You are on page 1of 12

International Journal of Management Sciences

Vol. 2, No. 3, 2014, 149-160

A Test of the Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance:


A Study of Department of Petroleum Resources

Obasan Kehinde A .1, Hassan Banjo A.2


Abstract
Managing an organization for effectiveness requires effective leadership. There abound different styles of
leadership with attendant different effects. This paper studied the effect of transformational, transactional and
laissez faire leadership styles on employee performance constructs of organizational commitment,
organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction in the Nigerian public sector using Department of
Petroleum Resources as a case study. Using primary data generated through a structured 5 point likert scale
questionnaire from a stratified randomly selected sample of 100, and analysed using regression on SPSS, it
was established that the leadership styles tested have positive relationship on performance of employees. The
paper concluded by recommending that managers should use more of transformational leadership to bring
about higher levels of organisational commitment, OCB and job satisfaction.
Keywords: Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership, Organisational Citizenship Behaviour,
Organisational commitment, Job Satisfaction.
1. Introduction
Leadership has become the crux of issues in the corporate world of today. This is because it is
responsible for the harmonization and integration of both human and material resources to produce the output
or services for which the body is created. According to Ngambi et al (2010) and Ngambi (2011), leadership
is a process of influencing others commitment towards realizing their full potentials in achieving a value
added, shared vision with passion and integrity. An important factor in the leadership process is the
relationship that a leader has with individual followers.
In a competitive business environment, organizations rely on their leaders to facilitate the changes and
innovations required to maintain competitive advantage. Effective leadership is helpful in ensuring
organizational performance (Cummings and Schwab, 1973; Hellriegel, Jackson, Slocum, Staude, Amos,
Klopper, Louw and Oosthuizen, 2004). As a result, many leadership theories have been proposed in the last
fifty years which are claimed to have influenced effectiveness of organizations where they have been
employed through employee performance.
The importance of frontline customer-contact employees that directly relates with customers and
provides the service needed cannot be disregarded. High quality of frontline employees is integral to the
excellence of firms because the service provided by such employees reflects the image of the organization
and affects customer perceptions of service quality. Frontline employees are directly accountable for face-toface customer service, service quality, and customer satisfactionall of which are keys to strong
performance (Hartline, Wooldridge, and Jones 2003). Most industry observers and practitioners agree that
frontline employees who are satisfied with and committed to their jobs share the firms customer-oriented
values, exhibit low levels of role stress, and deliver the highest level of service quality (Hartline, Maxham,
and McKee 2000; Singh 2000). An enterprise without a managers leadership is not able to transmute input
1
2

Department of Business Administration, Olabisi Onabanjo University Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State, Nigeria
Department of Business Administration, Olabisi Onabanjo University Ago-Iwoye, Ogun State, Nigeria

2014 Research Academy of Social Sciences


http://www.rassweb.com

149

O. A. Kehinde & H. A. Banjo


resources into competitive advantage. Therefore, it is clear that the leadership style of a manager has a close
relationship with the development of organization. The study made by Bass (1990) shows that 45% to 65%
of the total factors causing success or failure of organization are determined by leaders. Leadership style has
influence on employees behavior, including their adoption of the firms strategy and organizational value
and has been linked to both organizational outcomes and employee work performance (Ehrhart, 2004). On
the other hand, managers can influence employees commitment to service quality by demonstrating it
themselves (Babakus et al. 2003).While different leadership styles have the ability to influence employees
behavior in differing ways, manager must be ready to adopt the appropriate leadership style. A good number
of empirical evidences have demonstrated that leadership behaviors influence organizational performance
that strong leaders outperform weak leaders and that transformational leadership generates higher
performance than transactional leadership (Burns 1978; Bass 1990; Hater and bass 1988; Howell and Avolio
1993).
According to Kavanagh (1982) job performance is a construct can be directly observable. It is a
dynamic, multidimensional construct assumed to be an indicating of an employees behaviour in executing
the requirement of a given organizational role. What one does observe is the individuals behaviours on the
job and one assumes that this corresponds to job performance. Thus there is a set of observable phenomena
(job behaviours) that one hypothesis do, in fact, represents job performance, an abstract. However past
studies have indicated that performance is dynamic (i.e. it changed, over time) (Deadrick and Madigan, 1990:
Henry and Hullin, 1987). Hulin et al. (1990) note that although there is nothing inherently causal about time,
indeed some changes in any measure of job performance may be attributed to effects approximated by
temporal variables (Deadrick et al., 1997; Hofman et al., 1992, 1993).
This research aims to assess the extent to which three leadership styles (namely, transformational,
transactional & laissez faire) influence frontline employees in Public Organization using the Department of
Petroleum Resources Headquarters, Lagos as a case study by examining how leadership style can influence
the employees commitment to service quality through the constructs of organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, job involvement and organizational citizenship behaviour.
Research Hypotheses
H0: that leadership style does not impact on the employee performance in an organization
H1; that leadership style impacts on the employee performance in an organization
2. Literature Review
In todays competitive environment, organizations expand globally and face a lot of challenges in
meeting their objectives and chase to be more successful from others. Leaders play essential role in
accomplishment of these goals and boost employee performance by satisfying them with their jobs.
The challenges of coping with todays uncertain business environment have put organizations on their
toes to struggle for survival in the heat of competitions. The driver of such strategic approach towards
surviving competition is the leadership provided by managers who are expected to influence others in
achieving organizational goals and also boost employees performance.
Theoretical Framework
Leadership theory suggests a positive relation between transactional & transformational leadership and
other constructs such as organizational commitment, job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behaviour. However, past research works indicated that leaders who exhibited transformational
leadership style had achieved their organizational goals over and above those with the transactional
leadership style when the above constructs are put into consideration. Unlike the laissez faire leadership
which is an indication of absence of leadership which results of previous research endeavours did not support
as subordinates were not satisfied with their jobs and this had really impacted negatively on the success of
organization where it is used.
150

International Journal of Management Sciences


Transformational Leadership
Transformational leaders are said to be responsible for motivating employees to go beyond ordinary
expectations (Hater & Bass, 1998). The transformational leader elicits this performance level by appealing to
followers higher order needs and moral values, generating the passion and commitment of followers for the
mission and values of the organization, instilling pride and faith in followers, communicating personal
respect, stimulating subordinates intellectually, facilitating creative thinking and inspiring followers to
willingly accept challenging goals and a mission or vision of the future (Carless, 1998; Hartog & Van
Muijen, 1997; Posdakoff, Mackenzie & Bommer, 1996; Tepper & Percy, 1994; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998;
Trott & Windsor, 1999). The leader thus identifies the future of the organization and pulls, rather than
pushes (Trott & Windsor, 1999, p. 128), lifting individuals to focus their commitment and energies towards
the organization and its goals (Barbuto, 1997).
The extent of positive influence a leader is able to make on the subordinates will determine the level of
trust and respect that will be reposed on the leader and job satisfaction witnessed.
The transformational leader is an inspirational leader: the leader inspires followers to accept challenging
goals, provides meaning for engaging in shared goals and arouses team spirit through enthusiasm and
optimism. Bass's transformational leadership theory identifies four aspects of effective leadership, which
include charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and consideration. A leader who exhibits these
qualities will inspire subordinates to be high achievers and put the long-term interest of the organization
ahead of their own short-term interest. Managers who exhibit transformational leadership provide mentoring,
coaching and growth opportunities through intellectual stimulation and encourage innovative approach to
problem solving. Employees easily share their knowledge among themselves when organization uses
transformational leadership style (Behery, 2008). Zafra, Retamero & Landa (2008) wrap up that
transformational leader have high emotional intelligence and they emerge as leader during group
cohesiveness. Transformational leadership has been favored by management practitioners due to its
innovative as well as productive and supportive nature (Fatima & Ahmad & Usman, 2011).
Transactional Leadership
Whereas transformational leaders motivate subordinates to perform beyond expectations, transactional
leadership is based on the traditional, bureaucratic authority and legitimacy where followers receive certain
valued outcomes when they act according to the leaders wishes. The relationship is based on a series of
exchanges or implicit bargains between leader and follower, clarifying role expectations, assignments and
task oriented goals. Transactional leaders thus focus their energies on task completion and compliance and
rely on organizational rewards and punishments to influence employee performance (Hartog & Van Muijen,
1997; Tepper & Percy, 1994; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998; Trott & Windsor, 1999). According to Hater and Bass
(1988, p.695) the dynamics of a quid pro quo dominates the transactional exchange, in which the leader
clarifies task requirements and rewards for compliance.
The leader clarifies what he or she expects from subordinates regarding acceptable standards of
performance and what they will receive in return (Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997).
Transformational and transactional are different in their approaches to leadership and motivation of
subordinates towards discharging their duties as and when due. Transactional leadership is famous with three
main approaches: one by using reward and promises to induce subordinates towards discharging their duties.
Secondly, supervising the activities of subordinates and taking corrective measures before errors go beyond
control and lastly sometimes manager may allow shortcomings of the subordinates to accumulate and then
reprimand him for errors that had never been corrected.
A leader can be both transactional and transformational as the two concepts are interrelated. Rejas,
Ponce, Almonte, & Ponce, (2006) indicated that there is a dominance of the transactional leadership style
over transformational and laissez faire styles. Personality factors, agreeableness and conscientiousness are
positively related to transactional leadership which is moderated by perceived dynamic working atmosphere
151

O. A. Kehinde & H. A. Banjo


(Hoogh, Hartog, & Koopman, 2005). Gadot (2007) notes that transactional leadership style is relatively
weakly associated with performance and is optimistically related to perception of organizational politics
Non-Transactional Or Laissez-Faire Leadership
Transactional and transformational leadership, two active forms of leadership, are often contrasted to a
passive laissez faire leadership style. As no attempt is made by the laissez faire leader to motivate others or
to recognize and satisfy individual needs, researchers have concluded that this leadership style is indicative
of an absence of leadership. The laissez faire leader avoids decision-making, the provision of rewards and the
provision of positive/negative feedback to subordinates (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997).
In assessing the relationship between leadership styles and employee dedication and the way he acts on
his duties, it is important to understand the constructs of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job
involvement and organizational citizenship behaviour.
Organizational Commitment
Several authors have tried to conceptualize organizational commitment. To Northcraft & Neale (1996),
commitment is an attitude reflecting an employee's loyalty to the organization, and an ongoing process
through which organization members express their concern for the organization and its continued success
and well-being.
Becker, Randal, and Riegel (1995) defined the term in a three dimensions:
(1) a strong desire to remain a member of a particular organization; (2) a willingness to exert high levels
of efforts on behalf of the organization; (3). a define belief in and acceptability of the values and goals of the
organization. Their view appears to be similar to that offered by Mowday, Porter, and Steer (1982).
Morrow (1983) indicated that several but different theoretical foundations have been used to define
commitment related concepts with a number of measuring instruments as a result.
Although there has not been any consensus on the construct of organizational commitment, however,
the fact remains that it is the propelling force that stabilizes employees dedication and commitment to the
values and activities of the organization. Researchers have distinguished between three approaches to study
commitment namely attitudinal, behavioural and a motivational perspective. Although several studies have
viewed affective commitment as an attitude and continuance commitment as behavioural (Boyle, 1997;
McGee & Ford, 1987; Reichers, 1985;Somers, 1993), Allen and Meyer (1990) recognized that the cost
involved in leaving an organization may be regarded as a psychological state and therefore view continuance
commitment as a component of attitudinal commitment.
Finally, the normative component refers to the employees feeling of obligation to remain with the
organization.
Other previous researches have also indicated that commitment to ones profession of job has a direct
relationship with organizational commitment as well as other constructs such as job involvement and
satisfaction. Nortcraft and Neale, (1996) argue that Organizational commitment is determined by a number
of factors, including personal factors (e.g., age, tenure in the organization, disposition, internal or external
control attributions); organizational factors (job design and the leadership style of one's supervisor); nonorganizational factors (availability of alternatives).
Job Satisfaction
As an attitude, job satisfaction has been extensively researched, and has in many studies been
considered a dependent and an independent variable. Agho and Price (1992, p. 185) defined job satisfaction
as the extent to which employees like their work. In investigating job satisfaction, a distinction is usually
made between a global feeling of liking ones job in general and a constellation of attitudes about various
facets of the job where individuals indicate their satisfaction with parts of their job, such as pay, promotion,
work, supervisors and co-workers (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson & Paul, 1989; Lease, 1998).
152

International Journal of Management Sciences


By adopting the appropriate leadership styles, leaders can affect employee job satisfaction, commitment
and productivity (Voon et al. 2011; Yousef, 2000; Chen and Silverthorne, 2005). For an organization to
compete international market, one of the key factors is that its employees are satisfied with their jobs and
leaders have amusing relationship with their subordinates and as a result employees are innovative which in
turn helps to grow up the business (Fatima, Bushra & Usman, 2011)
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Ocb)
Organizational citizenship behaviour is a type of discretionary job performance in which employees go
beyond prescribed job requirements (in-role behaviours) that are not explicitly recognized by the formal
reward system, and engage in helping behaviours that are targeted at the customers and to also give a good
image of the company towards surviving the competitive force. Studies have shown employee OCB is
positively related to affective commitment (as opposed to continuous commitment), employee involvement
in work organizational issues, perceived organizational support, high quality of leader member exchange,
overall evaluations of performance effectiveness, quantity of output, turnover and satisfaction (Allen &
Rush, 1998; Cappelli & Rogovsky, 1998; Chen, Hui and Sego, 1998; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Posdakoff,
Ahearne & Mackenzie, 1997). Van Yperen and Van den Berg (1999) found that when employees feel that
they are able to participate in decisions made (a situation that tend to be determined by leadership style of
managers), they tend to feel supported by their supervisors and consequently exhibit more organizational
citizenship behaviours. One can therefore expect employee acts of organizational citizenship behaviour to
serve as a behavioural cue on which management bases its presumptions of employee commitment to the
organization (Shore, Barksdale & Shore, 1995). In a study examining the relationship between leader
behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour, Schnake and Dumler (1993) found traditional leadership
(characterized by the limitation of employee discretion) to contribute more to the prediction of organizational
citizenship behaviour than super leadership (characterized by employee autonomy and control).
Conceptual Framework
The importance of leadership in an organization cannot be overemphasized as different scholars have
given various definitions due to its complexity and importance. Leadership has been viewed as a transaction
between a leader and his subordinates. It had also been defined as a process of influencing people towards a
particular objective or goal. Whichever leadership style that is exhibited by a person is a combination of
traits, characteristics, skills and behaviours
The behaviour that leaders use to interact with and lead their followers is developed over a period of
time, depending on the experiences, education and training to which leaders have been exposed. According
to Nelson and Campbell (2006), the behavioural perspective arose from the leadership research programme
conducted at the Ohio State University. The Ohio State University study identified two main types of
leadership behavior: task oriented and relationship-oriented (Euwema et al., 2007). The leadership styles
associated with these leadership behaviours is initiating structure and consideration (Bass and Bass, 2008).
These two forms of leadership styles have received considerable attention in most cross-cultural studies
(Judge et al., 2004). Researchers such as Yukl et al. (2002) regard initiating structure (task oriented
leadership) and consideration (human-oriented leadership) as the best classification of a leaders behaviour
and the most stable form of leadership styles. Both of these styles have been found to have a positive impact
on employee satisfaction, performance, productivity and commitment (Dorfman et al., 2004).
Effective Leadership
The driving force for the achievement of organizational goals and objectives are leaders and to become
effective means that the targets of such organization have been met. Effective leadership style has been
viewed as a style adopted by a leader of an organization which relates to various aspects of positive
organizational outcomes
The degree of effectiveness among leaders is usually measured by the effect of leaders on their
employees behaviors. An effective leader, is one who has the skills and the aptitude to influence their
subordinates, ideally resulting in positive outcomesemployee trust, retention and productivity.
153

O. A. Kehinde & H. A. Banjo


The laissez-faire leadership style, according to Bass & Avolio (2003), is ineffective because, leaders
that provide neither positive nor negative feedback, thus declining to offer personal interaction or direction
tend to be ineffective. This type of leadership style is frustrating and less effective in many leadership
situations. Its ineffectiveness can be attributed to the fact that it is a form of hands off a management
style that is fruitless in todays workplace. Managers today, in order to be effective, need to be hands-on in
their approach by taking charge of situations and not leaving situations to chances. Scott (2009), in her book
Fierce Leadership, noted that there are many old ways of leading that are completely ineffective ways to be
a leader today.
Howell & Avolios theories on effective leadership mesh with Scotts Fierce Leadership Model. In
this model, Scott proposes that a manager really ask, listen, and then direct (in that order).
Effective leaders have been found to demonstrate certain traits which are believed to aid their
effectiveness. The exhibition of these traits makes employees to be, happy, contented and motivated. Of
course, these tenets of leadership are just one piece of the large puzzle that makes up a large organization.
Leaders who provide effective leadership exhibit the behaviors of self- sacrifice to their subordinates by
demonstrating the willingness to serve; these leaders have a profound impact on people. Other traits in
effective leaders include engagement, trust, effective communication, stress management, and
interrelationships with employees (Scott, 2009; Shelton (2010); Goleman, 2012).
Empirical Evidence
Several studies in the past have reported the effect of various leadership styles and approaches on the
subordinates and organizational performance. For example, Kaur (1993) reports that the autocratic style
prevails among Indian managers. The findings shows that employees in the investigated organisations are
highly committed to their organisations, highly satisfied with their jobs, and their performance is high,
indicating that these employees perceive their superiors as adopting consultative or participative leadership
behaviour (Yousef, 2000). A number of studies carried out in the Arab world suggest that leadership in Arab
culture nurtures consultative and participative tendencies (Muna, 1980; Al-Jafary and Hollingsworth, 1983;
Ali, 1993; 1997). This preference demonstrates the influence of Islamic and tribalistic values and beliefs,
since both Islamic and tribal law reinforce consultation in all aspects of life (Ali, 1989).
In a study assessing the link between leader personality and transformational leadership behaviour,
Judge and Bono (2000) found that by controlling for transactional leadership, transformational leadership
behaviour significantly predicted subordinate satisfaction with the leader, organizational commitment, work
motivation and supervisory ratings of leader effectiveness. No relationship was however found with
subordinate overall job satisfaction.
In addition, Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee (2002) demonstrated the link between the leadership style
and performance within an organization. While management by fear can create tension that might produce
the desired result in the short term, it is unlikely that success will be sustained, whereas leaders who create a
trusting open environment where information is shared create an organization that can rise to any challenge.
There are several styles of leadership such ranging from autocratic to laissez-faire among others noted
above. As would be suggested by the contingency management thought however, a particular style of
leadership may not always result in the most effective form of organisational behaviour. Different styles are
needed for different situations and each leader needs to know when to exhibit a particular approach. No one
leadership style is ideal for every situation, since a leader may have knowledge and skills to act effectively in
one situation but may not emerge as effective in a different situation (Rad and Yarmohammadian, 2006).
3. Methodology
This research follows a survey design. Data was generated through a structured questionnaire
administered on respondents. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass (1985) in his
study: Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations popular MLQ Form 5x-Short version was adapted
154

International Journal of Management Sciences


in this study. In doing this, the MLQ questionnaire as adapted was moderated slightly and appropriately to
include research questions capable of measuring the job satisfaction and organisatioal commitment
dimensions. The independent variables are the transactional, transformational and laissez-faire leadership
styles, while the dependent variables are the outcomes: organizational behaviour, Job satisfaction, job
involvement and organizational citizenship behaviour in the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR).
Each research statement has five potential responses, ranging from never to frequently if not always and
is scaled from 0 to 4.
A total of 100 questionnaires were distributed to the employees of the Department of Petroleum
Resources, Lagos Headquarters who were willing to participate in the study out of which 30 were meant for
leaders and 70 for raters. A total number of 28 and 60 were returned by leaders and raters respectively
making response rate of 93.3% and 85.71% respectively. Using Cronbachs alpha,overall reliability of
measurement for Leaders Questionnaire was 0.792 and that of Raters was 0.892 the measurement
instruments were shown to have a sufficient internal consistency.
Multiple regression analysis models were used to analyze the hypotheses regarding the relationship
between the respective leadership styles and each of the performance measures. The OLS fits multiple
response variables in a single model that captures the responses in a multivariate way such that results may
differ significantly from those calculated for the responses individually.
4. Discussion Of Results
Restatement of Research Hypotheses
H0: that leadership style does not impact on the employee performance in an organization.
HI: that leadership style impacts on the employee performance in an organization.
In order to have a more robust and rigorous analysis, there was the need to restate the hypothesis
because of other independent variables such as the transformational, transactional and Non-transactional
leadership styles and the dependent variables of organizational behaviour, Job satisfaction, job involvement
and organizational citizenship behaviour. These variables are crucial to the study of this nature, hence, the
restatement of the research hypotheses as follows:
H1: Transactional leadership is positively correlated with the construct of organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational citizenship behavior.
H2: There is a positive relationship between transformational leadership with the construct of
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational citizenship
behavior.
H3: There is a positive relationship between Laissez-faire leadership (Non-transactional leadership)
with the construct of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and
organizational citizenship behavior.
A model which seeks to explain the predictive power of transactional, transformational and nontransactional leadership styles on the constructs of organizational behaviour, Job satisfaction, job
involvement and organizational citizenship behaviour of Public/Government Institutions with the
Department of Petroleum resources Headquarters in Lagos as a Case Study was formulated. The model used
a Regression technique in order to ascertain the individual contribution of the independent variables to
dependent variable.
The results of regression models are presented in the subsequent tables.

155

O. A. Kehinde & H. A. Banjo


Table 1: Model Summary
Model

R
Square
Change
.573(a)

R
Square
F
Change

Adjusted
R Square

Std. Error
of the
Estimate

df1

df2

Sig. F
Change

.328

.160

3.99358

.328

Change Statistics
R
Square
Change
1.955

F
Change

df1

df2

12

.175

The table above presented the summary of the model. It shows the empirical relationship between the
variables measured, (Regressors or independent variables) which are transactional, transformational and
laissez-faire (Non-transactional) leadership styles and organizational commitment (Regress or dependent
variable).
The model derived, R-Coefficient of Regression of 0.573 measures the direction and strength of the
relationship between independent variables and the dependent variables for the model. This reveals that there
is a strong positive relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment. This also
indicates that as more of the independent variable is added to the model, the R coefficient is likely to
increase. The R-Squared Coefficient of determination shows the percentage of the total variation of the
dependent variable that can be explained by the independent variables. In the above model, the R2 for final
model derived = 0.328 indicates that 32.8% of the impacts or changes in organizational commitment is
caused by the independent variables, transactional, transformational and laissez-faire (Non-transactional).
The Adjusted R-Square also shows that 16.0% of the impact in organizational commitment was explained by
the model and 84.0% of impact is outside this model.
The significant F-Change stood at 0.328 for the final model. As returned significant F-change (p-value
of F-Change) stood at 3 which is greater than 0.05 (level of significance), this implies that not all the
independent variables significantly bring about a simultaneous impact in the dependent variable of
organizational commitment.
OC= f (TSL, TFL, LSF) + A
OR
Y = F(X1, X2, X3) + A
Where A = Constant, TSL = X1, TFL = X2, LSF = X3,
Hence, the Model or linear equation is
Y= A + (-1.346X1) + (0.352X2) + (-0.571X3)
Y = A -1.346X1 + 0.352X2 - 0.571X3
Table 2: Model Summary
Model

R
Square

Adjusted
R Square

Std. Error
of the
Estimate

R
Square
Chang
e

F
Change

df1

df2

Sig. F
Change

R
Square
Change

F
Change

df1

df2

.385(a)

.148

-.084

4.43460

.148

.639

11

.606

Change Statistics

Table above showed summary regressed analysis of the leadership styles against job satisfaction. In the
analysis, R-Coefficient of Regression for the model was found to be 0.385 and shows that the relationship
between the three independent variables and Job Satisfaction is positively weak. Also, R 2 stood at 0.148 and
156

International Journal of Management Sciences


indicates that 14.8% of changes in Job Satisfaction is caused by the independent variables of transactional,
transformational and laissez-faire (Non-transactional). Since there is the likelihood that the R2 overstates the
true value of the explanations because of the unadjusted degree of freedoms, the adjusted R2 was used to
know the actual variations in job satisfaction attributable to the leadership styles. Hence, the value -0.084%
indicates that again the impact in Job Satisfaction is completely outside this model.
The significant F-Change stood at 0.148 for the final model while a returned significant F-change (pvalue of F-Change) of 3, greater than 0.05 (level of significance) signifies that the model is not significant.
Therefore, not all the independent variables significantly bring about a simultaneous impact in the dependent
variable of Job Satisfaction.
Table 3: Model Summary
Model

R
Square
Change
.412(a)

R
Square
F
Change
.170

Adjusted
R
Square

Std. Error
of the
Estimate

df1

df2

-.022

4.04504

Change Statistics
Sig. F
Change
.170

R Square
Change
.887

F
Change
3

df1

df2

13

.474

The table above showed the summary of the model generated to show the functional or empirical
relationship between independent variables which are transactional, transformational and laissez-faire
leadership styles and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Regress or dependent variable). Like others
above, R-Coefficient of Regression for the model was (0.412), i.e. this ratio explains the relationship
between the three independent variables and Job Involvement is positive and fairly strong. In the model, the
R2 for final model derived = 0.170 indicates that 17.0% of the changes in Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour is caused by the independent variables, transactional, transformational and laissez-faire (Nontransactional).
Adjusted R-Square also shows a result of -0.022% which indicates that the impact in Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour is completely outside this model.
Table 4: Summary of Regression Analysis Result
Employee
Transactional
Transformational
Commitment Attitude Leadership
Leadership
Organizational
-0.887
0.486
Commitment
Job Satisfaction
-0.357
-0.024
Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour

-0.599

0.569

Laissez-Faire
Leadership
-0.224
-0.186
-0.358

Table 4.31showed the Summary Results of Regression Analysis for the independent variables
(Leadership Styles) and the dependent variables (Employee Commitment Attitudes) from the test of
hypotheses. The following were the restated hypotheses for the aim of the research:
Hypothesis 1
From the results summarized on the table 4.31 above, for the Hypothesis 1, the alternative hypothesis
which says Transactional leadership is negatively correlated with the construct of organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational citizenship behavior was accepted.

157

O. A. Kehinde & H. A. Banjo


Hypothesis 2 There is a higher positive correlation between transformational leadership with the construct
of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational citizenship behavior
was accepted.
Hypothesis 3 There is a negative correlation between Laissez-faire leadership (Non-transactional
leadership) with the construct of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and
organizational citizenship behavior was also accepted.
5. Summary of Major Findings
The study tested 3 hypotheses conjectured for the research aim of identifying the impact of leadership
styles of transactional, transformational, and laissez-faire on employee performance against the constructs of
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. It was discovered that
Transformational leadership style is the best approach to be used for any organization that wishes to meet its
targeted aims and goals through improved performance of its employees. Previous researchers have also
maintained similar positions on their findings. Hypothesis 2 which stated that There is a higher positive
correlation between transformational leadership with the construct of organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, job involvement and organizational citizenship behavior was accepted while hypothesis one
was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted.
6. Conclusion and Implication for Management
The transformational leadership style had been proven to be the most effective style of leadership.
Previous authorities and researchers as quoted below had also maintained this position and it has also been
empirically tested and in business organizations today.
The results of the study have serious implications for managers. The implication is that
Transformational Leadership Style will bring effective results in organizations because it motivates
employees to go beyond ordinary expectations, appeals to followers higher order needs and moral values,
generates the passion and commitment of followers for the mission and values of the organization, instills
pride and faith in followers, communicates personal respect, stimulates subordinates intellectually, facilitates
creative thinking and inspires followers to willingly accept challenging goals and a mission or vision of the
future.
However, the two other leadership styles, Transactional and Laissez-faire will have negative impact on
organizational behaviour, Job satisfaction, job involvement and organizational citizenship behaviour and
todays business world requires creation of an enabling environment for organizations that wish to survive
the competitive business environments.
Several studies indicated that transformational leadership, when compared to transactional and laissez
faire leadership, results in higher levels of satisfaction, commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour,
cohesion, motivation, performance, satisfaction with the leader and leader effectiveness (Avolio & Bass,
1999; Barbuto, 1997; Covin & Kolenko, 1997; Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997; Hater & Bass, 1988; Posdakoff,
MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996; Tepper & Percy, 1994).
Trott and Windsor (1999) provided findings that indicate that staff nurses are more satisfied with
transformational leaders, and that their level of satisfaction increases as the leader uses a more participative
style.
Furthermore, Hater and Bass (1988) found transformational leadership to be positively correlated with
how effective subordinates perceive leaders, how much effort they say they will expend for the leader, how
satisfied they are with the leader, and how well subordinates perform as rated by the leader.
Going by the results of this research and the position of previous literature review on the superiority and
effectiveness of the Transformational leadership style over and above the transactional and laissez faire
158

International Journal of Management Sciences


leadership styles in the influence it makes on subordinates and successes it can achieve in meeting the
mission and objectives of organization, the Transformational leadership style is recommended for
organizations that wish to compete successfully and mentor subordinates who will be managers of tomorrow
to keep the flag flying for the firm.
References
Agho, A.O. &Price, J.L. (1992).Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and
negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 65 (4), 185-197.
Ali, A. 1993. Decision-making style, individualism and attitudes toward risk of Arab executives.
International Studies of Management and Organization, 23(3): 53-73.
Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990).The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organisation.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63 (1), 1-18.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor
Leadership. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), Transformational leadership theory: a response to critiques, in
Chemmers, M.M. and Ammons, R. (Eds), Leadership and Research: Perspectives and Direction,
California Academic Press, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 49-80.
Bass, M.B. &Avolio, B.J. (1997).Full range leadership development. Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. California: Mind Garden.
Becker, T.E,; Randal, D.M, & Riegel, C.D.(1995).The multidimensional view of commitment and theory of
reasoned action: A comparative evaluation: Journal of Management 21 (4), 617638.
Burns, J.M (1978), leadership, Harper and Row Publishers, New York,
Cummings L.L and Schwab, D.P (1973), Performance in organizations; Determinants and Appraisal
Chen, J. & Silverthorne, C. (2005). Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and employee
readiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(4): 280-288
Deadrick D.L & Madigan, R.M (1990) Dynamkic Criteria Revisited: A longitudinal Study of Performance
Stability and Predictive Validity. Personnel Psycology, 43, 717-744
Euwema MC, Welndt H, Van Emerik H (2007). Leadership style and group organizational citizenship
behavior across culture. J. Org.Behav., 28(8): 1035- 1057.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Hartog, D.N. &Van Muijen, J. (1997).Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the
MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 70 (1), 19-35
Hater,J.J, Bass B.M (1998), superior Evaluations and Subordinates Perceptions of Transformational and
Transactional Leadership, Journal of applied Psychology, Vol.19 No.88 pp.73-91
Judge T. A, Piccolo R. F, Ilies R (2004).The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating
structure in leadership research. J. Appl.Psychol., 89(1): 36-51.
Kaur, R. 1993. Managerial Styles In The Public Sector. Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations, 28(4): 363368.
Nelson DL, Campbell JQ (2006). Organisational behavior: Foundations, realities, challenges (5thed.).
London: Thomson Learning.

159

O. A. Kehinde & H. A. Banjo


Rad, A.M.M. & Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2006). A Study Of Relationship Between Managers Leadership
Style And Employees Job Satisfaction. Leadership In Health Service, 19(2): 11-28
M.L. Voon, M.C. Lo, K.S. Ngui1, N.B. Ayob (2011) The influence of leadership styles on employees job
satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia. International Journal Of Business,
Management And Social Sciences. Vol 2(1)
Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational Commitment: A Mediator Of The Relationships Of Leadership
Behavior With Job Satisfaction And Performance In A Non-Western Country. Journal Of
Managerial Psychology, 15(1): 6-24.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership In Organizations (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle

160