Running Head: LEADERSHIP STYLES AND EMPLOYEE …

Running Head: LEADERSHIP STYLES AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION AND

MOTIVATION

Houston We Have Leadership

Jocelyn Allen, Andrew Savage, Sancho Sequeira, Monika Slowikowski

James Madison University

School of Communication Studies

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for SCOM 386

Dr. Johnson

April 30, 2012

Houston We Have Leadership 2

Abstract

This study set out to investigate the effect of leadership styles and humor on employee

motivation and satisfaction. The three types of leadership styles investigated were

transactional, transformational, and laissez- faire. The survey used contained six

scenarios: three exemplified one type of leadership style and the other three exemplified

each leadership style with humor. Participants (N=287) were recruited through a

convenience survey of the researchers Facebook friends. The survey was done through

Qualtrics with each participant being randomly assigned one scenario. The results were

significant for satisfaction, F(5, 287)= 24.63, p<.001, and motivation, F(5,287)= 15.34,

p<.001, a Tukey post hoc test was then performed. The results of these showed a

significant difference between transformational leadership and all other types for both

satisfaction and motivation. Motivation also showed a significant difference between

transactional leadership with humor and laissez-faire leadership without humor. Results

are discussed and limitations include: large number of female respondents, results only

being generalizable to employees with fewer years of work experience (M=4.33 years),

and hypothetical nature of survey.


Topic Justification

Leadership as a subject has been widely researched in the past. Applying it to the

workplace and everyday life gives it value to be studied as often as it is. The goal of the

researchers is to further investigate leadership as a variable against satisfaction and

motivation. Preceding the proposal of three research questions investigating the effects of

leadership styles on employee satisfaction and motivation, the following will first discuss

each leadership style used in this study. The research will then investigate the role of

leadership styles, with and without the use of humor, on the motivation and satisfaction

of followers. Lastly, the importance of the proposed research will be discussed followed

by three research questions.

Leadership is an important variable to study because there are always ways to

make leaders more effective and successful. Creating an environment that fosters

productivity and efficiency, as well as motivating workers and making the workplace

more productive, are major goals of leaders (Dong, 2000; Curral & Marques-Quinteiro,

2009; Schnurr & Chan, 2009). While there has been a lot of research regarding

leadership, there is still much to be discussed and discovered. Continuing research on the

topic is necessary because of the ever-changing nature of leadership.

One of the main objectives of this study is to identify whether different leadership

styles have an affect on employee satisfaction and motivation. The addition of the humor

variable seeks to further analyze the effect of leadership styles on the two target

variables. The styles outlined in the proposed study are transactional, transformational,

and laissez-faire leadership. Each style carries its own advantages and disadvantages. A

transactional leader will seek to control the behaviors of their followers (Groves &


LaRocca, 2011) but a transformational leader will make it a goal to develop followers

(Ehrhart & Klein 2011). The final style, laissez-faire, relinquishes control and avoids

making decisions (Dubinsky et al., 1995).

Ultimately, the goal of the study is to identify if a correlation exists between the

styles of leadership and employee motivation and satisfaction. In order to do this, it is

important to understand what the styles are, the role of the follower, and how motivation,

satisfaction, and humor are used by the leader in the workplace. The research proposed is

significant because measuring whether leadership styles have an effect on employee

motivation and satisfaction may provide leaders with more efficient ways to lead their

organization.

Review of Literature

Employee satisfaction and motivation can be varied depending on the style of

leadership a leader uses. The following reviews the significant literature associated with

different leadership styles and their effects with employee satisfaction and motivation.

Two variables in particular, leadership styles and humor, are discussed with their relation

to the outcome of employee satisfaction and motivation. Lastly, three research questions

will be posed, signifying the importance of the research.

Leadership styles

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership, also known as authoritative leadership, is when leaders

influence their followers by controlling their behaviors (Groves & LaRocca, 2011). There

are two types of transactional leadership: contingent reward behavior and contingent

punishment behavior (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001). When leaders used the


contingent reward behavior they rewarded people on behavior by giving praise,

promotions, etc. (Groves & LaRocca, 2011). Contingent punishment behavior consisted

of negative feedback (MacKenzie et al, 2001) and the leader tried to eliminate

performance problems with corrective transactions like stating how the person could

improve (Groves & LaRocca, 2011). Transactional leaders also used aversive

reinforcement for negative performance, such as saying what you did wrong (Weder &

Holtzhausen, 2009). In order to maintain control they use: organizational bureaucracy,

culture, standards, policy, power and authority. They try to maintain control by using a

system of hierarchy in the organization, the culture of the organization as either

hierarchical or horizontal culture, company standards, policy, power in the workplace and

their individual authority.

The three forms comprising transactional leadership include contingent reward

leadership, active and passive management-by-exception (Antonakis et al, 2003).

Contingent reward leadership is when leaders clarify subordinates tasks and roles and

provide either a material or psychological reward upon fulfillment of obligations. Active

management-by-exception is actively watching to see that standards are met (Yammarino

& Bass, 1998). The least active form of transactional leadership is passive management-

by-exception because the leader only intervenes when necessary. Passive management-

by-exception is when leaders step in after mistakes or noncompliance have occurred to

prevent them in the future.

In one study, leaders determined and defined the work and goals of subordinates’

and suggested how they accomplish goals and provide feedback (Dubinsky, Yammarino,

Jolson & Spangler, 1995). Transactional leaders are effective in a predictable and stable


environment and are most effective when combined with other leadership styles (Aldoory

& Toth, 2004). People follow the leader because it is in their best interest but it puts the

leader at a risk of being disliked (Weder & Holtzhausen, 2009). This style alone does not

increase followers’ job satisfaction or performance (Aldoory & Toth, 2004).

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leaders, or charismatic leaders, influence followers by

developing (Ehrhart & Klein 2011) and communicating a new set of values, goals, and

ambitions to followers by adapting a long-term perspective (MacKenzie et al, 2011;

Dubinsky et al., 1995). They inspire the group to look beyond personal interests for the

good of the team. They do this by using innovation and charisma to motivate people

(Weder & Holtzhausen, 2009). Transformational leaders take risks, set goals and high

expectations, and emphasize a collective identity (Aldoory & Toth, 2004). The most

effective leaders combined transactional and transformational leadership styles

(MacKenzie et al, 2011).

Transformational leaders are goal-oriented but have five specific characteristics.

Transformational leadership is made up of five factors: idealized attributed influence,

idealized behavioral influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration (Antonakis et al, 2003). Idealized attributed influence is how

charismatic the person is, if they are perceived as confident and powerful, and focusing

on ethics and higher-order ideals. Idealized behavioral influence is how charismatic the

persons’ actions are and how well they are centered on beliefs, values, and a sense of

mission (Yammarino et al, 1988). Inspirational motivation is when a leader energizes her

followers with optimism and communicated goals and visions that are achievable.


Intellectual stimulation appeals to followers’ logic and challenges followers.

Individualized consideration takes into how leaders advise, support, and pay attention to

each followers individual needs.

Transformational leaders change peoples’ goals and beliefs by uniting followers

(Weder & Holtzhausen, 2009). Their followers have high job performance and positive

attitudes (Aldoory & Toth, 2004). In order to be effective, they used competent

communication consisting of careful informally transmitted messages, open dialogue,

careful listening and frankness (Weder & Holtzhausen, 2009)

Situational leaders combine transactional and transformational leadership

depending on the situation (MacKenzie et al, 2011) The leaders used transactional

leadership by providing feedback on performance and used transformational leadership to

get everybody inspired as a team.

Laissez-faire Leadership

Laissez-faire leaders relinquish their responsibility and avoid making decisions

(Dubinsky et al., 1995) and do not use authority, making them passive and ineffective

(Antonakis et al, 2003). Laissez-faire leaders are frequently absent, uninfluential, and

indifferent (Dubinsky et al., 1995). The subordinates are left to themselves to carry out

job responsibilities (Dubinsky et al., 1995). One example is salespeople who are given a

sales kit from their manager and are left to make sales (Dubinsky et al., 1995). The

employees seek guidance from other employees. Laissez-faire leaders have a hostile

effect on non-sales employees in relation to work-related outcomes (Dubinsky et al.,

1995).

Followership


The relationship between leaders and followers is of particular interest to the

proposed study. Each person leads in a different way, which yields new responses from

those who are following. In the mix of focusing so much on the leader style it is also

essential to understand the role of the follower and what role followership plays on the

success of organizations. Followers have their own lists of styles that compliment

leadership styles. The proposed study hopes to examine how different leadership styles

affect followership in the workplace environment. Past research suggests that perceptions

of followers and personality of followers may share relationships with the overall success

of an organization.

In order to investigate followership, it is important to understand what

followership is. Followers and leaders work toward a common goal. Draft (2008)

researched what it means to be a follower and defined it as a group being influenced by

an individual. For the purposes of this study, that will be the definition referred to. An

article by Kean and Haycock-Stuart (2011) outlines that there must be respect from those

being influenced within leadership in order for it to be effective. Followers need to have

respect for a leader and there has to be some desire to follow. Leaders are always being

watched and judged by followers. Characteristics that the follower possesses also have an

influence on the success of the leader. In an article by Kelly et. al (2011) one of the

characteristics outlined was trait competitiveness. Identifications of such traits are

important to connectedness between the leader and the follower. The study suggests that

not only do leaders need to be conscious of their followers needs but also their

characteristics if they hope to give a persuasive appeal (Kelly, 2011). If followers have a

competitive nature, the leader needs to be conscious of this and know how to adapt their


personality to be the most successful. With that competitive nature in mind, the different

leadership styles are hypothesized to handle conflict differently and this behavior

difference could potentially affect the way the follower views the leader. To provide a

different perspective on follower personality, a study by Van Kleef, Homan, Beersma,

and van Knippenberg (2010) investigated followers with high levels of agreeableness and

asked how they worked with leaders with low levels of anger. Findings suggested that

those with higher levels of agreeableness worked best with bosses with lower levels of

anger. The opposite was true for followers with lower levels of agreeableness (Van Kleef

et. al, 2010). Finding the balance between leader’s emotions and follower’s emotions

may be key to organizational success. The focus of the study is to see how a leader’s style

effects follower’s perception and ultimately the organization. Without followers, leaders

are simply people with a vision. That vision must be explained and conceptualized for

followers to buy in and for success to be possible.

To understand the true effects of leadership style, the focus is on the follower’s

perception. The goal of the study is to investigate leadership styles and followers

perception. A study identified the single biggest predictor of communication satisfaction

is communication competence from the leader (Madlock, 2008). Keeping in mind that

communication is so central to leadership and the way followers perceive it, the way

leaders communicate is always at the forefront of studies. Through investigating

followers’ opinions of leadership, our hope is to understand how to help leaders be more

successful. Research shows the importance of followership within leadership and how

interchangeable it can be. The study hopes to show a more specific relationship.

Motivation


Motivation comes from the Latin movere (to move) can refer to anything that

causes movement, however a more inclusive definition “is an energizing/arousing

mechanisms that facilitate some motor circuits while inhibiting others” (Kleinginna &

Kleinginna, 1981). Motivation research has looked at the reason for motivation, sources

of motivation, types of motivation, and even the physiological mechanisms behind

motivation. Of these, the source of motivation have arguably the most real world

applications, particularly motivation at school and work. One leading theory for the

source of motivation is self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000), which

focuses on two distinct types of motivation. Intrinsic motivation is when a person

completes a task because of a genuine interest in completing it; therefore, the source is

internal. Extrinsic motivation is when a person completes a task because of an external

reward and not because the task provides inherent, personal value. In order to understand

SDT these concepts need to be looked at in-depth.

The first source of motivation in SDT is intrinsic (or internal) motivation. The

source is internal because the motivation comes solely from performing the task. In the

workplace there are several important factors that lead to better employee intrinsic

motivation. According to Curral and Marques-Quinteiro (2009), intrinsic motivation is

positively related to work role innovation, which is mediated by self-leadership. In other

words, intrinsic motivation is positively associated with work role innovation because of

a link between both of these and self-leadership.

The other source of motivation is extrinsic motivation, which is dependent on

external rewards. The mere act of offering a reward for a behavior is enough to

significantly lower intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1972). Previous research has shown that


extrinsic motivation results in a more impoverished form of motivation because it results

in lower productivity and creativity (Dong, 2001). Despite this, extrinsic motivation is

more powerful because it is easier to instill than intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci,

2000). In the workplace, the most salient extrinsic motivation is salary. While salary is

not usually lowered, a leader can use advancement and raises as an extrinsic motivator.

For example, jobs that are paid on commission are very dependent on extrinsic

motivation for high job performance.

One important situational factor that influences which type of motivation an

employee engages in is the leadership style of their boss. Leadership styles are an

important factor for motivation. For example, transformational leadership has been

shown to increase intrinsic motivation (Dong, 2000). A transformational leader inspires

followers and sets goals and ambitions that motivate people to work by fostering a sense

of pride in the work environment (Schnurr & Chan, 2009). Another important aspect of

transformational leaders is that they also can help initiate self-leadership, which, as

mentioned before, is important to intrinsic motivation. The opposite is also true as

extrinsic motivation is a conceptual fit with the contingent reward behavior type of

transactional leadership (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001). Leadership styles have a

significant effect on the sources of employee motivation however, it is equally important

to consider the context in which the leaders and followers interact.

Workplace Environment

Satisfaction

Leaders have expectation goals from their employees that range from effective

behaviors to leadership performance in the office (Schnurr & Chan, 2009). However, the


expectations may be different across leadership styles. The main objective of leaders is to

advance the organization’s goals for the future as well as maintain a pleasant workplace

environment (Schnurr & Chan, 2009). If a leader does not act appropriately or has

different expectations than the employees, the leader’s favorability amongst the

employees may hinder. The social atmosphere of a workplace is important when

evaluating employee satisfaction. The goals of transformational leaders, transactional

leaders, and laissez-faire leaders are different, bringing about unique workplace

environments, resulting in certain employee behaviors. The proposed study attempts to

identify whether or not different leadership styles affect employees’ satisfaction with the

leader and overall organization.

Job performance has been positively associated with workplace atmosphere,

thereby increasing employee satisfaction (Madlock, 2008). Employee satisfaction not

only benefits the overall environment of a company, but also the employees themselves.

Employees engage in communication with each other to satisfy personal needs of

inclusion and enjoyment (Anderson & Martin, 1995). Leaders, therefore, try to instill a

positive atmosphere in the workplace. Specifically in transformational leadership, leaders

tend to focus on a broad vision or goal for the future (Whitford & Moss, 2009). Bono et

al., (2007) found that leaders in the transformational leadership style had employees that

generated more positive enthusiasm and optimism in the workplace.

Satisfaction amongst employees in a workplace should be an important goal for

any leader. Satisfaction among employees can greatly enhance or reduce the efficiency of

a workplace. While research has shown that transformational leadership ensues optimism


and enthusiasm with it’s employees, the proposed study will try to figure out whether

other leadership styles evoke the same emotions with their employees.

Humor

In order to create a positive and proactive work atmosphere, leaders incorporate

different tactics into their work style in order to achieve a cohesive environment. A main

goal of leaders is to minimize status differences in the workplace, eliminating

dissatisfaction and bias. Leaders minimize status differences by being seen as “one of

them” in the workplace, thereby maintaining their employees satisfaction (Schnurr &

Chan, 2009). Not focusing on a hierarchy is an effective leadership strategy because

acting as a person of power creates boundaries. Being seen as “one of them” in the

workplace emphasizes collaboration and encourages relationships (Schnurr & Chan,

2009). A leader that strives for a casual work environment, as opposed to a formal

environment, can potentially see a strong sense of community amongst the employees.

One popular tactic that leaders use to ensue cohesion is humor.

Humor can be identified as a way of supporting and motivating employees to

achieve positive performance effects (Holmes, 2007). Many leaders use humor to evoke a

greater sense of team spirit and belonging amongst employees (Schnurr & Chan, 2009).

Besides minimizing status differences, humor has other benefits. Motivation and job

performance may also increase if humor is present in the work environment (Schnurr &

Chan, 2009). If employees think a leader is using humor well, they are more likely to be

perceived as being relationship-oriented and having a higher level of effectiveness

(Cooper, 2008). This can potentially lead back to motivation and increases in job


performance. Problem solving, decision-making, and conflict mediation are all instances

in which leaders can use humor to resolve problems (Holmes, 2007).

Humor can be used in many ways, one of which is teasing. Humor that contains

teasing components has been identified as a valuable leadership tactic (Clouse &

Spurgeon, 1995, Schnurr, 2009). Teasing humor communicates a possible threatening

comment but, at the same time, is to be understood as non-threatening (Schnurr, 2009).

Because of teasing humor’s vague boundaries, it may create a closer sense of belonging

amongst communicators, and it may also emphasize the leader’s power (Schnurr, 2009).

This, therefore, is a constructive tool for leaders to use. Leaders have the power to further

and deepen relationships, while still being seen as a leader.

While humor may not be an appropriate tactic in all situations, it has shown to

have many benefits for both leaders and employees. One popular leadership style is

transformational leadership. A transformational leader encourages creativity and

thinking. Leaders who tend to use this style of leadership also tend to incorporate humor

into the workplace to further spark their employees’ creativity (Holmes, 2007). Holmes

(2007) also found that humor is not only a strategy that transformational leaders use, but

actually is a part of the construction of the leadership style. The proposed study seeks to

find out if a leader that uses humor across various leadership styles makes a difference in

employee satisfaction and/or motivation.

The proposed study intends to investigate leadership styles and how that

correlates to satisfaction among followers and the success of an organization. The main

goal of leaders is to advance their organization for the future and create a pleasing

workplace environment (Schnurr & Chan, 2009). By focusing on leadership styles


through their followers, the projected study hopes to identify which leadership style

would help leaders achieve their goals.

The literature outlined leadership from a variety of different perspectives. As

noted earlier, research can always continue to understand topics more completely. It is

clear that followership plays an important role in understanding leadership to its full

potential. Motivation shows how important satisfaction can be and the importance of a

motivated staff. The workplace environment showed that even the smallest of gestures

can go a long way with employees. After looking at the leadership styles, followership,

motivation and the atmosphere in the workplace, the proposed study will provide new

insight into specific leadership styles. Given the area of interest the proposed research

questions are:

RQ 1: Is there a difference in workplace satisfaction on leadership styles?

RQ 2: Is there a difference in workplace motivation on leadership styles?

RQ 3: Is there a difference in humor on leadership styles?

Method

Participants

All 287 participants (194 female, 93 male) were randomly selected based on a

convenience sample. Participants were recruited by sending out a link in a message to the

researchers’ Facebook friends and students attending James Madison University through

Facebook.com. The age ranges of participants were between 18 and 61, with the average

being 23.5 years old. A majority of our participants had completed 3-4 years of

undergraduate education, and the average work experience was 4.33 years. The majority

of participants were Caucasian (79.2%), 8.3% were African American, 5.6% were


Hispanic/Latino, and 6.9% listed other.

Materials/ Procedure

The researchers created a Facebook event and invited all of their Facebook

friends. The Facebook event described the study with a link to the Qualtrics survey.

Participation was voluntary and participants were given a consent form, preceding the

survey. The consent form addressed minimal risks and that results would remain

confidential. The participants were randomly assigned to one of three questionnaire case

studies regarding leadership styles. To make six groups each style had a humor

component added to it. For example, there was a transactional scenario both with and

without humor.

Six different surveys were used to assess the variables, leadership styles, humor,

satisfaction, and motivation. All the surveys began with a scenario that described either: a

transactional, transactional with humor, transformational, transformational with humor,

laissez-faire, or laissez-faire with humor leadership style. For example, the transactional

scenario highlighted the use of quotas and bonuses to motivate workers. Each scenario

assessed self-reported measures of job satisfaction and motivation using a 12-item likert-

type questionnaire that contained responses that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6

(strongly agree). The questions regarding motivation assessed intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation based on Gagné’ et al. (2010) Motivation at Work Scale (MAWS). The

MAWS is a multidimensional scale that assesses four different types of motivation

(intrinsic, extrinsic, identified regulation, introjected regulation). It is conceptually

grounded in self-determination theory and was validated by a sample of 1,644 workers in

both English and French.


All participants were also asked questions about their work ethic regardless of the

leadership scenario given. Participants were asked demographic questions to control for

individual differences in work ethic, sex, age, job experience, and education level.

Results

Before running tests for mean differences, the surveys were first tested for

internal reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. The reported scores are shown after question

three was removed from every satisfaction survey due to it decreasing alpha. The tests

were run for each type of leadership style separately. The scores for transactional

leadership were significant for: satisfaction (α=.88), motivation (α=.72), satisfaction with

humor (α=.91), and motivation with humor (α=.88). The scores for transformational


humor (α=.87), and motivation with humor (α=.76). Finally, The scores for laissez- faire


humor (α=.85), and motivation with humor (α=.80).

In order to fully analyze the data for significant differences, we ran two one-way

ANOVA’s, one for satisfaction and one for motivation. The results of the satisfaction

ANOVA showed a significant difference, F(5, 287)= 24.63, p<.001. The results of the

motivation ANOVA also showed a significant difference, F(5,287)= 15.34, p<.001. Due

to significant results a Tukey post hoc test was run to assess pairwise functions to find out

where the mean differences fell. The results for satisfaction showed a significant

difference between transformational leadership and every other type of leadership

(transactional and laissez- faire), however there was no significant difference between

transformational leadership with and without humor. The results for motivation also


showed a significant difference between transformational leadership and every other type

of leadership (transactional and laissez- faire), and there was also no significant

difference between transformational leadership with and without humor. In addition, the

motivation post hoc testing showed a significant difference between transactional

leadership with humor and laissez-faire leadership without humor.

Discussion

This study investigated the effects of leadership styles and humor on follower

satisfaction and motivation. Several associations were found within the study. First,

humor did not have a significant effect on overall satisfaction in any style. The

assumption of the researchers was that humor would increase satisfaction in all three

styles, however transactional humor caused a slight decrease. A potential reason may be

sheer inconsistency in the leader. If one minute the leader is preaching punishment and

the next making a joke the follower may be confused. Another key finding in the study

was that transformational leadership significantly increased employee motivation and

satisfaction.

Previous research has shown that transactional leadership alone does not increase

followers’ job satisfaction or performance (Aldoory & Toth, 2004). This study found

there to be a significant difference in workplace satisfaction between transformational

leadership and transactional and laissez-faire leadership. Transformational leadership has

been shown to have high job performance and positive attitudes (Aldoory & Toth, 2004).

This study found there to be a significant difference between transformational leadership

and transactional and laissez-faire leadership on workplace motivation. There was no

significant difference between transformational leadership with and without humor for


either workplace satisfaction or motivation. However, there was a significant difference

between transactional leadership with humor and laissez-faire leadership without humor.

There were some potential limitations to this study. One of the limitations were

limited number of male participants. A potential reason for this limitation was because

the study was limited to one undergraduate university with majority female students.

Another limitation was that since there were six scenarios due to research design there

were limited number of participants to each scenario. This study is not generalizable to

people with many years of work experience since the mean work experience was 4.33

years. Also, the scenarios were hypothetical so we cannot say for sure that this scenario

would actually happen.

Conclusion

In conclusion looking at satisfaction and motivation in relation to leadership style

will make for more effective leaders and satisfied and motivated followers. There was

found to be a significant difference in workplace satisfaction between transformational

leadership and the other types of leadership. This proves that transformational leadership

will help with follower workplace satisfaction. There was no significant difference

between transformational leadership with and without humor for either workplace

satisfaction or motivation. This shows that there will be no significant change if you use

humor or not with transformational leadership. Further research should be done with

people who have been employed for 10 or more years to see if their expertise causes a

difference in the research. Their expertise could change the results because they might

have been in a situation that is relatable. More concrete data could also be gathered if

studies investigated each leadership style individually.


References

Aldoory, L. & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: perceived

effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership styles. Journal of

Public Relations, 16(2) , 157-183.

Anderson, C., & Martin, M. (1995). The effects of communication motives, inter-

action involvement, and loneliness on satisfaction: A model of small groups. Small

Group Research, 26, 118-137.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B., Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor

leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.

Bono, J., Foldes, H., & Muros, J. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision

and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1357-1367.

Clouse, R., Spurgeon, K., 1995. Corporate analysis of humor. Psychology: A Journal of

Human Behaviour, 32 (3–4), 1–24.

Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humor: A relational process

model. Human Relations, 61(8), 1087-1115.

Curral, L., & Marques-Quinteiro, P. (2009). Self-leadership and work role innovation:

Testing a mediation model with goal orientation and work motivation. Revista De

Psicologia Del Trabajo y De LasOrganizaciones, 25(2), 165-176.

Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 22(1), 113.

Drath, W. H. (2008) Issues & observations: leadership beyond leaders and followers.


Leadership in Action, 28(5), 20-24.

Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995).

Transformational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal

of Personal and Sales Management, 15(2), 17-31.

Ehrhart, M.G. & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic

leadership influence of follower values and personality. The Leadership Quarterly,

12(2), 153-179.

Groves, K., & LaRocca, M. (2011). An empirical study of leader ethical values,

transformational and transactional leadership, and follower attitudes toward

corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 511-528.

Holmes, J. (2007). Making humour work: Creativity on the job. Applied Linguistics,

28(4), 518-537.

Jung, D. I. (2000). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on

creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185-195.

Kean, S., Haycock-Stuart, E., Baggaley, S. & Carson, M. (2011). Followers and the

co-construction of leadership. Journal of Nursing Management 19, 507-516.

Kean, S. & Haycock-Stuart, E. (2011). Understanding the relationship between followers

and leaders. 18(8) 31-35.

Kelly, A. C., Zuroff, D. C., Leybman, M. J., Martin, A. (2011). Leaders’ and followers

social styles interact to predict group performance. Social Behavior and Personality

39(7), 963-978.

Kleinginna, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of motivation

definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion,


5(3), 263.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and

transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 29(2), 115-134.

Madlock, P. (2008) . The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and

employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1), 61-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions

and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Schnurr S. 2009. Constructing leader identities through teasing at work. Journal of

Pragmatics, 41: 1125–1138.

Schnurr, S., & Chan, A. (2009). Politeness and leadership discourse in New Zealand and

Hong Kong: A cross-cultural case study of workplace talk. Journal of Politeness

Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 5(2), 131-157.

Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010). On angry

leaders and agreeable followers: how leaders’ emotions and followers’

personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psychological Science

21(12), 1827-1834.

Werder, K. P. & Holtzhausen, D. (2009) . An analysis of the influence of public relations

department leadership style on public relations strategy use and effectiveness.

Journal of Public Relations Research 21(4), 404-427.

Yammarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Long term forecasting of transformational

leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings.


Measures of Leadership, 151-160

Documents

Running Head: LEADERSHIP STYLES AND EMPLOYEE …