, it will then analyse the effects of leadership styles on

employee work performance in accordance to the criteria above. To

conclude, this essay will question the impact of leadership style, and

finally debate whether it is crucial for adequate performance.

During the twentieth century, it was thought that reaching goals were

vital to success, leading to the development of classical theories such as

Taylor's theory of Scientific Management and Ford's introduction of the

'Assembly Line'. However, Mayo's Hawthorne Studies exposed the

importance of social factors in addition to economic motivators. Thus, the

'Human Relations Movement' emerged resulting in a shifted focus onto

social processes, and effectively the expansion of leadership theories.

The Ohio State Studies highlighted two central factors to leadership:

"Initiating Structure" and "Consideration" (Stogdill, 1974). Initiating

structure addressed task behaviours which served to fulfill duties

whereas consideration represented relationship behaviours which aided

to build leader-follower links. Essentially, levels of each component

would combine to signify the leadership style a particular leader would

adopt (see Appendix 1 in Appendices). Likert (1961) went on to

summarise leadership styles into four types: exploitative autocratic,

benevolent autocratic, consultative and democratic.

Leadership styles could be distinguished into four main types: autocratic,

democratic, laissez-faire and human relations. An autocratic (or

directive) leader would exude a sense of control and often outlining the

means of how to achieve targets. Democratic leaders would alternatively

consult group members and implement a vote before final decisions.

Democratic leaders fall into a sub-group of participative leaders which

involve group members in decision making. The laissez-faire approach

encourages independence of followers and rarely contributes to the

methods of output. Finally, a human relations style comprises of

attributes similar a democratic leader, emphasizing the importance of

consulting those involved before making a decision (Berkowitz, 1954).

The Michigan Studies concluded that leadership styles could be formed

on a basis of their "employee orientation" and "production orientation",

which consisted of behaviours similar to the Ohio State studies (Katz, D.,

& Kahn, R.L., 1951). Originally, these constructs were seen as dependent

variables; that is, if a leader was highly employee orientated their focus

on product was compromised and vice versa. However, this principle was

subsequently reconceptualised and viewed as independent constructs

(Kahn, R.L., 1956).

The development of assessment methods later materialized including the

Managerial Grid which assigned leaders levels of task and people

concern (Blake and Mouton, 1964, 1978 & 1985). The five central styles

are exhibited in Appendix 2 in the Appendices. An authority-compliance

leadership style would possess large focus on output and presuppose that

followers would obey their orders. Conversely, a County club style leader

would stress the importance of addressing people's needs before output.

Impoverished Management Style involves little input from the leader in

both aspects, which could be associated with the laissez-faire approach.

Initially, autocratic leadership appeared to be idyllic in boosting

performance. Before Ford's 'Assembly Line' was introduced the factory

was producing two-hundred cars per day at a rate of ten days per car.

The introduction of Fordism entailed ordering employees when and how

to complete tasks. Consequently, productivity rose leading to a total

increase of two-thousand-and-five hundred cars per day (Roberts, A.,

2009). One cannot deny that autocratic leadership was effective in

reaching, and even exceeding, performance targets. However, according

to Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1975), the effectiveness of authority has

diminished. It seems that as the human relations movement emerged, so

did new preferential leadership styles: "today, in an environment of

vastly improved education... many are rejecting traditional authority and

trying to set up and act upon their own."

Results from Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid found that "most

respondents score towards the 5, 5 middle-of-the-road style". This implies

that most common leadership styles consist of a balance between people

and task concern. "The 9, 9 approach is acknowledged by managers as

the soundest way to achieve excellence. This conclusion has been verified

from studies throughout the U.S. and around the world." (Blake &

Mouton, 1975). It seems that nowadays attention to employee's needs

whilst maintaining performance targets is a must. Leadership styles that

incorporate both concerns are vital to boosting employee performance.

According to Lewin et. al (1939), variations of leadership styles

influences performances. This study measured the consequence of

leadership style on aggression, which could used to connote performance

since aggression could be attributed to withdrawal from the job. Laissez-

faire was the most common situation for provoking aggression followed

by autocracy and democracy. This suggests leadership styles alternate

aggression levels and possibly performance. However, it is difficult to

generalise findings from a study of young children performing trivial

tasks to large organisations where tasks are complex and aggression is

not tolerated.

Further findings concluded 'the boys agreed in a relative dislike for their

autocratic leader' whereas the majority of participants preferred their

democratic leaders to their autocratic ones. Assuming that higher liking

for a leader would result in preferential performance, this could infer

that a democratic leadership style has a positive effect, thus supporting

the argument that leadership style impacts performance.

However, it would be reductionist to draw a finite conclusion on the

practicality of leadership styles according to this piece. It fails to

recognise the importance of upbringing which evidently affects the

impact of leadership styles. The participant to dislike their democratic

leader happened to be "the son of an army officer...and consciously put a

high value upon strict discipline". Thus, it is not exclusively leadership

style that affects behaviour but also the values and social norms an

individual has acquired. If this concept were expanded onto

organisational terms, it could be said that the culture of a business would

contribute to whether leadership has a consequence. For instance, in the

Ford factories a democratic approach may have been inappropriate in an

environment where workers were unskilled and required guidance,

hence why autocracy succeeded in boosting performance.

An important factor to consider when assessing the usefulness of

leadership style is situational variables that exist beyond the control of

leaders. According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958) these variables

include:

"Type of Organisation";

"Group Effectiveness";

"The Problem Itself" and

"The Pressure of Time"

These factors could determine the success of leadership styles, and

leadership as a general instrument of performance. Participative

leadership has been found to be more favourable for moderately

structured problems while directive leadership was more compatible in

situations facing fairly structured problems (Kahai, S. et. al, 1997). This

most certainly has implications for the role of leadership styles within the

workplace. It could infer that under circumstances where the problem

comprises of routine and repetitive tasks a participative leadership style

is complimentary in motivating employees to sustain performance.

Conversely, problems which are more ambiguous may call for a directive

leadership style to inspire followers and unite towards the same goal.

Thus, in one respect, it could be argued that leadership styles are

ineffective in promoting employee performance as situational variables

will ultimately alter overall success. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable

to dispute that, provided the right style is adopted, leadership style can

be imperative in steering employees towards the right aims using the

appropriate methods.

Conducted research measured the effects of directive and participative

leadership style on Heterogeneous teams (teams comprised of members

deriving from varying backgrounds with dissimilar skills) and team

reflection, and subsequently performance (Somech, A., 2006). Findings

discovered that 'participative leadership lowered team in-role

performance under the condition of high functional heterogeneity' but

found no effect on 'low functional heterogeneity'. Directive leadership,

however, had a positive impact on performance. Therefore, it could be

debated that leadership style has a consequence on work performance.

However, Somech has pointed out that an investigation by Kahai et al.

(1997) found 'no difference in frequency of supportive remarks or of

critical remarks in teams working with a participative and with a

directive superior'. Hence, suggesting that workers cease to notify a

difference between these leadership styles and are able to respond to

both forms, which subsequently casts doubt over the value of leadership

styles.

The relevance of leadership styles is challenged by several theories

including the trait approach. It proposes that successful leadership is

derived from the possession of certain characteristics such as "drive",

"honesty and integrity" and "self-confidence" rather than styles

(Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A., 1991). Supporting research for this

approach is plentiful in comparison to the style approach (Stogdill, R.M,

1948 & 1974; Mann, R.D., 1959; Kirkpatrick, S.A. & Locke, E.A., 1991).

However, it is yet to generate a definite list of traits and there is less

clear evidence to support certain traits such as charisma. In reality,

despite its enticing facade, the possession of charisma can often lead to

corporations hiring inappropriate candidates. The detrimental effects of

charisma were exposed in the case of Enron; the hiring of Jeff Skilling as

CEO contributed to their fatal downfall as he was able to justify unethical

activities through his 'charismatic' traits, such as allowing top executives

to participate in the off-balance-sheet partnerships, (Khurana, R., 2002).

However, this approach has failed to produce substantial research

linking it to performance outcomes (Yukl, G., 1994).

The issues addressed in this essay relate to the introduction of leadership

styles and examines the value on employee performance. The profusion

of research in this area infers that leadership style has a consequence on

employees in the workplace. Nonetheless, research has failed to depict

an adequate association between leadership style and work performance,

with many results proving contradictory and inconclusive (Yukl, 1994).

The lack of conclusive evidence for any approach to explaining leadership

could have implications for the concept itself. There is reason to suggest

that leadership is not critical with studies finding that forty-seven

percent of executives rated their companies' overall leadership capacity

as poor/fair while a minor eight percent ranked it as excellent (Csoka,

L.S., 1998). The reliance of leadership in enhancing performance has

largely been questioned with some arguing it as a "romanticized

conception" (Meindl, J.R., et. al, 1985) and others speculating the

concept as a social myth which "symbolically represents a regressive

wish to return to the symbiotic environment of the womb" (Gemmill, G.

and Oakley, J., 1992). In other words, leadership is a necessity that

society has created itself in order to disillusion individuals with the belief

that another should be responsible for creating the visions and

responsibilities that they could merely accept themselves. In addition,

researchers have argued that leadership is not vital if substitutes are

available such as "individual job expertise" and "intrinsic task

satisfaction" (Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M., 1978). Thus, it brings it into

question that if leadership is not a stabilized concept, then perhaps all

theories based on leadership could be brought into interrogation,

including the principle of leadership styles.

The usefulness of leadership styles is undermined by the lack of an

optimal style in all situations. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that

leaders have back-up strategies if the usual style of accomplishing tasks

fail (Blake, R.R & Mouton, J.S, 1975). As oppose to debating which style

is superlative, it may be sensible to advocate the notion that styles could

compliment one another (Sagie, A., 1997). This proposal reinforces the

usefulness of leadership style providing that the appropriate style is

employed according to varying circumstances.

The extent of research conducted, regardless of its substantiality,

generates implications that "leadership styles do matter"(Somech, A.,

2006). It would be ignorant to deny the magnitude of leadership in

organisations, but that is not to say it should not be considered with

caution. It would be reductionist to claim leadership is purely the reason

for performance variations. Situational variables, such as culture, will

inevitably influence leadership success. Rather than arguing a prime

style, an appropriate approach to delegating leadership style would be

the Path-Goal Theory which states that leadership styles should be

allocated according to the characteristics of the subordinates and the

nature of the task (House, R.J. & Mitchell, R.R., 1974). Leadership style

as a reputable concept clearly imposes an effect on efficacy but

companies cannot place full reliance on this tool; leadership style is

merely a stimulant and not the sole foundation of employee performance.

Appendices

Appendix 1

"Classic descriptors of leaders' decision behaviours" - diagram taken

from Roberts, A. and Corbett, M. (2009) Understanding Organisational

Behaviour IB1230. Warwick Business School; McGraw Hill Custom

Publishing, p. 197.

SHOWING

CONSIDERATION

Hig

h

Human

Relations

Democrati

c

LowLassez-

faireAutocratic

Low High

INITIATING

STRUCTURE

Appendix 2

Blake & Mouton's Managerial Grid. (Blake, R.R and Mouton, J.S.

1975)

Bibliography

Berkowitz, L. (1954) 'Group Standards, Cohesiveness, and

Productivity', Human Relations 7, pp. 509-514.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964) The managerial grid. Houston,

TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1975) 'An Overview of the Grid',

Training and Development Journal, 29 (5), May, p. 29-36.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1978) The new managerial grid.

Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1985) The managerial grid III.

Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Brayfield, A.H., and Crockett, W.H. (1955) 'Employee Attitudes and

Employee Performance', Psychological Bulletin, 52 (5), pp. 396-424

Chatman, J.A., and Flynn, F.J. (2001) 'The Influence of

Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences

of Cooperative Norms in Work Teams', The Academy of

Management Journal, 44, p. 956-974.

Corbett, M. (2009) Understanding Organizational Behaviour

(IB1230) - Martin Corbett Lecture Slides: 'Leadership. Warwick

Business School; University of Warwick.

Csoka, L.S. (1998) Bridging the Leadership Gap. New York:

Conference Board.

Dubrin, A.J., 2007, Leadership: Research Findings, Practice and

Skills. Fifth Edition. Boston, New York. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Gemmill, G. and Oakley, J. (1992) 'Leadership: An Alienating Social

Myth?' Human Relations, 45 (2), February, p. 113-129.

House, R.J. & Mitchell, R.R. (1974) 'Path-goal theory of

Leadership'. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, pp. 81-97.

Kahai, S., Sosik, J. and Avolio, B.J. (1997) 'The effects of leadership

style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes

in an electronic meeting system environment', Personnel

Psychology, 50 (1), March, p. 121-146.

Kahn, R.L. (1956) 'The Prediction of Productivity'. Journal of Social

Issues, 12, pp. 41-49.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1951) Human Organization and worker

motivation. In L.R. Tripp (ed), Industrial productivity (pp. 146-171).

Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Kerr, S. and Jermier, J.M. (1978) 'Substitutes for Leadership: Their

Meaning and Measurement', Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 22, December, pp. 375-403.

Khurana, R. (2002) 'The Curse of the Superstar CEO'. Harvard

Business Review, 80 (9), September, p. 60-66.

Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991) 'Leadership: do traits

matter?', Academy of Management Executive, 5 (2), May, p. 48-60.

Likert, R. (1961) New patterns of management. New York;

McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. (1939) 'Patterns of aggressive

behavior in experimentally created social climates'. Journal of

Social Psychology, 10 (2), May, 

p. 271-299.

Mann, R.D. (1959). 'A Review of the Relationship between

Personality and Performance in Small Groups'. Psychological

Bulletin, 56, pp. 241-270.

Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B. and Dukerich, J.M. (1985) 'The Romance

of Leadership', Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1), March, p.

78-102.

Northouse, P.G., 2007, Leadership: Theory and Practice. Fourth

Edition. California; London; New Delhi. Sage Publications, Inc.

Roberts, A. (2009) Understanding Organizational Behaviour

(IB1230) - Ashley Roberts Lecture Slides: Lecture 3, 'Classical

Theories (2): Ford and The Assembly Line'. Slide 8. Warwick

Business School; University of Warwick.

Roberts, A. and Corbett, M. (2009) Understanding Organisational

Behaviour IB1230. Warwick Business School; McGraw Hill Custom

Publishing.

Sagie, A. (1997) 'Leader direction and employee participation in

decision making: Contradictory or compatible practices?' Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 46. p. 387-452.

Somech, A. (2006) 'The Effects of Leadership Style and Team

Process of Performance and Innovation in Functionally

Heterogeneous Teams', Journal of Management, 32 (1), February,

p. 132-157.

Stogdill, R.M. (1948). 'Personal factors associated with Leadership:

A survey of the literature', Journal of Psychology, 25, pp. 35-71.

Stogdill, R.M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory

and research. New York: Free Press.

Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. (1958) 'How to Choose a

Leadership Pattern', Harvard Business Review, 36 (2), March/April,

p. 95-101.

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations. Third edition.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.