leadership styles and behaviors in institutional contextjournal-archieves19.webs.com/744-762.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
744
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Leadership Styles and Behaviors in Institutional Context
Zeeshan Ahmad Bhatti
Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
Hafiz Ghias Ahmad
Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
Asim Aslam
Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
Umair Nadeem
Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
Dr. Muhammad Ramzan
Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Several studies have observed the leadership styles and behavior in institutional framework to
comprehend whether the styles and behaviors of managers are same or not. The present study
composed data from more than 24 published researches over different research channels in
various countries. It is establish that leadership style is most steady with the essential
purposes and emotional desires underlying varied groups of employees, based on unforeseen
event approaches to leadership. It is on the contrary found that in organizations with
undersized chains of command the diversity in the leadership style adept by managers might
be vague impression, whereas in organizations with extended chains of command, it will be
likely to articulated, Citrus Paribas. This study concludes a number of implications for theory
and practice.
Keywords: Leadership Styles ; Behaviors ; Institutional Context
1.0 Introduction
A great range of research on leadership has highlighted on leaders at the higher
hierarchical positions only. This was for the reason that, feasibly, so far, it was mistakenly
assumed that middle and first-level leaders have vibrantly smaller roles to contribute to
organizational achievement. However, with latest organizational models together with reform
of policymaking power to lower hierarchical levels, the development of leaders across all
hierarchical levels has come to be a desideratum intended at increasing corporate success.
The distribution of information and the general use of team work within organizations
similarly contribute to the improvement of leaders across various hierarchical levels(Lowe,
Kroeck et al. 1996).
Organizational leaders express wide deviations in the behaviors and styles which they
express at work. A number of managers used a variety of leadership styles and behaviors in
their regular events; others utilize one or two of the leadership styles or behavior levels. It
could be worthwhile to ask, and so, the scope to which seeing these variations managers can
be emotionally grouped on the foundation of the leadership styles and behavior practices
which they express on their jobs. A related query is the scope to which use of a precise
leadership style and or behavior supported to a person’s improved work performance and to
the broad satisfaction of the user, associates, managers and junior workers.
Corporations and researchers have been infatuated over the previous four decades
with leadership, and try to examine the sensation into a global set of actions (De Vries 2003).
In the modern times, a leading tactic to reviewing leadership has seemed. This is based on the
model of Transformational and Transactional leadership established by Bass (1985) and
operationalized by Bass and Avolio (1995). Strength of the model has been the difference
among sets of leadership behaviors essential in two different contexts.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
745
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
The diverse priorities of the dual styles of leadership arise as: strategic leadership
emphasis on the existence and achievement of the organization, its critical spectators includes
the community of personnel, its time skyline is long-lasting practice and it contains an excess
of immediate situations. While supervisory leadership emphases on the achievement of tasks,
its critical viewers consist of individuals and/or teams, its time horizon is normal- to short-
term practice and it comprises one or very few conditions(Kur 1995).
1.1 Different Leadership styles
Just as researchers are aware of that various employees show a variety of seeming
responsibility and prospects in their connections with their firm(Rousseau 1989; Robinson
1996), a related disparity exists within the leadership fiction. Namely, the leadership
literature has a striking tradition of abstracting leadership typologies. In a typical typology,
leader behaviors are preferably clustered into evident types of leadership styles. As one
primary instance, path – goal theory documented four different styles of leader behaviors—
directive leadership, supportive leadership, achievement-oriented leadership, and
participative leadership.
In an attempt to add in different views on leadership, we recommend four styles of
leadership: directive, transformational, transactional, and empowering. (Tsui, Pearce et al.
1997) have offered experiential evidence to back the idea that these four styles of leadership
are evidently changed from each other and indicate unique characteristics. Therefore, we used
this typology of leadership styles as the source of our integration. Because of their different
characteristics, these leadership styles are also expected to have variable consequences for
leader efficiency.
2.0 Literature Review
The Nature of a corporate’s human capital and the mode in which it is control can
influence employee and organization performance (Wright, McMahan et al. 1994; Wright
and Snell 1998). In addition, leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau, Graen et
al. 1975; Duchon, Green et al. 1986; Graen and Wakabayashi 1994; Bauer and Green 1996)
tells that leaders do not traditionally involved and contact with all employees in the same
way(Sparrowe and Liden 1997; Richard, Robert et al. 1999). Likewise, situational leadership
theory(Hersey and Blanchard 1969) demands that, for the reason that the achievement of
leadership be liable on the positional variables.
A resemble effect of transformational leadership combined in this research. Effective
leadership suggests influencing the abilities, attitudes, and behaviors of admirers (Bass
1960).Leadership ways of combined-superior dyads somehow inclined to match each other.
Agreeing to (Burns 1978),the leadership process can take place in one of two manners. It is
either one transformational or transactional. The lower level supervisors are self-nominated,
nominated by their second-level manager, or administratively chosen into positions so that
they will be working very well manner as compared with their superior. Some research proof
supports the notion that supporters’ behavior or attitudes are effectively associated with those
of their leaders over time (Bowers and Seashore 1966; Ouchi and Maguire 1975).
The resemble effect consciously in the current situation due to the sub-culture of
demographically racially within which the leaders operate. Lower-level leaders, who were
professed as being more forceful by their assistants in turn, required less magnetism in their
Superiors. (Tichy and Ulrich 1984), but, took omission with Burns’s view. They projected
that charismatic/transformational leadership largely involves the development of new visions
and structural changes by top management supervisors. A better way to convey
transformational leadership training is originally to top level-managers.
Organizations and scholars have been obsessive over the previous four decades with
Leadership, and efforts to assess the phenomenon into a universal set of measures (Kets de
Vries 1993; Higgs and Aitken 2003; Jones and Goffee 2006). To discover the new
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
746
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Leadership Dimension questionnaire and a mutual framework for assessing an individual’s
leadership style regarding the perspective the leader use them in their work spot. Data
composed for completion this study directly associated to the respondent’s individual
biographical, race, job-function, demographic and ethnic group. The study also exhibit that
the five-FFM personality element do not use for extra dissimilarity on any of the styles at an
indicative level. Research is entirely based on the personal self assessed The LDQ can be
used devoid of losing suggestive personality-associated differences. Leader performance and
fan dedication sub-scales must facilitate added research by researchers into leadership
performance.
(Stordeur, Vandenberghe et al. 2000) studied the flowing effect of leadership styles
through hierarchical levels in a model of nursing departments in Belgium, with eight
hospitals with 41wards. Here we found that there are suggestive variances in the leadership
styles among the senior and first level mangers. (McDaniel and Wolf 1992) conducted an
experiential study that observed transformational leadership through hierarchical levels in
nursing departments and found proof for a cascading outcome of leadership style. Three out
of seven ways of leadership styles were suggestively different when we matched with one or
two levels of management there was a strong suggestively variance in the leadership behavior
of senior and first line mangers. (Tichy and Ulrich 1984) and (Avolio and Bass 1988)
establish transformational leadership to be mainly evident and durable at the top level.
The managerial level of an organization must be important for assessing the
suggestive leadership behavior measurements of UK managers the overall leadership
behavior among senior and first-level supervisors was substantial at a sturdier 95 per cent
confidence level. (Dunham and Klafehn 1990) suggest that transformational leaders transmit
a sense of mission and are concerned with longstanding objectives. (Coad 2000) presents a
counterpoint to a “falling dominoes effect”, whereby transformational leadership at great
levels in a executive hierarchy seems to Cascade to lower levels.
In various organizations, self-managing teams (SMTs) have been presented as a way
of enlightening the performance and comfort of employees (Cascio 1995; Manz and Sims
1995; Spreitzer, Cohen et al. 1999; Kauffeld 2006). The aim of the study is to ascertain the
relationship among Leader behavior and the efficiency of the members of a self-managing
team in the way to see how much an individual performance and exhaustion. Indeed,
publications on SMTs mainly focus on team effectiveness(Cohen and Ledford 1994). Team
member within a short period of time the performance of the individual they measured with
the use of behavior tell him their leader and also reported him. Several leadership theories
(Hersey and Blanchard 1969; Hersey and Blanchard 1993) have recognized team member
experience as a significant moderator.
In other way when members spent a longer time in a team than he doing a good job
and perform well and do not feel hesitation to do any work related to the task or share any
idea. Leader of self-managing team get benefit to showing how an individual perform better
in a short time period or greater time period. Leader can also enhance the intellectual skill of
an individual. This decision adds to the debate on the demand for “specific “leadership
performance in SMTs (Manz and Sims Jr 1987; Manz and Sims 1995; Stewart and Manz
1995) .
Since it’s initially over 25 years ago, the convincing of Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX) theory (Dansereau, Graen et al. 1975; Graen and Cashman 1975; Graen 1976; Graen,
Liden et al. 1982) has undergone many studies. This principle develop relationship between
levels of issues and explain leadership theories according to the extension addressed by the
three sides leadership(leader, follower, relationship).This study tells that defines how
operational leadership relationships develop among dyadic “partners” in and among
organizations leaders and admirers. Assumption from this testing specifies to us that,
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
747
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
although items were added to knock into likely multiple dimensions, the expanded measure
was highly connected with the more brief 7-item LMX and produced the same effects.
We agree that certain aspects of LMX are transactional because of its location as an
exchange-based attitude to leadership; LMX is visibly not limited to Transactional
Leadership. Rather, LMX is both transformational and transactional. By accepting this
perspective, we have come to a purer understanding of leadership and LMX, and approve
with (Klein, Dansereau et al. 1994).
In today’s we primarily focused on transformational leadership but some comments
tells that there is a change among management and leadership. Traditionally the UK had a
large amount of hierarchical organizations that still have a custom of Theory X management
styles, which have factually been arranged as the leadership role models. If the people at the
top do not fixed the right context then the organization will unavoidably suffer failure from
increasing rigor mortis. If you take (Handy 1978) view of organizations many organizations
tracked the “Apollo” model, which has brilliant stable state characteristics That carries us on
to a discussion about the relative qualities of the Reagan style of leadership related with the
Thatcher style. Thatcher got much more involved in the detail of issues; however Reagan was
only concerned with the very comprehensive PR type presentational approach.
Higher and lower level leaders face fundamentally different problems. Middle
managers, by contrast, are more often “subject to rules, constraints, and limited
participation”(Rainey and Watson 1996). These differences might affect the existence of TFL
behaviors amongst upper and middle managers (Shamir and Howell 1999). Perfect pressure
and inspirational motivation put regularly upon upper instead of middle managers. While
there were no difference in the intellectual and physiological skills of both. Also provide all
the essential facilities provided or fulfill basic needs of the upper managers instead of the
middle. While customized consideration was likewise effective together in groups TFL on
lower managerial levels. Organizations may possibly achieve this by cutting managerial
restraints and authorizing lower level leaders.
In this study the healthcare organizations, voices in favor of the New Public
Management model are evidently clear. The improvements have been connected for their part
with a wider administrative development of the public sector, which supports efforts to?
Improve competence in the sector, lock up growing expenditure and decrease bureaucracy
and expert power (Farrell and Morris 2003). In terms of its organized structure, financing and
goals, the Finnish healthcare system fit in to the same family as the other Scandinavian
countries and the UK. The main focus in this study upon the leadership styles between
middle-level managers in social and health care using the leadership role descriptions
developed by Robert Quinn et al. Leadership roles of middle-level managers were calmly
distributed on a fairly high level. Statistically suggestive variances found in leadership styles
were associated to professional background, gender, and activity sector and unit size.
Leadership styles hassled intra-organizational actions, whereas extra-organizational roles
established less attention.
Leaders are mostly effective if they involve in transformational leadership (TFL)
behaviors, like articulating an appealing vision for the future, acting as fascinating role
models, developing the approval of common goals, , providing individualized support and
setting high performance expectations and intelligent stimulation for followers (Bass 1985;
Podsakoff, MacKenzie et al. 1990) Lots of studies show that these TFL behaviors stimulate
high levels of performance in admirers (Podsakoff, MacKenzie et al. 1990; Lowe, Kroeck et
al. 1996; Judge and Piccolo 2004; Wang, Law et al. 2005). TFL climate is connected to
workers performance through the organization's progressive affective climate. Means,
standard deviations, and bi-variant correlations for all study variables were used. TFL climate
within the contributing organizations was clearly related with positive affective climate and
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
748
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
positive Affective climate was positively associated with overall employee aggregate
organizational output. The degree to which various leaders in an organization direct related
behaviors on the way to their subordinates is taken in the concept of leadership climate
(Bliese and Halverson 1998; Chen and Bliese 2002; Chen, Kirkman et al. 2007; Walter and
Bruch 2010).
Research has establish sufficient evidence representing the beneficial significances of
transformational leadership (TFL; e.g.,(Judge and Piccolo 2004)). The behaviors usually
associated with TFL consist of articulating a charismatic vision, acting as a captivating role
model, developing the approval of common goals, providing individual support and setting
high performance expectations, and logical stimulation for admirers (Bass 1985; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie et al. 1990). Such leadership has been revealed to improve both supporter
performance (McColl-Kennedy and Anderson 2002) and organizational achievement
(Waldman, Javidan et al. 2004). Yet, researchers are progressively recognizing that
leadership does not take place inside a virtual space, but is subject to significant contextual
impacts (Osborn, Hunt et al. 2002; Porter and McLaughlin 2006). Let's say, theorists have
claimed that an organization's structural structure may shape TFL processes, advising that
such leadership arises more often and is more operative in organizations with organic rather
than mechanical structures (Pawar and Eastman 1997; Kark and van Dijk 2007).
The recent study explores the association of empowerment, leadership style and
customer service as an extent of effective project managing in projects with variable degree
of vitality. Improved productivity, greater quality products and services, better teamwork and
customer service, improved speed and receptiveness has led to the fame of empowerment
(Shelton 1991; Von Dran, Kappelman et al. 1996; Appelbaum and Honeggar 1998).
Preceding research has established a positive relationship among team empowerment and
collocated team performance (Burpitt and Bigoness 1997; Kirkman and Rosen 1999). Virtual
teams can quickly react to business globalization dares (Maznevski and Chudoba 2000;
Montoya-Weiss, Massey et al. 2001; Kayworth and Leidner 2002) and their use is growing
exponentially (Kirkman, Rosen et al. 2002). Therefore there is a need to recognize further the
role of empowerment in virtual projects.
The main purpose of the study is to test the application of two leadership models to a
volunteer service club. Servant leadership was foreseen to better describe the attitudes and
obligation of service organization followers than transformational leadership. Vision and
motivation activate a transformation procedure within the follower (Scandura and Williams
2004). More usually, leaders who offer volunteers with progressive, meaningful experiences
might be able to keep their concern in their volunteer situations. Transformational leader
practices stimulates followers to attain goals, and increase commitment, confidence, and job
performance (Bono and Judge 2003). A huge body of research on transformational leadership
has accepted its positive association with satisfaction, commitment and aims to stay
(Fleishman and HARRIS 1998; Bliss and Fallon 2003; Brown and Yoshioka 2003;
Walumbwa and Lawler 2003; Avolio, Zhu et al. 2004; Jaskyte 2004; Epitropaki and Martin
2005) contend that leadership and job satisfaction are the most active predictors of purposes
to leave non-profit organizations.
The varied priorities of the two types of leadership arise as: strategic leadership
emphases on the existence and achievement of the organization, its critical viewers includes
the community of employees, while supervisory leadership emphases on the success of tasks,
its critical viewers involves individuals and/or teams, its time prospect is medium- to short-
range practice and it involves one or very few conditions. A bright decision can prove
valueless without its effective implementation. The implementation of results is a critical
aspect of leadership efficiency across European countries and the USA (Robie, Johnson et al.
2001). Even the best results fail to be executed due to the insufficient supervision of
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
749
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
assistants, among other reasons (Hill, Bedau et al. 1979). (Kenny 1999) emphasizes that
people who implement results to the best of their skill are usually those who have created
them. Even though the significance of supervisory leadership throughout the implementation
stage of decisions is usually accepted (Harrison 1981), little research has been made on this
subject. (Hofstede 1976) descriptions of leadership styles joining a summarized version of
(Tannenbaum and Schmidt 1982)leadership range, indifferently view both choice and
implementation.
This Multicultural study developed the full range leadership context developed by
(Avolio, Bass et al. 1995) model of culture, and relate leadership styles and cultural standards
of over 4,000 managerial and non-managerial personnel in ten business organizations in
Russia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Germany, Kyrgyzstan, and the US. About socio-cultural
dimensions, the study establish that, related to Germany and the US, the four former USSR
countries varied primarily by much minor levels of Power Space, higher levels of Masculinity
and much extended planning horizons. Lastly, the study proposes that multicultural human
resource development issues cannot be defined in terms of simplified dichotomies between
the East and West. For constructs measured in this study, significant differences were found
not only between the two groups of countries but also between individual countries within
these groups. Socio-cultural dimensions. The notion of culture is widely used in global
management, organization behavior, and human resource development literature to measure
effects that can distinguish among countries and ethnic or occupational groups (Kuchinke
1999).
Close leadership among a focal leader and his/her instant followers has been the focus
of extensive study in many settings. But our understanding of distant leadership among a
focal leader and his/her admirers not reporting straight to him/her is much more narrow
(Waldman and Yammarino 1999; Antonakis and Atwater 2002; Avolio, Zhu et al. 2004).
Examination shows variances in leadership power perceptions, processes, and many levels
of-analysis effects among close and distant captivating and dependent reward leadership
through three hierarchical levels in Korean companies. Multi-source data open that followers'
potential to the leader mediated relations between leadership and fans’ behavioral, attitudinal,
and performance outcomes in close conditions. Last of all, leadership is by nature a multi-
level phenomenon happening among an individual leader and individual admirers, groups of
followers, and/or collectives of the groups of followers (Dansereau and Yammarino 1998).
Transformational leader inspires subordinates to put in more effort and to go afar
what they (subordinates) expected prior to(Burns 1978). The aim to inspect how project
managers’ leadership styles and assistants’ organizational responsibility correlates with
leadership effects and work performance of assistants on construction projects. It delivers
remarkable value for both practitioners and researchers. On the practical side, it seek out to
notify project managers that they can get a feel for their leadership behaviors in order to
augment subordinates’ improve work performance, organizational commitment, and
consequently increase a positive functioning impression.
Effective leaders are distinguished from other leaders over the exercise of a fairly
small range of skill or competence areas (Kouzes and Posner 1998; Goffee and Jones 2001;
Higgs and Rowland 2001; Hogan and Hogan 2001). To inspect the new leadership
dimensions questionnaire (LDQ) and a linked context for assess an individual’s leadership
style regarding the context in which the leader works; the three new LDQ sub-scales aimed to
measure organizational context, follower duty and leader performance; and the linking among
personality and leadership. (Goffee and Jones 2001) in their statement that effective
leadership requires “being you, with skill”.
The contingency perception of leadership suggests that leadership is a social construct
that cannot be fully understood when examined in isolation from the context in which it
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
750
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
occurs (Podsakoff et al., 1993; Yammarino et al., 1998). A variety of organizational leaders,
workers, managers and academics had previously been classified on the basis of
characteristics of their jobs including how they spent their time. This study investigated the
extent to which managers from various foreign industries could be meaningfully grouped on
the basis of the leadership styles and behavior patterns which they exhibited in the
performance of their jobs. Bass et al. (2003) found that team efficacy fully mediated the
relationship between sergeants’ transactional leadership and platoon performance.
The process of joint stimulation which panels human energy is the hunt of mutual
cause. Weber (1961) recognizes leadership to be "A moral function best identified by the
person it improves a not essentially by the smoothness of process or the number of persons it
fascinates." There is no assurance that any one leadership behavior will all the time be
effective. But it must be agreed that any leadership behavior used by the leader while
managing the affairs of his office is possible to have an influence on organization
performance, be it positive or negative. The process of joint stimulation which pedals human
energy in the search of common cause (Pigors 1935).
To investigate relationships and variances in the leadership styles and behavior of
managers through hierarchical levels in Pakistan organizations, the following research
method was engaged in the study. A survey questionnaire was conducted where the
population for the study included managers and leaders working in the Pakistan. A total of
about 1,440 questionnaires were directed to prospective respondents from several
organizations and at different administrative levels. The questionnaire enclosed managers
from all the provinces of the country. A total of 405 completed and operating questionnaires
were returned, giving a reaction rate of somewhat over 28 per cent. The sample included 242
male managers representing 59.8 per cent and 163 female managers representing 40.2 per
cent. The names of the prospective respondents were found largely from the key Pakistani
enterprises. To collect data on changes in the leadership behavior and styles of Pakistan
managers, across hierarchical levels, the questionnaire demanded respondents to specify
where they belong, in the following classification: top management, senior management,
middle management, first-level management and non-management. A total of 40 respondents
who were non-management staff were omitted from the study. The top and senior-level
managers were divided into one category and named senior management. Therefore, for the
study, we have senior, middle and first-level managers. The amounts of managers included in
each category are 214, 115 and 36, respectively. We gathered data on how frequently they
agreed each of the four leadership styles – directive, consultative, participative or delegative
in their everyday activities. The questionnaire also demanded respondents to point out the
extent to which they have confidence in themselves that they use each of the following
leadership behavior – laissez-faire, management- by-exception, individual consideration,
intellectual stimulation, contingent reward, inspirational motivation or idealized influence in
their actions. The sense attached to each of the leadership styles and behaviors was clarified
in the survey. The questionnaire therefore incorporated a self-report styles of a leadership
styles questionnaire assessing the four leadership styles derived from Profile, an
organizational systems survey research program (Bass, 1974; Bass et al ., 1975), and Bass’s
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form MLQ-5S Re vise d, 198 9), which measures
laissez-faire , transactional and transformational leadership.
Test of important differences among two of the three levels being observed were
computed in turn, i.e. among senior and middle level managers, concerning senior and first-
level managers and among middle and first-level managers. Two tables summarizing the
results of the studies are produced.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
751
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
3.0 Results and Discussions
Table I records the leadership styles of managers at various organizational levels. It
covers a summary of the questions for senior, middle and first-level managers regarding their
directive, participative, consultative, delegative and overall leadership style. The result of the
t-test is significant among senior and first-level managers with respect to the directive
leadership style. It shows that the level of management is significant in the position and
weight attached to the directions of managers – the upper the level of management, the better
the significance attached to such an order by the recipient. Therefore, a direction from a
senior manager considered as not significant by the middle-level manager, might be
understood as significant by the first-level manager. It shows that hierarchy is still important
in Pakistani organizations although where there are long chains of command; dissimilarities
in directions among the next levels of command might not be easily obvious. While the
management attitude of the scalar chain of command is still proficient in most Pakistani
organizations, therefore, a change to the Japanese flatter organizations seems to be evident.
Table I shows that there are no major variances among any of the levels of management in
counseling leadership style. It seems that discussion is widely practiced in Pakistani
organizations at all levels. Participative leadership style is, on the other hand, significantly
practiced among senior and first-level managers but not in the middle of senior and middle-
level managers or amongst middle-level and first-level managers. The figures in the table
propose that the level of participative management is higher; the higher one is on the
organizational hierarchy. This means that participation, for example, in policy formulation
and decision-making, is highest at the senior management level and lowest at the first-level of
management, as one would expect.
Table 3.1 The leadership styles of managers at different organizational levels
Leadership
styles
Senior Levels of management
Middle
First-level
Consultative 3.40
(0.755)
t1 = 0.126
3.39
(0.671)
t2=1.472
t3=1.516
3.19
(0.786)
Participative 3.23
(0.782)
t1 = 1.355
3.11
(0.747)
t2=0.957
t3= 1.834*
2.97
(0.845)
Delegative 3.19
(0.824)
t1 = 1.873*
3.01
(0.822)
t2=2.497*
t3= 3.848***
2.61
(0.871)
Overall
leadership
stylec
12.21
t1=1.199
(n1= 214)
11.965
t2=1.000
t3= 1.854*
(n2= 115)
11.611
(n3=36) Notes: The t values t1 refers to the difference between senior and middle level means, t2 to that between middle
and first level means, and t3 to that between senior and first level means. aThe figures in the table are mean
responses from the questionnaire; bFigures in parentheses are standard deviations;
cThe overall leadership style
is a summation of the directive, consultative, participative and delegative leadership style.
* p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.01
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
752
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Table 3.1 shows that there are no major variances among any of the levels of
management in counseling leadership style. It seems that discussion is widely practiced in
Pakistani organizations at all levels. Participative leadership style is, on the other hand,
significantly practiced among senior and first-level managers but not in the middle of senior
and middle-level managers or amongst middle-level and first-level managers. The figures in
the table propose that the level of participative management is higher; the higher one is on the
organizational hierarchy. This means that participation, for example, in policy formulation
and decision-making, is highest at the senior management level and lowest at the first-level of
management, as one would expect.
The result of the delegative leadership style is different from that of the other
leadership styles. The result shows that there are major delegative practices at each of the
three management levels. The mean score is highest at the senior management level and
lowest at the first-level. The statistical test for the variances among the senior and first-level
management is, thus, significant at the 99 per cent confidence level. Differences at the two
other stages of management are statistically significant at the 90 per cent level.
Delegation is the means by which senior manager’s pass on the jobs of an
organization to their lower-level managers and workforces in a hierarchical fashion.
Managers and those to whom they envoy should both appreciate the fact that delegation is not
just desirable but likewise necessary, i.e. no organization can really function lacking it as
delegation is the means by which managers get their work done (Oshagbemi, 1999). It allows
work to be distributed for organizational effectiveness. It gains the advantages of the division
of labor and enables every member of an organization to play a part.
From Table 3.1, the result of the t-test is significant among senior and first-level
managers regarding the overall leadership style while other tests of variances are not
statistically significant. The general result proposes, thus, that there are some variances
among the leadership styles of managers at diverse levels in an organizational hierarchy.
However, these differences be likely to be weak, but might come to be pronounced among
the top management level and say, the supervisory level. It therefore seems that while
leadership patterns be to to replicate from upper to lower organizational levels, the leadership
style at the lowest organizational level might be significantly changed from that at the highest
organizational level.
Table 3.2 contains a summary of the leadership behavior of our sampled managers at
different organizational levels. Figures in the table reveal that there are no significant
differences between senior, middle and first-level managers, in respect of their leadership
behavior dimensions of laissez-faire and management-by-exception. Our results are therefore
inconsistent with that of Bass et al .(1987), which found that management-by-exception was
more evident at lower levels of the organization in comparison with the higher levels.
Management-by-exception was about equally practiced at all levels in our sample (Table 3.2).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
753
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Table 3.2 The leadership behavior of managers at different organizational levels
Leadership styles Senior Levels of management
Middle
First-level
Laissez-faire 1.59
(0.547)
t1= 0.281
1.57
(0.531)
t2=-1.548
t3=-1.506
1.75
(0.770)
Management-by-
exception
2.75
(0.924)
t1 = 0.421
2.71
(0.873)
t2=-0.419
t3=-0.154
2.78
((0.866)
Contingent reward 3.01
(0.885)
t1 = 0.260
2.98
(0.916)
t2=2.618**
t3= 3.036**
2.51
(0.951)
Individual
consideration
3.42
(0.842)
t1 = -0.024
3.42
(0.838)
t2=0.839
t3= 0.884
3.28
(0.974)
Intellectual
stimulation
3.42
(0.944)
t1=2.842**
3.10
(0.959)
t2=1.031
t3= 2.941**
2.92
(0.937)
Inspirational
Motivation
3.18
(0.939)
t1=3.261***
2.83
(0.888)
t2=-0.998
t3= 3.026**
2.66
(1.027)
Idealized influence 2.93
(0.969)
t1=-0.511
2.99
(0.945)
t2=1.257
t3= 1.037
2.74
(1.245)
Transactional
leadership
behavior
7.3396
(1.413)
t1=0.408
7.2703
(1.519)
t2=0.589
t3= 0.934
7.0857
(1.900)
Transformational
leadership
behavior
12.9663
(2.7913)
t1=1.868*
12.3684
(2.6649)
t2=1.402
t3= 2.601**
11.6000
(3.3449)
Overall leadership
behaviour
20.2816
(3.3449)
t1=1.550
(n1= 214)
19.6818
(3.1446)
t2=1.458
t3= 2.469**
(n2= 115)
18.6857
(4.5165)
(n3= 36)
* p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.01
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
754
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Dependent reward, one of the transactional leadership behaviors, was statistically
significant among middle and first-level management and also between senior and first-level
management. It would appear that the incidence of contingent reward is high in today’s
organizations. When employees meet the specifications of quantity and quality of their
production schedules, suitable rewards tend to trail in most organizations in respect of such
performance. Where there are no tangible rewards for executing one’s job well, some consent
would tend to follow lack of acceptable performance of the job. This would have the same
result as rewarding good performance.
It is of interest to notice, however, that there are no significant variances among any
of the levels of management for the transactional behavior as a whole. This result is not
unexpected considering the fact that no level of management is statistically significant from
the other in the leadership behavior dimensions of laissez-faire and management-by-
exception. Overall, therefore, transactional leadership behavior would appear to be fairly
similar among all levels of management within the sampled organizations. This result is not
surprising as the basis of transactional leadership is a transaction or exchange process
between leaders and followers. Leadership is a series of economic and social transactions to
achieve specific goals. Activities involving transactional leadership are common in Pakistani
organizations. While the details of these activities may not be identical from one organization
to the other, as organizations pursue different goals, the activities tend to be very similar.
According to Burns (1978), the leadership process can occur in one of two ways. It is
either transactional or transformational. Among the four dimensions of transformational
leadership behavior, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation show significant
differences in the various levels of management while the other two dimensions, i.e.
individual consideration and idealized influence, do not show any significant differences
among the levels of management examined. Transformational leadership is based on personal
values, beliefs and qualities of the leader. It focuses on intangible qualities, e.g. vision and
shared values useful in building relationships and enlisting followers in the change process.
The transformational leader brings about significant changes in the organization’s vision,
strategy and culture and promotes innovation in culture and technology. Effective
transformational leadership can influence major change in the attitudes and assumptions of
subordinates and build commitment to the organizations goals and stimulate dedication to
greatness (Steers, 1991).
Intellectual stimulation as a subset of transformational leadership concentrates on the
stimulation of followers to be creative and innovative and to change their own beliefs and
values as well as those of the leader and the organization along an agreed desired path. Table
II expresses that there are significant differences among senior and middle-level managers
and among senior and first-level managers on their level of rational stimulation. Our finding
supports that of Tichy and Devanna (1986) that the intellectual stimulation of subordinates is
more important at higher levels of the organization. Our finding shows that the importance
attached to this variable decreases the further down one goes from the top to the lower levels
of the organization. Our result, thus, contradicts the findings of Loweet al. (1996) that the
variable is equally important, irrespective of the level of management. Between middle and
first-level management, however, there are no significant differences in the expressed levels
of intellectual stimulation.
Inspirational motivation attempts to develop followers into leaders by elevating their
concerns and inspiring them to go beyond their self-interests for the good of the group. The
inspirational leader paints a vision of a desired future state and communicates i t i n a way
that makes the pain of change worth the effort. The leader acts as a strong role model for
followers who identify much with their leaders and want very much to emulate them. Table II
reveals that there are significant differences between senior and middle-level managers and
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
755
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
between senior and first-level managers on their level of inspirational motivation. This means
that inspirational motivation is used most at senior management level, followed by the
middle-level managers and least by the first-level managers.
Displaying individual consideration by a senior manager leads to a desire among
lower level managers to improve them while showing idealized influence entails gaining the
respect of followers by demonstrating extra ordinary knowledge and competence. It is
believed that these features are not kept to senior management levels only as some middle
level and first level managers also hold them.
4.0 Conclusion
This study has examined the leadership styles and behaviors of managers at different
levels in Pakistani organizations. It found that, generally, there are significant differences
neither in the leadership styles between senior and first-level managers, but not between
senior and middle-level managers nor between middle and first-level managers. This finding
suggests that the level(s) of management from and to which a particular leadership style is
adopted is important in the significance or non-significance of the leadership style. It also
suggests that differences in the leadership style practiced by managers may be blurred in
organizations with short chains of command, while it will tend to be pronounced in
organizations with long chains of command, other things being equal. Compared with
directive, consultative and participative leadership styles, delegative leadership style was
found to be distinctive in that significant differences were found in all the three levels of
management examined.
The study likewise found that three out of the seven sides of the leadership behavior
were significantly not the same when compared with one or two other levels of management.
These are contingent reward, rational stimulation and inspirational motivation. Variances in
transactional leadership behavior were not major in any of the three combinations of the
levels of managers examined while differences in transformational leadership were
statistically significant between senior and middle-level managers and between senior and
first-level managers. It was found that in overall leadership behavior, there was a strong
statistically significant difference between the leadership behavior of senior and first-level
managers.
Similar to the findings in the leadership styles research, the organizational level of a
manager appears to be important in predicting the significance or otherwise of the leadership
behavior dimension of Pakistani managers. In particular, the level of management appears to
be strongly related to the transformational leadership behavior of managers, as managers at
higher levels display significantly more of this feature in comparison with lower-level
managers. Unlike the findings of the leadership styles, however, the overall leadership
behavior between senior and first-level managers was significant at a stronger 95 per cent
confidence level. One can therefore infer that behavior emanating from senior managers tend
to influence the perception of lower-level managers towards acting in a similar fashion to
create a culture of similar organizational practices.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
756
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
References:
Antonakis, J. and L. Atwater (2002). "Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory." The
Leadership Quarterly 13(6): 673-704.
Appelbaum, S. H. and K. Honeggar (1998). "Empowerment: a contrasting overview of
organizations in general and nursing in particular-an examination of organizational factors,
managerial behaviors, job design, and structural power." Empowerment in Organizations
6(2): 29-50.
Avolio, B., B. M. Bass, et al. (1995). "MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical
report." Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.
Avolio, B. J. and B. M. Bass (1988). "Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond."
Avolio, B. J., W. Zhu, et al. (2004). "Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of
structural distance." Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(8): 951-968.
Bass, B. M. (1960). "Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior."
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations, Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: good, better, best, Organizational Dynamics.
Bauer, T. N. and S. G. Green (1996). "Development of leader-member exchange: A
longitudinal test." Academy of Management Journal: 1538-1567.
Bliese, P. D. and R. R. Halverson (1998). "Group Consensus and Psychological Well-Being:
A Large Field Study1." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(7): 563-580.
Bliss, J. P. and C. K. Fallon (2003). "The effects of leadership style and primary task
workload on team performance and follower satisfaction." International Journal of Applied
Aviation Studies 3(2): 259-276.
Bono, J. E. and T. A. Judge (2003). "Self-Concordance at Work: Toward Understanding the
Motivational Effects of Transformational Leaders." Academy of Management Journal.
Bowers, D. G. and S. E. Seashore (1966). "Predicting organizational effectiveness with a
four-factor theory of leadership." Administrative science quarterly: 238-263.
Brown, W. A. and C. F. Yoshioka (2003). "Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in
employee retention." Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14(1): 5-18.
Bruch, H. and F. Walter (2007). "Leadership in context: Investigating hierarchical impacts on
transformational leadership." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28(8): 710-
726.
Burns, J. (1978). "Leadership Harper & Row." New York.
Burns, J. M. (1978). "Leadership New York." NY: Harper and Row Publishers.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
757
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Burpitt, W. J. and W. J. Bigoness (1997). "Leadership and innovation among teams." Small
group research 28(3): 414-423.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). "Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world
of work?" American psychologist 50(11): 928.
Chen, G. and P. D. Bliese (2002). "The role of different levels of leadership in predicting
self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity." Journal of Applied Psychology
87(3): 549.
Chen, G., B. L. Kirkman, et al. (2007). "A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and
performance in teams." Journal of Applied Psychology 92(2): 331.
Coad, A. F. (2000). "Not everything is black and white for falling dominoes." Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 21(6): 311-318.
Cohen, S. G. and G. E. Ledford (1994). "The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-
experiment." Human Relations 47(1): 13.
Dansereau, F., G. Graen, et al. (1975). "A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within
formal organizations* 1:: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process."
Organizational behavior and human performance 13(1): 46-78.
Dansereau, F. E. and F. J. Yammarino (1998). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches:
Contemporary and alternative, Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
De Vries, M. F. R. K. (2003). Leaders, fools and impostors: essays on the psychology of
leadership, Iuniverse Inc.
Duchon, D., S. G. Green, et al. (1986). "Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of
antecedents, measures, and consequences." Journal of Applied Psychology 71(1): 56.
Dulewicz, V. and M. Higgs (2005). "Assessing leadership styles and organisational context."
Journal of Managerial Psychology 20(2): 105-123.
Dunham, J. and K. A. Klafehn (1990). "Transformational leadership and the nurse
executive." The Journal of nursing administration 20(4): 28.
Epitropaki, O. and R. Martin (2005). "From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of
implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes." Journal
of Applied Psychology 90(4): 659.
Farrell, C. and J. Morris (2003). "TheNeo-Bureaucratic'State: Professionals, Managers and
Professional Managers in Schools, General Practices and Social Work." Organization 10(1):
129-156.
Fleishman, E. A. and E. F. HARRIS (1998). "Patterns of leadership behavior related to
employee grievances and turnover: Some post hoc reflections." Personnel Psychology 51(4):
825-834.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
758
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Goffee, R. and G. Jones (2001). Why Should Anyone Be Led You?, Grasindo.
Graen, G. (1976). "Role-making processes within complex organizations." Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally 1245.
Graen, G. and J. F. Cashman (1975). "A role-making model of leadership in formal
organizations: A developmental approach." Leadership Frontiers, Kent State University
Press, Kent, OH.
Graen, G. B., R. C. Liden, et al. (1982). "Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal
process." Journal of Applied Psychology 67(6): 868.
Graen, G. B. and M. Wakabayashi (1994). "Cross-cultural leadership making: Bridging
American and Japanese diversity for team advantage." Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology 4: 415-446.
Handy, C. (1978). The Gods of Management. London, Souvenir Press.
Harrison, E. F. (1981). The managerial decision-making process, Houghton Mifflin.
Hersey, P. and K. H. Blanchard (1969). "Life cycle theory of leadership." Training &
Development Journal.
Hersey, P. and K. H. Blanchard (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing
human resources, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Higgs, M. and P. Aitken (2003). "An exploration of the relationship between emotional
intelligence and leadership potential." Journal of Managerial Psychology 18(8): 814-823.
Higgs, M. and D. Rowland (2001). "Developing change leaders: Assessing the impact of a
development programme." Journal of Change Management 2(1): 47-64.
Hill, P. H., H. Bedau, et al. (1979). Making decisions: A multidisciplinary introduction,
Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
Hofstede, G. (1976). Measuring hierarchial power distance in thirty-seven countries.
Hogan, R. and J. Hogan (2001). "Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side."
International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9(1‐2): 40-51.
Jaskyte, K. (2004). "Assessing Changes in Employees' Perceptions of Leadership Behavior,
Job Design, and Organizational Arrangements and Their Job Satisfaction and Commitment."
Administration in Social Work 27(4): 25-39.
Jones, G. and R. Goffee (2006). "Why Should Anyone be Led by You?" What It Takes to Be
an.
Judge, T. A. and R. F. Piccolo (2004). "Transformational and transactional leadership: a
meta-analytic test of their relative validity." Journal of Applied Psychology 89(5): 755.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
759
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Kark, R. and D. van Dijk (2007). "Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the
self-regulatory focus in leadership processes." The Academy of Management Review
ARCHIVE 32(2): 500-528.
Kauffeld, S. (2006). "Self‐directed work groups and team competence." Journal of
occupational and organizational psychology 79(1): 1-21.
Kayworth, T. R. and D. E. Leidner (2002). "Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual
Teams." J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 18(3): 7-40.
Kenny, I. (1999). Freedom and Order: Studies in Strategic Leadership, Oak Tree Press.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993). Leaders, fools and imposters: essays on the psychology of
leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kirkman, B. L. and B. Rosen (1999). "Beyond self-management: Antecedents and
consequences of team empowerment." Academy of Management Journal: 58-74.
Kirkman, B. L., B. Rosen, et al. (2002). "Five challenges to virtual team success: lessons
from Sabre, Inc." The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005): 67-79.
Klein, K. J., F. Dansereau, et al. (1994). "Levels issues in theory development, data
collection, and analysis." Academy of management review: 195-229.
Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner (1998). Encouraging the heart, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). "Leadership and culture: Work‐related values and leadership styles
among one company's US and German telecommunication employees." Human Resource
Development Quarterly 10(2): 135-154.
Kur, E. (1995). "Developing Leadership in Organizations." Journal of Management Inquiry
4(2): 198.
Liu, W., D. P. Lepak, et al. (2003). "Matching leadership styles with employment modes:
strategic human resource management perspective." Human resource management review
13(1): 127-152.
Lowe, K. B., K. G. Kroeck, et al. (1996). "Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature." The Leadership
Quarterly 7(3): 385-425.
Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims (1995). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are
building high-performing companies, Wiley.
Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims Jr (1987). "Leading workers to lead themselves: The external
leadership of self-managing work teams." Administrative science quarterly: 106-129.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
760
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Maznevski, M. L. and K. M. Chudoba (2000). "Bridging space over time: Global virtual team
dynamics and effectiveness." Organization science: 473-492.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R. and R. D. Anderson (2002). "Impact of leadership style and emotions
on subordinate performance." The Leadership Quarterly 13(5): 545-559.
McDaniel, C. and G. A. Wolf (1992). "Transformational leadership in nursing service. A test
of theory." The Journal of nursing administration 22(2): 60.
Montoya-Weiss, M. M., A. P. Massey, et al. (2001). "Getting it together: Temporal
coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams." Academy of Management
Journal: 1251-1262.
Osborn, R. N., J. G. Hunt, et al. (2002). "Toward a contextual theory of leadership." The
Leadership Quarterly 13(6): 797-837.
Oshagbemi, T. and R. Gill (2004). "Differences in leadership styles and behaviour across
hierarchical levels in UK organisations." Leadership & Organization Development Journal
25(1): 93-106.
Ouchi, W. G. and M. A. Maguire (1975). "Organizational control: Two functions."
Administrative science quarterly: 559-569.
Pawar, B. S. and K. K. Eastman (1997). "The nature and implications of contextual
influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination." Academy of
management review: 80-109.
Pigors, P. J. W. (1935). Leadership or domination, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, et al. (1990). "Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors." The Leadership Quarterly 1(2): 107-142.
Porter, L. W. and G. B. McLaughlin (2006). "Leadership and the organizational context: like
the weather?" The Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 559-576.
Rainey, H. G. and S. A. Watson (1996). "Transformational leadership and middle
management: Towards a role for mere mortals." International Journal of Public
Administration 19(6): 763-800.
Richard, H. L., G. C. Robert, et al. (1999). "Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of
Experience." Singapur: McGraw-Hill.
Robie, C., K. M. Johnson, et al. (2001). "The right stuff: Understanding cultural differences
in leadership performance." Journal of Management Development 20(7): 639-650.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). "Trust and breach of the psychological contract." Administrative
science quarterly: 574-599.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
761
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). "Psychological and implied contracts in organizations." Employee
responsibilities and rights journal 2(2): 121-139.
Scandura, T. A. and E. A. Williams (2004). "Mentoring and transformational leadership: The
role of supervisory career mentoring." Journal of Vocational Behavior 65(3): 448-468.
Shamir, B. and J. M. Howell (1999). "Organizational and contextual influences on the
emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership." The Leadership Quarterly 10(2):
257-283.
Shelton, K. (1991). "People power." Executive Excellence 8(12): 7-8.
Sparrowe, R. T. and R. C. Liden (1997). "Process and structure in leader-member exchange."
Academy of management review: 522-552.
Spreitzer, G. M., S. G. Cohen, et al. (1999). "Developing effective self-managing work teams
in service organizations." Group & Organization Management 24(3): 340.
Stewart, G. L. and C. C. Manz (1995). "Leadership for self-managing work teams: A
typology and integrative model." Human Relations 48(7): 747-770.
Stordeur, S., C. Vandenberghe, et al. (2000). "Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in
nursing departments." Nursing Research 49(1): 37.
Tannenbaum, R. and W. H. Schmidt (1982). How to choose a leadership pattern, Reprint
Service, Harvard Business Review.
Tichy, N. M. and D. O. Ulrich (1984). "The leadership challenge: A call for the
transformational leader." Sloan Management Review 26(1): 59-68.
Tsui, A. S., J. L. Pearce, et al. (1997). "Alternative approaches to the employee-organization
relationship: does investment in employees pay off?" Academy of Management Journal:
1089-1121.
Von Dran, G., L. Kappelman, et al. (1996). "Empowerment and the management of an
organizational transformation project." Project Management Journal 27: 12-17.
Waldman, D. A., M. Javidan, et al. (2004). "Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A
new application of upper echelons theory." The Leadership Quarterly 15(3): 355-380.
Waldman, D. A. and F. J. Yammarino (1999). "CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-
management and levels-of-analysis effects." Academy of management review: 266-285.
Walter, F. and H. Bruch (2010). "Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of
transformational leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis." The
Leadership Quarterly 21(5): 765-782.
Walumbwa, F. O. and J. J. Lawler (2003). "Building effective organizations: transformational
leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
762
JUNE 2012
VOL 4, NO 2
emerging economies." International Journal of Human Resource Management 14(7): 1083-
1101.
Wang, H., K. S. Law, et al. (2005). "Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the
relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and
organizational citizenship behavior." The Academy of Management Journal: 420-432.
Wright, P. M., G. C. McMahan, et al. (1994). "Human resources and sustained competitive
advantage: a resource-based perspective." International Journal of Human Resource
Management 5(2): 301-326.
Wright, P. M. and S. A. Snell (1998). "Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and
flexibility in strategic human resource management." Academy of management review: 756-
772.