LEADERSHIP WITH NEW PARADIGM A MODEL OF ... - · PDF fileThis research explore the leadership with new paradigm A model for Transitional leadership. The ... Those who appoint new leaders,

www.ajbms.org Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences

ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]

©Society for Business Research Promotion | 7

LEADERSHIP WITH NEW PARADIGM A MODEL OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Dr. Nanik Ram

Assistant Professor, Department of Economics University of Sindh-Jamshoro

Dr. Imamuddin Khoso

Assistant Professor, IBA-University of Sindh-Jamshoro

Dr. Asif Ali shah

Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce

Shah Abdul Latif University-Khairpur

Dr. Nadeem Bhatti

Head of Faculty, North American College 730-Yonge Street, Suite No. 207

Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 2B7, Canada

Faiz.M.Shaikh

Assistant Professor, SZABAC-Dokri-Sindh-Pakistan E-mail:[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This research explore the leadership with new paradigm A model for Transitional

leadership. The substitutes for leaders model sees performance as dependent on

subordinate, task and organizational characteristics rather than on those of the leader.

For example, when the subordinates have high ability, they are experienced and

knowledgeable or the task is unambiguous and routine, task-oriented leadership is not

needed. Similarly when the task is intrinsically satisfying or the work group is closely knit

and cohesive, relationship or supportive leadership is of limited usefulness. It was

revealed that Transactional leaders motivate followers by exchanging rewards for

services rendered ---- for example, a principal provides new instructional materials or

increased planning time to teachers so they can institute a new curricular program. When

subordinates are doing their work in organizations such as schools, transactional leaders

recognize what followers want from work and try to provide them with what they want.

Key Words: Leadership, Transitional Leadership.

INTRODUCTION

There are some leaders that fascinate observers because of the enormous influence they

have had; Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela. What made these

leaders so influential? It has been suggested that these types of leaders possess a

unique set of traits that others do not have

Behavioral Theories of Leadership

There are three well-documented behavioral theories of leadership to be discussed in

this section: the Ohio University studies, conducted in the 1940s; the university of

Michigan studies that emerged in the same decade and Blake and Mouton’s Managerial


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


Grid, where behavioral definitions from the Ohio and Michigan studies are reflected.

Each of these three models considers two primary dimensions upon which managers

behave. These two dimensions are known in the Ohio State Studies as consideration

and initiating structure. It was first believed in the Ohio State studies that leader who

demonstrated high consideration would be more effective in achieving subordinate

satisfaction.

Situational or Contingency Theories of Leadership

Leaders might display appropriate traits and behaviors, yet remain ineffective leaders. It

has been suggested that this might be due to the wide variety of situations or

circumstances under which leaders must perform. Leaders face pressures from various

levels within the organization to adjust leadership style. As a result, the environment in

which leaders must perform influences their behavior and effectiveness.

Traits, Skills and Leadership

Many individuals still believe, as Aristotle did centuries ago, that from the hour of birth,

some are marked for subjection, others for rule. Aristotle thought that individuals are

born with characteristics that would make them leaders. The conception that the key

factors in determining leadership are inherited produced the so –called trait approach of

leadership. Bass (1990) observes that early in that century, leaders were generally

regarded as superior individuals who, because of fortune inheritance or social

circumstance, possessed qualities and abilities that differentiate them from the people

in general. Until the 1950s investigations to find the traits that determine who will be

leaders dominated the study of leadership. Researchers attempted to isolate unique

traits or characteristics of leaders that differentiated them from their followers.

Frequently studied traits included physical characteristics (height, weight), a host of

personality factors, needs, values, energy and activity levels, task and interpersonal

competence, intelligence, and charisma. Over time, recognition grew that traits can

generally be affected by inheritance, learning, and environmental factors.

Traits and Skills Associated with Effective Leadership

Personality Motivation Skills

Self – confidence Task and interpersonal needs Technical

Stress tolerance Achievement orientation Interpersonal

Emotional tolerance Power needs Conceptual

Integrity Expectations


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


MOTIVATIONAL TRAITS

Motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an

individual to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction,

intensity and duration. A basic postulate is that a motivation factors play key roles in

explaining both the choice of action and its degree of success.Generaaly highly

motivated leaders are likely to be more effective then individuals with low expectations,

modest goals and limited self-efficacy

Situational Factors of Educational Leadership

Subordinate Organizational Internal

Environment

External

Environment

Personality Size Climate Social

Motivation Hierarchy Culture Economic

Abilities Formalization

Leader role

Situational factors are particularly important during periods of leader succession.

Changing leaders produces naturally occurring instabilities in the organization and

offers challenging opportunities for individuals. The replacement of principals is

disruptive because it changes the lines of communication, realigns relationships of

power, affects decision making and generally disturbs the equilibrium of normal

activities Administrative succession also substantially raises the level of consciousness

among organizational participants about the importance of school leaders (Hart 1993).

Those who appoint new leaders, individuals who work with them and those who may be

affected by their actions watch for signs that change will occur. In other words, new

leaders face high performance expectations to maintain or improve existing levels of

organizational effectiveness (Miskel and Cosgrove 1985). Critical situational phenomena

occur for both the prospective leaders and the school organization before new

administrators arrive on the scene and shortly after their arrival. Consequently,

candidates for administrator positions who know about key situational factors can use

the knowledge to enhance their success in getting and keeping a leadership position.

A Recent Perspective on Leader Behavior

Yukl (2002) also cautions not to interpret the results of the early studies as universal

theories of effective leader behavior. In other words, concluding that the same style of

leader behavior is optimal across all situations is not warranted. Blake and Mouton’s


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


(1985) managerial grid is a well known universal theory. Its basic hypothesis is that the

most effective leaders are high on both production and people concerns. Production and

people concerns are similar to terms in the earlier models such as “tasks” or “initiating

structure” and “relationship” or “consideration”. Yukl notes that Blake and Mouton

suggest a situational aspect with the idea that the behaviors must be relevant to the

situation to be effective. However, they never actually state specific generalizations

linking appropriate behaviors to different situations.

.Relation-oriented behaviors include supporting, developing, recognizing, consulting

and managing conflict. These activities focus on improving relationships and helping

people, increasing cooperation and teamwork and building commitment to the

organization.

Change-oriented behaviors consist of scanning and interpreting external events,

articulating an attractive vision, proposing innovative programs, appealing for change

and creating a coalition to support and implement changes. These acts concentrate on

adapting to change in the environment, making major changes in goals, policies,

procedures and programs and gaining commitment to the changes.

Task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors are similar to initiating structure and

consideration respectively but are defined more broadly.

Leadership Effectiveness

The final sets of concepts in a contingency model are the criteria used to judge

leadership effectiveness. To both practicing administrators and scholars, effectiveness is

a complicated, multifaceted and subtle topic. Three types of effectiveness outcomes are

suggested in the table below,

Effectiveness Indicators for Educational Leaders

Personal Organizational Individual

Perceived reputation Goal

attainment

Satisfaction

Self-assessment Performance

Personal- other perceptions of reputation and self assessment.

Individual member satisfaction.

Organizational goal attainment.


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


Perceived evaluations of performance are important; subjective judgments of leader by

him or her, subordinates, peers and superiors with in the school and by members of the

public outside the school yield measures of effectiveness. In schools, the opinions- for

example, respect, admiration and commitment –held by students, teachers,

administrators and patrons are highly significant. However, these groups may view the

performance levels quite differently. A second indicator of leadership effectiveness is

the satisfaction of organizational participants. Finally, the relative levels of school goals

achievement also define the effectiveness of educational leaders. Leadership

effectiveness, then can be defined as having a more objective dimension-

accomplishment of organizational goals and two subjective dimensions- perceptual

evaluations of significant reference groups and overall job satisfaction of subordinates.

Contingency Models of Leadership

Hitting their zenith in the 1970s, contingency approaches such as the general model

shown in the figure below were the most influential models of leadership into the 1980s.

At their best, contingency approaches include the four sets of concepts that we have

just considered-traits of leaders, characteristics of the situation, and behaviors of the

leader and effectiveness of the leader. Two basic hypotheses are shown in the figure

below. First, traits and skills of leaders and characteristics of the situation combine to

produce leader behavior and effectiveness. Second, situational factors directly impact

effectiveness. For example, the motivation and ability levels of teachers and students

Traits and skills

of Leader

Effectiveness

Characteristics

of the situation

Leader

Behavior


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


are related to the goal attainment of schools. Moreover, the socioeconomic status of

individuals’ attended a school is strongly related to the student achievement on

standardized test. From a short-range perspective, at least the situational

characteristics of the school may have a greater influence on leader effectiveness than a

leader’s own behavior. Contingency approaches also seek to specify the conditions or

situational variables that moderate the relationship among leader traits, behaviors and

performance criteria (Bryman 1966). The evidence indicates that in one set of

circumstances, one type of leader is effective.

Bossert, David C.Dwyer, Rowan and Ginny V. Lee (1982) developed a specific

contingency model to describe and explain instructional leadership of principals. Their

model hypothesizes that personal, district and external environment characteristics

influence the management behaviors of principals, which in turn affect school climate

and instructional organization. School climate and instructional organization then

shape teachers behavior and students learning experiences that produce student

learning. Ronald Heck, Terry J.Larsen and George A. Marcoulides (1990) empirically

tested the model and found substantial support for its basic hypothesis. Principals

influence student achievement indirectly by creating instructional organizations in their

school through participative actions and by building school climates and cultures

characterized by clearly communicated goals and high expectations for academic

achievements and social behavior.Three general contingency models for leadership:

least preferred co-worker, substitutes for leaderships and path-goal theories will be

reviewed briefly. Each theory has received considerable attention across a wide range of

organizations.

Least Preferred Co-Worker Theory

Fiedler (1967) constructed the first major theory to propose specific contingency

relationships in the study of leadership. Lacking a behavior component, the least

preferred co-worker model uses leader style as a trait, three indicators of situational

control and effectiveness.

Leadership style is determined by the motivational system of the leader that is the

underlying needs structure that motivates behavior in various interpersonal situations.

The least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale is used to measure this trait. Using the LPC, a

respondent selects the person with whom he or she works least well (least preferred co-

worker) and then describes that individual on the scale. A person scoring high on the

LPC describes the least preferred co-worker positively as being pleasant, loyal, warm,

and efficient and so forth. In contrast, the individual scoring low on the LPC describes

the least preferred co-worker negatively as being unpleasant, backbiting, cold, unkind,


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


inefficient and so forth. The LPC score indicates the extent to which the individual sets

a higher priority or value on task accomplishment (task motivated) or on maintaining

good interpersonal relations (relationship-motivated) (Fiedler and Garcia 1987).

Situational control is the degree of power and influence that leaders have to

implement plans, decisions and action strategies (Fiedler and Garcia 1987).Situational

control is determined by three factors. First, position power is the power that the

organization confers on the leader for the purpose of getting job done. Examples include

the extent to which the leader can reward and punish members and whether the group

can depose the leader. Second, task structure is the extent to which the task has

clearly specified goals, methods and standards of performance. The more structured the

task, the more control the leader has in directing the group. Third, a leader-member

relation is the extent to which the leader is accepted and respected by group members.

Two factors are important with respect to leader-member relations: the quality of

interpersonal relations between the leader and subordinates and the level of informal

authority granted to the leader. The quality of leader-member relations is the most

important factor in determining the leader’s influence over group members, followed by

task structure and position power. Fiedler formed eight situations by dichotomizing the

three factors – that is good or bed leader- member relations, structured or unstructured

tasks and high or low position power. The eight combinations or octants map the range

of situations from high control to low control. The basic contention is that the leader

has more control and influence when the group is supportive, the leader knows exactly

what to do and how to do it and the organization gives the leader means to reward and

punish the group members.

Fiedler Chemers and Mahar (1976) proposed that administrators such as principals can

be trained to modify aspects of their situation. They developed a program to teach

leaders how to analyze their situations in terms of leader-member relations, task

structures and position power and based on the analysis, to change the conditions that

will improve group performance.

Effectiveness is the least preferred co-worker theory is straightforward- namely the

extent to which the group accomplishes its primary task. In many of Fiedler’s studies,

objective measures of group effectiveness are used-net profit, cost per unit, percentage

of wins, number of problems solved. If reliable objective measure of group performance

is not available, then performance ratings by the supervisor of the leader or group are

used. But in all cases, leader effectiveness is determined by the degree to which the

task is judged to be achieved. From data collected before 1962, Fiedler developed three

propositions for his contingency theory:


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


In high-control situations, task-oriented leaders are more effective than relationship-

oriented leaders.

In moderate-control situations, relationship-oriented leaders are more effective than

task-oriented leaders.

In low-control situations, task-oriented leaders are more effective than relationship-

oriented leaders.

The LPC theory has been subjected to several criticisms. Probably the most persistent

objection is that the definition has changed over the years concerning what the LPC

measures. At first, it was seen simply as a measure of an emotional reaction to

individuals with whom the leader found it difficult to work then it was thought to

differentiate between individuals who had a task orientation as opposed to an

interpersonal one; later the LPC score was interpreted as an indicator of a leader’s

motivational hierarchy. Overall, Fiedler’s theory represents an ambitious and laudable

effort to build a powerful contingency theory of leadership. Although interest has

waned, the model demonstrates that a combination of situational and individual

characteristics partly explains the leadership phenomenon. Like most pioneering

efforts, it undoubtedly is incorrect in detail if not in substance. Yet Fiedler’s contingency

model was the first and to date the long-lasting attempt to answer the question, what

particular style in what special situation?

Substitutes for Leaderships Theories

An assumption of contingency models other than this one is that some kind of formal

leadership is needed and important in organizations such as schools (Howell 1977).

Steven Kerr and John M.Jermier (1978) questioned this assumption and created the

substitutes for leadership model. The primary concepts of this contingency model are

supportive and instrumental leader behaviors, situational variables that act as

substitutes and neutralizers for leadership and outcome variables.Substitues are

persons or things that make person-oriented or task-oriented behavior unnecessary

and redundant. In other words substitutes are situational aspects that replace or

reduce a leader’s ability to influence the attitudes, perceptions or behaviors of followers.

In contrast, neutralizers do not replace leaders behaviors but are situational factors

that prevent a leader from acting in a particular way or that nullify the effects of the

leader’s actions. For example, a principal’s lack of authority to reward a teacher’s

effective performance is situational constraint on the leader behavior, whereas the

teacher’s lack of interest in an incentive offered by the principal is a condition that

makes the behavior pointless (Yukl 1998).


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


Kerr and Jermier (1978) identify three categories of situational variables that have the

potential to act as leader’s substitute. First, characteristics of subordinates include

their abilities, training, experience and knowledge, professional orientation and

indifference towards rewards. Second, task characteristics comprise structured routines

tasks, intrinsically satisfying tasks and feed back provided by the task. Third,

organizational characteristics consist of such things as formalization of roles and

procedures, flexibility of rules and policies, work group cohesiveness and spatial

distance between the administrator and followers. The substitutes for leaders model

sees performance as dependent on subordinate, task and organizational characteristics

rather than on those of the leader. For example, when the subordinates have high

ability, they are experienced and knowledgeable or the task is unambiguous and

routine, task-oriented leadership is not needed. Similarly when the task is intrinsically

satisfying or the work group is closely knit and cohesive, relationship or supportive

leadership is of limited usefulness.

Philip M.Podsakoff and his colleagues (1993) conclude that the theory has generated

substantial interest because it helps explain why leader behaviors have significant

effects in some situations and may have no effects in others. Although results from

recent attempts to test the model have not been particularly supportive, Podsakoff and

his colleagues concluded that it is necessary to consider both leader behaviors and

substitutes to understand how employee attitudes, behaviors and role perceptions are

determined, In sum, they believe that the leadership substitutes model should receive

additional attention.

Reformulated Path-Goal Theories

House (1971, 1973) initially developed the path-goal theory of leadership and House

and Mitchell (1974) refined it. With 40 to 50 studies lending mixed support for the

model, House (1996) made a major overhaul of the theory. For example, he expanded

the number of leader behaviors and outcome variables, modernized the situational

concepts and formulated 26 specific propositions or hypotheses. The major concepts-

leader behavior, situational factors and effectiveness- comprising the reformulated

path-goal theory is shown in the table below

Concepts in the Reformulated Path-Goal Theory of Leadership

Leader

Behavior

Situation Outcomes

Path-goal

clarifying

Group decision process Subordinate

motivation

Subordinate

satisfaction


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


Achievement

oriented

Representation Subordinate

abilities

Subordinate

empowerment

Work facilitation

Networking Task demands Subordinate effectiveness

Supportive Value based Work unit

effectiveness

Interaction

facilitation

Shared

Based in expectancy motivation theory, the model’s core assumption is that followers

will be motivated if they believe they are capable of doing the work that their efforts will

produce desired outcomes and that the rewards for doing the work will be worthwhile

(Northouse 2004). Its overall proposition is that subordinates satisfaction and

individual and work unit effectiveness increase as leaders engage in behaviors that

complement the task environments and subordinates abilities and compensate for

deficiencies. To illustrate the specific prepositions of this complex theory, five leaders

behaviors will be defined and then related to the situational and outcome variables

through five specific prepositions.

First, under certain conditions, a leader’s path –goal clarifying behavior are capable of

making subordinates needs and preferences contingent on effective performance. These

include clarifying performance goals, means to carry out the task, standards of

performance, expectations of others and rewards and punishments for subordinates.

This lead to the preposition that when task demands of subordinates are satisfying but

ambiguous, path-goal clarifying behaviors by superiors will be a source of clarification

and subordinate satisfaction will be motivational.

Second, achievement-oriented leader behavior is behavior that encourages excellent

performance, sets challenging goals, seeks improvement and shows confidence that

subordinates will attain high performance standards. More than merely emphasizing

performance or goals, it depends on the motivational orientations of the subordinates.

Hence House (1996) proposes that achievement-oriented leader behavior will be effective

when performed by superiors who administer subordinates who have individual

responsibility and control over their work.

Third, supportive leader behavior displays a concern for subordinates welfare, creates

a friendly and psychologically supportive work environment and takes into account

subordinates needs and preferences. Such behavior is particularly needed when the

situation is dangerous, monotonous and stressful or frustrating.Converssely, House

(1996) proposes that when tasks are intrinsically satisfying or the situation is not


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


stressful, supportive leader behavior will have limited effect on follower satisfaction,

motivation or performance.

Fourth, value-based leader behavior appeals to followers treasured values, enhances

their self efficiency and sense of consistency and makes their self worth contingent on

contributing to the leader mission. Behaviors include articulating a vision or ideological

goal for a better future for the followers, displaying passion for the vision and using

symbolic behaviors to emphasize the values contained in collective vision because

ideological vision often challenge the status quo, their expression is often suppressed.

Hence, when the values inherent in the vision of a value based leader are in conflict

with the dominant coalition or prevailing culture of the organization value based

leadership will induce substantial inter group conflict.Finally, shared leadership occurs

when the formally appointed leader shares the leader behavior with members of the

work group. Following research found that peer leadership to be more strongly related

to effectiveness than leadership exercised by formal administrators, House (1996) offers

the following proportion: when the work is interdependent with in the work unit,

encouragement by the leaders of collaborative shared responsibility for performing the

leader behaviors with enhanced work unit cohesiveness and performance.

Any given leader is unlikely to have the abilities to engage in all or even most of the ten

sets of behavior. On the basis of their personalities and inventories of abilities, House

(1996) contends that effective leader will select the behaviors with they are most

comfortable. In addition some of the behaviors are probably substitutable for each

other. For example, articulating a vision coupled with modeling appropriate behaviors

may substitute for path-goal clarifying behaviors. Some of the moderating variables may

substitute for each other, Task relevant knowledge may substitute for task structured.

Although the reformulated path-goal theory of leadership has not yet been tested

empirically, House (1996) maintains that it is consistent and integrates the predictions

from the other current leadership theories and empirical generalizations. It is limited,

however, in not dealing with emergent informal leadership as it affects several levels of

administrators or subordinates in organizations, or leadership for change.

Changing Leadership Perspectives

In presenting the trait, behavior, situational and contingency approaches, we have

tended to follow a historical sequence of knowledge development for leadership. Most of

the theory development and research on these traditional models occurred before 1980.

The accumulated knowledge from these approaches is substantial and provides

significant insights about leadership. Nevertheless, James G Hunt (1999) describes the

development of a sense of “doom and gloom “about the study of leadership during the


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


1970s. A number of scholars questioned the usefulness of the leadership concept (e.g

Lieberson and O Connor 1972, Salancik and prefer 1977, McCall and Lombardo 1978,

Kerr Jermier 1978). Scholars saw little new conceptual capital being created and

thought the massive number of leadership studies had produced a field that was

rigorous, boring and static. Most important the research examined more and more the

inconsequential questions and provides little new knowledge.

Amid cries of catastrophe, a bright spot-transformational leadership- appeared to save

the day (Hunt 1999). With new ideas of visionary and change-oriented leadership, the

doom and gloom atmosphere was transformed during the 1980s to a burst of

enthusiasm for the “new leadership”.

A MODEL OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

JAMES Mac Gregor Burns (1978) is commonly credited with formulating the ideas of

transactional and transformational leadership and applying them in the political arena.

Building on Burn’s ideas, Bass(1985) constructed a wide- ranging and highly influential

model for leaders in social organizations. The basic framework of transformational

leadership can be conceptualized using a continuum, which Bass (1998) calls a “full

range leadership model”. As shown in the table below, Bass identifies three major types

of leadership

1. Laissez-faire Leadership

2. Transactional Leadership

3. Transformational leadership.

While the three types of leadership have remained constant, the number of factors or

components comprising the three has varied (Avolio, Bass and Jung 1999). The

formulation shown in the table uses the nine factors- one for laissez-faire, three for

transactional and five for transformulation (Antonakis, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam

2003)

THREE TYPES OF LEADERSHIPLaissez - Faire Leadership

Bass (1998) characterizes this type of leadership as the absence of transactions with

followers. For instance, laissez – faire leaders avoid expressing their views or taking

action on important issues, fail to make or at least delay decisions, ignore

responsibilities, provide no feedback, and allow authority to remain dormant. It

essentially is the avoidance or absence of leadership and consequently is the most

passive and least effective. An example would be a principal who stays in the office,

engages faculty and the students as little as possible, shows minimal concern for the


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


learning and development of students or needs of the teachers and allow school

structures and processes to continue in the same way.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leaders motivate followers by exchanging rewards for services rendered ---

- for example, a principal provides new instructional materials or increased planning

time to teachers so they can institute a new curricular program. When subordinates are

doing their work in organizations such as schools, transactional leaders recognize what

followers want from work and try to provide them with what they want. They exchange

rewards and promises reward for efforts and respond to followers’ immediate self –

interests. Transactional leaders pursue a cost –benefit, economic exchange to meet

followers’ current material and physiological needs in return for contracted services

rendered by subordinate (Bass, 1985a). As shown in table below, transactional

leadership is posited to have there components (Antonakis, Avolio and

Sivasubramaniam 2003) .Contingent reward leadership refers to leader behaviors that

focus on clarifying role and task requirements and provide followers with rewards

contingent on the follower’s performance. In other words, this subtype of leadership

behavior gives followers thing they want in exchange for things leaders want (Kuhnert

and Lewis, 1987). Active management- by – exception means that leaders maintain

high levels of vigilance to ensure that standards are met. That is, leaders actively

monitor performance and take corrective action as problems become apparent. Passive

management- by- exception means that leaders fail to intervene until problems

become serious. These leaders wait to take action until after mistakes or other

performance problems have happened and are called to their attention..

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The main objective of the study was to find out the relationship between leadership

style and job satisfaction. For this purpose, the questionnaire was developed; there were

23 variables in all. All questions were close ended. It was administered to 205 school

teachers both male and female of public and private schools of Lahore. The data was

analyzed through SPSS and the findings, conclusion and recommendations are given

below. The study will help us to find out the impact of leadership style on the working

and output of employees and their job satisfaction. The male and female have same

level of job satisfaction. As both work in similar position Public teachers have high level

of job satisfaction because in private sector job is not secure as it is in public sector.

Leadership style has a positive impact on job satisfaction. People like to work in free

atmosphere where they can share and exchange their views. Employees tell their


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


leaders fearlessly in case of any thing wrong. This creates a sense of ownership among

the employees that gives them satisfaction.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The data should be enlarged for further study.

2. More factors should be involved in job satisfaction.

3. There should be more factors involved in leadership style.

4. Private sector should modify their rules and regulations to attract the employees.

5. Democratic Leadership styles should be encouraged in the organizations.

REFERENCES

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

An Examination of the Nine-Factor Full-Range Leadership Theory Using the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14,261-95.

Atwater,D.C and Bass,B.M(1994). Transformational Leadership in Teams. In

B.M.Bass and B.J.Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational Effectiveness through

Transformational Leadership (pp. 48-83) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B.J.(1994). The Alliance of Total Quality and The Full Range of Leadership. In

B.M.Bass and B.J.Avolio (Eds), Improving organizational Effectiveness through

Transformational Leadership (pp. 121-45) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B.J.(1999). Full Leadership Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bales, R.F. (1970) Interaction process analysis. Mass: Addison-Wesley, 509.

Bales, R.F. (1970) Interaction process analysis. Mass: Addison-Wesley, 509.

Bass, B.M (1985a). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B.M (1990).Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership (3rd ed). New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B.M and Avolio B.J (1994).Introduction in B.M Bass and B.J. Avolio, Improving

Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership (pp 1-10).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blake, R.R and Mouton, J.S (1985). The Managerial Grid III.Houston, TX: Gulf.

Bossert, S.T, Dwyer, D.C, Rowan, B and Lee, G.V. (1982).The Instructional

Management Role of the Principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 36-

64.

Bruffee, K.A. (1993) Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence and

the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 125.

Bryman, A.(1996). Leadership in Organizations.In S.R.Clegg, C.Hardy and W.R.Nord

(Eds), Handbook of Organizational Studies. Thousands Oaks,CA:Sage.

Buckner, J.C. (1988) The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood

cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 118-127

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


ISSN: 2047-2528 Vol. 1 No. 4 [07-21]


Camburn,E,Rowan,B and Taylor,J.(2003,Winter). Distributed Leadership in Schools

Adopting Comprehensive School Reform Models. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis,25,347-373.

Camman, Fischman, Jenkins, & Wesh (1983) Assessing the attitude and perception of

organization members. In S. Seashore (Ed.) Assessing organizational changes. New

York: John Wiley, 71-73

Cohen, S. & Wills, T.A. (1985) Stress, social support and offering hypothesis.

Psychology Bulletin, 310-357.

Collins, J.(2001). Good to Great. New York: Harper Business.

Documents

LEADERSHIP WITH NEW PARADIGM A MODEL OF ... - · PDF fileThis research explore the leadership with new paradigm A model for Transitional leadership. The ... Those who appoint new leaders,