American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics
Volume 2, Issue 1, February 2017, Pages: 12-21

Leadership Styles and Employee Performance in Nigerian Higher Educational Institutions

Marcus Garvey Orji, Olowu Daudu Malachy, Solomon Abba Boman, Akhimien Emmanuel

Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria

Email address:

(M. G. Orji)

To cite this article:

Marcus Garvey Orji, Olowu Daudu Malachy., Solomon Abba Boman, Akhimien Emmanuel. Leadership Styles and Employee Performance in Nigerian Higher Educational Institutions. American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2017, pp. 12-21. doi: 10.11648/j.ajere.20170201.12

Received: October 31, 2016; Accepted: December 28, 2016; Published: January 20, 2017


Abstract: Employee performance may be taken to be the end result of a motivated worker by the leader, since the leader create a situation that the individual will find both meaningful and challenging enough and decides to work consistently hard even in the absence of that leader. The main theme of this study is that leadership effectiveness on its different forms has a significant impact on employee performance in the Nigerian higher educational Institutions. The two dimensions under study are Transactional and Transformational leadership and the study is centred on two institutions namely Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Zaria and Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology (NITT) Zaria. The study is a comparative one and survey method was adopted. Both primary and secondary data were applied by the way of questionnaire administered and the studies by other investigators in order to provide clues regarding casual relations among variables. The effect of the two types of leaderships was tested on the employees of the organizations, using simple calculations of mean, chi-square and student T-test as the method for analysis. The results revealed that the style of leadership attitude affect the needs and goals of employees as well as the performance of employee. The study concludes that effective leaders are those who increase employee’s motivation by clarifying for subordinates the paths to effective performance and this is the connection between performance and reward and recommended that charismatic and contingent reward should be pursed in all organizations by leaders as a leadership method.

Keywords: Leadership, Styles, Employee Performance, Nigerian Institutions


1. Introduction

The issue of leadership in government and business is a general problem common to all under developed nations. It is the direct cause and effect of economic and political underdevelopment [1]. Successful organization has one major attribute that sets it apart from unsuccessful organization: Dynamic and effective leadership. Drucker [2] points out that managers (business leaders) are the basic and scarcest resources of any business enterprise.

Leadership as we know is not confined to business but cuts across all sectors: government, education, foundation churches and every other from of organization. Accordingly, the tasks discharged by these group of people is the normative parameter of identifications. Because these leaders perform two specific tasks that nobody else in the organization performs. "Firstly, they have the tasks of creating a true whole that is larger than the sum of its individual parts, a productive entity that turns out more than the sum of resources put into. Secondly, they have the task of harmonizing, in every decision and action, the requirements of the immediate and long range future". They must therefore live and act in two time dimensions, i.e the present and the future with equal confidence.

These unique people, whose positions are both enviable but uncomfortable, are referred to as managers immaterial of whatever title they hold or where they work. They are composers and conductors of goal-achievement endeavours in industry, government and the war-front. They all have one thing in common: they work with and through people, thus mobilizing resources for the achievement of some organizational goals. It is very easy to say that a successful manager is one who is willing to demonstrate and deliver leadership, but what is leadership? Leader is indeed hypothetical construct.

The aim of this study is to test these different forms of leadership i.e transactional and transformational leadership in Nigerian higher Educational Institutions with particular emphasis on Ahmadu Bello University and Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology Zaria, and find how it affects the performance of their employees. The study will enable us determine if transactional leadership or transformational leadership is better in the higher educational institutions in Nigeria or a combination of both. The study will therefore concern itself with the manner in which leadership effectiveness based on the leader behaviour will affect the performance of these employees.

1.1. Research Questions

On the whole this study will provide answers to the following pertinent questions;

A   Are there any differences in the leadership styles of ABU and NITT, Zaria, Nigeria?

B  Is there any difference in the charismatic, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation aspect of leadership style in ABU and NITT, Zaria, Nigeria?

C   Does any difference exist in the management-by-exception and contingent reward aspects of leadership in ABU and NITT, Zaria, Nigeria?

1.2. Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to assess the leadership styles and employee performance in Nigerian Higher Institutions with particular emphasis on Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) and Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology (NITT), all in Zaria Nigeria. To achieve this, the following sub-objectives would be considered;

a)  To examine whether there is any differences in the leadership styles of ABU and NITT, Zaria Nigeria

b)  To assess if there is any difference in the charismatic, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation aspect of leadership style in ABU and NITT, Zaria Nigeria

c)  To determine whether there is any difference in the management-by-exception and contingent reward aspects of leadership in ABU and NITT, Zaria, Nigeria

1.3. Hypotheses of the Study

The following hypothetical assumption has been postulated for validation in the course of this study;

H01. There is no difference in the leadership styles of ABU and NITT, Zaria, Nigeria

H02. There is no difference in the charismatic, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation aspect of leadership style in ABU and NITT, Zaria, Nigeria.

H03. There is no difference in the management-by-exception and contingent reward aspects of leadership in ABU and NITT, Zaria, Nigeria

2. Literature Review

The Style Theories of Leadership

Leaders have been accepted as playing a critical role in helping groups, organizations and societies achieve their goal. Many managers believe leadership is the major determinant of productivity and organizational success. This belief can be seen in the millions of Naira spent annually by individual companies on leadership training programs. In the broader society, the cry is often heard, that "stronger leadership" or a more "dynamic leader" is needed, and the issue is debated from boardrooms to barrooms. Regardless of the setting, leadership is a topic of great concern to managers, workers, organizational researchers, and the general public. Griffin [3] defined leadership as both process of using non coercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of group members and as property, leadership is the characteristic attributed to those who are perceived to successfully employ such influence. In a similar manner, Igbai, Anwar and Haider [4] defined leadership as the ability to employ managerial competencies to organized performance processes by inspiring, igniting and motivating teams to meet set organizational goals. Stogdill [5] after reviewing more than 3,000 empirical studies on leadership concluded that: "the endless accumulation of empirical data has not produced an integrated understanding of leadership".

Bass [6] concludes that after 40 years of accumulating mountain of evidence research about leadership, it seems to offer only a few clear-cuts facts. Moorhead and Griffin [7] were not as pessimistic as the aforenamed. They disagreed with Bass and Stogdil [5,6]conclusions and posit that there are several generalizations that can be induced from the mountain of research findings. They further proposed that when the generalizations are viewed collectively, they provide a basis for the development of a theory of leadership that will describe, explain and predict the cause of, the processes involved in, and the consequences of leadership phenomena. The literature review therefore will focus on the studies carried out on leadership styles and behaviour. Bass [6] noted that leadership seems to be a reflection of two of the earliest schools of thought – scientific and human relations. The function of the leader under scientific management is to set up and enforce performance criteria to meet organizational goals while the function of the leader under the human relation theory was to facilitate cooperative goal attainment among followers while providing opportunity for their personal growth and development. The reconignition of the two concerns has necessitated lots of writing on leadership style [1].

‘Style’ is defined as the way human resources are manipulated in furtherance of personal and organizational goals. Malachy and Orji [8] defined leadership style as a leader’s behavior and attitude of governance and supervision. Saying that it is the result of personality traits, experience, attitude and philosophy of the leaders. Two important studies were conducted by researchers that addressed the leader/group perspective. In one study, Cartwright and Zander cited by Malachy [1] developed the functional approach to leadership, they saw leadership behaviour as a result of the performance of two functions: task (or goal achievement) functions and relationship functions. Task function consists of facilitating and coordinating group effort in the selection, definition and solution of a common problem. The leader will initiate ideas, seek and give information or opinions, clarify the ideas of others, elaborate upon the ideas of others, summarize the ideas shared by the group, so far, and test to see if the group has a consensus on the issue under discussion.

Relationship function involve developing the way in which members of the group work together emphasizing loyalty to one another and to the group as a whole. The leader must be friendly, warm and responsive to others, express feeling sensed in the group and harmonize and facilitate the participation of others. In the other study, Lewin, Lippitt and White as cited by Nwansike [9] identified three basic styles of leadership. Authoritarian (where the leader shares power and influence in decision making with his group), and Laissez-faire (where the power and influence is given to group members). According to this research, the best leadership style in terms of productivity and group satisfaction was the democratic style over the authoritarian leadership styles, which was once believed to be most effective. Democratic leadership as observed by Nwansike [9], has different shades of meaning based upon the relative degree that power and influence in decision making is shared between boss and subordinates. More importantly, Nwansike dispelled the nation that the democratic style is the best approach to leadership with all groups in all situations, rather suggested a mix of all styles of leadership. To determine which would be the most effective at any point in time, it is necessary to consider three set of forces, those within the leader, those within the group, and those within the overall situation [9]. Going by this assertion, an effective leader is one who is sensitive to determine the nature of these three sets of forces: the ability to decide which leadership style is most appropriate, the behavioural flexibility to adopt and the appropriate leadership style in actual work situations.

The measure of leader effectiveness have varied a great deal, they fall into essentially two categories – those dealing with employee job performance and those dealing with employee job satisfaction. Lewin et al cited by Malachy [1] found that specific leadership styles, or combination of leader behaviour can cause significant amount of variance in subordinate effort level when not under direct leader surveillance. Smith et al [10] in their study found out that leadership clearly make a difference, using the Church and Minister as its leader. While, Pfeffer and Blake in the work of Mullins [11] posits that leaders do not have a major impact on organizational performance. However, other classical writers in separate researches found that significant variance in subordinate adaptability to change, and performance under conditions of change, occurred due to variability in leadership styles. Much of the evidence above comes from field longitudinal studies at lower levels in the organizations or from laboratory studies. However, the results were corroborated by Meyer and Fiedler, Chemers and Mahar as cited by Moorhead and Griffin [7] whose researches were carried out at higher organizational levels. The studies reviewed in this section when viewed in totality, unequivocally demonstrate leadership influences as significant variable of organizational effectiveness. However, there have also been experimental studies that leader behaviour has little or no effect on subordinates’ performance.. In addition Bass, [6] noted that the probability estimates of success and his valuation of the outcomes are also affected by what the leader does to the organization’s culture of shared norms and values. Each of the leadership approaches discussed emphasizes the point that leadership is an exchange process. Followers are rewarded by the leader when they accomplish agreed-upon objectives. The leader serves to help followers accomplish the objectives. The exchange role of the leader has been referred to as transactional according to Robbins [12]. The leader helps the follower identify what must be done to accomplish the desired results: better-quality output, more sales or services, reduced cost of production. In helping the follower identify what must be done, the leader takes into consideration the person’s self-concept and esteem needs. The transactional approach uses the path goal concepts as its framework.

This model by Robert House in 1971 helps reconcile the conflicting findings that leadership who initiate structure for their group are rated higher by their superiors and tend to have producing groups. House’s draws it proposal from expectancy theory on motivation. The theory is so called because it suggests that a leaders’ job is to increase the pay offs to these goals. The theory assumes that higher-level jobs are more ambiguous that lower-level jobs. The leader behaviour is acceptable and satisfying to subordinates to the extend that they see it as either an immediate source of satisfaction or as instrumental to future satisfaction. All in all the model postulates that effective leaders are those who clarify for subordinate the paths to effective performance as well as the connection between performances.

In using the transactional style, the leader relies on contingent reward and on management by exception. Research shows that when contingent reinforcement is used, followers believe that accomplishing objectives will result in their receiving desired rewards. Using management by exception, the leader will not be involved unless objectives are not being accomplished.

Transactional leadership is not often found in organizational settings. One national sample of Nigeria workers shows that only 22 percent of the participants perceived a direct relationship between how hard they worked and how much pay they received [9]. That is, the majority of workers prefer closer link between pay and performance. There are probably a number of reasons, such as unreliable performance appraisal system, subjectively administered rewards, poor managerial skills in showing employees the pay-performance link, and conditions outside the manger’s control [7]. Until mangers understand what the employee wants, administer rewards in a timely manner, and emphasize the pay-performance link, there’s likely to be confusion, uncertainty, and minimal transactional impact in leader-follower relationships.

Another type of leader, referred to as the transformation leader, motivates followers to work for transcendental goals instead of short-term self-interest and for achievement and self-actualization instead of security. In transformational leadership, viewed as a special case of transactional leadership, the employee’s reward is internal [11]. By expressing a vision, the transformational leader persuades followers to work hard to achieve the goals envisioned. The leader’s vision provides the follower with motivation for hard work, that is self-rewarding (internal). Transformational leader according to Robbins [12], motivates followers to do more than was originally expected. The transformational leader recognizes current material and psychic needs in potential followers but tend to go further in seeking to arouse and satisfy higher needs in other to engage the followers. The development of transformational leadership factors has evolved form research by Bass [6]. He identified five factors (the first three apply to transformational and the last two apply to transactional leadership) that describe transformational leaders. They are:

i    Charisma. The leader is able to instil a sense of value, respect, and pride and to articulate a vision.

ii    Individual attention. The leader pays attention to followers’ needs and assigns meaningful projects so that followers grow personally.

iii   Intellectual stimulation. The leader helps followers rethink ways to examine a situation. He encourages followers about what must be done to receive the rewards they prefer.

iv   Contingent reward. The leader informs followers about what must be done to receive the rewards they prefer.

v   Management by exception. The leader permits followers to work on the task and does not intervene unless goals are not being accomplished in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.

One of the most important characteristics of the transformational leader is charisma. However, charisma by itself is not enough for successful transformational leadership, as Bass [6] clearly states’.

"The deep emotional attachment which characterize the relationship of the charismatic leader to followers may be present when transformational leadership occurs, but we can distinguish class of charismatic who are not at all transformational in their influence. Celebrities may be identified as charismatic by a large segment of the public. Celebrities are held in awe and reverence by the masses that are developed by them. People will be emotionally aroused in the presence of celebrities and identify with them in their fantasy, but the celebrities may not be involved at all in any transformation of their public. On the other hand, with charisma, transformational leaders can play the role of teacher, mentor, coach, reformer, or revolutionary. Charisma is a necessary ingredient of transformational leadership, but itself it is not sufficient to account for the transformational process".

In addition to charisma, transformational leaders need assessment skills, communication abilities, and a sensitivity of others. They must be able to articulate their vision, and they must be sensitive to the skill deficiencies of followers [1]. Effective leadership is an act, seeing the result is much easier than describing precisely what it is; leader can thus be judged by the behaviour of the subordinates not by what they professed. When leaders are effective, followers perform well, cooperate effectively and put forth extra effort to achieve group goals.

Conceptually, the observed change in followers can be put on the dynamic of the leaders’ behaviour which could result in short-or long-term benefit or cost to the followers. Personnel performance may then be taken to be the end result of a motivated worker by the leader, since the leader create a situation that the individual will find both meaningful and challenging enough and decides to work consistently hard even in the absence of the leader. Motivating a worker is not simply giving more money, as people believe. The worker can receive more money without being moved to increase work effort. Motivation is not thrust from outside. It is "the complex of forces, tension states or internal psychological mechanisms that start and maintain activity toward the achievement of personal goals [13].

3. Methodology of the Study

To this end a questionnaire (Appendix 4) on the transactional and transformational characteristics was designed and administered, to top and middle level officers of Ahmadu Bello University and Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology. This is based on the premise that they work directly with chief executives. The questionnaire was adapted from Bernard Bass’s [6] version of Leadership Questionnaire on transformational and transactional leadership. The leadership questionnaire is made up of eighty-one questions on transformational and transactional behaviour of a leader. The respondents were asked to describe their current immediate superior. The respondents were asked to judge how often their superiors displayed each of the 81 behaviours or attitude using the following scale, A- frequency, B – if not always; C- sometimes, D – once in a while, E – not at all and analyzed using simple calculations of means, chi-square and student T-test. The responses to the questions were weighted (4-0) (0-4) depending on the question.

The following hypotheses were advanced and tested to verify the major research findings. The hypotheses were based on the review of related literature.

i     There is no difference in the leadership styles of ABU and NITT.

ii    There is no difference in the charismatic, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation aspect of leadership style in ABU and NITT.

iii   There is no difference in the management-by-exception and contigent reward aspects of leadership in ABU and NITT.

4. Results/Findings

Table 1 and 2 (Appendix 1 & 2) shows the frequency means of the response to the eighty-one questions put to the respondents of Nigerian Institute of Transport Technology and Ahmadu Bello University were analyzed. In ABU the highest mean of 3.57 and deviation of 0.53 were response to statement on the questionnaire which are "I earn credit with him/her by doing my job well" and "I put all my effort into accomplishing each task as consequences of his leadership". While the lowest mean of 0.57 and deviation of 1.3 is in response to a statement of "without his vision what lies ahead of us, we would find it difficult, if not impossible, to get very far".

While in NITT the highest mean of 3 is in response and deviation of 1.13 to a statement, which says "tells me what I should do if I want to be reward for my efforts". While the lowest mean of 0.43 and deviation of 0.75 is in response to a statement which says – "I model my own behaviour after her". In studying the various means of the responses one find that ABU leader is rated higher in both transformational and transactional leadership styles than the NITT leader.

Table 3 shows (Appendix 3) the various aspects of transformational and transactional leadership styles and their means was also analyzed. The transformational aspects of leadership are charismatic, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation and mean of 3.49, standard deviation of 0.2 and variance of 2.08, mean of 2.87 and standard deviation of 0.66, and mean of 2.65, standard deviation of 0.18 respectively in ABU while the transactional aspects of leadership which are management-by-exception and contingent reward had means of 2.11 and standard deviation of 0.59 and mean of 1.77 and standard deviation of 0.60.

In NITT the means of charismatic individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation are mean of 1.74 and standard deviation of 0.33, mean of 2.24 and standard deviation of 0.07, and mean of 1.4 and standard deviation of.10 respectively while the transactional aspects of showed means of 1.99 and standard deviation of 0.59 and mean of 2.14 and standard deviation of 0.51.

The above means were further tested to show the level of difference between the means.

For charismatic the difference in the means over standard error of difference between means is 9.21 while tabular value is 1.697, this shows significant difference at 5% probability level. For individual consideration the difference in means over standard error of difference between means is 5.19 while the tabular value is 2.179. This shows there is a significant difference at 5% probability level. In the case of intellectual stimulation the calculated value is 9.21 while the tabular value is 2.776, this also shows a significant difference at 5% probability level.

However, for Management-by-Exception the calculated value is less than the tabular value i.e 0.19< 18.301 at 5% as a result we accept the null hypothesis. Similarly the calculated value is equal to the tabular value in contigent reward (i.e 3.08=3.08) as such we accept the null hypothesis. In all charismatic, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation showed difference in means between ABU and NITT while that of management-by-exception and contingent reward did not show any significant difference.

However, putting the above means together of transformational and transactional leadership into further test of chi-square, as X2 was 0.514 and the critical value was 9.488 at 5% significance level. We accepted the null hypothesis since 9.488 at 5%>0.514.

It revealed that there was no significant difference in the means of transformational and transactional styles in ABU and NITT. Similarly, as X2 was 0.50 and the critical value was 3.84, we accepted the null hypothesis and concluded that at 5% significance level there was no significant difference in the leadership style of ABU and NITT.

In both ABU and NITT charismatic style was rated highest by respondents as having effect on them. This concerned the faith and respect in the leader and the inspiration and encouragement provided by his (or her) presence. This findings corroborates the work of Kurt Lewin’s theory that leaders determine employees satisfaction. Since the mean frequencies of occurrence calculated in ABU and NITT is (2.49) and (1.74) respectively, it means that the charismatic style of leadership in ABU is more than in NITT. Also individualized consideration was rated by respondents as follows with means frequencies of 2.87 and 2.24 respectively. This means that the employee has great freedom thus enabling the individual to participation and in self determination to produce positive results through satisfaction. There is considerable evidence to support this interpretation from the University of Michigan Studies. However, there was significant difference in the means of intellectual stimulation which was to encourage employees to perform well on their jobs and the means of this in ABU and NITT is 2.65 and 1.4 respectively. Management by exception showed means of 2.11 and 1.99. This is the lowest of all means. This means that the leader only concentrated on maintaining a steady state of affairs, and only intervened when subordinate deviated from expectations. Also, contingent reward showed means of 1.44 and 2.14 in ABU and NITT respectively. A further test showed no significant difference, it means that in both organizations the leaders need to appreciate their role and known that their followers attitude depends on their style of leadership, Thus transformational and transactional styles of leadership have effect on personnel performance and that one is not superior to the other. Though transformational leadership styles according to the respondents is demonstrated more in their organizations, it therefore suffices to say that there is satisfaction within the individual employees on their jobs and with leaders invariable increasing employee’s morale, productivity will inevitable be high.

5. Conclusion

Conclusively, and from our study, among the types of leadership considered in this study none can be said to be the best. It can be said that both leaders are effective and thus arouse satisfaction in their workers. We therefore conclude here that, the behaviour of those in leadership in organization can typically be related to various measures of employee organizational effectiveness. Equally of importance is that the style of leader attitude affects the needs and goals of employees.

Recommendations

Based on findings from this research work, the following recommendations are made;

For effective leadership and personnel performance the leader should

i      Combine the various aspects of transformational and transactional leadership style.

ii     From our studies, charismatic, and contingent reward should be pursed in all organizations by leaders as a leadership method.

Appendix 1

Table A1. Frequency Means of Response to Questions.

  A B C D E O2   A B C D E O2
  4 3 2 1 0       4 3 2 1      
1 2 3 1 1 - 2.85 1.07 41c 3 2 2 1 - 2.88 1.13
2 3 2 1 1 - 3.00 1.54 42c 2 2 2 1 - 2.71 1.11
3 3 3 1 - - 3.99 0.76 43 3 1 3 - - 3 1
4 2 2 3 - - 2.85 0.90 44 1 3 3 - - 2.71 0.75
5 3 - 3 - 1 2.57 1.51 45 2 4 1 - - 3.14 0.69
6 4 3 - - - 3.57 0.53 46 1 3 1 - - 2.14 1.57
7 1 2 3 1 - 2.43 0.98 47 1 2 2 2 - 2.29 1.11
8 1 3 3 - - 2.71 0.76 48 4 2 1 - - 3.43 0.79
9 2 4 - 1 1 2.86 1.35 49c 3 3 - 1 - 2.86 1.35
10 2 3 1 1 - 2.71 1.38 50 3 4 - - - 3.43 0.53
11 4 3 - - - 3.57 0.53 51 4 2 1 - - 3.43 0.78
12 4 2 1 - - 3.43 0.79 52 1 1 2 2 1 - 1.86 1.35
13 4 3 - - - 3.57 0.53 53 1 2 2 2 - 2.29 1.11
14 2 3 1 1 - 2.71 1.38 54 - 5 1 1 - 2.57 0.79
15 - 1 2 3 4 1.60 1.52 55 2 2 1 - 2 - 1.60 1.52
16 3 3 1 - - 3.29 0.76 56 0 1 1 3 3 4 3.33 1.03
17 3 2 2 - - 3.14 0.89 57 0 1 2 3 4 3 1.27
18 1 4 2 - - 2.86 0.69 58 3 2 1 - - 3.33 0.82
19 2 2 3 - - 2.86 0.89 59 4 1 - 2 - 3 1.41
20 4 3 - - - 3.57 0.53 60 3 2 - 2 - 2.57 1.39
21 1 3 2 1 - 2.42 1.27 61 3 3 - 1 0 3.14 1.07
22 1 4 2 - - 2.85 0.69 62 0 1 2 3 4 3.14 0.89
23 - 1 - 1 - 1.5 2.12 63 - 1 1 2 3 - 1 1.15
24 - 3 3 1 - 1.29 0.76 64 - 2 2 - 3 - 1.43 1.40
25 1 1 1 1 12 2.25 1.71 65 2 2 2 - - 3 1.55
26 1 4 1 - - 3 0.71 66 3 2 - - 1 3 1.55
27 1 5 1 - - 3 0.58 67 2 2 1 1 1 - 2.43 1.58
28 2 2 3 - - 2.86 0.89 68 - 1 2 3 4 - 2 1.15
29 - 2 4 - - 2.33 0.52 69 - 3 - 2 2 - 1.57 1.39
30 - 3 4 - - 2.43 0.53 70 - 1 2 3 3 - 2.57 1.39
31 1 2 2 - - 2.8 0.84 71 1 1 2 - 3 - 1.57 1.64
32 1 2 3 - - 2.67 0.82 72 1 1 2 - 3 - 1.57 1.62
33 2 2 1 - 1 3.2 0.84 73 4 1 - - 2 - 2.71 1.88
34 3 1 3 - - 3 1 74 - 1 - 1 5 - 0.57 1.13
35 2 2 2 1 - 2.57 1.39 75 1 5 - 1 - - 2.86 0.89
36 1 5 - - - 3.17 0.41 76 3 3 - 1 - - 3 1.41
37 2 3 1 - - 3 1.09 77 1 6 - - - - 3.14 0.37
38 1 1 1 1 - 2.5 1.29 78 1 6 - - - - 3.14 0.37
39c 2 3 1 - - 3 1.09 79 4 2 1 - - - 3.14 1.49
40c 1 6 - - - 3.14 088 80 2 4 1 - - - 3.14 0.69
  = 2.62
= 0.73
                         
O2                          

Appendix 2

Table A2. Frequency Means of Response to Questions 2.

  A B C D E O2   A B C D E O2
  4 3 2 1 0       4 3 2 1      
1 3 4 4 2 1 2.43 1.22 41c 2 2 5 4 1 2 1.18
2 3 - 8 3 1 2.29 1.07 42 4 3 4 1 2 2.4 1.35
3 4 6 3 2 - 2.8 1.01 43 3 2 9 1 - 2.46 0.91
4 1 2 9 1 2 1.93 1.03 44 3 2 4 6 - 2.13 1.18
5 3 3 4 2 3 2.07 1.43 45 3 3 6 2 - 2.33 1.18
6 3 5 3 4 - 2.47 1.13 46 1 1 2 3 1 2.33 1.130
7 3 2 3 5 2 1.79 1.13 47 1 2 6 0 5 1.57 1.34
8 2 4 5 2 2 2.13 1.25 48 - 6 4 1 2 2.13 1.13
9 4 2 4 4 1 2.26 1.33 49 1 5 6 1 2 2.13 1.13
10 - 2 7 3 3 2.73 0.96 50 - 2 6 4 3 1.5 0.96
11 2 5 5 2 1 2.33 1.11 51 1 3 4 4 3 1.47 1.06
12 2 2 3 4 3 1.71 1.38 52 1 2 6 1 1 1.64 1.27
13 2 4 3 5 1 1.71 1.38 52 1 2 6 1 1 2.28 0.99
14 3 2 4 3 3 1.93 1.43 54 - 1 5 6 2 1.35 0.84
15 2 3 2 6 1 1.93 1.26 55 - 4 4 6 1 1.73 0.96
16 1 2 4 6 1 1.71 1.07 56 0 1 2 3 4 2.21 0.89
17 2 2 4 2 5 1.60 1.45 57 0 1 2 3 3 2.21 0.97
18 1 4 1 6 3 1.60 1.29 58 - 5 6 1 2 2 1.04
19 - 2 6 3 3 1.50 1.02 59 1 3 4 3 3 1.17 1.26
20 2 1 3 7 2 1.60 1.24 60 2 4 4 1 3 2.07 1.38
21 1 3 3 6 2 1.67 1.18 61 2 4 3 2 4 1.87 1.46
22 2 2 2 6 3 1.53 1.41 62 0 1 2 3 4 3 1.13
23 - 2 4 3 5 1.21 1.12 63 - 1 2 3 9 0.67 0.97
24 1 2 7 3 2 1.80 0.89 64 - 2 3 4 6 1.13 1.30
25 - 3 6 3 1 1.85 0.89 65 1 1 4 2 7 1.23 1.42
26 1 2 3 5 3 1.50 1.2 66 1 2 2 2 6 1.23 1.42
27 1 2 4 5 3 1.53 1.19 67 1 1 2 4 6 1.07 1.27
28 - 4 6 2 2 1.86 1.03 68 0 1 2 3 4 1.67 1.23
29 - 1 9 4 1 1.66 0.72 69 - - 2 2 10 0.43 0.75
30I - 6 4 3 2 1.93 1.09 70 0 1 2 3 4 1.64 1.28
31 - - 6 7 2 1.53 0.91 71 - 1 8 1 3 1.54 0.97
32I - - 6 7 2 1.27 0.70 72 - 1 5 2 6 1.07 1.07
33 - 4 5 - 3 1.83 1.19 73 8 1 3 1 1 3.07 1.27
34 2 4 5 3 1 2.4 0.99 74 - - 2 2 11 0.4 0.74
35 - 2 6 5 1 1.64 0.84 75 - - 2 2 1 1.8 0.77
36 1 3 6 3 1 2 0.04 76 - 5 5 4 - 2.07 0.82
37 2 2 6 3 2 2.07 1.14 77 - 3 6 3 1 1.85 0.90
38 - 1 4 4 2 1.36 0.29 78 - 5 6 3 1 2 0.96
39 2 4 2 3 2 2.08 1.38 79 2 5 6 1 1 2.4 1.06
40c 2 1 6 1 4 1.71 1.38 80 1 5 1 - 2 2.2 1.08
  = 2.83
= 0.6
                         
O2                          

Appendix 3

Table A3. Various Aspects of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles and their Means.

Charismatic Individual consideration Mgt. exception Contigent reward Intellectual st.
NITT ABU NITT ABU NITT ABU NITT ABU NITT ABU
  X O2   X O2            
67 1.07, 127 2,43, 152 15 1.93, 1.26 1.60,
1.52
68 1.07, 1.27 2,
1.15
62 3, 1/13 3.14,
1.3
30 1.93. 1/09 2.43, 0.53
40 1.71, 1.38 3.14, 0.88 10 1.73, 0.96 2.71,
1.38
25 1.85, 0.89 2.25,
1.71
64 1.43, 1.40 1.07, 1.09 32 1.27, 0.70 2.67,
082
17 1.60, 1.29 3.14, 0.89 11 2.33, 1.11 3.57,
0.53
60 2.07, 1.38 2.57,
1.39
71 1.57, 1.62 1.54, 0.97 19 1.60, 1.02 2.86, 0.89
39 2.08, 1.38 3,
1.09
3 2.80, 1.01 3.39,
0.76
53 2.28, 0.99 2.29,
1.11
52 1.86, 1.35 1.64, 1.27 X = 1.4 X = 2.63
26 1.50, 1.20 3,
0. 71
6 2.47, 1.13 3.57,
0.53
70 1.64, 1.28 2.57,
1.40
21 2.42, 1.27 1.67, 1.18 S = 0.12 S = 0.21
36 2,
1.04
3.17, 0.41 5 2.07, 1.43 2.71,
1.11
57 2.19, 1.27 1 1.26 72 4.3
0.98
1.79, 1.31 0 = 0.10 0 = 0.18
1 2.43, 1.22 2.85. 1.07     X = 1.99 X = 2.11 47 2.9
1.11
1.57, 1.34    
12 1.71, 1.39 3.43, 0.79 X = 2.24 2.57,
1.51
           
27 1.59, 1.91 2.85, 0.69 S = 0.36 X = 2.87 S = 0.65 S = 0.58 X = 2.14 X = 1.77    
22 1.53, 1.91 2.85, 0.69 0 = 0.70 S = 0.70            
49 2.13, 1.13 3.14, 1.07   0 = 0.66 0 = 0.59 0 = 0.58 S = 0.55 S = 0.64    
29 1.66, 0.72 2.33, 0.52       0 = 0.54        
18 1.60, 1.29 2.86, 0.69         0 = 0.60      
65 1.60, 1.29 3
1.13
               
41 2
1.18
3.88, 1.13                
59 1.71, 1.26 3
1.14
               
37 2.07, 1.14 3
1.09
               
61 1.87, 1.46 3.14, 1.07                
X = 1.74 3.49                
S = 0.34 2.08                
02= 0.33 0.2                

Appendix 4

Leadership Questionnaire

Use the following for the five possible responses.

Source; field survey 2016

When the item is irreverent or does not apply or where you are uncertain or don’t know, leave the answer blank.

1       ________ Makes me feel good to be around him/her.

2       ________ Makes me feel and act like a leader.

3       ________ Is satisfied when I meet the agreed-upon standards for good work.

4       ________ Makes me feel ready to sacrifice my own self-interest for the group.

5       ________ Makes me feel we can reach our goals without him/her if we have to.

6       ________ I earn credit with him/her by doing my job well.

7       ________ Assures me I can get what I personally want in exchange for my efforts.

8       ________ Makes me go beyond my own self-interests for the good of the group.

9       ________ Puts suggestions by the group into operation.

10    ________ Finds out what I want and tries to help me get it.

11    ________ You can count on him/her to express his/her appreciation when you do a good job.

12    ________ Commands respect from everyone.

13    ________ I put all my effort into accomplishing each task as a consequence of his/her leadership.

14    ________ Because of him/her, I am less concerned about my own immediate needs and am concern about our group  reaching its objectives.

15    ________ Gives personal attention to members who seen neglected.

16    ________ Earns my esteem by helping me to get what I want.

17    ________ Is a model for me to follow.

18    ________ Is my mind, he/she is a symbol of success and accomplishment.

19    ________ Has provided me with ways of looking at things which used to be puzzle for me.

20    ________ IS a good team player.

21    ________ Talks a lot about special commendations and promotions for good work.

22    ________ I am ready to trust his capacity and judgment to overcome any obstacle.

23    ________ Makes me concentrate on my self-interest rather than what is good for the group.

24    ________ Makes me do more than I expected I could do.

25    ________ Is content to let me continue doing my job in the same way as always.

26    ________ Is an inspiration to us.

27    ________ Makes me proud to be associated with him/her.

28    ________ Lets me know how I am doing.

29    ________ Has a special gift of seeing what it is that really is important for me to consider.

30    ________ His/her ideas have forced me to rethink some of my own ideas which I had never questioned before.

31    ________ Makes clear what I can expect if my performances meets designated standards.

32    ________ Enables me to think about old problems in new ways.

33    ________ Is a dominant figure in our group.

34    ________ Makes me feel that as long as I do my job satisfactory I can expect to move ahead.

35    ________ Makes sure than payoffs for good subordinate performance are made as quickly.

36    ________ Inspires loyalty to him/her.

37    ________ Increases my optimism for the future.

38    ________ Is inner – directed.

39    ________ Inspires loyalty to the organization.

40    ________ I have complete faith in him/her.

41    ________ Excites us with his/her visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together.

42    ________ Treats each subordinate individually.

43    ________ Spends time talking about the purposes of our organization.

44    ________ Arouses my awareness about what is really important.

45    ________ Accepts me for what I am as long as I do my job.

46    ________ Is a father-figure to me.

47    ________ I decide what I want; he/she shows how to get it.

48    ________ Sets standards fro me which can be easily maintained.

49    ________ Encourages me to express my ideas and opinions.

50    ________ Motivates me to do more than I originally expected I would do.

51    ________ Heightens my motivation to succeed.

52    ________ Whenever I feel it necessary, I can negotiate with him/her about what I can get for what I accomplished.

53    ________ Asks no more3 of me than what is absolutely essential to get the work done.

54    ________ Provides means for me to communicate with others.

55    ________ Encourages me to put my free time to good use.

56    ________ Tends to spend his/her time "putting our fires" rather focusing on long-term consideration.

57    ________ Only tells me what I have to know to do my job.

58    ________ Gives us a vision of what needs to be done and depends on us to fill in the details.

59    ________ Encourages understanding of points of view of other members.

60    ________ As long as things are going all right he/she does not try to change anything.

61    ________ Gives us a sense of overall purpose.

62    ________ Tells me what I should do if I want to be rewarded for my efforts.

63    ________ I cannot succeed in reaching our goals without him/her.

64    ________ Gives me what I want ion exchange for showing my support for him/her.

65    ________ Has a sense of mission which he/she transmits to me.

66    ________ sees to it that my needs are met.

67    ________ Makes everyone around him/her enthusiastic about assignments.

68    ________ As long as the old ways work, he /she is satisfied with my performance.

69    ________ I model my own behaviour after his/hers.

70    ________ It is all right if I take initiatives but he/she does not encourage me to do so.

71    ________ There is a close agreement between what I am, expected to put into the group effort and what I can get out of it.

72    ________ Without his/her vision of what is ahead of us, we would find difficult, if not impossible, to get very far.

73    ________ The Person I am describing is

A     Male

B      Female

74    ________ The level of the position of the person I am describing is:

C      First-line supervisor

D     Second – Line Supervisor

E      Third-line supervisor

F      Fourth-line supervisor

G      Fifth-line supervisor

75    ________ How long have you worked with the person you are describing?

H     Three months or less

I        Over thee but less than six months

J       Over six months but less than one year.

K     Over one but less than two years.

L      Over two years.

For items 79-82; A = extremely effective; B = effective; C = effective; D = only slightly effective; E = Not effective.

76    ________ The overall work effectiveness of your unit can be classified as:

77    Compared to all others units you have ever known, how do you rate the unit’s effectiveness?

78    How effective is your superior in meeting the job-related needs of the subordinates?

79    Hoe effective is your superior in meeting the requirements of the organization?

For items 83 -84; A = very satisfied; B = fairly satisfied; C = neither satisfied not dissatisfied; D = somewhat dissatisfied; E = very dissatisfied.

80    In all, how satisfied are or were you with your superior?

81    In all, how satisfied are you that the methods of leadership used by your superior are or were the right ones for getting your group’s job done?


References

  1. Malachy, O. D. Y (2009) Impact of leadership styles on performance. A study of ABU & NITT Zaria. Academy International Journal of Marketing Management; vol 1, No 1. Ahmadu Bello University.
  2. Drucker, P. F (1954). The practice of management. New York; N. Y. Harper & Row Publishers.
  3. Griffin, R (2001) Management Effectiveness. New York N. Y. McGraw Hill Book Company.
  4. Iqbal N, Anwar S, Haider N (2015) Effect of Leadership Style on Employee Performance. Arabian J Bus Manag Review 5: 146.
  5. Stogdill, R. M. (1994). Handbook of Leadership New York, N. Y. The Free Press.
  6. Bass, Bernard M. (1990). "From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to share the vision", Organizational Dynamics. Winter.
  7. Moorhead, G. and GRIFFION R. W. (2006). Organisational Behaviour. Managing People and Organisations. 5th Edition. A. I. T. B. S Publishers & Distributors India. Mullins, L. J (2010). Management and Organisational Behaviour, 9th Edition.
  8. Malacy, O. D. & Orji, M. G (2013) ‘ Impact of Privatisation on Employee Job Security in Indorama-Eleme Petrochemical Company Limited, Eleme, Rivers State Nigeria’’ International Journal of business and Social Sciences, Vol 4 (16).
  9. Nwansike, J. N. (2002). Readings in Management. Abuja, Precious Treasures Limited.
  10. Smith, J. E. kenneth P. C and Ralph A. A (2001). "Leadership: It can make A Difference," Academy of Management Journal, December, 2006 pp. 765-776.
  11. Mullins, L. J (2010). Management and Organisational Behaviour, 9th Edition. Prentine Hall, London.
  12. Robbins S. B (2001). Organisational Behaviour. 9th Edition. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited. India.
  13. Ivancevich J. M and Matteson. M, (2009). Organizational Behaviour and Management. 7th Edition, McGraw- Hill; Boston.

Article Tools
  Abstract
  PDF(295K)
Follow on us
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
548 FASHION AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10018
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-688-8931