TABLE iOF iCONTENTS

CHAPTER iONE.............................................................................................................................3

1.0 iIntroduction...........................................................................................................................3

1.1 iBackground...........................................................................................................................5

1.2 iProblem istatement................................................................................................................6

1.3 iResearch iobjectives..............................................................................................................6

1.4 iResearch iquestions...............................................................................................................6

1.5 iScope iof ithe istudy..............................................................................................................6

1.6 iSignificance iof ithe istudy...................................................................................................6

2. iLITERATURE iREVIEW..........................................................................................................7

2.1 iIntroduction...........................................................................................................................7

2.2 iLeadership iand iPerformance..............................................................................................7

3. iMETHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................14

3.1 iResearch idesign.................................................................................................................14

3.2 iSampling itechnique iand imeasures...................................................................................14

3.3 iData iCollection iInstruments, iVariables iand iMaterials..................................................15

3.4 iEthics...................................................................................................................................15

References......................................................................................................................................16

Budget............................................................................................................................................16

Work iPlan.....................................................................................................................................16

i
1.0 iIntroduction
Transactional ileadership iand itransformational ileadership ihave igained iattention iover ia
iperiod iof ilast ifew idecades i(Bass, i1988; i1990; iBass iand iAvolio, i1993; iHartog, iet ial.,
i1997). iTo ibetter iunderstanding ithese iconcepts, iit iis iimperative ito ilook iback iinto ithe
iearly iworks ithat iwere idone ion ithe isubjects iin irelation ito itheir ieffect ion iorganizational
iperformance. iAccording ito iKirkpatrick iand iLocke i(1996), iTransformational iLeadership
iand iTransactional iLeadership iboth iare idirectly irelated iwith inumerous iworkplace
ioutcomes isuch ias ijob isatisfaction, igroup iperformance, iemployee’s iperformance, iand
iorganizational icommitment. iThese iresults ihave ialso ibeen itested iin idifferent iresearch
isettings iwhere iAl-Dmour iand iAwamleh, i(2002) iechoed isimilar isentiments. iIn ispite iof
ithis, ithe ieffects iof imanagerial ileadership istyles ifrom itransformational iand itransactional
iperspectives ihave inot ibeen ivalidated iin iICT ifirms iin iZambia. iA ikey iobjective iof ithis
istudy iis ito ifill ithis iknowledge igap. iThis istudy iwill iassess ithe ieffects iof
itransformational iand itransactional ileadership istyles ion iemployees’ iperformance iin
iZAMTEL iand ideduce iwhich ione iof ithese ibest iaddresses ithe ichallenges ithe icompany iis
ifacing. i

According ito iLewis iet ial i(1998), imanagers iand ileaders iare iexpected ito icope iwith ia
irapidly ichanging iworld iof iwork. iHooper iand iPotter i(2000) isuggests ithat imanagers iwill
ihave ito ibe icompetent ileaders iin iorder ito itransform itheir ipeople ito iachieve ithe irequired
icompany ioutcomes. iRyback i(1998) idescribes ia ileader iin ithe i21st icentury ias ione ihaving
ithe iability ito idemonstrate ia igreater iempathy iand iconcern ifor ipeople iissues ithan ihis/her
iearlier icounterparts. iManaging iprojects iin ithe iinformation iand icommunication itechnology
idomain iremains ichallenging, isince ivarious iglobal itrends icontribute ito irising
icomplexities. iSoftware idevelopment iprojects iaccount ifor ia ivery ilarge iportion iof ithe
ioverall iICT ioutsourcing imarket. iAccording ito iDibbern iet ial. i(2018), iprior iinformation
iand icommunication itechnology iresearch ihas iprovided ia ilist iof ipossible ireasons iwhy
iICT ioffshore ioutsourcing iprojects ifail ito imeet ithe iinitial igoals iand iexpectations iof iboth
iclient iand ivendor. iHowever, iresearch iis istill ilimited idealing iwith ileadership iand
imanagement iof iInformation icommunication itechnology iprojects i(Lee i2018; iMao iet ial.
i2018). iCarson iet ial. i(2017) istates ithat ione iof ithe imost iimportant iissues iwithin
iorganizational iperformance iis ileadership. iHowever, iresearch iabout ithe icrucial ileadership

1
istyles ifocusing ion iICT iprojects iis istill ilimited. iAccording ito iXia iand iLee i(2014), ithe
iStandish iGroup iin ichina ifor iinstance ireported isignificant itime iand icost ioverruns iby inot
ifully imeeting iquality iexpectations iof ithe iproject isponsors iand ithe iprimary ireason,
ihowever, iwas inot itechnological, ibut irather imanagerial iissues iopined iScott iand iVessey
i(2014). iIn iaddition, iSumner iet ial. i(2015) istates ithat ito isuccessfully iimplement itechnical
iprojects iin iICT ifirms, istrong iproject ileaders iwith isuperior ileadership iskills iare iessential
iwhich iwill ioffers ithe ipotential ito icontribute ito iICT iproject isuccess. iDurham iet ial.
i(1997) istates ithat iresearch ihas iproved ithe iimportance iof ileadership ibehavior ifor iteam
ieffectiveness, iand ifor iemployees i‘performance. i

According ito iSumner i(2010), ilack iof ileadership ior iineffective ileadership iis iamong ithe
itop ihindering ifactors ifor iorganizational isuccess. iLeaders iin ithe itelecommunications
iindustry ioften ilack iinterpersonal ileadership iskills, ibecause itechnical iemployees iget
ipromoted ito ibecome iproject ileaders idue ito itheir itechnical iknowledge, inot ifor itheir
ipeople imanagement icapabilities i(Rosenbaum i2015). iThe ieffect iof itransactional iand
itransformational ileadership istyle ion iemployees iperformance ihave ibeen ivalidated ion
iHealth, iRetail, iEducation iand imanufacturing isectors. iThere iis ia ilimited iknowledge ior
iresearch iconducted ion ithe ileadership istyle iof ithe iproject ileader/team ileader iin ithe
iTelecommunications isector iand ihow iit iaffects ithe iemployees’ iperformance. iThis iresearch
iaims ito iinvestigate ithe irelationship ibetween ithe ieffective iteam ileader/Project imanager
ileadership istyle iand isubordinates iperformance iat iZAMTEL iin iattempt ito ideduce iwhich
iof ithe itwo istyles ibetter iaddresses ithe ichallenges ifacing ithe icompany. iThe iliterature
ireview idiscusses ithe ilink ibetween iTransformational ileadership iand iemployee
iperformance iand ialso ithe ilink ibetween itransactional ileadership istyles iand iemployees
iperformance ifrom ia iglobal iperspective.

1.1 iBackground
Mobile iservice ioperators itoday iare iworking iin ia ihighly icompetitive iand irapidly
ichanging iwork ienvironment iand itherefore irealize ithe iimportance iof iestablishing istrong
irelationships iwith icustomers ito iensure ilong-term iprofitability iand irevenues ithat ican ibe
isustained i(ZICTA i2017). iThe iconcept iof itransformational iand itransactional ileadership
istyles iare iinstrumental ias ithe ifocus iof ievery iorganization iis ion ibuilding ilong-term

2
irelationships iwith icustomers iand iother iparties ias iwell ias icreating ia iconducive
iworkplace ienvironment ithat iwill ienhance iemployee iproductivity i(Altron i2014). i

In ithe iZambian imarket itoday, ithe imobile itelecommunications iindustry ihas igrown iin isize
iand iextremely icompetitive ias iservice iproviders irespond iaggressively ito iattract ia iwider
isphere iof iusers iby iproviding ithem irelevant iand iattractive ipackages iand ifrequent
ipromotions i(ZICTA i2017). iConsumers iof itelecommunications iproducts iand iservices iin
iZambia ihave ivaried itastes, ineeds iand iexpectations, iwhich ithey ihope ican ibe imet iby
iservice iproviders iin ithe ilocal icommunity i(Towela, i2020). iConsumers iare itoday
ibenefiting ifrom imobile itelecommunication iservices iand iproducts iin imany iways, isuch ias
ithe ifreedom ito ichoose iimproved iservices ibecause ievery imobile ioperator iis itrying ito
ihold ion ito iits iemployees iand imaintain iits iclientele ibase. iRealizing ithey iare ioperating
iin ia ihighly ivolatile imarket; imobile iservice ioperators iare ibeginning ito iappreciate ithe
iimportance iof ihaving ia istrong ileadership ito icounter ithe iemerging ichallenges. i

1.2 iProblem istatement

The iincreasing icompetition iin ithe imobile itelecommunications iindustry ihas idemanded ithat
icompanies ioperating iin ithis iindustry ibuild ia ilong-term irelationship iwith itheir icustomers
iand iemployees. iThis iis ibecause iorganizations ispend imore imoney itrying ito ipersuade ia
icustomer ithan ito iretain ithe isupport iof ian iexisting ione ias iwell ias iretain ithe ifamiliar
iclientele ibase. iIn ia irecent i2019 ireport iby iZAMTEL, iit iwas inoted ithat ithe ipriority iwas
ion iensuring ithat ithe icompany ipromotes ia isolid ifirm-customer/employee irelationship ithat
iwill ienable iit ito igain icritical iand iessential iinformation ion ihow ibest ito ioffer iquality
iservices ito icustomers iand ikeep ithem ifrom idefecting ito icompeting ibrands ias iwell ias
iminimize iloss iof italent ito icompeting ifirms. iHence, ithe itype iof ileadership istyle iadopted
icreates imutuality iwhich ibenefits iboth ithe ifirm’s imanagement iand ithe iemployee. iWhen
iorganizations ibuild irelationships iwith itheir iemployees, ithey ialso igain ion iproductivity
iand iperformance iwhich iis icardinal iin ilong iterm igrowth. iThis istudy itherefore iattempts
ito iinvestigate itransactional iand itransformational ileadership istyles iin ithe ibid ito idetermine
iwhich iof ithe itwo ibetter iaddresses ithe ichallenges ibeen ifaced iat iZAMTEL.

3
1.3 iResearch iobjectives
This istudy iseeks ito iinvestigate ithe iimpact iof itransformational ileadership iand
itransactional ileadership istyle ion iemployee’s iperformance iat iZAMTEl iin ibid ito
idetermine ithe imost iappropriate ito iadopt. iThe iobjectives iof ithis iresearch iare:

1. Evaluation iof ithe iemployees’ iperformance iunder ithe icurrent ileadership istyle iat
iZAMTEL
2. Determining ithe ileadership ichallenges iaffecting ithe iperformance iof iemployees iat
iZAMTEL.
3. Assessing ithe iemployees’ ipreference iover itransformational iand itransactional
ileadership istyle.

1.4 iResearch iquestions

1. How iare iemployee’s iperforming iunder ithe icurrent ileadership istyle iat iZAMTEL?
2. What iare ithe ileadership ichallenges iaffecting ithe iperformance iof iemployee’s iat
iZAMTEL?
3. What iis ithe ileadership istyle ipreferred iby iemployees iat iZAMTEL?

1.5 iScope iof ithe istudy

The istudy iwill ibe ilimited ito iZAMTEL ioffices iin ivarious ibranches iacross iLusaka
idistrict. iThis iis idue ito ithe ieffects iof ithe iCovid i19 ipandemic iwhich iis ianticipated ito
ihave ia inegative ieffect ion ithe imovement iof ithe iresearcher iin ithe idata icollection
iprocess. iHowever, iprimary idata iwill ibe icollected ifrom iemployees iat ithese idesignated
ibranches iwhile ireports iwill ifacilitate isecondary idata icollection.

1.6 iSignificance iof ithe istudy

The imotivation ibehind ithis iresearch iis ito iinform iZAMTEL iabout ithe iimpact iof
ileadership istyles ion ithe iperformance iof itheir iemployees’ iand iadvice iwhich ileadership
istyle iis ieffective iin idealing iwith itheir iemerging ichallenges. iThis istudy iis ialso imeant ito
iserve ias ia iyard istick ifor ithose ithat iimplement iand iformulate ipolicies iin ithe imobile
itelecommunication iindustry ias ithey iendeavor ito igrow ithe iindustry iand icontribute ito
idevelopment iin iboth iprivate iand ipublic isettings. iThe iacademic iworld iwill ialso ibenefit
ifrom ithis istudy ibecause iit iwill iserve ias ia ibasis ifor imore iresearch iin ithis iarea, ithe
imobile itelecommunications isector, ias iwell ias iother iservice iindustries.

4
2. iLITERATURE iREVIEW
The istudy iwill iuse ia ifunnel iapproach ito ireview irelated istudies ithat ihave ibeen idone ion
ithe itopics itransformation iand itransaction ileadership.

2.1 iIntroduction
This ichapter ireviewed ithe iliterature irelated ito ithis istudy. iRelated iliterature iis ithat iwhich
iis irelevant ito ithe iproblem, isuch ias iprevious iresearch iinvestigating ithe isame ivariables ior
ia isimilar iquestion, ireferences ior istudies iof isimilar ipractice. iTherefore, ithis istudy
ipointed iout iwhat iother ischolars ihave iwritten ion ithe isubject iof itransformational iand
itransactional ileadership ifrom ia iglobal iperspective.

2.2 iLeadership iand iPerformance

According ito iCummings iand iSchwab i(1973), iLeadership iis iperhaps ithe imost iinvestigated
iorganizational ivariable ithat ihas ia ipotential iimpact ion iemployee iperformance. iFor ithe
istrength iof ian iorganization ijob isatisfaction iplays ia ivital irole iwhich ihas isignificant
ieffect ion iemployee iperformance. iWalumba iand iHartnell i(2011) isuggests ithat ithe iword
iperformance iis iused ito ipass ion ithe iindividual iaptitude ito ibe iinspired, istirring,
ipioneering iand ito ideterminant ito iachieving ithe igoals ion ian iorganization. iBass i(1990)
iand iBurns i(1978) isuggest ithat istrong ileaders ioutperform iweak ileaders, iand ithat
itransformational ileadership igenerates ihigher iperformance ithan itransactional ileadership.
iThe iresearcher iaim iis ito idiscuss iwhether ior inot ithe itransformational
ileadership/transactional ileadership idoes ireally istimulate ithe iemployees ifor ihigher
iperformance. iFrom ithis iwe ican iconclude ithat itransformational ileadership istimulate
ihigher iperformance.

Cummings iand iSchwab i(1973) isuggest ithat iin iorder ifor ian iorganization ito iperform ian
iindividual imust iset iaside ihis ipersonal igoals, iat ileast iin ipart, ito istrive ifor ithe icollective
igoals iof ithe iorganization. iEmployees iare iof iparamount iimportance ito ithe iachievement
iof iany iorganization iand ihence ieffective ileadership ienables igreater iparticipation iof ithe
ientire iworkforce, iand ican ialso iinfluence iboth iindividual iand iorganizational iperformance
i(Bass, i1997; iMullins, i1999). iFor ian ieffective iorganization, ithere imust ibe ieffective iand
istimulating irelations ibetween ithe ipeople iinvolved iin ithe iorganization i(Paulus iet ial.
i1996). iIt iis igenerally iaccepted ithat ithe ieffectiveness iof ipeople iis ilargely idependent ion

5
ithe iquality iof iits ileadership iand ihence ieffective ileader ibehavior ifacilitates ithe
iattainment iof ithe ifollower’s idesires, iwhich iresults iin ieffective iperformance i(Fiedler iand
iHouse, i1988). iPrevious istudy iresults ishows ithat ithere iis ia ipositive irelation ibetween
isatisfied iemployees iand iorganization, ias ithe iperformance iof ithe isatisfied iemployees iare
imore iproductive ifor ithe iorganization ithen iless isatisfied iemployees i(Ostroff,1992).
iLeadership iis iconnected iwith iemployee iperformance i(Ogbonna iand iHarris i2000). iThe
imain iidea iof ievery iorganization iis ito ienhance iemployee iperformance. iHowell, iMerenda
i(1999) iand iGoodwin i(2001) isuggested ithat itransformational ileadership iplays ian
iimperative irole iin iincreasing ijob isatisfaction ias iwell ias irole iplay ito iachieve
iorganization’s igoal iand iemployees iacts.

Transformational ileadership icorrelated iwith isubordinate iskills iwith iwork iworth ito iassess
iemployees’ iperformance ias istated iby iWalumbwa, iAvolio iand iZhu i(2008). iAccording ito
iOzaralli i(2002), iOrganizations iincrease iemployee’s iperformance iby igiving iempowerment
ito itheir iteam imembers. iResearchers ihave istudied ithat ithe iemployee iperformance iis
iincreased iunder ithe iextraverted ileadership iwhen iemployees iare ipassive iand ithe iresult
iwill ibe iopposite iif iemployees iare iproactive i(Grant, iGino iand iHofmann, i2011).
iResearchers ihave ialso istudied ithe iemployees’ iperformance iwith ivariety iof ivariables.
iOpren i(1996) iobserved ithat, isatisfied iemployees inot ionly ibe ithe icause iof iincreasing
iemployee iperformance ibut ialso ithey idon’t ithink ito ileave iorganization. iSu, iBaird iand
iBlair i(2009) ifeels, ithe ilevel iof iproductivity iwill ibe ihigh iwhen ithe iemployees iare
isatisfied. iAccording ito iBiswas i(2009), ithe isupporting istyle iof imanager ialso iplays
iincredible irole ifor iincreasing iemployee’s iperformance.

Transformational ileadership ioriginated ifrom icharismatic ileadership. iHouse i(1997) isuggests

ithat ithe ipersonal icharacteristics iof ithe icharismatic ileader iinclude ia ihigh idegree iof iself-
confidence, istrong imoral iconvictions, iand ia itendency ito iinfluence iothers ias iwell ias
iengaging iin iimpression imanagement ibehaviors ito iboost itrust iand iconfidence iin ithe
ileader. iFurthermore, ithe iarticulation iof ia imission, isetting ichallenging igoals, iand
iarousing imotives iare ialso iimportant. iBurns i(1998) iwas ithe ifirst iperson iwho iidentified
ithe iconcept iof itransformational ileadership. iHe isuggested ithat itransformational ileadership
iis iobserved iwhen ileaders iencourage ifollowers ito iboost iup ithe ilevel iof itheir imotivation,

6
imorals, ibeliefs, iperceptions, iand icoalition iwith ithe iobjectives iof ithe iorganization. iBass
i(1995) iproposed ia inew itheory iof itransformational ileadership iand ioutlined iits
icomponents. iTransformational ileadership iengages ifollowers iby iappealing ito itheir iupper
ilevel ineeds iand iideas ithat iyield ihigher ilevels iof ifollower isatisfaction iand iperformance
i(Bass, i1985; iBryman, i1992). iAccording ito iSchepers iet ial. i(2005), itransformational
ileaders iallow iemployees ito ithink icreatively iand ianalyze ithe iproblem ifrom inumerous
iangles iand iexplore inew iand ibetter isolutions iof ithe iproblem. iGill iet ial. i(2016)
isuggested ithat iorganizations ican ireduce ijob istress iand iburn iout iby iapplying
itransformational ileadership.

Transformational ileadership ifocuses ion imore isensitive iside iof iorganizational iinteractions
ilike ivision, iculture, ivalues, idevelopment, iteamwork, iand iservice i(Fairholm, i2001). iBass
i(1998) iclaims ithat iby iemphasizing ithe isymbolic iand iexpressive iaspects iof itask igoal
iefforts iand ithe iimportant ivalues iinvolved, ithe itransformational ileader imakes ithe
idifference. iThere iare ithree imechanisms iin iTransformational iLeadership: iLeaders igive
ivalues ito itheir isubordinates, imotivate itheir isubordinates iand ipersuade iin imounting ior
ivarying ifollowers’ ineeds i(William, iRichards, iSteers iand iJames, i1995). iTransformational
ileadership iis icomprised iof ifour icentral icomponents. iBass i(1985) isuggests ithat iCharisma
iis ithe ikey icomponent iof itransformational ileadership iand iit igenerates iprofound iemotional
iconnection ibetween ithe ileader iand ifollower. iAccording ito iBass iand iAvolio i(1990)
iCharisma iis ioperational ithrough ivision iwhere ithe icharismatic ileader iearns ithe irespect
iand itrust iof ifollowers, iwhich ileads ito ithe iacceptance iof ichallenging igoals. iThe isecond
itransformational icomponent iis iinspiration iwhere ileaders iprovides ifollowers iwith
ichallenges iand imeaning ifor iengaging iin ishared igoals iand iundertakings i(Bass iand
iAvolio, i1990). iAnother imajor icomponent iof itransformational ileadership iis iindividualized
iconsideration, ithe ileader ifirst iidentifies ithe iindividual ineeds iand iabilities iof ifollowers
iand ithen imentors iand icoaches ithem, iand ialso iuses idelegation i(Bass iand iAvolio, i1990).
iThe ifinal itransformational icomponent iis iintellectual istimulation, ithe ileader ihelps
ifollowers ito ithink ion itheir iown iand ianalyze iproblems ifrom itheir ipersonal iperspectives,
iencourages icreativity, iinnovation, iand ichallenge iconventional iwisdom i(Bass iand iAvolio,
i1990).

7
Most iof ithe iresearchers ihad iassociated itransformational ileadership iwith iemployee’s
iperformance iand ijob isatisfaction iand iargued ithat itransformational ileadership ican ibe ithe
ibest ipredictor iof iemployee iperformance i(Raja iand iPalanichamy, i2011). iTransformational
iculture iboosts iboth ithe iorganization iand ithe iemployee’s iperformance iwithout ienforcing
iextra iburden i(Schlotz, i2009). iPrior iresearcher ihas idemonstrated ithat ifollowers iwho iwork
iunder itransformational ileaders iare imotivated iand icommitted iwhich ifacilitates itheir
isatisfaction iwith ijobs i(Givens, i2008). iMasi iand icook i(2000) ibelieved ithat
itransformational ileadership istyle iis ionly ithe ifactor iof iincreasing iemployee iproductivity.
iHowever, iParry iand iThomson i( i2012) iclaimed ithat iit iis iimportant ito iadopt ithe
iappropriate ileadership istyle ifor ithe isuccess iof ian iorganization iand iexamining, ipraising
iand iassessing ia ileader ido inot itruly iassures ithe ifollowers’ ihonesty iin ithis icase
itransformational ileadership ibecomes iinapplicable.

According ito iKuhnert iand iLewis i(1997), itransactional ileadership iis ian iexchange ibetween
ifollowers iand ileaders idesired ioutcomes iby ifulfilling ithe ileader’s iinterest iand ifollowers’
iexpectations, iwhich iinvolves ipromises ior icommitments iembedded iby irespect iand itrust.
iBass i(2000) isuggested ithat ieffective ileaders iaccommodate ithe iinterests iof itheir
isubordinates iby igiving icontingent iincentives, ihonor iand ipromises ifor ithose iwho
iauspiciously isucceeded iin ifulfilling ithe icommitments iof ithe ileaders ior ithe iorganization.
iOn ithe iother ihand, iBryman i(1992) iargues ithat itransactional ileadership ibehaviors ido inot
ieven iqualify ifor ia i“true” ileadership ilabel ibecause iof ithe ifact ithat ithe ileader iand
ifollower iagree, iexplicitly ior iimplicitly, ithat idesired ifollower ibehaviours iwill ibe
irewarded, iwhile iundesirable ibehaviors iwill idraw iout ipunishment. iHe istates ithat isince iit
iis ibased ion iexchange, itransactional ileadership idoes inot iseek ito imotivate ifollowers. i

Bass i(2005) iinsists ithat, ito ibe ieffective, ileaders ineed ito idemonstrate ifeatures iof iboth
itransactional iand itransformational ileadership. iHowell iand iMerenda i(1999) iconducted
itheir iresearch ion itransactional ileadership iin iforecasting iemployees’ iperformance iand
iconcluded ithat itransactional ileadership istyle iis ia ipositive ipredictor iof ifollower’s
iperformance. iGadot i(2017) iclaimed ithat ithe itransactional ileadership istyle iis iweakly
iassociated iwith iperformance. iPonce iet ial. i(2016) iIndicated ithat ithere iis ia idominance iof
ithe itransactional ileadership istyle iover itransformational istyle. iHalpin iet ial i(2016)

8
isuggested ithat ileadership ibehaviors iand iteam iperformance ioutcomes irevealed ithat
itransactional ileadership ibehavior iis isignificantly irelated ito iteam iperformance. iAccording
ito iJung iet ial. i(1999), ito imake itransactional ileadership imore ieffective, iappropriate iusage
iof icontingent ireward iis ian iimportant ifeedback ito iassemble iexpectations iwith ifollowers
iin iterm iof itheir iperformance.

Janssen iand iYperen i(2014) iacknowledged ithat itransactional ileadership iassists ithe
iefficiency iby ienhancing iinnovative ijob iperformance iand ijob isatisfaction. iFrom ithis iwe
ican iconclude ithat isome iauthors ibelieve ithat itransactional ileadership istimulates ihigher
iperformance iand isome ibelieve ithat iit iis iweakly iassociated iwith iperformance.

Empirical ievidence ireviewed itends ito isupport ithe iview ithat ileaders iwill imaximize itheir
ieffectiveness iwhen ithey iexhibit iboth itransformational iand itransactional ibehaviors i(Avolio
iet ial, i1988; iBass iand iYammarino, i1989). iBass iand iAvolio i(1994) iand iRistow i(2018)
iconducted iresearch iin idifferent ienvironments iand ifound ithat itransformational ileadership
ihas ia ipositive iinfluence ion iemployee iperformance, iand itherefore iorganizational
iperformance. iResearch iconducted iby iPruijn iand iBoucher i(2014) ishowed ithat
itransformational ileadership iis ian iextension iof itransactional ileadership. iBass iand iAvolio
i(1994) istated ithat ithe idifference ibetween ithese itwo imodels iis ithat ifollowers iof
itransformational ileadership iexhibit iperformance iwhich iis ibeyond iexpectations, iwhile
itransactional ileadership, iat ibest, ileads ito iexpected iperformance i.Ristow i(2018) isuggested
ithat itransactional ileaders iwere ieffective iin imarkets iwhich iwere icontinually igrowing iand
iwhere ithere iwas ilittle ior ino icompetition, ibut ithis iis inot ithe icase iin ithe imarkets iof
itoday, iwhere icompetition iis ifierce iand iresources iare iscarce. iBrand iet ial. i(2010) ihas
iclearly ishown ithat itransformational ileaders iare imore ieffective ithan itransactional ileaders.
iBrand iet ial. i(2017) ishowed ithe ievidence igathered iin iSouth iAfrican iretail iand
imanufacturing isectors, iand ialso iin ithe iarmed iforces iof ithe iUnited iStates, iCanada iand
iGermany, ipoints itowards ithe imarginal iimpact itransactional ileaders ihave ion ithe
iperformance iof itheir ifollowers iin icontrast ito ithe istrong, ipositive ieffects iof
itransformational ileaders.

9
3.0 iMETHODOLOGY
The imethodology ilays iout ia iplan ion ihow idata iwill ibe icollected ias iwell iemphasizes ithe
iresearch idesign ithat iwill ibe iused iin ithe istudy.

3.1 iResearch idesign

The itype iof iresearch idesign ithat iwill ibe iused iin ithis istudy iis iquantitative iresearch
idesign, isurvey imethod. iThe ipresent istudy iis iquantitative iin inature ibecause iI iwill iuse
iquantitative idata iwhich iis icollected ithrough iquestionnaire. iPositivism iparadigm iwill ibe
iused iin ithis istudy ias iit iwill ipreempt iunderstanding iof ithe iideology iof imultiple
iparticipants iin itheir ilocations iand iwork iplace. iThe isurvey idesign iis ichosen ibecause iit
iprovides ia iquantitative idescription iof itrends, iattitudes, ior iopinions iof ia ipopulation iby
istudying ia isample iof ithat ipopulation iso ithat, iit ican ibest ishow ithe ilevel iof irelation
ibetween ileadership istyles iand iemployees iperformance.

3.2 iSampling itechnique iand imeasures

The ilevel iof ileadership iqualities ipossessed iby ileaders iand ithe isubordinates iin iZAMTEL
iwill ibe idetermined iby ithe iquestionnaires idistributed ito ia irandom isample iof iemployees.
iHence ileaders ias iwell ias itheir isubordinates iwill ibe ithe iparticipants iof ithe istudy.
iQuestionnaires iwill ibe idistributed ito ia isample ipopulation iof i50.All ithe iquestions iwill
ibe iclose-ended iand iare imeasured iusing iLikert’s iFive iPoint iscaling iranging ifrom i“1”
i(Strongly idisagree) ito i“5” i(Strongly iagree). iThe iadvantage iof iusing iclose iended
iquestions iis ithat ithe iresults ican ibe ipresented iin ithe iform iof istatistics iand ianswers ican
ibe ipre-coded iso ithat ithe iresponses ican ibe ifed iinto ia icomputer. iPilot isurvey iwill ibe
iconducted ito icheck iif ithere iany iproblem iin ithe iquestionnaire ibefore ithe ireal
iinvestigation iand ithe ifinal iversion iof ithe iquestionnaire iis iset iup. iThe itransformational
ileadership iwill ibe imeasured iby ithe ifollowing icomponents i– iIdealized iattributes,
iidealized ibehavior, iintellectual isimulation, iconfidence, iindividual iconsideration iand
iinspirational imotivation. iThe itransactional ileadership iwill ibe imeasured iby ithe ifollowing
icomponents i– icontingent ireward iand imanagement iby iexception i(active). iThe
iperformances imeasures ito ibe iincluded iin ithis istudy iare iextra ieffort, ieffectiveness iand
isatisfaction.

10
3.3 iData iCollection iInstruments, iVariables iand iMaterials
As ia iprimary idata icollection iinstrument iquestionnaires iwill ibe idistributed ito ia irandom
isample iof iemployees. iThe istudy iwill ialso imake iuse iof isecondary isources iof idata isuch
ias irelevant ibooks iin ileadership iand irelated iareas. iThe idata iwill ibe ianalyzed iwith ithe
ihelp iof idescriptive istatistics iand imultiple iregression ianalysis ito ifind iout ithe imost
irelevant ileadership istyles iand irelationship iof ithese ileadership istyles iwith ithe iselected
ioutcomes isuch ias iextra ieffort, ieffectiveness iand isatisfaction.

After icollecting ithe idata ifrom ithe iparticipants, iSPSS isoftware iwill ibe iused ifor ithe idata
ianalysis. iAfter irecording ithe idata iinto iSPSS isoftware, iDescriptive istatistic iwill ibe iused
ito iget ithe ioverall isummary iof ithe ivariables. iIn ithe itable iof idescriptive istatistic, ithe
ivalues iof imean, iStandard ideviation iand ialso ithe imaximum iand iminimum ivalues iwill ibe
iobtained ifor ileadership iand iperformance ivariables iwhich iwould idefine ithe iresponse irate
iof ithe irespondent. i

Descriptive istatistical ianalyses iwill ibe iperformed ito imeasure igeneral idemographic
icharacteristics iof ithe isample iincluding iage, igender, iand iyears iof itenure iwith ithe
icompany. iThese ianalyses iare iunrelated ito iresearch iquestions ior ihypotheses ibut ithey iare
idiscretionary iand iexploratory iin inature. iThe iresearcher ibelieves ithat isome iof ithis
idemographic iinformation imay ibe iuseful iand iif iany iof ithe idata iproves iinteresting ior
isignificant iin iany iway iit imay ibe ian iarea ifor ifuture iresearch ibut iit iis inot ithe ifocus iof
ithis istudy. iSecondly, itotal iscores iwill ibe ianalyzed. iFinally ito itest ithe ihypotheses
iframed ifor ithe irelationship ibetween idependent iand iindependent ivariables iand ito icheck
ithe ivalue ithat ihow imuch ichange icomes iin idependent ivariable idue ito iindependent
ivariable, imultiple iregression ianalysis iwill ibe iused

3.4 iEthics
According ito iBouma iand iAtkinson i(1995), iissues iof iethics iare icrucial iin isocial iscience
iresearch. iThe istudy iwill iensure ithat iethics iare iadhered iby itaking iinto iconsideration ithe
ifollowing iethics: iInformed iconsent; iPrivacy; iConfidentiality; iand iAnonymity.

11
REFERENCES
Ashforth, iB. iE. i(1989). iThe iexperience iof ipowerlessness iin iorganizations. iOrganizational
iBehavior iand iHuman iDecision iProcesses, i43, i207-242.

Avolio, iB. iJ., iBass, iB. iM., i& iJung, iD. iI. i(1999). iRe-examining ithe icomponents iof
itransformational iand itransactional ileadership iusing ithe imultifactor ileadership
iquestionnaire. iJournal iof iOccupational iand iOrganizational iPsychology. i2(4), i441-
462.

Avolio, iB. iJ., iZhu iW., iKoh, iW., i& iBhatia, iP. i(2004). iTransformational ileadership iand
iorganizational icommitment: iMediating irole iof ipsychological iempowerment iand
imoderating irole iof istructural idistance. iJournal iof iOrganizational iBehaviour, i25,
i951-968.

Baron, iR. iM., i& iKenny, iD. iA. i(1986). iThis imoderator-mediator ivariable idistinction iin
isocial ipsychological iresearch: iConceptual, istrategic, iand istatistical iconsiderations.
iJournal iof iPersonality iand iSocial iPsychology, i51(6), i1173- i1182.

Bartram, iT., i& iCasimir, iG. i(2007). iThe irelationship ibetween ileadership iand ifollower
iinrole iperformance iand isatisfaction iwith ithe ileaders: iThe imediating ieffects iof
iempowerment iand itrust iin ithe ileader. iLeadership i& iOrganization iDevelopment
iJournal, i28(1), i4-19.

Bass, iB. iM. i(1985). iLeadership iand iperformance ibeyond iexpectations. iNY: iFree iPress
iNew iYork.

Bass, iB. iM. i(1994). iTransformational ileadership iand iteam iand iorganizational idecision
imaking. iCA: iSage iThousand iOaks. iRelationship ibetween iTransformational
iLeadership, iEmpowerment iand iOrganizational iCommitment iBusiness iand
iEconomics iResearch iJournal

2(1)2011 i104

Bass, iB. iM. i(1999). iTwo idecades iof iresearch iand idevelopment ion itransformational
ileadership. iEuropean iJournal iof iWork i& iOrganizational iPsychology, i8(1), i9-32.

12
Bass, iB., i& iAvolio, iB. i(1993). iTransformational ileadership iand iorganizational iculture.
iPublic iAdministration iQuarterly, i17, i112-121.

Bass, iB. iM., i& iAvolio, iB. i(1994). iImproving iorganizational ieffectiveness ithrough
itransformational iLeadership. iCA: iSage iThousand iOaks.

Bono, iJ. iE., i& iJudge, iT. iA. i(2003). iSelf-concordance iat iwork: iToward iunderstanding
ithe imotivational ieffects iof itransformational ileaders. iAcademy iof iManagement
iJournal, i46(5), i554-571.

Bono, iJ. iE., i& iJudge, iT. iA. i(2005). iThe iadvice iand iinfluence inetworks iof
itransformational ileaders. iJournal iof iApplied iPsychology, i90(6), i1306–1314.

Breaugh, iJ. i(1985). iThe imeasurement iof iwork iautonomy. iHuman iRelations, i38(6), i551-
570.

Bryman, iA. i(1992). iCharisma iand ileadership iin iorganization. iLondon: iSage

Publications.

Burns, iJ. i(1978). iLeadership. iNew iYork: iHarper i& iRow.

Bycio, iP., iHacket, iR. iD., i& iAllen, iJ. iS. i(1995). iFurther iassessment iof iBass’s i(1985)
iconceptualization iof itransactional iand itransformational ileadership. iJournal iof
iApplied iPsychology. i80, i468-478.

Casimir, iG., iWaldman, iD., iBartram, iT., i& iYang, iS. i(2006). iTrust iand ithe
irelationshipbetween ileadership iand ifollower iperformance: iOpening ithe iblack ibox
iin iAustralia iand iChina. iJournal iof iLeadership iand iOrganizational iStudies, i12,

72-88.

Cohen, iA., i& iKirchmeyer, iC. i(1995). iA imultidimensional iapproach ito ithe irelation
ibetween iorganizational icommitment iand inonwork iparticipation. iJournal iof
iVocational iBehavior, i46(2), i189-202.

Cresswell, iJ. iW. i(1998). iQualitative iinquiry iand iresearch idesign: iChoosing iamong ifive
itraditions. iLondon: iSAGE ipublications.

13
BUDGET
Item Quantity Amount i(k)
Paper 2 irims 150
Stationery Assorted 100
Transport 300
Communication 100
Printing iand iphotocopying 250
Book icover 2 200
Binding 2 250

TOTAL 1,350

WORK iPLAN
Activity
Month JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Key

Proposal: iChapter i1 i

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i iChapter i2 iand i3 i

Data icollection: i

Data ianalysis: i

Final ipresentation:

Printing iand iSubmission:

14