This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
MOEY YOKE CHENG
FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCY UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
A Study on the Leadership Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness of Malaysian Managers: The Moderating Effect of Gender
Moey Yoke Cheng
The Institute Chartered Secretaries & Administrators, Graduate The Malaysian Association of The Institute of Chartered Secretaries & Administrators 2002
Submitted to the Graduate School of Business Faculty of Business and Accountancy University of Malaya, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree of Master of Management
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness. Second, it endeavours to determine if the gender of a manager moderates the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of leadership effectiveness. A survey method was employed and the data was drawn from subordinates who were working in private and public sectors in the Klang Valley area. Out of the 400 questionnaires that were distributed, only 269 questionnaires were collected. Almost an equal percentage of the genders of the superiors were 55.8% male and 44.2% female.
The study illuminated that Nurturant Task-Participative is recognized by Malaysians as the best leadership practice in the Malaysian context. On the other hand, the result also indicated that there was no relationship between autocratic leadership and effectiveness. Autocratic indeed is perceived as part and parcel of the Malaysian cultural system. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that there will be a transformation of leadership in future where autocratic leadership behaviour no longer attributes to effectiveness. Gender equality was found in this study whereby Malaysians had set aside gender stereotypes and acknowledged the capability of women in management and leadership.
This study provides some implications on the Malaysian preference style of leadership in relation to the manager. Besides, organizations should have a more transparent policy in accepting both men and women into management. Limitations and recommendation is discussed so that future research can take it into consideration.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisor Ms. Sharmila Jayasingam for her tireless and valuable support and guidance. Her kindness and patience has given me a lot of confidence to complete this research.
I am grateful to have a group of supportive coursemates and best friends who motivated me greatly to move on as I was very pressured throughout this long road of research study.
Finally, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my family members for their moral support and encouragement. Even though this is not an easy task to get through, I really appreciate what I have learnt from this research study. It is not only the knowledge that I can gain from this study, there were also a lot of valuable experience that deeply inspired me to strive on in my life.
1 Research Instrument 3.1 Definition of Leadership 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ii iii iv vi vii ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.4 Gender Leadership CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.5 Organisation of the Study CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.4 Scope of the Study 1.1 Purpose of the Study 1.2 Sampling Design 3.4 Data Analysis Techniques 1 4 9 12 13 13 15 15 16 26 28 37 37 38 38 39 iv .3 Research Questions/Objectives of the Study 1.2 Evolving Approaches of Leadership 2.0 Introduction 2.3 Data Collection Procedure 3.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction 3.3 Leadership Effectiveness 2.2 Significance of the Study 1.
2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 4.2 Limitations and Recommendations 5.2 Factor Loading of Leadership Effectiveness 4.3 Relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness 4.1 Factor Loading of Leadership Behaviour 4.2.0 Introduction 4.CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULTS 4.QUESTIONAIRE v .3 Implications 40 40 44 50 51 52 55 60 61 63 65 REFERENCES APPENDIX A .0 Discussion 5.4 The Moderating Effect of Gender on Leadership Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions 5.2 Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency Reliability Analysis 4.
2.1 DESCRIPTION Research Framework PAGE 33 vi .LIST OF FIGURES NO.
5 4.3 4.6 4.2 4.1 2.8 DESCRIPTION Characteristics of Transformational Transactional Leaders Categorization of the Leadership Theories Respondents Characteristics Factor Loading of Leadership Behaviour Reliability Behaviour Coefficients for Leadership and PAGE 20 21 43 46 48 49 50 52 52 54 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Leadership Behaviour Factor Loading of Leadership Effectiveness Multiple Regression Analysis of Leadership Behaviour on Leadership Effectiveness Gender Differences in Leadership Behaviour The Moderating Effect of Gender on Leadership Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness vii .7 4.LIST OF TABLES NO.1 4. 2.4 4.2 4.
0 Introduction The development of Malaysia has been gearing to a tremendous change from an agriculture economy to an industrial economy in moving toward Vision 2020 since its independence in 1957. the knowledge worker is defined by Multimedia Development Corporation. It shows that the world has been in the fast pace of changes than we could have ever imagined. In the Malaysian context.my).CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.mohr. knowledgeable.gov. Knowledge worker can be defined as workers who are highly educated. The former Minister of Human Resource Datuk 1 . Besides being treated as part of an organization asset. they are actually an engine of the economic growth of the country. It can be said that the role of employees in today’s market is increasingly important. Malaysia as a worker who possesses an academic qualification from a higher learning institution or professional who is an expert in multimedia or information and communication technology. The issue that the world is concerned about is globalization and the knowledge based economy. The knowledge based economy that exist in this 21st century requires workers who are not only skillful but knowledgeable to cope with the fast pace of changes in the competitive environment (http://www. independent and possess a high quality of judgment in carrying out a task (Tom. 2002).
discretion on how to get things done (Tom. Viitala. The Ministry of Human Resources. MacNeil (2003). Gapp (2002). Viitala (2004). 2003. 2002). Therefore. Jayasingam. occupational competence. at the end of the training. there is a need to transform the leadership styles so that the leader has the ability to lead. well rounded workers will be produced whereby they are not only technically competent.Seri Dr Fong Chan Onn acknowledged the significant role of today’s workers by saying that “A nation’s competitiveness depends on a great extent on the quality of its human resource. and human and social competence. The training encompasses the aspect of technical competence. Jantan & Ansari. 2002.” This was quoted from his keynote address during The National Human Resources Summit 2007. The new generation of workforce is different from the traditional workforce. work with. Department of Skills Development has implemented the National Dual Training System (NDTS) in 19 May 2004. Jayasingam. facilitate and share with the knowledge workers. Jantan & Ansari (2007) that this new breed of workers require a new form of leader behaviour. 2004. MacNeil. The employee in today’s workforce is an internal partner. With regards to the government’s efforts to produce a competent workforce or knowledge workers who are also able to think strategically and critically. they are also able to work in a team and self develop for greater improvement and advancement. 2 . 2007). They possess a high level of autonomy. Meaning to say that. Fundamentally the relationship and the leadership style and skills used by the leaders have to be changed eventually (Gapp. The current workforce is made up thinking performers. Claims are made by several researchers for instance Tom (2002).
developed and involved in decision making level at top management positions in all sectors regardless of public sector. The entrance of women in management also signified a change in Malaysian leadership whereby people had been discussing the issue of gender leadership and how stereotypes create barriers and challenges for the women leader or women who intend to move upward the corporate ladder. 2003). the role and status of women in Malaysia have also undergone a deep transformation (Ministry of Women and Family Development and UNDP. 2003). 3 . private sector or even political decision making processes in the building and developing of the nation (Ministry of Women and Family Development and UNDP. Education and employment opportunities have enabled Malaysian women to be progressively well educated.Besides the significant change in the Malaysian workforce which led to the need of leadership transformation.
2001). 2001). Gapp. They look forward to have greater work responsibilities. those prominent managers are more like the entrepreneur type. globalization present a new challenge to the corporate leadership whereby we can see the leaders in today’s corporate world who are highly educated such as Tan Sri T Ananda Krishnan of Tanjong Berhad. Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong and Tan Sri Inrathdas Jethanand who only had a basic education. As the times are changing more rapidly than we could have ever imagined.1. A lot of the nation’s leaders have been discussing the importance of leadership in this changing times and the knowledge economy on how to respond to the changing environment and workforce as these changes have significant impact on the roles of 4 . These managers are namely Tan Sri Loh Boon Siew. 2007). During the early years. there has been a paradigm shift in the type of managers in Malaysia since 1980 (Malaysian Institute of Management. 2002. autonomy and empowerment (Tom. who is an accountant (Malaysian Institute of Management. the Malaysian workforce has been transformed from a normal workforce to a knowledge based workforce who is not only technically competent. MacNeil. 2002. who is a MBA graduate and Tan Sri Azman Hashim of Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad. However in this 21st century. 2003. Jantan & Ansari.1 Purpose of the Study As mentioned earlier. but they are able to work in a team and anticipate for future needs in a workplace by continuously seeking for self improvement opportunities. Jayasingam.
p. 1986. cited by McNary. Therefore. He emphasized that organizations should seriously consider the questions of leadership and making the learning and developing a leader as an investment (Abdul Razak. For instance. Deputy Minister. Leadership development is one of the elements that are crucial to identify the learning needs and create development plan for the employees and managers. 2003). she mentioned the importance of leadership skills that need to be inculcated in order to respond to the changing workforce. a leader must be able to respect other’s ideas. provide acknowledgement and encouragement in innovation. a leader must be able to manage changes and support employees as they move to the new roles whilst holding more responsibilities. Morris. In exercising the leadership. Managerial leadership in the new era needs to be transformed to a wholly different style (Deming. the purpose of this study is to identify what kind of leadership behaviour is perceived as an effective leadership so that this could provide a platform for Malaysian managers to manage and lead with an effective leadership style especially to manage knowledge workers and lead an organization in this challenging era of globalization and 5 . 1997. a traditional way of instructing subordinates to work is no longer work (Awad & Ghaziri. More closer to home.leaders and the new skills that need to be used by the leaders (Van Leeuwen. She further added that. our Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak has highlighted an important point whereby he stated that the most vital aspects of leadership in the 21st century is the need to perform. 2004). in the speaking notes for Claire M. 2006).229). Human Resource Development Canada in 9 December 1999. Managers should recognize that the global market is so competitive and therefore.
3% Director General (Federal) and 12. 7.3% is President. and to identify the various possibilities and interferences that might arise in realizing the Government’s goal of 6 . we are still away from achieving the target as the Statistics on Women. Family and Community Development (MWFCD) in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is undertaking a research to understand and analyze the barriers towards women’s participation.6% of women are members of Board of Directors and 14. Chief Operating Officer. Managing Director. It applies not only to the workers but the same to the managers or leaders to bear in mind that it is the time to develop new competencies to sustain in leading the followers in a changing and challenging environment. 10. The new world and the new era of business pattern require a new way of working (Van Leeuwen.knowledge economy. The Ministry of Women. However. Senior General Manager or General Manager. Vice President. it is disturbing to note the negative perception towards women in power although the government has adopted 30% policy of women’s representation at decision making levels in the public sector in August 2004 to address the issue of under representation of women at the decision making levels especially in top managerial positions.1% are Chief Executive (Federal Statutory Bodies). 2003). Whereas in private sector. Chief Executive Officer. Family and Social Welfare 2006 showed that women at decision making level in public sector consists of 14.8% Secretary General. In talking about the transformation of leadership. As the target towards achieving at least 30% participation of women at decision making levels in Malaysia has yet to be achieved.
achieving its 30% policy for women at decision making levels (http://www.my/index. are these barriers causing the women to be marginalized? How are the women leaders actually being perceived? According to Bayes and Newton (1978). Manjulika Koshal. dedication and leadership style. lack of guidance and role models for women at the highest levels. it was also cited in the 2003 Catalyst study where women highlighted that barriers for women to enter into management were preconceptions of women’s roles and capabilities.undp.php?nvi_id=245). Gupta and Rajindar Koshal (1998) revealed that female managers in Malaysia felt that they were discriminated against for promotion to higher ranks even though they performed well. 1981. p. Nevertheless. the subordinates’ reaction towards women leader was partly due to an individual and partly due to the factor of cultural stereotype of women and socialized expectations about women as a manager (cited by Bass.495).org. Therefore. 7 . One of the typical barriers for women moving up to senior management position that was highlighted by Oakley (2000) was gender-based stereotypes. lack of management or line experience and career planning. Besides stereotyping. it is strongly believed that using or adopting appropriate leadership behaviour can help women leaders to be perceived as effective too. This was supported by the survey result which considerably highlighted a greater percentage of female as compared to male executives who felt that women were under-represented at all levels in management.
the focus of assessing the existence of gender differences in leadership had been diverted towards the special contribution women can bring as managers. there is a need to study whether gender is the moderating effect in leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness as people had the pre-conceived idea and stereotyping in questioning women’s abilities and capabilities.As brought up by Ferrario (1994). Therefore. 8 . realizing the importance of leadership whereby Malaysian women has been entering the corporate world.
We can always see the exemplary leadership that our former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir has demonstrated by transforming and leading Malaysia to the advancement and achievement. The market is in the scarcity of good managers and professionals.2 Significance of the Study It is significant to delve into leadership behaviour and effectiveness as the expected outcome from an effective leadership does not only impact businesses or organizations and stakeholders’ satisfaction. As pointed out by Mr Micheal Yeoh. there must a paradigm shift where the business leader has to be creative. Therefore. changes and challenges. 2005). 9 . the Malaysian corporate leaders are facing the challenges in training and development. Given the pressure of knowledge economy and the challenges in managing knowledge workers.1. He highlighted that with globalization. innovative and promoted idea sharing. Chief Executive Officer (2004). this will slowly bring to the emergence of a new era of leadership in this 21st century to best suit the current development. this study can suggest a leadership development opportunity to the organization as well as to an individual manager from all levels regardless whether they are men or women in management and provide them a platform on how to become an effective manager and also provide a ground of support in understanding what will be an appropriate and effective leadership behaviour in this changing environment. it will also eventually lead to a proper nation and community development (Strang.
their knowledge and skills.” Therefore. Lituchy & Liu. As Malaysia is moving towards Vision 2020. women in Malaysia is recognized as part of the contributor to the nation’s development. impediments as mentioned and taking a proactive effort in raising awareness that both the male and female manager can become an effective manager.This research is also attempting to ameliorate many of the gender stereotypes. Mueller. the Malaysian business society should have taken note of this statement which was quoted from our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi’s message in the report of the Women’s Summit in 2003 to acknowledge the contribution of women. Therefore. Key positions should not dominated by men. 1996.180). “The vision and leadership of women. 1992. cited by Powell. optimize their own potential and talent. their energy and drive can benefit entire communities. Schein. This research is significant in helping women to identify the leadership behaviour that can improve their effectiveness rating and help them move up the corporate ladder. gender bias or the global common mindset of “Think manager. think men” women should stand out to be self-assured in moving forward and ready for higher positions (Schein & Mueller. p. Butterfield & Parent. the barriers that hinder women attain higher leadership positions with various factors such as gender stereotype and proverbial glass ceiling should be eliminated. Sustainability and the success of an organization relies on effective leadership. 10 . 2002. taking into consideration of the effective attributes to leadership. it is imperative for Malaysian women to breakthrough the glass ceiling. Even though the glass ceiling still exists. Regardless of the gender stereotype.
the business leader or manager should take a step forward and make a paradigm shift towards the effective new leadership and mindset (Yeoh.As the country. 2004). corporate world as well as the individual is realizing globalization and competitiveness. 11 .
and whether the gender of a manager moderates the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of leadership effectiveness. this study endeavours to achieve the following research objectives: i) To examine the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of leadership effectiveness ii) To determine if gender of a manager moderates the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of leadership effectiveness 12 .1.3 Research Questions/Objectives of the Study This study intends to answer the research questions of what is the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of leadership effectiveness. With that.
The respondents could be from private or public sectors to gather subordinates’ perception on 300 Malaysian managers. data collection procedure and data analysis techniques. describes the purpose and significance of the study. A thorough and comprehensive review will be carried out to examine the definition of leadership. specifies the research questions/objectives and defines the scope of the research study. the research framework will be outlined and followed by the development of hypotheses. Chapter 2 reviews existing literature pertinent to the research study.1. 13 . evolving approaches of leadership.4 Scope of the Study A survey instrument with self administered questionnaire was used to carry out the research study. sampling design. This study was confined to Klang Valley area.5 Organisation of the Study Chapter 1 presents the introduction. All the data was analyzed by using SPSS data analysis software application. Chapter 3 explains the research methodology that used in the research study such as selection of research instrument. Researchers’ findings and limitations of the study will be discussed and analyzed. leadership effectiveness and gender leadership. Besides. 1.
The findings and results will be presented according to the section such as demographic characteristics of respondents. All the findings will be analyzed and presented in the form of statistical analysis.Chapter 4 presents the findings and results of the study. assessing the dimension of leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness by using factor analysis and internal consistency reliability analysis. relationship between leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness. and the moderating effect of the gender of a manager on leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness. organisation as well as the society as a whole in the aspect of leadership behaviour. Chapter 5 discusses the findings. Lastly. 14 . provides an overall conclusion to summarize the entire research study. the limitations of the study will be highlighted and recommendations of the study for future research in the related area will be proposed. Subsequently. highlight some implications of the study and how useful and valuable the research is in contributing to a new knowledge to an individual. leadership effectiveness and gender leadership.
Draft. 1966. leadership is defined “as the attribute of a position. For instance. 2005). through the communication process. Even though the process of influencing is the essence in leadership. p. it encompasses the essence of influencing followers moving toward a common vision by initiating a change (Katz & Kahn. evolving approaches to leadership. exercised in situations and directed. 2. 1966. Regardless of the different light of perception of historians and philosophers in leadership. 1961. Weschler & Massarik. it had been defined as “interpersonal influence.24).301). as the characteristics of a person. and as a category of behavior” (Katz & Kahn. However. whether the influence is exerted through emotional inspiration where followers have to 15 .1 Definition of Leadership The studies of leadership started since the past century and it had been defined differently by many historians and philosophers. gender leadership and leadership effectiveness. in the social literature.CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction This chapter reviews existing literature pertinent to the research study. A comprehensive review will be carried out to review the definition of leadership. toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals” (Tannenbaum. some differences could be addressed for instance in the ways of who exercise the influence between the leaders and followers. p. the motives of influence whether it is for the benefits of an organization as a whole or merely the personal advantage of an individual.
cooperativeness popularity. qualities. It was a study based on the traits inherited and special features that a leader possesses. knowing how to get things done. alertness to situations. persistence. adaptability and verbal facility (Bass. Behavioral Approach. followers. The common traits.2 Evolving Approaches of Leadership The studies on leadership were first started from the very start of the Great Man Approach and then moved on to the Trait Approach. Great Man Approach This was the earliest theory of leadership. 1981). 2005. in general we can conclude that the nature of leadership involves leaders. change and common vision. initiative. p. “It is a leadership approach that sought to identify the inherited traits leaders possessed that distinguished them from people who were not leaders. Trait Approach The theory of leadership was then expanded to study the personality.47). Therefore.” (Draft. 2006). Contingency Approach and subsequently emerged the Contemporary Approach of leadership. 2. values and skills of a leader. characteristics and skills required that have been identified are in the aspect of sociability. influence. self confidence. 16 .sacrifice to a certain extent towards the achievement and what would be the positive or negative outcomes of the influence to the group and organization (Yukl. motives.
Apart from autocratic leaders. The second aspect focuses on the leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness (Yukl. democratic leaders are those who tend to be more participative and work with subordinates to get things done (Lewin. this theory was phased out as it failed to relate to the traits with the group performance or leader advancement (Yukl. The second aspect was initiating structure: the extent of how a task oriented leader in directing subordinates to get things done and maintaining the standards of work performance (Bass. The first aspect was looking at the manager’s responsibilities and abilities in carrying the tasks. Pertaining to the autocratic and democratic leadership behaviours. 1945). 1981). Ohio State University had also conducted a study which looked at the aspect of consideration: the extent of how sensitive a leader is in taking care of the needs of subordinates and giving acknowledgement plus recognition for improved performance. coping with constraints and conflict. leadership continuum is developed to measure the extent that the leader practices boss-centered leadership and subordinate-centered leadership (Tannenbaum.Nevertheless. 1961). Weschler & Massarik. Behavioral Approach There are two aspects in this approach. 17 . 2006). Kurt Lewin and his associates from University of Iowa had conducted a research in leadership behaviour which studied autocratic leaders who tend to control and centralize the authority. 2006).
The second dimension was job-centered. that is how task-oriented a leader is in emphasizing the goals and work facilitation rather than the needs of the employees (Draft. 18 .Another study was conducted by University of Michigan which was looking at how employee-centered a leader is in providing support and showing concern to the employees. 2005).
Ginnett & Curphy. Fiedler’s Contingency Model is the well known contingency theory. 2005. If the leader scores low LPC. In this model. Achievement-oriented Leadership refers to a leader who always seeks for improvement. 19 . Directive leadership. Directive Leadership refers to a leader who provides instruction and direction to the subordinates on how to get things done. 1993). setting direction and challenging objectives for subordinates (Draft. 1993). Participative Leadership and Achievement-oriented Leadership. Another contingency model is Path Goal Theory which looked at how a leader motivates and rewards subordinates towards the goal achievement. Supportive leadership refers to how a leader expresses the concern for the welfare and the human needs of subordinates. Participative leadership refers to a leader who always consults with subordinates by encouraging and seeking their opinions and suggestions in decision making. it means that the leader is more task oriented whereas high LPC indicates that the leader is more relationship oriented (Hughes. Ginnett & Curphy.Contingency Approach This approach reviews how a leader can use their leadership styles in different situations so that they can achieve leadership effectiveness (Draft. Hughes. 2005). the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale was developed to determine the leader’s behaviour where the leader is categorized into two groups: low LPC and high LPC. There are four types of behaviour such as Supportive Leadership.
1 Characteristics of Transformational and Transactional Leaders Transformational Leader Charisma Inspiration Intellectual Stimulation Individualized Consideration Provides vision and sense of mission. uses symbols to focus efforts. express important purposes in simple ways. Draft. it was developed by Bass with an assessment tool named Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Communicates high expectations. Charismatic leadership attributes to how a leader uses his or her influence to inspire and motivate their followers to sacrifice their personal interest towards the vision. Charismatic leader has a great emotional impact on the followers as the leader has the ability to express vision and a complex idea clearly so that the followers are willing to take the risk just to abide to what the leader has inspired them to follow (Yukl. coaches. and careful problem solving. There are seven dimensions in this theory which the characteristics of transformational and transactional leadership are shown in Table 2. advises. instills pride.1. Promotes intelligence. p.Contemporary Approach The theory of leadership was evolved from a Great Man Theory to a new paradigm model such as Charismatic Leadership by Conger and Kanungo (1987) (cited by Yukl. rationality. Transformational and transactional leadership was first initiated by Burns in 1970s. gains respect and trust. Subsequently. 2005).250) and Transactional and Transformational Leadership by Bass (1990). 20 . treats each employee individually. 2006. 2006. Table 2. Gives personal attention.
19-31. promises rewards for good performance. from the aspect that they are looking at. it can actually be categorized into the aspects of autocratic.2 Categorization of the Leadership Theories Category University of Iowa Leadership Continuum Ohio University University Michigan of State Autocratic Participative Relationship Task 21 . Exception (active) takes corrective action. (1990). 18. 3. Source: Based on Bass. participative. Among the theories that were mentioned above.Transactional Leader Contingent Reward Contracts exchange of rewards for effort. Organizational Dynamics. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Management by Watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards. relationship oriented and task oriented.2 as follows: Table 2. avoids making decisions. Winter 90. The categorization is shown in Table 2. Exception (passive) Laissez-Faire Abdicates responsibilities. recognizes accomplishments. B. M. Management by Intervenes only if standards are not met.
However. With that. 22 . p. the following are the three broad categories that were adopted in this research study. Instead of addressing relationship and task oriented behaviour as separate dimension. this study intends to employ the Nurturant-Task dimension developed by Sinha (1980) (cited by Ansari 1990.Category Fiedler’s Contingency Model Path Goal Theory Charismatic Leadership Transformational & Transactional Leadership Autocratic Participative Relationship Task These are the four dimensions that most of leadership models cover – the autocratic. relationship. Sinha (1980) has introduced the Nurturant-Task dimension as a combination of both relationship and task oriented behaviour.10). In reality. participative. Bearing this in mind. in this study. and task oriented behaviours. three main dimensions of leader behaviour would be employed. a leader has been repeatedly asked to adopt both task oriented and relationship oriented behaviour in order to influence various outcomes. This leader behaviour is evidenced as an effective leadership not only in India but also in Malaysia among the Malaysian entrepreneurs.
(i) Autocratic Leadership This approach was started from the various pessimistic and negative reviews of trait approach which led to the first study of autocratic leader behaviour that was carried out by Kurt Lewin and his associates at the University of Iowa (Lewin. makes use of his power of influence from his position to control rewards and force the followers to comply to his instruction (Blau & Scott. 23 . Draft. the employees who have worked under the autocratic leader seemed to have bad feeling of working even though they have high performance as compared to the democratic leader where the employees achieved the same result of performance but felt more comfortable in carrying out a task assigned without the presence and supervision of the leader. some of the studies had examined the positive effect of autocratic leadership on performance. This type of leader dominates and controls all the decisions and actions by giving instruction and direction to the followers on what to do and how to carry out a task whereby restricting follower’s creativity and innovativeness. Hise (1968) in his simulated business group study found that close supervision of a leader will lead to high productivity of group (cited by Stogdill. 2005. directive. in the study of Shaw (1955). An autocratic leader is a leader who is very strict.151).367). For instance. As a result of the Kurt Lewin’s study. p. 2006). Jogulu & Wood. p. 1963. 1945). 1963.379). This finding was the same with a study by Argyle and colleagues whereby democratic leadership was evidenced with high productivity in a work group (cited by Blau & Scott. p. Nevertheless. 1974. 1974. the result revealed that under the autocratic leadership the group acted accurately and fast as compared to democratic leadership (cited by Stogdill.
Bragg and Andrews (1973) assessed this approach and was proven in achieving a high productivity level and workers satisfaction (cited by Yukl. subordinates satisfaction. subordinates were exposed to a problem which has stimulated their critical thinking in understanding and analyzing a problem.Hence. 1981. 2005. 2006). 1974. 2006. (ii) Participative Leadership People will usually view a leader or a manager as a decision maker. Nicol and Farrell (1963). encouragement and facilitation between the leaders and subordinates in making a decision (Draft. p.86). Yukl. and effect on task performance – decision quality and productivity (Bass. The expected effects were on the decision acceptance. in the participative leadership styles. In the study of Roby. 2006). Besides. Some general effects of directive and participative leaders had been examined and reviewed. 2006). Of course this will increase the likeness of members to accept the decision which was made through discussion (Yukl. It involves consultation. a problem which required a reaction to environmental changes seems to be easily resolved (cited by Stogdill. 24 . Yukl. while in the process of making a decision. p. 2006). subordinates felt motivated with a sense of ownership as being acknowledged (Yukl. the decision is not solely dominated by the leader. subordinates involvement and commitment. the result revealed that under participative leadership. it could be said that autocratic leadership behaviour had a direct impact on employees’ performance and satisfaction which eventually will impact the work outcome.387). However. For instance.
Sinha. Ansari. Singaporeans and Americans preferred participative style as compared to autocratic approach as they perceived that it is more appropriate (Campbell. Pandey & Sinha 1986. This nurturant task oriented style was considered as a fore runner of participative style where the shifting will take place when the subordinates have reached to certain degree of maturity. 1990. Pandey. 2000). Sinha. 1987.10). Even though this model is evidenced as effective in the Indian context. (iii) Nurturant Task Leadership Nurturant task leadership style originated from India and proposed by Sinha (1980) as an effective leadership style that best suited in Indian context. Aafaqi & Jayasingam. Ansari & Shukla. 1987) (cited by Ansari. 1993).The appropriateness of participative leadership style has evidenced in several studies besides the above. subordinates highly relied on their leaders and the relationship between the leader and subordinates were very close and informal (cited by Ansari 1990. Successful Malaysian entrepreneurs were actually practicing nurturant task and participative leadership style as compared to autocratic approach (Ansari. For instance. 1983.11-12). p. p. Bommer & Yeo. 1986. According to Sinha (1980). This model has evidenced its effectiveness and received favorable rating in various studies (Ansari. results reported that it was also evident effective in Malaysia. 25 .
Amstrong. Besides those extrinsic results performance. 1961). problem solving. motivate and support subordinates. another debate would be on the different measurement used to evaluate the leadership effectiveness. A leader must be able to maintain a good reputation of an organization not only on the profit margin made. the evaluation should look at the variables that closely correlated with the leadership effectiveness (Tannenbaum. achievement orientation and ability to set a clear direction. Kabacoff. productivity and sales volume which directly related to the terms that can be quantified (Yukl. b) Qualitative method: more towards intrinsic measurement such as satisfaction level derived from the ratings by superiors.3 Leadership Effectiveness In the earlier part of this review. the following are the methods that were used in assessing the leadership effectiveness: a) Quantitative method: measures the organization profit. Weschler & Massarik. peers and subordinates (Tannenbaum. 2004. 2006). in fact there is an important element that a leader should take into consideration that is the organizational integrity. how much of the sales target being met but how ethical an organization 26 . Weschler & Massarik. Kinsey. Even though it cannot be concluded or determined which methods are the most trustworthy to evaluate the leadership effectiveness. Yukl. 2006). 1992. 2006).2. teamwork. 1961. In figuring out this difficulty. The competency items encompass skills in communicating. different approaches in leadership theories were discussed. c) Competency: a main criteria to assess leadership effectiveness (Lipshitz & Nevo. 1998. Subsequently.
27 . Therefore. 1992. 2004). along the way or process to the path. There could be many definitions of leadership as well as many ways to measure leadership effectiveness. However. “mutual understanding between the leader and the organization about the specific behaviors and professional practices that are associated with exemplary leadership” is an essential component of effective leadership (Reeves. Basefsky. 2004.can carry out its operation and maintain transparent business records (Bogue. p.21). the essence of leadership is actually a process of influence between a leader and a follower moving towards a common goal.
This in fact has become an interesting and debatable topic in research. the male or the female leader? It does not matter as the most essential facet in a leadership is the qualities associated with effective management and not gender related (Wajcman. women tend to practice transformational leadership and use their interpersonal skills to influence subordinates. p.4 Gender Leadership For the past two decades there have been large numbers of women entering into the corporate world of business holding the management positions as well as striving towards key leadership positions. but in reality this is the scenario that gender cause the difference in leadership. A study by Burke and Collins (2001) which used Multi-Factor Leadership Questionaire (MLQ) as leadership assessment model supported this notion as their findings also showed that female managers were more likely to practice transformational leadership than male managers.43).2. Audet & Miller. In the article of Rosener (1990). Not that we do not want to believe that gender is not a matter. Meaning to say that. The focal point of most of the studies seems to focus on gender differences in leadership behaviour. it was pointed out that men are more likely to practice transactional leadership which acknowledge the subordinates by rewarding them for their job performance whereas women are more likely to practice transformational leadership which is more charismatic and emphasizing on the human relation skills. 1996. giving support and 28 . 2003. Vilkinas. Does gender of a leader really matter? Why are there so many debates about the differences in terms of the leadership style and who will be more effective. providing encouragement in problem solving. In sum to this. “Effective leadership is not the exclusive domain of either gender and both can learn from other.” (Appelbaum. 2000).
On the contrary. The findings indicated that there was no difference in the overall leadership styles of male and female managers. the study of Manning (2002) had shown that there was actually no difference in transformational leadership between male and female managers who were at the same level of the position regardless of being self rated or observer rated. it revealed that transformational leadership is androgynous. In the use of task oriented behaviour or supportive behaviour. Oshagbemi and Gill (2003) stated that the failure to focus on one industry to determine the gender ratio could have caused the results to be biased. To further support the notion of no gender difference in leadership styles. Leeden and Willemsen (2001) carried out a study in a department store to examine whether gender-typing of organization context will influence the leadership behaviour of male and female managers. it showed that gender of the manager and 29 .coaching so that they could assist their subordinates in moving towards the common goals.429). Hence. Van Engen. 2006. Oshagbemi and Gill (2003) have carried out a research in examining the gender differences and similarities in the leadership styles and behaviour of UK managers by using self rated method. Participative and Delegative leadership styles. p. Eagle and Johnson (1990) revealed in their meta-analysis of gender studies that there was no gender difference in these two behavior but managed to identify that women tend to practice participative leadership more than men (cited by Yukl. Consultative. The research studied Directive. As a result. However.
Among the different types of leadership styles. With respect to the rating issue on the validity and the bias as mentioned by many researchers. people perceived that women leaders who used autocratic style were not favored and were evaluated poorly. an extensive research study had been carried out by Kabacoff (1998) by using the 360 degree feedback rating which not only involve managers themselves. 1998. With respect to this result. On the other hand. But. but superiors. managerial skills and they were more consensus-oriented.the gender-typing of the department were not the moderator of the differences in leadership behaviour. good ratings were given to the men leaders. The aims of the study were to examine gender differences in leadership behaviour and effectiveness.5). peers and subordinates also participated in the evaluation. which is more effective? In the study of Jago and Vroom (1982). The study of Rutherford (2001) showed that majority of the women (84%) felt that women manage differently from men in the ways of women having better human relations skills. 30 . Peter (1998) pointed out a possible reason was that female managers feel more defenseless in their positions and consequently focus on achieving results to prove their capability (cited by Kabacoff. The study concluded that women were more result oriented. Equal assessment was given and favored men and women leaders who tend to be more participative. p. men were more vision and planning oriented in setting organizational vision and direction by planning it strategically.
2006. 1998). In terms of most successful entrepreneurs. Weschler & Massarik. There is no difference in the rating of autocratic behaviour for least successful entrepreneurs from both male and female respondents. the male respondents rated high on autocratic behaviour as compared to the female respondents. p. 1998). For the least successful entrepreneur. Peers and subordinates perceived that women were slightly more effective than men as compared to what was perceived by the superior that men and women were equally effective (Kabacoff. Kabacoff. there was no difference in leadership effectiveness between men and women managers (cited by Yukl.429). However. let’s go back to the debate between men and women who is more effective in leadership? There is no absolute effective or ineffective leadership as it is perceived or evaluated differently in the eyes of superiors and subordinates (Tannenbaum. women were rated high in possessing human relations leadership skills while men on business oriented leadership skills. Aafaqi and Jayasingam (2000). For instance. the differences were identified in the managerial role of the different 31 . male respondents rated the successful entrepreneurs high on supportive-taskmaster styles whereas female respondents rated the successful entrepreneurs low on supportivetaskmaster styles. In terms of rating. the result indicated that the most successful entrepreneurs were practicing supportivetaskmaster and participative styles than autocratic leadership.In a local study on entrepreneur leadership by Ansari. 1961. Nevertheless. both male and female respondents have the same ratings for supportive-taskmaster styles but they rated differently for autocratic behaviour. In the meta analysis study by Eagly and colleagues (1995).
Therefore. gender is not just an element being used in studying the differences in leadership. this study revealed that the gender of a manager is not a predictor in determining the leadership effectiveness. for instance. it is indeed a moderator that researchers used it to determine the relationship between individual characteristics and informal leadership (Neubert & Taggar. Notwithstanding the differences and debates that have been discussed as above. 32 . male managers seemed more effective in the positions that required strong task skills and female managers were effective in the positions that required strong human relations skills. 2004).positions that the managers were holding.
1 Research Framework A lot of past studies had evidenced that Nurturant Task leadership is effective (Ansari. 1986. Pandey. cited by Ansari.5) therefore the following hypothesis is hypothesized to find out whether the same findings could be derived on the Malaysian managers instead of entrepreneurs. p.Pertaining to the literature and findings as discussed above. 1994. Sinha. 1983. In view of this model that can be both accepted and practiced in two different countries which have the similarity of culture (Abdullah. does the gender of a manager make a difference in leadership behaviour and its effectiveness? A research framework has been outlined as follows: Leadership Behaviour Leadership Effectiveness Gender Figure 2. 1987) (cited by Ansari. Aafaqi & Jayasingam (2000). Ansari & Shukla. p. it had been tested in the research study among Malaysian entrepreneurs by Ansari. it is not only effective in India. H1: Nurturant task leader is perceived as effective by the subordinates 33 . 1987. Aafaqi & Jayasingam. 1994. Pandey & Sinha 1986. Ansari. Hofstede. Sinha.11-12). 1990. Furthermore. 2000.
Nicol & Farrell. However. Jantan & Ansari. 1963. Bommer & Yeo.379). 1993). Bass. the following hypothesis still intends to find out the perception of subordinates on the ineffectiveness of autocratic leadership. In view that it is the most appropriate and preferred leadership behaviour that widely accepted as evidenced in the past research.387. Roby. task performance and productivity (Bass.Participative leadership had been examined by the researches from the various aspect of the effect on the decision acceptance. cited by Stogdill.367. 1955. Nevertheless. cited by Yukl. commitment. this findings were further refined where autocratic leadership had positive effect on performance which eventually led to high speed and accuracy. 1981. subordinates involvement. Gapp. Hise. 2006. Yukl 2006). 1974. autocratic leadership may or may not be accepted by the subordinates anymore as the workers nowadays are quite competent. Jayasingam. 2003. p. In view of globalization and the knowledge economy.86. subordinates satisfaction. cited by Stogdill. MacNeil. 1974. p. Campbell. therefore it is hypothesized that: H2: Participative leader is perceived as effective by the subordinates Past studies had indicated that autocratic leadership had negatively impacted on employees’ satisfaction (Lewin. 1945). p. independent and knowledgeable and would not let the managers lead them strictly without giving any empowerment (Tom. 1974. It seems that good ratings had been given on it (Bragg & Andrews. cited by Stogdill. and the productivity of the group performance (Shaw. 1981. Viitala. 1973. Hence. 2002. 2004. 2002. p. 1968. 2007). it is hypothesized in this study that: H3: Autocratic leader is perceived as ineffective by the subordinates 34 .
Rutherford.There were ample researches on gender differences in leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness. With the relationship that the leader and subordinate have built. Kabacoff.10). It is the fore runner of participative leadership whereby the shifting will take place when the subordinates have reached to certain degree of maturity (Sinha. therefore they were rated highly and slightly effective than men by the peers and subordinates (Rosener.429). 1990. 2001). the result indicated that women tend to practice participative leadership (cited by Yukl. Based on the above review. p. sharing the information and enhancing people’s selfworth. participative leadership involved the participation of subordinates in giving suggestion and opinion under the encouragement of the leader. possessing better human relation skills. the following hypothesis is formulated to the evidence that the effectiveness of female managers in participative leadership styles where they have been rated more effective than male managers. pertaining to the review mentioned by Rosener (1990). the leader may have the ability to influence subordinates to a certain extent. In the research of Eagle and Johnson (1990). Therefore. p. H4: Female managers who practice participative leadership behaviour are rated more effective than male managers who practice participative leadership behaviour It was mentioned by Sinha that nurturant task leadership refers to the informal relationship between the leader and subordinate where the leader is very concern and takes care of the subordinates on their well-being. 1980. Burke and Collins (2001) and Rutherford (2001) where 35 . As defined earlier. 2006. cited by Ansari 1990. To support this notion that women tend to practice participative leadership as women in nature has the good attributes and character in interacting with people. 1998.
women were more influential than men and relationship oriented. thus the following hypothesis intends to find out how far Malaysian in accept the female managers who practice autocratic leadership as compared to the male managers. she will be rated poorly as compared to men who will be given a good rating instead. Malaysian women are still under represented at the decision making levels in management due to the existence of the glass ceiling. H6: Female managers who practice autocratic leadership behaviour are rated less effective than male managers who practice autocratic leadership behaviour 36 . In addition to this. 1982). (Jago & Vroom. thus it is hypothesized that: H5: Female managers who practice nurturant task leadership behaviour are rated more effective than male managers who practice nurturant task leadership behaviour In realizing the gender-based stereotypes on the women’s roles and abilities. people perceived that if a women leader practiced autocratic leadership.
The questions were adapted from Slechta Randy (http://www. (2000). Draft (2005) and Yukl (2006). Sinha. This is one of the essences in leadership where a leader besides providing support to followers when needed.lmiinc. However. (1994). Bhal and Ansari. (1990).CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.pdf).1 Research Instrument This study is carried out by using a survey approach with five pages of questionnaire including a cover letter.com?Articles/The_Up_Front_Manager. nurturant-task and participative were adopted from Ansari. 30 pre-tested single statement items that looked into three leader behaviour dimensions: autocratic. data collection procedure and data analysis technique. First section measured leadership behaviour and effectiveness. There were two sections in the questionnaire. sampling design. this was modified by adding one more construct that was Q36 “Provides clear instructions and explanations to workers when needed”.0 Introduction This section explains the methodology employed in the study and provides a description of the research instrument. The second part of the questionnaire which consisted of 6 questions was used to measure leadership effectiveness. Second section was respondents’ demographic data. he or she has to lead followers by giving a clear guidance and direction as they have to strive for a 37 . 3. This was added because leadership not only involves process of influence but also provide guidance and direction in leading subordinates.
The sampling method that was used in this research was stratified random sampling. 2005. 2006). 3=Neither disagree nor Agree. 4= Agree and 5= Strongly Agree. 3. Data was collected over a period of 2 months.3 Data Collection Procedure Self-administered questionnaires were distributed via personal contacts and email. The respondents were from private or public sectors as long as subordinates’ perception on 300 Malaysian managers could be gathered. 2=Disagree. As the gender of the manager was the moderator in this study.2 Sampling Design The targeted sample size was 300 confined to Klang Valley. Furthermore. Five point Likert scaled were used to require the respondents to indicate their level of agreement and disagreement by marking a (X) at the appropriate number: 1=Strongly disagree. for example. 3. questionnaires were distributed to the subordinates who had worked with his or her immediate superior at least 1 year and above. Out of the 400 questionnaires that were distributed. This is to ensure that the respondents had better understanding of their superiors’ leadership behaviour. only 269 questionnaires were collected. 38 . 50-50 or 40-60 for gender of the manager so that the findings were more comparable based on an even sample size. Yukl. an estimated quota was set.common goal (Draft.
Data Analysis Techniques
To generate the results of the analysis, the following data analysis techniques were used: a) Factor analysis was performed on the 30 item scale to examine the correlations among the leadership behavior dimension in the scale. b) Cronbach’s Alpha was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of the factors c) Multiple regression analysis was carried out to determine which leadership behaviour best predicted the leadership effectiveness d) T test was performed to examine the gender differences in leadership behaviour between male and female managers e) Hierarchical Regression analysis was performed to determine whether the gender of the manager moderates the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of leadership effectiveness
This section presents the research findings which can be divided into the following areas: a) b) c) d) Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency Reliability Analysis Relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness The Moderating Effect of Gender of a Manager on Leadership Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed. In total, 269 questionnaires were collected which comprised of a high response rate of 67.25 %. Table 4.1 presents the demographic characteristics of respondents with regards to education, position, tenure in the current position, industry, organization size, nature of organization, gender of superior and numbers of years working with superior. With regards to the education level, most of the respondents were highly educated with more than 60% having at least a Bachelor’s degree or postgraduate qualification. This may be due to the respondents being mostly officers/executives and managers/senior managers. Only a small proportion of the respondents had a secondary school level of qualifications. From the data, respondents in lower level of management who were in the positions
of officer/executive levels made up a majority of the respondents as compared to the middle level management which only consisted of 23.4%.
With regards to the tenure in current position, a majority of the respondents (74.7%) had worked in their current company for 1 - 5 years. The data also showed that not many respondents had a longer tenure of service with at least 6 years and above in their current position. This may indicate that people do not tend to stay longer in the same position for a longer period. This probably means that the younger generations are more keen to seek better career prospects from time to time as compared to the older generation.
In terms of industry, almost half of the respondents were from banking and finance, manufacturing and professional services. The other half was from others industries where some of the respondents indicated that they were from the education industry and construction industry while some did not indicate. In terms of organization size, most of the respondents were from the large scale companies which had above 151 employees.
With regards to the nature of the organization, most of the respondents worked in a locally owned company which represented 72.9% out of the total respondents. As this research is to find out the moderating effect of the gender of the manager on the leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness, almost an equal percentage of the gender of the superior of the respondents was found that was 55.8% of the respondents’ superior were male and 44.2% were female.
Lastly, the number of years working with superior was also examined and it was revealed that a large group of the respondents were actually working with their superiors for 1 - 5 years. Questionnaires were distributed to the subordinates who had worked with his or her immediate superior for at least 1 year and above. This is to ensure that the respondents had better understanding of their superiors’ leadership behaviour.
It was very obvious and can be seen from the data that only a small proportion of respondents worked with their superiors for 16 to 20 years. Nowadays the market is so competitive and critical that hardly any people are willing to stay in the same company and work with the same superior for longer periods. This could be due to the fact that these might be more choices and better prospects in other companies especially in the current globalized era and knowledge economy. Companies are increasingly recognizing human capital as an important organizational asset.
Table 4.0 3.3 1.3 23.9 100 Industry Banking & Finance Manufacturing Professional Service Others 38 37 71 123 269 14.7 100 Organization Size 100 and below 101-150 151 and above 77 31 161 269 28.1 13.6 61.4 3.1 72.1 Respondents Characteristics Item Education High School/SPM/STPM Certificate/Diploma Bachelor’s Degree Postgraduate Professional Others Frequency 13 45 135 47 28 1 269 % 4.7 15.7 100 Tenure in current position 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21 years and above 201 42 17 4 5 269 74.4 100 Position Clerical Officer/Executive Manager/Senior Manager Head of Department Others 23 165 63 8 10 269 8.2 17.5 1.8 26.5 10.4 0.8 16.5 59.6 11.4 45.9 100 Nature of Organization Foreign owned Locally owned 73 196 269 27.6 6.9 100 43 .7 50.
2 2.4 100 4.2 100 No.8 44. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0. Black.01). initially there were seven factors created. p<0.932 and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (Chi square = 2510. However.2. Babin. Anderson and Tatham (2006).1 Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency Reliability Analysis Factor Loading of Leadership Behaviour Factor analysis was performed on the 30 items scale to examine the correlations among the leadership behavior dimension in the scale.2 4.8 8. of years working with superior 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 239 22 7 1 269 88. The factors were rotated by using varimax because this method could provide a clearer separation of factors as cross loading was found in this analysis. only factors with the eigenvalue more than 1. it was left with 3 factors at the end after dropping the items which had high cross loading. For instance.0 was considered. All the items with cross loading was removed otherwise it will cause a difficulty in naming the factors when items tend to load into more than one 44 .Item Gender of Superior Male Female Frequency % 150 119 269 55. Cross loading occurred in this analysis referred to the items with had high cross loading that were rather close to the factor loadings.6 0. According to Hair.749.
After the process of dropping the 45 . it was unable to be determined from other aspects which also can relate this concept and gather those related item to form the overall of the concept. the single item is not allowed to sample the concept from different aspect (Cramer. A5 (which referred to keep an eye on what his/her workers do) which was the only item in Factor 5 was dropped as the single item could not represent a factor. Furthermore. The reason is it will lead to a problem in determining the reliability of the item. Then. the items with cross loading were dropped and they were found as follows: a) NT1: Take personal interest in the promotion of those workers who work hard b) A9: Demands his/her workers to do what he/she wants them to do c) A4: Is always confident of being right in making decisions d) NT5: Openly favors those who work hard e) P8: Often takes tea/coffee with his/her workers f) P10: Is informal with his/her workers Subsequently. it was dropped. In this case. so it was also dropped eventually. 2003). there were three factors left at the end with 15 items in Factor 1. other than A5. A6 ( which referred to make it clear to his/her workers that personal loyalty is an important virtue) was also dropped as most of the items in Factor 1 were participative and nurturant task behaviours except A6 being the only item that tends to be autocratic. At the last round. As it was deemed not fit and did not make sense to the factor. Therefore. it was revealed that NT4 (which referred to is kind only to those workers who work sincerely) was the only item left in Factor 4. Therefore. 3 items each in Factor 2 and Factor 3.factor.
2 as follows: Table 4.130 3 -0.223 0.126 -0.124 -0.items which had cross loading or only one item left in the factor.699 0.249 -0.669 0. The factor loading of leadership behaviour was shown in Table 4.712 0.158 -0.540 0.758 0.104 -0. et al.265 -0..198 -0.5 or and above as there were considered necessary for practical significance (Hair. NT2 P3 NT3 P4 P5 P6 NT6 P7 NT7 NT8 Often consults his/her workers Lets his/her workers solve problems jointly Gladly guides and directs those workers who work hard Mixes freely with his/her workers Encourages his/her workers to assume greater responsibility on the job Treats his/her workers as equals Goes by the joint decisions of his/her group Feel concerned about the feelings of his/her workers Appreciates those workers who want to perform better Allows free and frank discussions whenever a situations arises Is very affectionate to hardworking workers Goes out of his/her way to help those workers who maintain a high standard of performance 0.086 -0.706 Factor 2 -0.623 0.203 -0. the three factors were named respectively as Nurturant Task-Participative. 2006).060 -0. P2.011 46 .030 0.044 -0.176 -0.816 0.2 Factor Loading of Leadership Behaviour Items 1 P1.212 0.131 -0. Power and Autocratic.236 -0.610 0.782 0.297 -0. this analysis only retained the factors with 0.615 0.288 0. Based on the items that were loaded on each of the factors.734 0.004 -0.272 0.105 -0.
982 3 -0.093 0. it was identified that the internal reliability for autocratic behaviours was very low at 0.182 0.320 -0.886 8.070 0.677 0.Items 1 P9 Makes his/her workers feel free to even disagree with him/her NT9 Openly praise those workers who are punctual NT10 Feels good when he/she find his/her workers eager to learn A1 Keeps important information to himself/herself A2 Behaves as if power and prestige are necessary for getting compliance from his/her workers A3 Think that not all workers are capable of being an executive A7 Does not tolerate any interference from his/her workers A8 Believes that if he/she is not always alert there are many people who may pull him/her down A10 Has strong likes and dislikes for his/her workers Eigenvalue % of Variance 0.342 However.207 39.703 0.053 -0. Therefore.267 8.668 0. Prior to dropping the Factor 3 due to the low reliability.639 0.304 1.105 0.173 -0.082 Factor 2 -0. these two factors can be merged.107 -0.706 -0.055 0. there were only two factors which were Nurturant Task-Participative and Autocratic.122 5.145 0.042 0.786 0.083 0.655 0.092 -0.501. Furthermore. 47 .606 1. it was identified that Factor 2 and Factor 3 tends to reflect autocratic behaviour.663 0.288 0. a second order of factor analysis was performed to determine whether these two factors can be merged into one factor. Based on the results shown in component matrix.033 0.187 -0.
2006). 0.. for Factor 2 it portrayed a leadership behaviour which was very eager in using power and prestige to control and direct the subordinates. of Items 15 6 Items Dropped Cronbach’s Alpha 0. Nevertheless. the superior is also very supportive in assisting the subordinates and were very affectionate to them. it was named as Autocratic. The factors were then assessed for internal consistency reliability by using Cronbach’s Alpha. Therefore. Whereas.929 0. appreciate and recognize their efforts.With that.60 is still acceptable in exploratory research (Hair.3 Reliability Coefficients for Leadership Behaviour Variables Nurturant Task-Participative Autocratic No.3 as follows: Table 4. et al. Factor 1 was named as Nurturant Task-Participative as the items loaded was the mixture of Nurturant Task and Participative leadership behaviour. not sharing information and with no tolerance of the subordinates. The acceptable level of reliability coefficient is 0.70. Besides involving the subordinates in problem solving and giving them an opportunity to participate and work together. The Cronbach’s Alpha value for Factor 1 (Nurturant-Task Participative) and Factor 2 (Autocratic) after the second order of factor analysis was shown in Table 4.650 48 .
inadvertently displays low autocratic behaviour.05 3.01. Most probably we are still in the transition stage where the Malaysian culture has not totally let go of this traditionally and culturally accepted leader behaviour. However.07 0. The negative relationship between the two subscales—Nurturant-Task-Participative and Autocratic clearly implies that these two behaviours were considered to be in the opposite sides of the continuum. It can be inferred that the subscales were moderately inter-correlated (r = -. showing that autocratic style is still practiced to a certain extent by Malaysian managers. Table 4.4 depicts descriptive statistics.430** Nurturant TaskParticipative -0. further analysis indicated that the mean value for these 2 variables were quite close which the difference was only 0.43).Table 4. *p<0. the results imply otherwise.71 -0.61 1 Nurturant Task-Participative **P<0.4 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Leadership Behaviour Mean Standard Autocratic Deviation Autocratic 3.430** 1 49 . it is possible that a leader who practices high nurturant-task-participative. In other words. the autocratic style is still having its stronghold amongst Malaysian managers.32. Although the amount of autocratic leader behaviour is lesser than nurturant-task-participative behaviour.39 0. indicating a great deal of independence of the two subscales. this study hoped to see a significant decrease in the practice of autocratic leader behaviour in the advent of the knowledge era. The mean scores show that the Malaysian managers generally practice more of Nurturant-Task-Participative leadership style in comparison to the Autocratic style. and inter-correlation among factors. Even though.
4.883 0.5 Factor Loading of Leadership Effectiveness Items L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 Point out specific behaviors of workers that need to be changed Works with workers to improve their skills in specific situations Invest time helping workers to stay focused on their goals and to increase their productivity Empowers workers to carry out their responsibilities Factor 0. The result revealed that all the six items fall into one factor which the name was retained as leadership effectiveness.2.866 0.890 Work with each workers to identify specific problems and to outline action steps each can take to produce better results L6 Provides clear instructions and explanations to workers when needed Eigenvalue % of Variance Cronbach’s Alpha 50 .2 Factor Loading of Leadership Effectiveness Factor analysis was also performed on the leadership effectiveness to ensure the 6 items fall into one factor only. The table of the factor loading for leadership effectiveness was shown in Table 4.291 0.820 0.513 0.884 0.819 3.5 as follows: Table 4.917 65.
3 Relationship between Leadership Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness Multiple regression analysis was carried out to determine which leadership behaviour best predicted leadership effectiveness. Thus.6 indicated Nurturant Task-Participative Leadership is positively related with leadership effectiveness at the significance level of 0. hypotheses 1 and 2 are strongly supported by the data.6 revealed that the leadership behaviour was able to explain 71. H1 predicted that leaders who practice nurturant task leadership are perceived as effective by the subordinates. H3 predicted that leaders who practiced Autocratic leadership were perceived as ineffective by the subordinates. Thus. However.4.6% of the variance in leadership effectiveness. The analysis in Table 4.022 and not significant at 0. The 3 hypotheses to examine the relationship between leadership behaviour and leadership effectiveness are as follows: H1: Nurturant task leader is perceived as effective by the subordinates H2: Participative leader is perceived as effective by the subordinates H3: Autocratic leader is perceived as ineffective by the subordinates The results in Table 4. hypothesis 3 is not supported by the data. the analysis revealed that Autocratic leadership had no relationship with leadership effectiveness as the beta value was very low at 0.01. It portrayed that leaders who practiced Nurturant Task-Participative leadership were perceived as effective by the subordinates. 51 .05 significance level.
03 for autocratic leadership behaviour. Table 4.375 . Therefore.855** 0.08 Female 3.7 Gender Differences in Leadership Behaviour Leadership Behaviour Nurturant Task-Participative Autocratic **p<0.16 only for nurturant-task participative and 0. * p<0.4 The Moderating Effect of Gender on Leadership Behavior and Leadership Effectiveness In order to test that male and female managers indeed practice different leadership behaviours. it could be concluded that male or female managers do not practice or display different leadership behaviours.7 indicated that the mean score of leadership behaviour for both male and female managers were quite close with the difference of 0.6 Multiple Regression Analysis of Leadership Behaviour on Leadership Effectiveness Independent Variables Nurturant Task-Participative Autocratic R Square Adjusted R Square F Value **p<0.05 52 Leadership Effectiveness 0. The result shown in Table 4.05 t-value 1.022 0.716 0. *p<0.30 3. the result depicted that gender difference in leadership behaviour was not significant at the level of 0.Table 4.01.714 335.05.447 Mean Male 3. t test was performed to examine the gender differences in leadership behaviour.05 4.857 0.01.46 3. To further determine the statistical significance.
In conclusion.Hierarchical Regression analysis was performed to determine whether gender of the manager moderates the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of leadership effectiveness. 5 and 6 are not supported by the data. The effect of gender-role stereotype as predicted in non-existent based on the results of this study. regardless of the gender of the leader. The 3 hypotheses to determine the moderating effect of gender on leadership behavior and leadership effectiveness are as follows: H4: Female managers who practice participative leadership behavior are rated more effective than male managers who practice participative leadership behavior H5: Female managers who practice nurturant task leadership behavior are rated more effective than male managers who practice nurturant task leadership behavior H6: Female managers who practice autocratic leadership behavior are rated less effective than male managers who practice autocratic leadership behavior As the gender in the demographic profile was non metric data. they will be rated based on the leadership behaviour they display. Thus. 53 . Therefore.05). the result indicated that gender had no moderating effect on leadership behaviour and effectiveness. therefore a dummy variable was created as this variable was needed to be used in performing the hierachical regression analysis.4% respectively. hypotheses 4. The interaction terms for Nurturant TaskParticipative and Autocratic were not significant (p>. The R Square Change from Model 1 to 2 and Model 2 to Model 3 was only 0.
141 54 .264 Interaction Terms Gender* Nurturant Task-Participative Gender* Autocratic -0.077 R Square Adjusted R Square R Square Change Sig F Change **p<0.865** 0.065 0.061 0.05 0.720 0.01. * p<0.8 The Moderating Effect of Gender on Leadership Behaviour and Leadership Effectiveness Standardized Coefficients Beta Independent Variables Nurturant Task-Participative Autocratic Model 1 0.719 0.847** 0.004 0.717 0.716 0.022 Model 2 0.714 0.027 Model 3 0.082 Moderating Variable Gender 0.855** 0.Table 4.000 0.724 0.004 0.289 0.716 0.
Roby. In other words. 1974.86. It was reported in the past research that the successful Malaysian entrepreneurs preferred supportive-taskmaster and participative styles of leadership behaviours (Ansari. Thus. cited by Yukl. 1983. 1993. they are not 55 . Sinha. This indicated that the Malaysian’s preferred style of leadership not only emphasized on the relationship. 1987) (cited by Ansari.387. Hypothesis 1 and 2 predicted that Nurturant Task and Participative leader is perceived as effective by subordinates. 2000).0 Discussion The first objective of this study was to examine the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of effectiveness. 1963. Ansari & Shukla. Campbell. This findings are consistent with the previous research where it received good ratings from the subordinates as being recognized as the most appropriate. The results revealed that there was a positive relationship between nurturant taskparticipative leadership and leadership effectiveness. Sinha.11-12). Ansari. cited by Stogdill. Bommer & Yeo. it was highlighted that hypothesis 1 and 2 are accepted and supported by the data. it actually combined the various elements such as the need for guidance from leaders as well as some participation in decision-making and problem solving. 2006. p. Pandey & Sinha 1986. 1987. Ansari. Bragg & Andrews. preferred and effective leadership behaviour (Ansari. p. 2000). 1986. p. 1973. 1990.CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5. Nicol & Farrell. Pandey. Aafaqi & Jayasingam. Aafaqi & Jayasingam.
MacNeil. some of the past research had managed to find that Asians generally values good relationships. 2007). Wafa & Zainun Hamzah. it is also between the superior and subordinate (Abdullah. 2003. Therefore. they tend to build and maintain good interpersonal relationships with one another. Hence.only appreciate the interpersonal relationship. The spirit of collectivism is higher than individualism as Malaysians believe they are able to work well in a team (Abdullah. 1992). Ahmad Saufi. Jayasingam. Gapp. 1992). 2002). Furthermore. it was indicated in the past research that Malaysia ranked as the 4th highest 56 . Kennedy & Mansor. Furthermore. This is in line with the past research that Malaysians prefer the participating and delegating style of leadership (Ahmad Saufi. 2000. It is also possible that the Malaysian culture has a significant influence on the results of this study. 2000). this also implied that Malaysians have been practicing these cultural values as they had been instilled and inculcated in Malaysians who appreciate harmonious relationships. Jantan & Ansari. autonomy and more job responsibilities. they are also hope their leader to be focused on task accomplishment by providing them guidance. 1980. are very tolerant and are able to understand each other (Abdullah & Surjit Singh. In addition to this. In addition to this. Malaysians prefers to go for joint decision making and working together. a good relationship is not only limited to those they work with. Therefore they would prefer being given the opportunity to take up a higher job responsibilities and taking part in the decision making as well (Tom. Other than that. 2002. Kennedy. 2000. 1992). the knowledge worker in this knowledge economy requires empowerment. Wafa & Zainun Hamzah. Malaysian leadership practice has been repeated and found to be effected by cultural values (Hofstede. 2002.
2003).of all countries as being very humane oriented and emphasized on the relationship with employees and their well being (Kennedy. Malaysia had high scores. hypothesis 1 and 2 are accepted and it clearly revealed that Malaysian subordinates prefer a balanced type of manager who is not only relationship and task oriented. This represented that Malaysian values the mentality of “we” as a group and team rather than as an individual (Hofstede. However. 2002). this could be clearly described by its structure of the society whereby some of the organization are still very controlled and centralized (Pearson & 57 . about 90% in high power distance which reflected that Malaysians emphasized power in which position they held and render respect for authority (Hofstede. The third hypothesis was hypothesized as autocratic leadership and it was perceived as ineffective by the subordinates. 2003). this hypothesis was rejected because it indicated that there was no relationship between autocratic leadership behaviour with leadership effectiveness. 1999. According to Hofstede’s model. Hofstede. This is how subordinates perceived an effective leader should be adopted by this balanced type of leadership approach. but he or she also appreciates the involvement and contribution of their subordinates in accomplishing the goals. To further support the notion that Malaysians are actually very community oriented. Hofstede. Most Malaysians accept that hierarchy and authority are norms in this society (Abdullah & Surjit Singh. 1999. Malaysia scored 80% in the Hofstede dimension of collectivism. 1992). Besides. With regards to the effect of cultural values.
cited by Kennedy. some of the past research such as the Global Leadership and Organizational Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) study indicated that even though Malaysia was rated high in autonomy. With the 58 . In time. In fact. In fact. 1998.52). 2000. people’s perception may change progressively also.20). With the advent of the knowledge era. autocratic behaviour is perceived as part and parcel of the Malaysian cultural system. it was hypothesized that there would be a shift in people’s acceptance where they would perceive autocratic behaviour as too restrictive and detrimental for leader effectiveness. this study predicted that people will no longer accept this behaviour as a determinant of leadership effectiveness. we foresee the possibility that this behaviour will eventually be attributed to leader ineffectiveness. it may take some time for people to break away from the acceptance of autonomy. Traditionally. Although this behaviour is viewed as a norm in the Malaysian culture. p. However. 2002.Entrekin. it is strongly believed that there is a transition where people no longer believe this practice is necessary for effectiveness. we predict that it is possible that the autocratic behaviour will no longer have any positive effect on leadership effectiveness. As time changes and the world moving towards the challenging globalized and knowledge economy. this perception may be slowly changing.03 just right in the middle of the scale of 1 to 7 (cited by Kennedy & Mansor. In fact. the rating was not extremely high as the result was only 4. p. Although the results of this study was not able to substantiate the hypothesis and only reported no significant relationship between autocratic behaviour and leadership effectiveness.
2006. Vilkinas. Eagly and colleagues. For instance. 2000). 1996. 2002. Whereas. Oshagbemi & Gill. Leeden & Willemsen. 2003. 59 . The findings of this study is in line with some other past research that in general. The second objective of this study was to determine whether the gender of the manager moderates the relationship between leadership behaviour and perception of leadership effectiveness. 2001. Manning. The hypothesis 4 and 5 predicted that female managers who practice participative and nurturant task leadership are rated more effective than male managers who practiced participative and nurturant task leadership. 1995. These 3 hypotheses were rejected as the result indicated that the gender of the manager had no moderating effect on leadership behaviour and effectiveness. it could be said that autocratic behaviours will lead to ineffectiveness regardless of the gender of the managers. hypothesis 6 predicted that female managers who practice autocratic leadership are rated poorly as compared to male managers who practice autocratic leadership.429). It shows that there is some form of gender equality in Malaysia where people can also accept women in leadership and agree that both men and women could be equally effective. This is a good sign that Malaysia can break away from gender stereotypes.stronghold of cultural values such as power distance. p. cited by Yukl. there was no difference in terms of leadership effectiveness between male and female managers (Van Engen. the most essential facet in leadership is the qualities associated with effective management and not gender related (Wajcman. In fact. people are still viewing the practice of autocratic and directive leadership as a norm in the Malaysian scenario.
Of course. Butterfield & Parent. Mueller. Lituchy & Liu. cited by Powell.1 Conclusions Nurturant Task-Participative leadership is accepted as the best practice for a leader to be effective. think men” will not become a barrier for Malaysian women anymore as recognition has been given by Malaysians to the capability of Malaysian women leaders (Schein & Mueller. p. Schein. 2002. 1996. it could be said that the concept of gender stereotype and global mindset of “Think manager. Therefore.180). 60 . manager should have considered the cultural value in which the influence of culture may have an impact on the leadership. task and participative which are vital determinant of effectiveness. Therefore. With that. Malaysian women leaders should be more confident in working with men and be a prominent role model for future women leaders in Malaysia. Malaysian managers should take into consideration the element of relationship. There is no significant relationship between autocratic leadership behaviour with effectiveness as Malaysians are still not able to totally phase out this leadership practice but it is believed that there is the possibility in future that people will accept a transformation of leadership as the time change. It is very promising to see this where there are gender equality efforts in Malaysia. working in a multi racial society.5. 1992.
it is suggested that future research may look at the Malaysian leadership development in the aspect of politics.2 Limitations and Recommendations There are some limitations in this study. It is highly recommended that future research should adopt the 360 degree feedback in gathering feedback in relation to the topic of leadership effectiveness or other topics in performance management. an individual department or the whole organization is able to identify the areas for improvement and development. It is just confined to Klang Valley with the total respondents of 269 to represent how Malaysians perceive the leadership behaviour and effectiveness on Malaysian managers. 2006). the sample size does not appear to be representative of the overall Malaysian population. it provides a broader perspective and a more rounded view of performance through an open feedback system. due to practical consideration such as time constraints. the study could not adopt a more conclusive method that is 360 degree feedback evaluation by manager. With that. Firstly. This indeed encourages a system which is more transparent and creates a culture of quality improvement (Armstrong. Besides. superior. The future research in this area is important to 61 . This is because it increases awareness of the importance of performance as it involves various stakeholders concerned to participate. This is due to the future challenges that leaders may encounter especially for our country which is in the pace of development towards Vision 2020. peer and subordinate to avoid any bias and error. As the results had indicated that gender is not a moderator of the leadership behaviour and effectiveness and that both men and women can be equally effective as mentioned in the past research.5. Second.
study how far our Malaysian political leaders have gone and contributed to nation building. As the recent election results were so unpredicted. 62 . it may be worth studying the perception of Malaysians on our political leaders in relating to the effective leadership. it brought a warning signal to our political leaders on their credibility and social responsibility to the society.
it should not be a debatable topic. the organization should take the issue of leadership training and 63 . Therefore. managers should put greater efforts to continuosly seek for self improvement.5. This study provides an important insight into what Malaysians prefer a balanced type of leadership practice which encompasses the element of interpersonal relationships. 2005). managers should adopt the Nurturant Task-Participative behaviour as it is recognized and accepted by Malaysians as the best leadership practice in the Malaysian context. it will eventually lead to proper nation and community development (Strang. In viewing that Malaysia is still short of capable and effective managers. task accomplishment and participation which supports the commitment to the work and empowerment given by the managers which will eventually lead to high performance and job satisfaction. Hence. Key positions in the management should not be dominated by the men anymore. the organization should have a transparent policy and open system whereby equal opportunities should be given to both men and women in pursuing higher levels of career advancement in the management. it is significant to delve into leadership behaviour and effectiveness as expected outcome from an effective leadership not only impact the businesses or organizations and stakeholders’ satisfaction. and given the pressure and challenges of globalization and knowledge economy in this 21st century.3 Implications As mentioned. As the gender of the manager has no moderating effect on leadership behaviour and effectiveness. On the other hand.
Therefore. Furthermore. leadership training and development should be treated as a long term planning and investment so that at the end.development as part of the organization’s strategic planning as the achievement of an organization indeed depends on highly effective managers who are not only capable in achieving the goals but able to lead and work well with the subordinates too. 64 . a well trained manager can effectively lead the subordinates to strive achievement of organizational goals. subordinates are also one of the organization assets.
Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Management. (1990). VA: Kogan Page. M.). A. Globalising Malaysia towards building a developed nation.my Appelbaum. R. Aafaqi. M. Understanding the Malaysian workforce – Guidelines for managers (pp. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Amstrong.msc. . 65 . Amstrong. Entrepreneurial success. Abdullah. A. In Hassan. Influence of ethnic values at the Malaysian workplace. S. S. 1. Retrieved December 22. (1992). . A. N. (Eds. E. 2007. . 1-9. Basefsky. London: Kogan Page. M. A.. In Abdullah.).). Wafa. M. Abdul Razak. Y. New Delhi: Northern Book Center.34-48). gender. 24. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Performance management: Key strategies and practical guidelines. (1992). 33-46. K. M. 96. & Miller C. Understanding the Malaysian workforce – Guidelines for managers (pp. (2004). & Ghaziri. What are the five most important qualities of an effective leader? American Works Association Journal. (2004). (2006). 34-36. R. 2. Awad. (2000). from http://www. and Singh. & Jayasingam. 7.. T.. Annual Impact Survey of MSC Malaysia Status Companies.com. (2003). Knowledge management.. (3rd ed. M. How to be an even better manager.). 43-51. . and leadership behavior.REFERENCES . . Ansari. Abdullah. & Zainun Hamzah. H. Journal of International Business and Entreperenuership. . London and Sterling. (2000). (2006). . & Surjit Singh. Ahmad Saufi. (Eds. Leading and motivating. A. (2004). Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Management. A. Ansari. M. Upper Saddle River. M. Malaysian Management Review. . Leadership style preferences of Malaysian managers. .. Selangor: MPH Group Publishing. A. Audet L.. (Eds. J.. . . (2006). Leader behavior and organizational effectiveness: The moderating effect of organizational climate. . In Abdullah. 8. Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. M.9-35). A. S. A complete A-Z of proven techniques and essential skills. Organizational research in Indian perspective (pp.2-17). S.
In Davidson. Press Release. . . The influence the system of profound knowledge has on the development of leadership and management within an organization. 17. . Bass. 2008. M. G.). 5. Toronto: Thompson South Western. L. . P. 1-19. Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. E. Ferrario. R. The Definition of leadership effectiveness: A conceptual and personal journey. Goh Swee Seang. New York: Open University Press. . Campbell. New York: Free Press.catalystwomen. J. Women as managerial leaders. D. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. from http://www. 244-256. 3. 19-31. Bogue..my . Organizational Dynamics. B. D. M. 1.org/Pubs/Leadership_Symposium_final_report. Innovative Higher Education. 18. (1994)..J.. Gender differences in leadership styles and management skills. Women in Management Review.org/press_room/press_release/20030603. Managerial Auditing Journal. Perceptions of appropriate leadership styles: Participation versus consultation across two cultures. . . 16.mohr.. Women in management: Current Research Issues (pp. Draft. (3rd ed. S. (2002). E. 6. R. (Eds. Advanced quantitative data analysis. from http://www. 66 . 2007. B. (1990). & Yeo. (2005). Bommer. (1981).pdf Catalyst: Women in US corporate leadership: 2003. and Burke. Human capital needs of the 21st century. R. M. Retrived February 1. Formal organizations: A comparative approach.J. (1993). . From Transactional to transformational leadership: Leadership to share the vision.htm Cramer. M. W. The leadership experience. Winter 90. . . Burke. & Collins. (2003). 10. 17. K. & Scott. .). Gapp. M. . . Blau. 45-56. June 2003.gov. 1. 338-342.11-125). (1963). (1992). R. Retrieved December 22. Can government grow great leaders? Retrieved March 3. from http://www.. (2001). M. Bass. London: Rouledge & Kegan Paul. W. London: Paul Chapman.napawash. 2008.
. 67 . D. & Kahn.. W. R. G. Multivariate data analysis. . (1966).L. Black.. U. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. London: Sage Publications. Jantan M. Hair. The social psychology of organizations. & Peters.. ... I. New York: John Wiley and Sons.geert-hofstede/hofstede_malaysia. . Retrieved December 22. Equal Opportunities International. & Curphy. R. & Tatham. . 236-250. (6th ed. MRG Research Report: Leadership & Gender. & Ansari. .my Hofstede. Jogulu. from http://www2. Retrieved April 16. . R. 67. The way women and men lead – Different but equally effective. B. To inculcate training culture amongst Malaysian industry through national dual training system (NDTS). G. G. (1999).gov. (1993). R. . from www. L.andrews. Hofstede. Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Sex differences in the incidence and evaluation of participative leader behavior. G. . (1980). The role of leadership theory in raising the profile of women in management. A. (2006). I. D. . Jago. Boston: Irwin. Gender differences in organizational effectiveness: A large sample study. C. Upper Saddle River. .shtml Hofstede. R. 2008. Kabacoff. (2007). Kabacoff. Retrieved April 16. R. S.. & Wood G. (1998). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. J. 776-783. & Vroom. from http://www. J. Haji Wan Semen bin Wan Ahmad.. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2003).E. 2008. Anderson. Proceedings of 8th European Conference on Knowledge Management.. 499-505.edu/~tidewell/bsad560/Hostede. Katz. C. M.. L. 25. 4. An analysis of leader’s bases of power and knowledge management practices: A conceptual approach.html Hughes. . Ginnett.). (1998). (2006). J.A. . 2007. Paper presented at the Annual American Psychological Association Convention held in San Francisco. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. (1982). H. Jayasingam.. R. J. V. Geert Hofstede’s: Cultural value dimensions. F..mohr.. Babin.
Malaysian Management Review.undp. Kuala Lumpur. & Rajindar K. from http://www. Malaysian culture and the leadership of organizations: A GLOBE study. L. 1. 6. Lipshitz. 25. A. T. 11-18. 2007. . 3-7. J. (2006). . (1998). Resolving Social Conflict.. Ministry of Women and Family Development.my Kinsey.). J. (2002). Statistics on women family and social welfare 2006.. transformational leadership and work satisfaction. Who is a “good manager”? Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Ministry of Women and Family Development. The women’s summit report. Line managers: Facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams. Kennedy. Employee Relations. Women in management: A Malaysian perspective. M.php?navi_id=245 68 . Retrieved October 9. 48-51. international outlook. 13. . B. (1997).. (2003). . Kuala Lumpur.. 13. . 229-235. 102. . . The system of profound knowledge: A revised profile of managerial leadership. Chemical Engineering Progress.gov. 3. Malaysian Institute of Management. 44-53. . managerial level. D. 18. . & Nevo. (1992). (2006).mohr. The progress of Malaysian women since independence 1957-2000. Manning. . Women in Management.org. Manjulika K. Keynote Address of Minister of Human Resource YB Datuk Seri Dr Fong Chan Onn.my/index. 2007. (2001). Management in Malaysia. . 207-216. C. (2nd ed. K. McNary. MacNeil. (2002). 294-307. Lewin. Gupta K. The Leadership and Organizational Development Journal. 15-26. J. 5. 5. C. Retrieved December 22. . N. (2003). MYFF strategic goal: Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty. Women in Management Review. 6. (2003). R. & Mansor.. New York: Harper & Row. Fundamentals of effective leadership. Academy of Management Executive. 17. (2000). from http://www. Ministry of Women and Family Development and UNDP. T. . . Leadership in Malaysia: Traditional values. Kennedy. R. . 16. Gender. 3. . (1945). C.
G. . Journal of Business Ethics. . Work and Organization. B. S. 28. 175-194. & Gill. Rosener. (1974). T. 177-193. Retrieved March 1. (2004). M. R. (2001). . 15. Morris. Gender. Rutherford. Neubert. J. (2005). F. . (2000). M. 3/4. (1961).gc... 2008. G. Powell.. D. 68.pdf Reeves. D. . J. K.com?Articles/The_Up_Front_Manager.. 321-334. Strang. Way women lead. (1990). Leadership in changing times and a changing workforce. R. Thousand Oaks. Gender differences and similarities in the leadership styles and behaviour of UK managers. November-December. The up-front manager. Retrieved September 1. 11. N. 6. Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating role gender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality to informal leadership emergence. New York: McGraw-Hill. S. (2004). Oakley. Any difference? An analysis of gender and divisional management styles in a large airline. J.. 8. Oshagbemi. 6. I. (2003). J. Butterfield. R. Tannenbaum. Assessing educational leaders. Examining effective and ineffective transformational project leadership. Women in Management Review. from http://www.lmi-inc. . . The Leadership Quarterly. (2002). 3. Randy.pdf Stogdill. 119-125. 2. from http://www. D. . 2007. Leadership organization: A behavioral science approach.ca/leadership/programs/LRA/cmorris. & Parent. 69 . Speaking notes for Claire M. . Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. 18. . 326-345. & Massarik. 288-298. Team Performance Management. . D. 27. & Taggar. California: Corwin Press. S. A. Deputy Minister Human Resources Development Canada.csps-efpc. R. Weschler.. New York: Free Press. Harvard Business Review. Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. . 68-103.
(Eds. London: Idea Group Publishing. 5/6. The Malaysian journey progress in diversity (pp. J. 528-544. 11. 7. 6. 25. 34. 15. T. (Eds. F. . M. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. In Hlupic. The Leadership and Organizational Development Journal. (2003). . Yukl. Harvard Management Update. Towards knowledge leadership. . Vilkinas. R. Wajcman. . 333-349. Women in Management Review. Upper Saddle River. & Willemsen. Leeden.. (2001). Knowledge and Business Process Management.).). 70 . . and Nguyen. (6th ed. Desperately seeking differences: Is management style gendered? British Journal of Industrial Relations. Tom. . Gender. J. Corporate leadership in Malaysia. (2000).. . (2006). M. Can you boost knowledge work’s impact on the bottom line?. T. context and leadership styles: A field study.. M. D.). 74. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. In Richter. (1996). T.60-67). The gender factor in management: How significant others perceive effectiveness. R. G. 3-4. Viitala. L. V. (2004). Van Leeuwen. (2002). Van Engen. Leadership in Organizations. 581-598. Singapore: Times Editions. The impact of the knowledge economy on leadership in organizations. D. M. (2004). Yeoh. 261-271.
APPENDIX A .
FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCY UNIVERSITY MALAYA Dear Sir/Madam.com) Once again. Should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact my Project Supervisor Ms Sharmila Jayasingam (Tel: 03-7967 3833 or Email: sharmila@um. Your responses will be kept in strict confidence and no name of the individual or organization is required. it takes not more than 10-15 minutes to complete our survey. thank you for your time and cooperation. This has been undertaken to fulfill the partial requirement of the degree of Degree of Master of Management from University Malaya. Thank you for taking time off from your busy schedule to participate in this study. As you will find. The information collected will be used for research purposes only. but it is your honest and frank opinion that really matters. I seek your kind cooperation in completing the attached questionnaire and returning it directly to me or to the person through whom you received this questionnaire.my) or me Ms Moey Yoke Cheng.edu. 1 . There is no right or wrong answers. Melissa (Tel: 012-2297425 or Email: ycmoey12@yahoo. The present research is an academic exercise that is intended to understand leadership behavior among Malaysian managers.
10. 2. 9. 6.SECTION I: The following are some statements about several characteristics that your immediate superior may or may not have. 14. Often consults his/her workers Takes personal interest in the promotion of those workers who work hard Keeps important information to himself/herself Lets his/her workers solve problems jointly Gladly guides and directs those workers who work hard Behaves as if power and prestige are necessary for getting compliance from his/her workers Mixes freely with his/her workers Encourages his/her workers to assume greater responsibility on the job Think that not all workers are capable of being an executive Treats his/her workers as equals Is kind only to those workers who work sincerely Is always confident of being right in making decisions Goes by the joint decisions of his/her group Openly favors those who work hard Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 2 . 7. 12. Statement 1. 5. 3. 4. 13. 11. 8. Please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement by marking a (X) at the appropriate number (given on a 5-point scale as below) that best represents your view about your superior. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree My immediate superior… No.
30. 26. 34. 29. 23. 33. Statement 15. 24. 19. 18. 17. 25. 27.My immediate superior… No. 16. 32. 20. 22. 28. Keeps an eye on what his/her workers do Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 Strongly Agree 5 Feels concerned about the feelings of his/her workers Appreciates those workers who want to perform better Makes it clear to his/her workers that personal loyalty is an important virtue Allows free and frank discussions whenever a situation arises Is very affectionate to hardworking workers Does not tolerate any interference from his/her workers Often takes tea/coffee with his/her workers Goes out of his/her way to help those workers who maintain a high standard of performance Believes that if he/she is not always alert there are many people who may pull him/her down Makes his/her workers feel free to even disagree with him/her Openly praises those workers who are punctual Demands his/her workers to do what he/she wants them to do Is informal with his/her workers Feels good when he/she finds his/her workers eager to learn Has strong likes and dislikes for his/her workers Points out specific behaviors of workers that need to be changed Works with workers to improve their skills in specific situations Invests time helping workers to stay focused on their goals and to increase their productivity Empowers workers to carry out their responsibilities 3 . 21. 31.
1. Tenure in current position: 1 2 3 4 5 4. Nature of your organization: 1 2 4 .20 years 21 years and above Banking & Finance Manufacturing Professional Services Others(please specify) 100 and below employees 101 – 150 employees 151 and above employees Foreign Owned Locally Owned 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Works with each workers to identify specific problems and to outline action steps each can take to produce better results Provides clear instructions and explanations to workers when needed 1 2 3 4 5 36. Position in the company: 1 2 3 4 5 3. Organization Size: 1 2 3 6. Industry: 1 2 3 4 5.15 years 16 .5 years 6 .No.10 years 11. Statement 35. SECTION II: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE Please (X) for each of the following item. Education level: High School/SPM/SPTM Certificate/Diploma Bachelor’s Degree Postgraduate Professional Others (please specify) Clerical Officer/Executive Manager/Senior Manager Head of Department Others(please specify) 1 .
Your Superior: Male Female 1 .15 years 16 .7.10 years 11.20 years 21 years and above 1 2 8. 5 . How long you have worked with your superior: 1 2 3 4 5 Thank you for your time and cooperation.5 years 6 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.