You are on page 1of 13

Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 32-44, 2012 Available online at http://www.cjasr.

com ISSN: 2251-9114, 2012 CJASR

Is Leadership Style Connected with the Productivity?

Mohammad Reza Azadehdel1*, Maryam Ooshaksaraie2

Department of Public Administration, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran Department of Management, Bandar Anzali Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bandar Anzali, Iran Tel: +98-9113332890 E-mail: *Corresponding Author; Tel: +98-9112354885 E-mail:

The link between managers effective leadership style and improving productivity at the organizational and personal level is an interesting topic for all administrative system during Reform Program. Leadership style is the ability to influence people to achieve desired goals and productivity, the degree to which an organization succeeds to use resources to achieve objectives. Studies demonstrated that general performance of the state organizations is lower than expected by policy makers. Lack of productivity culture and leadership style of public managers may due to such results. This study builds on the existing literature to propose two hypotheses about how managers leadership style related to their organizations productivity in terms of public managers perspective. Multi source approach is used to collect survey data from 314 public managers (all levels) of state run organizations in Guilan Province of Iran. A Pearson and multiple correlation coefficient and descriptive methods used to analysis collected data. The findings support a direct and positive link between style of leadership that has been labeled as transformational-transactional and state runs productivity. Furthermore, managers age along with leadership style was positively related to productivity. Key words: Leadership style, productivity, transformational-transactional leadership, public managers

1. INTRODUCTION Productivity is a concept that has captured the imagination and energy of managers and behavioral scientists for decades. According to Campbell et al. (1988), discussions concerning the concept of productivity have created an increasing sense of urgency. The decline in productivity growth has contributed radically to prevailing inflation and unemployment, a decline in international competitiveness, and a decrease in the value of monetary units in countries. Hence, Productivity has become an important national issue in the economy of the contemporary world (Heap 2007).There are various definitions of productivity that are centered on the relationship between the input of resources and the output of products and services. Historically, productivity is viewed as a process of optimization, but this approach ignores the output side of the productivity equation, i.e. the value added in products and services. It is essential to recognize that productivity involves a twin approach of optimizing the use of resources and enhancing the value added of the output. Productivity is a measure of how efficient an organization is in using its resources to create products or services. Griffin (2006) believes that in a general sense, productivity is an economic measure of efficiency that summarizes the value of outputs relative to the value of the inputs used to create them. According

to this study productivity is defined as the degree of an organizations success in using the resources to achieve stated objectives. The global competitiveness has motivated scholars and practitioners to study some important factors that can stimulate productivity of organizations. Those factors are such as, the structural factor, corporate governance, managers leadership style, and management risk, employees satisfaction, management recognition, responsibility levels, commitment, advancement opportunity, achievement, workplace environment and the nature of the work. Among the factors that influence organizations to achieve more advantages than before, leadership has been identified by many researchers as being one of the important (Avolio, 2001; Goleman, 2001; Jung et al., 2003; Shermerhornet al., 2003; Lyne de Ver, 2008; Lyne de Ver, 2009; Azadehdel 2010).There are many reasons that leaders have higher profiles than before. One of the reasons is that managerial activities play a much bigger role in our lives than they used to, and managers as leaders are more often in the public interest. Furthermore, managers without a doubt use some of the leadership styles featured to handle the situations. Managers leadership style provides such power to have a strong response to a given situation either under control or out of command administrators. Leadership refers to the ability to influence the behavior of others for achieving the desired goals


Azadehdel and Ooshaksaraie Is Leadership Style Connected with the Productivity?

(Robbins, 2003; Sekaran, 2004; Burtonet al., 2006). Furthermore, a leadership style is a relatively stable pattern of behavior exhibited by leaders (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Leadership effectiveness is acquired over a lifetime by gaining knowledge and sharing it to enhance the organizations full potential. An effective leader inspires trust, focuses on people and has a longrange perspective. Furthermore, leader is able to anticipate the future and allow for developments in technologies and changes in the marketplace or the global economy. For more effectiveness of the organizational system, Bass and Avolio (1997) terms, what most organizational leaders on, however, is that their organization must move away from encouraging employees to leave their brains at the door, to systems where employees intellectual capital nurtured, developed and more directly rewarded. However, using a specific style in a given situation is critical to achieve extraordinary output. For instance, Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009; p:429) observed that despite significant progress in understanding how and when charismatic and transformational leadership behaviors are more effective, further research is needed that explore the process and boundary conditions for charismatic and transformational leadership with beneficial work behavior. The leadership literature is extensively rich with theories, models and research approaches. To determine what style of leadership in terms of energy spending to perform duties most effectively serves the profession of the state run organization, it is necessary to investigate how successful managers acted in a challenging environment. According to the noted authors like Waldman et al. (1990) leaders who have a profile of the full range of transformational and transactional leadership style include components are much more effective. Other scholars found, leadership literature has proclaimed effective leaders (Bass and Steidlmeie, 1998; Greenleaf, 1997; Homrig, 2001; Kouser and Posner, 1993; Sivanathan and Fekken, 2002; Waldmanet al., 1990; Wren, 1995). They stated that today many of organizations require transformational leadership style to bring about in followers improvement, their creativity, imagination and the best effort. However, the present study has classified these theories using specific criteria, and considered a discussion of two leadership theories of transformational leadership (charisma) and transactional leadership (exchanges). This study is conducted to explore what is the main style of leadership exhibited by the public

managers in the research site, and how leadership affects productivity at the level of state organizations in research site. Also, it looks for that to what extent relationship between the public managers leadership style and the productivity of the state organizations in the Guilan province will change, when age is factored in as a modifying variable. This study is among the very few studies (Azadehdel, 2010), which examines the leadership style of Iranian public managers, and it is accomplished through the use of concepts like public administration and reform, leadership, and productivity in Iran. Therefore, it has its own originality. Since this study is a new topic, which is conducted at the research site, there is not a body of knowledge related to the subject about public administration, leadership and productivity of state organizations in the target society. The type of leadership considered in this study is a set of behaviors that has come to be labeled transformational-transactional leadership style. From one side, Transformational leadership style emphasizes longer-term and vision-based motivational processes (Bass and Avolio, 1997) and has been the subject of extensive research in the past decade. On the other side Bass and Steidlmeier (1998) found that Transactional leadership style involves contingent reinforcement. Followers are motivated by the leaders promises, praise and reward or, they are corrected by negative feedback, reproof, threats, or disciplinary actions. Researcher believes that previous findings of a link between transformational and transactional leadership and employees (individual) outcomes and productivity can be extrapolated to an organizational level. 1.1. Transformational-transaction style, the achievement key toward productivity Burns (1978) proposed that the leadership process occurs in one of two ways, either transactional or transformational. In contrast, Burns characterized Transformational Leadership as a process that motivates followers by appealing to higher ideals and moral values. Bass and Avolio(1994) have developed a theory of Transformational Leadership that is a culmination and extension of earlier work by Bennis and Nanus (1985); Burns (1978) and others. Bass (1990) defines Transformational Leadership as: (i) idealized influence (attributed and behavior) provides vision and sense of mission, instills pride, gains respect and trust, (ii) inspirational motivation: Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts,


Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 32-44, 2012

expresses important purposes in simple ways, (iii) intellectual stimulation: Promotes intelligence, rationality and careful problem solving, (iv) individualized consideration: Gives personal attention, treats each employee individually, coaches, advises. Also, Bass (1990a) defines Transactional Leadership as: (i) contingent reward: Contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises rewards for good performance, recognizes accomplishments, (ii) management-by-exception (active): Watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards, takes corrective action (iii) management-by-exception (passive): Intervenes only if standards are not met. Other scholars (Avolio, 2001; Sadler, 2003) found that transformational leaders tend to be: Idealized and

inspiring; they perform as role models and take calculated risks, (i) demonstrate high standards of ethical conduct; and are admired, respected and trusted by their followers, (ii) intellectually stimulating; they frame and reframe problems, question assumptions and stimulate followers and peers to creative thinking and innovation, (iii) individually considerate; they show concern for the well-Being of each person they work with and treat each as an individual with unique needs and capabilities, (iv) transactional leaders tend to be contingently rewarding. They provide rewards and/ or promises for people who meet standards of performance set jointly or by the leader, (v) active in managing by exception; they monitor followers performance and take corrective action as needed.

Table 1: Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles Characteristics Leadership Styles Leadership Scales Transformational Leadership 1.primary mission of change creator 3.concerning followers needs 4.long term goals 5.arousing follower aspirations 6.being teacher is significant 7.representing higher morality 8.stimulating the followers 9.being inspirational 10.ability as power resource Transactional Leadership 1.primary mission of stability facilitator 3.concerning followers reward 4.short term goals 5.managing goals 6.facilitating is significant 7.representing equal morality 8.rewarding followers 9.being practical 10.status as power resource Table 2: Productivity Components Productivity Components (Scales) Goal achievement Extent of success Using new technology Customers satisfaction Human resources training Employees effort Completion of work Utilization of resources Leadership effectiveness Prudent work implementation

No. Item 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.


Azadehdel and Ooshaksaraie Is Leadership Style Connected with the Productivity?

Common themes found in Transformational Leadership research include the leaders ability to: (i) motivate subordinates by focusing on the higher-order needs of purpose, values and morality (Bass 1985; Burns 1978); (ii) create and articulate a vision-related goal (Bennis and Nanus, 1985) and (iii) empower others to move toward the shared goal (Robbins 2003). The managers should encourage a high level of employees involvement and seek methods to motivate people in the organization. House (1996) has emphasized generic leadership behaviors that characterize outstanding leadership in various situations and Bass (1997) has argued for the validity of the
Age group 40 years >40 years Total Frequency 151 163 314

transformational leadership model (including its charismatic component) across situations and cultures. Findings of those studies were that such leaders recurrently have powerful effects on follower affective states as well as improved organizational performance. According to noted scholars, such leadership is referred to as charismatic (House, 1977; Avolio and Bass, 1987; Gibbons, 1986; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Zaleznik, 1984), transformational (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1981; 1985; Graham, 1987), inspirational (Yukl and Van Fleet, 1982) or visionary (Bennis and Nanus, 1985; Riggs. 1994; Sashkin, 1988).
Percent 48.1 51.9 100.0 Valid percent 48.1 51.9 100.0

Table 3: Frequency and percent of age as modifying variable

In essence, transactional leadership relies mainly on contingent reinforcement. Bass (1997) in his study considers three transactional factors. Contingent reward, the first factor is regarded as constructive transaction in motivating others to achieve higher levels of outcomes and performance is in order. In this method, the leader assigns or gets agreement on what needs to be met and promises rewards or actually rewards others in exchange for satisfactorily carrying out the
Independent variables

assignment. Active management by exception is the second factor of transactional leadership and the third factor is passive management-byexception. When active, the leader arranges to actively monitor deviances from standards, mistakes and errors in the followers assignments and to take corrective action as necessary. When passive, the leader waits for deviances, mistakes and errors to occur and then takes corrective action.
Frequency 67 247 314 Percent 21.3 78.7 100.0

Table 4: Frequency and percent of independent variable

Leadership styles Transformational style (TI) Transactional style (T2) Total managers

The transformational leaders are distinguished by a special ability to bring about innovation and change. Burns and Dunn (2001) suggest that transformational leadership is the capacity to bring about fundamental change that meets the aching wants and needs. Homrig (2001); Kee et al. (2006) and Rose et al. (2006), Karkand Van Dijk, 2007, supported such findings. Those scholars concluded that transformational leaders are similar to charismatic leaders, but are distinguished by their special ability to bring about innovation and change. Transformational leaders mix the expert power with referent power in helping the organization adapt to reasonable change. A transformer leader focuses on the organizational vision and mission, corporate culture, values and believes that attention to such elements makes the organization as an integrated unit to achieve

extraordinary goals (Walumbwa and Chad 2011). Hooper and Potter (1997) suggest that transformational leadership involves the following four elements: Vision, values, communication and behavior. These four elements combined constitute an ambient culture within which leadership operates. Avolio (2001) stressed that, transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible. According to Bass (1997), a strong transactional leader may well prove to be a weak transformational leader. However, transactional and transformational leadership should not be viewed as opposing approaches to getting things done. Transformational leadership is built on transactional leadership. Furthermore, Robbins and DeCenzo (2005) stated transformational


Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 32-44, 2012

leadership is more than charisma. Other leadership theorists (Bass 1985; Hoffman and Frost, 2006) hypothesized that leadership is most effective when an individual utilizes emotional and inspirational influencing tactics instead of bolstering the well-being of the organization and its members. Findings of their recent meta-analysis (Judge and Piccolo, 2004) shows that transformational leadership is an important determinant of a variety of outcome variables including: Subordinate commitment and satisfaction as well as the effectiveness of the leaders work group. According to the other studies (Bass, 1990c; Shermerhorn, 1989; Shermerhornet al., 2003) the most successful and effective leaders of the future will most likely be strong in both transformational and transactional leadership style knowledge. Based on the objective of this study the success of state organizations at the research site is the result of a combination of factors such as: Managerial approach or leadership style, budget, technological resources, mobilization and logistics and human capital in implementing successful reform. In this sense, theoretical foundation on the study of leadership and leadership styles is very important when one calls for productivity, and organizational improvement. According to the human resources statistics by the Management and Planning Organization in Iran (2004: 10), more than one-third of the workforce in services and production sectors are the state employees. Furthermore, adding factors such as poor living conditions, uncontrolled discrimination and unequal pay have stripped the state employees of all the motivation needed to perform their duties appropriately. Improving individual and group productivity holds the key to achieving significant improvements in company performance in a tough economic climate. Thus, while public policy emphasizes administrative reform, especially in productivity through transformative leadership, there are factors which hinder such development. As such this study examines the leadership styles influence in building high performance human system, efficiency, and also the effectiveness of an organization system. The leadership literature discussed above is extensively rich with theories, models and research approaches. However, the present study has classified these theories using specific criteria, and considered a discussion of two leadership theories of transformational leadership and transactional leadership, their similarities and differences and their relationship with the Practical Leadership (mixed

styles).Transformational leaders possessed consistent communication skills that influenced their followers beliefs in different contexts, whether it was a nation or an organization agenda. On the other hand leaders have to show ability to incorporate these views in a practical way. They then become practitioners, who connect the results of their study to their practice in organizational context. Transactional leaders make their followers meet certain outcomes in their organizations. This study developed the mixed leadership style that is integrating ten leadership characteristics taken from each transformational and transactional style, to enhance the effectiveness of leaders in achieving high level productivity in state organizations. Dubrin (2004: 68) reports that many of the charismatic leadership characteristics apply to transformational leadership because charisma is a key component of transformational leadership. In addition, an earlier study by Burns (1978) on transformational leadership reveals that transformational leadership does not stand alone in the leadership lexicon. It mentioned another style of leadership namely transactional leadership that is becoming a key term in leadership studies along with transformational leadership (its called as TT leadership in this paper). 2. MATERIALSAND METHODS Questionnaire is the research instrumentation for collecting data. State runs in Guilan Province of Iran were involved in the questionnaire surveys. The questionnaires in this study are such as: leadership style and productivity is employed. Transformational and Transactional Leadership style questionnaire (TT) developed by W. Warner Burke (Shermerhorn, 1989; Shermerhornet al., 2003). It used 10 pairs of statements from transformational transactional leadership behavior (table 1). All of the items were rated on a 5-point scale with 0 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Productivity, the dependent variable of this paper refers to the extent of the state organizations success and achievement to their stated objectives. Productivity was measured using a 10-item scale researcher developed (table 2). This variable was rated on a five point scale from very low =1 to very high =5. Neutral point for mean score of each component in this study is considered 3 or average. Productivity survey, which developed by the researcher, is conducted with 10 questions. Three items of Oldham and Cummings (1996) productivity questionnaire have been extracted. Furthermore, seven items have been used from the


Azadehdel and Ooshaksaraie Is Leadership Style Connected with the Productivity?

Second and the Third Five-Year Development Plans of Iran. The population of the target group consists of top, middle level, and functional managers who are involved as leaders in the state run organizations (include 110 of under government organizational units).The most popular specification of public managers in the sampling frame is that all of them were actively engaged in the reform program during the Plans. In this case, random sampling gave the equal chance to all members of the target population group to be selected from the sample frame. The objective in this method is to make the sample seem a good representative of population. Also, random samples of employees as participants in the data collection about the public managers competency in their leadership situation were selected. A simple random sampling technique was used to make the sample selection for the pretest group and the final sample frame. The total sample frame consists of 350 public managers, and 650 employees that were randomly selected in distinguished organizations (40% of public managers, and 10% of employees, are samples of all the state organizations mentioned in the Guilan province). The professional team members handed the questionnaires to all the 1000 participants in their offices. Out of 350 public managers of the sampling frame, 314 completed the surveys and returned them which showed an 89.7% response rate. To eliminate common response biases, ten managers in each level were randomly chosen from each state runs organization of research site to complete different survey instruments. The questions in the survey measured his/her transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. All 314 participants were selected from administrative departments of service sector to limit potential variation due to different industry types. We chose this part of state runs for study because administrative reform and public services delivery through organizational development has been a critical factor (as a program) for governments services improvement and survival due to the state runs rapid technological advances and highly change environment. Data measurement for this study according to the original (main), and modifying variables are as follows: the dependent variable was the productivity of the state organizations, which was numeric and continuous. Independent variables were the public managers leadership style, which were numeric and continuous. Modifying variables of age was

nominal, which were used as dummy indicator variables. The Deputy of human capital Department of the Management and Planning Organization of the Guilan Province offered permission, assistance and support, and provided the researcher with a list of respondents. Randomization technique, which is used to make the sample frame, is employed in terms of coded listing of all public managers and other employees in distinguished state organizations through a random number table. The pilot sample and final samples were selected by processing the random numbers until candidates were selected. The pilot group consisted of 30 people to whom a survey package was distributed. Since the selected sample was within a variety of organizations, it was difficult to collect data without the assistance of a ten member team (questionnaire distributors) to distribute and collect survey questionnaires with the least mistakes. To get the best results possible, survey delivery is done by hand and direct contact to attract the respondents motivation, and awareness, and to collect as many complete surveys as possible. Analysis and results of this study provided based on a combination of quantitative and descriptive methodology Bass (1990b). A large part of the data analysis of quantitative research is inferential statistical, striving to show that the world can be looked at in terms of one reality; this reality, when isolated in context, can be measured and understood, a perspective known as positivism (Gay and Airasian, 2000). The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 19) for windows, and excel software were used to analyze the data. Gathering data for the quantitative method was done based on two hypotheses based on existing literature (The research model (framework) shown in Figure 1). Theory provides a basis for this study. According to Bass (1990a), in transformational leadership, the leader motivates followers by inspiring them, setting challenges and motivating personal development. Transformational leadership encourages the achievement of high collective standards, through a sense of purpose and a common mission and vision. The second leadership style is transactional, in which the leader motivates his followers via specific benefits provided that they are capable of accomplishing the tasks assigned to them. The transactional style involves negotiation between the leaders and subordinates. Other scholars (Evkall and Ryhammar 1997; Kahai, and Sosik, 1997) revealed that leadership style affects group work processes,


Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 32-44, 2012

the social climate and results. From this perspective, leadership style affects the climate, and the climate affects creativity and productivity, although leadership can also affect productivity directly. Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between public managers transformational-transactional leadership style and productivity of state organizations in Guilan province, Iran. Feyrer (2005) finds that there is a strong relationship between employees demographics and total factor productivity. He believes that the impact of demographics on productivity is much larger than is estimated by microeconomic evidence on the relationship between wages and experience. Understanding age-productivity profiles is of vital importance in several areas of economic research. Given that older individuals are less productive, an aging working population can lower economic growth and decrease fiscal sustainability (Skirbekk, 2003). Productivity can decline with age for numerous reasons (Walewski, 2008). He believes that productivity with age will be more pronounced in jobs where performance depends more on physical power and the speed of working, learning and problem-solving, and less so in jobs where experience and verbal skills are more important. This expectation implies that a productivity decline with age is not homogeneous. Younger managers were more likely to have democratic values when it came to capacity for leadership and initiative and to sharing information and objectives. Hypothesis2: There is a relationship between public managers transformational-transactional leadership style and productivity of state organizations in Guilan province regarding the managers age. Furthermore, to find more information through adequate explanation on why or how the relationship between two or more variables is significant or not, it is necessary to bring about an extra approach to cover such limitation of the quantitative method. A Pearson Correlation Coefficient is used to identify the direction of relation between the dependent and each independent variable. Multiple Correlations between the dependent and independent variables
Main variables Productivity Transactional style (T2) Transformational style (TI)

regarding the managers age were analyzed to examine the effect of the modifying variable in relationship of public managers leadership style as independent variable, and the dependent variable of state organizations productivity. Furthermore, descriptive analysis, mean, frequencies and percent are used for research variables explanation and reliability testing is conducted for research instruments. Two distinguished style of leadership is considered as criteria of independent variable of leadership in the first step, to understand the main style of leadership that public managers exhibited. Those are as: Transactional leadership style, which measured as the representative of traditional leading model and Transformational leadership style that measured as the representative of new model of leadership. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Data analyzing has done through two steps. In the first place through applying descriptive method, determined the managers age class, mean score of variables, and analysis obtained data, main leadership style is introduced. In the second step in the course of inferential analysis correlation between leadership as independent variable and productivity as the dependent variable along with age computed. This study focused on the level of individuals rather than the organization, researcher measured indicator of age as modifying variables, which probably affected strength of correlation between the dependent and independent variables and it is as public managers characteristics. A Pearson Correlation Coefficient is used to identify the direction of relation between the dependent and each independent variable (one Y and one X). Multiple Correlations between the dependent and independent variables (more than two variables) were also analyzed to examine the effect of the independent variables of public managers leadership style, along with influence of modifying (demographic) variable as binary (dummy) variables on the dependent variable of state organizations productivity.

Table 5: Descriptive statistics of the constructs (n = 314)

M 21.51 28.11 21.54 SD 4.36 4.71 4.62

38 36

Azadehdel and Ooshaksaraie Is Leadership Style Connected with the Productivity?

Public managers are classified into two separate groups in terms of age group (Table 3). Managers who are 40 years old and below are coded 0 (zero) and those above 40 years are coded 1 in the multiple correlation coefficients to explore the extent of modifying variables influences of correlation between the dependent and independent variables. Referring to Table 1, it is observed that out of the 314 public managers who returned the surveys completed 48.1% fall into the 40 years old and below bracket and 51.9% managers were above 40 years. This study considered the two age groups as the target population group, because during the last decade university graduates had been recruited at the age of 25. Normally, they will retire after 30 years of service. Therefore, in this study the 30 years are divided into two relatively equal age brackets. Result (Table 4) also shows that out of 314 public managers, only 21.3 percent of them
Leadership style

exhibited transformational leadership style (T1) as their preferred style. This means 78.7 percent of respondents showed their tendency toward the transactional leadership style (T2). Therefore, the dominant approach of leadership for public managers in state organizations is the transactional style. Based on the Table 5 mentioned, the mean scores on state organizations productivity in terms of public managers perspective in research site was 21.51, to compare with possible maximum scores 50, it is evaluated less than average. Standard deviation of this variable equals 4.36. It illustrates transactional leadership style a mean score of 28.11 and standard deviation of this variable equals 4.71 and a mean score of 21.54 for transformational leadership style and a standard deviation equals 4.62.

Table 6: Pearson correlations between the productivity and leadership style

Product N Sig (p<0.01) 0.656(**) 314 0.000 314

**: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 7: Multiple correlations among productivity, leadership style and experience

Model Leadership style Age R 0.668 R2 AJR2 Coefficients 0.4460.442 0.000 0.632 0.000 -0.1270.003 Sig (p-value)

Dependent variable: Productivity

Fig. 1: Research Model

Results of the correlation analysis are shown in Table 6 and 7. These results are based on the relationship among main variables and a model that included managers age as indicator. Table 6 shows managers dominant style of leadership positively correlated with productivity of state organizations in research site. Since the Sig (p-

value) is less than 0.01, there is a statistically significant relationship between Productivity and Leadership style (TT) at the 99% confidence level. It clarifies that main leadership style of managers in research site and productivity of state organizations are significantly correlated with the


Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 32-44, 2012

strength of 0.656.This means that hypothesis 1 is accepted. As Table 7 indicates, it is noticed that the highest Sig (p-value) on the independent variables belong to age is -0.127. Since the Sig (p-value) is less than 0.01, It means the coefficient of (-0.127) is negative indicating that the lower the age, the higher the productivity. This means that hypothesis 2 is accepted. According to results of second hypothesis there is relationship between state organizations productivity as a dependent variable and public managers leadership style and age as independent variables simultaneously. Since the Sig (p-value) is less than 0.01, there is a significant relationship between the variables at the 99% confidence level. The R2 statistic indicates that the model accounts for 0.668 of the variability in productivity. The adjusted R square statistic, which is more suitable for comparing models with different numbers of independent variables, is 0.446. In determining whether the model can be simplified, it is noticed that the Sig (p-value) on the independent variables belong to age is 0.003. The highest order term is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Lack of effective leadership style in terms of this study is a focal issue for the administrative system in Iran during The Five-Year Development Plans. While, Goleman (2001b) explores that precise leadership behaviors (style) yield positive results. Bratton et al. (2005) believe that popular opinion holds that leaders, through their personal influence and behaviors, do make a difference in organizational events and outcomes. Some of the major obstacles for outcomes, and productivity improvement in the target population group according to the Annual Economical Report of Management and Planning Organization (2003) are public managers inadequate professional knowledge, traditional approach of management, and absence of an effective evaluating system. Therefore, leadership style is somewhat unknown at the research site, so far, due to the scarcity of the research and studies about leadership in state organizations, and leadership culture in the public administration. Also, it is necessary to investigate, and introduce some institutional changes to shape an effective compatible leadership style through the implementation of reform acts in the research site.It seems, such results as mentioned above, supports the idea that state organizations at the research site need a mixed style of transformational and transactional leadership to achieve extraordinary outcomes. This approach seeks the purposes of supplying the required

changes and conformity to achieve the stated objectives. 5. CONCLUSION Prior research has suggested that top managers leadership styles can impact employees and an organizations outcomes. A major avenue whereby this positive impact arises is held to be the establishment of an organizational environment and work atmosphere that organize resources in order, inspire and empowers employees and provides support for extraordinary outputs. The innovation of this study was to propose two sets of hypotheses about how leadership style shown by top, middle and functional managers directly and indirectly affects productivity (outcomes) at the collective level of the organization. Findings based on 314 top, middle and functional public managers perspective as respondents provide support for researchers expectation that a direct and relationship between managers leadership and productivity in state run organizational. A majority of respondents indicated that their preferred leadership style is the Transactional style. Thus, they cannot influence employees effectively, because they believe that the primary mission of a manager as a leader in an organization is maintaining stability in a working system. Prior studies found that to achieve high level performance and outcomes transformational style is more effective than transactional style. While this study did not examine how specific transformational behaviors affected organizational innovation, certain types of transformational leadership behaviors (e.g. identification, cohesiveness, efficacy, and potency, inspiration motivation or intellectual motivation and/or idealized influence) have been specifically identified by several researchers as being positively related to fundamental change and improvement (Walumbwa et al., 2008, Liao & Chuang, 2007; Schaubroeck et al., 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2004, Kotter, 1999). Hence, to achieve high level performance and productivity, transformational style has better effects to change the condition and environment of administrative system, because it believes in change as a primary mission of a leader in an organization. Avolio (2001) stressed that, transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible. The most important finding of this study is that a combination of leading styles is needed to achieve high level productivity in state runs, which


Azadehdel and Ooshaksaraie Is Leadership Style Connected with the Productivity?

is consistent with prior findings from the organizational innovation literature (Avolio, 2001). Transactional and transformational leadership should not be viewed as opposing approaches to getting things done. Transformational leadership is built on transactional leadership. Transformational leadership produces levels of employees effort, acts, and performance that go beyond what would occur with a transactional approach alone. Each leader has a profile that includes some or all of these transformational, transactional, and no transactional behaviors. Good leaders do both, and are more transformational than transactional. Analysis of mode for the dependent variable of productivity shows that respondents who returned the complete questionnaire believe, state organizations productivity of research site is scored between 20 to 25. Also result of the productivity survey questions shows that in terms of received responses, the most vital factors of productivity components such as the extent of achievement the predetermined goals, the extent of human resources training, attention for employees specialization and the quality of utilization of resources and equipments in state organizations scored less than average. In fact, productivity of state organizations in terms of public managers perspective was not at an acceptable level. On the other side, the relationship between productivity and leadership style is concluded from obtained results of leadership style and productivity surveys. Therefore, the dominant leadership style that has been being used by the public managers in state organizations of Guilan Province is the transactional style. Also, according to the descriptive statistics, regarding with managers perspective, the mean of score for state organizations productivity of research site was 21.51 that comparing with possible maximum scores 50 is evaluated below than average. In terms of results (Table 6) there is a statistically significant relationship between productivity and leadership style (T1-T2) at the 99% confidence level. This study is based on the theory believing that for a more effective leadership and better results in state organizations, public managers need to concern a mix style of leadership (both transformational and transactional leadership styles mutually and simultaneously). Other important finding for state run organizations of research site since result conveys that entered category age as one indicator is an effective modifying variable in the relationship among productivity and leadership style. It can be interpreted that correlation between dependent and

independent variables shows that productivity of young public managers (40 years old and below) is more than old public managers in the research site. Prior studies supported the similar result (Walewski, 2008; Van Ours, Stoeldraijer, 2010; Feyrer, 2005), in some cases reviled that there is concern that as the average age of the working individual goes up, the average rate of productivity growth will go down, resulting in the decreasing competitiveness of European economies. Therefore, policy makers should regarding leaders age in achieving extra ordinary objectives that is beyond of their expectations. REFERENCES Avolio BJ, Bass BM (1987). Charisma and Beyond. In: Emerging Leadership Vistas, Hunt, J.G. (Ed.). Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York. Avolio BJ (2001). Developing Political Across a Full Range of Leadership: Cases on Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahawa, NJ, USA. Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, Weber, T. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421449. Azadehdel MR (2010).The relationship between leadership and productivity: a case study on public managers in Guilan Province, Iran.Malaysian Journal of History, Politics and Strategic Studies, 37.p. 166. Bass B, Avolio B (1997). The Full Range Leadership Development Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.Mindgarden, Inc., Redwood City, CA. Bass BM, Avolio BJ (1994). Improving Leadership Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. California: USA7 Sage. Bass BM, Steidlmeier P(1998). Ethics, Character and Authentic Transformational Leadership.Center for Leadership Studies, School of Management, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York. Bass BM (1981). Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. The Free Press, New York. Bass BM (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, New York. Bass BM (1990a).Bass and stogdills handbook of leadership. J. Manage. Dev., 7: 21-31.


Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 32-44, 2012

Bass BM (1990b). Bass and Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. 3rd Edn., The Free Press A Division of Macmillan, Inc., New York. Bass BM (1990c). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Org. Dyn., 18: 19-31. Bass BM (1997). Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? Am. Psycholo., 52 : 130-139. Bennis WG Nanus B (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper and Row., New York. Bratton J, Grint K, Nelson DL (2005). Organizational Leadership.Thomson SouthWestern. USA. Burns JM, Dunn S (2001). The Three Roosevelts. Atlantic Monthly, New York. Burns JM (1978). Leadership. Perennial, London: Burton RM, De SanctisG, Obel B (2006). Organizational Design: A Step by Step Approach.Cambridge University Press. Campbel JP, Campbel RJ(1988). Productivity in organizations, new perspectives from industrial and organizational psychology. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc publishers. Conger JA,Kanungo RN (1987).Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Acad. Manage.t Rev., 12: 637-647. Conger JA,Kanungo RN (1988). Introduction: Problems and Prospects in Understanding Charismatic Leadership. In: Charismatic Leadership, Conger, J. et al. (Eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dubrin AJ (2004). Leadership, research findings, practice, and skills.4thed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Eagly, A.H., and M.C. Johannesen Schmidt, (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. J. Soc. Iss., 57: 781-797. Evkall G, Ryhammar L (1997). Leadership style, social climate and organizational outcomes: A study of a Swedish University College. Creat.Innov.Manag. 7: 126-130. Feyrer J(2005). Aggregate Evidence on the Link between Demographics and Productivity.Dartmouth College, Department of Economics, 6106 Rockefeller Hanover, NH 03755-3514.

Gall MD, Borg WR, Gall JP (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction. 6th Edn., White Plains, Longman Publishers, New York. Gay LR, Airasian PW (2000). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Prentice Hall, London.Gibbons, T.C. (1986). Revisiting the Question of Born Vs Made: Toward a Theory of Development of Transformational Leaders. Doctoral Dissertation, Human and Organization Systems, Fielding Institute. Goleman D (2001). Leadership that Gets Results. A Harvard Business Review Paper Back Series, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, USA. Graham JW (1987). The Essence of Leadership: Fostering Follower Autonomy, Not Automatic Followership. In: Emerging Leadership Vistas, Hunt, J.G. (Ed.). Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York. Griffin RW(2006). Fundamental of management, 4th ed. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Greenleaf Rk (1997). Servant Leadership.Paulist Press, New York. Heap J(2007). Stormy productivity weather ahead?International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56 (2): 170177. Hoffman BJ, Frost BC (2006). Multiple intelligences of transformational leaders: An empirical examination. Int. J. Manpower, 27: 37-51. Homrig MA (2001). Transformational leadership. documents /homrig .htm [15 July 2007]. Hooper A, Potter J (1997).The Business of Leadership.Aldershot, Ashgete, UK. House RJ (1977). A Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In: Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Hunt J.G. and L.L. Larson (Eds.). Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press, pp; 189-207. Lyne de Ver H (2008) Leadership, Politics and Development: A Literature Survey, LECRP Background Paper, Lyne de Ver H (2009) Conception of Leadership, LECRP Background Paper, 04 House RJ (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated theory. Leadership Q., 7: 323-352.

40 42

Azadehdel and Ooshaksaraie Is Leadership Style Connected with the Productivity?

Judge TA, Piccolo R (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Applied Psycholo., 89: 755-768. Jung DI, Chee C, Wu A (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadership Q.., 14: 525-544. Kahai S, Sosik J (1997). Effects of leadership style and followers cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Pers. Psychol. 50: 121-147. Kee JE, Newcomer K, Davis M (2006). A New Vision For Public Leadership: The Case for Developing Transformational Stewards Working Paper. Center for Innovation in Public Service, The George Washington University. Kark R, Van Dijk D (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the selfregulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500 528. Kotter JP (1999). What Leaders Really Do. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kouser JM, Posner BZ (1993). Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose it and Why People Demandit. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Liao H, Chuang A (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 10061119. and Planning Organization Management (2004).Annual economic report and performance supervision of prime fourth years of The Third Plan, over sect orals Management and Planning Organization Publication 1. Management and Planning Organization (2003).Annual economic and performance supervision report for the first 3years of the 3rd development plan. Volume 1: Summary and Terms-Sectoral Affairs. Oldham GR, Cummings A(1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607-634. Riggs DE (1994). Visionary leadership: creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. J. Acad. Librarianship, 20: 336.

Robbins SP, DeCenzo DA (2005). Fundamental of Management, Essential concepts and Applications. 5th Edn., New Jersey, Englewood Cliff: Prentice Hall, USA. Robbins SP (2003). Organizational Behaviour. 10th Edn., Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, Inc., N J. Rose JS, Thomas CS, Sexton JB, Pryor D (2006). A leadership framework for culture change in health care.J. Qual. Patient Safety, 32: 433- 442. Sadler P (2003). Leadership. 2nd Edn., MBA Master Series, British Library Cataloguingin- Publication Data, England. Sashkin M (1988). The Visionary Leader. In: Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organizational Effectiveness, Conger, J.A. and R.A. Kanungo (Eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp; 122-160. Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK, Cha SE (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the relationship between leader behavior and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1020 1030. Sekaran U (2004). OrganisationalBehaviour. 2nd Eds., Tata McGraw-Hill publishing, Delhi India. Shermerhorn JR (ed). (1989). Management for productivity. 3rded. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Shermerhorn JR, Hunt JG, Osborn RN (2003). Organizational Behavior. 8th Edn., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Sivanathan N, Fekken GC (2002). Leadership Org. Dev. J.., 23 : 198-204. Skirbekk V (2003).Age and Individual Productivity: A Literature Survey. Mpidr working paper wp 2003-028. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Van O, Jan C,Stoeldraijer L(2010).Age, Wage and Productivity.IZA Discussion Paper No. 4765. Institute for the Study of Labor. Waldman DA, Bass BM, YammarinoFJ (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership.Group Org.Stud., 15: 381-94. Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, & Zhu, W., (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance. Personnel Psychology, 61: 793825. Walumbwa FO, Chad AH (2011). Understanding transformational leadership employee performance links:The role of relational

41 43

Caspian Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 1(11), pp. 32-44, 2012

identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 84: 153172. Walumbwa FO, Wang P, Lawler JJ, Shi K (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 77: 515530. Doi: 10.1348/0963179042596441. Walewski, M (2008). Differences in the Productivity Levels of Older Workers intheEu A Cross Country Analysis ofthe AgeWage Relationship.Available for free downloading from the ENEPRI website

(, or the CEPS website ( Wren JT (1995). Leaders Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. Wren, J.T., (Ed.). Free Press, New York. Yukl GA, Van Fleet DD (1982). Cross-situational, multimethod research on military leader effectiveness. Org. Behav. Human Performance, 30: 87-108. Zaleznik A (1984). Charismatic and Consensus Leaders: A psychological Comparison. In: The Irrational Executive: Psychoanalytic Explorations in Management. De, K. and M.F.R. Vries (Ed.). International Universities Press, New York.

40 44