STUDY ON EMPLOYEES’ PERCEPTION OF EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP STYLES

IN RELATION TO EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

Rayco, Roland Paul N.

Rivera, Patricia Ann M.

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A lot of schemes amount to the triumph of an organization, and leadership is

without a doubt one of the main reasons for this - a major element that sets successful

and unsuccessful organizations apart. It can also mean the difference between growth

or loss for the business and satisfaction or general discontent among the employees

(Cohen, 2012). Portraying his central role in setting work direction, a leader is

paramount to providing a purpose towards achieving goals of the organization.

Leadership is an important factor in the social relationships of groups at work

(Naira Project, 2015). It is perceived as the main factor that determines and shapes

group behavior in every organization known since time immemorial. When it is correctly

applied, each employee enjoys the feeling of strong commitment towards achieving

organizational goals and long-term objectives inside the company.

Despite the differences among its members, every organization will tend to have

an organizational structure in which it will have a leader.Even so, organizational goals

and objectives can never be attained without the help of a proper leadership style in

play. It is essential to note that the effective performance of an employee is a function

of both his personal characteristics and the individual environment (Naira Project,
2015). A careful consideration of knowledge, skills, experience, attitude and motivation

of an employee enhances maximum productivity and efficiency in the job. Since

leadership deals with the human resource system, it presents as the foundation for

effective utilization of resources inside an organization through individual skills,

knowledge and ability.

While managers are reaching for higher productivity, employees are searching

for ways to find meaning in their work (Cash et al., 2008; Garcia-Zamor, 2009).

Employees desire to feel that they are part of something substantial and significant.

When this occurs, employees find enthusiasm for their future and that of their

organization. The workplace accounts for a significant percentage of people’s lives;

thus, employees are looking for it to sustain them through personal, social, and

community fulfillment (Looby& Sandhu, 2012). In line with this, successful

organizations need the presence of employees who are willing to do more than their

usual job duties and provide performance that can exceed and go beyond expectations.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, or OCB, describes actions in which employees are

willing to go above and beyond their prescribed role requirements. The willingness of

participants to exert effort beyond the formal obligations dictated by their positions has

long been recognized as an essential component of effective organizational

performance (Jahangir et al., 2007). Typically, employees who frequently engage in

OCB may not always be the top performers, though they could be, as task performance

is related to OCB, but they are the ones who are known to ‘go the extra mile’ or ‘go

above and beyond’ the minimum efforts required to do a merely satisfactory job
(Zhang, 2011). The employees’ willingness to perform their duties beyond the formal

specifications of job roles and description, with a termed discretionary behavior is a

good mechanism for achieving organizational productivity.

Furthermore, OCB has contributed tremendously to employee and organization’s

productivity through enhancing service quality, customer satisfaction and organizational

effectiveness. (Ranjbar, 2014). As demonstrated, productivity is efficiency in individual

production. It is an essential factor in organizations, in which it could be principally

improved by employees’ efforts. The relationship between leaders’ behavior or the

leadership style and subordinate has gained increased attention from the community.

The kind of leadership style influences how organizations cope with improving

productivity. Leadership style effect the overall operational performance of

effectiveness, efficiency, profitability, large market share and as well as the organization

commitment to achieve a stated goal. Productivity in every organization is largely

centered on labor productivity, perhaps human-labor is the universal key

resourcerequired of any organization and the assertion that a critical element in all

successful productivity effort to date has been due to good leadership style (Onawa,

2017).

A recent study shows that deceptive leadership is in existence in several

organizations and chronic in a sense that a handful of employees has noticed it on their

everyday work. There is an abundance of leaders out there who mislead their people.

The deceit can come from a variety of motivations. Some good, some not so good.
Sometimes a leader leaves out the bad news in an attempt to maintain morale. But,

sometimes, they deceive out of greed or a misplaced aversion to conflict. (Kerr, 2014).

Regardless of the impetus, bad things happen when a leader misleads his staff.

These bad things manifest themselves through staff behavior in a variety of ways. The

level of effectiveness of a leader can be measured by the value of output produced, and

the value of output is easily measured by the kind of leadership style being employed

by that leader. Hence, leadership styles are predictors of leadership effectiveness

whereby leadership style in an organization is one of the factors that play significant

role in enhancing or retarding the interest and commitment of the individuals in the

organization (Obiwuru et al., 2011).

There are a number of leadership styles that are being practiced in different

organizations today and this study will be limited to just fiveleadership styles commonly

encountered in the workplace. First is the Autocratic Leadership style – a highly non-

participative kind of leadership, that is, little or no input or feedback is required from

other members of the organization. It believes that employees are lazy and will not be

productive without strict supervision (Nayab, 2011). This is based on McGregor’s Theory

X which perceives employees as lazy and will be willingly to avoid work at all cost. This

is a direct opposite of the McGregor’s Theory Y which sees employees as proactive and

will work effectively under little supervision. An autocratic leader is one who practices

the leadership style that is based on individual control over every decision and

contributions from group members (Cherry, 2015).

 The democratic leadership style is a direct opposite of the autocratic leadership

style – it allows for contributions and inputs from employees in the organization thereby

allowing for creativity and innovation in their routine operations (Johnson, 2015). This

kind of leadership style gives employees a high sense of belonging thereby getting the

best inputs from them. This form of leadership style usually brings about a higher level

of productivity simply because employee participation level in decision making

processes is considerably high. Hence, it is also referred to as participative leadership

style (Cherry, 2015). It is imperative to note here that despite the level of productivity

attained when this leadership style is employed, it however makes the process of

decision making slower because quite a number of inputs from various individuals in the

organization are considered. There could be some amendments to this style especially

when a decision needs to be taken promptly.

On the other hand, a form of non-leadership and very much a hands-off

approach is known to be the Laissez-Faire leadership style. Bearing the name itself,

“Laissez-faire” means “leave it be” in French, where it is used to describe leaders who

leave their employees to work on their own. The manager provides little or no direction

and gives employees as much freedom as possible. All authority or power is given to

the employees and they must determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems

on their own (Muhammad, et al., 2015). Often, this style of leadership is most effective

when employees are very experienced and skilled self-starters. However, the group

may demonstrate instability and produce a sloppy low output, frustration, failure and

insecurity (Mohammed, et al., 2014) that may lead to job dissatisfaction.

 The Transformational Leadership Style, developed by Downton and Burns in

1973 and 1978 respectively (Chen, 2006) described leadersas setting the example for

their followers and ensuring dramatic changes within the organization. The leader

influences the employees through motivation and creating demanding yet challenging

opportunities for individuals in the organization to add their quality input in order to

achieve set objectives. This kind of leadership clearly outlines goals and objectives to be

achieved and positively drives subordinates to its achievement. Whereas, Transactional

Leadership, also known as managerial leadership, focuses on the role of supervision,

organization, and group performance; transactional leadership is a style of leadership in

which the leader promotes compliance of his followers through both rewards and

punishments. Unlike Transformational leadership, leaders using the transactional

approach are not looking to change the future, they are looking to merely keep things

the same (Odumeru & Ifeanyi, 2013).

Various leadership styles, when implemented could affect the behavior and even

the output level in any organization. The company, as a formal organization is made up

of several organizations which includes the management team and staff. It also has

various objectives and policies underlining its establishment and operations. The

achievement of these objectives is a function of various factors including the leadership

style being implemented.

From the study carried out by Fatokun, Salaam and Ajegbomogun(2010), it was

revealed that the democratic and transformational leadership styles which involve an
open and regular means of communication between the leaders and their subordinates

bring about better output and higher productivity. The objectives of the organization

are easily driven by the employees when the leaders and management team members

make use of the democratic and transformational leadership styles. Similarly Fatokun,

Salaam and Ajegbomogun (2010), citingJaiyeoba(2001), noted that employees in the

workplace will make noticeable contributions to the attainment of corporate goals when

the leader communicates with the employee regularly on personal and not just official

issues. It is however important to note that the democratic and transformational

leadership styles may not be suitable for organizations where the subordinates have

proved to be responsible enough to work under strict supervision; but if otherwise is

the case, the autocratic leadership style maybe implemented by the leader to achieve

results (Segun and Adeniran, 2015).

Despite all these, it is however important that the organization has the right kind

of leaders to bring about productivity, for them to remain a value adding entity.

Statement of the Problem

The present study seeks to determine the employees’ perception of effective

leadership styles in relation to employee productivity and organizational citizenship

behavior. The following specific questions will be answered:

1. What are the respondents’ perceptions towards the effectiveness of the

following leadership styles:

 1.1 Autocratic Leadership;

1.2 Democratic Leadership;

1.3 Laissez-Faire;

1.4 Transactional Leadership; and

1.5 Transformational Leadership?

2. What is the present level of productivity among the respondents?

3. To what extent do the respondents develop organizational citizenship

behavior?

4. Is there a relationship between the following:

4.1 Respondent’s effective leadership style perception and productivity

level; and

4.2 Respondent’s effective leadership style perception and organizational

citizenship behavior level?

Theoretical Framework

For more than half a century, the term ‘leadership’ has been a topic of discussion

and research work, particularly in the field of management and organisational

development. Issues of quality of leadership, ability of leaders or leadership

effectiveness, and leadership styles are the most common focus of discussions in

different research works. Leadership is a complex concept – this is especially true,

because several philosophies have originated, several approaches or theories have been
formed, and many models have been employed to provide meaning to the terms

‘leadership’ and ‘effectiveness’ (Seethalekshmi, 2014).

Leaders who maximize effectiveness begin with the understanding of leadership

style. The contingency style of leadership derives its credibility from a behavioral

approach. Osabiya (2015) citing Hersey et al. (2001) defined leadership style as a

regular behavior pattern by leaders that create a perceived influence. It was realized

that the variables of any situation in leadership are never the same. The theories

understood that leaders contend with a wide range of factors. Leaders therefore, must

consider contingencies such as the individuals involved and the environments of the

situations. They must base decisions on the amount of instruction and emotional

support needed by others to accomplish tasks. Furthermore, leaders use different styles

of decision making in order to motivate followers to perform well. Modification of the

leaders’ behaviours takes place when followers reach needed skills levels to achieve

goals. Leaders using this model of leadership style must analyze each situation,

applying the best fit of leadership style (Osabiya, 2015).

This study set out to examine employee’s perceptions towards the effectiveness

of leadership style in relating to their productivity and organizational citizenship

behavior. As such, this study employed a theoretical framework based on situational or

contingency theories of leaderships that is based on the idea that the leader's actions

should vary according to the circumstances he or she is facing.

Kurt Lewin’s three styles model is important in this study, as the study set out to

gauge learning about the different leader’s behavior styles. Leadership styles that form
the theoretical basis for this study include: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.

Lewin’s study focused on the training of graduate assistants in the leader behavior

styles below: (Manning & Kurtis, 2009).

• Tight control over the group and its activities; retains as much
power and decision-making authority as possible
Autocratic

• Group participation and majority rule; shares decision making and

problem solving responsibilities
Democratic

• Offer little or no guidance to group members; least productive

leader
Laissez-Faire

Figure 1: Lewin’s Three styles model

The results of the study included the discovery that democratic leadership was

more effective for group performance than the other two styles. The study emphasized

the impact of the leader’s behavior, as well as the value of group participation. Also,

many employees like the trust they receive and respond with cooperation, team spirit,

and high morale (Muhammad et al., 2015). Lewin outlined three distinct modes of

behaviour for leaders who should analyse the strengths and weaknesses of each

approach and apply it appropriately. Therefore, the Three Styles model is called a more

effective leadership model. (Seethalekshmi, 2014).

 Situational Leadership Model by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard (1969) proposes

a 'continuum' or progression of leadership adaptation in response to the development of

followers – this was also used as a basis in the theoretical framework of this study. It

includes the concepts of task and relationship behaviors, which determine the amount

of direction and support a leader supplies (Schmidt & Akdere, 2009). Albeit grounded

on behaviors, this theory is more specific to situations present in leadership contexts –

it remains as one of the better-known contingency theories of leadership and offers

important insights into the interaction between subordinate ability and leadership style.

In this theory, the followers are classified into four groups on the basis of Ability and

Willingness, namely, Unable and Unwilling, Unable but Willing, Able but Unwilling, and

Able and Willing (Seethalekshmi, 2014). Hersey and Blanchard further described and

presented these four follower 'situations' as requiring relatively high or low leadership

emphasis on the task and the relationship. Task-oriented leaders define the roles for

followers, give definite instructions, create organizational patterns, and establish formal

communication channels (Bass, 2008 in Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). In contrast,

relation-oriented leaders practice concern for others, attempt to reduce emotional

conflicts, seek harmonious relations, and regulate equal participation (Shin, Heath, &

Lee, 2011 in Bass, 2008).

Additionally, transformational and transactional theories carried out by the

expanded knowledge of Bernard Bass, were also anchored to this study. These theories

helped explain the meaning of leadership and the process of leadership development.

Bass explained transforming leadership in terms of being a "process" in which leaders

and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation. The leader

transforms and motivates followers through his or her idealized influence, referred to as

charisma, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration (Gujral, 2012). In

contrast, the underlying theory of transactional leadership method was that leaders

exchange rewards for employees' compliance, a concept based in bureaucratic authority

and a leader's legitimacy within an organization. (McCleskey, 2014 in Bass, 1990).

A “fundamental” (Bass & Avolio, 1993) proposition of transformational–

transactional leadership theory that has been often discussed but little tested is the

“augmentation effect”, which stipulates that transformational leadership adds to the

effect of transactional leadership. Bass described the augmentation effect as the degree

to which “transformational leadership styles build on the transactional base in

contributing to the extra effort and performance of followers”. Bass (1999) went even

further in commenting “the best leaders are both transformational and transactional”

(Judge & Piccolo, 2007).

Review of Related Literature and Studies

This section presents the related literature and studies after the thorough work

done by the researchers. It narrates the works that has been published on topics by

scholars and researchers from different parts of the world. The review of the literature

for this study focuses on procedures used to identify the employees’ perception of

effective leadership styles in relation to employee productivity and organizational

citizenship behavior. The review focuses on a number of different instruments used to

identify the learning styles chosen for this study. The literatures of this study come from

a careful review of research journals, articles, electronic materials such as PDF and

other existing theses and dissertations, which are believed to be useful in the

advancement of awareness concerning the study.

Leadership

Leadership is a social influence process in which the leader seeks the voluntary

participation of subordinates in an effort to reach organization goals. A leader can be

defined as a person who delegates or influencing others to act so as to carry out

specified objectives. Today’s organizations need effective leaders who understand the

complexities of the rapidly changing global environment. If the task is highly structured

and the leader has good relationship with the employees, effectiveness will be high on

the part of the employees.

According to Drucker (1993), the organizational success is dependent upon the

quality and performance of managers. An organization without a leadership will not be

able to transmute input resources into their own competitive advantage. One reason to

examine the leadership style is because effective leadership can be the key success for

many organizations and research can help in identifying the critical skills needed by

leaders in today’s world.

 In addition, leadership has been classified in terms of individual traits, behavior,

interaction patterns, role relationships, influence over other people, occupation of an

administrative position, and perception by others regarding legitimacy of influence

(Yukl, 2007). Stogdill (2008) defines leadership behavior as which leaders uses to

influence a group of people towards the accomplishment of goals. It is an interaction

between two or more members of a group that often involves a structuring or

restructuring of the situation and the perceptions and expectations of members and is

concerned with three things; leaders, followers and their interactions. The leadership

styles that the researchers are using in this study are autocratic, democratic,

transactional, transformational and laissez-faire. Different styles were needed for

different situations and each leader needed to know when to apply a particular

approach. No one leadership style is ideal or best for every situation, since a leader

may have knowledge and skills to act effectively in a situation but may not emerge as

effectively in a different situation.

On the other hand, (Barchiesi et al., 2007.) measured the leadership

effectiveness and leadership role and its influence on performance, leadership

behaviors, productivity and attitudes. They found that high leadership indexes are not

related to past performance records but associated both to higher potentiality of

enhanced performance and to higher reputation of organizations, pointing in the

direction of a meaningful influence of behavioral complexity and dynamics on the

leadership perceived level. A mechanism of leadership styles affecting team productivity

in the private research centers investigated the relationship between different

leadership styles and team productivity with the mediating effects of knowledge sharing

and team communication.

Leadership Styles

Leadership style is the, relatively consistent pattern of

behavior that characterizes a leader. Today’s organizations need effective leaders who

understand the complexities of the rapidly changing global environment. Different

leadership styles may affect organizational electiveness or performance. According to

the Oladipo et al., (2013) the success or failure of proper organizations, nations and other

social units has been largely credited to the nature of their leadership style.

Jeremy et al., (2012) explained in manufacturing company, leadership is really a process for

impacting on others commitment towards recognizing their full potential in achieving goals,

vision with passion and integrity. The study also revealed that the associations between leader and

worker give additional factor employees satisfactions which are considerably affected through the

leadership style adopted by the leader. However, from the available literature we can

summarize the different dimensions of leadership styles and their effect on employee satisfaction,

team work, organizational change and employee performance.

Democratic/Participative Leadership: Leadership Style

According to Rosenfeld and Plax (1975), democratic leaders are said to have

insight into their own motives and behaviors as well as those of others, work toward
achieving specific goals with people whom they consider their equals, treat these others

respectfully, and are willing to share both the rewards of their labors as well as the

disappointments. Because research suggests that task behaviors are required for

effective leadership (Yukl, 2002), it was reasoned that democratic or participative

leaders rely strongly on both relations and task behaviors.

Tseng and Kang (2008) also investigated that democratic leadership is positively

related to employee productivity and organizational citizenship behavior and suggests

that the leader with democratic style will building trust and empathizing on

development with employee (Garg & Ramjee, 2013). Moreover, Koberg, Boss, Senjem,

and Goodman (1999) found, among other things, that leader approachability

(participative leadership style) was positively related to psychological empowerment,

which led to increased organizational productivity.

Also, theorists and practitioners in China have begun to see participative

leadership as an effective way to secure employee productivity and loyalty (Scott, 2003;

in Tsui, 2004), and that managers in state-owned enterprises have been encouraged to

adopt participative leadership (Chen, 2002; in Wong, 2001).

As defined by Abraham Maslow (1998) in his hierarchy of needs, a highly

positive and motivation-oriented environment is established to help fulfill the higher-

level self-esteem and self-actualization needs under such leadership. Tannenbanum and

Schmidt (1958) define democratic leadership as one where decision-making is

decentralized and shared by subordinates. However, the potential for poor decision-
making and weak execution is significant here. The underlying assumption of

democratic leadership is that everyone has an equal stake in an outcome as well as

shared levels of expertise with regard to decisions. That is the biggest problem.

Democratic leadership is often bogged down in its own time consuming process and

workable results usually require a considerable amount of effort.

Lewin (1939) summarized that democratic style of leadership is the most

effective, but Smith and Peterson (1988) argued that the effectiveness of group leaders

is depend upon the criterion which was being used to assess leadership. Therefore,

autocratic style is the most efficient if leadership is assessed in terms of productivity.

But democratic style is effective if the role is seen as maintaining good morale and a

steady level of work. The democratic leader practices employee participation and

exercises influence in reaching consensus.

Authoritarian/Autocratic Leadership: Leadership Style

Authoritarian leadership regards to a leader stresses his or her unquestionable

and absolute authority that they will take rigorous control over subordinates and

demand complete followership from them. The autocratic leader dominates team-

members, using unilateralism to achieve a singular objective. This approach to

leadership generally results in passive resistance from team-members and requires

continual pressure and direction from the leader in order to get things done.

An autocratic leader persuades people to perform by using rewards and

punishments (Adorno, 2011). When the ratio of punishments to rewards becomes too
unequal, the autocratic leader may end up looking for another working line. Such a

leader relies on the position power to get things completed. The leader makes all of the

decisions and retains the right to set goals and directions. Group members are seen as

workers whose primary responsibility is to obey all the orders from the leader. An

autocratic leader shields him from criticism about personal abilities and has an ego-

driven need to control other people (Stogdill, 2008). If the workers have the willingness

that is to say, submissive, work can get done, perhaps not too willingly. Fear is often

used as leverage by an autocratic leader. The power to confer privilege on some, or

withdraw it from others, serves as a powerful tool in the hand of an autocratic leader.

Although the autocratic approach was once the dominant form of leadership in

human affairs, it has fallen out of favor in the present age, often replaced by more

democratic or humanistic styles. But it is unacceptably simplistic to say that autocratic

leadership is ―wrong at all times and in all circumstances, and it is just as inaccurate to

argue that democratic leadership is always right (George, 2003). The literature on

leadership in the business world suggests that autocratic leadership is useful in some

contexts and should be avoided in others. This leadership leads to more accurate

decisions when the leader is well versed in the subject under discussion. It can increase

employee productivity, but only when the leader is present and powerful. Such

leadership improves worker performance, but only on relatively simple tasks. It also

tends to reduce communication problems (George, 2003).

These leaders work best with larger group. It also seems to be called for when

detailed instructions or high-volume production are necessary. It can be appropriate in

situations where time is limited, employees challenge the leader‘s authority, or a

business or department has been mismanaged by a prior leader. Autocratic leadership

is also useful when work frequently must be coordinated with other divisions of the

company.

But autocratic leadership has its downside. It is associated with higher turnover

rates and with increased aggression among employees (DePree, 2007). It decreases

employee performance on complex tasks and seems to hamper creativity. This

approach also tends to increase employs alienation and resentment and to decrease

morale, employee satisfaction and loyalty. An autocratic approach often leads to lower

morale and consequent increased absenteeism. Further, it tends to be less effective

with the current generation of employees than it was with those raised in a more

traditional and structured culture.

Laissez-Faire/Delegative Leadership: Leadership Style

As described by Bass (1990), the laissez-faire leaders avoid leading by shirking

supervisory duties and not setting clear goals for subordinates (Bradford & Lippitt,

1945). Laissez-faire leadership is an absence of leadership. These leaders do not

communicate with their employees and do not form emotional bonds that are essential

to organizational success (Macaleer & Shannon, 2007). In laissez-faire leadership, team

struggles with negligible direction or motivation (Bittel, 2009). Although subordinates

tend to prefer autonomy and in fact experience much autonomy working for laissez-

faire leader, this style is dissatisfying because subordinates tend to feel unsecured
about their own authority, duties and responsibilities (Bass, 2007). Thus, it was

reasoned that laissez-faire leaders use low levels of both relations and task behaviors.

Laissez-faire leaders do not seek to engage in subordinate concerns when they

use passive and avoidant leadership styles (Bass, 2007). Managers tend to ignore

subordinates and do not measure success or offer guidance. Unlike avoidant leaders,

passive leaders are willing to help, but only when the subordinates approach or require

help by some other external source (Harland, Harrison, Jones, & Reiter-Palmon, 2005).

Laissez-faire leaders attempt to remain distant from supervisory actions and do not

initiate subordinate interaction unless a situation arises and the leaders are forced to

become involved in situations.

According to Brown (2003), it states that the leadership behaviors involving

avoidance of making decision and delaying response to urgent matters or ignoring

problems completely, are negatively thought not very strongly, related to how

employees feel about obliged to remain. While based on Cheng (2003), it implies that

leader should refrain from existing laissez-faire leadership style, so as enhance the level

of productivity of their subordinates. Laissez-faire leadership styles equate to leadership

outcomes (Spinelli, 2006). He found followers scored laissez-faire leaders low in

outcomes which are willingness to exert extra effort, leader ‘s perceived effectiveness

and followers‘ reported engagement. Chen, Beck, and Amos (2005) found these

leadership styles created adverse results and leaders are advised not to use such styles.
 The results suggest that leaders who use this leadership will produce weak

employee productivity or negative results (Beer & Eisenstat, 2000; Chen et al., 2005).

Buciuniene and Skudiene (2008) also found that laissez-faire associated negatively to

organizational citizenship behavior.

Transformational Leadership: Leadership Style

Transformational leadership style concentrates on the development of followers

as well as their needs. Managers with transformational leadership style concentrate on

the growth and development of value system of employees, their inspirational level and

moralities with the preamble of their abilities.

According to Bass (2007), the aim of transformational leadership would be to transform

people and organizations inside a literal sense - to alter them in the mind and heart

enlarge vision, insight and understanding clarify reasons make behavior congruent with

values, concepts and brings about changes which are permanent, self-perpetuating

and momentum building. According to Bass and Avolio (2005), transformational leadership

happens when leader become wider and uphold the interests of the employees, once they

generate awareness and acceptance for the purpose and assignment of the group, so

when they blend employees to appear beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.

Moreover, still according to Bass and Avolio (2005), transformational leaders encourage

followers to view problems from new perspectives, provide support and encouragement

communicates a vision, stimulates emotion and identification. Bruce et al., said that
transformational leaders are able to define and articulate a vision for their organizations and their

leadership style can influence or transform individual -level variables such as increasing

motivation and organization-level variables, such as mediating conflict among groups or teams.

(Podsakoff et al., 2011) disclosed transformational leadership had active influence on

individual and organizational outcomes such as employee satisfaction and

performance. Higher levels of transformational leadership were associated with higher

levels of group potency.

Transactional Leadership: Leadership style

Transactional leadership relies more about trades between the leader and

follower by which followers are compensated for meeting specific goals or performance

criteria. The transactional leader will first validate the relationship between performance and

reward and then exchange it for an appropriate response that encourages subordinates

to improve performance.

Transactional leadership in organizations plays an exchange role between managers and

subordinates. Transactional leadership style is understood to be the exchange of rewards and

targets between employees and management. Bass and Avolio (2005) explained

Transactional leaders motivate subordinates through the use of contingent rewards,

corrective actions and rule enforcement.

Bass-Bernard et al., (2004) explained that transactional leadership depends on

contingent reinforcement, either positive contingent reward or the more negative active

or passive forms of management-by-exception. Transactional leaders motivate followers

through exchange; for example, accomplishing work in exchange for rewards

or preferences. Kahai et al., (2007) found group efficacy was higher under the transactional

leadership condition. According to Burns (2014), transactional leader tends to focus on task

completion and employee compliance and these leaders rely quite heavily on organizational

rewards and punishments to influence employee performance.

Leadership Styles in relation to Productivity

One person may define being productive as earning big in their job while leading

a team of several hundred employees, while another person may see productivity as

retiring at 30 and voluntarily living simply for the rest of their life. Likewise, one person

may define productivity as getting a lot of stuff done in a lot less time, while another

may define productivity as taking their time and deliberately trying to do the best work

they can.

The standard practices, ethics and principles are started from the head/leader,

later on built-up by the leader and also continued by him/her (Grosenick and Gibson,

2001). The productivity of employees is mainly a significant matter to bosses and

administrators because the main intention of their work is to obtain the maximum from

their jobs and work. The exercise of features like job safety and a relaxed workplace for

inspiring workers is frequently overvalued, because they may likely be just effect in

inhabitants not becoming fewer encouraged, but leading by leaders have more impact

for their motivation.

 Leaders put in place the paradigm for perfect practices, model actions and

performance, then it is followed by the employees (Wasti and Can, 2008). They set the

examples may be called the initiator and originator of organization’s customs and

norms. Attainment of morals plans in business is just because of enthusiastic leaders

(Lewis and Gilman, 2005). The expertise of leadership definitely enhances the efficiency

of the managerial leaders, also increases the productivity of the employees working in

the organization.

The most important function of the leaders is to supervise the productivity of the

employees and it is one way through which the leaders can increase performance of the

employees (Humphrey, 2002).

The research done by Bertrand and Schoar (2003) showed that the leader

recognizes subject; their research showed the effects of the leaders are positively

correlated with the profitability of the organization. Still it is not fully uncovered that

how leaders affect on their employees’ performance and productivity but it is significant

to know this relation (Sy et al., 2005).

Leaders are in a position to apply an immense pressure and influence to enhance

the productivity and output of the workers and employees and they are unaffected to

this effect as they are immune to it. Moreover, leaders frequently put the point for

making intelligence in their employees by choosing variables and methods to be

observed, highlighting major features of productivity performance in cluster and

personal assessments and by managing the stream to employees (Bass and Bass,

2009). Therefore, influence and affect is a central subject inside leadership.

Technical skills of leaders include those processes, methods and techniques

which help leaders in understanding a particular subject or any problem (Katz, 2003).

These qualities will bring accurate information to leaders regarding organizational

systems and characteristics of employees. These skills are added through the merger of

proper tutoring, education and work practices. These are essential as with the help of

these skilss, the leaders will be in a position to guide and instruct employees and

subordinates to increase their productivity and guide the organization to success (Yukl,

2001). These abilities place the base for motivation, novelty and tactical planning.

Further, conceptual skills of leaders consist of critical ability, rational thinking and

idea creation. In the words of Yukl (2001) these skills entails high-quality findings,

judgment, care, imminent, originality and the aptitude to construct choices and

decisions in multifaceted conditions. Conceptual skills are required by leaders to involve

in the process of development, organizing and making decision. For getting high

productivity from employees, leaders need to know the working and functionality of

organization and must possess these conceptual skills.

Interpersonal skills of leaders contain information about the behaviors of human

beings and team/group processes. It includes the skills and capability of leaders to

recognize the thoughts, feelings, intents of employees, capability to evidently and

realistically correspond in different situations. It is compromising talents for settling

dissimilarities between employee/workers and set up jointly enjoyable associations

(Mahoney et al., 2011). Interpersonal skills also comprise those abilities that help

leaders to understand the capabilities needed to make coordination and synchronization

for the actions and deeds for him/her and others people (Mumford et al., 2007). These

abilities and skills of leaders also power up the employees to successfully complete

managerial aims and objectives (Yukl, 2006) and hence, increasing the productivity of

the employees in the organization.

Emotional Intelligence or feelings of the leaders has also an effect on the

productivity of the employees. This Intelligence is the degree to which employees are

familiarized with their thoughts and feelings and concerns of the feelings of the other

people (Yukl, 2001). It is concerned to the extent that place jointly feelings and causes

in a manner so as to feelings and emotions are used to aid cognitive procedures and

feelings are sensibly handled (Haq, 2011). Leaders can solve problems like

management of time, disaster management to take better decision making. With the

help of Emotional Intelligence, leaders can easily understand the personalities and

problems of their employees and thus are in a position to solve the problems and

increasing the performance of the employees.

Social intelligence of leaders also plays an important role to tackle with the

employees. It includes social perceptiveness which increases the ability of the leaders to

understand problems and needs of the organization as well as the employees.

Behavioral elasticity is the skill and keenness to change the behavior of employees and

to fine tune for new situations (Haq, 2011).

 In the words of Bentein et al. (2002) the workers who show excellent

performance, they are given rewards by their leaders to increase their productivity

more. Furthermore, the employees show more devotion towards their bosses or

leaders as compared to organizations (Cheng et al., 2003). The workers sense

themselves additionally near to their bosses or leaders than their business

organizations, when they observe the business organization as one unit (Wasti and Can,

2008).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Transformational Style

Organizational citizenship behavior is defined as discretional extra-role behavior

which is not directly involved or defined in the formal reward system, and which in the

aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. Unlike formal

organizational behaviors, organizational citizenship behavior is on volunteer basis, goes

beyond the routine work behaviors, isn’t based on explicit orders and instructions,

contributes to organizational success in short, medium and long term (Williams and

Anderson, 1991). Those non-formal behaviors that go beyond formal and written work

and task behaviors are generally called as organizational.

The current Organizational Citizenship Behavior concept originated from the

conceptualization of management theorist Chester Barnard (1968, first publication was

in 1938). According to Barnard, the vitality of the organizations depends on the

willingness of individuals to contribute forces to the cooperative system. Willingness

means de-personalization of personal action, and its impact is sticking together,

meaning the union of efforts (Barnard, 1968). Barnard suggests that without sticking

together, a personal effort cannot contribute to the organization. These ideas of

Barnard were extended by subsequent studies, which helped the conceptualization of

the current Organizational Citizenship Behavior concept (Wolfle, D‘intino and Shepard,

2008).

Organ (1988), a notable researcher, originally defined Organizational Citizenship

Behavior as individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized

by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective

functioning of the organization. Thus, these behaviors are not required of the

individuals by the organization, neither are they rewarded, rather the individuals choose

to perform such acts on their own. Throughout the years, research has produced similar

constructs that overlap and are sometimes used interchangeably with Organizational

Citizenship Behavior, namely extra-role behavior, organizational spontaneity, pro-social

organizational behavior, and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 2010).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior has generally been associated with

organizational effectiveness through the attainment of formal goals. Vigoda-Godat

(2007) argues that so far most of the writings about Organizational Citizenship Behavior

have clearly centered on its positive implications and contribution 37 to organizational

performance and to the social climate in the workplace. Miles, Borman, Spector and Fox

(2010) have observed that people sometimes do perform more than what they are

expected to do, which ultimately helps the organizations to enhance productivity.

Moreover, it has been stated that this behavior is not the product of a requirement

demanded by the job functions or description, but simply the product of a personal

decision (Spector & Fox, 2010). Personal decisions are mainly influenced by own

perceptions of the work environment. Such perceptions relate to positive emotion,

which is positively correlated with the occurrence of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

(Miles et al., 2012).

Likewise, transformational leaders, through trust building, motivating followers,

and exhibiting genuine concern for followers’ needs, are able to transform employees’

work mentalities. This transformation often leads to development of attitude that

informs their willingness to perform above and beyond their traditional formal job roles

Humphrey (2012).

Yang (2012) states that transformational leadership seeks to motivate and

encourage others to perform above the minimum requirements and often to perform

beyond their own expectations. The followers’ ability to perform beyond traditional job

role is described as Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012).

Humphrey (2012) followers can be the leader’s ability to influence the follower’

performance by creating trust, being a role model, paying attention followers needs and

create good working relations.

The basis of transformational leadership’s ability to influence Organizational

Citizenship Behavior in this case is identifiable in light of the above discussion. Hence,

transformational leadership appears to be the cause and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior the end state. Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman and Xie (2013) investigated the

relationship between transformational leadership and subordinates’ Organizational

Citizenship Behavior and indicated that, the relationship was less useful for followers’

OCB. In contrast, the recent study by Dust et al., (2013) presents evidence that 47

employees who work for transformational leaders appear to make the required efforts

needed for high job performance and display good Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

Although Lately, Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman and Xie (2013) stated that the relationship

between transformational leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior was less

useful for determining Organizational Citizenship Behavior, the findings of different

studies generally suggest that, there has been a relationship between transformational

leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior over the years.

Assessment of the Review

It is observed that from the available literature, all the studies conducted are

related to the large sector which reveals that leadership style, organizational citizenship

behavior and employee productivity are interrelated. Thus, leadership styles can affect

the employee’s work of life inside the work environment. Since much work has not been

carried out with respect to the various types of leadership styles in relation to employee

productivity and organizational citizenship behavior in the Philippines, there is a need

for the study of the effect of these leadership styles on the quality of work life of

employees working in industries inside of the Philippines to further develop and

understand the stated variables.

 Significance of the Study

In today’s competitive world, unless an employee has the guts to develop his

organizational citizenship behavior or stays productive on the set objectives and works

as an effective employee, no organizations can perform at peak levels. Employees who

come to work faithfully every day and do their work independently are no longer good

enough. Thus, one of the challenges faced by modern companies is to progress in the

current business environment.

This research study is aimed to improving employee productivity and

organizational citizenship behavior anchored through the various leadership styles in

different organization. It will help to challenge both the management and workers in

the organization on both the importance attached to increase the variables stated. It

will help to enlighten the management of the organization on the need and importance

of having effective leaders in the organization.

It is also aimed on highlighting the relationship between leadership styles as the

anchor of the said variables and as well as employee perception upon the significance

of leadership styles on organization survival. Different methods from various

instruments may help identify the more appropriate style of leadership among the ones

on the list that could possibly contribute not only to the present study but also to the

employees that are most likely to benefit from this. In-depth understanding and

analysis on the said variables and their relationship to one another will be an essential

factor in helping the researchers into filling up the knowledge gaps that is present in
the study. One particular gap is that the accumulated findings lacks on applying the

concept of organizational citizenship behavior and its share of knowledge unto

identifying its relationship with the different styles of leadership as it only focuses on

one particular style. Employee productivity is mostly the one variable that is mostly

present in a handful of leadership styles seen in the findings that have been gathered

for the study undertaken.

Students, particularly college undergraduates whose majoring in Behavioral

Science and Human Resource Management, other researchers and scholars, leaders,

and organizations will be guided and shall take this as their reference document by

contributing towards the advancement of knowledge in human resource, social

sciences, management and other fields. This will also be beneficial, in particular to the

employees into widening their knowledge and perception to the different styles of

leadership that might help them further develop their attributes. By understanding the

needs of the employees, these leaders can be assured of a competitive advantage.

Further, it will identify the reason why employees react positively to a particular

leadership style of a manager and also aim at discovering what makes workers to be

dedicated and committed to their duties.

In addition, the present study findings have been significant in number of ways.

Hypothetically, there has yet been no study found to investigate the effects of

leadership styles in relation to the productivity and the organizational citizenship

behavior of employees in the Philippines. The recent findings have contributed globally
to the body of knowledge but the researchers believe that it still has gaps that need to

be filled in in the present study being conducted. It is believed that the recent findings

found inside of this research study have been a big factor to the leaders in some

organizations of the world and therefore, would contribute handful of facts and

answered-queries to some untouched portions of the study being put into pieces.

Further, this study will be helpful to employers and business practitioners in

training and informing them in the area of human resources management, objectives,

and strategies. In connection, this study will also be helpful to the industry in

understanding the leadership styles that may influence the employee productivity and

the management team can emphasize on their leadership styles in order to reach the

company objectives and increase the effectiveness of employees. It will also serve as a

future guideline for other researchers on the subject of different leadership styles in

relations to employee productivity and organizational citizenship behavior. Moreover,

this research will provide recommendations on how to evaluate the performance of

certain organizations, more particularly in accordance to the leadership styles that is

present in the work environment of its employees.

 Conceptual Framework

EMPLOYEES

AUTOCRATIC

DEMOCRATIC
PERCEIVED EFFECTIVE
LAISSEZ-FAIRE
LEADERSHIP STYLES

TRANSACTIONAL

TRANSFORMATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONAL
PRODUCTIVITY
CITIZENSHIP
BEHAVIOR

Figure 2: Correlating employees’ perceived effective leadership styles to productivity

and organizational citizenship behavior

In the conceptual framework, various leadership styles are perceived by the

employees according to their effectiveness. The respondents’ perceptions are essential

in correlating two dependent variables in this study – employee productivity and

organizational citizenship behaviour.

 Hypotheses of the Study

Ho1 : There are no significant relationships between the productivity level of employees

and their perception of effective leadership styles.

H11: There are significant relationships between the productivity level of employees and

their perception of effective leadership styles.

Ho2: There are no significant relationships between the organizational citizenship

behavior level of employees and their perception of effective leadership styles.

H12: There are significant relationships between the organizational citizenship behavior

level of employees and their perception of effective leadership styles.

Bibliography

Adenirean, S. & Deborah, C. (2015). Leadership Styles and Job Productivity of

University Library Staff: Interrogating the Nexus. Library Philosophy and Practice

(e-journal). Paper 1269.

Amanchukwu, R., et al. (2015). A Review of Leadership Theories, Principles and Styles

and their Relevance to Educational Management. Management, 5(1), 6-14.

Barchies, A. (2007). Leadership Styles of World's most Admired Companies A Holistic

Approach to Measuring Leadership Effectiveness. International Conference on

Management Science & Engineering, 14.

Bass B. M. and Avolio B. J. (2005). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and

beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, (14), 21 – 27.

Bass, B.M. and R. Bass, (2009). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research

and Managerial Applications. 4th Edn. New York: Free Press.

Bass B. M., (2007). The ethics of transformational leadership, KLSP: Transformational

Leadership. New York: Working Papers, Free Press,.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2011). Improving organizational effectiveness-Through

ransformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Bergeron, D., Rosen, S. & Furst, S. (2011). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and

Career Outcomes: The Cost of Being a Good Citizen. Journal of Management,

39(4), 958-984.

Bertrand, M. and A. Schoar, 2003. Managing with style: The effect of managers on firm

policies. Q. J. Econ., (4)118, 1169-1208.

Borman W., & Motowidlo, S. (2010). Expanding the Criterion domain to Include

Elements of Contextual Performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71–98.

Carter, S. & Greer, C. (2013). Strategic leadership: values, styles and organizational

performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20(4). 375-393.

Chen, S. (2006). Leadership Styles and Organization Structural Configurations. The

Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning.

Cheng, B. & Riley, J. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment and

employee outcomes in the Chinese context: proximal hypothesis or global

hypothesis? J. Organ. Behav., 24(3), 313-334.

Cohen, H. (2012). What Makes Effective Workplace Leadership? Retrieved from

http://www.leadershipexpert.co.uk/what-makes-effective-workplace-

leadership.html

Fatokun, J., Salaam, M., &Ajegbomogun, F. (2010). The Influence of Leadership Style

on the Performance of Subordinates in Nigerian Libraries. Library Philosophy and

Practice.

Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees' performance:

An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Review, 36(5),

661-683.

Grosenick, L.E. & P.A. Gibson, (2001). Governmental ethics and organizational culture.

Public Admin. Public Policy, (86), 243-262.

Haq, S. (2011). Ethics and leadership skills in the public service. Procedia Soc. Behav.

Sci., (15), 2792-2796.

Humphrey, R.H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership Quart.,

13(5), 493-504.

Jahangir, N., et al. (2007). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its nature and

antecedents. BRAC University Journal, 1(2), 75-78.

Jain, N. (2005). Organisational Behavior (Vol. 1). Atlantic &Dist, 347-348.

Mitonga-Monga, J., Coetzee, M., & Cilliers, F. (2012). Perceived leadership style and

employee participation in a manufacturing company in the democratic republic

of Congo. African Journal of Business Management, 6(15), 5389-5398.

Kahai S. S., Sosik J. J. & Avolio B. J., (2007). Effects of Leadership Style and Problem

Structure on Work Group Process and Outcomes in an Electronic Meeting

System Environment. Personnel Psychology, (50), 1-146.

Kerr, J. (2014). The Trickle-Down Effect of Deceptive Leadership. Retrieved from

http://www.inc.com/james-kerr/the-crazy-s-amp-that-happens-when-a-leader-

misleads.html

Lewis, C.W. & S.C. Gilman, (2005). The Ethics Challenge in Public Service: A Problem-

solving Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L., & Xie, Z. (2013). Spotlight on the followers: An

examination of moderators of relationships between transformational leadership

and subordinates’ citizenship and taking charge. Personnel Psychology, (66),

225-260.

Mahoney, T.A., T.H. Jerdee & S.J. Carroll. (2011). The job(s) of management. Ind.

Relat. J. Econ. Soc., 4(2), 97-110.

Miles, A., et al. (2009). Building An Integrative Model Of Extra Role Work Behavior With

Organizational Citizenship Behavior. International Journal Of Selection And

Assessment, 10(½).

Muhammad, S., et al. (2015). The Styles of Leadership: A Critical Review. Public Policy

and Administration Research, 5(3), 87-92.

Mohammed, U., et al. (2014). The Relationship between Leadership Styles and

Employees’ Performance in Organizations (A Study of Selected Business

Organizations in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria). European Journal of

Business and Management, 22(6).

Obiwuru, T., et al. (2011). Effects of leadership style on organizational performance: a

survey of selected small scale enterprises in ikosi-ketu council development area

of lagos state, Nigeria. Journal of Business and Management Research, 100.

Odumeru, J. &Ogbonna, I. (2013). Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership

Theories: Evidence in Literature. International Review of Management and

Business Research, 355-361.

Oladipo K. S., Jamilah O., Abdul daud S., Jeffery L. D. & Salami D. K. (2013). Review of

leadership theories and Organizational performances. International Business

Management Journal, 7(1), 50-54.

Osabiya, B. (2015). The Impact of Leadership Style on Employee’s Performance in an

Organization. Public Policy and Administration Research, 5(1), 193-205.

Podsakoff, N., Whiting, S., Podsakoff, P. & Blume, Brian D. (2009). Individual and

organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141.

Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Moorman R. H. & Fetter R. (2011). Transformational

leader behaviors and their effects on followers‟ trust in leader, satisfaction and

organizational citizenship behaviors, Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Ranjbar, M., Zamani, H. &Amiri,N. (2014). The study on the relationship between

organizational citizenship behavior and organizational productivity. International

Conference on Arts, Economics and Management, 78(2), 143-150.

Seethalekshmi, M. (2014). A comparative study of leadership styles of managers in

selected public sector and private sector banks in Kerala. Shodhganga, 125-237.

Singh, U. & Srivastava, K. (2016). Organizational trust and Citizenship behavior. Global

Business Review, 17(3), 594-609.

Stogdill, R., Goode, O., & Day, D. (2008). New leader behavior description subscales.

Journal of Psychology, 54, 259-269.

Sy, T., S. Côté & R. Saavedra, (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's

mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone and group

processes. J. Appl. Psychol., 90(2), 295.

Wasti, S. & Can, Ö. (2008). Affective and normative commitment to organization,

supervisor and coworkers: Do collectivist values matter? J. Vocat. Behav, 73(3):

404-413.

Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’

performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel

Review, (36), 66-683.

Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in Organizations. 5th Edn., Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey.

Yukl, G. (2004). Leadership in Organizations. 6th Edn., Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper

Saddle River, NJ.

Zhang, D. (2011). Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. PSYCH 761 White Paper.

 CHAPTER II

This chapter provides an overview of previous research on knowledge sharing

and intranets. It introduces the framework for the case study that comprises the main

focus of the research described in this thesis. In addition, this chapter covers the

concept of leadership as well as its various leadership styles, and also other variables

namely employee productivity and organizational citizenship behavior.

Research Design

The descriptive-correlational research will be employed in this study because the

researchers are more concerned with the variables namely perception of effective

leadership styles, employee productivity and organizational citizenship behavior

covariate with one another. This kind of method refers to a type of study in which

information is collected without making any changes to the study subject. Moreover, it

satisfies the purposes of both descriptive and correlational studies.

((next phara: connect objectives to the research design description))

This research study is aimed to improving employee productivity and

organizational citizenship behavior anchored through the various leadership styles in

different organization. It will help to challenge both the management and workers in

the organization on both the importance attached to increase the variables stated. It

will help to enlighten the management of the organization on the need and importance

of having effective leaders in the organization.

It is also aimed on highlighting the relationship between leadership styles as the

anchor of the said variables and as well as employee perception upon the significance

of leadership styles on organization survival. Different methods from various

instruments may help identify the more appropriate style of leadership among the ones

on the list that could possibly contribute not only to the present study but also to the

employees that are most likely to benefit from this. In-depth understanding and

analysis on the said variables and their relationship to one another will be an essential

factor in helping the researchers into filling up the knowledge gaps that is present in

the study. One particular gap is that the accumulated findings lacks on applying the

concept of organizational citizenship behavior and its share of knowledge unto

identifying its relationship with the different styles of leadership as it only focuses on

one particular style. Employee productivity is mostly the one variable that is mostly

present in a handful of leadership styles seen in the findings that have been gathered

for the study undertaken.

((last phara: in this section, it is necessary to tell and input the survey/instruments to

which we will be using))