ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 14

International Journal of Accounting & Business Management

www.ftms.edu.my/journals/index.php/journals/ijabm

Vol. 5 (No.1), April, 2017 ISSN: 2289-4519 DOI:24924/ijabm/2017.04/v5.iss1/14.33

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Research Paper

THE INFLUENCE OF LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEE

PERFROMANCE AMONG JEWELLERY ARTISANS IN MALAYSIA

Wendy Lor

MBA graduate

Ashcroft International Business School

Anglia Ruskin University, UK

wendylor26@outlook.com

Zubair Hassan PhD Candidate

Faculty of Economics and Management Sciences

International Islamic University, Malaysia

Zubai7@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to examine the leadership influence on employee job performance, in this

case, in the jewellery industry in Malaysia. Various studies tried to examine leadership style and its

influence on employee performance, job performance, firm’s performance and commitment. The

results was mixed, some are positive and some are negative. In the past, most of the research have

taken various leadership styles that are cited under different leadership theories. This study has

selected leadership styles such as supportive, participative, servant, transactional and

transformational leadership styles as independent variables that are assumed to have direct influence

on employee job performance, which is the dependent variable. A survey self-rating scale

questionnaire was developed using past literature to examine leadership styles and employee

performance. A sample of 115 respondents were recruited using simple random probability sampling

technique. The collected data was recorded and analysed using SPSS 22.0. The finding shows that

only supportive and transformational leadership behaviour positively and significantly influences

employee performance at workplace. We found the other three leadership behvaiour such as servant,

participative and transactional leadership behaviours are not significant in influencing employee

performance. Therefore we concluded that only transformational and supportive leadership

behaviour directly influences employee performance. Managers must find ways to cultivate supportive

and transformational leadership behvaiour to improve employee job performance, especially among

the Jewellery industry managers.

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

employee performance, Jewellery artisans

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 15

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a study on how various leadership styles has

influence employee performance.

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

examine the most appropriate leadership style in influencing employee performance. Most of

the empirical research showed consistent relationship between leadership styles and

employee performance. It is worthy to mention that one of the reason that many researchers

showed their interest in leadership in relations to various organisational outcomes could be

attributed to the widespread belief that leadership has a direct influence on performance

(Rowe et al., 2005). Studies done by researchers from 90s to to-date, shows that leadership

style adopted by managers in their workplace by researchers (Dubinsky et al., 1995; Conger,

1999; ISPAS, 2012; Choudhary et al, 2013; Liden, et al 2014; Mulki, 2015; Dalluay and

Jalagat, 2016) to be crucial in achieving the goals set by organisations, and in creating a high

performance working culture (Berson et al., 2001; Zacharatos et al., 2000; Sing, 2015; Carter

et al, 2013; Asrar-ul-Haq and Kuchinke, 2016). The effectiveness of the leadership style

varies according to the context and situation.

However, it seems that most of the leadership literature confuses the definition of

effective leadership by failing to make clear distinctions between leaders and non-leaders,

effective and ineffective leaders (House and Aditya, 1997; Bennis, 1998; Bergsteiner, 2005).

Despite this, it is widely believed or held perception that leadership fosters employee

performance at organisational level (Avolio, 1999; Yukl, 2002; Judge and Piccolo, 2004;

Keller, 2006). In addition, most of the past research has examined the assumed leadership-

performance relationship, although tested limited number of leadership approachessuch as

visionary and transactional while ignoring the potential role of other approaches such as

classical and organic paradigms of leadership (Jing and Avery, 2008). One of the popular

model of leadership theory criticised was Bass’s (1985) theory of transformational leadership

and argued that there is no one best way of leadership to be effective ,where it depends on

context (Avery, 2004; Drath, 2001;Yukl, 2002).This means more than one style of leadership

is important to take into consideration in improving employee performance.

Based on the number of articles and books reviewed has considered various variables

such as: participative(Yang, 2016), autocratic (Iqbal, Anwar, and Haider,2015), and

democraticstyle of leadership (Iqbal et al, 2015). It seems that the concept of participative

leadership style was highly lacking, although it was noted that this approach was critical to

the success of leadership processes especially in a rapidly changing work environments. Also

in past the concept of transactional and transformational have significant development and

gotten the attention of many scholars (Locander et al., 2002; Yammarino et al., 1993).

According to Humphreys (2002) and Liu et al. (2003) the concept of leadership that have a

broad spectrum, including behavioral approaches, including situational contingency

approach.The review of past literature also revealed that that transactional and

transformational theories of leadership are the most popular which was identified more than

20 years ago, ( Hoy & Miskel, 2008)

Therefore, there exists a significant research gap, and it is important to understand the

nature of relationship existing between leadership style and employee performance. This

study aimed to identify and examine the effects of leadership styles on employee

performance in service sector organisation. The following objectives were being formulated

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 16

Research Objectives:

To examine the impact of Transformational leadership style on employee

performance

To examine the impact of transactional leadership style on employee performance

To examine the impact of Participative leadership style on employee performance

To examine the impact of Servant Leadership style on employee performance

To examine the impact of Supportive leadership style on employee performance

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Review of Leadership Definition

It is evident that the definition, concepts and style of leadership differs from situation

to situation, context variance and also from person to person. In past leadership and styles

has been conceptualised from various perspectives. However there are mainly two

characteristic of this conceptualisation. These are that leadership is a process –to influence

others, and leadership occurs in groups-involve in achieving common goals and purpose

(Northouse, 2010). Therefore Northouse (2010, p.3) define leadership as‘a process whereby

an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal’. This is very

similar to the definition given by Robbins (2006) leadership is the ability to influence a group

to achieve the desired goal set by a leader. In contrast, more generally leadership is the

ability of an individual to utilize the influence of an organisation or situation to achieve

challenging goals (Ivansevich, 2008). For others leadership is a process that exercises the

power possess by an individual through position, expertise or charisma to influence

employees in an organisation to achieve a desired goal (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). The

basis of a good leadership may also rests on strong character and selfless devotion (Jenkins,

2013).

2.2. Leadership Theories

There were many leadership approaches, mainly group into 5 approaches. These are

trait, behavioural, contingency, leader-member exchange, transactional and transformational

leadership (Glendon et al 2006). Scholars have contributed various theories under each

approach of leadership. Some of the key theories under each leadership approach has been

summarised below

Table 1: Summary of Leadership Theories and models

Leadership

approach

Key Theories Key Contributor Leadership Styles

Trait approach Leadership Skills and

Traits

Stogdill, (1974) Personality traits such as

Extroverts, Conscientiousness,

Neuroticism, Openness, and

Agreeableness

Behavioural

approach

Theory X & Theory

Y Managers

McGregor(1960) Theory X managers

Theory Y Managers

The Blake Mouton

Managerial Grid

Blake & Mouton, (1964) Concerns for People

Concern for Production

3 Style of leadership Lewins (1939) Autocratic

Democratic

Laissez-Faire

Contingency

Approach

Fiedler's Contingency

Model

Fiedler’s (1967) Leader member relations

Task Structure

Position Power

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 17

Adopts task oriented or people

oriented style of leadership

(situation based)

Path Goal Theory House & Mitchell (1974) Supportive Leadership

Directive Leadership

Participative Leadership

Achievement Oriented Leadership

The Hersey-

Blanchard Model of

Leadership

Hersy and

Blanchard(1969)

Directing

Coaching

Supporting

Delegating

Adair’s Action-

Centred Leadership

Model

Adair, 1973 Task

Team

Individual

Tannenbaum &

Schmidt’s Leadership

Continuum

Tannenbaum and

Chmidts

Autocratic(Telling)

Persuasive(Selling)

Consultative(Consulting)

Democratic(joining)

Leaders and

follower

Servant Leadership Robert Greenleaf (1970) Listening

Empathy

Healing

Awareness

Persuasion

Conceptualisation

Foresight

Stewardship

Commitment to the growth of

people

Building community

The Following Part of

Leading

Katzenbach and Smith,

1994

Asking questions instead of giving

answers

Providing opportunities for others

to lead you

Doing real work in support of

others instead of only the

reverse

Becoming a matchmaker instead of

a "central switch"

Seeking common understanding

instead of consensus

Team Leaders Belbin, 1993 Delegate

Respect diversity and value others

Seeks talent

Develops colleagues

Creates mission

Transactional

and

Transformational

leadership

Transactional

leadership

Burns(1978), Bass(1985) Contingent reward, Management by

exception – active, and

Management by exception –

passive

Transformational

Leadership

Bass and Avolio, (1994) Idealised Behaviour

Inspirational Motivation

Intellectual stimulation

Individualised consideration

Idealised attributes

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

performance. However trait theories inherit many limitations. One of the most commonly

cited limitation was the argument of the personality characteristics possessed by leaders were

considered as very simplistic and reductionist(Glendon et al, 2006). Some argued that there

is no strong empirical evidence to indicate personality characteristics makes any leader to be

more effective in improving employee performance (Yukl, 2010). Also Leadership

effectiveness in influencing employee performance depends on contextual situation rather

than on a specific attributes (Northouse, 2010).

In contrast the behavioural approacsh theories focuses examining what a good leaders

do and their actions (Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001). The main strength of this approach of

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 18

leadership is much emahsis on various type of leadership styles in a given context. It

encouraged to adopt a balanced approach by adopting people concern and task concern

(Blake and Mount, 1964). However the empirical evidence demonstrated in the past about the

relationship between task and relation oriented styles of leaders were inconsistent in terms of

employee performance (Glendon et al., 2006). Also high task oriented and people oriented

may not work in many situation where leader may require a minimal involvement as

explained by Lewin(1939).

On the other hand contingency approaches emphasis on situation. Best leadership

style depends on the situation. However again, the main limitation of this approach based

theories were that finding were mixed and inconclusive (Glendon et al., 2006; Yukl, 2010).

Also if the situation change rapidly and if managerial work change rapidly in a short time, it

will be in practical and difficult to apply or change leadership style (Yukl, 2010). Leaders –

follower approach related theories received much support since many found that Servant

leaders or team leaders influence employee performance (Yukl,2010).fails to describe how

high quality leader-subordinate relationships can be created and evolve over time (Northouse,

2010; Yukl, 2010). Also this approaches of leadership were criticised for failing to consider

how situational factors (such as organisational context, subordinate characteristics, job

factors) may influence the type and quality of relationships formed between a leader and a

subordinate (Yukl,2010).er a precise definition regarding what constitutes a ‘high quality

exchange’ relationship.

In terms of transformational and transactional leadership

Transformational/transactional leadership is supported by a large body of empirical research

and has received the greatest amount of empirical attention in employee performance

demonstrating that they may be effective leadership styles for improving employee

performance. This approach overcomes the limitation of previous approaches by cosndiering

behaviour, traits and actions and also relationships with followers(Yukl, 2010). However, that

the theory is too broad and offers little guidance regarding how leaders should act in

particular situations (Northouse, 2010). Since many studies found that there were a high

correlations with each dimension of transformational leadership, it is not possible to test the

effects of each dimensions on employee performance separately (Yukl, 2010).It has been

argued that transformational leaders may deceive or manipulate followers as a means of

attaining self-serving interests ( Price, 2003).

Table 2: Dimensions and Measures

Leadership

Style

Variables sources

Supporting

Leadership

Consideration Judge et al (2004); Dumdum et al (2002), Rowold

and Schlotz, (2009); Imtiaz and Ahmed, (2009);

Mahdi, Mohd, and Almsafir, (2014). Hwang,

Quast, Center, Chung, Hahn, and Wohkittel (2015).

Mahdi et al, (2014). Hernandez et al(2011)

Caring and listening

Positive Feedback

Build Confidence

Self-control

Participating

Leadership

Consultative Behaviour Dalluay and Jalagat(2016), ISPAS (2012), Iqbal,

Anwar and Haider (2015), Mulki Caemerer and

Heggde (2015),

Pay attention/ to subordinates value

Delegation/empowerment

Joint Decision/Sharing

Responsibilities

Intrinsic Motivation

Servant

Leadership

Listening Choudary, Akhtar and Zaheer (2013);

Liden, et al (2014), Chiniara, and Bentein (2016);

McCann et al (2014); Yoshida, et al (2014) Empathy

Awareness

Persuasion

Stewardship

Transactional

Leadership

Contingent reward ISPAS (2012), Judge and Piccolo

(2004)Sing(2015); Choudary, Akhtar and Zaheer

(2013)

Management by exception-

Contingent punishment

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

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 19

nal

Leadership

Inspirational Motivation Zaheer (2013). Kovjanic et al, (2013); Carter,

Armenakis, Field, Mossholder(2013); Asrar-ul-

Haq, and Kuchinke, K. P. (2016) Intellectual Stimulation

Individualised consideration

Employee

Performance

Punctuality

Mahdi et al (2014)., Hernandez et al, (2011)., Yang

and Lim,(2016), Kim and Schachter,(2015),

Chiniara, and Bentein (2016), Yoshida, et al,

(2014), Yoshida, et al (2014), Asrar-ul-Haq and

Kuchinke, (2016)

Performance improvement

Career advancement

Interpersonal Skills

Performance and productivity

Supportive Leadership and performance: This leadership behaviour is mainly

discussed under Path-goal theory (House, 1971). Supportive leaders are friendly with their

subordinates, show empathy and treats equally among the subordinates (Muhammed et al,

2014). Supportive leaders enable to increases employee performance by creating an

environment to respect each other, fostering cooperation and trust, and via emotional support

(Daft, 2005). Many researches confirmed that supportive leaders attributes such as

consideration has a direct impact on performance (Judge et al, 2004; Dumdum et al, 2002).

Also many previous research indicated that there is a positive and significant relationship

between consideration and employee performance (Rowold and Schlotz, 2009). Also it was

found that those employees works under supportive leaders who shows individual

consideration tends to have higher job performance (Imtiaz and Ahmed, 2009). Many recent

research also has shown that supportive leadership style positively influences employee

commitment and performance (Mahdi et al, 2014). However, some studies shows that

supportive leadership style do not have strong influence on job performance as does directive,

or participative leadership styles(Hwanget al, 2015). Similarly Supportive leadership style

provides psychological support , foster mutual trust and respects, helps employees in difficult

task and appreciates by providing positive feedback to cultivate high performance among the

employees (Hernandez et al, 2011). Therefore this study formulate the following hypothesis

H1: Supportive leadership has a significant and positive influences employee

performance

Participative leadership is one of the most important leadership behaviour or style that

was confirmed by various researches that there is a strong link with employee performance

(Dalluay and Jalagat, 2016, ISPAS, 2012, Iqbal, Anwar and Haider, 2015, Mulki Caemerer

and Heggde , 2015). Participative leadership was found to have satisfactory influence on job

satisfaction and productivity of the employees (Dalluay and Jalagat, 2016). It was also found

that participative leadership style was significant and positively influence employee

performance in long term (Iqbal et al, 2015). Participative leaders are enable to increase

employee efforts resulting better employee job performance (Mulki et al, 2015). Benoliel

and Somech (2014) found that participative leaders has a positively associated with employee

performance for those who are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and

neuroticism. The influence of participative leadership on employee job performance depends

on the level of trust (Newman et al, 2014). Also relationship between followers and

participative leaders were found to be strong which in turn leads to high employee job

performance (Kim and Schachter,2015).However some recent research shows that

participative leadership do not have any significant relationship with job performance

(Hwang et al, 2015). In contrast, participative leadership style positively influences job

satisfaction (Yang and Lim,2016) and job satisfaction was found to be positively influence by

participative leadership. The second hypothesis is

H2: There is a significant influence of participative leadership style and employee job

performance.

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 20

The third is servant leadership style, where leaders exhibits various styles or

behaviour such as listening, empathy, awareness, persuasion and stewardship (Choudary,

Akhtar and Zaheer, 2013). Each of these behaviour or skills has a direct or indirect influence

on subordinates performance. Choudhary et al (2013) argued that servant leaders encourages

organisational learning by cultivating listening, empathy and by setting a blame free culture.

In turn this causes to increase employee job performance (Choudhary et al, 2013). This is

confirmed later by few more researches showing that serving behaviour of leaders have a

significant and positive influence on organisational and employee job performance in terms

of creativity and customer service(Liden, et al, 2014). Servant leadership also has a very

strong influence on team performance where servant leadership attributes such as

empowerment, humility and stewardship plays an important role. Servant leaders were found

to be a string needs satisfaction; autonomy need satisfaction mediated servant leadership's

effect on task performance (Chiniara, and Bentein,2016). Also it was found that servant

leadership influences employee satisfaction and high performance (McCann et al, 2014).

Finally servant leaders promotes individual relational identification and collective

prototypically with the leader which, in turn, fosters employee creativity and team innovation

(Yoshida, et al, 2014). Therefore the third hypothesis is

H3: There is a significant and positive influence of Servant leadership on employee

job performance

Fourth leadership style that has been cited that has a significant influence on

employee job performance is transactional leadership style. Transactional leaders’ emphasis

on motivating and improving performance of employees through contingent reward,

management by exceptions, and contingent punishment (ISPAS 2012., Sing, 2015.,

Choudary, Akhtar and Zaheer, 2013). Past research shows a mixed result of transactional

leadership on employee job performance. Some studies shows that transactional leadership

has a negative influence on employee performance (Kour,Vaishali, and Andotra, N, 2016).

However studies done on banking sector in India shows that transactional leadership has a

significant positive impact on employee productivity and also it was found that such

leadership style is a strong predictor of employee productivity in private banking sector in

India (Singh, 2015). It was also found that contingent reward has a direct impact on employee

performance positively by creating a favourable work environment through autonomy and

support (Breevaart et al, 2014). Also it was found that transactional leadership has significant

influence on performance where competition is moderate and in moderate competitive

environment transactional leadership has a more influence on improving performance than

innovation (Huijun, and Jianjun, 2015).Also some studies shows that transactional leadership

has a significant and positive but week influence on firm’s performance. Therefore the fourth

hypothesis is

H4: There is significant and positive influence of transactional leadership on

employee job performance

Lastly transformational leadership which is the most cited leadership style that has a

positive influence on employee job performance. Individual consideration that was covered in

supportive leadership style , idealised influences, intellectual stimulation and inspirational

motivation are the attributes or behaviour of transformational leadership (Bass and

Avolio,1994). Those organisations where leaders are perceived more transformational leaders

tend to influence followers more positively to improve performance (ISPAS, 2012; Kour.

Vaishali, and Andotra, 2016). Singh(2015) also found that transformational leaders has a

significant influence on achievement of goals by fostering trust and building relationship with

subordinates. Transformational leaders influence positively towards employee performance

in terms of work engagement, quality, quantity and persistence (Kovjanic et al, 2013). It was

argued that high performance of employee depends on the quality of relationship between

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 21

transformational leadership and employees (Carte et al, 2013). Another study found that

transformational leadership positively influences extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction

(performance outcomes)(Asrar-ul-Haq and Kuchinke, 2016). Therefore the fifth hypothesis is

H5: There is a significant and positive influence of transformational leadership on

employee performance

Based on the review and hypotheses generated, the following conceptual framework

is proposed for the study. Therefore the following leadership styles are selected to examine

the impact of each style of leadership on employee performance

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Source: Authors own development based on various readings

3. RESEARCH METHODS

3.1. Subjects

A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed and a total of 136 questionnaires were

returned (response rate 90.6%). However, some of these returned questionnaires were

excluded from the sample as some respondents failed to complete or sometimes marked two

options leaving the researchers in a difficult situation to decide which one is the right one.

Almost 21 returned questionnaires were excluded. This means the study only used 115

completed questionnaires, where 59 respondents were female (51.3%) and 56 respondents

were male (48.7%).

This means the sample used in this study is 115 respondents. The sampling technique

used in this study was random probability sampling. The demographic aspects of the subjects

are illustrated below:

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 22

Table 3: Demographic Attributes of Respondents

Attributes Number Percent Cumulative Percent

Gender Male 56 51.3 51.3

Female 59 48.7 100

Age 20-30 years 58 50.4 50.4

31-40 years 26 22.6 73.0

41-50 years 21 18.3 81.3

51 years and above 10 8.7 100

Positions Apprentice 35 30.4 30.4

Artisans 22 19.1 49.5

Designers 4 3.5 53.0

Journeyman 33 28.7 81.7

Jr.Admin Executives 11 9.6 91.3

Sr.Admin Executives 10 8.7 100

Salary

Range

Less than RM2500 64 55.7 55.7

RM2500 5 4.3 60.0

RM2501-5000 35 30.4 90.4

RM5001-10,000 11 9.6 100

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

percent respondents are aged between 20-50 years. However 51 years and above represents

only 8.7 percent of respondents indicating that most of the respondents were young or middle

aged who works as jewellery artisans. 19.1 percent of artisans represents the respondents

while 30 percent of respondents were apprentice. almost 29 percent respondents were

journeyman and 3.5 percent respondents were designers. Since most of the respondents were

apprentice, 55.7 percent respondents earned a salary which is less than RM2500 per month.

30.4 percent respondents earned a salary ranged from RM2501 to 5000.only 9.6 percent of

respondents earned a salary ranged from RM5001 to 10,000 indicating that the income eraned

by the workers in general is almost same as other industry workers.

3.2. Procedure

The researchers independently contacted the respondents using a random probability

sampling based on the approximate numbers of respondents working in the selected company

or factory. In the chosen company (300 staff was working currently). Samples of 115

respondents were chosen for this study. Additionally, permission from the company was

obtained to meet the respondents in the factory during the break hours in the cafeteria or

while they were free or while waiting for bus or car to travel. A time period of 18 hours were

spent for three weeks to collect data. The completed questionnaires were collected by the

researchers and a follow up were made on the following week during the same hours before

the respondents resume their work and during the break-hours.

3.3. Measures

Normality: The normality of the scale is measured using Skewness and Kurtosis

(Khine, 2013). Normality of data is ensured when the absolute value falls with the range of -1

and +1 (Khine, 2013). Under skewness, most of the questions fall within the expected range,

except for question SL4,TEL3, TEL4 and EP5 which fall significantly higher than the

acceptable range. This is deemed unusual. Similarly, there are seven questions from kurtosis

that fall out of the acceptable range, three fall above 1 (SL4, TEL3, EP5) and four fall under

(SL1, TEL1, EP2 and EP4). The abnormality of the questions prompts for further test on the

data set and in this case, Reliability Test is suggested to be the next course of action.

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 23

Reliability: The questionnaire’s content was administered through various sources

which relates with the suitability of instruments indicated in the Table 2. Further –more,

these instruments have been extensively used in examining the impact of the selected

leadership style on employee performance. The reliability of the scale is measured using

Cronbach's Alpha values. It was mentioned that Cronbach's Alpha value varies from 0 to 1

but, satisfactory value is required to be more than 0.6 for the scale to be reliable (Malhotra,

2002; Cronbach, 1951). If we compare our reliability value with the standard value alpha of

0.6 advocated by Cronbach (1951), our scale is highly reliable in most cases. Nunnally &

Bernstein (1994) or with the standard value of 0.6 as recommended by Bagozzi & Yi’s

(1988).

Table 4: Reliability of Scale

Variables Number of Items Cronbach's Alpha

Overall 26 0.942

Supportive leadership 5 0.798

Participative leadership 5 0.775

Servant leadership 4 0.643

Transactional leadership 3 0.748

Transformational leadership 4 0.737

Employee performance 5 0.651

The dependent variable: Employee performance is being constructed based on

previous literature where the measures were being cited and tested by many scholars in their

research as indicated in the Table 2. We have conducted the reliability of the measures of

employee performance such as punctuality , performance improvement, productivity , career

advancement and interpersonal skills using Cronbach's Alpha. The Cronbach Alpha value for

Employee Performance is 0.651 which is under acceptable range (Bagozzi & Yi’, 1988.

Cronbach, 1951).

Independent variables: There are five independent variables. These are supportive

leadership with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.798, participative leadership with Cronbach's

Alpha value of 0.775, servant leadership with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.643,

transformational leadership with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.737 and transactional

leadership with Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.748 suggesting that the scale is highly reliable

and acceptable due to the high internal consistency among the variables.

The overall measures of the scale is highly reliable since the Cronbach's Alpha value

exceeds 0.7 and reached 0.942 indicating high internal consistency among all the items

included in the scale.

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation

Supportive leadership 115 3.941 0.787

Participative leadership 115 3.840 0.786

Servant leadership 115 3.793 0.813

Transactional leadership 115 3.788 1.009

Transformational leadership 115 3.900 0.855

Employee performance 115 4.002 0.659

Valid N (listwise) 115

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 24

With reference to the statistics above, Supportive Leadership illustrates the highest

mean value, as compared to the other leadership styles, at 3.941 (SD= 0.787). This indicates

that Supportive Leadership is the most perceived style of leadership practices among the

managers. The second most perceived often displayed leadership style among the managers

who work as jewellery artisans is transformational leadership style with a mean value of

3.900 (SD= 0.855) followed by participative leadership styles with a mean value of 3.840

(SD= 0.786) followed by servant leadership practices with a mean value of 3.793

(SD=0.813) and lastly transactional leadership practices with a mean value of 3.788

(SD=1.009) suggesting that transactional leadership is the least preferred style of leadership

practices among the managers in Jewellery artisans in Malaysia. This will be further analysed

using correlations analysis to examine whether there is a strong relationship between each

style of leadership practices.

Table 6: Correlation Analysis

The Table 6 above indicated that there is a positive and significant relationship

between each dimensions of leadership style with each other. Similarly the it also indicated

that all the leadership styles has a positive and significant relationship with employee

performance. Transformational leadership has the strongest and significant relationship with

employee performance while transactional leadership has the weak relationship with

employee performance. This is similar to what is being perceived by employees regarding

their managers leadership styles discussed under descriptive statistical Table 5.

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

leadership style is most influential in improving the employee performance.

4.2. Regression Analysis:

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

employee performance, in this case referring to the jewellery artisans, based on five

independent factors. They are Supportive leadership, Participative leadership, Servant

leadership, Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership. Employee Performance

is the dependent factor in this context.

Table 7: Model Summary

Model Summaryb

Model R R

Square

Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the

Estimate

Durbin-Watson

1 0.762a 0.580 0.561 0.4369 1.670

a. Predictors: (Constant), Supportive leadership (SL), Participative leadership (PL), Servant leadership

(SEL), Transactional leadership (TL), Transformationalleadership (TEL).

b. Dependent Variable: EmployeePerformance (EP).

EP SL PL SEL TL TEL

Employee performance Pearson Correlation 1

Supportive leadership Pearson Correlation 0.721** 1

Participative leadership Pearson Correlation 0.666** 0.780** 1

Servant leadership Pearson Correlation 0.650** 0.774** 0.761** 1

Transactional leadership Pearson Correlation 0.633** 0.778** 0.655** 0.607** 1

Transformational leadership Pearson Correlation 0.719** 0.829** 0.742** 0.789** 0.818** 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 25

The Adjusted R Square value at 0.561 indicated that the model is not a good fit

model as the value is lower than the rule of thumb of 0.60 (Zygmont & Smith, 2014). The

Durbin Watson value indicated that there is no autocorrelation among the selected

respondents for this research as the value falls in the range of 1.5-2.5 ((Bakon & Hassan,

2013). However since the model is close to 0.6, the model is accepted for further analysis. Table 8 : Regression Analysis

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 1.410 0.221 6.377 0.000

Supportive leadership 0.234 0.112 0.280 2.089 0.039

Participative leadership 0.139 0.092 0.166 1.520 0.131

Servant leadership 0.048 0.095 0.059 0.501 0.617

Transactional leadership 0.023 0.077 0.036 0.305 0.761

Transformational leadership 0.222 0.112 0.288 1.985 0.050

a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

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

value of 0.039 which is lower than the rule of thumb. Hence Supportive Leadership is found

to have a positive and significant impact on employee performance. Similarly,

Transformational Leadership has a beta value is at 0.288 with a significant value of 0.050

which is lower than the rule of thumb. Hence Transformational Leadership is also found to

have a positive significant impact on employee performance. Participative Leadership shows

a beta value of 0.166 with an insignificant value of 0.131, indicating that Participative

Leadership has a positive but no significant impact on employee performance. As for Servant

Leadership, which displays a beta value of 0.059 with an insignificant value of 0.761,

indicates that Servant Leadership also has a positive but no significant impact on employee

performance. Lastly, Transactional Leadership shows a beta value of 0.036 with an

insignificant value of 0.761, indicating that Transactional Leadership has a positive but no

significant impact on employee performance.

5. DISCUSSION OF HYPOTHESES

Table 9: Hypotheses

Hypothesis Beta Value Sig Result

H1: Supportive Leadership has a significant and

positive influences employee performance

0.280 0.039 Positive, Significant

Accepted

H2: There is a significant influence of Participative

Leadership style and employee job performance.

0.166 0.131 Positive, Insignificant

Rejected

H3: There is a significant and positive influence of

Servant Leadership on employee job performance

0.059 0.617 Positive, Insignificant

Rejected

H4: There is significant and positive influence of

Transactional Leadership on employee job

performance

0.036 0.761 Positive, Insignificant

Rejected

H5: There is a significant and positive influence of

Transformational Leadership on employee

performance

0.288 0.050 Positive, Significant

Accepted

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

influences employee performance. Previous studies shows that supportive leadership

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 26

practices such as fostering cooperation and trust via emotional support, by creating healthy

work environment enables to increases employee performance (Daft, 2005). Also our finding

is similar to previous studies done by Judge et al (2004) and Dumdum et al (2002) where they

found that supportive leaders attributes such as consideration has a direct impact on

employee performance. Also it was found that those employees works under supportive

leaders who shows individual consideration tends to have higher job performance (Imtiaz and

Ahmed, 2009). Many recent research also has shown that supportive leadership style

positively influences employee commitment and performance (Mahdi et al, 2014). Also

Hernandez et al (2011) found that supportive leadership provides psychological support ,

foster mutual trust and respects, helps employees in difficult task and appreciates by

providing positive feedback to cultivate high performance among the employees. However,

some studies shows that supportive leadership style do not have strong influence on job

performance as does directive, or participative leadership styles(Hwanget al, 2015).

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

participative leadership practices on employee performance. This is quite contradictory to

previous studies such as Dalluay and Jalagat (2016), ISPAS (2012), Iqbal, Anwar and Haider

(2015), Mulki Caemerer and Heggde (2015) where all these scholars found a positive and

significant impact of participative leadership on employee performance. However some

recent research shows that participative leadership do not have any significant relationship

with job performance (Hwang et al, 2015) which is similar to our findings. The difference

arise in our finding could be attributed to the context and among the jewellery artisans,

workers might not willing to allow their boss or managers intervene their work as they are

quite creative and requires them to be innovative. When leaders participate or intervene the

work, creativity might be lost and looks towards their leaders ways of doing it causes less

productive and imaginative.

The third hypothesis was also rejected as we found there is no significant influence of

servant leadership on employee performance. Our finding is again contrary to the majority of

the past research findings such as Choudhary et al (2013), Liden, et al (2014), Chiniara, and

Bentein (2016), McCann et al (2014) and Yoshida, et al (2014). The orders received by the

organisation might require specific designs and instructions to be followed. This is quite

contrary to the servant leadership practices as servant leadership allows empowerment,

humility and stewardship in improving employee performance (Chiniara, and Bentein,2016).

In our study we do not find much managers or leaders emphasis on the most crucial aspects

of servant leadership such as promoting individual relational identification and collective

prototypically with the leader which, in turn, fosters employee creativity and team innovation

(Yoshida, et al, 2014).

Fourth hypothesis was also rejected since we found transactional leadership do not

significantly influence employee performance in Jewellery artisans firms. This could be

attributed to the motivational factors such as money and punishment. Since employees

working in jewellery industry may looks for freedom, empowerment and positive work

environment may lacks from transactional leadership practices where their main focus could

be reward or punishment. Also the past research confirms our findings such as Kour,Vaishali,

and Andotra (2016). However, again our finding is contrary to most of the previous

researches such as ISPAS (2012), Sing (2015) and Choudary, Akhtar and Zaheer (2013).

Since transactional leadership mainly motivates employees to increase their performance in a

very competitive work environment (Huijun, and Jianjun, 2015).

The last hypothesis was accepted as transformational leadership was found to have a

positive and significant influence on employee performance. Our finding is similar to ISPAS

(2012), Kour. Vaishali, and Andotra (2016) and Singh(2015) where they all found that

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 27

transformational leaders has a significant influence on achievement of goals by fostering trust

and building relationship with subordinates. Transformational leaders influence positively

towards employee performance in terms of work engagement, quality, quantity and

persistence (Kovjanic et al, 2013). Another study found that transformational leadership

positively influences extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction (performance

outcomes)(Asrar-ul-Haq & Kuchinke, 2016).

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

It is has been concluded that supportive and transformational leadership practices

were the most suitable and effective two styles in influencing employees to improve their

current job performance. In short our conclusions are

Supportive leadership has a positive and significant influence on employee

performance. This means when mangers engage themselves in displaying supportive

leadership behaviours such as considerations, listening and caring, providing positive

feedback, building confidence and enabling self control towards employees results

high employee performance.

Transformational leadership behaviour positively and significantly influences

employee performance. This means when managers engage in behaviours such as

idealise behaviour, inspirational motivations, individualised considerations, and

intellectual stimulations enables to motivate employees to improve their job

performance.

Participative , servant and transactional leadership behaviour do not have any

significant influence on employee performance in the study context of jewellery

industry. This means we do not find any influence of such behaviours on employee

performance. However it is important to investigate further whether these leadership

behaviours might influence employee performance as vast literature shows that these

three behaviours positively influence on employee performance.

6.1. Managerial Implications

Emphasis on fostering supportive and transformational leadership behaviour among

the managers as these behaviours are directly influences employee performance or

productivity

Foster creativity and innovation through servant leadership behaviour

Emphasis on empowerment, delegation and establishing positive work environment

for designers, artisans and journeyman

6.2. Future Research Directions

Since this study was conducted only on jewellery industry employee in Malaysia, it

may not be able to generalize the finding. However by conducting this research on

wider context of a particular country could confirm the findings and maybe a

significant contribution to this field of study

The analysis method could be change in future research using structural equation

modelling rather than simple multiple regressions. In this way the items can be

validated to confirm whether it measures what it should measures (CFA).

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 28

Increase the number of employees participate in the survey by selecting at least 80

percent of the jewellery firms and its employees. This way it will be easier to

generalise the finding among the jewellery industry

The study can be more specific to managers or participants should be in managerial

position and change the questionnaire to self-rating questionnaire about managers

themselves rather than employees rating their managers leadership practices.

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

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership,

innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes.

Human Performance, 25(1), 1-25.

Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2016). Impact of leadership styles on employees’ attitude

towards their leader and performance: Empirical evidence from Pakistani banks. Future

Business Journal, 2(1), 54-64.

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

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

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Bagozzi,R.P. & Yi,Y.(1988). On the Evalution of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science,16(1):74-95

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994) Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

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

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

Benoliel, P., & Somech, A. (2014). The health and performance effects of participative leadership:

Exploring the moderating role of the Big Five personality dimensions. European Journal of

Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(2), 277-294.

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

Berson, Y., Shamair, B., Avolio, B.J. and Popper, M. (2001) The relationship between vision strength,

leadership style & context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12: 53-73

Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction,

and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly,

24(1), 270-283.

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily

transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of

occupational and organizational psychology, 87(1), 138-157.

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

Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational

leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental

organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 942-958.

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 29

Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in

Chinese leaders linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of

Management, 40(3), 796-819.

Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance:

Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction.

The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124-141.

Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant

leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business

Ethics, 116(2), 433-440.

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

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

169.

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

334

Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. (3rd Ed). Toronto: Thompson South Western.

Dalluay, V. S., & Jalagat, R. C. (2016). Impacts of Leadership Style Effectiveness of Managers and

Department Heads to Employees' Job Satisfaction and Performance on Selected Small-Scale

Businesses in Cavite, Philippines. International Journal Of Recent Advances In

Organizational Behaviour & Decision Sciences, 2(2), 734-751.

http://globalbizresearch.org/files/5055_ijraob_van-s-dalluay_revenio-c-jalagat-399974.pdf

Den Hartog, D. N. and Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In, N. Anderson, D.S.

Ones, H. K. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 166-187). London: Sage.

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

Jossey-Bass

Dubinsky, A.J., Yammarino, F.J., Jolson, M.A. and Spangler, W.D. (1995) Transformational

leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales

Management, 15: 17-31.

Duignan, P. A., & Macpherson, J. T. (1992). Educative leadership: A practical theory for new

administrators and managers. London: Falmer Press.

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

transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension.

In B. J. Avolio & F.J.Yammarino (eds.), Transformational and Charismatic leadership: The

road ahead, 2, 35-66.Oxford, U.K: Elsevier Sciences

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

Gilmore, P. L., Hu, X., Wei, F., Tetrick, L. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2013). Positive affectivity neutralizes

transformational leadership's influence on creative performance and organizational citizenship

behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(8), 1061-1075.

Glendon, A. I., Clarke, S. G., and McKenna, E. F. (2006). Human safety and risk management (2nd

edition). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

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

Herman, H. M., & Chiu, W. C. (2014). Transformational leadership and job performance: A social

identity perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2827-2835.

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 30

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

NJ: Prentice Hall

House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of

Management, 3(23): 409-473.

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

McGrawHill companies.

Huijun, Y., & Jianjun, Y. (2015). Transactional Leadership, Competitive Intensity, Technological

Innovation Choices and Firm Performance. Journal of Management, 4, 001.

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

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

Hwang, S. J., Quast, L. N., Center, B. A., Chung, C. T. N., Hahn, H. J., & Wohkittel, J. (2015). The

impact of leadership behaviours on leaders’ perceived job performance across cultures:

comparing the role of charismatic, directive, participative, and supportive leadership

behaviours in the US and four Confucian Asian countries. Human Resource Development

International, 18(3), 259-277.

Imtiaz, S. & Ahmed, M. S. (2009). The impact of stress on employee productivity, performance and

turn over: An important managerial issue. International Review of Business Research Paper,

5(4), 468‐477.

Iqbal, N., Anwar, S. and Haider, N(2015). Effect of Leadership Style on Employee Performance.

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), 1-6.

ISPAS, A. (2012). The Perceived Leadership Style and Employee Performance in Hotel Industry - a

Dual Approach. Review Of International Comparative Management / Revista De

Management Comparat International, 13(2), 294-304.

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

Eason

Jenkins, T. (2013). Reflections on Kenneth E. Boulding’s The Image: Glimpsing the Roots of Peace

Education Pedagogy. Journal of Peace Education and Social justice, 7(1), 27-37.

Jing, F. F., & Avery, G. C. (2011). Missing links in understanding the relationship between leadership

and organizational performance. International Business & Economics Research Journal

(IBER), 7(5), pp.67-78.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F. & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and

initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51.

Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004) Transformational & transactional leadership: A meta-analytic

test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 755-768

Keller, R.T. (2006) Transformational leadership, initiating structure & substitutes for leadership: A

longitudinal study of research & development project team performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91(1): 202-210

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

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

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

practice. Sense Publishers

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 31

Kim, C., & Schachter, H. L. (2015). Exploring Followership in a Public Setting Is It a Missing Link

Between Participative Leadership and Organizational Performance?. The American Review

of Public Administration, 45(4), 436-457.

Kissi, J., Dainty, A., & Tuuli, M. (2013). Examining the role of transformational leadership of

portfolio managers in project performance. International Journal of project management,

31(4), 485-497.

Kour, R., Vaishali, & Andotra, N. (2016). Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction among Employees:

A study of Women Leaders in J&K Service Sectors. International Journal On Leadership,

4(1), 34-41.

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance: An

experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work

engagement. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 86(4), 543-555.

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic Leadership, Authentic

Followership, Basic Need Satisfaction, and Work Role Performance A Cross-Level Study.

Journal of Management, 41(6), 1677-1697.

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

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture:

Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-

1452.

Liu, W., Lepak, D. P., Takeuchi, R., & Sims, H. P. (2003). Matching leadership styles with

employment modes: Strategic human resource management perspective. Human Resource

Management Review, 13, 127-152

Locander, W. B., Hamilton, F., Ladik, D., & Stuart, J. (2002). Developing a leadership-rich culture:

The missing link to creating a market-focused organization. Journal of Market-Focused

Management, 5, 149-163

Mahdi, O. R., Mohd, E. S. B. G., & Almsafir, M. K. (2014). Empirical study on the impact of

leadership behavior on organizational commitment in plantation companies in Malaysia.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 1076-1087.

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

Education Asia

McCann, J. T., Graves, D., & Cox, L. (2014). Servant leadership, employee satisfaction, and

organizational performance in rural community hospitals. International Journal of Business

and Management, 9(10), 28-38

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

Mohammed, U.D., Yusuf, M.O., Sanni, I.M., Ifeyinwa, T.N., Bature, N.U and Kazeem, A.O (2014).

The Relationship between Leadership Styles and Employees’ Performance in Organizations

(A Study of Selected Business Organizations in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria).

European Journal of Business and Management, 6(22), p.1-11. Available

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.684.9954&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Mulki, J. P., Caemmerer, B., & Heggde, G. S. (2015). Leadership style, salesperson's work effort and

job performance: the influence of power distance. Journal Of Personal Selling & Sales

Management, 35(1), 3-22. doi:10.1080/08853134.2014.958157

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 32

Newman, A., Rose, P. S., & Teo, S. T. (2014). The Role of Participative Leadership and Trust‐Based

Mechanisms in Eliciting Intern Performance: Evidence from China. Human Resource

Management, 55(1), 53-67

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

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

Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). RETRACTED: The

relationship between authentic leadership and follower job performance: The mediating role

of follower positivity in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 502-516.

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

(1), 67-81.

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

Rowe, W.G. (2001) Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of

Management Executive, 15: 81-94.

Rowld, J. & Schlotz, W. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership and followers’chronic

stress. Leadership Review, 9, 35-48

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

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Singh, K. (2015). Leadership Style and Employee Productivity: A Case Study of Indian Banking

Organizations. Journal Of Knowledge Globalization, 8(2), 39-67.

Sousa, M., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2015). Introducing a Short Measure of Shared Servant

Leadership Impacting Team Performance through Team Behavioral Integration. Frontiers in

psychology, 6.

Stewart-Banks, B., Kuofie, M., Hakim, A., & Branch, R. (2015). Education Leadership Styles Impact

on Work Performance and Morale of Staff. Journal Of Marketing & Management, 6(2), 87-

105.

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

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

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

Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W. (1958) How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business

Review 36(2), 95-101

Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., & Cheng, B. S. (2013). Gender makes the

difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles

and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

122(2), 101-113.

Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. K. (2013). Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction:

the mediating role of empowerment. Journal of advanced nursing, 69(4), 947-959.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and

performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102

ISSN: 2289-4519 Page 33

Yang, L. C., & Lim, V. (2016). Empirical Investigation into the Path-Goal Leadership Theory in the

Central Bank Fraternity: Leadership Styles and Job Satisfaction. South East Asian Central

Banks (SEACEN) Research and Training Centre Working Papers.

Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity

and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. Journal of

Business Research, 67(7), 1395-1404.

Yukl, G. (1999) An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal

of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1): 33-48

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. and Kelloway, E.K. (2000) Development & effects of transformational

leadership in adolescents. The Leadership Quarterly, 11: 211–226

IJABM is a FTMS Publishing Journal