INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT LUCKNOW

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANAGER’S LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR

AND EMPLOYEES’ JOB SATISFACTION AND PERFORMANCE

SUBMITTED TO

PROFESSOR SHAILENDRA SINGH

DATE OF SUBMISSION

11TH SEPTEMBER 2022

SUBMISSION BY
JAYADEEP ANDE - PGP38112
DILEEP CHINTALAPUDI - PGP38122
KUSHAGRA MANOJ DWIVEDI - PGP38132
S BALAKRISHNA - PGP38142
MILANKUMAR SORATHIYA - PGP38152
VISHNU PRASAD DALAI - PGP38162

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to express our gratitude to Prof. Shailendra Singh for providing us with the
opportunity to work on this project. Special thanks to sir for his guidance and mentorship,
which enabled us to complete the project. He kept us motivated by encouraging us to think
outside the box and in the right direction. Moreover, we would like to offer our heartfelt
gratitude and appreciation to everyone who took their valuable time and consented to be part
of our research survey.

2
 CONTENTS

ABSTRACT..............................................................................................................................4

KEYWORDS............................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................4

LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................5

HYPOTHESIS...........................................................................................................................8

METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................8

DATA ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................10

INSIGHTS.............................................................................................................................11

RESULTS...............................................................................................................................12

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................17

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................18

3
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the leadership behaviours
of managers and the impact those behaviours have on the job satisfaction and performance
of people working for those managers. The information needed for this study would come
from people who are currently employed, as well as MBA students who have had recent work
experience. This information would include details on how managers evaluate their
employees' work performance as well as employees' overall levels of job satisfaction. The
successful completion of this project will assist project managers in the past, present, and
future in exhibiting effective leadership behaviours.

KEYWORDS

Manager Leadership Behaviour, Employee Job Performance, Employee Job Satisfaction

INTRODUCTION

The goal of management in an organization is to execute a set of pre-defined tasks as per

plan and achieve set objectives. Managers are the ones who will be responsible for taking
necessary actions aligned with the set objectives and plans. A leader is one who can make
people follow the right or wrong deeds with appearance and personality and is able to
transform his/her ideas. It will be a false claim that all managers have a character of
leadership, but the most effective managers are the ones who inculcate leadership quality in
long term.

Examining the different dimensions of the leadership behaviour of the managers has become
a focus of interest and research in sociological and organizational aspects. A number of
models have been developed to study factors affecting the leadership behaviour of
managers. In this study, the main objective is to find out the impact of leadership behaviour
of the managers on job satisfaction and employee performance.
4
A leader can choose between task-oriented to relations-oriented styles to deal with his/her
objectives and workforce and in doing so he/she influences the job satisfaction &
performance of his/her team members. The primary factors that determine how a manager
may vary his/her behaviour accordingly are an assessment of the competence and
commitment of his/her subordinates. The assessment of these factors determines if a
manager should use a more directive (task-oriented) or supportive (relations-oriented) style
to become more effective. The hypothesis of this study is developed based on those
managerial leadership traits and their impact on job satisfaction and employee performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There are certain leadership behaviours displayed by successful leaders which could be
learned with practice. These behaviours are learnt with practice. They are not inherited or
possessed from birth. This forms the crux of the behavioural school of leadership trait. It is
suggested that no single leadership style is better than another. Leaders adjust their styles
according to the situation, environment, and the people they lead and their abilities. This is
also known as Situational Leadership Theory. A leader chooses one of 4 styles depending
upon his employees’ readiness. If employees are unable and unwilling to do a task, the
leader should need to specify clear and specific instructions. If employees are able and
unwilling, leader needs to use supporting and participative style. If they are both able and
willing, the leader doesn’t need to do much. SLT has intuitive appeal and the employees are
considered to play an important role. (Blake & Mouton, 1964) & (Hersey & Blanchard,
1988).
It is further proposed that these behaviours could be practiced in different circumstances,
based on the prevailing contingencies. (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006)
Leadership behaviour has been broadly qualified into two types. Task oriented behaviour
includes activities related to planning, coordinating tasks, and providing technical assistance.
It has also been termed as “Production-oriented Behaviour”, “Achievement-oriented
Behaviour” (Bowers & Seashore, 1966).
Leaders that are task-oriented focus on completing the essential task or sequence of tasks to
reach a goal. Typically, these leaders are less concerned with accommodating staff and
more focused on discovering the step-by-step solution required to achieve specified

5
objectives. They frequently establish the required work and roles, implement structures, and
plan, organize, and monitor the team's progress. The benefit of task-oriented leadership is
that it guarantees deadlines are fulfilled and tasks are finished, which is especially beneficial
for team members with poor time management. In addition, these sorts of leaders typically
demonstrate a solid awareness of how to get the task done, focusing on the appropriate
workplace procedures, and allocating work correctly to ensure that everything is completed in
a timely and efficient manner. Since task-oriented leaders rarely consider their team's well-
being, this style can suffer from many of the weaknesses of autocratic leadership, including
motivation and retention issues.
In relations-oriented leadership behaviour, the managers are more focused on their
relationship with their employees. Hence, they show more trust, confidence, act friendly
towards their employees. They try to understand their employees’ problems (Yukl, 2010). It's
also referred to as "people-oriented" (Fleishman, 1967), "interaction-oriented" (Blake &
Mouton, 1964), or "interaction-focused" behaviour.
Relationship-oriented leaders are committed to supporting, inspiring, and developing their
teams' members and their connections. This style of leadership supports effective teamwork
and collaboration by building pleasant connections and clear communication. Relationship-
focused leaders place a premium on the well-being of all members of the group and will
devote time and energy to meeting the specific needs of everyone. This may involve offering
incentives such as bonuses, providing mediation to resolve workplace or classroom conflicts,
engaging in more casual interactions with team members to learn about their strengths and
weaknesses, creating a non-competitive and transparent work environment, or simply being
a personable and motivating leader.
The advantage of relationship-focused leadership is that team members are in an
environment where the leader is concerned with their well-being. Relationship-focused
executives recognize that fostering positive productivity necessitates a motivating
atmosphere. Personal disputes, discontent with a work, resentment, and even boredom can
have a significant impact on productivity; thus, these leaders put people first to guarantee
that these issues are kept to a minimum. In addition, team members may be more inclined to
take risks if they are confident that their leader would provide support if necessary.

The disadvantage of relationship-focused leadership is that, if carried too far, the building of
team chemistry might detract from the actual tasks and objectives at hand.

6
This strategy is also known as "employee-oriented" in a corporate context. (Bowers &
Seashore, 1966).

A project manager must work in dynamic changing environment to achieve objectives and
successful completion. During the project duration, the manager has to work with certain
degree of uncertainty and risk. (Schwalbe, 2004).
Planning risk management is the process of selecting how to approach and plan for risk
management activities in a project; its primary result is a risk management plan. After
identifying and quantifying risks, the management must plan a suitable reaction. Establishing
a reaction to risks entails developing options and outlining methods for minimizing negative
risks and maximizing positive risks. The five fundamental risk reduction techniques are risk
avoidance, risk acceptance, risk transfer, risk mitigation, and risk escalation.

During uncertainty, the manager must intervene, employ measures such that employees still
function to the best of their abilities. The right behaviour according to the situation, has more
impact on job attitudes (satisfaction) and job outcomes (performance) (Jia et al., 2007).
Job Satisfaction is the set of all feelings held by an individual towards their job that increases
the fulfilment of their need needs and expectations (Stephen & Timothy, 2005). Decrease in
these may result in dissatisfaction, low morale, absenteeism, and other counterproductive
work behaviours.
Job Performance is the “goal relevant actions of an employee” (Schmitt & Borman, 1993).
Leadership behaviour is found to be directly influencing employee task performance (Tsai et
al, 2009). Different leadership behaviours and how they influence employees’ performance
was discussed in (Howell & Frost, 1989). It was also proved that leadership behaviour leads
to changes in employees’ perception of manager’s leadership behaviours (Barling et al.
1996)

7
 HYPOTHESIS

As a part of our project, we intend to validate the following hypothesis focused of establishing
relationship between Leadership behavior of manager, Job satisfaction and job performance.

H1: Leadership behavior of manager is positively related the productivity or job performance
of his employees / subordinates.
H2: Job satisfaction of an employee is positively related with his productivity or job
performance.

METHODOLOGY

QUESTIONAIRE:
To understand the relation as stated in the hypothesis, we conducted a survey with 102
participants spread across different control variables like age group, location of their job, total
duration spent in their job and their position / designation.
The questionnaire was divided into 3 major sections, each corresponding to one of the
variables related to our analysis.
Sections were as follows:
 Leadership Section
 Productivity / Job Performance Section
 Job Satisfaction Section
Each section had 10 questions with an option for the participants to provide a rating on a
scale of 1 to 5. 1 being the least agreed and 5 being the most agreed.
The purpose of the questionnaire was to get as many as responses from people working in
different sectors in the industry. This would create a base for out control variables which
would be further used in analysis of each control variable across different independent
variables.

8
THE CONTROL VARIABLES
 Gender
Category Volume % (rounded off)
Male 23 23 %
Female 79 77 %

 Age
Bin Volume % (rounded off)
20-25 42 41
26-30 31 30
31-35 18 18
36-40 4 4
40+ 7 7

 Position
Category Volume % (rounded off)
Junior 61 60
Senior 13 13
Lead 28 27

 Location of Job
Location Volume % (rounded off)
Remote 11 11
Urban 49 48
Work from home 42 41

 Duration Served
Bin Volume % (rounded off)
<1 32 31
1-3 30 29

9
 4-10 27 27
10+ 13 13

DATA ANALYSIS

The data obtained from the responses of the questionnaire was extracted using EXCEL
workbook where the analysis was performed.
The questions were majorly divided into two types i.e., positive and negative. The positive
question had a positive sentiment and hence has been called a positive question. Vice versa
for negative question. As per data analysis we needed to make the ratings uniform so that
the average rating could be calculated easily and hence the ratings for positive question was
considered directly whereas the ratings for negative questions was derived by the formula:
rating=6−(rating for negative question)
Thus, here for a negative question, example, “your manager is not very friendly”, a rating of 4
would be considered as 2 which means a low rating for the manager. On the other hand, if
the same rating was say, 1, which means that the manager is actually friendly and hence 6-1
would give 5, increasing the rating for the manager.
Post the basic data optimization, the new ratings as per the logic given above was
calculated. This was used as the base of the further analysis.
As a result of data analysis, the focus was primarily on finding the following factors:
 Average rating per question
 Average rating per independent variable
 Correlation between Leadership and Productivity
 Correlation between Productivity and Job Satisfaction
 Correlation between Leadership and Job Satisfaction
 Correlation between independent variables with respect to control variables
To find the correlation, PEARSON correlation coefficient was used as a measure to find the
correlation between the given two variables in the excel workbook. A correlation coefficient
falls between -1 and 1. Closer the value of the coefficient is to -1, more negatively related the
two variables are. Similarly, closer the value is to +1, more positively related the two
variables are. In case the coefficient comes out to be close to 0, it suggests that there lies no
relation between the two variables.
10
As per our hypothesis, we expect to have a correlation coefficient greater than 0.5 to
establish a positive relation between the given variables.
For the visualization of the results, scatter plots have mainly been used so that the insights
from the data can be captured easily.

INSIGHTS

From the research carried out, there is not much differentiation in leadership, productivity,
and satisfaction according to gender.
According to the research, the age group of 36 to 40 reported lower ratings for leadership
and production than other age groups. These could be the causes: 
1. They are unable to adapt to dynamic, ever-changing technology, resulting in low
productivity. 
2. These are the people who may hold managerial positions and may experience varied
outputs because of the market's dynamic conditions.

The control variable duration of job has not much impact on the three parameters and almost
all the groups expressed the same.

The control variable position in an organization also has not much impact on the three
independent variables.

Interestingly, for the location variable, people whose job locations are remote expressed
lesser leadership rating as compared to other groups. There might be reasons like:
The majority of remote occupations are in the manufacturing sector, which involves a lot of
hands-on work and necessitates one-on-one interactions. The managers are responsible for
organizing, leading, and planning the tasks and, in the event of a deviation, may have a
significant impact on the work of the employees that work under them. Because it is difficult
for managers to consider all the departments in this type of employment, it causes
dissatisfaction among employees, which may have led to a lower leadership rating.

11
 RESULTS

After carrying out analysis we obtained the required results which were as follows:
 Leadership Behaviour vs Job Performance

Leadership - Job Performance

6

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Correlation coefficient: 0.798

 Leadership Behaviour vs Job Satisfaction

Leadership - Job satisfaction

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Correlation coefficient: 0.587

12
  Job Performance vs Job Satisfaction

Productivity - Job satisfaction

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Correlation coefficient: 0.626

From the above scatter plots, it is evident that there exists a positive correlation between the
pair of variables.

 Gender
Leadership Productivity Job Satisfaction
Gender
Rating Rating Rating
Female 3.5 3.6 2.9
Male 3.6 3.5 2.9
Grand Total 3.6 3.6 2.9

 Age Group
Leadership Productivity Job Satisfaction
Age Group
Rating Rating Rating
20-25 3.6 3.5 2.9
26-30 3.6 3.5 2.9
31-35 3.6 3.7 3.0
36-40 3.1 3.1 2.8
40+ 3.7 3.7 2.9
Grand Total 3.6 3.6 2.9

13
  Duration of job
Leadership Productivity Job Satisfaction
Duration
Rating Rating Rating
<1 3.5 3.5 2.8
1-3 3.6 3.6 3.0
4-10 3.8 3.6 2.9
10+ 3.5 3.5 2.9
Grand Total 3.6 3.6 2.9

 Position
Position Leadership productivity Job Satisfaction
Rating Rating Rating
Junior 3.5 3.5 2.9
Senior 3.7 3.7 2.8
Lead 3.6 3.6 2.9
Grand Total 3.6 3.6 2.9

 Location
Productivity Job Satisfaction
Location Leadership Rating
Rating Rating
Remote
3.2 3.5 2.8
Location
Urban 3.6 3.5 2.9
Work from home 3.7 3.6 2.9
Grand Total 3.6 3.6 2.9

14
 Questionnaire for data sample collection

Questionnaire to assess managers leadership skills and behaviour Avg Rating

Articulate: Does your manager communicate effectively with others? 4.1

Persistent: Does your manager stays fixed with the goals despite any 3.8
interference?
Self Confident: Does your manager believe in himself / herself? 4.2

Determined: Does your manager takes firm stand and acts with certainty? 3.9

Friendly: Is your manager friendly and kind? 4.1

Sensitive: Does your manager show tolerance and sympathy? 4.0

Trustworthy: Is your manager authentic and genuine with his/her actions? 3.9

Empathetic: Does your manager understand others well? 3.9

Conscientious: Is your manager thorough and well organised? 3.9

Dependable: Is your manager reliable 4.0

Questionnaire to assess employee job performance Avg Rating

Manager thinks that : I adequately complete assigned duties. 4.2

Manager thinks that : I fulfil responsibilities as per my job description. 4.3

Manager thinks that : I perform all tasks as per the expectation of my
4.2
manager
Manager thinks that : I fail to perform essential duties. 3.9

Manager thinks that : I help others who have been absent. 4.1

Manager thinks that : I assist supervisor with his/her work. 4.1

Manager thinks that : I take unnecessary work breaks 3.9

Manager thinks that : I complaint about insignificant things at work. 3.7

Manager thinks that : I take personal interest in other employees 3.5

Manager thinks that : I give advance notice when unable to go for work. 4.1

15
Questionnaire to assess employee job satisfaction Avg Rating

There are some conditions concerning my job that could be improved 1.9

My job is like a hobby to me. 3.2

I am disappointed that I ever took this job. 3.5

I feel that I am happier in my work than most other people. 3.6

I definitely dislike my work. 3.7

I am often bored with my job. 3.1

It seems that my friends are more interested in their jobs. 3.1

My job is no more interesting than others I could get. 2.8

Most of the time I have to force myself to go to work 3.2

I find real enjoyment in my work. 3.5

16
 CONCLUSION

This research project was conducted with the objective of analyzing the impact of a
manager’s leadership behaviour on job satisfaction and performance at an organizational
level. we identified a positive association between managers' leadership behavior and
employees' behavior after collecting data samples from employees at a variety of firms and
evaluating them. Firstly, we explored the relationship between the leadership behavior of
managers and the level of job satisfaction they provided for their employees. This link was
shown to have a positive correlation with a coefficient of 0.798.  Our second objective is to
determine whether or not there is a connection between job satisfaction and job
performance. A correlation coefficient of 0.626 between job satisfaction and job performance
was found based on the sample data. This demonstrates a positive relationship between job
satisfaction and job performance. On the basis of this research, we are able to come to the
conclusion that the leadership behavior of a manager is a good predictor of job satisfaction
and job performance of an employee. With the assistance of these findings, managers will be
able to enhance their performance.

17
 REFERENCES

1. R.R. Blake, J. Mouton

The managerial grid the key to leadership excellence, leading people and
producing results
TX Gulf Publishing Company, Houston (1964)
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_73.htm

2. P. Hersey, K.H. Blanchard

Management of organisational behaviour: Utilising human resources
(5th ed.), EagleWood Cliff, N.J:Prentice-Hall (1988)

3. A.M.M. Rad, M.H. Yarmohammadian

A study of relationship between managers' leadership style and employees' job
satisfaction
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance Incorporating Leadership in Health
Services, 19 (2) (2006), pp. 11-28, 10.1108/13660750610665008

4. D.G. Bowers, S.E. Seashore

David G . Bowers and Stanley E . Seashore predicting organizational effectiveness
with a Four-factor theory of leadership
Administrative Science Quarterly, 11 (2) (1966), pp. 238-263

5. G.A. Yukl
Leadership in organizations
(7th ed.), Prentice Hall (2010), 10.1192/bjp.111.479.1009-a
Prentice Hall

6. K. Schwalbe
Information technology project management
18
 (3rd ed.), Information Technology Project Management, REVISED Sixth Edition (2004)

7. L. Jia, J. Song, C. Li, R. Cui, Y. Chen

Leadership styles and employees' job-related attitudes: An empirical study on the
mediating effects of reciprocity and trust
Frontiers of Business Research in China, 1 (4) (2007), pp. 574-605, 10.1007/s11782-007-
0033-9

8. P.R. Stephen, A.J. Timothy

Organizational behaviour. Organizational behaviour
Pearson (2005)

9. N. Schmitt, W.C. Borman

10. Personnel selection in organizations

(1st ed.), Jossey Bass Business & Management Series, Wiley (1993)

11. W.C. Tsai, H.W. Chen, J.W. Cheng

Employee positive moods as a mediator linking transformational leadership and
employee work outcomes
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (1) (2009), pp. 206-219,
10.1080/09585190802528714

12. J.M. Howell, P.J. Frost

A laboratory study of charismatic
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43 (2) (1989), pp. 243-269

13. J. Barling, T. Weber, E.K. Kelloway

Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial
outcomes: A field experiment
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (6) (1996), pp. 827-832, 10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.827

14. A.O. Agho, J.L. Price, C.W. Mueller

Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and

19
 negative affectivity.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65 (3) (1992), pp. 185-195,
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00496.x
15. P.G. Northouse
Leadership: Theory and practice
Sage publications (2018)

16. A.H. Brayfield, H.F. Rothe
An index of job satisfaction
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35 (5) (1951), pp. 307-311, 10.1097/00006199-
195402000-00016

17. L.J. Williams, S.E. Anderson
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviours
Journal of Management, 17 (3) (1991), pp. 601-617

18. L.R. Hoffman, P. Hersey, K.H. Blanchard

Management of organizational behavior
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (2) (1970), p. 264, 10.2307/2391509

19. Saif UR Rehman, Mohsin Shahzad, Muhammad Shoaib Farooq, Muhammad Umair
Javaid
Impact of leadership behaviour of a project manager on his/her subordinate's job-
attitudes and job-outcomes,
Asia Pacific Management Review, Volume 25, Issue 1,2020, Pages 38-47, ISSN 1029-
3132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2019.06.004

20