International Journal of Accounting & Business Management

Vol. 5 (No.1), April, 2017

ISSN: 2289-4519
DOI:24924/ijabm/2017.04/v5.iss1/14.33 www.ftms.edu.my/journals/index.php/journals/ijabm

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Research Paper

THE INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEE

PERFROMANCE AMONG JEWELLERY ARTISANS IN MALAYSIA

Wendy Lor
MBA graduate
Ashcroft International Business School
Anglia Ruskin University, UK
wendylor26@outlook.com

Zubair Hassan
PhD Candidate
Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences
International Islamic University, Malaysia
Zubai7@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to examine the leadership influence on employee job performance, in this
case, in the jewellery industry in Malaysia. Various studies tried to examine leadership style and its
influence on employee performance, job performance, firm’s performance and commitment. The
results was mixed, some are positive and some are negative. In the past, most of the research have
taken various leadership styles that are cited under different leadership theories. This study has
selected leadership styles such as supportive, participative, servant, transactional and
transformational leadership styles as independent variables that are assumed to have direct influence
on employee job performance, which is the dependent variable. A survey self-rating scale
questionnaire was developed using past literature to examine leadership styles and employee
performance. A sample of 115 respondents were recruited using simple random probability sampling
technique. The collected data was recorded and analysed using SPSS 22.0. The finding shows that
only supportive and transformational leadership behaviour positively and significantly influences
employee performance at workplace. We found the other three leadership behvaiour such as servant,
participative and transactional leadership behaviours are not significant in influencing employee
performance. Therefore we concluded that only transformational and supportive leadership
behaviour directly influences employee performance. Managers must find ways to cultivate supportive
and transformational leadership behvaiour to improve employee job performance, especially among
the Jewellery industry managers.

Key Terms: Leadership styles, supportive, participative, servant, transactional, transformational,

employee performance, Jewellery artisans

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 14

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to conduct a study on how various leadership styles has
influence employee performance.

This study considered different sources of evidence in an attempt to identify and

examine the most appropriate leadership style in influencing employee performance. Most of
the empirical research showed consistent relationship between leadership styles and
employee performance. It is worthy to mention that one of the reason that many researchers
showed their interest in leadership in relations to various organisational outcomes could be
attributed to the widespread belief that leadership has a direct influence on performance
(Rowe et al., 2005). Studies done by researchers from 90s to to-date, shows that leadership
style adopted by managers in their workplace by researchers (Dubinsky et al., 1995; Conger,
1999; ISPAS, 2012; Choudhary et al, 2013; Liden, et al 2014; Mulki, 2015; Dalluay and
Jalagat, 2016) to be crucial in achieving the goals set by organisations, and in creating a high
performance working culture (Berson et al., 2001; Zacharatos et al., 2000; Sing, 2015; Carter
et al, 2013; Asrar-ul-Haq and Kuchinke, 2016). The effectiveness of the leadership style
varies according to the context and situation.

However, it seems that most of the leadership literature confuses the definition of
effective leadership by failing to make clear distinctions between leaders and non-leaders,
effective and ineffective leaders (House and Aditya, 1997; Bennis, 1998; Bergsteiner, 2005).
Despite this, it is widely believed or held perception that leadership fosters employee
performance at organisational level (Avolio, 1999; Yukl, 2002; Judge and Piccolo, 2004;
Keller, 2006). In addition, most of the past research has examined the assumed leadership-
performance relationship, although tested limited number of leadership approachessuch as
visionary and transactional while ignoring the potential role of other approaches such as
classical and organic paradigms of leadership (Jing and Avery, 2008). One of the popular
model of leadership theory criticised was Bass’s (1985) theory of transformational leadership
and argued that there is no one best way of leadership to be effective ,where it depends on
context (Avery, 2004; Drath, 2001;Yukl, 2002).This means more than one style of leadership
is important to take into consideration in improving employee performance.

Based on the number of articles and books reviewed has considered various variables
such as: participative(Yang, 2016), autocratic (Iqbal, Anwar, and Haider,2015), and
democraticstyle of leadership (Iqbal et al, 2015). It seems that the concept of participative
leadership style was highly lacking, although it was noted that this approach was critical to
the success of leadership processes especially in a rapidly changing work environments. Also
in past the concept of transactional and transformational have significant development and
gotten the attention of many scholars (Locander et al., 2002; Yammarino et al., 1993).
According to Humphreys (2002) and Liu et al. (2003) the concept of leadership that have a
broad spectrum, including behavioral approaches, including situational contingency
approach.The review of past literature also revealed that that transactional and
transformational theories of leadership are the most popular which was identified more than
20 years ago, ( Hoy & Miskel, 2008)

Therefore, there exists a significant research gap, and it is important to understand the
nature of relationship existing between leadership style and employee performance. This
study aimed to identify and examine the effects of leadership styles on employee
performance in service sector organisation. The following objectives were being formulated

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 15

Research Objectives:
 To examine the impact of Transformational leadership style on employee
performance
 To examine the impact of transactional leadership style on employee performance
 To examine the impact of Participative leadership style on employee performance
 To examine the impact of Servant Leadership style on employee performance
 To examine the impact of Supportive leadership style on employee performance

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Review of Leadership Definition

It is evident that the definition, concepts and style of leadership differs from situation
to situation, context variance and also from person to person. In past leadership and styles
has been conceptualised from various perspectives. However there are mainly two
characteristic of this conceptualisation. These are that leadership is a process –to influence
others, and leadership occurs in groups-involve in achieving common goals and purpose
(Northouse, 2010). Therefore Northouse (2010, p.3) define leadership as‘a process whereby
an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal’. This is very
similar to the definition given by Robbins (2006) leadership is the ability to influence a group
to achieve the desired goal set by a leader. In contrast, more generally leadership is the
ability of an individual to utilize the influence of an organisation or situation to achieve
challenging goals (Ivansevich, 2008). For others leadership is a process that exercises the
power possess by an individual through position, expertise or charisma to influence
employees in an organisation to achieve a desired goal (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). The
basis of a good leadership may also rests on strong character and selfless devotion (Jenkins,
2013).

2.2. Leadership Theories

There were many leadership approaches, mainly group into 5 approaches. These are
trait, behavioural, contingency, leader-member exchange, transactional and transformational
leadership (Glendon et al 2006). Scholars have contributed various theories under each
approach of leadership. Some of the key theories under each leadership approach has been
summarised below

Table 1: Summary of Leadership Theories and models

Leadership Key Theories Key Contributor Leadership Styles
approach
Trait approach Leadership Skills and Stogdill, (1974) Personality traits such as
Traits Extroverts, Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism, Openness, and
Agreeableness
Behavioural Theory X & Theory McGregor(1960) Theory X managers
approach Y Managers Theory Y Managers
The Blake Mouton Blake & Mouton, (1964) Concerns for People
Managerial Grid Concern for Production
3 Style of leadership Lewins (1939) Autocratic
Democratic
Laissez-Faire
Contingency Fiedler's Contingency Fiedler’s (1967) Leader member relations
Approach Model Task Structure
Position Power

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 16

 Adopts task oriented or people
oriented style of leadership
(situation based)
Path Goal Theory House & Mitchell (1974) Supportive Leadership
Directive Leadership
Participative Leadership
Achievement Oriented Leadership
The Hersey- Hersy and Directing
Blanchard Model of Blanchard(1969) Coaching
Leadership Supporting
Delegating
Adair’s Action- Adair, 1973 Task
Centred Leadership Team
Model Individual
Tannenbaum & Tannenbaum and Autocratic(Telling)
Schmidt’s Leadership Chmidts Persuasive(Selling)
Continuum Consultative(Consulting)
Democratic(joining)
Leaders and Servant Leadership Robert Greenleaf (1970) Listening
follower Empathy
Healing
Awareness
Persuasion
Conceptualisation
Foresight
Stewardship
Commitment to the growth of
people
Building community
The Following Part of Katzenbach and Smith, Asking questions instead of giving
Leading 1994 answers
Providing opportunities for others
to lead you
Doing real work in support of
others instead of only the
reverse
Becoming a matchmaker instead of
a "central switch"
Seeking common understanding
instead of consensus
Team Leaders Belbin, 1993 Delegate
Respect diversity and value others
Seeks talent
Develops colleagues
Creates mission
Transactional Transactional Burns(1978), Bass(1985) Contingent reward, Management by
and leadership exception – active, and
Transformational Management by exception –
leadership passive
Transformational Bass and Avolio, (1994) Idealised Behaviour
Leadership Inspirational Motivation
Intellectual stimulation
Individualised consideration
Idealised attributes

Trait theories of leadership have been widely discussed in relation to employee

performance. However trait theories inherit many limitations. One of the most commonly
cited limitation was the argument of the personality characteristics possessed by leaders were
considered as very simplistic and reductionist(Glendon et al, 2006). Some argued that there
is no strong empirical evidence to indicate personality characteristics makes any leader to be
more effective in improving employee performance (Yukl, 2010). Also Leadership
effectiveness in influencing employee performance depends on contextual situation rather
than on a specific attributes (Northouse, 2010).
In contrast the behavioural approacsh theories focuses examining what a good leaders
do and their actions (Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001). The main strength of this approach of

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 17

leadership is much emahsis on various type of leadership styles in a given context. It
encouraged to adopt a balanced approach by adopting people concern and task concern
(Blake and Mount, 1964). However the empirical evidence demonstrated in the past about the
relationship between task and relation oriented styles of leaders were inconsistent in terms of
employee performance (Glendon et al., 2006). Also high task oriented and people oriented
may not work in many situation where leader may require a minimal involvement as
explained by Lewin(1939).
On the other hand contingency approaches emphasis on situation. Best leadership
style depends on the situation. However again, the main limitation of this approach based
theories were that finding were mixed and inconclusive (Glendon et al., 2006; Yukl, 2010).
Also if the situation change rapidly and if managerial work change rapidly in a short time, it
will be in practical and difficult to apply or change leadership style (Yukl, 2010). Leaders –
follower approach related theories received much support since many found that Servant
leaders or team leaders influence employee performance (Yukl,2010).fails to describe how
high quality leader-subordinate relationships can be created and evolve over time (Northouse,
2010; Yukl, 2010). Also this approaches of leadership were criticised for failing to consider
how situational factors (such as organisational context, subordinate characteristics, job
factors) may influence the type and quality of relationships formed between a leader and a
subordinate (Yukl,2010).er a precise definition regarding what constitutes a ‘high quality
exchange’ relationship.
In terms of transformational and transactional leadership
Transformational/transactional leadership is supported by a large body of empirical research
and has received the greatest amount of empirical attention in employee performance
demonstrating that they may be effective leadership styles for improving employee
performance. This approach overcomes the limitation of previous approaches by cosndiering
behaviour, traits and actions and also relationships with followers(Yukl, 2010). However, that
the theory is too broad and offers little guidance regarding how leaders should act in
particular situations (Northouse, 2010). Since many studies found that there were a high
correlations with each dimension of transformational leadership, it is not possible to test the
effects of each dimensions on employee performance separately (Yukl, 2010).It has been
argued that transformational leaders may deceive or manipulate followers as a means of
attaining self-serving interests ( Price, 2003).
Table 2: Dimensions and Measures
Leadership Variables sources
Style
Supporting Consideration Judge et al (2004); Dumdum et al (2002), Rowold
Leadership Caring and listening and Schlotz, (2009); Imtiaz and Ahmed, (2009);
Positive Feedback Mahdi, Mohd, and Almsafir, (2014). Hwang,
Build Confidence Quast, Center, Chung, Hahn, and Wohkittel (2015).
Self-control Mahdi et al, (2014). Hernandez et al(2011)
Participating Consultative Behaviour Dalluay and Jalagat(2016), ISPAS (2012), Iqbal,
Leadership Pay attention/ to subordinates value Anwar and Haider (2015), Mulki Caemerer and
Delegation/empowerment Heggde (2015),
Joint Decision/Sharing
Responsibilities
Intrinsic Motivation
Listening Choudary, Akhtar and Zaheer (2013);
Empathy Liden, et al (2014), Chiniara, and Bentein (2016);
Servant McCann et al (2014); Yoshida, et al (2014)
Awareness
Leadership
Persuasion
Stewardship
Contingent reward ISPAS (2012), Judge and Piccolo
Transactional Management by exception- (2004)Sing(2015); Choudary, Akhtar and Zaheer
Leadership Contingent punishment (2013)

Transformatio Idealised Influences ISPAS (2012),Sing(2015); Choudary, Akhtar and

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 18

 nal Inspirational Motivation
Leadership Intellectual Stimulation
Individualised consideration
Employee Punctuality
Performance Performance improvement
Career advancement
Interpersonal Skills
Performance and productivity
Zaheer (2013). Kovjanic et al, (2013); Carter,
Armenakis, Field, Mossholder(2013); Asrar-ul-
Haq, and Kuchinke, K. P. (2016)
Mahdi et al (2014)., Hernandez et al, (2011)., Yang
and Lim,(2016), Kim and Schachter,(2015),
Chiniara, and Bentein (2016), Yoshida, et al,
(2014), Yoshida, et al (2014), Asrar-ul-Haq and
Kuchinke, (2016)

Supportive Leadership and performance: This leadership behaviour is mainly

discussed under Path-goal theory (House, 1971). Supportive leaders are friendly with their
subordinates, show empathy and treats equally among the subordinates (Muhammed et al,
2014). Supportive leaders enable to increases employee performance by creating an
environment to respect each other, fostering cooperation and trust, and via emotional support
(Daft, 2005). Many researches confirmed that supportive leaders attributes such as
consideration has a direct impact on performance (Judge et al, 2004; Dumdum et al, 2002).
Also many previous research indicated that there is a positive and significant relationship
between consideration and employee performance (Rowold and Schlotz, 2009). Also it was
found that those employees works under supportive leaders who shows individual
consideration tends to have higher job performance (Imtiaz and Ahmed, 2009). Many recent
research also has shown that supportive leadership style positively influences employee
commitment and performance (Mahdi et al, 2014). However, some studies shows that
supportive leadership style do not have strong influence on job performance as does directive,
or participative leadership styles(Hwanget al, 2015). Similarly Supportive leadership style
provides psychological support , foster mutual trust and respects, helps employees in difficult
task and appreciates by providing positive feedback to cultivate high performance among the
employees (Hernandez et al, 2011). Therefore this study formulate the following hypothesis
H1: Supportive leadership has a significant and positive influences employee
performance
Participative leadership is one of the most important leadership behaviour or style that
was confirmed by various researches that there is a strong link with employee performance
(Dalluay and Jalagat, 2016, ISPAS, 2012, Iqbal, Anwar and Haider, 2015, Mulki Caemerer
and Heggde , 2015). Participative leadership was found to have satisfactory influence on job
satisfaction and productivity of the employees (Dalluay and Jalagat, 2016). It was also found
that participative leadership style was significant and positively influence employee
performance in long term (Iqbal et al, 2015). Participative leaders are enable to increase
employee efforts resulting better employee job performance (Mulki et al, 2015). Benoliel
and Somech (2014) found that participative leaders has a positively associated with employee
performance for those who are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
neuroticism. The influence of participative leadership on employee job performance depends
on the level of trust (Newman et al, 2014). Also relationship between followers and
participative leaders were found to be strong which in turn leads to high employee job
performance (Kim and Schachter,2015).However some recent research shows that
participative leadership do not have any significant relationship with job performance
(Hwang et al, 2015). In contrast, participative leadership style positively influences job
satisfaction (Yang and Lim,2016) and job satisfaction was found to be positively influence by
participative leadership. The second hypothesis is
H2: There is a significant influence of participative leadership style and employee job
performance.

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 19

 The third is servant leadership style, where leaders exhibits various styles or
behaviour such as listening, empathy, awareness, persuasion and stewardship (Choudary,
Akhtar and Zaheer, 2013). Each of these behaviour or skills has a direct or indirect influence
on subordinates performance. Choudhary et al (2013) argued that servant leaders encourages
organisational learning by cultivating listening, empathy and by setting a blame free culture.
In turn this causes to increase employee job performance (Choudhary et al, 2013). This is
confirmed later by few more researches showing that serving behaviour of leaders have a
significant and positive influence on organisational and employee job performance in terms
of creativity and customer service(Liden, et al, 2014). Servant leadership also has a very
strong influence on team performance where servant leadership attributes such as
empowerment, humility and stewardship plays an important role. Servant leaders were found
to be a string needs satisfaction; autonomy need satisfaction mediated servant leadership's
effect on task performance (Chiniara, and Bentein,2016). Also it was found that servant
leadership influences employee satisfaction and high performance (McCann et al, 2014).
Finally servant leaders promotes individual relational identification and collective
prototypically with the leader which, in turn, fosters employee creativity and team innovation
(Yoshida, et al, 2014). Therefore the third hypothesis is
H3: There is a significant and positive influence of Servant leadership on employee
job performance
Fourth leadership style that has been cited that has a significant influence on
employee job performance is transactional leadership style. Transactional leaders’ emphasis
on motivating and improving performance of employees through contingent reward,
management by exceptions, and contingent punishment (ISPAS 2012., Sing, 2015.,
Choudary, Akhtar and Zaheer, 2013). Past research shows a mixed result of transactional
leadership on employee job performance. Some studies shows that transactional leadership
has a negative influence on employee performance (Kour,Vaishali, and Andotra, N, 2016).
However studies done on banking sector in India shows that transactional leadership has a
significant positive impact on employee productivity and also it was found that such
leadership style is a strong predictor of employee productivity in private banking sector in
India (Singh, 2015). It was also found that contingent reward has a direct impact on employee
performance positively by creating a favourable work environment through autonomy and
support (Breevaart et al, 2014). Also it was found that transactional leadership has significant
influence on performance where competition is moderate and in moderate competitive
environment transactional leadership has a more influence on improving performance than
innovation (Huijun, and Jianjun, 2015).Also some studies shows that transactional leadership
has a significant and positive but week influence on firm’s performance. Therefore the fourth
hypothesis is
H4: There is significant and positive influence of transactional leadership on
employee job performance
Lastly transformational leadership which is the most cited leadership style that has a
positive influence on employee job performance. Individual consideration that was covered in
supportive leadership style , idealised influences, intellectual stimulation and inspirational
motivation are the attributes or behaviour of transformational leadership (Bass and
Avolio,1994). Those organisations where leaders are perceived more transformational leaders
tend to influence followers more positively to improve performance (ISPAS, 2012; Kour.
Vaishali, and Andotra, 2016). Singh(2015) also found that transformational leaders has a
significant influence on achievement of goals by fostering trust and building relationship with
subordinates. Transformational leaders influence positively towards employee performance
in terms of work engagement, quality, quantity and persistence (Kovjanic et al, 2013). It was
argued that high performance of employee depends on the quality of relationship between

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 20

transformational leadership and employees (Carte et al, 2013). Another study found that
transformational leadership positively influences extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction
(performance outcomes)(Asrar-ul-Haq and Kuchinke, 2016). Therefore the fifth hypothesis is
H5: There is a significant and positive influence of transformational leadership on
employee performance
Based on the review and hypotheses generated, the following conceptual framework
is proposed for the study. Therefore the following leadership styles are selected to examine
the impact of each style of leadership on employee performance

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Source: Authors own development based on various readings

3. RESEARCH METHODS

3.1. Subjects
A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed and a total of 136 questionnaires were
returned (response rate 90.6%). However, some of these returned questionnaires were
excluded from the sample as some respondents failed to complete or sometimes marked two
options leaving the researchers in a difficult situation to decide which one is the right one.
Almost 21 returned questionnaires were excluded. This means the study only used 115
completed questionnaires, where 59 respondents were female (51.3%) and 56 respondents
were male (48.7%).
This means the sample used in this study is 115 respondents. The sampling technique
used in this study was random probability sampling. The demographic aspects of the subjects
are illustrated below:

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 21

 Table 3: Demographic Attributes of Respondents
Attributes Number Percent Cumulative Percent

Gender Male 56 51.3 51.3

Female 59 48.7 100
Age 20-30 years 58 50.4 50.4
31-40 years 26 22.6 73.0
41-50 years 21 18.3 81.3
51 years and above 10 8.7 100
Positions Apprentice 35 30.4 30.4
Artisans 22 19.1 49.5
Designers 4 3.5 53.0
Journeyman 33 28.7 81.7
Jr.Admin Executives 11 9.6 91.3
Sr.Admin Executives 10 8.7 100
Salary Less than RM2500 64 55.7 55.7
Range RM2500 5 4.3 60.0
RM2501-5000 35 30.4 90.4
RM5001-10,000 11 9.6 100

50 percent respondents are aged between 20 to 30 years. a cumulative percent of 81.3

percent respondents are aged between 20-50 years. However 51 years and above represents
only 8.7 percent of respondents indicating that most of the respondents were young or middle
aged who works as jewellery artisans. 19.1 percent of artisans represents the respondents
while 30 percent of respondents were apprentice. almost 29 percent respondents were
journeyman and 3.5 percent respondents were designers. Since most of the respondents were
apprentice, 55.7 percent respondents earned a salary which is less than RM2500 per month.
30.4 percent respondents earned a salary ranged from RM2501 to 5000.only 9.6 percent of
respondents earned a salary ranged from RM5001 to 10,000 indicating that the income eraned
by the workers in general is almost same as other industry workers.

3.2. Procedure

The researchers independently contacted the respondents using a random probability

sampling based on the approximate numbers of respondents working in the selected company
or factory. In the chosen company (300 staff was working currently). Samples of 115
respondents were chosen for this study. Additionally, permission from the company was
obtained to meet the respondents in the factory during the break hours in the cafeteria or
while they were free or while waiting for bus or car to travel. A time period of 18 hours were
spent for three weeks to collect data. The completed questionnaires were collected by the
researchers and a follow up were made on the following week during the same hours before
the respondents resume their work and during the break-hours.

3.3. Measures

Normality: The normality of the scale is measured using Skewness and Kurtosis
(Khine, 2013). Normality of data is ensured when the absolute value falls with the range of -1
and +1 (Khine, 2013). Under skewness, most of the questions fall within the expected range,
except for question SL4,TEL3, TEL4 and EP5 which fall significantly higher than the
acceptable range. This is deemed unusual. Similarly, there are seven questions from kurtosis
that fall out of the acceptable range, three fall above 1 (SL4, TEL3, EP5) and four fall under
(SL1, TEL1, EP2 and EP4). The abnormality of the questions prompts for further test on the
data set and in this case, Reliability Test is suggested to be the next course of action.

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 22

 Reliability: The questionnaire’s content was administered through various sources
which relates with the suitability of instruments indicated in the Table 2. Further –more,
these instruments have been extensively used in examining the impact of the selected
leadership style on employee performance. The reliability of the scale is measured using
Cronbach's Alpha values. It was mentioned that Cronbach's Alpha value varies from 0 to 1
but, satisfactory value is required to be more than 0.6 for the scale to be reliable (Malhotra,
2002; Cronbach, 1951). If we compare our reliability value with the standard value alpha of
0.6 advocated by Cronbach (1951), our scale is highly reliable in most cases. Nunnally &
Bernstein (1994) or with the standard value of 0.6 as recommended by Bagozzi & Yi’s
(1988).

Table 4: Reliability of Scale

Variables
Overall
Supportive leadership
Participative leadership
Servant leadership
Transactional leadership
Transformational leadership
Employee performance
Number of Items Cronbach's Alpha
26 0.942
5 0.798
5 0.775
4 0.643
3 0.748
4 0.737
5 0.651

The dependent variable: Employee performance is being constructed based on

previous literature where the measures were being cited and tested by many scholars in their
research as indicated in the Table 2. We have conducted the reliability of the measures of
employee performance such as punctuality , performance improvement, productivity , career
advancement and interpersonal skills using Cronbach's Alpha. The Cronbach Alpha value for
Employee Performance is 0.651 which is under acceptable range (Bagozzi & Yi’, 1988.
Cronbach, 1951).

Independent variables: There are five independent variables. These are supportive
leadership with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.798, participative leadership with Cronbach's
Alpha value of 0.775, servant leadership with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.643,
transformational leadership with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.737 and transactional
leadership with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.748 suggesting that the scale is highly reliable
and acceptable due to the high internal consistency among the variables.

The overall measures of the scale is highly reliable since the Cronbach's Alpha value
exceeds 0.7 and reached 0.942 indicating high internal consistency among all the items
included in the scale.

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation
Supportive leadership 115 3.941 0.787
Participative leadership 115 3.840 0.786
Servant leadership 115 3.793 0.813
Transactional leadership 115 3.788 1.009
Transformational leadership 115 3.900 0.855
Employee performance 115 4.002 0.659
Valid N (listwise) 115

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 23

 With reference to the statistics above, Supportive Leadership illustrates the highest
mean value, as compared to the other leadership styles, at 3.941 (SD= 0.787). This indicates
that Supportive Leadership is the most perceived style of leadership practices among the
managers. The second most perceived often displayed leadership style among the managers
who work as jewellery artisans is transformational leadership style with a mean value of
3.900 (SD= 0.855) followed by participative leadership styles with a mean value of 3.840
(SD= 0.786) followed by servant leadership practices with a mean value of 3.793
(SD=0.813) and lastly transactional leadership practices with a mean value of 3.788
(SD=1.009) suggesting that transactional leadership is the least preferred style of leadership
practices among the managers in Jewellery artisans in Malaysia. This will be further analysed
using correlations analysis to examine whether there is a strong relationship between each
style of leadership practices.

Table 6: Correlation Analysis

EP SL PL SEL TL TEL

Employee performance Pearson Correlation 1

Supportive leadership Pearson Correlation 0.721** 1
Participative leadership Pearson Correlation 0.666** 0.780** 1
** **
Servant leadership Pearson Correlation 0.650 0.774 0.761** 1
** ** **
Transactional leadership Pearson Correlation 0.633 0.778 0.655 0.607** 1
Transformational leadership Pearson Correlation 0.719** 0.829** 0.742** 0.789** 0.818** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The Table 6 above indicated that there is a positive and significant relationship
between each dimensions of leadership style with each other. Similarly the it also indicated
that all the leadership styles has a positive and significant relationship with employee
performance. Transformational leadership has the strongest and significant relationship with
employee performance while transactional leadership has the weak relationship with
employee performance. This is similar to what is being perceived by employees regarding
their managers leadership styles discussed under descriptive statistical Table 5.

To examine further regression analysis is conducted to establish which types of

leadership style is most influential in improving the employee performance.

4.2. Regression Analysis:

In this research, regression is used to envisage the impact of Leadership Styles on

employee performance, in this case referring to the jewellery artisans, based on five
independent factors. They are Supportive leadership, Participative leadership, Servant
leadership, Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership. Employee Performance
is the dependent factor in this context.

Table 7: Model Summary

Model Summaryb
Model R R Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Durbin-Watson
Square Estimate
1 0.762a 0.580 0.561 0.4369 1.670
a. Predictors: (Constant), Supportive leadership (SL), Participative leadership (PL), Servant leadership
(SEL), Transactional leadership (TL), Transformationalleadership (TEL).
b. Dependent Variable: EmployeePerformance (EP).

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 24

 The Adjusted R Square value at 0.561 indicated that the model is not a good fit
model as the value is lower than the rule of thumb of 0.60 (Zygmont & Smith, 2014). The
Durbin Watson value indicated that there is no autocorrelation among the selected
respondents for this research as the value falls in the range of 1.5-2.5 ((Bakon & Hassan,
2013). However since the model is close to 0.6, the model is accepted for further analysis.
Table 8 : Regression Analysis
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.410 0.221 6.377 0.000
Supportive leadership 0.234 0.112 0.280 2.089 0.039
Participative leadership 0.139 0.092 0.166 1.520 0.131
Servant leadership 0.048 0.095 0.059 0.501 0.617
Transactional leadership 0.023 0.077 0.036 0.305 0.761
Transformational leadership 0.222 0.112 0.288 1.985 0.050
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

According to Table 8, Supportive Leadership beta value is 0.280 with a significant

value of 0.039 which is lower than the rule of thumb. Hence Supportive Leadership is found
to have a positive and significant impact on employee performance. Similarly,
Transformational Leadership has a beta value is at 0.288 with a significant value of 0.050
which is lower than the rule of thumb. Hence Transformational Leadership is also found to
have a positive significant impact on employee performance. Participative Leadership shows
a beta value of 0.166 with an insignificant value of 0.131, indicating that Participative
Leadership has a positive but no significant impact on employee performance. As for Servant
Leadership, which displays a beta value of 0.059 with an insignificant value of 0.761,
indicates that Servant Leadership also has a positive but no significant impact on employee
performance. Lastly, Transactional Leadership shows a beta value of 0.036 with an
insignificant value of 0.761, indicating that Transactional Leadership has a positive but no
significant impact on employee performance.

5. DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESES
Table 9: Hypotheses
Hypothesis Beta Value Sig Result
H1: Supportive Leadership has a significant and 0.280 0.039 Positive, Significant
positive influences employee performance Accepted

H2: There is a significant influence of Participative 0.166 0.131 Positive, Insignificant

Leadership style and employee job performance. Rejected

H3: There is a significant and positive influence of 0.059 0.617 Positive, Insignificant
Servant Leadership on employee job performance Rejected
H4: There is significant and positive influence of 0.036 0.761 Positive, Insignificant
Transactional Leadership on employee job Rejected
performance

H5: There is a significant and positive influence of 0.288 0.050 Positive, Significant
Transformational Leadership on employee Accepted
performance

In our research or study, we found that supportive leadership practices positively

influences employee performance. Previous studies shows that supportive leadership

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 25

practices such as fostering cooperation and trust via emotional support, by creating healthy
work environment enables to increases employee performance (Daft, 2005). Also our finding
is similar to previous studies done by Judge et al (2004) and Dumdum et al (2002) where they
found that supportive leaders attributes such as consideration has a direct impact on
employee performance. Also it was found that those employees works under supportive
leaders who shows individual consideration tends to have higher job performance (Imtiaz and
Ahmed, 2009). Many recent research also has shown that supportive leadership style
positively influences employee commitment and performance (Mahdi et al, 2014). Also
Hernandez et al (2011) found that supportive leadership provides psychological support ,
foster mutual trust and respects, helps employees in difficult task and appreciates by
providing positive feedback to cultivate high performance among the employees. However,
some studies shows that supportive leadership style do not have strong influence on job
performance as does directive, or participative leadership styles(Hwanget al, 2015).

The second hypothesis was rejected since we found no significant influence of

participative leadership practices on employee performance. This is quite contradictory to
previous studies such as Dalluay and Jalagat (2016), ISPAS (2012), Iqbal, Anwar and Haider
(2015), Mulki Caemerer and Heggde (2015) where all these scholars found a positive and
significant impact of participative leadership on employee performance. However some
recent research shows that participative leadership do not have any significant relationship
with job performance (Hwang et al, 2015) which is similar to our findings. The difference
arise in our finding could be attributed to the context and among the jewellery artisans,
workers might not willing to allow their boss or managers intervene their work as they are
quite creative and requires them to be innovative. When leaders participate or intervene the
work, creativity might be lost and looks towards their leaders ways of doing it causes less
productive and imaginative.

The third hypothesis was also rejected as we found there is no significant influence of
servant leadership on employee performance. Our finding is again contrary to the majority of
the past research findings such as Choudhary et al (2013), Liden, et al (2014), Chiniara, and
Bentein (2016), McCann et al (2014) and Yoshida, et al (2014). The orders received by the
organisation might require specific designs and instructions to be followed. This is quite
contrary to the servant leadership practices as servant leadership allows empowerment,
humility and stewardship in improving employee performance (Chiniara, and Bentein,2016).
In our study we do not find much managers or leaders emphasis on the most crucial aspects
of servant leadership such as promoting individual relational identification and collective
prototypically with the leader which, in turn, fosters employee creativity and team innovation
(Yoshida, et al, 2014).

Fourth hypothesis was also rejected since we found transactional leadership do not
significantly influence employee performance in Jewellery artisans firms. This could be
attributed to the motivational factors such as money and punishment. Since employees
working in jewellery industry may looks for freedom, empowerment and positive work
environment may lacks from transactional leadership practices where their main focus could
be reward or punishment. Also the past research confirms our findings such as Kour,Vaishali,
and Andotra (2016). However, again our finding is contrary to most of the previous
researches such as ISPAS (2012), Sing (2015) and Choudary, Akhtar and Zaheer (2013).
Since transactional leadership mainly motivates employees to increase their performance in a
very competitive work environment (Huijun, and Jianjun, 2015).

The last hypothesis was accepted as transformational leadership was found to have a
positive and significant influence on employee performance. Our finding is similar to ISPAS
(2012), Kour. Vaishali, and Andotra (2016) and Singh(2015) where they all found that

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 26

transformational leaders has a significant influence on achievement of goals by fostering trust
and building relationship with subordinates. Transformational leaders influence positively
towards employee performance in terms of work engagement, quality, quantity and
persistence (Kovjanic et al, 2013). Another study found that transformational leadership
positively influences extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction (performance
outcomes)(Asrar-ul-Haq & Kuchinke, 2016).

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

It is has been concluded that supportive and transformational leadership practices
were the most suitable and effective two styles in influencing employees to improve their
current job performance. In short our conclusions are

 Supportive leadership has a positive and significant influence on employee

performance. This means when mangers engage themselves in displaying supportive
leadership behaviours such as considerations, listening and caring, providing positive
feedback, building confidence and enabling self control towards employees results
high employee performance.

 Transformational leadership behaviour positively and significantly influences

employee performance. This means when managers engage in behaviours such as
idealise behaviour, inspirational motivations, individualised considerations, and
intellectual stimulations enables to motivate employees to improve their job
performance.

 Participative , servant and transactional leadership behaviour do not have any

significant influence on employee performance in the study context of jewellery
industry. This means we do not find any influence of such behaviours on employee
performance. However it is important to investigate further whether these leadership
behaviours might influence employee performance as vast literature shows that these
three behaviours positively influence on employee performance.

6.1. Managerial Implications

 Emphasis on fostering supportive and transformational leadership behaviour among

the managers as these behaviours are directly influences employee performance or
productivity
 Foster creativity and innovation through servant leadership behaviour
 Emphasis on empowerment, delegation and establishing positive work environment
for designers, artisans and journeyman

6.2. Future Research Directions

 Since this study was conducted only on jewellery industry employee in Malaysia, it
may not be able to generalize the finding. However by conducting this research on
wider context of a particular country could confirm the findings and maybe a
significant contribution to this field of study
 The analysis method could be change in future research using structural equation
modelling rather than simple multiple regressions. In this way the items can be
validated to confirm whether it measures what it should measures (CFA).

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 27

  Increase the number of employees participate in the survey by selecting at least 80
percent of the jewellery firms and its employees. This way it will be easier to
generalise the finding among the jewellery industry
 The study can be more specific to managers or participants should be in managerial
position and change the questionnaire to self-rating questionnaire about managers
themselves rather than employees rating their managers leadership practices.

References

Adair, J. (1973) Action-Centred Leadership. New York,:McGraw-Hill.

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership,
innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes.
Human Performance, 25(1), 1-25.

Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2016). Impact of leadership styles on employees’ attitude
towards their leader and performance: Empirical evidence from Pakistani banks. Future
Business Journal, 2(1), 54-64.

Avery, G.C. (2004) Understanding Leadership: Paradigms and Cases. London: Sage.

Avolio, B.J. (1999) Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Bagozzi,R.P. & Yi,Y.(1988). On the Evalution of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science,16(1):74-95

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994) Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Belbin, R. M. (1993) Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bennis, W. (1998) Rethinking leadership. Executive Excellence, 15(2):7-8

Benoliel, P., & Somech, A. (2014). The health and performance effects of participative leadership:
Exploring the moderating role of the Big Five personality dimensions. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(2), 277-294.

Bergsteiner, H. (2005) Bergsteiner’s Leadership Matrix. Unpublished Paper, MGSM, Australia.

Berson, Y., Shamair, B., Avolio, B.J. and Popper, M. (2001) The relationship between vision strength,
leadership style & context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12: 53-73

Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction,
and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly,
24(1), 270-283.

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily
transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of
occupational and organizational psychology, 87(1), 138-157.

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

Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational
leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942-958.

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 28

Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in
Chinese leaders linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of
Management, 40(3), 796-819.

Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance:
Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction.
The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124-141.

Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant
leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business
Ethics, 116(2), 433-440.

Conger, J.A. (1999) Charismatic & transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s

perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 45-
169.

Cronbach,L.J.(1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests, Psychometrika,6(3): 297-
334

Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. (3rd Ed). Toronto: Thompson South Western.
Dalluay, V. S., & Jalagat, R. C. (2016). Impacts of Leadership Style Effectiveness of Managers and
Department Heads to Employees' Job Satisfaction and Performance on Selected Small-Scale
Businesses in Cavite, Philippines. International Journal Of Recent Advances In
Organizational Behaviour & Decision Sciences, 2(2), 734-751.
http://globalbizresearch.org/files/5055_ijraob_van-s-dalluay_revenio-c-jalagat-399974.pdf

Den Hartog, D. N. and Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In, N. Anderson, D.S.
Ones, H. K. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 166-187). London: Sage.

Drath, W.H. (2001) The Deep Blue Sea: Rethinking the Source of Leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass

Dubinsky, A.J., Yammarino, F.J., Jolson, M.A. and Spangler, W.D. (1995) Transformational
leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 15: 17-31.

Duignan, P. A., & Macpherson, J. T. (1992). Educative leadership: A practical theory for new
administrators and managers. London: Falmer Press.

Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B. & Avolio, B. J. (2002).A meta-analysis of transformational and

transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension.
In B. J. Avolio & F.J.Yammarino (eds.), Transformational and Charismatic leadership: The
road ahead, 2, 35-66.Oxford, U.K: Elsevier Sciences

Fiedler, (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. NewYork: McGraw-Hill

Gilmore, P. L., Hu, X., Wei, F., Tetrick, L. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2013). Positive affectivity neutralizes
transformational leadership's influence on creative performance and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1061-1075.

Glendon, A. I., Clarke, S. G., and McKenna, E. F. (2006). Human safety and risk management (2nd
edition). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Greenleaf, R. (1970) Servant as Leader. Center for Applied Studies.

Herman, H. M., & Chiu, W. C. (2014). Transformational leadership and job performance: A social
identity perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2827-2835.

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 29

Hersey, P. and K.H. Blanchard (1977) Management of Organizational Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs
NJ: Prentice Hall

House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of
Management, 3(23): 409-473.

Hoy, D., & Miskel, C. (2008). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice. Boston:
McGrawHill companies.

Huijun, Y., & Jianjun, Y. (2015). Transactional Leadership, Competitive Intensity, Technological
Innovation Choices and Firm Performance. Journal of Management, 4, 001.

Humphreys, J. H. (2002). Trnasformational leader behavior, proximity and successful services

marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(6), 487-502

Hwang, S. J., Quast, L. N., Center, B. A., Chung, C. T. N., Hahn, H. J., & Wohkittel, J. (2015). The
impact of leadership behaviours on leaders’ perceived job performance across cultures:
comparing the role of charismatic, directive, participative, and supportive leadership
behaviours in the US and four Confucian Asian countries. Human Resource Development
International, 18(3), 259-277.

Imtiaz, S. & Ahmed, M. S. (2009). The impact of stress on employee productivity, performance and
turn over: An important managerial issue. International Review of Business Research Paper,
5(4), 468‐477.

Iqbal, N., Anwar, S. and Haider, N(2015). Effect of Leadership Style on Employee Performance.
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), 1-6.

ISPAS, A. (2012). The Perceived Leadership Style and Employee Performance in Hotel Industry - a
Dual Approach. Review Of International Comparative Management / Revista De
Management Comparat International, 13(2), 294-304.

Ivancevich, K., John, M., & Matteson. (2008). Organizational Behavior and Management. Jakarta:
Eason

Jenkins, T. (2013). Reflections on Kenneth E. Boulding’s The Image: Glimpsing the Roots of Peace
Education Pedagogy. Journal of Peace Education and Social justice, 7(1), 27-37.

Jing, F. F., & Avery, G. C. (2011). Missing links in understanding the relationship between leadership
and organizational performance. International Business & Economics Research Journal
(IBER), 7(5), pp.67-78.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F. & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and
initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51.

Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004) Transformational & transactional leadership: A meta-analytic
test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 755-768

Keller, R.T. (2006) Transformational leadership, initiating structure & substitutes for leadership: A
longitudinal study of research & development project team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1): 202-210

Kelloway, E. K. and Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention in occupational

health psychology. Work & Stress, 24 (3), 260-279.

Khine, M. S. (Ed.). (2013). Application of structural equation modeling in educational research and
practice. Sense Publishers

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 30

Kim, C., & Schachter, H. L. (2015). Exploring Followership in a Public Setting Is It a Missing Link
Between Participative Leadership and Organizational Performance?. The American Review
of Public Administration, 45(4), 436-457.

Kissi, J., Dainty, A., & Tuuli, M. (2013). Examining the role of transformational leadership of
portfolio managers in project performance. International Journal of project management,
31(4), 485-497.

Kour, R., Vaishali, & Andotra, N. (2016). Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction among Employees:
A study of Women Leaders in J&K Service Sectors. International Journal On Leadership,
4(1), 34-41.

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance: An
experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work
engagement. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 86(4), 543-555.

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic Leadership, Authentic
Followership, Basic Need Satisfaction, and Work Role Performance A Cross-Level Study.
Journal of Management, 41(6), 1677-1697.

Lewin, K. (1935) A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York, McGraw Hill.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture:
Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-
1452.

Liu, W., Lepak, D. P., Takeuchi, R., & Sims, H. P. (2003). Matching leadership styles with
employment modes: Strategic human resource management perspective. Human Resource
Management Review, 13, 127-152

Locander, W. B., Hamilton, F., Ladik, D., & Stuart, J. (2002). Developing a leadership-rich culture:
The missing link to creating a market-focused organization. Journal of Market-Focused
Management, 5, 149-163

Mahdi, O. R., Mohd, E. S. B. G., & Almsafir, M. K. (2014). Empirical study on the impact of
leadership behavior on organizational commitment in plantation companies in Malaysia.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1076-1087.

Malhotra, N.K.(2002). Marketing research: an applied orientation (3rd ed.). New Delhi: Pearson
Education Asia

McCann, J. T., Graves, D., & Cox, L. (2014). Servant leadership, employee satisfaction, and
organizational performance in rural community hospitals. International Journal of Business
and Management, 9(10), 28-38

McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

Mohammed, U.D., Yusuf, M.O., Sanni, I.M., Ifeyinwa, T.N., Bature, N.U and Kazeem, A.O (2014).
The Relationship between Leadership Styles and Employees’ Performance in Organizations
(A Study of Selected Business Organizations in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria).
European Journal of Business and Management, 6(22), p.1-11. Available
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.684.9954&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Mulki, J. P., Caemmerer, B., & Heggde, G. S. (2015). Leadership style, salesperson's work effort and
job performance: the influence of power distance. Journal Of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 35(1), 3-22. doi:10.1080/08853134.2014.958157

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 31

Newman, A., Rose, P. S., & Teo, S. T. (2014). The Role of Participative Leadership and Trust‐Based
Mechanisms in Eliciting Intern Performance: Evidence from China. Human Resource
Management, 55(1), 53-67

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Nunnally,J.C. & Bernstein. (1994). Ira Psychometrics Theory. New York: Mcgraw Hill.

Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). RETRACTED: The
relationship between authentic leadership and follower job performance: The mediating role
of follower positivity in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 502-516.

Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14
(1), 67-81.

Robbins, S. P. (2006). Organizational behavior. PT Index, Jakarta: Gramedia Group.

Rowe, W.G. (2001) Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of
Management Executive, 15: 81-94.

Rowld, J. & Schlotz, W. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership and followers’chronic
stress. Leadership Review, 9, 35-48

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Singh, K. (2015). Leadership Style and Employee Productivity: A Case Study of Indian Banking
Organizations. Journal Of Knowledge Globalization, 8(2), 39-67.

Sousa, M., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2015). Introducing a Short Measure of Shared Servant
Leadership Impacting Team Performance through Team Behavioral Integration. Frontiers in
psychology, 6.

Stewart-Banks, B., Kuofie, M., Hakim, A., & Branch, R. (2015). Education Leadership Styles Impact
on Work Performance and Morale of Staff. Journal Of Marketing & Management, 6(2), 87-
105.

Stogdill, R. (1974) Handbook of Leadership (1st Ed.). New York: Free Press.

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools. London: Open University Press.

Tampoe, M. (1998). Liberating leadership. London: The Industrial Society

Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. (1958) How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business
Review 36(2), 95-101

Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the
difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles
and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
122(2), 101-113.

Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. K. (2013). Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction:
the mediating role of empowerment. Journal of advanced nursing, 69(4), 947-959.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and
performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 32

Yang, L. C., & Lim, V. (2016). Empirical Investigation into the Path-Goal Leadership Theory in the
Central Bank Fraternity: Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction. South East Asian Central
Banks (SEACEN) Research and Training Centre Working Papers.

Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity
and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of
Business Research, 67(7), 1395-1404.

Yukl, G. (1999) An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal
of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1): 33-48

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000) Development & effects of transformational
leadership in adolescents. The Leadership Quarterly, 11: 211–226

IJABM is a FTMS Publishing Journal

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 33