i

EFFECTS OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

AT BOA KENYA LIMITED

CELESTINE AWINO ANYANGO

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF HUMAN

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OF THE OPEN UNIVERSITY OF

TANZANIA

2015
 ii

CERTIFICATION

I, the undersigned, certify that I have read the dissertation entitled: The effect of

leadership styles on employees performance at Bank of Africa, Kenya and found it

to be in a form acceptable for examination.

Dr. Proches Ngatuni

(Supervisor)

..

Date
 iii

COPYRIGHT

"No part of this dissertation may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or

transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the author or the Open

University of Tanzania in that behalf".

 iv

DECLARATION

I, Celestine Awino Anyango, do hereby declare that this dissertation is my own

original work and that it has not been submitted for a similar degree in any other

University.

Signature

Date
 v

DEDICATION

I wish to dedicate this piece of work to my beloved Father the late Samuel Anyango, the

man who gave away everything he had to see me go to school. I will forever cherish his

candid love, care and all the good and the bad times we shared together. With love

always; Celestine.
 vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to God for His mercy that made this possible. He gave me wisdom and

strength to always be courageous in accomplishing this thesis. I highly appreciate my

supervisor Dr. Proches Ngatuni for his time, advice, patience, encouragement,

fatherly guidance and the supervisory role he offered me during the course of this

study. Dr. Ngatunis support helped me a lot in focusing on my topic, his critical

comments also improved the quality of this research work. He reviewed my

dissertation word-by-word, letter by letter and corrected every little mistake, May

God bless you Dr. Proches Ngatuni.

In a special way, I would like to also recognize my mother Madam Benedatte

Anyango for her love, care and prayers, Abulu without you I couldnt have come this

far. I wish to thank my sisters and brothers: Polycarp, John Paul, Perpetua, Veronica,

Felix and Bernard for always encouraging me to push on.

I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my Husband Isaac Omondi for his

patience, understanding and financial support.

A special thanks goes to the family of Mr. and Mrs. Jonathan Obel for the special

part they played in my life may God reward you accordingly.

Last but not least, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all staff of BOA

Kenya especially those who took their time to fill the questionnaire in their congested

work schedules. This project paper would not been done without your assistance and

support.
 vii

ABSTRACT

The study aimed at assessing the effect of leadership styles on employees

performance at Bank of Africa, Kenya. The main objective of this study was to

investigate the effect of different leadership styles (transformational, transactional,

autocratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles) on employees performance of

employees. A cross section descriptive survey research strategy was adopted in

which 80 usable structured questionnaires were collected from 300 questionnaires

distributed. The leadership styles were measured through the Multi factor Leadership

Questionnaire developed by Avolio and Bass (1995), modified to fit the context of

the study. Employee performance was measured by the scale of Yousef (2000).

Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were used for data analysis. In

inferential statistics, Pearsons correlation and regression analysis were used to

assess both relationships and effects as per the hypotheses of the study. The findings

show that transformational leadership style is the most exhibited style at the bank

followed by the transactional leadership style and laissez-faire. Employee

performance is above average. Overall, scores in transformational leadership style

were found to be strongly correlated with both measures of employee performance

and overall performance except for the intellectual simulation dimension, which had

insignificant positive correlation with quality of performance. Transactional

leadership style was found to be positively correlated with both measures of

employee performance as well as overall performance. However, contingent rewards

had a negative but insignificant correlation with performance while management by

exception had insignificant positive correlations. Authoritative leadership style had

insignificant relationship while laissez faire style had insignificant positive

 viii

correlation. The results suggest that supervisors in organizations need to use a lot of

transformational leadership behaviors or rather embrace transformational leadership

style, but not laissez-faire leadership. From the results, transformational leadership

could have greater effects on employee productivity and quality of performance. It is

recommended therefore that Transformational and transactional leaderships are the

most effective leadership styles.

Key words: leadership style, transformational leadership, transactional leadership,

authoritative leadership, laissez fare leadership, employee performance, job

performance, banking, Kenya.

 ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATION ....................................................................................................................ii

COPYRIGHT...........................................................................................................................iii

DEDICATION..........................................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................vi

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................ix

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................xii

LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................xiii

CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background to the Research Problem...................................................................... 1

1.2 Profile of Bank of Africa Kenya .................................................................................... 4

1.3 Statement of the Research Problem ............................................................................... 5

1.4 Research Objective ........................................................................................................ 7

1.4.1 General Objective ................................................................................................... 7

1.4.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................. 7

1.5 Research Questions........................................................................................................ 7

1.6 Relevance of the Research ............................................................................................. 8

1.7 Organization of the Dissertation .............................................................................. 8

CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 9

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 9

2.1 Overview........................................................................................................................ 9

2.2. Conceptual Defitions .................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Leadership and Leadership Style ............................................................................ 9

 x

2.2.2 Employee Performance .................................................................................. 13

2.3 Theoretical Literature Review ..................................................................................... 14

2.3.1 Traits and Behavioral Theory ............................................................................... 14

2.3.2 Situational and Contingency Theory..................................................................... 15

2.3.3 Transformational and Transactional Theory......................................................... 15

2.3.4 Transactional Leadership and Employee Performance......................................... 16

2.3.5 Transformational Leadership and Employee Performance................................... 17

2.3.6 Laissez Faire Leadership and Employee Performance ......................................... 18

2.3.7 Autocratic Leadership and Employee Performance.............................................. 19

2.4 Empirical Analysis....................................................................................................... 19

2.4.1 General Studies ..................................................................................................... 19

2.4.2 Empirical Analysis in Africa and Locally............................................................. 24

2.5 Research Gaps.............................................................................................................. 26

2.6 Conceptual Framework................................................................................................ 27

2.8 Statement of Hypothesis .............................................................................................. 29

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 30

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 30

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 30

3.2 Research Design........................................................................................................... 30

3.2.1 Study Population................................................................................................... 30

3.3 Area of Research.......................................................................................................... 31

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Technique......................................................................... 31

3.5. Variables and Measurement Procedures ..................................................................... 32

3.6 Methods of Data Collection ......................................................................................... 32

3.8 Data processing and Analysis ...................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER FOUR.................................................................................................................. 35
 xi

4.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................... 35

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 35

4.2 Description of the Sample...................................................................................... 35

4.3 Findings........................................................................................................................ 37

4.3.1 Research objective One: Analysis of Leadership Style ........................................ 37

4.3.2 Research Objective Two: Analysis of Employee Performance ............................ 41

4.3.3 Research Objective Three: The Effect of Leadership Style on Employee

Performance ................................................................................................................... 43

4.4 Discussion of the Results ....................................................................................... 49

CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................... 52

5.0 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 52

5.1 Overview...................................................................................................................... 52

5.2 Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................... 53

5.3 Conclusions and Implications ...................................................................................... 54

5.4 Recommendations........................................................................................................ 54

5.5 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ....................................................... 56

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 59

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 73

QUESTIONAIRE .................................................................................................................. 73
 xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Reliability Statistics ............................................................................................... 33

Table 4.1: Age Distribution ................................................................................................... 35

Table 4.2 Gender Distribution ............................................................................................... 36

Table 4.3 Education Distribution ........................................................................................... 37

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics on Transformational Leadership ......................................... 38

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics on Transactional Leadership ............................................... 39

Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics on Authoritative Leadership................................................ 39

Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics on Laissez Faire Leadership................................................ 40

Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics on Employee Performance .................................................. 42

Table 4.9 Correlation between Leadership styles and employee performance...................... 44

Table 4.10 Model summary ................................................................................................... 47

Table 4.11 Model fit results ................................................................................................... 48

Table 4.12 Regression coefficients ........................................................................................ 49

 xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Leadership Definitions Key Elements................................................................. 11

Figure 2.2 Conceptual Framework......................................................................................... 28

 1

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Research Problem

In society today, thousands of individuals are appointed or elected to shoulder the role

and responsibilities of leadership. Leadership is practiced in schools and colleges,

factories and farms, business enterprises, dispensaries and hospitals, in the civil and

military organizations of a country and public life, at all levels, in short in every walk

of life. These leaders should promote unity, harmony, strength, prosperity and

happiness in society.

The challenges of coping with todays uncertain business environment have put many

organizations on their toes to struggle for survival in the heat of competition. The

driver of such strategic move towards surviving the competition is the leadership

provided by managers who are expected to influence others in achieving

organizational goals and also boost employees performance. Shafie et al. (2013)

explains the importance of leadership in organizations and especially on human

beings who are apparently the biggest asset of any firm; The main drivers of

organizations are usually employees, they give life to the organizations and provide

goals" (Shafie et al., 2013). It is very paramount to provide workers with direction and

psychological satisfaction to get the best from them, this direction can only come

from leaders. In fact, leadership is very critical for all organizations in realizing their

set objectives. Since leadership is a key factor for improving the performance of many

if not all organizations and the success or failure of an organization depends on the

effectiveness of leadership at all levels. Paracha et al (2012) is in support of this

 2

Leaders play essential role in accomplishment of goals and boost employees

performance by satisfying them with their jobs (p.55) Leadership is perhaps the most

thoroughly investigated organizational variable that has a potential impact on

employee performance (Cummings and Schwab, 1973). It is a vital issue in every

organization primarily because the decisions made by the leaders could lead to

success or business failure. Notably, it has been widely accepted that effective

organizations require effective leadership and that employee performance together

with organizational performance will suffer in direct proportion to the neglect of this,

Fiedler and House (1988). Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the effectiveness

of any set of people is largely dependent on the quality of its leadership effective

leader behavior facilitates the attainment of the followers desires, which then results

in effective performance (Fiedler & House, 1988; Maritz, 1995; Ristow, et al., 1999).

A number of recent studies examined the effect of leadership styles on employees

performance. Se for example, Rasool, et al. (2015), Pradeep and Prabhu (2011),

Aboshaqah et al. (2015), Ipas (2012), Kahinde and Bajo (2014), Tsigu ad Rao (2015),

Gimuguni, et al (2014), Raja and Palanichamy (2015) etc. Rasool et al (2015)

examined the health sector in Pakistani and report that both transformational and

transactional leadership styles affect employee performance but the effect of

transformation leadership style is higher than that of transactional leadership Raja

and Palanichamy (2015) report positive relationship between both transformational

and transactional leadership styles but negative relationship between laissez-faire

leadership style and employee performance from a sample of employees in public and

private sector enterprises in India.

 3

Ipas (2012) reports that autocratic leadership to be the most used style by managers in

the hotel industry arguing that it is perceived as a style that yields the most results.

Aboshaiqah et al (2015) also looked at the link between leadership and employee

performance among hospital nurses and report that the transformational and

transactional leadership styles are significantly positively related to employee

performance while laissez-faire is significantly negatively correlated to employee

performance. Significant positive relationship between bot transformational and

transactional leadership styles and employee performance is also reported in Pradeep

and Prabhu (2011) in India, and in Kehinde and Banjo (2014) and Ejere and Abasilim

(2013), both in Nigeria. Other studies in Africa are Tsigu and Rao (2012) and

Gimuguni et al (2014) in Ehtiopian banking industry and Ugandan local government

authorities respectively. While Tsigu and Rao finds that the transformation leadership

explained the variation is employee performance better than transaction leadership

style, Gimuguni et al report significantly positive relationship between autocratic,

laissez-faire and democratic and performance.

Therefore, although the literature on leadership and employee performance is

scattered across countries and across industry, the evidence of the effect of leadership

style on employee performance is also varied. While most of the literature reviewed

is somehow consistent in suggesting that both transformational and transactional

leadership styles are significantly positively related to employee performance and that

transformational styles effect is more pronounced than that of the transactional

leadership style (Rasool, et al., 2015; Kehinde and Bajo, 2014; Tsigu and Rao, 2015),

the evidence on the relationship between laissez-faire and performance is not that
 4

straight forward. For example while, some are reporting negative relationship, e.g.

Aboushaqah et al (2015), others like Gimuguni, et al (2014) have reported a positive

relationship. This suggests that the evidence on this leadership style is inconsistent.

In addition, neither all industries nor countries are covered in the literature. Of those

reviewed, the medical field is represented (Rassol et al, 2015; Aboushaqah, et al

2015), local government authorities (Gimuguni, et al., 2014), hotel (Ipas, 2012),

Petroleum (Kehinde and Bajo, 2014). Of more interest to this study is the paucity of

researches in this area from Africa and East Africa in particular. A few reviewed here

are Tsigu and Rao (2015), Ejere and Abasalim (2013) and Gimuguni (2015), Nuhu,

(2010), but there are also those from South Africa (Howard, et al., 2003). While

several industries are repreets in the growing body of evidence few are coming from

the banking sector, see for example Tsigu and Rao (2015) from Ethiopian banking

industry.

Therefore, from the preview of literature it is evident that the research evidence on the

effect of leadership style on employee performance that leadership style can explain

significant number of performance outcomes at individual and organizational level.

But the evidence is not evenly distributed across economies at large or even within

African economies. It is also evident that evidence from the banking sector is lagging

behind. It is these facts that have motivated this study in order to contribute evidence

from the Kenyan banking industry.

1.2 Profile of Bank of Africa Kenya

Bank of Africa (BOA) started its operations in Kenya in 2004 with only two branches

one in Nairobi and the other in Mombasa, initially it was purely a corporate bank but
 5

with the many changes in the economy and forces from the competition, the bank was

left with no choice but to change its strategy in 2012 to start venturing in the retail

market with a composition of 80% retail business, 10% cooperate business and 10%

concentration in SME banking. The management has also changed since then and

BOA has observed a big drop in staff productivity in 2013 and 2014 making

performance management a big concern for the human resource department and the

banks management at large, it seems as if leadership, style, situation and

performance criteria have been left to suffocate on their own. As a result, employee

performance has been seriously affected due to lack of proper direction and

application of strategic style in managing daily duties.

The bank has currently put in place a leadership development project daubed (YLP)

that is trying to give selected managers and their designates the required leadership

skills to ensure business continuity and survival. Though since this program started

way back in 2013 not so much has been achieved in terms of performance, it is this

concern that drove the researcher to find out the effects of leadership style in

employee's performance.. This study therefore will be about the effect of leadership

styles on employee performance at Bank of Africa Kenya limited and majorly focus

on employees in different branches of the bank specifically Nairobi, Western, cost and

Mount Kenya regions.

1.3 Statement of the Research Problem

Kehinde and Banjo (2014) emphasized on the importance of leaders in an

organization In todays competitive environment, organizations expand globally and

face a lot of challenges in meeting their objectives and chase to be more successful
 6

from others. Just like BOA Kenya which has grown from a two branched bank to

thirty six branches to date struggling to fit in the retail market and compete with other

giants in the same industry. In this study the researcher sought to develop an interest

in this topic from the many concerns of the shareholders of BOA Kenya limited on

increased drop in productivity/performance of the banks staff. Leadership styles

affect everyone in the organization from senior management to temporary/ interns

/contract employees. In the case of BOA, only a fraction of staff received bonuses

which were purely pegged on performance implying that many employees failed to

meet the set targets for the year 2014, this clearly shows that the performance of the

past two years has not been to the expected standards.

Employee performance which is perceived as: Executing defined duties, meeting

deadlines, team input, and the cohesion of both leadership and performance should be

evident through style and approach used by managers in the attempt to cause

efficiency which requires specific leadership approaches to unique performance

challenges in achieving departmental goals. The above should as pointed by

Armstrong (2005) lead to efficiency, specialization, effective feedback and good

organizational relations. The independent variable (IV) in this study was leadership

styles and indeed Richard et al (2010) states that leadership is the ability to influence

people towards attainment of goals. This captures the idea that leaders are involved

with other people in achievement of goals. This is an area of concern that promoted

the researcher to carry out a study on the subject. The idea here is to assess

performance of employees and test whether it is affected by employees perception of

leadership style that is practiced by immediate supervisor.

 7

1.4 Research Objective

1.4.1 General Objective

The objective of this study was therefore to investigate the effect of different

leadership styles on the performance of employees at BOA Kenya.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

The study was guided by the following specific objectives:

(i) To evaluate the effects of transformational leadership on employee

performance in Bank of Africa Kenya

(ii) To evaluate the effect of transactional leadership on employee performance in

Bank of Africa.

(iii) To evaluate the effect of laissez-faire leadership style on employee

performance in Bank of Africa Kenya.

(iv) To evaluate the effect of autocratic leadership on employee performance in

Bank of Africa Kenya

1.5 Research Questions

The study sought to answer the following questions;

(i) What is the effect of transformational leadership style on employee

performance in Bank of Africa Kenya??

(ii) What is the effect of transactional leadership style on employee performance

in Bank of Africa Kenya?

(iii) What is the effect of laissez -faire leadership style on employee performance

in Bank of Africa Kenya?

 8

(iv) What is the effect of Autocratic leadership style on employee performance in

Bank of Africa Kenya?

1.6 Relevance of the Research

The researcher hopes that in view of this study:

(a) The basis and findings of this research will be useful by future researchers,

students and academicians digesting the effects and importance of different

leadership styles on employee performance.

(b) After determining the relationship between leadership style and employee

performance, the bank will be in a better position to use the findings of this

research to develop leadership programmes that will see leaders acquire

relevant leadership skills for effective management and organizational

performance.

(c) This studys findings will assist different leaders in identifying the best and the

most appropriate leadership style to use in relevant situations for team

effectiveness and increased staff productivity.

1.7 Organization of the Dissertation

This dissertation is organized in five chapters. The rest of it is organized as follows:

Chapter two presents literature review. Chapter three presents the methodology

applied in the study. Chapter four presents and discusses the findings of the study.

Finally, chapter five summarizes, concludes and presents recommendations. Areas

for future studies are also recommended.

 9

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview

The chapter presents a review of the literature related to the study. Past studies are

important as they guide the researcher on other studies done on the same topic. From

this review, a conceptual framework using the dependent and the independent

variables in the survey is developed, which lays a framework for the study. The

chapter has six parts; conceptual definitions, the theoretical review, the empirical

literature review, research gap, the conceptual framework and statements of

hypotheses.

2.2. Conceptual Defitions

2.2.1 Leadership and Leadership Style

Although leadership has been well researched over the years, there is still lack of a

definition that is universally accepted. Just like Stogdill (1974) puts it, There are

almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to

define the concept. The following are a few examples of such definitions Talat et al

(2015) asserts that leadership is wide spread process, which calls for authority,

responsibility and delegation of power. Leaders help to direct, guide and persuade

their followers (employees) towards achieving their personal and organizational

goals and objectives. Thus, leadership styles cover all aspects of dealing within and

outside of an organization, handling or dealing with conflicts, helping and guiding

the workforce to achieve and accomplish their tasks and appearing as a role model
 10

for all. According to Kumar (2014) leadership is leadership is defined as a process

by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the

organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent ( p. 441). These are

accomplished through the application of leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values,

ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Leadership is the integrated sharing of

vision, resources, and value to induce positive change. It is the ability to build up

confidence and zeal among people and to create an urge in them to be led.

Wammy & Swammy (2014) see leadership as a social influence process in which the

leader seeks the voluntary participation of subordinates in an effort to reach

organization goals and therefore a leader is a person who delegates or influences

others to act so as to carry out specified objectives. Memon (2014) defines leadership

as process by which an individual influences the thoughts, attitudes and behaviors of

others by taking responsibility for setting direction for the firm, others to see and

visualize what lies ahead and figure out how to archive it.

Leslie et al (2013) asserts that leadership is the ability to influence people to

willingly follow ones guidance or adhere to ones decisions. On the other hand who

a leader is; one who obtains followers and influence them in setting and achieving

objectives. In Sundi (2013), Leadership is the ability to convince and mobilize

others to work together as a team under his leadership to achieve a certain goal( p.

50). Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve

organizational objectives through change Lussier and Achua (2009). They have
 11

explained in their book that there are five key elements of this definition as

illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Influence

LEADERSHIP Organisational
Leader-follower
objectives

Change People

Figure 2.1 Leadership Definitions Key Elements

Source: Adapted from Lussier and Achua (2009) page 7.

According to Hill (2008). Leadership is the process of motivating, influencing and

directing others in the organization to work productively in the pursuit of

organization goals. Armstrong (2003), leadership is simply the ability to persuade

others willingly to behave differently for achieving the task set for them with the

help of the group. Leadership, according to Levine and Crom (1994), is about

listening to people, supporting and encouraging them and involving them in the

decision-making and problem-solving processing. It is about building teams and

developing their ability to make skillful decisions.

 12

Conger (1992) define leadership as individuals who establish direction for a

working group of individuals who gain commitment from these group of members to

this direction and who then motivate these members to achieve the directions

outcome.

Basically every leader has a different behavior in leading his followers. It is called

leadership style. Cuadrado et al (2007) described leadership style as consistent set of

behaviors /patterns, proposing two dimensions in leaders behavior, structure

initiation which includes task oriented leaders and consideration which includes

relation oriented leaders. Memon (2014) defines leadership style as a leaders style of

providing direction, motivating people and implementing plans. Leadership styles are

seen as approaches that leaders use when leading organizations, departments, or

groups (Mehmood & Arif, 2011) Leaders who search for the most effective

leadership style may find that a combination of styles is effective because no one

leadership style is best (Darling & Leffel, 2010).

Based on the above, this study adopts the definition of leadership by Hill (2008). A

well-directed employee is a focused employee in terms of expectations and

organizational goals, such individual tend to understand product knowledge,

procedures and processes, any time we develop our employees we give them the

power and the ability to produce and give their best to the organization hence

increased productivity. Leadership style application is determined by leaders

themselves. If leadership style applied is good and can give a good direction to

subordinates, then it create confidence and work motivation to employees, thus

increasing employee morale which also effects on better employee performance.

 13

Leaders must work together with subordinates/employees to achieve better

performance. Sudi (2013) in his research, employee performance is very influenced

by leadership style.

2.2.2 Employee Performance

The main goal of any organization is to enhance the job performance of its

employees so that it could survive in this highly competitive environment.

Performance is a multidimensional construct and an extremely vital criterion that

determines organizational successes or failures. Prasetya and Kato (2011) define

performance as the attained outcomes of actions with skills of employees who

perform in some situation. According to Pattanayak (2005), the performance of an

employee is his/her resultant behavior on a task which can be observed and

evaluated. To Pattanayak, employee performance is the contribution made by an

individual in the accomplishment of organizational goals.

Here employee performance is simply the result of patterns of action carried out to

satisfy an objective according to some standards. This means employee performance

is a behavior which consists of directly observable actions of an employee, and also

mental actions or products such as answers or decisions, which result in

organizational outcomes in the form of attainment of goals. Ibrahim (2004) defined

job performance as an important activity that provides both the goals and methods to

achieve the organizational goals and also provide the achievement level in term of

out-put. El-Saghier (2002) considered it as an effort of an employee to achieve some

specific goal, the researcher will adopt this definition.

 14

2.3 Theoretical Literature Review

Globally, leadership has become the most widely studied aspect of organizational

behavior and a number of theories have emerged focusing on the strategies, traits,

styles and the situational approach to leadership. As a result of ever-growing interest

in the field of leadership, behavioral scientists and sociologists began to analyze the

possible consequences of leadership behaviors and the variables that are used to

predict the leaders behaviors.

2.3.1 Traits and Behavioral Theory

The trait perspective was one of the earliest theories of leadership in the 1940s

which assumes that great leaders are born with distinguished personality traits that

make them better suited for leadership and make them different from other people or

their followers. Stogdills (1948) survey of the leadership literature came up with the

most comprehensive list of traits. Stogdills observation that leadership situations

vary significantly and place different demands on leaders, destroyed trait theory,

leading to the emergence of situational and behavioral approaches.

Behavioral theories of leadership state that it is the behavior of leaders that

distinguishes them from their followers. It focuses on the actions of leaders rather

than on mental qualities or internal states with the belief that great leaders are made,

not born. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through

teaching and observation. Behavior theories examine whether the leader is task

oriented, people oriented, or both. Studies conducted at the University of Michigan

and Ohio State University in 1945, established two major forms of leader behavior

namely: employee-centered and production-centered (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988).

 15

2.3.2 Situational and Contingency Theory

Contingency theory is an approach to leadership in which leadership effectiveness is

determined by the interaction between the leaders personal characteristics and

aspects of the situation. Contingency theories are based on the assumption that the

relationship between leadership style and organizational outcomes is moderated by

situational factors related to the environment, and therefore the outcomes cannot be

predicted by leadership style, unless the situational variables are known (Cheng and

Chan, 2002).

Three models exist in this leadership approach: Fiedlers (1967) co-worker theory,

Houses (1971) path-goal theory, and Heresy and Blanchard (1969) situational

leadership theory. From this approach and the three models no leadership style is

best in all situations. Success depends upon a number of variables, including the

leaders preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of the followers, and aspects

of the situation. Effective leadership requires adapting ones style of leadership to

situational factors, and control is contingent on three factors namely the relationship

between the leader and followers, the degree of the task structure and the leaders

authority, position or power.

2.3.3 Transformational and Transactional Theory

Over the past twenty five years, a large body of research has emerged around

transformational transactional leadership theory. Transactional theories focus on

the role of supervision, organization and group performance and they base leadership

on a system of rewards and punishments for meeting particular objectives. The type
 16

of transaction, whether a reward or discipline, depends on the performance of the

employee. Bass (1985) as cited by Chan (2005) theorized the transactional leaders

appeal to the subordinates self-interests. Transactional leaders attempt to meet the

current needs of their subordinates through bargaining and exchanging. Both leaders

and followers focus on achieving the negotiated performance level. Transformational

theories focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers.

Transformational leadership is the leaders ability to motivate followers to rise above

their own personal goals for the greater good of the organization (Bass, 1985, 1996

as cited by Murphy & Drodge, 2004). Bass (1985) theorized the transformational

style of leadership comes from deeply held personal values which cannot be

negotiated and appeals to the subordinates sense of moral obligation and values.

Bass declared there were four types of transformational leadership behavior, namely

idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, individualized

consideration, and intellectual stimulation.

2.3.4 Transactional Leadership and Employee Performance

Transactional leadership: is a leadership style that emphasizes to transactions

between leaders and subordinates. Bass and Avolio (2003) suggest that

characteristics of transactional leadership consist of two aspects, namely contingent

reward and exception management. Contingent reward is where leaders make

agreement about what must subordinate do and promising reward obtained when

goal is achieved. While exception management is leader monitor deviations from

established standards and take corrective action to achieve organizational goals. Yulk

(2007) asserts that transactional leadership style is one leadership style that
 17

emphasizes on transaction between leaders and subordinates. Transactional

leadership motivates and influencing subordinates by exchanging reward with a

particular performance .In a transaction the subordinate promised to be given

rewards when subordinate is able to complete their duties in accordance with

agreements. In other words, he encourages subordinates to work. Transactional

leadership styles can affect positively or negatively on performance. It depends on

employee assessment. Positive effect can occur when employees assess transactional

leadership positively and a negative effect can occur if employee considers that

transactional leadership styles cannot be trusted because they do not keep their

promises, dishonest or not transparent.

2.3.5 Transformational Leadership and Employee Performance

This seeks to transform of visionary. It becomes collective vision where subordinates

work to realize the vision into reality. In other words, transformational process can

be seen through a number of transformational leadership behaviors as: attributed

charisma, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration Bass and Avolio, (2003). Yukl (2007) states that

application of transformational leadership style can improve performance because

transformational leadership style wants to develop knowledge and employees

potential. Leader with transformational leadership provides opportunity and

confidence to his subordinates to carry out duties in accordance with his mindset to

achieve organizational goals. Butler (1999) states that a transformational leader

encourages subordinates to have vision, mission and organization goals, encouraging

and motivating to show maximum performance, stimulates subordinates to act

 18

critically and to solve problems in new ways and treat employees individually.

Suharto (2005) suggests that more frequent transformational leadership behaviors

implemented will bring significant positive effect to improve psychological

empowerment quality of subordinates. Transformational leader that gives attention to

individual will be capable to direct vision and mission of organization, providing

motivational support, and creating new ways to work effectively.

2.3.6 Laissez Faire Leadership and Employee Performance

The leader's ability to lead is contingent upon various situational factors, including

the leader's preferred style. Contingency theories to leadership support a great deal of

empirical freedom to leadership, (laissez-faire style) North house (2001). Many

researchers have tested it and have found it to be valid and reliable to explaining how

effective leadership can be achieved. It stresses the importance of focusing on inter

personal relationships between the leader's style and the demands of various

situations and employees. Under this type of leadership according to Kumar (2015)

maximum freedom is allowed to subordinates. They are given freehand in deciding

their own policies and methods and to make independent decisions.

It carries the belief that the most effective leadership style depends on the ability to

allow some degree of freedom to employees in administering any leadership style.

This study will aim to investigate further how laissez-faire may contribute to

employee performance. On the other hand, much has been written in regard to the

relation of positive self and effective management. Kerns (2004) discussed the

relationship of values to organizational leadership and his study was hugely in

 19

support of the laissez-faire style in bridging the gap between the employer and

employee where his concern was solely on the fact that laissez-faire would create a

positive environment through which employees and employers felt like a family

regardless of their positions.

2.3.7 Autocratic Leadership and Employee Performance

Autocratic leaders are classic do as I say types. Typically, these leaders are

inexperienced with leadership thrust upon them in the form of a new position or

assignment that involves people management. Autocratic leaders retain for

themselves the decision- making rights. They can damage an organization irreparably

as they force their followers to execute strategies and services in a very narrow

way, based upon a subjective idea of what success looks like. There is no shared

vision and little motivation beyond coercion. Commitment, creativity and innovation

are typically eliminated by autocratic leadership. In fact, most followers of autocratic

leaders can be described as biding their time, waiting for the inevitable failure this

leadership produces and the removal of the leader that follows Michael (2010).

2.4 Empirical Analysis

2.4.1 General Studies

A large body of empirical evidences has demonstrated that leadership behaviors

influence employee performance that strong leaders outperform weak leaders, and

that transformational leadership generates higher performance than transactional

leadership (Burns 1978; Bass1990; Hater and Bass 1985; Howell and Avolio 1993).

Research (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Kotter, 1988 and Meyer & Botha, 2000) in

organisational behavior has identified transformational leadership as the most

 20

suitable for modern-day organisations. The current business environment requires

this innovative kind of leadership style; a style that empowers employees and raises

employee performance in an effort to improve organisational performance and

continued existence (Kotter, 1988). Evidence has been gathered in service, retail and

manufacturing sectors, as well in the armed forces of the United States, Canada and

Germany that points towards the marginal impact transactional leaders have on the

effectiveness of their subordinates in contrast to the strong,positive effects of

transformational leaders (Brand, Heyl & Maritz, 2000). Furthermore, in the Canadian

financial industry it was found that transformational leadership is more strongly

correlated with higher employee satisfaction and individual/organisational

performance than transactional leadership (Meyer & Botha, 2000). On the basis then

of the literature, it could be proposed that transformational leadership as opposed to

transactional leadership would be more effective in achieving higher levels of

employee performance.

Under transformational leaders, employees may receive individualized attention from

the leader. As a result, they tend to reciprocate by supporting the leaders agenda and

performing beyond expectations. Hence, transformational leaders can develop high

quality leader member exchange relationships with followers, through which they

influence followers performance (e.g., Wang et al., 2005). Although the initial stage

of LMX may be transactional, it can be transformational if the last stage is reached

(Bass, 1999). In both Basss (1985) and Podsakoff et al.s (1990) conceptualization,

transactional leadership clarifies expectations toward followers performance and

provides rewards to followers contingently on the level of their performance.

 21

Followers will be motivated to meet performance expectations and fulfill their end of

the contract in order to be rewarded accordingly (Bass, 1985). A strong empirical

support for the relationship between leaders contingent reward and employee

performance has been found (cf. Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie,

2006). However, transformational leadership inspires followers with attractive

vision, expresses optimism and high expectations for excellence and performance on

the part of followers. It should be able to move followers beyond their normal level

of performance (Bass, 1985).

A positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee

performance has been found in both lab (Howell & Frost, 1989) and field (Bass,

1985) settings. Thus both transformational and transactional leadership are expected

to have positive direct effect on employee performance. Raja and Palanichamy

(2015) examined the effect of leadership styles on employee performance in public

vs. private sector enterprises in India. From 43 middle-level managers and 156

subordinates, the study results indicate sufficient evidence, at the 5% level of

significance, that there is a linear positive relationship between transformational

leadership and employee performance, there is a significant positive relationship

between transactional leadership employee performance. However, the study found

that laissez-faire leadership had a negative relationship with the employee

performance/outcomes.

Leaders and their leadership styles is one of the mostly researched topics in the

recent past. A number of studies have been conducted on the effects of leadership

styles on employee performance. Rassol et al (2015) studied leadership styles and its
 22

impact on employee's performance in health sector of Pakistan and concluded that

transformational leadership styles have more positive effect on employee

performance than transactional leadership. They found out that transformational

leadership can perform better in highly organic environment where focus is on

competitive advantages. Results of their study also explored that the impact of

transactional leadership was not much stronger as compared to transformational

leadership on job performance. According to Pradeep and Prabhu (2011), leadership

is positively linked with employee performance for both transformational leadership

behaviors and transactional contingent reward leadership behaviors. The managers,

who are perceived to demonstrate strong leadership behaviors, whether

transformational or transactional, are seen to be engaging in increasing the

employees performance.

In giving their summary it was found that the transformational leadership style has

significant relationships with performance outcomes; viz. effectiveness in work,

satisfaction, extra effort and dependability. Their study added some additional

knowledge for a better understanding of the preferred leadership approach and

appropriate style for using with subordinate in various professional levels. By using

their results, leaders can adjust their behaviors in practical ways to enhance

subordinates job performance, thereby reaping increased productivity for their

organizations as a consequence. They emphasize on the need of leaders to have the

ability to attract / influence their subordinates, be able to set clear standards of

performance to their peers and act as a best role model to the subordinates. A study

by Aboshaiqah et al (2015) on nurses perception of managers leadership styles and

 23

Its Associated Outcomes, demonstrated that staff nurses perceived that

transformational leadership and its factors are utilized more often than transactional

and laissez-faire leadership styles, again, further analysis showed that there was

positive correlation between outcome factors (effectiveness, extra efforts and

satisfaction) and transformational and transactional leadership styles and negative

correlation with laissez-faire leadership style. They concluded that a combination of

transformational leadership styles and behaviors/factors contributed to an increase in

extra effort, satisfaction and overall employee performance and perceived leader

effectiveness among nurses. Ipas (2012) did a study on the perceived leadership style

and employee performance in hotel industry, they found that autocratic leadership

style is perceived as being the most used style by the managers that ensures expected

results. They also stressed the fact that managers must find the good solution to help

the employees to increase their individual performance.

Kehinde and Banjo (2014) also did a test of the impact of leadership styles on

employee performance: A study of department of Petroleum Resources; The

implication of their study was that transformational leadership style would bring

effective results in organizations because it motivates employees to go beyond

ordinary expectations, appeals to followers higher order needs and moral values,

generates the passion and commitment of followers for the mission and values of the

organization, instills pride and faith in followers, communicates personal respect,

stimulates subordinates intellectually, facilitates creative thinking and inspires

followers to willingly accept challenging goals and a mission or vision of the future

mission and objectives of organization, they recommend that transformational

 24

leadership style is good or appropriate for organizations that wish to compete

successfully and mentor subordinates who will be managers of tomorrow to keep the

flag flying for the firm. Leadership has got a paramount attention in both the

academia and practitioners since recent decades as determinant factor on employee

behavior and performance. Rasool, (2015) The measure of relationship between

the job performance and leadership style draws the considerable attention of

scholars. Leader and their leadership styles is one of the mostly studied topics of

recent history. Chan (2010) points out that the many researchers who have done

studies on leadership style have not come up with a specific style suitable for specific

issue, however Chan advises that it is important to note that different styles are

needed for different situations and leaders just need to know when to use a particular

approach and by using appropriate leadership styles, leaders can affect employee job

satisfaction, commitment, productivity and ultimately the organizations performance

through its employees. The amount of direction and social support a leader gives to

subordinates/ followers depend greatly on their styles to fit the situation.

2.4.2 Empirical Analysis in Africa and Locally

In the South African context Hayward, Davidson, Pascoe, Tasker, Amos and Pearse

(2003) found transformational leadership to be more effective than transactional

leadership in increasing employee performance. The research (Hayward et al., 2003)

found a significant positive linear relationship between transformational leadership

and employee performance but no significant linear relationship between

transactional leadership and employee performance in a South African

pharmaceutical organisation.
 25

Elsewhere in Africa empirical evidence by Nuhu (2004) who sought to study the

effect of leadership styles on employee performance in Kampala City Council

reveals that laissez faire leadership was practiced especially in higher offices and

also the laissez faire leadership was existent especially in lower offices. Authoritative

leadership style has a positive relationship with employee performance (NUHU

2004), most employees believed that authoritative leadership brought about

performance the autocratic way (coerced), yet other forms of leadership would

approach the employee from a more humanistic manner.

According to Nuhu (2004) Laissez fare leadership style has a positive relationship

with employee performance .. Since most employees believed that they would rather

be made comfortable at work rather than coarse them around like kids. Infact this

was eminent in some departments that supervisors or managers where naturally

approachable, friendly and not arrogant at employees. Since the correlation his study

showed that laissez-faire leadership leads to performance, this implied that that in

these departments, employee performance actually existed however on a slow pace,

rather than in the authoritative leadership which was filled with Tension. Tsigu and

Rao (2015) in their study leadership styles: their impact on job outcomes in

Ethiopian banking industry found that transformational leadership style explained

the variation on performance better than transactional leadership style. Hence, the

researchers recommended that if banks under study emphasize more on

transformational leadership style dimensions, it would enable them to better satisfy

and hence gain more output from their employees. A study in Uganda on the effect

of leadership styles on performance of local governments, a case of Mbale district

 26

done by Gimuguni, et al (2014) concluded that there is a moderate high positive and

significant relationship between the three leadership styles (autocratic, lassies-faire,

democratic), and performance in Mbale local government. The researchers revealed

further findings that Mbale local government leaders use autocratic style of

leadership to influence employees to perform their duties, but laissez- fair style of

leadership dominated Mbale local leadership which could have caused delay in

meeting deadlines. The findings also revealed that the local government has realised

some performance in terms of increased work forces, high speed of accomplishment

of work, effectiveness and timeliness due to democratic leadership. It was therefore

concluded that Mbale local government tries to integrate the three leadership styles

though autocratic and laissez faire dominated.

2.5 Research Gaps

The literature on leadership and employee performance is scattered across countries

and across industry. The evidence of the effect of leadership style on employee

performance is also varied. While most of the literature reviewed is somehow

consistent in suggesting that both transformational and transactional leadership styles

are significantly positively related to employee performance and that

transformational styles effect is more pronounced than that of the transactional

leadership style (Rasool, et al., 2015; Kehinde and Bajo, 2014; Tsigu and Rao, 2015),

the evidence on the relationship between laissez-faire and performance is not that

straight forward. For example while, some are reporting negative relationship, e.g.

Aboushaqah et al (2015), others like Gimuguni, et al (2014) have reported a positive

relationship. This suggests that the evidence on this leadership style is inconsistent.
 27

In addition, neither all industries nor countries are covered in the literature. Of those

reviewed, the medical field is represented (Rassol et al, 2015; Aboushaqah, et al

2015), local government authorities (Gimuguni, et al., 2014), hotel (Ipas, 2012),

Petroleum (Kehinde and Bajo, 2014). Of more interest to this study is the paucity of

researches in this area from Africa and East Africa in particular. A few reviewed here

are Tsigu and Rao (2015), Ejere and Abasalim (2013) and Gimuguni (2015), Nuhu,

(2010), but there are also those from South Africa (Howard, et al., 2003). While

several industries are repreets in the growing body of evidence few are coming from

the banking sector, see for example Tsigu and Rao (2015) from Ethiopian banking

industry.

Therefore, from the preview of literature it is evident that the research evidence on

the effect of leadership style on employee performance that leadership style can

explain significant number of performance outcomes at individual and organizational

level. But the evidence is not evenly distributed across economies at large or even

within African economies. It is also evident that evidence from the banking sector is

lagging behind. It is these facts that have motivated this study in order to contribute

evidence from the Kenyan banking industry.

2.6 Conceptual Framework

The importance of leadership in an organization cannot be overemphasized as

different scholars have given various definitions due to its complexity and

importance. Leadership has been viewed as a transaction between a leader and his

subordinates. It had also been defined as a process of influencing people towards a

 28

particular objective or goal. Whichever leadership style that is exhibited by a person

is a combination of traits, characteristics, skills and behaviors. The situation also

matters and will call for a totally different style

Independent Variable

Leadership styles Dependable

Variable
Transactional
Transformational Employee
Laissez fair performance
Autocratic

Figure 2.2 Conceptual Framework

The research sought to identify different types of attributes of transactional

leadership offered by the Bank of Africa to its employees and how they affect the

employee performance, to assess whether by offering reward employees are

motivated to perform better or the absence of rewards indeed affects the employee

performance. The research also sought seek to understand how the attributes of

transformational leadership affect employee performance at Bank of Africa and if

indeed the supervisors of bank of Africa exhibit the following attributes in

furtherance for employee performance. The research will also seek to understand the

extend of laissez faire leadership in Bank Of Africa and how it affects the

performance of employees, whether it slows performance or what extend it can

improve performance of the employees of Bank Of Africa, lastly, the research sought
 29

to understand how authoritative leadership affects the employee performance of

Bank Of Africa, to know how coerced the employees of Bank of Africa feel and how

this improves or slows down their performance. The background information to be

collected to help understand more on the research included the following factors;

age, gender, length of service and education levels

2.8 Statement of Hypothesis

H1. The Transformational leadership style positively affects employee

performance in Bank of Africa Kenya.

H2. The Transactional leadership style positively affects employee performance

in Bank of Africa Kenya.

H3. The laissez-faire leadership style does not affect employee performance in

Bank of Africa Kenya.

H4. The Autocratic leadership style positively affects employee performance in

Bank of Africa Kenya

 30

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the methodology that was be used to carry out the study. The

chapter considers in detail the methods that were used to collect primary or

secondary data required in the study. In this chapter, the researcher discusses the

research design and population size that was used. The researcher also discusses how

collected data was analyzed giving details of any models or programmes that was

used in analysis with reasons as to why these particular models or programmes was

applied.

3.2 Research Design

The study adopted a survey research design. This survey research design according

to Amin (2005) would be important in Bank of Africa since it would help the

researcher attain systematic data on different respondents at the same time.

Convenience sampling of respondents was used to ensure that those employees found

at their workplaces were the ones used for the study. This design was quantitative to

allow for descriptive and inferential analysis.

3.2.1 Study Population

The study was conducted among Bank tellers, customer care staff, back office staff,

credit officers, relationship officers, team leaders, supervisors and Branch managers

of Bank Of Africa-Kenya. The categories chosen were thought to be involved in the

leadership management, decision making and operations of the bank. The study
 31

population was 600 employees in Nairobi 1, Nairobi 2, Western, Mt. Kenya and

Coast Regions. From the above population of respondents, the researcher consulted

the Human Resource department to obtain a number of 300 permanent employees.

The researcher obtained the names and telephone extension numbers of 300

permanent employees in the study regions.

3.3 Area of Research

The study was conducted in Bank Of Africa in the following regions, Nairobi 1,

Nairobi 2, Western and Coast regions was used to generalize the findings of the

research. The regions were chosen due to the proximity of the researcher and also

because a larger focus has been laid by the bank in these regions in terms of

branches, employees and client base.

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Technique

Studying the whole of the population was impossible. For this reason, the researcher

picked a representative sample of the whole population from staff inventory. To

achieve a representative sample for a research study, the people who were studied

studied (i.e. the subjects) were carefully selected using a simple random sampling

methods. The researcher used a sample of 300 respondents drawn from the

population of 600 Bank of Africa Staff in the four sample regions of BOA Kenya. A

sample of 300 respondents was chosen since it represents the permanent employees

in the region and also these respondents have worked for the bank for more than two

years leading to reliable assessment of both perception of leadership study and own

performance on the job. The 300 respondents include 25 branch managers and 275
 32

employees who are tellers, banking officers, retail officers and customer service

staff.

3.5. Variables and Measurement Procedures

The researcher formulated questionnaires to obtain data regarding age of

respondents, gender, education levels, and length of service in the organization

which helped in understanding the respondents background information. The key

variables include the independent variables, which are leadership styles namely,

transformational, transactional, laissez faire and autocratic. The scale used for

leadership styles in order to measure them was the Multi factor Leadership

Questionnaire developed by Avolio and Bass (1995), modified to fit the context of

the study. The second variable measured was the dependent variable which was

employee performance based on a scale of Yousef (2000). Some demographic

variables like age, gender, job tenure, and job position were be added .

3.6 Methods of Data Collection

Data for this study was collected using a structured self-complete research

questionnaire which was distributed to the target population and collected after a few

days. Primary data was collected from the subject of study. The questionnaire

proposed used in this study was divided into five parts. Part A as introduction; Part B

was a series of statements to capture perception of employees on the leadership style

practiced by the immediate supervisor, Part C was for capturing employees self

rated performance, and Part D was for the demographic variables. Lastly Part E was

appreciation. These questionnaires were sent to the HR departments in each of the

selected branches.
 33

3.7 Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

The study adopted scales which had been validated elsewhere. In measuring

lleadership styles the study adapted the Multi factor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ) developed by Avolio and Bass (1995), modified to fit the context of the

study. To measure employee performance the study adapted scale of Yousef (2000).

For reliability, the study used a scale test was used to produce Cronbachs alphas

which were then compare to the conventional cut-off point of 0.7. According to

Field (2005), Pallant (2013) a Cronbachs alpha higher than 0.7 indicates internal

consistency on the instrument. Cronbach alphas were produced for each sub scale

and the results are presented in Table 3.1. The results show Cronbachs alphas

ranging from 0.755 to 0.908. These alpha coefficients are all higher than the

conventional level of 0.7, suggesting that each subscale used in the study had

acceptable internal consistency and hence reliable in measuring what they were

designed to measure.

Table 3.1 Reliability Statistics

Scale N Alpha
TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP
Idealized Influence (II) 3 0.908
Inspirational Motivation (IM) 3 0.812
Intellectual Simulation (IS) 3 0.755
Individual Consideration (IC) 3 0.820
TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Contingent Reward (CR) 3 0.792
Management by exception (MBE) 3 0.792
AUTHORITATIVE LEADERSHIP (AL) 6 0.831
LAISSEZ FAIRE LEADERSHIP (LF) 6 0.882
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE (EP) 2 0.803
Source: Field Data, 2015
 34

3.8 Data processing and Analysis

After the data was collected, it was coded and entered into SPSS. Correctness of data

entry was checked. The scale based variables were checked for internal consistence

after which the scores were aggregated to obtain mean scores for each respondent per

scale variable measure.

Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were used for data analysis.

According to Amin (2005) Descriptive statistics provides us with the techniques of

numerically and graphically presenting information that gives an overall picture of

the data collected. In inferential statistics, Pearsons correlation and multiple

regression analysis were used to assess both relationships and effects as per the

hypotheses of the study.

 35

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the study. It is organized as

follows. Section 4.2 describes the sample. Section 4.3 presents the findings

according to the research objectives and Section 4.4 discusses them.

4.2 Description of the Sample

Data on respondents demographics were collected and analysed. Variables included

were age, gender and education. The following subsections present the results.

4.2.1: Distribution of Respondents by Age

Table 4.1 presents the results of the respondents age. It is clear that the majority of

respondents, 40(50.0%) were in the age range of 25-30 years, this was followed by

15 (18.8%) in the age range of 31-35, followed by 10(12.5%) in the age range of 35-

40, then 9(11.2%) in the age range of below 25 years while the least age range was

41+year which was represented by only 6 (7.5%). This meant that the majority of

respondents (who took part in the study) were aged 25-30years.

Table 4.1: Age Distribution

Frequency Percentage
Less than 25 years 9 11.2
25-30 40 50.0
31-35 15 18.8
35-40 10 12.5
41+ years 6 7.5
Total 80 100
Source: Field Data, (2015)
 36

4.2.2: Distribution of Respondents by Gender

Table 4.2 presents the distribution of the respondents by gender. It is clear that the

majority of the respondents, 46 (57.5%), were male as opposed to females who were

34 (42.5%). This presupposes that generally, the margin between males and females

is minimal. This implied that there was fairly equal representation of the male and

female employees in Bank of Africa.

Table 4.2 Gender Distribution

Category Frequency Percentage

Male 46 57.3

Female 34 42.5

Total 80 100

Source: Field data, 2015

4.2.3 Distribution of Respondents by Education Level

Table 4.3 presents the results of the sample distribution by education level. Results

show that the majority of respondents 51 (63.8%) were bachelors degree holders

while Higher diploma and masters holders tied at 13.8% each, the

diploma/certificates holders were the least represented with only 7 (8.8%)

representation. This implies that most respondents were in a position to give a very

fair assessment of their performance as well as that of the leadership style of the

immediate supervisor.
 37

Table 4.3 Education Distribution

Education level Frequency Percentage

Certificate/diplomas 7 8.8

Higher diploma 11 13.8

Bachelor 51 63.8

Master 11 13.8

Total 80 100

Source: Field data, 2015

4.3 Findings

The following subsections present the results as per the research objectives.

4.3.1 Research objective One: Analysis of Leadership Style

This subsection presents the results of the analysis of leadership styles. Four (4)

main types of leadership styles were assessed. These were transformation leadership

style with four dimensions (each with three items), transactional leadership style

with two (2) dimensions (each with three items). Authoritative and laissez-faire

leadership styles each had six (6) items. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the

level. Table 4.4 presents results of transformational leadership style. The mean and

standard deviation (S.D.) of the four dimensions of transformational leadership

styles were calculated, to establish the respondents, assessment of the extent to

which their immediate supervisors practices this leadership style. The scale used in

the statements was 1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neutral, 4-agree, 5-strongly

agree. The descriptive statistics of the findings are represented in Table 4.4.
 38

Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics on Transformational Leadership

N Min. Max. Mean S.D.

Idealized Influence 80 1.00 5.00 4.1083 .93799

Inspirational motivation 80 2.00 5.00 3.9708 .82880

Intellectual simulation 80 1.33 5.00 3.8500 .82660

Individual consideration 80 1.00 5.00 3.7542 .83816

Transformational leadership (overall) 80 1.83 5.00 3.9208 .71316

Valid N (list wise) 80

Source: Field data, 2015

The results in Table 4.4 show that the idealized influence had the highest mean of

4.1083 and standard deviation of 0.93799, followed by inspirational motivation at a

mean of 3.9708 and standard deviation of 0.82880. Intellectual simulation had a

mean of 3.85 and standard deviation of 0.82660. The least but still with a high mean

of 3.7542 and standard deviation of 0.83816 was individual consideration. Overall

the transformational leadership style scored a mean of 3.9208 and S.D. of 0.71316.

Table 4.5 presents the mean and standard deviation from respondents assessment of

whether their immediate supervisors practiced transactional leadership style.

Management by exception (MBE) had the highest mean of 3.8439 and standard

deviation of 0.89448, while contingent reward had a mean of 3.6333 and standard

deviation of 0.89631. Overall the results show that Transactional leadership style

with an overall mean score of 3.7437 and standard deviation of 0.75471 is the also

practiced by some of the immediate supervisors at BOA. In fact it is important to

note that the mean score was above the midpoint. This statistics indeed show that

supervisors at Bank of Africa apply transactional leadership

 39

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics on Transactional Leadership

N Min. Max. Mean S.D.

Contingent reward 80 1.00 5.00 3.6333 .89631

Management by Exception 79 1.67 5.00 3.8439 .89448

Transnational leadership (overall) 80 1.67 5.00 3.7437 .75471

Valid N (list wise) 79

Source: Field Data, 2015

Table 4.6 presents the mean and standard deviation of the respondents assessment

of the presence of Authoritative leadership style in their immediate supervisors.

Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics on Authoritative Leadership

N Min. Max. Mean S.D.

My supervisor believes employees need to be 80 1 5 2.96 1.354

supervised closely they are not likely to do their
work.

As a rule, my supervisor believes that employees 79 1 5 3.10 1.045

must be given rewards or punishments in order to
motivate them to achieve organizational objectives.

I feel insecure about my work and need direction. 79 1 5 2.90 1.246

My supervisor is the chief judge of the 80 1 5 2.84 1.213

achievements of employees.

My supervisor gives orders and clarifies procedures 77 1 5 3.10 1.083

My supervisor believes that most employees in the 79 1 5 2.70 1.314

general population are lazy.

Authoritative Leadership (overall) 80 1.00 5.00 2.952 .9119

Valid N (list wise) 77

Source: Field Data, 2015

 40

The statement that as a rule, my supervisor believes that employees must be given

rewards or punishments in order to motivate them to achieve organizational

objectives had the highest mean of 3.10 and standard deviation of 1.045 same as the

question of my supervisor gives orders and clarifies procedures which had a mean

of 3.10but a standard deviation of 1.083. The statement with the lowest mean of 2.70

and standard deviation of 1.314 was my supervisor believes that most employees in

the general population are lazy. Overall authoritative leadership upon assessing the

six statements had a mean score of 2.9521 and a standard deviation of 0.91193.This

mean is below the midpoint and indicates that respondents disagreed that their

supervisors use authoritative leadership. The results suggest that Authoritative

leadership style is les exhibited by immediate supervisors at BOA.

Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics on Laissez Faire Leadership

N Min. Max. Mean S.D.

In complex situations my supervisor allows me to 79 1 5 3.49 1.280

work my problems out on my own way.

My supervisor stays out of the way as I do my 78 1 5 3.69 .958

work

As a rule, my supervisor allows me to appraise my 78 1 5 3.64 1.162

own work.

My supervisor gives me complete freedom to solve 76 1 5 3.64 1.116

problems on my own.

In most situations I prefer little input from my 77 1 5 3.79 1.174

supervisor.

In general my supervisor feels its best to leave 78 1 5 3.64 1.329

subordinates alone.

Laissez-Fair Leadership (overall) 79 1.50 5.00 3.662 .9390

Valid N (list wise) 75

Source: Field data, 2015

 41

Table 4.7 presents the mean and standard deviation of the results from respondents

assessment of laissez faire leadership style. This was assessed by six items. The

statement that In most situations I prefer little input from my supervisor had the

highest mean of 3.79 and standard deviation of 1.174 while the question with the

lowest mean of 3.49 and standard deviation of 1.280 was that In complex situations

my supervisor allows me to work my problems out on my way. Overall Laissez

faire leadership upon assessing the six statements had a mean score of 3.6624 and a

standard deviation of 0.91193. This mean is above the midpoint and indicates that

respondents agree that their supervisors indeed utilize laissez faire leadership to a

moderate extent. Therefore, from the results of the analysis of leadership styles, it

can be concluded that transformational leadership style is the most exhibited

leadership style by immediate supervisors at BOA followed by the transactional

leadership style. The results also show that laissez-faire leadership style is practiced

above average. However, authoritative leadership style is the least exhibited style

4.3.2 Research Objective Two: Analysis of Employee Performance

Employee performance (self-rated) was captured by four constructs; one each for

self assessment of the quality and productivity, and two others which compared

ones performance to that of the peers doing the same kind of work. Examples of the

items used were How do you evaluate the performance of your peers at their jobs

compared with yourself doing the same kind of work? and How do you evaluate

the performance of yourself at your job compared with your peers doing the same

kind of work? When a scale test was run on these four items, a below conventional

level Cronbachs alpha was obtained. Reverse-coding the third statement, as it

 42

should, yielded a negative Cronbachs alpha. Unable to identify the source of these

confusing results, the two statements were dropped from the scale test and when the

first two statements were included, the Cronbachs alpha was 0.803. Therefore, the

analysis of employee performance was based on the scale with two out of the

originally planned 4 items.

Table 4.8 presents results of the analysis of employee performance. The results show

that productivity was highly rated with a mean of 4.35 and a standard deviation of

0.576 while quality of performance closely followed with a mean of 4.31 and a

standard deviation of 0.739. Overall employee performance had a mean score of

4.3312 indicating a high performance. This is then subjected to further analysis in

the next section to determine whether it is affected by the employees perception of

the leadership style of the immediate supervisor.

Table 4.8 Descriptive Statistics on Employee Performance

N Minimu Maximum Mean Std.

m Deviation

How do you rate quality of your 80 2 5 4.31 .739

performance

How do you rate your productivity on 80 3 5 4.35 .576

the job?

Employee performance score. 80 2.5 5.00 4.3312 .60558

Valid N ( List wise) 80

Source: Field data, 2015

 43

4.3.3 Research Objective Three: The Effect of Leadership Style on Employee

Performance

4.3.3.1 Correlation Analysis

Table 4.9 presents the results of bivariate correlation based on Pearson correlation

statistics. Transformational leadership (M = 3.9208, SD = .71316) strongly and

positively correlated with overall employee performance (M= 4.3312, SD = .60558),

r (80) = .427, P < 0.01. And also, there was a positive correlation between

transformational leadership (M = 3.9208, SD = .71316) and employees quality of

performance (M = 4.31, SD = .739), r (80) = .338, p < 0.01. There was a strong and

positive correlation between transformational leadership (M = 3.9208, SD = .71316)

and productivity on the job (M = 4.35, SD = .576), r (80) = .464, p < 0.01.

Idealized Influence (M = 4.103, SD = .9379) strongly and positively correlated with

employee performance (M = 4.3312, SD = .60558), r (80) = .501, p < 0.01. There

was also a positive correlation between idealized influence (M = 4.103, SD = .9379)

and quality of performance (M = 4.31, SD = .739), r(80) = .413 p < 0.01. There was

also a strong and positive correlation between idealized influence (M = 4.31, SD =

.739) and productivity on the job (M = 4.35, SD = .576), r(80) = .523, P <0 .01.
 44

Table 4.9 Correlation between Leadership Styles and Employee Performance

 45

Inspirational motivation (M = 3.9708, SD = .82880) positively correlated with

employee performance (M = 4.3312, SD = .60558), r (80) = .373, p <0 .01. There

was also a positive correlation between Inspirational motivation (M = 3.9708, SD =

.82880) and quality of performance (M = 4.31, SD = .739), r (80) = .284 p < 0.05.

There was also a strong and positive correlation between Inspirational motivation

(M = 3.9708, SD = .82880) and productivity on the job (M = 4.35, SD = .576), r(80)

= .419, P < 0.01. Intellectual simulation (M = 3.8500, SD = .82660) positively

correlated with employee performance (M = 4.3312, SD = .60558), r (80) = .261, p

< 0.05. There was also a positive correlation between Intellectual simulation (M =

3.8500, SD = .82660) and productivity on job performance (M = 4.35, SD = .576), r

(80) = .333 p < 0.01. However there was no significant correlation between

Intellectual simulation (M = 3.8500, SD = .82660) and quality of performance (M =

4.31, SD = .739), r(80) = .167, P >0 .01.

Individual consideration (M = 3.7542, SD = .83816) positively correlated with

employee performance (M = 4.3312, SD = .60558), r (80) = .266, p < 0.05. There

was also a positive correlation between Individual consideration (M = 3.7542, SD =

.83816) and quality of performance (M = 4.31, SD = .739), r(80) = .241, p < 0.05.

There was also a positive correlation between Individual consideration (M = 3.7542,

SD = .83816) and productivity on the job (M = 4.35, SD = .576), r(80) = .250, P <0

.05. Transactional Leadership (M = 3.7431, SD = .75471) did not have significant

correlation with employee performance (M = 4.3312, SD = .60558), r (80) = .031, p

>0.01. There was also no significant correlation between Transactional Leadership

(M = 3.7431, SD = .75471) and quality of performance (M = 4.31, SD = .739), r(80)

 46

= .09, p > 0.01. There was also no significant correlation between Transactional

Leadership (M = 3.7431, SD = .75471) and productivity on the job (M = 4.35, SD =

.576), r(80) = .054, P >0.01. None of the two dimensions (contingent rewards and

management by exception) significantly correlated with any of the two items of

performance. However, while the correlation of the contingent rewards was

negative, the correlation coefficient of the management by exemption was positive.

Authoritative leadership (M = 2.952, SD = .91193) had negative but insignificant

correlation with employee performance (M = 4.3312, SD = .60558), r (80) =.-117, p

>0.05 irrespective of how performance was measured. Laissez Faire Leadership

style (M=3.64, SD=1.329) on the other hand had a positive but also insignificant

correlation with employee performance (M = 4.3312, SD = .60558), r (80) = .046, p

> 0.05, irrespective of how performance was measured.

In a summary, the results of correlation analysis indicated transformational

leadership had strong and positive correlations with employee's general

performance, and strong positive with all the two dimensions of employee

performance, i.e. quality and productivity. Transactional leadership had insignificant

negative correlations with employee performance; however, contingent reward had

negative correlation with employee performance and its dimensions while

management by exception had insignificant positive correlation with employee

performance and its dimensions. Authoritative leadership exhibited negative but

insignificant correlation across all the dimensions of employee performance while

laissez faire exhibited insignificant positive correlation with employee performance

and its dimensions.

 47

4.3.3.2 Multiple Regression Analysis

The multiple regression analysis was carried out to estimate the effect of leadership

styles (independent variables) on employees performance (dependent variable).

Results are presented in Tables 4.10-4.12. Table 4.10 presents a summary of the

model in which the item of interest is the adjusted R2 statistics, which is .225. This

suggests leadership styles accounts for 22.5% of the variation in employees

performance.

Table 4.10 Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-

Square the Estimate Watson
a
1 .514 .265 .225 .53314 1.839
a. Predictors: (Constant), Laissez-faire Leadership, Transformational
Leadership, Authoritative Leadership, Transactional Leadership
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance score
Source: Field data, 2015

Table 4.11 presents the analysis of variance (ANOVA) results. It is also known as

model fit results. Of interest in this table are the F-statistics and its associated sig.

value. The results show that the F-statistics is 6.659% (p < 0.01). The results

indicate that the models hypothesis that the model has no power to predict

employees performance from leadership style scores could not be accepted. They

therefore suggest that the model has power to predict employees performance

significantly from the leadership style scores.

 48

Table 4.11 Model Fit Results

Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
Regression 7.571 4 1.893 6.659 .000b
1 Residual 21.034 74 .284
Total 28.605 78
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance score
b. Predictors: (Constant), Laissez-faire Leadership, Transformational
Leadership, Authoritative Leadership, Transactional Leadership
Source: field data 2015

Table 4.12 presents the results on the coefficients of the regression model. The

coefficients results show that transformational leadership positively predict

employee performance, standardized B = .618, (p < 0.01). These results suggest that

performance of employees whose immediate supervisor exhibited transformational

leadership characteristics increased significantly by 61.8 percent. The results also

show that transactional leadership and authoritative leadership styles insignificantly

negatively predict employees performance. Laissez-faire also insignificantly

negatively predict employees performance

Multicollinearity statistics show tolerance figures ranging from 0.603 to 0.869 while

Variance Inflation factors (VIFs) ranged from 1.151 to 1.659. these figures suggest

that multicollinerarity not suspected amongst the independent variables. Field

(2005) suggests that multicollinearity would be suspected is tolerance figures are

below 0.10 or if VIF statistics are 10.0 or higher.

 49

Table 4.12 Regression Coefficients

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics
B Std. Beta Tolerance VIF
Error
(Constant) 3.344 .526 6.356 .000
Transformational
.525 .106 .618 4.947 .000 .636 1.572
Leadership
Transactional -
-.275 .103 -.342 .009 .603 1.659
1 Leadership 2.666
Authoritative
-.053 .071 -.080 -.748 .457 .869 1.151
Leadership
Laissez-faire
.031 .069 .048 .447 .656 .858 1.165
Leadership
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance score
Source: Field data, 2015

4.4 Discussion of the Results

In a summary, multiple regression analysis indicated that, transformational

leadership positively predicted employee performance. If supervisors exhibited more

transformational leadership, the employees will have higher employee performance.

As predicted, this result supported hypothesis 1 .Transactional leadership positively

affects employee performance. The results of transformational leadership were

consistent with most of results on previous studies reviewed in chapter two. See as

example, studies like Raja and Palanichamy (2015) for sample of employees in

public and private sector enterprises in India; Aboshaiqah et al (2015) on a sample

of hospital nurses, Pradeep and Prabhu (2011) in India, Kehinde and Banjo (2014)

and Ejere and Abasilim (2013), both in Nigeria, Tsigu and Rao (2012) and

Gimuguni et al (2014) in Ehtiopian banking industry and Ugandan local government

authorities respectively.
 50

Transactional leadership negatively affects employee performance and therefore the

second hypothesis of this study which stated that the transactional leadership style

positively affects employee performance in Bank of Africa Kenya could not be

supported. These findings are inconsistent with the many studies reviewed in chapter

two in which it was reported that transactional leadership style significantly

positively affected employees performance. S for example studies by Pradeep and

Prabhu (2011), Kehinde and Banjo (2014) and Ejere and Abasilim (2013).

Authoritative leadership was found to have negative effect on employees

performance. This suggests that the studys fourth hypothesis that the Autocratic

leadership style positively affects employee performance in Bank of Africa Kenya

could not be supported. Furthermore, the study findings are inconsistent with those

reported earlier in Gimuguni, et al (2014) and in Nuhu (2004) both of whom

reported positive relationship between autocratic leadership styles and employees

performance.

Lastly, the study found that laissez-faire leadership styles are insignificantly

positively affect employee performance. These results are consistent with the studys

third hypothesis which stated that the laissez-faire leadership style does not affect

employee performance in Bank of Africa Kenya. The results lend weak support to

the previous evidence which reported negative relationship, e.g. Aboushaqah et al

(2015), Nuhu (2004). However the same results are inconsistent with those which

reported a positive relationship between laissez-faire leadership style and employee

performance. See for example, Gimuguni, et al (2014). The study did contribute to

the expansion of knowledge in the human resource field on how leadership styles
 51

can be used to achieve employee performance. It also tried to close a gap in current

literature in which studies of leadership styles and employee performance in the

banking industry have not been fully and efficiently explored. Thus, the study added

empirical evidence on the topic by providing evidence from an frontier markets

banking sector. Previous study in banking was that of Tsigu and Rao (2015) based

on Ethiopian banking industry.

 52

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Overview

The main objective of this study was to investigate the effect of different leadership

styles (transformational, transactional, autocratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles)

on employees performance of employees. A cross section descriptive survey

research strategy was adopted in which a sample of 80 employees sampled

conveniently from a study population was 600 employees in Nairobi 1, Nairobi 2,

Western, Mt. Kenya and Coast Regions different staff cadres - Bank tellers,

customer care staff, back office staff, credit officers, relationship officers, team

leaders, supervisors and Branch managers of Bank Of Africa-Kenya -was surveyed.

A structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from the sample.

The leadership styles were measured through the Multi factor Leadership

Questionnaire developed by Avolio and Bass (1995), modified to fit the context of

the study. Employee performance was measured by the scale of Yousef (2000).

Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were used for data analysis. In

inferential statistics, Pearsons correlation and regression analysis were used to

assess both relationships and effects as per the hypotheses of the study. This chapter

presents conclusions, implications and recommendations. It is organized in various

sections: Section 5.2 gives a key summary of findings, Section 5.3 discusses

conclusions and recommendation, Section 5.4 presents recommendations while the

 53

last section, Section 5.5 gives limitations of the study and suggestions for further

research.

5.2 Summary of Key Findings

The findings show that transformational leadership style is the most exhibited style

at the bank followed by the transactional leadership style and laissez-faire.

Employee performance is above average. Overall, scores in transformational

leadership style were found to be strongly correlated with both measures of

employee performance and overall performance except for the intellectual

simulation dimension, which had insignificant positive correlation with quality of

performance.

Transactional leadership style was found to be positively correlated with both

measures of employee performance as well as overall performance. However,

contingent rewards had a negative but insignificant correlation with performance

while management by exception had insignificant positive correlations.

Authoritative leadership style had insignificant relationship while laissez faire style

had insignificant positive correlation.

Transformational leadership style significantly positively affected employee

performance while transactional leadership style affected employee performance

significantly negatively. Authoritative and laissez faire leadership styles exhibited

insignificant negative and positive effects on employees performance, respectively.

 54

5.3 Conclusions and Implications

From the study findings it can be concluded that supervisors who are driven by the

desire to achieve better performance from his/her employees should try and exhibit

more of transformation leadership style and less of the rest of the styles.

5.4 Recommendations

Banks expect employees to perform, supervisors expect their followers to perform

too. The results of this study provided insights into what employees need from their

supervisors and the kind of leadership behaviors they prefer. This information could

be used to help develop strategies and meet organizational needs through leadership

behavior development. According to the results, some strategies for improving

supervisor's leadership and employee performance could be suggested. It indicated

that transformational leadership behavior would lead to higher employee

performance. The leaders or supervisors should be aware of what is important for

the subordinates and the organizations as a whole and encourage the employees to

see the opportunities and challenges around them creatively. The supervisors should

also have their own visions and development plans for followers, working in groups

and champion team work spirit.

The supervisors should have sense of innovation and also encourage followers to

seek more opportunities and possibilities, not just achieve performance within

expectations. Supervisors should understand the values of the followers and try to

build their departmental/ units business strategies, plans, processes and practices

that will likely to improve the wellbeing of staff. Respect for individual is also very

key in building a positive relationship between leaders and employees. Employees

 55

prefer to idealized attributes leadership behaviors from their supervisor because it

can increase their level of performance. Employees would like to see more of

idealized attributes in their supervisors; therefore, the supervisors should act to

promote faith from their subordinates. They should connect with the working groups

and the individuals beyond self-interest. A sense of confidence and power for the

workloads should be displayed.

Supervisor's authoritative leadership style will decrease employee performance. So

they should try to avoid this type of leadership style. Contrarily, supervisors should

clarify expectations and provide goals and standards to be achieved for the

followers. They should not wait until the problems become more serious and then

act/ take action they should monitor performance on timely basis. Whenever a

problem arises, supervisors should try to intervene into the issues as soon as

possible. Supervisors should respond to urgent questions and make decisions

promptly and precisely. They should not be afraid of getting involved in problem

solving. Regarding to the results of correlation analysis, it indicated that

transformational leadership, transactional leadership and authoritative leadership all

have significant correlations with employee performance. Transformational

leadership had strong and positive correlations with employee productivity, quality

and overall performance. The group of specific behaviors factors of transformational

leadership positively correlated with employee performance. Therefore, as

mentioned before, leaders or supervisors should be aware of the importance of

transformational leadership style and try to put it in practice. Authoritative

leadership had a negative correlation with employee performance. It was obvious to

 56

see that authoritative leadership is not an effective leadership style. So supervisors

should try to avoid this style. Supervisors should enrich the knowledge about the

perceptions of leaders' behaviors and how these behaviors relate to employee

performance. Based on the results of the current study, leadership development

programs could help leaders understand the relationships between effective

leadership styles and employee performance.

Organizations can develop certain training programs or mentoring by professionals

for the supervisors and leaders. Professionals and trainers can use the results from

the current study to develop training programs that support leadership development.

Organization can provide leadership training program or interventions to improve

supervisor's leadership. The leadership training program can be designed based on

employee needs and organizational needs to achieve the very best from such

particular programs. And also, psychological interventions are needed to clarify for

the employees about the relationship with supervisors, and the impacts of leadership

styles on loyalty employee performance, including leader's daily practice, leadership

behaviors, and the importance of feedback. The organization and supervisors should

involve employees in decision making and leadership improvement and provide

training and teamwork facilitation. In addition, policies and practices related to

rewards or feedback system in the organizations can be adjusted to meet employees'

needs in order to improve employee performance.

5.5 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The main limitation of the study was how different culture distribution impacted the

relationships between supervisors and employees. The study was conducted in Bank
 57

of Africa-Kenya, and it was important to consider the values and beliefs of

employees of Bank of Africa-Kenya culture and how it impacted the roles of

individuals within the workplace. The impact of culture on leadership perceptions

might have practical and theoretical implications, particularly in globalization.

Another limitation of the study was the employees' personalities and preferences on

supervisor's leadership. Personality and personal preferences would affect people's

perceptions on leadership styles and their relationships with supervisors. In current

study, these factors were not controlled.

The other limitation was the limited sample size. Limited conclusions and

generalizations could be made. Because the target participants in this study were in a

certain branches of Bank of Africa. Generalization of this research topic was

difficult to make to other populations. Regarding to this current study, several

recommendations for future research are drawn. Firstly, future studies could be

focused on how organization culture factors influence on the relationships between

leadership styles and employee performance, like how to incorporate leadership

development in organizations or industries of diverse cultures. It could improve

productivity of organizations and increase employee commitment. The results of the

current study were a little different from the previous research, because some of the

previous studies were conducted under western cultural background. The influence

of culture needs to be researched more in future study.

Secondly, the influences of gender and personality on the perception of leadership

behaviors were not investigated in this study, but they would influence the

relationships between leadership styles and employee performance. Investigating the

 58

influence of gender differences on these variables may provide additional

information for leaders to adjust leadership behaviors in the work processes to meet

the needs of different demographic groups. So a recommendation is to investigate

the influence of demographic differences on the perception of leadership behaviors

in order to develop leadership training programs.

Thirdly, this study examined that how different leadership styles affected employee

performance, The high level of employee performance was due to supervisor's

leadership style, but there are still other factors that would affect employee

performance. Future research could focus on other factors that might also affect

employee performance and not only the few leadership leadership styles.

In a summary, according to the results of this current study, Bank of Africa should

pay more attention to improving supervisors' management and leadership skills and

to monitoring the relationship between supervisors and employees. Some strategies

and managerial plans need to be developed in Bank of Africa in order to attain extra

ordinary performance.
 59

REFERENCES

Aboshaiqah, A. E., Hamdan-Mansour, A. M., Sherrod, D. R. Alkhaibary, A. &

Alkhaibary, S. (2014). Nurses Perception of Managers Leadership

Styles and Its Associated Outcomes. American Journal of Nursing

Research, 2 (4), 57-62.ity Printery.

Achua, C. F., & Lussier, R. N. (2013). Effective leadership. (5th ed.). Canada: South-

Western Publishing

Al-Dmour, H, & Awamleh, R. (2002). Effects of transactional and transformational

leadership styles of sales managers on job satisfaction and self-perceived

performance of sales people: A study of Jordanian manufacturing public

shareholding companies. Dirasat: Administrative Sciences Series,

29(1):247-261.

Amin, M. E. (2005). Social Science Research conceptions, methodology and

analysis. Kampala: Makerere University.

Armstrong, M. (2004). Human Resource Management Theory and Practice. London:

Bath Press Ltd.

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational

leadership in a management game Simulation. Group & Organization

Studies, 13(1):59-80.

Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and

effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and employee

performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10(3):345-373.

 60

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and

transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational

development. Research in Organizational Change and Development,

4:231-272.

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

New York.

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7:18-40.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J, Jung, D, & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance

by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88:207-218.

Bizhan, et al, (2013) The relationship between leadership style and employee

performance case study of real estate registration organization of Tehran

province Singaporean .Journal of business economics, and management

studies, vol.2, no.5,

Brand, C., Heyl, G. and Maritz, D. (2000). Leadership In Meyer, M. And Botha, E.

(Eds). Organisational Development and Transformation In South Africa.

Durban: Butterworths.

Bretz Jr, R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of

performance appraisal research and practice: Concepts, directions, and

implications. Journal of Management, 15:323-24.

Brockner, J. (1988). Self-Esteem at work. Lexington Books: MA, Lexington.

 61

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Sage: London.

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

Butler, John K. et. al. 1999. Transformation Leadership, Upward Trust and

Satisfaction in Self-managed Work Teams, Organization Development

Journal, Vol. 17, p. 13-16.

Chan, S. H. (2010). The influence of leadership expertise and experience on

organizational performance: a study of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia. Asia

Pacific Business Review, 16(1-2), pp. 5977.

Cheng, C., & Chan, M. T. (2002). Implementation of School-Based Management: A

Multi-Cheung Wong & Evers C. W. London: Routledge Falmer.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. & Associates (Eds.) (1987). Charismatic

leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. Jossey-

Bass: San Francisco.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations:

Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 15:439-452.

Cummings, L.L. And Schwab, D.P. 1973. Performance In Organisations:

Determinants And Appraisal. Glenview: Scott, Foresman And Company.

Darling, J., & Leffel, A. (2010). Developing the leadership team in an

entrepreneurial venture: A case focusing on the importance of styles.

Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 23(3), 355-371, 481.

(p. 358-359).
 62

Durga, D., Pradeep, 1. & N. R. V. Prabhu (2011)The Relationship between Effective

Leadership and Employee Performance. International Conference on

Advancements in Information Technology With workshop of ICBMG

2011 IPCSIT vol.20 (2011) (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational

leadership on follower development and performance: A field

experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45:735-744.

Ehrlich, S. B., Meindl, J. R. & Viellieu, B. (1990). The charismatic appeal of a

transformational leader: An empirical case study of small, high-

technology contractor. Leadership Quarterly, 1(4):229-248.

Ejere, E. I., & Abasilim, U. D. (2013). Impact of transactional and transformational

leadership styles on organisational performance: empirical evidence from

Nigeria. The Journal of Commerce, 5(1), 30-41.

Elenkov, D. S. (2002). Effects Of Leadership On Organizational Performance In

Russian Companies. Journal Of Business Research, 55, 467 480

El-Saghier, F. O., 2002. The Organizational climate andts impact on the Performance

of the Personal in the Security Agencies. M.Sc. Thesis, Naief Arabian

University of Security Sciences, Faculty of High Studies, Department of

Administrative Sciences, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, pp: 8

Molero, F., Cuadrado, I., Navas, M. & Morales, J. F. (2007). Relations and Effects
of Transformational Leadership: A Comparative Analysis with
Traditional Leadership Styles," The Spanish Journal of Psychology, vol.
10, pp. 358- 368.
 63

Fernandes, C., & Awamleh, R. (2004). The impact of transformational and

transactional leadership styles on employees satisfaction and

performance: An empirical test in a multicultural environment.

International Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(8):65-76.

Fiedler, F. E. & House, R. J. (1988), Leadership Theory and Research: A Report of

Progress, International Review of Industrial and Organisational

Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 88, pp. 73- 91.

Fielder, M.A. (1967). An investigation of the relationship between administrator

personality and teacher job satisfaction from a sample of Michigan K-12

public schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66 (10). (UMI No.

3193111).

Frese, M., Beimel, S., & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Action training for charismatic

leadership: Two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module

on inspirational communications of a vision. Personnel Psychology, 56:

671-690.

Gimuguni, L., Nandutu, J., & Magolo, A. (2014). Effect of leadership styles on

performance of local governments in Uganda. A case of Mbale District.

H. M. Thamrin,(2012) The Influence of Transformational Leadership and

Organizational Commitment on Job Satisfaction and Employee

Performance, International Journal of Innovation, Management and

Technology, Vol. 3, No. 5, October 2012.

Hayward, B. A., Davidson, A. J., Pascoe, J.B., Tasker, M. L, Amos, T. L, & Pearse,
N. J. 2003. The Relationship between Leadership and Employee
 64

Performance in a South African Pharmaceutical Company. Paper

presented at the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology 6th
Annual Conference, 25-27 June 2003, Sandton, Johannesburg.

Hayward, B. A., Davidson, A. J., Pascoe, J. B., Tasker, M. L., Amos, T. L., &

Pearse, N. J. (2003, June). The Relationship between Leadership and

Employee Performance in a South African Pharmaceutical Company. In

Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology 6th Annual

Conference (pp. 25-27).

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (1988). Management of

organizational Behavior

Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being

spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on

perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication

Quarterly,8(2):165-189.

House et. al (2004). Culture, Leadership and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62

Societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 Theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.

Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. pp.189-204. Southern

Illinois University: Carbondale, IL.

Howard, W. C. (2005).Leadership: four styles. Education; Vol. 126, No. 2. 384-391p

Howell, J. M, & Frost, P. J. (1989), A laboratory Study of Charismatic Leadership,

Organisational Behaviors and Human Decisions Process, Vol. 43,No. 2,
pp. 243269rative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 36439 http/www.ala-
apa.org .
 65

Ibrahim, N. M., 2004. Organizational climate and its relation to job performance,

survey study on Security forces officers in Riyadh, Naief Arabian

University of Security Sciences, Faculty of High Studies, Department of

Administrative Sciences, pp: 8.

Ispas, A., & Babaita, C. (2012). The effects of leadership style on the Employees's

Jobsatisfaction andOrganizational commitment from the Hotel Industry.

Approaches in Organizational Management, 15(16), 254-262.

Javidan, M., & Waldman, D. (2003). Exploring christmatic leadership in the public

sector: Measurement and consequences. Public Administration Review,

63:229-244.

Memon, K. R. "Strategic role of HRD in employee skill development: An employer

Kanungo, R. N., & Mendoca, M. (1996). Ethical dimensions of leadership. Thousand

Oaks, Sage: CA.

Kerns, C. D. (2004). Strengthening values centered leadership. Graziadio Business

Report, 7(2). Retrieved July 20, 2015, from

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/042/leadership.html

Kirkpatrick, S. A & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core

charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes.

Journal of Applied Psychology. 81(1):36-51.

Kothari, C.R. (2004) Research methods: methods and techniques. 2nd revised edition.

New Delhi: New Age International (P) Limited

Kotter, J. P. 1988. The smarts that count. HR Magazine, 42(11):72-78

 66

Kotter, J. P. (1988). The Leadership Factor. New York: The Free Press.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2003). The leadership challenge. Jossey-Bass: San

Francisco, CA

Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. New

Delhi: Sage Publications Limited

Levine, S. R., & Crom, M.A. (1993). The leadership in you. New York: Pocket
books.

Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. 2001. Leadership: Theory, Application and Skill

Development. USA: South- West College Publishing

M. Armstrong, The Art of HRD. Strategic Human Resource Management A Guide

To Action, Kogan Page Limited London,2003

M. U. Paracha, A. Qamar, A. Mirza, Inam-ul- Hassan, and H. Waqas, "Impact of

Leadership Style(Transformational & Transactional Leadership) On

Employee Performance & Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction Study of

Private School (Educator) In Pakistan,"Global Journal of Management

and Business Research, vol. 12, 2012

Mahate A., Evans J., Simpson J. & Awamleh R. (2004). Technical and scale
efficiency in an over-banked environment: The case of the UAE. Mimeo.

Mehmood, Z. U., & Arif, M.I(2011). Leadership and HRM: Evaluating new

leadership styles for effective human resource management. International

Journal of Business and social science,2(15),236-238

Meindl, J. R. & Ehrlich, S. B. & Dukerich, J. M., (1985). The romance of leadership.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 30:78-102.

 67

Meindl, J. R. & Ehrlich, S. B. (1988). Developing a romance of leadership scale.

Proceedings of the Eastern Academy of Management, pp.133-35.

Meindl, J. R. & Ehrlich, S. B. (1997). The romance of leadership and the evaluation

of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal,

30(1):91-109.

Meindl, J. R. (1988). On the romanticized perceptions of charisma, Unpublished

manuscript, School of Management, State University of NewYork at

Buffalo.

Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as follower-centric theory: A social

constructionalist approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3):329-341.

Meyer, M. & Botha, E. 2000. Organisation Development and Transformation in

South Africa. Durban: Butterworths

Meyer, M. & Botha, E. (2000). Organisation Development and Transformation In

South Africa. Durban: Butterworths

Micali, P. J. (1981). Success handbook of salespeople. CPI Publishing Company, Inc,

Boston.

Michael. A. (2010). Leadership style and organizational impact. Retrieved from:

Morgan, G. (1988). Teaching MBAs transformational thinking. In R. E. Quinn &

K.S. Cameron (Eds.). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of

change in organization and management. Cambridge, Ballinger

Murphy, K. & Bartram, D. (2002) Recruitment, personnel selection and

organizational effectiveness. In I. Robertson, D. Bartram and M.

 68

Callinan (Eds.). Organizational effectiveness: The role of psychology (pp.

85-114). Chichester: Wiley

Murphy, Steven A., drodge, Edward N. (2004) International Journal of Police

Science & Management, Vol 6 Issue 1, p1-15

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. California: Sage

Publications Inc. Paul, J., Costley, D., Howell, J., & Dorfman, P.(2002).

The mutability of charisma in leadership research. Management

Decision, 40:192-201.

Northouse, P. G. 2010. Leadership, theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage, Thousand

Oaks,CA.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (3rd ed.). California: Sage

Publications, Inc.International Journal of Business and Management

Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 8028, ISSN (Print): 2319 801X

www.ijbmi.org Volume 2 Issue 12 December. 2013 PP.50 -58

www.ijbmi.org 50 | Page

Nuhu, K. (2010). Effect of leadership styles on employee performance in Kampala

district council. Doctoral dissertation, Makerere University.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Obasan Kehinde A .1, Hassan Banjo A (2014)Test of the Impact of Leadership

Styles on Employee Performance: A Study of Department of Petroleum

Resources. International Journal of Management Sciences Vol. 2, No. 3,

2014, 149-160
 69

Peter Adoko Obicci (2015). Effects of ethical leadership on employee performance

in Uganda Net Journal of Business Management Vol. 3(1), pp. 1-12.

Peters, T. & Austin, N. (1985). A passion for excellence. Random House: New York.

Pillai, R., & Williams, E., (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group

cohesiveness, commitment, and Performance. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 17:144-159.

Pradeep, D. D., & Prabhu, N. R. V. (2011). The relationship between effective

leadership and employee performance. Journal of Advancements in

Information Technology, 20, 198-207.

Raja, A. S., Scholar, D., Palanichamy, D., & Drs, C. The relationship between

effective leadership and employee performance. International Journal of

Research in Commerce and Management

Raja, A., & Palanichamy, P. (2012). Leadership styles and its impact on

organisational commitment. The Journal of commerce, 3(4), 15-23.

Rasool et al (2015) Leadership styles and its impact on employee's performance in

health sector of Pakistan city .University research journal volume 05

number 01 january 2015 article 08.

Rasool, H. F., Arfeen, I. U., Mothi, W., & Aslam, U. (2015). Leadership styles and

its impact on employee's performance in health sector of Pakistan.

University Research Journal, 5(1) Article 08

Reichard et al. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of relationships between adolescent

personality and intelligence with adult leader emergence and

 70

transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. Vol. 22, pp. 471-

481.

Rollinson, D. B. (2001): Organizational Behaviour and Analysis -An Integrated

Approach: Addison-Wesley Longman Inc - NEW YORK

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. Basic Books, Inc: New York. Shin, S., &

Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and

creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management

Journal,46:703-714

Shafie, B., Baghersalimi, S. & Barghi, V. (2013) The Relationship between

Leadership Style and Employee Performance.Singaporean Journal of

Business Economics and Management Studies, 2, 21-29.

Stogdill, R. M. 1974. Handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press

Suharto dan Cahyo. 2005. Pengaruh Budaya Organisasi, Kepemimpinan dan

Motivasi Terhadap Kinerja Sumber Daya Manusia Di Sekretariat

DPRDPropinsi Jawa Tengah. JRBI. Vol 1. No 1. Hal: 13-30.

Suharto dan Cahyo. 2005. Pengaruh Budaya Organisasi, Kepemimpinan dan

Motivasi Terhadap inerja Sumber Daya Manusia Di Sekretariat

DPRDPropinsi Jawa Tengah. JRBI. Vol 1. No 1. Hal: 13-30.

Sundi, K. (2013): Effect of Transformational Leadership and Transactional

Leadership on Employee Performance of Konawe Education Department

at Southeast Sulawesi Province.

 71

Tsigu, G. T., & Rao, D. P. (2015). Leadership styles: their impact on job outcomes in

Ethiopian banking industry. ZENITH International Journal of Business

Economics & Management Research, 5(2), 41-52.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M. & Yammarino, F. J. (1989). Adding to leader-follower

transactions: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. ONR

Technical Report No.3. Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies,

State University of New York

Wang, G., Oh I. S., Courtright S. H., Colbert A. E. (2011). Transformational

leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic

review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36,

223-270,

Wang, F. J., Shieh, Ch. J. & Tang, M. L. (2010) Effect of leadership style on

organizational performance as viewed from human resource management

strategy. African Journal of Business Management, 4(18), 3924-3936

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-

member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between

transformational leadership and followers' performance and

organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of management Journal,

48(3), 420-432

Weber, M. (1968). Max Weber on charisma and institution building, The University

of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and

measurement, Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.

 72

Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational Commitment: A Mediator Of The Relationships

Of Leadership Behavior With Job Satisfaction And Performance In A

Non-Western Country. Journal Of Managerial Psychology, 15(1): 6-24.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson-

Prentice

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations (6th Ed.). Upper Saddle

 73

APPENDICES

QUESTIONAIRE

PART A: Introduction

Dear Respondent,

I am Celestine Anyango, a Masters student at the Open University of Tanzania

(OUT) in collaboration with the College of Human Resource Management (CHRM)
Nairobi. I am carrying out a study on the Effects of Leadership Styles on
Employee performance at Bank of Africa Kenya limited" under the guidance of
Dr. Proches Ngatuni of The Open University of Tanzania. This is required as part of
the fulfillment of requirement for the award of Master of Human Resource
Management of the Open University of Tanzania.

To that end, I request you to kindly respond to a few questions on this questionnaire
as sincere and thoughtful as possible. A guide is provided under each part of the
questionnaire. The completion of this questionnaire is very important to the overall
design of the study and should take you less than 15 minutes to complete. Your
timely completion and return of this questionnaire is highly appreciated and will be
counted as a continuation of your kind support to the development of the profession
and myself as a member of the same. All the data you provide will be strictly
confidential and used for the stated purpose only. Furthermore, your responses will
only be presented in aggregate and no single results will be traceable back to
individual respondent.

I once again thank you for your participation and if you have any questions or
concerns please do not hesitate to contact me directly at +254 720 058 939 or Dr
Proches Ngatuni on +255 754 609 596 or email at [email protected]

Sincerely,
Celestine Anyango
Student, Master of Human Resource Management Programme
The Open University of Tanzania.
 74

QUESTIONNAIRE

PART B: LEADERSHIP STYLE

The sets of statements aimed at helping you assess your feelings or perceptions of the leadership
style of your immediate supervisor. You are requested to rating yourself against each statement
to indicate you level of agreement with what the statement is suggesting, where the following
ratings are:

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

Please place a tick () or a mark (x) in the box (cell) that represents your appropriate level of
agreement

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Idealized Influence (II) 1 2 3 4 5
1. My supervisor makes others feel good to be around him / her
2. I have complete faith in my supervisor
3.I am proud to be associated with my supervisor
Inspirational Motivation (IM) 1 2 3 4 5
1. My supervisor expresses in a few simple words what we could and should do
2. My supervisor provides appealing images about what we can do
3. My supervisor helps me find meaning in my work
Intellectual Simulation (IS) 1 2 3 4 5
1. My supervisor enables others to think about old problems in new ways
2. My supervisor provides others with new ways of looking at puzzling things.
3. My supervisor gets others to rethink ideas that they had never questioned
before.
Individual Consideration (IC) 1 2 3 4 5
1. My supervisor helps others develop themselves
2. My supervisor lets others know how he /she thinks we are doing
3. My supervisor gives personal attention to others who seem rejected.
TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Contingent Reward (CR) 1 2 3 4 5
1. My supervisor tells others what to do if they want to be rewarded for their
work
2. My supervisor provides recognition/rewards when others reach their goals.
3. My supervisor calls attention to what others can get for what they
accomplish.
Management by exception (MBE) 1 2 3 4 5
1. My supervisor is always satisfied when others meet agreed-upon standards
2. As long as things are working, my supervisor do not try to change anything
3. My supervisor tells us the standards we have to know to carry out our work
AUTHORITATIVE LEADERSHIP 1 2 3 4 5
1. My supervisor believes employees need to be supervised closely they are not
 75

likely to do their work.

2. As a rule, my supervisor believes that employees must be given rewards or
punishments in order to motivate them to achieve organizational objectives.
3. I feel insecure about my work and need direction.
4. My supervisor is the chief judge of the achievements of employees.
5.My supervisor gives orders and clarifies procedures
6. My supervisor believes that most employees in the general population are
lazy.
LAISSEZ FAIRE LEADERSHIP 1 2 3 4 5
1.In complex situations my supervisor allows me to work my problems out on
my own way
2. My supervisor stays out of the way as I do my work
3. As a rule, my supervisor allows me to appraise my own work.
4. My supervisor gives me complete freedom to solve problems on my own.
5. In most situations I prefer little input from my supervisor.
6. In general my supervisor feels its best to leave subordinates alone.
Source: Adopted from Bass and Avolio (1992)

Part C: EMPLOYEE PERFOMANCE

The sets of statements aimed at helping you assess your performance at your job in the company.
You are requested to rate yourself against each statement to indicate your self assessment of your
own performance, where the following ratings are:
1 = very low 2 = low 3 = Average 4 = high 5 = very high
Please place a tick () or a mark (x) in the box (cell) that represents your appropriate level of
performance rating.

1 2 3 4 5
Quality of your performance and productivity.
1. How do you rate quality of your performance?
2. How do you rate your productivity on the job
Individuals quality of performance and
productivity compared with others doing similar
jobs.
1. How do you evaluate the performance of your
peers at their jobs compared with yourself
doing the same kind of work?
2. How do you evaluate the performance of
yourself at your job compared with your peers
doing the same kind of work?
 76

Source: Adopted from Yousef (2000)

PART D: General Information

1. What is your age?

Below 25 years ( ) 25-30 years ( ) 31-35 years ( ) 36-40 years ( )
41-45 years ( ) 46 and above ( )
2. What is your gender?
Male ( ) Female ( )
3. What is your highest education qualification?
Certificate/diploma ( ) Higher diploma ( ) Bachelor ( ) Master ( )

PART E: Appreciation

I wish to thank you very much for spending your valuable time to respond to this questionnaire.

Test of standardized errors for normality

77
78
79