Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance Parks Duncan

Leadership Styles 1

Running Head: Impact of Leadership Styles

The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance

P. Parks Duncan

University of Central Florida

Leadership Styles 2

Abstract

The need to develop better leadership styles is becoming increasingly

important in all organizations. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain if

there is a correlation between the supervisor’s leadership style and the

employees’ performance, particularly in the law enforcement field. This

paper reviews three recent and widely utilized leadership styles:

contingency theory, transactional theory, and transformational theory.

There is a lack of total agreement in the reviewed literature as to the best

leadership style to be used in law enforcement, but transactional theory

appears to be more effective than contingency theory. Transformational

theory is considered by many to be an improvement to the transactional

theory of leadership. There appears to be an ever increasing number of

studies supporting the benefits of the transformational theory. In today’s

ever changing climate, there are some researchers whose findings suggest

the optimal leadership style may be a blend of transactional and

transformational theories.

Leadership Styles 3

1. Introduction

This paper attempts to find a correlation between the supervisor’s

leadership style and the employee’s performance, particularly in the law

enforcement field. The use of the correct and appropriate leadership style

in all fields has long been a topic of discussion and debate by both scholars

as well as practitioners. “The desire to develop better leadership styles is

becoming a matter of increasing importance in the public sector and

especially in law enforcement agencies.” (Bruns & Shuman, 1988, p 145).

Police leadership is often not well developed because of the police culture,

the law enforcement’s bureaucratic rank and file structure and the civil

nature of the job (Densten, 1999). As a result, a variety of theories on

different leaderships styles have evolved but many have multiple similarities

(Engel, 2001). Engel (2000) initially reported that many earlier works have

suggested that supervisory styles have a significant impact on patrol officer

behavior although the author noted no research has been attempted to

evaluate the varying influence that different supervisory styles have over

police officer behavior. Engel (2003) later reported a more recent and

important finding that the style or quality of supervision can significantly

influence patrol officers’ behavior. Supervision by the sergeant can

influence some patrol officer behaviors, but this influence varies according

to the style of supervision. As Engel (2001 & 2003) notes, first-line

supervision is extremely important to police organizations’ success and the

implementation of organizational goals. But the author also reports that

Leadership Styles 4

studies on police supervision are limited in scope and fail to answer many

questions on differences in leadership styles.

For the purposes of this work, performance is defined as the execution

or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc. Satisfaction is defined as the

fulfillment or gratification of a desire, need, or appetite (dictionary.com).

Job satisfaction is defined as the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or

dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs. “Traditional job satisfaction facets

include: co-workers, pay, job conditions, supervision, nature of the work and

benefits.” (Williams, 2004). For the purposes of this paper, it is assumed

that leaders aspire to increase subordinates’ job satisfaction and

performance. In addition, it is further assumed job satisfaction and

performance have some degree of positive correlation and they are linked in

some fashion. For example, if employee job satisfaction increases, then

employee job performance improves. It should be noted this relationship

between job performance and job satisfaction has been the topic of

numerous studies whose results have been mixed. Arguments such as

“does satisfaction lead to performance?” or “does performance lead to

satisfaction?” or if there any correlation whatsoever between performance

and satisfaction still exist. It is still an issue of continuing debate

(Buchanan, 2006).

Three recent theories to be discussed in this paper are the contingency

theory, the transactional theory, and the transformational theory. The

contingency theory speculates that leadership styles are task or relationship

Leadership Styles 5

oriented. This theory suggests effective leadership is determined by the

situation and an effective leader is able to adapt to a variety of situations.

Several models have prevailed under the contingency theory of leadership.

The Situational Leadership Model (Hersey and Blanchard, 1977) seems to

have been the most accepted and most prevalent model under the

contingency theory (Graeff, 1983). This was deemed the most effective

leadership model from the late 1960s to the early 1980s and as such, was

the most prevalent (Bryan, 2002).

The second and third leadership theories to be discussed in this paper

were introduced by Burns (1978) who identified two types of leaders –

transactional leaders and transformational leaders. He made a sharp

distinction between transactional and transformational leadership and

considered them as opposite ends of the spectrum. While they were

somewhat similar, the transactional leadership theory and the

transformational leadership theory were distinct and had different

applications. Bass (1985) theorized that transformational leadership can be

considered an extension of transactional leadership. He hypothesized that

transformational leadership complemented transactional leadership and

they were not mutually exclusive (as cited by Johnson, 2006; Chan 2005;

Ozmen, 2009). Both transactional and transformational leadership styles

are expected to influence their subordinates’ behavior. But they may not be

equally as effective in developing all types of subordinates’ performance

(Johnson, 2006).

Leadership Styles 6

II. Contingency Theory of Leadership

The contingency theory of leadership suggests the leader's ability to

lead is dependent upon various situational factors, including the leader's

preferred style, the capabilities and behaviors of followers and various other

situational factors. There is no one best way of leading and effective

leadership styles vary from situation to situation. The theory assumes

leadership behaviors affect outcomes, such as group performance and

achieving goals, by the influencing the subordinates’ behavior (Butler &

Reese, 1991).

There have been several models utilizing the contingency theory

concepts – the Contingency Leadership Theory (Fiedler, 1967), Normative

Decision Theory (Vroom & Yetton, 1988), and Path-Goal Theory (House,

1971) (as cited by Butler and Reese, 1991). The Situational Leadership

Model (SLM) by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) stands out in terms of its

popularity with practitioners (Blank, Weitzel & Green, 1990). The SLM

depicts four leadership styles grouped by “task behavior” and “relationship

behavior”. The four styles are labeled (1) telling – a high risk/low

relationship, (2) selling – a high risk/high relationship, (3) delegating – a low

task/low relationship, and (4) participating – a low task/high relationship.

The SLM recommends the appropriate leadership style based on the

“maturity” of the subordinates. Maturity is the subordinates’ willingness

Leadership Styles 7

and ability based on education and/or experience to focus their behavior on

a task or objective. A manager’s adaptability is measured by a tool called

the “Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability Description (LEAD) (Butler &

Reese, 1991).

SLM was used extensively in the training of police managers in the

United States although it was widely acknowledged that most of the police

supervisors did not receive any formal management training. In a study of

211 police supervisors, the supervisors who were rated the most effective

utilized the SLM. (Standing Bear, 1986).

It should be noted most of these contingency theory models and

associated papers were written over 20 years, well before the development

of the transactional and transformations theories.

Does the Contingency Theory Lend Itself to Increased Employee

Performance?

Despite some studies offering limited and provisional support of the

SLM, most studies have been critical for various reasons. The researchers

indicated this is particularly surprising due to the extensive use of the SLM

and its widely accepted managerial philosophy throughout the world. The

researchers note the SLM has little verifiable support. Only a few studies

have been conducted to test its validity and most were not comprehensive

in nature. For example, several studies in the 1980s were conducted in

Leadership Styles 8

which the managers who utilized the SLM rated their subordinates’ job

performance significantly higher than managers who did not utilize the

SLM. Unfortunately no objective measures of performance were employed.

In addition, the SLM has been criticized for multiple reasons on theoretical

grounds for the reason that there is little academic justification for the

SLM’s style classifications as well as multiple arguments against the validity

of the LEAD (Butler & Reese, 1991).

Basic assumptions the SLM makes also added to the critical views of

the model. According to Graeff (1983), multiple features of the SLM such

as assumptions of the job maturity aspects of the model appear to question

its theoretical soundness and restrict its practical use. The author concedes

that the SLM makes minor contributions to the leadership arena as the

model does correctly focus on the truly situational nature of leadership and

the need for flexibility on the leader’s behalf. Blank, Weitzel & Green

(1990) supported Graeff’s findings and reported the SLM focuses on only

one situational variable (subordinate maturity) as a moderator of two leader

behaviors (task and relationship) and leader effectiveness. The authors’

research raises more questions than answers about SLM and indicates the

need for more empirical studies.

Butler & Reese (1991) conducted a study in which they examined the

relationship between 675 insurance salespersons’ performance and their 41

branch managers who employed SLM leadership styles. The researchers

reported that the data did not support the hypothesis the SLM leadership

Leadership Styles 9

styles were associated with superior sales performance. In fact, the SLM

leadership styles were associated with inferior performance. Another facet

of the study tested the four styles of the SLM. Insurance agents who

preferred the telling (high task/low relationship) had a higher job

performance than the agent who preferred other styles. The researchers

suggest these findings defy the logic on which the SLM is founded. The

findings also suggest the SLM is incomplete in its description of leadership

styles and the situations facing the leader. But the simplicity of SLM is one

reason for its popularity.

III. Transactional Theory of Leadership

Transactional theory, as its name implies, involves a “transaction” or quid

pro quo between a supervisor and a subordinate. The type of the

transaction, whether a reward or discipline, depends on the employee’s

performance. Bass (1985) theorized the transactional leaders appeal to the

subordinates’ self interests (as cited by Chan, 2005). Transactional leaders

attempt to meet the current needs of their subordinates through bargaining

and exchanging. Transactional leaders expect their followers to attain

agreed-upon goals without encouraging them to take on greater

responsibilities for self-development or leading others. There is no attempt

to change followers’ attitudes, values, growth, and development on a long-

term basis. Both leaders and followers focus on achieving the negotiated

Leadership Styles 10

performance level (Chan, 2005). A transactional leader motivates

subordinates by giving rewards for services provided. This leader clarifies

the subordinates’ goals and arranges contingent rewards as inducements

toward the achievement of the goals (Singer and Singer, 1990).

One might theorize transactional leaders would have the greatest

effect on patrol officers’ productivity such as the number of arrests, reports

or citations for the reason that supervisors can set clear quantitative

expectations that are easily monitored (Engel & Worden, 2003).

Leadership behaviors that emphasize telling or controlling would be

classified as transactional leadership because rewards and discipline are

administered according to adherence or deviation from instructions.

Transactional leadership is a reinforcement technique requiring constant

application. There are two main components of transactional leadership -

contingent reward and management-by-exception. Contingent reward is

when the leader provides rewards if the subordinate performs in

accordance with the performance expectations or expends the necessary

effort (Densten, 1999). The contingent reward aspect of transactional

leadership should also relate positively to performance in that these leaders

clarify expectations and recognize achievements that positively contribute

to higher levels of effort and performance (Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson,

2003). Management-by-exception represents the taking of action by the

leader when the follower does not meet the performance expectations

(Densten, 1999). In the management-by-exception approach, transactional


leaders clarify expectations, specify standards for compliance, define what

constitutes ineffective performance, and monitor closely to ensure that

deviances and errors are corrected promptly (Bass, Avolio, Jung, and

Berson, 2003 cited by Chan, 2005).

Van Maanen’s “Station House Sergeant” vs. “Street Sergeant”

Through extensive work with patrol officers and patrol sergeants in a

large urban police department, Van Maanen (1983, 1985) identified two

distinct types of patrol sergeants - the “station house sergeant” and the

“street sergeant.” The first type, identified as the “station house sergeant,”

personified the characteristics common to the transactional leadership

style. Station house sergeants spent the majority of their time in the

station, dealing with administrative issues such as processing paperwork.

Rarely did they directly supervise their subordinates in the field. They

preferred to control officer behavior through their authority to grant favors

such as days off, choice assignments, and the ability to earn overtime pay.

Van Maanen (1985) found that if given a choice, patrol officers preferred to

work for the station house type of sergeant. This was because they had less

direct supervision, more opportunities to conduct personal business on

duty, and less pressure to be proactive. The second type of sergeant, the

“street sergeant,” personified the characteristics common to the

transformational leadership style and is discussed later in this paper (Van

Maanen, 1983 & 1985 as cited by Johnson, 2006).


Engel’s Four Supervisory Styles

Studying 322 patrol officers as well as 81 sergeants and lieutenants in

two agencies, Engel (2001) identified four distinct supervisory styles among

patrol supervisors. They were labeled as traditional, innovative, supportive

and active. Three of these supervisory styles, specifically traditional,

innovative and supportive, were variations of the transactional style of

leadership. The traditional style of supervision is characterized by

supervisors who expect their officers to produce measurable outcomes such

as arrests, reports, citations, etc. The traditional supervisors expect

aggressive enforcement from their officers, but expect little relative to

quality of life issues or community policing-related issues. The supervisors

are likely to make the decisions as they took over calls or tell the officers

how to handle their calls. Their main concern is to control subordinate

behavior. The innovative supervisor expects their subordinates to engage in

community oriented policing. They are less concerned with enforcing rules,

report writing or other tasks deemed important by the traditional

supervisors. They excel as mentoring and coaching their subordinates. The

supportive supervisors encourage and praise their officers more and

maintain good relations with them. They may provide a buffer between their

officers and management to protect them from criticism and discipline.

They are more likely to praise their subordinates and are not task oriented

(Engel, 2000 & 2001). Johnson (2006) also classifies these three styles as

variations of the transactional style of leadership.


Does the Transactional Theory Lend Itself to Increased Employee

Performance?

Transactional leaders achieve compliance from subordinates through

an exchange of rewards for services. For example, transactional leaders will

offer raises or promotions for higher work productivity. The weakness of

this leadership style is that employees are not invested in their work and

once rewards become unavailable, it is difficult to continue to motivate

them (Johnson, 2006).

According to Bass (1985) and House (1996), a transactional approach is

deficient for long-term development, which normally entails significant

individual and organizational change. While many leaders utilize

transactional leadership, they fail to constantly apply this behavior because

of lack of time, inadequate opportunities to observe, ineffective appraisal

systems, doubts about positive reinforcement effectiveness, and lack of

skills. The negative aspects of leadership behaviors are associated with

transactional leadership. One of the most interesting findings of a study of

480 senior Australian law enforcement officers was the prevalence of the

transactional theory’s management-by-exception over other leadership

behaviors. The significantly higher level of management-by-exception

indicates that leaders of senior officers are mainly passive and focus on

correcting deviations from the status quo. Several previous perceptions of


police leadership support this finding, such as police leaders being “after

the fact supervisors.” It is suggested that high levels of transactional

leadership indicate only basic leadership competency among leaders.

Therefore, in the Australian law enforcement study, it appears that leaders

only demonstrate basic leadership capabilities, which may reflect the lack of

formal leadership training. Despite the shortcomings of transactional

leadership which prevailed in this law enforcement environment, the

findings amazingly indicated a relatively high level of follower satisfaction

with this leadership behavior. As the author noted, the relatively high

follower satisfaction level with such a negative form of leadership behavior

was surprising and requires further investigation (Densten, 1999).

Under Van Maanen’s “Station House Sergeant vs. Street Sergeant”

theory, the patrol officers of the “Station House Sergeant” (i.e., the

transactional leader) were significantly less productive and less compliant

with rules and directives than employees of the “Street Sergeant” (i.e., the

transformational leader) (Van Maanen, 1983 & 1985 as cited by Johnson,

2005).

Under Engel’s (2001) four supervisory styles theory, all of Engel’s

(2001) leadership styles influenced subordinates to some degree. The three

leadership styles that were classified as variations of transactional

leadership, specifically traditional, innovative, and supportive leadership

styles, were found to have limited influence (Johnson, 2006). In fact, Engel


(2000 & 2001) suggests the active supervisor (the transformational style of

leadership) has the most influence over their subordinates’ behavior.

IV. Transformational Theory of Leadership

Transformational leadership is the leader’s ability to motivate followers

to rise above their own personal goals for the greater good of the

organization (Bass, 1985, 1996 as cited by Murphy & Drodge, 2004). Bass

(1985) theorized the transformational style of leadership comes from deeply

held personal values which cannot be negotiated and appeals to the

subordinates’ sense of moral obligation and values (as cited by Chan, 2005).

“Transformational leaders go beyond transactional leadership and are

characterized as visionary, articulate, assured, and able to engender

confidence in others so as to motivate them to surpass their usual

performance goals” (Schwarzwald, Koslowsky and Agassi, 2001, p 277).

The transformational leaders attempt to stimulate the undeveloped or

dormant needs of their subordinates (Chan, 2005). Bass declared there

were four types of transformational leadership behavior, namely idealized

influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration,

and intellectual stimulation (Densten, 1999).

Idealized influence represents role-modeling behavior where

the leader instills pride, faith, and respect, and has a gift for

seeing what is really important, and transmits a sense of

mission. Inspirational motivation represents the use of images


and symbols that enable the leader to raise the expectations

and beliefs of their follower concerning the mission and vision.

Individualized consideration represents providing experiential

learning and occurs when the leader delegates a project,

provides coaching and teaching, and treats each follower as an

individual. Intellectual stimulation represents cognitive

development of the follower and occurs when the leader

arouses followers to think in new ways and emphasizes

problem solving and the use of reasoning before taking action

(Johnson, 2006).

Transformational leaders encourage their subordinates to bring

creative viewpoints to work and stimulate a team vision through positive

motivation. With regards to the law enforcement arena, the

transformational leader expects their subordinates to be more occupied

with problem solving and community-oriented policing which more often

than not equate to lower statistics. (Engel, 2003). Transformational leaders

are expected to enhance the performance capacity of their followers by

setting higher expectations and generating a greater willingness to address

more difficult challenges (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Transformational leaders

continuously show concern for their subordinates’ needs, treat them with

respect and utilize a flexible approach towards them. This does not

necessarily mean that the transformational leader never resorts to

punishment or negative feedback. When these behaviors are used, they are


perceived or may be interpreted as exceptional and required for completing

the present task (Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, Agassi, 2001).

Transformational leadership behaviors alter the higher order needs of

followers by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and values. Such behaviors

are important to the leaders of senior police officers because they can

directly influence rank-and-file officers and any process of change.

Transformational leadership involves raising the consciousness of followers

by appealing to higher ideals and values, and moving the focus of followers

away from their self-interests encouraged by transactional leadership. In

other words, the leader encourages their followers to consider their actions

beyond simply “what is in it for them.” The transformational leader

motivates subordinates by focusing them on a greater cause, such as

justice. Burns (1978) argued that transformational leaders have a more

significant motivating effect on employees and are preferable to

transactional leaders because they motivate employees to perform well even

in situations that lack any chance of receiving formal recognition.

Chan (2005) reports that over the last few decades, organizations have

had relatively significant success with various kinds of transformational

leadership models. A leading example is the Kouzes and Posner’s (2003)

model which offered a leadership model with five distinct practices that

outstanding leaders use to influence employees’ performance. This model

consists of some of the key elements of the transformational leadership

styles. The five practices of exemplary leadership are: (a) challenging the


process: searching and seizing challenging opportunities to change, grow,

innovate, and improve, with the willingness to take risks and learn from

mistakes; (b) inspiring a shared vision: enlisting followers’ support in a

shared vision by appealing to the followers’ values, interests, and

aspirations; (c) enabling others to act: achieving common goals by building

mutual trust, empowering followers, developing competence, assigning

critical tasks, and providing continuous support; (d) modeling the way:

being a role model and being consistent with shared values; and (e)

encouraging the heart: providing recognition for success and celebrating

accomplishments.

Van Maanen’s “Station House Sergeant” vs. “Street Sergeant”

As mentioned previously, Van Maanen (1983, 1985) identified two

distinct types of patrol sergeants. The first was the “station house

sergeant” who personified the transactional leadership style. Van Maanen’s

second type of patrol sergeants, which he called the “street sergeants”,

personified the transformational leadership style. They spent the majority

of their time in the field directly supervising officers or engaging in patrol

work of their own. Street sergeants held characteristics similar to the

transformational leadership style through their direct support of officers in

the field and their leading by example. Officers who worked under the street

sergeant types of supervisors experienced more direct supervision, fewer

opportunities to conduct personal business or engage in loafing, and were


under constant pressure to produce outputs through proactive stops and

patrols (Van Maanen 1983 & 1985 as cited by Johnson, 2006).

Engel’s Four Supervisory Styles

Engel (2001) identified four distinct supervisory styles among patrol

supervisors and they were labeled as traditional, innovative, supportive and

active. As pointed out previously, the first three of these supervisory styles,

were classified as variations of the transactional style of leadership. The

fourth leadership style labeled as active was found to have the qualities of a

transformational leader. These active style supervisors, much like Van

Maanen’s (1983, 1985) street sergeants, spent most of their time in the field

backing up officers on calls and engaging in their own proactive patrol

work. They directly supervised officers in the field, engaged in high levels of

proactive enforcement and problem-solving activities, and expected their

subordinates to do the same.

Murphy & Drodge’s Study of RCMP Detachment

Murphy and Drodge (2003) studied the leadership style of a Royal

Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachment consisting of 28 police

officers. The overall leadership style was described as transformational

leadership in which the four I’s of transformation leadership, namely

individualized consideration, idealized influence, inspirational motivation

and intellectual stimulation, were clearly present. The study found an

essential component of the individualized consideration was to make certain

the correct personnel are placed in positions in which they have a strong


interest. It was also discovered that rewarding achievements were

important as well as providing the tools necessary to perform their jobs.

The authors found that a high degree of idealized influence existed in the

detachment as the leaders had proved themselves through knowledge and

deed in order to gain the respect of the officers. Furthermore, the leaders

understood the need for a command and control style of management that

was balanced with flexibility and empowerment. A key ingredient of

inspirational motivation, communicating the vision to all officers and

repeating it often, was evident among the detachment. This is essential to

leading the subordinates to achieve more that they originally expected to

accomplish. Intellectual stimulation was also found to be prevalent by the

authors as the leaders of the detachment were focused on continuous

employee development.

Does the Transformational Theory Lend Itself to Increased Employee

Performance?

Lowe and Kroeck (1996) reported transformational leadership has been

shown to have a positive relationship on follower performance. Another

finding that was particularly noteworthy was their conclusion

transformational leadership is more highly associated with effectiveness

than transactional leadership. Their tests also suggest that leader behavior

may be more important at lower organizational levels than has been


generally assumed by those who view transformational leadership as

primarily a means to be utilized only by senior management. It should be

noted the authors also reported that transactional leadership is a necessary

component of effective management.

Bass and his colleagues found that although both transactional and

transformational leadership styles may both have positive effects,

transformational leadership, particularly the charisma component, had the

highest association with positive outcomes. This has been demonstrated

with various criteria including performance level, job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior (Schwarzwald,

Koslowsky and Agassi, 2001).

Trust is a critical element in the successful implementation of

transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 2003

as cited by Chan, 2005). Research has provided confirmation that trust in

superiors and influence of superiors are predictors of job performance and

job satisfaction (Goris, Vaught, and Pettit, 2003 as cited by Chan, 2005).

Research also found that found that trust affects job satisfaction and job

performance (Cunningham and MacGregor, 2000 as cited by Chan, 2005).

Previous research has associated trust in leaders with job satisfaction, job

performance, and innovative behavior (Simmons, Nelson, & Neal, 2001; Tan

& Tan, 2000 as cited by Chan, 2005).

Van Maanen found that officers preferred to work for a station house

sergeant but the majority of patrol officers had more respect for the street


sergeant because of this type of supervisor’s willingness to back them up on

calls and engage in pro-active patrol work. He also found that patrol officer

productivity and compliance with rules and directives was significantly

higher when working for a street sergeant than with a station house

sergeant, suggesting support for the effectiveness of transformational style

leadership (Van Maanen, 1983 & 1985 as cited by Johnson, 2005). Van

Maanen (1983, p. 298 as cited by Engel, 2000) described the street

sergeant as being “both admired and feared by their men” and therefore

more likely to influence their subordinates’ behavior.

Under Engel’s (2001) four supervisory styles theory, all four styles

influenced subordinates to some degree but the only leadership style that

was classified as a type of transformational leadership, specifically the

active leadership style, was the most powerful motivator for the leader’s

police officers. Patrol officers who worked for active style supervisors were

found to be significantly more likely to engage in proactive enforcement

activity (including traffic stops) and community problem solving than patrol

officers working for the other types of supervisors. Again, this evidence

speaks to the effectiveness of the transformational leadership style

(Johnson, 2006). Engel asserts the active supervisory style has a significant

influence on the increased likelihood of patrol officer’s use of force. This

discovery that officers with active supervisors are more likely to use force is

consistent with the hypothesis that supervisors with stronger supervisory

styles would be more likely to sway their subordinates’ behavior. Given that


active supervisors are in the field with their subordinates more and have

expectations of aggressive law enforcement, it is only logical when it was

determined active supervisors personally have a higher level of use of force

than other leadership styles. It may seem to the subordinates that

aggressive tactics may be tolerated and perhaps, even expected, by their

supervisor with active leadership styles. The author also indicates these

officers have higher arrest rates which may partially explain the higher rate

of use of force. Additionally, the officers with active supervisors spend

much more time in self-initiated, problem-solving and community-oriented

activities. Therefore Engels (2000 & 2001) concludes these findings

suggest the active supervisors (i.e., the transformational leader) have the

most influence over their patrol officers’ behavior.

Murphy and Drudge (2004) conclude that training for transformational

leadership is possible and can have positive impact on organizations. A key

is teaching leadership skills early in the leaders’ careers and to be a

continuous work in progress. Additionally, it was noted the enhanced

commitment to the organizational and increased performance were

observed in subordinates after transformational leadership training. The

authors assert transformation leadership theory is a useful model in policing

leadership.

Boerner, Eisenbeiss and Griesser (2007) stated a positive relationship

exists between transformational leadership and organizational performance

as documented in previous studies. They hypothesized that


transformational leaders increase their followers’ performance and enhance

followers’ innovation. They also hypothesized the same would not hold true

for transactional leaders. In their study of 91 leaders in 91 German

companies, their hypotheses were confirmed.

In a series of studies, Bass (1985) discovered subordinates’ satisfaction

and effectiveness ratings had higher correlations with the leader’s

transformational behavior ratings than with transactional behavior ratings.

Bass also differentiated between mechanistic organizations and organic

organizations. In mechanistic organizations, the structure is rigid and

formal; conformity rather than innovation is the norm. In organic

organizations, the structure and goals are flexible, members are educated

and innovative, and the climate is warm and trusting. Bass speculated

transactional leadership is more likely to be utilized in mechanistic

organizations and police forces are prime examples of mechanistic

organizations. Police forces have centralized authority, set career paths

and evaluations and utilize a hierarchical rank structure. Therefore, based

on Bass’ speculation, police forces’ leadership styles should exhibit more

transactional than transformational. Sixty New Zealand police officers were

studied by Singer and Singer (2001). It was discovered the actual leader

behavior was significantly more transformational than transactional.

Additionally, the officers had a preference for transformational leadership

style over the transactional style. The researcher’s results gave broad


supports to the hypothesis that transformational leadership style is

associated with higher level of subordinates’ satisfaction.

Another study conducted by Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) was

to examine how transactional and transformational leadership predicted

performance in U.S Army units operating under conditions of high levels of

uncertainty, challenge, and stress. Leadership ratings were compiled from

72 U.S. Army platoons during normal operational assignments. These

leadership ratings were then used to predict the performance of the platoon

units operating in a 2-week simulation that was designed to test the unit’s

performance effectiveness under high levels of stress and uncertainty in

order to evaluate platoon performance in near-combat conditions. Results

show that the platoon leaders’ transformational and transactional

leadership each had positive and direct relationships with platoon

performance. The researchers reported it seemed fair to say that it took

both active transactional and transformational leadership to be successful

in this performance context.

In a study of 252 MBA students, transformational leadership was

associated with a higher level of team cohesiveness as compared to

transactional leadership. Both knowledge level and team cohesiveness

predict team performance, particularly among men. From the overall

results, it appears that team cohesiveness and knowledge were significant

predictors of team performance. Also, as expected, transformational


leadership style was associated with higher levels of team cohesiveness

(Stashevsky and Koslowsky, 2006).

Masi and Cooke (2000) conducted a study of approximately 2,500 U.S.

Army personnel and found strong correlation between transformational

leadership and motivation, but weak correlation between transactional

leadership and commitment towards the achievement of organizational

outcomes. The study strongly supports that transformational leaders

empower and motivate their subordinates, while transactional leaders

suppress both commitment and productivity.

It was particularly noteworthy that Silvestri (2007) stated the

importance of a transformational style for the police organization should not

be underestimated. The past decade has witnessed a renewed interest in

the role of the police leader as supported by Britain’s creation of the

National Police Leadership Faculty and the Police Leadership Development

Board (PDLP) in 2001. The PDLP has already endorsed the need for

transformational leadership throughout the service and has commissioned

learning and development packages for its chief officers, which take into

account the principles of transformational leadership. While there are few

studies that show tangible evidence of the effects of a transformational

leadership style for the police organization, Dobby and Tuffin’s (2004)

recent work does provide some provisional evidence of the benefits of a

‘‘transformational approach” for improving police performance. Police

leaders who displayed ‘‘transformational behaviors” in their study were


found to have a wide a range of positive effects on their subordinates’

attitudes to their work as well as increasing both their job satisfaction and

their commitment to the organization. Densten (1999) also emphasizes the

potential of a transformational approach with its capacity to ‘‘alter the

higher order needs of followers by changing their attitudes, beliefs and

values’’ (p. 46). He goes on to stress that such behaviors are important to

police leaders as they ‘‘can directly influence rank and file officers and any

process of change. In short, the message is clear; masters of the use of

participatory styles are also the masters of change” (p. 46).

Bass (1985) asserted that transformational leadership is more likely to

appear in organizations where members are highly educated and

innovative, goals and structures are unclear, but warmth and trust are high;

while transactional leadership is most likely appear in organizations where

goals and structures are specific and where members’ work are extremely

well-defined. Bass (1990) theorized that transformational leaders are role

models, admired, respected, trusted, confident, determined, persistent,

highly competent, innovative, and willing to take risks. He added that

transformational leaders also inspire their followers through coaching,

mentoring, support, encouragement, and challenge (as cited by Chan 2005).

By this explanation by Bass, law enforcement agencies would more likely

make use of the transactional leadership style rather than transformational

leadership style. This is particularly interesting due to other researchers


emphasizing or highly suggesting that law enforcement agencies would

benefit by utilizing the transformational theory of leadership.

V. Conclusion

Surveys of job satisfaction from the 1920s onward have uniformly

reported that leaders can make a difference in their subordinates’

satisfaction and performance. Employees’ favorable attitudes toward their

leaders had been reported as a contributor to their job satisfaction as well

as directly related to the productivity of work groups (Bass, 1990 as cited by

Chan, 2005). What leadership style should law enforcement leaders employ

to maximize followers’ job performance? Although there is a lack of

agreement in the reviewed literature, there appears to be growing support

in one theory.

A review of the literature suggests that parts of the contingency theory

of leadership underlying groundwork is flawed and based on assumptions.

It was also noted that despite the wide use of the Situational Leadership

Model (SLM) by Hersey and Blanchard (1977), most studies have been

critical of the theory. In fact, some studies have shown a lower job

performance by followers of the leaders utilizing the SLM.

Bass, Avolio, Jung and Berson (2003) reported previous research has

shown transactional contingent reward style of leadership to be positively

related to followers’ commitment, satisfaction, and performance. In


contrast, the transactional management-by-exception style of leadership is

associated with the negative aspects of leadership behavior. While there

are positive aspects of the transactional theory, it has shown to have

inherent weaknesses. Additionally, the theory maybe deficient in the long-

term in that it does not readily avail itself to allow for change which is

increasingly important in today’s climate.

Densten (1999) asserts that to meet the demands of modern

organizations, especially criminal justice agencies, the managers must

implement more humanistic and principle-based styles of leadership. To

respond to these demands, the researcher believes that there is a need for

the law enforcement managers to apply transformational leadership to their

agencies. The traditional style of management resting upon strict

managerial rules needs to be transformed by a new process based on

diverse skills, interests, and attitudes. This form of transformational

leadership can be a valuable tool to help reform management within police

agencies. With a better understanding of the needs and aspirations of

police employees, transformational leadership can turn traditional police

managers into effective and valuable leaders. Such a change can make

police chiefs more competent and better equipped to handle policing in a

complex and rapidly changing society.

As a result of global technological and social alteration,

transformational leadership became necessary for both private and public

agencies, particularly for those in paramilitary structures, such as police


agencies, because interactions between supervisors and subordinates are

more crucial than ever (Ozmen, 2009). Bono and Judge (2003) concluded

that transformational leaders could influence how followers perceive their

work activities and that these perceptions resulted in an increase in the

followers’ job satisfaction, commitment, and performance. Whether called

active, street sergeants, etc., strong indications are that transformational

leaders affect their subordinates’ behavior and effectiveness more (Johnson,

2006).

In contrast to other researchers, Engel concedes none of the four

supervisory styles indentified in her research should be consider the ideal

standard for police supervision. It should be noted the three of Engel’s

styles identified in her research are transactional and one is

transformational. There are pros and cons associated with each style. The

appropriate style of leadership for departments would differ depending on

the agency’s organizational goals (Engel, 2001). This assessment is

supported by Conger (2004) who argued that transformational leadership is

a principally normative model, which takes a single approach to practicing

leadership across levels but it does not considering situational

contingencies (as cited by Chan, 2005). The study by Bass, Avolio, Jung,

and Berson (2003) of 72 U.S. Army platoon’ performance in near-combat

conditions illustrated the platoon leaders’ transformational and

transactional leadership each had positive and direct relationships with

platoon performance.


Therefore this paper concludes there is a sufficient quantity of

information which suggests the flawed contingency theory has lost

popularity with practitioners as well as theorists. Transactional theory is to

some extent effective but not necessarily the optimal theory.

Transformational theory is the foremost leadership theory to optimize job

performance at this point of time. But there is some evidence in studies

that hint that a blend of transactional and transformational theories of

leadership may be the style of leadership to be examined further to optimize

job performance, especially in military and para-military organizations such

as law enforcement agencies.


References

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New

York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership

development: Manual

for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development:

Manual for the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit

performance

by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of

Applied

Psychology, 88, 207-218.

Blank, Warren, Weitzel, John R., & Green, Stephen G... (1990). A Test of the

Situational Leadership

Theory. Personnel Psychology, 43(3), 579.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and

organizational

performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15-26.

doi:10.1177/10717919070130030201.


Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). Self-Concordance at Work: Toward

Understanding the Motivational

Effects of Transformational Leaders. Academy of Management Journal,

46(5), 554-571.

Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Bruns, G., & Shuman, I. (1988). Police managers' perception of

organizational leadership styles.

Public Personnel Management, 17(2), 145-157.

Bryan, Suzette Plaisance (2002). Cognitive complexity, transformational

leadership, and organizational outcomes. Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State

University and Agricultural &

Mechanical College, United States -- Louisiana. Retrieved February 13,

2010, from

ABI/INFORM Global.(Publication No. AAT 3049195).

Buchanan, K. (2006, September 4). Job Performance and Satisfaction.

Retrieved March 2, 2010,

from http://ezinearticles.com/?Job- Performance- and- -

Satisfaction&id=290072

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Butler, John K., Jr., & Reese, Richard M. (1991). Leadership Style and Sales

Performance: A Test of

the Situational Leadership Model. The Journal of Personal Selling &

Sales

http://ezinearticles.com/?Job-%1FPerformance-%1Fand-%1FSatisfaction&id=290072

http://ezinearticles.com/?Job-%1FPerformance-%1Fand-%1FSatisfaction&id=290072


Management, 11(3), 37.

Chan, Donna Suk-Hing (2005). Relationship between generation-responsive

leadership behaviors

and job satisfaction of generations X and Y professionals. D.M.

dissertation, University of Phoenix, United States - Arizona. Retrieved

February 13, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Publication No. AAT

3194291).

Conger, J. A. (2004). Developing leadership capability: What’s inside the

black box. Academy of

Management Executive, 18(3), 136-139. Retrieved February 26, 2005,

from EBSCOhost

database.

Cunningham, J., & MacGregor, J. (2000, December). Trust and the design of

work:

Complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human

Relations, 53,

1575-1591. Retrieved October 24, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.

Deluga, R., & Souza, J. (1991). The effects of transformational and

transactional leadership styles on

the influencing behaviour of subordinate police officers. Journal of

Occupational Psychology,

64(1), 49-55. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.


Densten, I. L. (1999). Senior Australian law enforcement leadership under

examination. Policing and

International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 22(1), 45-

57.

Dobby, J., Anscombe, J., & Tuffin, R. (2004). Police leadership: Expectations

and impact. London: Home Office Research. Retrieved from

www.csa.com

Engel, R. S. (2000). The effects of supervisory style on patrol officer

behavior. Police Quarterly, 3(3),

Engel, R. S. (2001). Supervisory Styles of Patrol Sergeants and Lieutenants.

Journal of

Criminal Justice, 29(4), 341–355.

Engel, R. S. (2003). Influence of Supervisor Style on Patrol Officer Behavior.

Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice. Holland, C. A., & Conner, M. T. (1996).

Engel, Robin S. & Worden, Robert E Worden. (2003). Police officers'

attitudes, behavior, and

supervisory influences: An analysis of problem

solving*. Criminology, 41(1), 131.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York:

McGraw-Hill

http://www.csa.com/


Goris, J. R., Vaught, B. C., & Pettit, J. D. (2003, Spring). Effects of trust in

superiors and

influence of superiors on the association between individual job

congruence and

job performance/satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology,

17(3), 327-

343. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.

Graef, Claude L. (1983). The Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical

View. Academy of

Management. The Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 285.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of Organization

Behavior: Utilizing Human

Resources, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall

House, R. J. (1996). “Path-Goal Theory of Leadership” Lessons, Legacy and

a Reformulated

Theory”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol 7 No 3, pp 323-352

House, R. J. (1971), A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness,”

Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16 (September), 321-338

Johnson, R. R. (2006). Management influences on officer traffic enforcement

productivity. International Journal of Police Science & Management,

8(3), 205-217.


Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San

Francisco, CA US: Jossey-

Bass. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Encouraging the heart: A leader’s

guide to

rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness

correlates of transformation

and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. The Leadership

Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2.

Masi, R., & Cooke, R. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on

subordinate motivation,

empowering norms, and organizational productivity. International

Journal of Organizational

Analysis, 8(1), 16-47. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Murphy, Steven A., Drodge, Edward N. (2004) International Journal of

Police Science &

Management; Vol 6 Issue 1, p1-15

Ozmen, A. (2009). An analytical study of the impact of the perception of

leadership styles on job

satisfaction within the Turkish national police based on the Multifactor

Leadership


Questionnaire. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 69,

Retrieved from PsycINFO.

Performance. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 14,

2010, from Dictionary.com

website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/performance

Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2001). Captain's leadership

type and police officers'

compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work & Organizational

Psychology, 10(3),

273. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

Silvestri, M. (2007). “Doing” Police Leadership: Enter the “New Smart

Macho”. Policing and

Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 17(1), 38-58.

Simmons, B. L., Nelson, D. L., & Neal, L. J. (2001). A comparison of the

positive and

negative work attitudes of home health care and hospital nurses.

Health Care

Management Review, 26(3), 63-74. Retrieved December 20, 2004, from

EBSCOhost database.

Singer, M., & Singer, A. (2001). Situational constraints on transformational

versus transactional

leadership behavior, subordinates' leadership preference, and

satisfaction. The Journal of

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/performance


Social Psychology, 130(3), 385-396. Retrieved from PsycINFO

database.

Standing Bear, Zug Galafa. (1986). Police leadership styles: An empirical

investigation of the

relationships between perceived leader effectiveness and prescriptive

leadership. Ann Arbor,

MI: University Microfilms International.

Stashevsky, Shmuel & Koslowsky, Meni. (2006). Leadership team

cohesiveness and team

performance. International Journal of Manpower: Leadership in

organizations, 27(1), 63-74.

Retrieved February 13, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document

ID: 1073422021).

Tan, H. H., & Tan, F. F. (2000, May). Toward the differentiation of trust in

supervisor

and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology

Monographs,

126(2), 241-260. Retrieved November 17, 2004, from EBSCOhost

database.

Van Maanen, J. (1983). Boss: First line supervision in an American police

agency. In M. Punch (Ed.),

Control in the Police Organization (pp. 275–317). Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.


Van Maanen, J. (1985). Making Rank: Becoming an American police

sergeant. Urban Life, 13(1),

(pp. 155–176).

Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G., (1988), The New Leadership: Managing

Participation in

Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Williams, J. (2004). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment, a Sloan

Work and Family

Encyclopedia entry. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from Sloan Work &

Family Research Network

website: http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?

id=244&area=academics.

http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=244&area=academics

http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?id=244&area=academics

Documents

Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance Parks Duncan