Leadership Styles and Behaviors in Institutional Contextjournal-archieves19.webs.com/744-762.pdf ·...

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

744

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Leadership Styles and Behaviors in Institutional Context

Zeeshan Ahmad Bhatti

Superior University, Lahore, Pakistan

Hafiz Ghias Ahmad


Asim Aslam


Umair Nadeem


Dr. Muhammad Ramzan


Abstract

Several studies have observed the leadership styles and behavior in institutional framework to

comprehend whether the styles and behaviors of managers are same or not. The present study

composed data from more than 24 published researches over different research channels in

various countries. It is establish that leadership style is most steady with the essential

purposes and emotional desires underlying varied groups of employees, based on unforeseen

event approaches to leadership. It is on the contrary found that in organizations with

undersized chains of command the diversity in the leadership style adept by managers might

be vague impression, whereas in organizations with extended chains of command, it will be

likely to articulated, Citrus Paribas. This study concludes a number of implications for theory

and practice.

Keywords: Leadership Styles ; Behaviors ; Institutional Context

1.0 Introduction

A great range of research on leadership has highlighted on leaders at the higher

hierarchical positions only. This was for the reason that, feasibly, so far, it was mistakenly

assumed that middle and first-level leaders have vibrantly smaller roles to contribute to

organizational achievement. However, with latest organizational models together with reform

of policymaking power to lower hierarchical levels, the development of leaders across all

hierarchical levels has come to be a desideratum intended at increasing corporate success.

The distribution of information and the general use of team work within organizations

similarly contribute to the improvement of leaders across various hierarchical levels(Lowe,

Kroeck et al. 1996).

Organizational leaders express wide deviations in the behaviors and styles which they

express at work. A number of managers used a variety of leadership styles and behaviors in

their regular events; others utilize one or two of the leadership styles or behavior levels. It

could be worthwhile to ask, and so, the scope to which seeing these variations managers can

be emotionally grouped on the foundation of the leadership styles and behavior practices

which they express on their jobs. A related query is the scope to which use of a precise

leadership style and or behavior supported to a person’s improved work performance and to

the broad satisfaction of the user, associates, managers and junior workers.

Corporations and researchers have been infatuated over the previous four decades

with leadership, and try to examine the sensation into a global set of actions (De Vries 2003).

In the modern times, a leading tactic to reviewing leadership has seemed. This is based on the

model of Transformational and Transactional leadership established by Bass (1985) and

operationalized by Bass and Avolio (1995). Strength of the model has been the difference

among sets of leadership behaviors essential in two different contexts.

ijcrb.webs.com



745

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

The diverse priorities of the dual styles of leadership arise as: strategic leadership

emphasis on the existence and achievement of the organization, its critical spectators includes

the community of personnel, its time skyline is long-lasting practice and it contains an excess

of immediate situations. While supervisory leadership emphases on the achievement of tasks,

its critical viewers consist of individuals and/or teams, its time horizon is normal- to short-

term practice and it comprises one or very few conditions(Kur 1995).

1.1 Different Leadership styles

Just as researchers are aware of that various employees show a variety of seeming

responsibility and prospects in their connections with their firm(Rousseau 1989; Robinson

1996), a related disparity exists within the leadership fiction. Namely, the leadership

literature has a striking tradition of abstracting leadership typologies. In a typical typology,

leader behaviors are preferably clustered into evident types of leadership styles. As one

primary instance, path – goal theory documented four different styles of leader behaviors—

directive leadership, supportive leadership, achievement-oriented leadership, and

participative leadership.

In an attempt to add in different views on leadership, we recommend four styles of

leadership: directive, transformational, transactional, and empowering. (Tsui, Pearce et al.

1997) have offered experiential evidence to back the idea that these four styles of leadership

are evidently changed from each other and indicate unique characteristics. Therefore, we used

this typology of leadership styles as the source of our integration. Because of their different

characteristics, these leadership styles are also expected to have variable consequences for

leader efficiency.

2.0 Literature Review

The Nature of a corporate’s human capital and the mode in which it is control can

influence employee and organization performance (Wright, McMahan et al. 1994; Wright

and Snell 1998). In addition, leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (Dansereau, Graen et

al. 1975; Duchon, Green et al. 1986; Graen and Wakabayashi 1994; Bauer and Green 1996)

tells that leaders do not traditionally involved and contact with all employees in the same

way(Sparrowe and Liden 1997; Richard, Robert et al. 1999). Likewise, situational leadership

theory(Hersey and Blanchard 1969) demands that, for the reason that the achievement of

leadership be liable on the positional variables.

A resemble effect of transformational leadership combined in this research. Effective

leadership suggests influencing the abilities, attitudes, and behaviors of admirers (Bass

1960).Leadership ways of combined-superior dyads somehow inclined to match each other.

Agreeing to (Burns 1978),the leadership process can take place in one of two manners. It is

either one transformational or transactional. The lower level supervisors are self-nominated,

nominated by their second-level manager, or administratively chosen into positions so that

they will be working very well manner as compared with their superior. Some research proof

supports the notion that supporters’ behavior or attitudes are effectively associated with those

of their leaders over time (Bowers and Seashore 1966; Ouchi and Maguire 1975).

The resemble effect consciously in the current situation due to the sub-culture of

demographically racially within which the leaders operate. Lower-level leaders, who were

professed as being more forceful by their assistants in turn, required less magnetism in their

Superiors. (Tichy and Ulrich 1984), but, took omission with Burns’s view. They projected

that charismatic/transformational leadership largely involves the development of new visions

and structural changes by top management supervisors. A better way to convey

transformational leadership training is originally to top level-managers.

Organizations and scholars have been obsessive over the previous four decades with

Leadership, and efforts to assess the phenomenon into a universal set of measures (Kets de

Vries 1993; Higgs and Aitken 2003; Jones and Goffee 2006). To discover the new

ijcrb.webs.com



746

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Leadership Dimension questionnaire and a mutual framework for assessing an individual’s

leadership style regarding the perspective the leader use them in their work spot. Data

composed for completion this study directly associated to the respondent’s individual

biographical, race, job-function, demographic and ethnic group. The study also exhibit that

the five-FFM personality element do not use for extra dissimilarity on any of the styles at an

indicative level. Research is entirely based on the personal self assessed The LDQ can be

used devoid of losing suggestive personality-associated differences. Leader performance and

fan dedication sub-scales must facilitate added research by researchers into leadership

performance.

(Stordeur, Vandenberghe et al. 2000) studied the flowing effect of leadership styles

through hierarchical levels in a model of nursing departments in Belgium, with eight

hospitals with 41wards. Here we found that there are suggestive variances in the leadership

styles among the senior and first level mangers. (McDaniel and Wolf 1992) conducted an

experiential study that observed transformational leadership through hierarchical levels in

nursing departments and found proof for a cascading outcome of leadership style. Three out

of seven ways of leadership styles were suggestively different when we matched with one or

two levels of management there was a strong suggestively variance in the leadership behavior

of senior and first line mangers. (Tichy and Ulrich 1984) and (Avolio and Bass 1988)

establish transformational leadership to be mainly evident and durable at the top level.

The managerial level of an organization must be important for assessing the

suggestive leadership behavior measurements of UK managers the overall leadership

behavior among senior and first-level supervisors was substantial at a sturdier 95 per cent

confidence level. (Dunham and Klafehn 1990) suggest that transformational leaders transmit

a sense of mission and are concerned with longstanding objectives. (Coad 2000) presents a

counterpoint to a “falling dominoes effect”, whereby transformational leadership at great

levels in a executive hierarchy seems to Cascade to lower levels.

In various organizations, self-managing teams (SMTs) have been presented as a way

of enlightening the performance and comfort of employees (Cascio 1995; Manz and Sims

1995; Spreitzer, Cohen et al. 1999; Kauffeld 2006). The aim of the study is to ascertain the

relationship among Leader behavior and the efficiency of the members of a self-managing

team in the way to see how much an individual performance and exhaustion. Indeed,

publications on SMTs mainly focus on team effectiveness(Cohen and Ledford 1994). Team

member within a short period of time the performance of the individual they measured with

the use of behavior tell him their leader and also reported him. Several leadership theories

(Hersey and Blanchard 1969; Hersey and Blanchard 1993) have recognized team member

experience as a significant moderator.

In other way when members spent a longer time in a team than he doing a good job

and perform well and do not feel hesitation to do any work related to the task or share any

idea. Leader of self-managing team get benefit to showing how an individual perform better

in a short time period or greater time period. Leader can also enhance the intellectual skill of

an individual. This decision adds to the debate on the demand for “specific “leadership

performance in SMTs (Manz and Sims Jr 1987; Manz and Sims 1995; Stewart and Manz

1995) .

Since it’s initially over 25 years ago, the convincing of Leader-Member Exchange

(LMX) theory (Dansereau, Graen et al. 1975; Graen and Cashman 1975; Graen 1976; Graen,

Liden et al. 1982) has undergone many studies. This principle develop relationship between

levels of issues and explain leadership theories according to the extension addressed by the

three sides leadership(leader, follower, relationship).This study tells that defines how

operational leadership relationships develop among dyadic “partners” in and among

organizations leaders and admirers. Assumption from this testing specifies to us that,

ijcrb.webs.com



747

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

although items were added to knock into likely multiple dimensions, the expanded measure

was highly connected with the more brief 7-item LMX and produced the same effects.

We agree that certain aspects of LMX are transactional because of its location as an

exchange-based attitude to leadership; LMX is visibly not limited to Transactional

Leadership. Rather, LMX is both transformational and transactional. By accepting this

perspective, we have come to a purer understanding of leadership and LMX, and approve

with (Klein, Dansereau et al. 1994).

In today’s we primarily focused on transformational leadership but some comments

tells that there is a change among management and leadership. Traditionally the UK had a

large amount of hierarchical organizations that still have a custom of Theory X management

styles, which have factually been arranged as the leadership role models. If the people at the

top do not fixed the right context then the organization will unavoidably suffer failure from

increasing rigor mortis. If you take (Handy 1978) view of organizations many organizations

tracked the “Apollo” model, which has brilliant stable state characteristics That carries us on

to a discussion about the relative qualities of the Reagan style of leadership related with the

Thatcher style. Thatcher got much more involved in the detail of issues; however Reagan was

only concerned with the very comprehensive PR type presentational approach.

Higher and lower level leaders face fundamentally different problems. Middle

managers, by contrast, are more often “subject to rules, constraints, and limited

participation”(Rainey and Watson 1996). These differences might affect the existence of TFL

behaviors amongst upper and middle managers (Shamir and Howell 1999). Perfect pressure

and inspirational motivation put regularly upon upper instead of middle managers. While

there were no difference in the intellectual and physiological skills of both. Also provide all

the essential facilities provided or fulfill basic needs of the upper managers instead of the

middle. While customized consideration was likewise effective together in groups TFL on

lower managerial levels. Organizations may possibly achieve this by cutting managerial

restraints and authorizing lower level leaders.

In this study the healthcare organizations, voices in favor of the New Public

Management model are evidently clear. The improvements have been connected for their part

with a wider administrative development of the public sector, which supports efforts to?

Improve competence in the sector, lock up growing expenditure and decrease bureaucracy

and expert power (Farrell and Morris 2003). In terms of its organized structure, financing and

goals, the Finnish healthcare system fit in to the same family as the other Scandinavian

countries and the UK. The main focus in this study upon the leadership styles between

middle-level managers in social and health care using the leadership role descriptions

developed by Robert Quinn et al. Leadership roles of middle-level managers were calmly

distributed on a fairly high level. Statistically suggestive variances found in leadership styles

were associated to professional background, gender, and activity sector and unit size.

Leadership styles hassled intra-organizational actions, whereas extra-organizational roles

established less attention.

Leaders are mostly effective if they involve in transformational leadership (TFL)

behaviors, like articulating an appealing vision for the future, acting as fascinating role

models, developing the approval of common goals, , providing individualized support and

setting high performance expectations and intelligent stimulation for followers (Bass 1985;

Podsakoff, MacKenzie et al. 1990) Lots of studies show that these TFL behaviors stimulate

high levels of performance in admirers (Podsakoff, MacKenzie et al. 1990; Lowe, Kroeck et

al. 1996; Judge and Piccolo 2004; Wang, Law et al. 2005). TFL climate is connected to

workers performance through the organization's progressive affective climate. Means,

standard deviations, and bi-variant correlations for all study variables were used. TFL climate

within the contributing organizations was clearly related with positive affective climate and

ijcrb.webs.com



748

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

positive Affective climate was positively associated with overall employee aggregate

organizational output. The degree to which various leaders in an organization direct related

behaviors on the way to their subordinates is taken in the concept of leadership climate

(Bliese and Halverson 1998; Chen and Bliese 2002; Chen, Kirkman et al. 2007; Walter and

Bruch 2010).

Research has establish sufficient evidence representing the beneficial significances of

transformational leadership (TFL; e.g.,(Judge and Piccolo 2004)). The behaviors usually

associated with TFL consist of articulating a charismatic vision, acting as a captivating role

model, developing the approval of common goals, providing individual support and setting

high performance expectations, and logical stimulation for admirers (Bass 1985; Podsakoff,

MacKenzie et al. 1990). Such leadership has been revealed to improve both supporter

performance (McColl-Kennedy and Anderson 2002) and organizational achievement

(Waldman, Javidan et al. 2004). Yet, researchers are progressively recognizing that

leadership does not take place inside a virtual space, but is subject to significant contextual

impacts (Osborn, Hunt et al. 2002; Porter and McLaughlin 2006). Let's say, theorists have

claimed that an organization's structural structure may shape TFL processes, advising that

such leadership arises more often and is more operative in organizations with organic rather

than mechanical structures (Pawar and Eastman 1997; Kark and van Dijk 2007).

The recent study explores the association of empowerment, leadership style and

customer service as an extent of effective project managing in projects with variable degree

of vitality. Improved productivity, greater quality products and services, better teamwork and

customer service, improved speed and receptiveness has led to the fame of empowerment

(Shelton 1991; Von Dran, Kappelman et al. 1996; Appelbaum and Honeggar 1998).

Preceding research has established a positive relationship among team empowerment and

collocated team performance (Burpitt and Bigoness 1997; Kirkman and Rosen 1999). Virtual

teams can quickly react to business globalization dares (Maznevski and Chudoba 2000;

Montoya-Weiss, Massey et al. 2001; Kayworth and Leidner 2002) and their use is growing

exponentially (Kirkman, Rosen et al. 2002). Therefore there is a need to recognize further the

role of empowerment in virtual projects.

The main purpose of the study is to test the application of two leadership models to a

volunteer service club. Servant leadership was foreseen to better describe the attitudes and

obligation of service organization followers than transformational leadership. Vision and

motivation activate a transformation procedure within the follower (Scandura and Williams

2004). More usually, leaders who offer volunteers with progressive, meaningful experiences

might be able to keep their concern in their volunteer situations. Transformational leader

practices stimulates followers to attain goals, and increase commitment, confidence, and job

performance (Bono and Judge 2003). A huge body of research on transformational leadership

has accepted its positive association with satisfaction, commitment and aims to stay

(Fleishman and HARRIS 1998; Bliss and Fallon 2003; Brown and Yoshioka 2003;

Walumbwa and Lawler 2003; Avolio, Zhu et al. 2004; Jaskyte 2004; Epitropaki and Martin

2005) contend that leadership and job satisfaction are the most active predictors of purposes

to leave non-profit organizations.

The varied priorities of the two types of leadership arise as: strategic leadership

emphases on the existence and achievement of the organization, its critical viewers includes

the community of employees, while supervisory leadership emphases on the success of tasks,

its critical viewers involves individuals and/or teams, its time prospect is medium- to short-

range practice and it involves one or very few conditions. A bright decision can prove

valueless without its effective implementation. The implementation of results is a critical

aspect of leadership efficiency across European countries and the USA (Robie, Johnson et al.

2001). Even the best results fail to be executed due to the insufficient supervision of

ijcrb.webs.com



749

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

assistants, among other reasons (Hill, Bedau et al. 1979). (Kenny 1999) emphasizes that

people who implement results to the best of their skill are usually those who have created

them. Even though the significance of supervisory leadership throughout the implementation

stage of decisions is usually accepted (Harrison 1981), little research has been made on this

subject. (Hofstede 1976) descriptions of leadership styles joining a summarized version of

(Tannenbaum and Schmidt 1982)leadership range, indifferently view both choice and

implementation.

This Multicultural study developed the full range leadership context developed by

(Avolio, Bass et al. 1995) model of culture, and relate leadership styles and cultural standards

of over 4,000 managerial and non-managerial personnel in ten business organizations in

Russia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Germany, Kyrgyzstan, and the US. About socio-cultural

dimensions, the study establish that, related to Germany and the US, the four former USSR

countries varied primarily by much minor levels of Power Space, higher levels of Masculinity

and much extended planning horizons. Lastly, the study proposes that multicultural human

resource development issues cannot be defined in terms of simplified dichotomies between

the East and West. For constructs measured in this study, significant differences were found

not only between the two groups of countries but also between individual countries within

these groups. Socio-cultural dimensions. The notion of culture is widely used in global

management, organization behavior, and human resource development literature to measure

effects that can distinguish among countries and ethnic or occupational groups (Kuchinke

1999).

Close leadership among a focal leader and his/her instant followers has been the focus

of extensive study in many settings. But our understanding of distant leadership among a

focal leader and his/her admirers not reporting straight to him/her is much more narrow

(Waldman and Yammarino 1999; Antonakis and Atwater 2002; Avolio, Zhu et al. 2004).

Examination shows variances in leadership power perceptions, processes, and many levels

of-analysis effects among close and distant captivating and dependent reward leadership

through three hierarchical levels in Korean companies. Multi-source data open that followers'

potential to the leader mediated relations between leadership and fans’ behavioral, attitudinal,

and performance outcomes in close conditions. Last of all, leadership is by nature a multi-

level phenomenon happening among an individual leader and individual admirers, groups of

followers, and/or collectives of the groups of followers (Dansereau and Yammarino 1998).

Transformational leader inspires subordinates to put in more effort and to go afar

what they (subordinates) expected prior to(Burns 1978). The aim to inspect how project

managers’ leadership styles and assistants’ organizational responsibility correlates with

leadership effects and work performance of assistants on construction projects. It delivers

remarkable value for both practitioners and researchers. On the practical side, it seek out to

notify project managers that they can get a feel for their leadership behaviors in order to

augment subordinates’ improve work performance, organizational commitment, and

consequently increase a positive functioning impression.

Effective leaders are distinguished from other leaders over the exercise of a fairly

small range of skill or competence areas (Kouzes and Posner 1998; Goffee and Jones 2001;

Higgs and Rowland 2001; Hogan and Hogan 2001). To inspect the new leadership

dimensions questionnaire (LDQ) and a linked context for assess an individual’s leadership

style regarding the context in which the leader works; the three new LDQ sub-scales aimed to

measure organizational context, follower duty and leader performance; and the linking among

personality and leadership. (Goffee and Jones 2001) in their statement that effective

leadership requires “being you, with skill”.

The contingency perception of leadership suggests that leadership is a social construct

that cannot be fully understood when examined in isolation from the context in which it

ijcrb.webs.com



750

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

occurs (Podsakoff et al., 1993; Yammarino et al., 1998). A variety of organizational leaders,

workers, managers and academics had previously been classified on the basis of

characteristics of their jobs including how they spent their time. This study investigated the

extent to which managers from various foreign industries could be meaningfully grouped on

the basis of the leadership styles and behavior patterns which they exhibited in the

performance of their jobs. Bass et al. (2003) found that team efficacy fully mediated the

relationship between sergeants’ transactional leadership and platoon performance.

The process of joint stimulation which panels human energy is the hunt of mutual

cause. Weber (1961) recognizes leadership to be "A moral function best identified by the

person it improves a not essentially by the smoothness of process or the number of persons it

fascinates." There is no assurance that any one leadership behavior will all the time be

effective. But it must be agreed that any leadership behavior used by the leader while

managing the affairs of his office is possible to have an influence on organization

performance, be it positive or negative. The process of joint stimulation which pedals human

energy in the search of common cause (Pigors 1935).

To investigate relationships and variances in the leadership styles and behavior of

managers through hierarchical levels in Pakistan organizations, the following research

method was engaged in the study. A survey questionnaire was conducted where the

population for the study included managers and leaders working in the Pakistan. A total of

about 1,440 questionnaires were directed to prospective respondents from several

organizations and at different administrative levels. The questionnaire enclosed managers

from all the provinces of the country. A total of 405 completed and operating questionnaires

were returned, giving a reaction rate of somewhat over 28 per cent. The sample included 242

male managers representing 59.8 per cent and 163 female managers representing 40.2 per

cent. The names of the prospective respondents were found largely from the key Pakistani

enterprises. To collect data on changes in the leadership behavior and styles of Pakistan

managers, across hierarchical levels, the questionnaire demanded respondents to specify

where they belong, in the following classification: top management, senior management,

middle management, first-level management and non-management. A total of 40 respondents

who were non-management staff were omitted from the study. The top and senior-level

managers were divided into one category and named senior management. Therefore, for the

study, we have senior, middle and first-level managers. The amounts of managers included in

each category are 214, 115 and 36, respectively. We gathered data on how frequently they

agreed each of the four leadership styles – directive, consultative, participative or delegative

in their everyday activities. The questionnaire also demanded respondents to point out the

extent to which they have confidence in themselves that they use each of the following

leadership behavior – laissez-faire, management- by-exception, individual consideration,

intellectual stimulation, contingent reward, inspirational motivation or idealized influence in

their actions. The sense attached to each of the leadership styles and behaviors was clarified

in the survey. The questionnaire therefore incorporated a self-report styles of a leadership

styles questionnaire assessing the four leadership styles derived from Profile, an

organizational systems survey research program (Bass, 1974; Bass et al ., 1975), and Bass’s

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form MLQ-5S Re vise d, 198 9), which measures

laissez-faire , transactional and transformational leadership.

Test of important differences among two of the three levels being observed were

computed in turn, i.e. among senior and middle level managers, concerning senior and first-

level managers and among middle and first-level managers. Two tables summarizing the

results of the studies are produced.

ijcrb.webs.com



751

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

3.0 Results and Discussions

Table I records the leadership styles of managers at various organizational levels. It

covers a summary of the questions for senior, middle and first-level managers regarding their

directive, participative, consultative, delegative and overall leadership style. The result of the

t-test is significant among senior and first-level managers with respect to the directive

leadership style. It shows that the level of management is significant in the position and

weight attached to the directions of managers – the upper the level of management, the better

the significance attached to such an order by the recipient. Therefore, a direction from a

senior manager considered as not significant by the middle-level manager, might be

understood as significant by the first-level manager. It shows that hierarchy is still important

in Pakistani organizations although where there are long chains of command; dissimilarities

in directions among the next levels of command might not be easily obvious. While the

management attitude of the scalar chain of command is still proficient in most Pakistani

organizations, therefore, a change to the Japanese flatter organizations seems to be evident.

Table I shows that there are no major variances among any of the levels of management in

counseling leadership style. It seems that discussion is widely practiced in Pakistani

organizations at all levels. Participative leadership style is, on the other hand, significantly

practiced among senior and first-level managers but not in the middle of senior and middle-

level managers or amongst middle-level and first-level managers. The figures in the table

propose that the level of participative management is higher; the higher one is on the

organizational hierarchy. This means that participation, for example, in policy formulation

and decision-making, is highest at the senior management level and lowest at the first-level of

management, as one would expect.

Table 3.1 The leadership styles of managers at different organizational levels

Leadership

styles

Senior Levels of management

Middle

First-level

Consultative 3.40

(0.755)

t1 = 0.126

3.39

(0.671)

t2=1.472

t3=1.516

3.19

(0.786)

Participative 3.23

(0.782)

t1 = 1.355

3.11

(0.747)

t2=0.957

t3= 1.834*

2.97

(0.845)

Delegative 3.19

(0.824)

t1 = 1.873*

3.01

(0.822)

t2=2.497*

t3= 3.848***

2.61

(0.871)

Overall

leadership

stylec

12.21

t1=1.199

(n1= 214)

11.965

t2=1.000

t3= 1.854*

(n2= 115)

11.611

(n3=36) Notes: The t values t1 refers to the difference between senior and middle level means, t2 to that between middle

and first level means, and t3 to that between senior and first level means. aThe figures in the table are mean

responses from the questionnaire; bFigures in parentheses are standard deviations;

cThe overall leadership style

is a summation of the directive, consultative, participative and delegative leadership style.

* p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.01

ijcrb.webs.com



752

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Table 3.1 shows that there are no major variances among any of the levels of

management in counseling leadership style. It seems that discussion is widely practiced in

Pakistani organizations at all levels. Participative leadership style is, on the other hand,

significantly practiced among senior and first-level managers but not in the middle of senior

and middle-level managers or amongst middle-level and first-level managers. The figures in

the table propose that the level of participative management is higher; the higher one is on the

organizational hierarchy. This means that participation, for example, in policy formulation

and decision-making, is highest at the senior management level and lowest at the first-level of

management, as one would expect.

The result of the delegative leadership style is different from that of the other

leadership styles. The result shows that there are major delegative practices at each of the

three management levels. The mean score is highest at the senior management level and

lowest at the first-level. The statistical test for the variances among the senior and first-level

management is, thus, significant at the 99 per cent confidence level. Differences at the two

other stages of management are statistically significant at the 90 per cent level.

Delegation is the means by which senior manager’s pass on the jobs of an

organization to their lower-level managers and workforces in a hierarchical fashion.

Managers and those to whom they envoy should both appreciate the fact that delegation is not

just desirable but likewise necessary, i.e. no organization can really function lacking it as

delegation is the means by which managers get their work done (Oshagbemi, 1999). It allows

work to be distributed for organizational effectiveness. It gains the advantages of the division

of labor and enables every member of an organization to play a part.

From Table 3.1, the result of the t-test is significant among senior and first-level

managers regarding the overall leadership style while other tests of variances are not

statistically significant. The general result proposes, thus, that there are some variances

among the leadership styles of managers at diverse levels in an organizational hierarchy.

However, these differences be likely to be weak, but might come to be pronounced among

the top management level and say, the supervisory level. It therefore seems that while

leadership patterns be to to replicate from upper to lower organizational levels, the leadership

style at the lowest organizational level might be significantly changed from that at the highest

organizational level.

Table 3.2 contains a summary of the leadership behavior of our sampled managers at

different organizational levels. Figures in the table reveal that there are no significant

differences between senior, middle and first-level managers, in respect of their leadership

behavior dimensions of laissez-faire and management-by-exception. Our results are therefore

inconsistent with that of Bass et al .(1987), which found that management-by-exception was

more evident at lower levels of the organization in comparison with the higher levels.

Management-by-exception was about equally practiced at all levels in our sample (Table 3.2).

ijcrb.webs.com



753

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Table 3.2 The leadership behavior of managers at different organizational levels

Leadership styles Senior Levels of management

Middle

First-level

Laissez-faire 1.59

(0.547)

t1= 0.281

1.57

(0.531)

t2=-1.548

t3=-1.506

1.75

(0.770)

Management-by-

exception

2.75

(0.924)

t1 = 0.421

2.71

(0.873)

t2=-0.419

t3=-0.154

2.78

((0.866)

Contingent reward 3.01

(0.885)

t1 = 0.260

2.98

(0.916)

t2=2.618**

t3= 3.036**

2.51

(0.951)

Individual

consideration

3.42

(0.842)

t1 = -0.024

3.42

(0.838)

t2=0.839

t3= 0.884

3.28

(0.974)

Intellectual

stimulation

3.42

(0.944)

t1=2.842**

3.10

(0.959)

t2=1.031

t3= 2.941**

2.92

(0.937)

Inspirational

Motivation

3.18

(0.939)

t1=3.261***

2.83

(0.888)

t2=-0.998

t3= 3.026**

2.66

(1.027)

Idealized influence 2.93

(0.969)

t1=-0.511

2.99

(0.945)

t2=1.257

t3= 1.037

2.74

(1.245)

Transactional

leadership

behavior

7.3396

(1.413)

t1=0.408

7.2703

(1.519)

t2=0.589

t3= 0.934

7.0857

(1.900)

Transformational

leadership

behavior

12.9663

(2.7913)

t1=1.868*

12.3684

(2.6649)

t2=1.402

t3= 2.601**

11.6000

(3.3449)

Overall leadership

behaviour

20.2816

(3.3449)

t1=1.550

(n1= 214)

19.6818

(3.1446)

t2=1.458

t3= 2.469**

(n2= 115)

18.6857

(4.5165)

(n3= 36)

* p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.01

ijcrb.webs.com



754

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Dependent reward, one of the transactional leadership behaviors, was statistically

significant among middle and first-level management and also between senior and first-level

management. It would appear that the incidence of contingent reward is high in today’s

organizations. When employees meet the specifications of quantity and quality of their

production schedules, suitable rewards tend to trail in most organizations in respect of such

performance. Where there are no tangible rewards for executing one’s job well, some consent

would tend to follow lack of acceptable performance of the job. This would have the same

result as rewarding good performance.

It is of interest to notice, however, that there are no significant variances among any

of the levels of management for the transactional behavior as a whole. This result is not

unexpected considering the fact that no level of management is statistically significant from

the other in the leadership behavior dimensions of laissez-faire and management-by-

exception. Overall, therefore, transactional leadership behavior would appear to be fairly

similar among all levels of management within the sampled organizations. This result is not

surprising as the basis of transactional leadership is a transaction or exchange process

between leaders and followers. Leadership is a series of economic and social transactions to

achieve specific goals. Activities involving transactional leadership are common in Pakistani

organizations. While the details of these activities may not be identical from one organization

to the other, as organizations pursue different goals, the activities tend to be very similar.

According to Burns (1978), the leadership process can occur in one of two ways. It is

either transactional or transformational. Among the four dimensions of transformational

leadership behavior, intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation show significant

differences in the various levels of management while the other two dimensions, i.e.

individual consideration and idealized influence, do not show any significant differences

among the levels of management examined. Transformational leadership is based on personal

values, beliefs and qualities of the leader. It focuses on intangible qualities, e.g. vision and

shared values useful in building relationships and enlisting followers in the change process.

The transformational leader brings about significant changes in the organization’s vision,

strategy and culture and promotes innovation in culture and technology. Effective

transformational leadership can influence major change in the attitudes and assumptions of

subordinates and build commitment to the organizations goals and stimulate dedication to

greatness (Steers, 1991).

Intellectual stimulation as a subset of transformational leadership concentrates on the

stimulation of followers to be creative and innovative and to change their own beliefs and

values as well as those of the leader and the organization along an agreed desired path. Table

II expresses that there are significant differences among senior and middle-level managers

and among senior and first-level managers on their level of rational stimulation. Our finding

supports that of Tichy and Devanna (1986) that the intellectual stimulation of subordinates is

more important at higher levels of the organization. Our finding shows that the importance

attached to this variable decreases the further down one goes from the top to the lower levels

of the organization. Our result, thus, contradicts the findings of Loweet al. (1996) that the

variable is equally important, irrespective of the level of management. Between middle and

first-level management, however, there are no significant differences in the expressed levels

of intellectual stimulation.

Inspirational motivation attempts to develop followers into leaders by elevating their

concerns and inspiring them to go beyond their self-interests for the good of the group. The

inspirational leader paints a vision of a desired future state and communicates i t i n a way

that makes the pain of change worth the effort. The leader acts as a strong role model for

followers who identify much with their leaders and want very much to emulate them. Table II

reveals that there are significant differences between senior and middle-level managers and

ijcrb.webs.com



755

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

between senior and first-level managers on their level of inspirational motivation. This means

that inspirational motivation is used most at senior management level, followed by the

middle-level managers and least by the first-level managers.

Displaying individual consideration by a senior manager leads to a desire among

lower level managers to improve them while showing idealized influence entails gaining the

respect of followers by demonstrating extra ordinary knowledge and competence. It is

believed that these features are not kept to senior management levels only as some middle

level and first level managers also hold them.

4.0 Conclusion

This study has examined the leadership styles and behaviors of managers at different

levels in Pakistani organizations. It found that, generally, there are significant differences

neither in the leadership styles between senior and first-level managers, but not between

senior and middle-level managers nor between middle and first-level managers. This finding

suggests that the level(s) of management from and to which a particular leadership style is

adopted is important in the significance or non-significance of the leadership style. It also

suggests that differences in the leadership style practiced by managers may be blurred in

organizations with short chains of command, while it will tend to be pronounced in

organizations with long chains of command, other things being equal. Compared with

directive, consultative and participative leadership styles, delegative leadership style was

found to be distinctive in that significant differences were found in all the three levels of

management examined.

The study likewise found that three out of the seven sides of the leadership behavior

were significantly not the same when compared with one or two other levels of management.

These are contingent reward, rational stimulation and inspirational motivation. Variances in

transactional leadership behavior were not major in any of the three combinations of the

levels of managers examined while differences in transformational leadership were

statistically significant between senior and middle-level managers and between senior and

first-level managers. It was found that in overall leadership behavior, there was a strong

statistically significant difference between the leadership behavior of senior and first-level

managers.

Similar to the findings in the leadership styles research, the organizational level of a

manager appears to be important in predicting the significance or otherwise of the leadership

behavior dimension of Pakistani managers. In particular, the level of management appears to

be strongly related to the transformational leadership behavior of managers, as managers at

higher levels display significantly more of this feature in comparison with lower-level

managers. Unlike the findings of the leadership styles, however, the overall leadership

behavior between senior and first-level managers was significant at a stronger 95 per cent

confidence level. One can therefore infer that behavior emanating from senior managers tend

to influence the perception of lower-level managers towards acting in a similar fashion to

create a culture of similar organizational practices.

ijcrb.webs.com



756

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

References:

Antonakis, J. and L. Atwater (2002). "Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory." The

Leadership Quarterly 13(6): 673-704.

Appelbaum, S. H. and K. Honeggar (1998). "Empowerment: a contrasting overview of

organizations in general and nursing in particular-an examination of organizational factors,

managerial behaviors, job design, and structural power." Empowerment in Organizations

6(2): 29-50.

Avolio, B., B. M. Bass, et al. (1995). "MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical

report." Mind Garden, Palo Alto, CA.

Avolio, B. J. and B. M. Bass (1988). "Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond."

Avolio, B. J., W. Zhu, et al. (2004). "Transformational leadership and organizational

commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of

structural distance." Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(8): 951-968.

Bass, B. M. (1960). "Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior."

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations, Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: good, better, best, Organizational Dynamics.

Bauer, T. N. and S. G. Green (1996). "Development of leader-member exchange: A

longitudinal test." Academy of Management Journal: 1538-1567.

Bliese, P. D. and R. R. Halverson (1998). "Group Consensus and Psychological Well-Being:

A Large Field Study1." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(7): 563-580.

Bliss, J. P. and C. K. Fallon (2003). "The effects of leadership style and primary task

workload on team performance and follower satisfaction." International Journal of Applied

Aviation Studies 3(2): 259-276.

Bono, J. E. and T. A. Judge (2003). "Self-Concordance at Work: Toward Understanding the

Motivational Effects of Transformational Leaders." Academy of Management Journal.

Bowers, D. G. and S. E. Seashore (1966). "Predicting organizational effectiveness with a

four-factor theory of leadership." Administrative science quarterly: 238-263.

Brown, W. A. and C. F. Yoshioka (2003). "Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in

employee retention." Nonprofit Management and Leadership 14(1): 5-18.

Bruch, H. and F. Walter (2007). "Leadership in context: Investigating hierarchical impacts on

transformational leadership." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28(8): 710-

726.

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

Burns, J. M. (1978). "Leadership New York." NY: Harper and Row Publishers.

ijcrb.webs.com



757

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Burpitt, W. J. and W. J. Bigoness (1997). "Leadership and innovation among teams." Small

group research 28(3): 414-423.

Cascio, W. F. (1995). "Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world

of work?" American psychologist 50(11): 928.

Chen, G. and P. D. Bliese (2002). "The role of different levels of leadership in predicting

self-and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity." Journal of Applied Psychology

87(3): 549.

Chen, G., B. L. Kirkman, et al. (2007). "A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and

performance in teams." Journal of Applied Psychology 92(2): 331.

Coad, A. F. (2000). "Not everything is black and white for falling dominoes." Leadership &

Organization Development Journal 21(6): 311-318.

Cohen, S. G. and G. E. Ledford (1994). "The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-

experiment." Human Relations 47(1): 13.

Dansereau, F., G. Graen, et al. (1975). "A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within

formal organizations* 1:: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process."

Organizational behavior and human performance 13(1): 46-78.

Dansereau, F. E. and F. J. Yammarino (1998). Leadership: The multiple-level approaches:

Contemporary and alternative, Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

De Vries, M. F. R. K. (2003). Leaders, fools and impostors: essays on the psychology of

leadership, Iuniverse Inc.

Duchon, D., S. G. Green, et al. (1986). "Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment of

antecedents, measures, and consequences." Journal of Applied Psychology 71(1): 56.

Dulewicz, V. and M. Higgs (2005). "Assessing leadership styles and organisational context."

Journal of Managerial Psychology 20(2): 105-123.

Dunham, J. and K. A. Klafehn (1990). "Transformational leadership and the nurse

executive." The Journal of nursing administration 20(4): 28.

Epitropaki, O. and R. Martin (2005). "From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of

implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes." Journal

of Applied Psychology 90(4): 659.

Farrell, C. and J. Morris (2003). "TheNeo-Bureaucratic'State: Professionals, Managers and

Professional Managers in Schools, General Practices and Social Work." Organization 10(1):

129-156.

Fleishman, E. A. and E. F. HARRIS (1998). "Patterns of leadership behavior related to

employee grievances and turnover: Some post hoc reflections." Personnel Psychology 51(4):

825-834.

ijcrb.webs.com



758

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Goffee, R. and G. Jones (2001). Why Should Anyone Be Led You?, Grasindo.

Graen, G. (1976). "Role-making processes within complex organizations." Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally 1245.

Graen, G. and J. F. Cashman (1975). "A role-making model of leadership in formal

organizations: A developmental approach." Leadership Frontiers, Kent State University

Press, Kent, OH.

Graen, G. B., R. C. Liden, et al. (1982). "Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal

process." Journal of Applied Psychology 67(6): 868.

Graen, G. B. and M. Wakabayashi (1994). "Cross-cultural leadership making: Bridging

American and Japanese diversity for team advantage." Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology 4: 415-446.

Handy, C. (1978). The Gods of Management. London, Souvenir Press.

Harrison, E. F. (1981). The managerial decision-making process, Houghton Mifflin.

Hersey, P. and K. H. Blanchard (1969). "Life cycle theory of leadership." Training &

Development Journal.

Hersey, P. and K. H. Blanchard (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing

human resources, Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Higgs, M. and P. Aitken (2003). "An exploration of the relationship between emotional

intelligence and leadership potential." Journal of Managerial Psychology 18(8): 814-823.

Higgs, M. and D. Rowland (2001). "Developing change leaders: Assessing the impact of a

development programme." Journal of Change Management 2(1): 47-64.

Hill, P. H., H. Bedau, et al. (1979). Making decisions: A multidisciplinary introduction,

Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.

Hofstede, G. (1976). Measuring hierarchial power distance in thirty-seven countries.

Hogan, R. and J. Hogan (2001). "Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side."

International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9(1‐2): 40-51.

Jaskyte, K. (2004). "Assessing Changes in Employees' Perceptions of Leadership Behavior,

Job Design, and Organizational Arrangements and Their Job Satisfaction and Commitment."

Administration in Social Work 27(4): 25-39.

Jones, G. and R. Goffee (2006). "Why Should Anyone be Led by You?" What It Takes to Be

an.

Judge, T. A. and R. F. Piccolo (2004). "Transformational and transactional leadership: a

meta-analytic test of their relative validity." Journal of Applied Psychology 89(5): 755.

ijcrb.webs.com



759

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Kark, R. and D. van Dijk (2007). "Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the

self-regulatory focus in leadership processes." The Academy of Management Review

ARCHIVE 32(2): 500-528.

Kauffeld, S. (2006). "Self‐directed work groups and team competence." Journal of

occupational and organizational psychology 79(1): 1-21.

Kayworth, T. R. and D. E. Leidner (2002). "Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual

Teams." J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 18(3): 7-40.

Kenny, I. (1999). Freedom and Order: Studies in Strategic Leadership, Oak Tree Press.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1993). Leaders, fools and imposters: essays on the psychology of

leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kirkman, B. L. and B. Rosen (1999). "Beyond self-management: Antecedents and

consequences of team empowerment." Academy of Management Journal: 58-74.

Kirkman, B. L., B. Rosen, et al. (2002). "Five challenges to virtual team success: lessons

from Sabre, Inc." The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005): 67-79.

Klein, K. J., F. Dansereau, et al. (1994). "Levels issues in theory development, data

collection, and analysis." Academy of management review: 195-229.

Kouzes, J. M. and B. Z. Posner (1998). Encouraging the heart, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). "Leadership and culture: Work‐related values and leadership styles

among one company's US and German telecommunication employees." Human Resource

Development Quarterly 10(2): 135-154.

Kur, E. (1995). "Developing Leadership in Organizations." Journal of Management Inquiry

4(2): 198.

Liu, W., D. P. Lepak, et al. (2003). "Matching leadership styles with employment modes:

strategic human resource management perspective." Human resource management review

13(1): 127-152.

Lowe, K. B., K. G. Kroeck, et al. (1996). "Effectiveness correlates of transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature." The Leadership

Quarterly 7(3): 385-425.

Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims (1995). Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are

building high-performing companies, Wiley.

Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims Jr (1987). "Leading workers to lead themselves: The external

leadership of self-managing work teams." Administrative science quarterly: 106-129.

ijcrb.webs.com



760

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Maznevski, M. L. and K. M. Chudoba (2000). "Bridging space over time: Global virtual team

dynamics and effectiveness." Organization science: 473-492.

McColl-Kennedy, J. R. and R. D. Anderson (2002). "Impact of leadership style and emotions

on subordinate performance." The Leadership Quarterly 13(5): 545-559.

McDaniel, C. and G. A. Wolf (1992). "Transformational leadership in nursing service. A test

of theory." The Journal of nursing administration 22(2): 60.

Montoya-Weiss, M. M., A. P. Massey, et al. (2001). "Getting it together: Temporal

coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams." Academy of Management

Journal: 1251-1262.

Osborn, R. N., J. G. Hunt, et al. (2002). "Toward a contextual theory of leadership." The


Oshagbemi, T. and R. Gill (2004). "Differences in leadership styles and behaviour across

hierarchical levels in UK organisations." Leadership & Organization Development Journal

25(1): 93-106.

Ouchi, W. G. and M. A. Maguire (1975). "Organizational control: Two functions."

Administrative science quarterly: 559-569.

Pawar, B. S. and K. K. Eastman (1997). "The nature and implications of contextual

influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination." Academy of

management review: 80-109.

Pigors, P. J. W. (1935). Leadership or domination, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, et al. (1990). "Transformational leader behaviors and

their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship

behaviors." The Leadership Quarterly 1(2): 107-142.

Porter, L. W. and G. B. McLaughlin (2006). "Leadership and the organizational context: like

the weather?" The Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 559-576.

Rainey, H. G. and S. A. Watson (1996). "Transformational leadership and middle

management: Towards a role for mere mortals." International Journal of Public

Administration 19(6): 763-800.

Richard, H. L., G. C. Robert, et al. (1999). "Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of

Experience." Singapur: McGraw-Hill.

Robie, C., K. M. Johnson, et al. (2001). "The right stuff: Understanding cultural differences

in leadership performance." Journal of Management Development 20(7): 639-650.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). "Trust and breach of the psychological contract." Administrative

science quarterly: 574-599.

ijcrb.webs.com



761

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). "Psychological and implied contracts in organizations." Employee

responsibilities and rights journal 2(2): 121-139.

Scandura, T. A. and E. A. Williams (2004). "Mentoring and transformational leadership: The

role of supervisory career mentoring." Journal of Vocational Behavior 65(3): 448-468.

Shamir, B. and J. M. Howell (1999). "Organizational and contextual influences on the

emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership." The Leadership Quarterly 10(2):

257-283.

Shelton, K. (1991). "People power." Executive Excellence 8(12): 7-8.

Sparrowe, R. T. and R. C. Liden (1997). "Process and structure in leader-member exchange."

Academy of management review: 522-552.

Spreitzer, G. M., S. G. Cohen, et al. (1999). "Developing effective self-managing work teams

in service organizations." Group & Organization Management 24(3): 340.

Stewart, G. L. and C. C. Manz (1995). "Leadership for self-managing work teams: A

typology and integrative model." Human Relations 48(7): 747-770.

Stordeur, S., C. Vandenberghe, et al. (2000). "Leadership styles across hierarchical levels in

nursing departments." Nursing Research 49(1): 37.

Tannenbaum, R. and W. H. Schmidt (1982). How to choose a leadership pattern, Reprint

Service, Harvard Business Review.

Tichy, N. M. and D. O. Ulrich (1984). "The leadership challenge: A call for the

transformational leader." Sloan Management Review 26(1): 59-68.

Tsui, A. S., J. L. Pearce, et al. (1997). "Alternative approaches to the employee-organization

relationship: does investment in employees pay off?" Academy of Management Journal:

1089-1121.

Von Dran, G., L. Kappelman, et al. (1996). "Empowerment and the management of an

organizational transformation project." Project Management Journal 27: 12-17.

Waldman, D. A., M. Javidan, et al. (2004). "Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A

new application of upper echelons theory." The Leadership Quarterly 15(3): 355-380.

Waldman, D. A. and F. J. Yammarino (1999). "CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-

management and levels-of-analysis effects." Academy of management review: 266-285.

Walter, F. and H. Bruch (2010). "Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of

transformational leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis." The


Walumbwa, F. O. and J. J. Lawler (2003). "Building effective organizations: transformational

leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three

ijcrb.webs.com



762

JUNE 2012

VOL 4, NO 2

emerging economies." International Journal of Human Resource Management 14(7): 1083-

1101.

Wang, H., K. S. Law, et al. (2005). "Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the

relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and

organizational citizenship behavior." The Academy of Management Journal: 420-432.

Wright, P. M., G. C. McMahan, et al. (1994). "Human resources and sustained competitive

advantage: a resource-based perspective." International Journal of Human Resource

Management 5(2): 301-326.

Wright, P. M. and S. A. Snell (1998). "Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and

flexibility in strategic human resource management." Academy of management review: 756-

772.

Leadership Styles and Behaviors in Institutional Contextjournal-archieves19.webs.com/744-762.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Leadership Styles and Behaviors in Institutional Contextjournal-archieves19.webs.com/744-762.pdf ·...