An evaluation of the impact of Leadership Styles on Employees activities

INTRODUCTION   

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of leadership style on employee performance  in private  companies  and governmental  agencies in  Malaysia.  Leadership is simply  “the  art  of  influencing  people  so  that  they  will  strive  willingly  towards  the achievement  of  goals”  (Igbaekemen, 2014). Leadership plays a crucial role in creating  an enthusiastic  atmosphere  and  culture  in  an  organization proclaimed that effective leadership style could promote excellence in the development of the members of the organisation. According to Skoogh (2014), it is safe to say that leadership has played an important role since the dawn of history of mankind.  Since corporations strive to search great leaders that can lead them to success, endless efforts have been  put out by researchers to  identify how best  leaders operate. As a result, many  leadership  theories  had  been  developed  over  the  years.  Lewin’s  Leadership  Style (1939) identified  that there are  three different leadership styles; democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire  (Billig,  2015).  In  1964,  “Grid”  was  established  by  Robert  Blake  and  Jane Mouton (Molloy, 1998).  Hersey and Blanchard (1969) developed a leadership theory that is now  known  as  the  situational  leadership  theory  (McCleskey,  2014).  In  1970’s, transformational theory which focused on motivations and values in measuring how leaders approach power was  developed by Burns (1978)  and was  later expanded by Bass  (1985) (Levine,  2000). Bass  (1985)  transformational  leadership  theory  focused  on how  a  leader influences followers by his/her qualities (Levine, 2000).   The importance of leadership style is not unknown and it is shown by a significant number of studies that have been conducted on leadership style in developed and developing countries  Lewin’s leadership style, however, appears to be a significant  subject  where  leadership  style  is  concerned  as  various  studies  have  been conducted on  Lewin’s  leadership style.  In Malaysia particularly, similar kind of studies have also been conducted.  In Malaysia, employees especially in  governmental agencies are long criticized for poor performance, lack of flexibility, inefficiency, poor accountability and red tape (Said, et al., 2015). Leadership in Malaysia has  long been linked with preference for hierarchy and relationship (Ansari, et al., 2004). According to Hofstede (2001), Malaysia is best known as a place where leaders have the most authority and power, laws and regulations are set by the leaders, and leaders control and they are the decision maker (Jayasingam & Cheng, 2009). As stated by Ansari, et al. (2004), Malaysian employees are obliged to obey, implement and they do not allowed disagreeing with their leaders. “Seniors (superiors or elders) are respected and obeyed. They are the decision-makers and subordinates are obliged to implement. In general, societal  norm  dictates that juniors  do not disagree with seniors.  Thus anger and hostility against a superior are suppressed and displaced, and the tendency is to appease the superior” (Ansari, et al., 2004; Jayasingam & Cheng, 2009).   This research sought to investigate and understand the impact of different leadership styles (autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire) and their effects on employee performance in organization. After completion the study on this topic, this  research will  be beneficial  for employees to identify which leadership style is good for them in terms of work satisfaction and the success of their careers. It can be beneficial for leaders to understand which types of leadership  impacts on  employee performance  and how  employees can  also be  motivated through proper leadership. It is helpful to  companies  in Malaysia  too in identifying great leaders that can improve performance of the company and lead the company to great success.  Research Objectives  To examine the impact of Democratic Leadership Style on Employee Performance  To examine the impact of Autocratic Leadership Style on Employee Performance  To examine the impact of Laissez-Faire Leadership Style on Employee Performance

 2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW 

 Tannenbaum,  Weschler  and  Mussarik  (1961)  defined  leadership  as  “interpersonal influence exercised in a situation and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of the specialized goal or goals” ( cited in Ali, 2012). According to Northouse (2004), leadership is directing a  group of people  to accomplish  designated goal  ( cited  in Packard,  2009).  Yukl  (2008)  defined  leadership  as  a  process  where  one  person  exerted influence intentionally to a group of people in an organization through relationship, structure, and guide. Leadership, as defined by Gharibvand (2012) is how the leader communicates in general  and  relates  to  people,  the  way  in  which  the  leader  motivates  and  trains  the subordinates and the way leaders provides  direction to his/her team to execute their  tasks. Sharma & Jain (2013) defined  leadership as  a process of which a person  influences other people to accomplish an objective and directing in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent.    Dahl (1989) and Fishkin (1991) proclaimed that democratic leadership influences people in a manner  consistent  with  the  basics  of  democratic  principles  and  processes,  such  as deliberation, equal participation, inclusiveness and self-determination (cited in Gastil, 1994). According to White & Lippitt (1960), democratic leaders actively encourage and stimulate group decisions and group discussions defined characteristic of democratic leaders as influential, helpful, knowledgeable, a good listener, encouraging, guiding, respecting and situation-centered ( cited in Ray & Ray, 2012). Mullins (1999) stated that democratic leadership style centralised more on people and interaction is greater within the group (cited in Puni, et al., 2014).  In accordance to Khan, et al. (2015), autocratic leadership is where manager retains as much power and decision-making authorisation  as possible. Melling & Little (2004) stated that autocratic leaders are high-handed leaders and are the centre of every activities that go on in the establishment and all authority emanated from them and ends with them (cited in Akor, 2014). According to  Iqbal, et al. (2015),  autocratic  leaders are  characterized  by an  “I  tell” philosophy;  autocratic  leaders tell  other people what  to do.  Nwankwo  (2001)  and Enoch (1999)  described  autocratic  style  as  a  leadership  style  where  leaders  exclusively  make decisions and production is emphasized at the expense of any human consideration (cited in Akor, 2014).  Deluga  (1992)  proclaimed  that  laissez-faire  leadership  style  is  associated  with unproductiveness, ineffectiveness and dissatisfaction (cited in Koech & Namusonge, 2012). According to Bass & Avolio (1997) and Hartog & Van Muijen (1997), laissez faire leaders avoid  making  decisions,  the provision  of  rewards  and the  provision  of  positive/negative feedback  to subordinates  (cited  in Mester,  et al.,  2003).  Jones &  Rudd (2007)  described laissez-faire leadership as leadership in an inactive form characterized by unwillingness to be actively  involved  and  a  view  that  the  best  leadership  comes  from  disassociation  from activities. Cilliers, Van Eeden & Van Deventer (2008) stated that these leaders avoid active participation  in responsibility  of goals  setting and  avoid  being  involved  when  leadership direction is needed. Kurt  Lewin  and  colleagues  defined three classical styles of leadership in decision making: autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. Gastil  (1994)  proclaimed  that  democratic  leaders  believe  in  group participation and majority  rule in the decision making, autocratic  leadership style imposes tight control and expects obedience and laissez-faire leadership style has low involvement of activities, leaving matters to their followers and very little involvement in decisions making. “Grid” was first established by Robert Blake and Jane  Mouton  and  was  published in 1964 (Molloy, 1998). Blake and Mouton’s  (1982)  managerial grid reflected two dimensions of  leadership;  “Concern  for People”  reflecting  to the  degree to  which  leader care  for  team member’s  needs,  areas  of  personal  development  and  interest  when  deciding  how  best  to achieve goal, whereas  “Concern  for Production” refers to  the degree  how leader  focuses on company productivity, efficiency and objectives when deciding