DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN LEADERSHIP STYLES - CHAPTER FIVE


The major aim of this research study is to empirically test the influence of leadership style and perceived organizational support on job involvement.
            In this study we have two independent variables which are leadership style and perceived organizational support, each of which has two levels, leadership style has democratic leadership style and autocratic leadership style and the second variable organizational support has supportive and non supportive organization.

            Three hypothesis were stated for the purpose of this study. The findings of this study revealed that the first hypothesis which stated that “there will be a statistical significant influence of leadership style on job involvement was rejected as revealed  by the ANOVA (FA =  (1, 72) = 1.12 P > .  05).
            The result showed that leadership style did not have influence on job involvement of workers.
            This result is consistent with the findings of litwin and stringer (1968) which concluded that there is no best suitable style of leadership, rather, it is the responsibility of leaders/ managements to determine what style of leadership that will be most appropriate for the organization.
First, leaders/ management needs to clarify its goals and then attempt to create or identify and establish a pattern or a style of leadership that is suitable for both attainment of goals and aspirations of employees; that is to say that the types of leadership style adopted by the management does not influence  job involvement of employees.
Hypothesis two stated that there will be a statistical significant influence of perceived organizational support on job involvement. This hypothesis  was accepted as revealed by the ANOVA (FB= (1, 72) = 4. 81 P < . 05). The result showed That there is a statistical significant influence of perceived organizational support on job involvement.
This result is in line with the suggestion of Eienberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa (1986) They suggested that employees form a general perception concerning the degree to which the organization values their contribution and cares about their well- being. High perceived organizational support (POS) would:
(a) Meet needs for approval, esteem and social identity and
(b) Produce the expectation that superior conventional performance and extra role behavior carried out for the organization, will be recognized and rewarded on the basis of the norm of reciprocity. POS would strengthen affective commitment in the organization and increase effort made on its behalf (Esternberger et al 1986, shore & shore 1995).
            The third hypothesis which stated that “there will be a joint statistical significant influence of leadership style and perceived organizational support on job involvement. Was accepted as revealed by the ANOVA (FA X B = (1, 72)= 10.01 P< .05). The result showed that there is a joint statistical significant influence of leadership style and perceived organizational support on job involvement. This means that perceived organizational support interacted with leadership style to  influence the employees, Job involvement.   Employees view of employment as a reciprocal exchange relationship may be encouraged by the anthropomorphic attribution of benevolent intent to the organization (Levinson, 1965) such personification of the employer, suggested Levinson, is a betted by its legal, moral and financial responsibility for the actions of its agents, by organizational policies norms cultures that provide continuity and prescribed role behaviors and by the power that the organization exerts over individual employee thus, employees would view many actions by the agents of the organization as representing the organization  itself.
            In this Levinson was trying to point out the role of leaders or managers and employees perceived organizational support which will lead to job involvement as an outcome or offspring of organizational effectiveness.  He quoted “thus, employees would view many actions by the agents of the organization as representing the organization itself ,” here the agents of the organization includes leaders or managers and their behavior towards employees, that is to say that the kind of leadership style adopted by the leader would have effect on the employees perception of the organization which will in turn affect productivity.

IMPLICATION OF THE STUDY
            In this study three hypothesis were stated and three findings were achieved.
            The result of the first findings of this study implied that there is no best style of leadership. Rather situational and dispositional factors can enhance the choice of leadership style to be adopted. The two dimensions of leadership style are not exclusively independent of each other, that is to say that there is no particular leadership style that triggers organizational effectiveness.
            The second result of this study implies that percrieved organizational support influence job involvement. That is to say that when employees view or perceive their organization to be supportive they will be obliged in the attainment of organizational goal but when they perceive it as non- supportive they will not be in a haste to attend to the organizational goals and the productivity of the organization will be in Jeopardy.
            The third findings of this study implies that leadership style and perceive organizational support joined will produce a profound effect on organizational effectiveness,  that is to say that when a leader adopts a particular leadership style it influences employees perception about the organization which will go a long way to affect organizational effectiveness, having in mind that employees perceive the managers/leaders behavior as that of the organization.
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
            The limitation of this study was mainly on the sample of population which was limited to just one organization in the state. The sample of population did not cover a wider population of organizations of the country, therefore the result cannot be generalized to the entire country. The use of questionnaire is also a limitation in the study. In filling the questionnaire, the participants are fond of ticking responses that pleases them with a view to portraying themselves good and protecting their image. This may bias the outcome/result of the study. Limited time as well as financial constraints and the institutions restriction hindered the researcher’s mobility, hence the choice of the area.
RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY
            The result of the finding in this study will be beneficial to both private and public sector organization who share the same environmental experience with the company/organization which the researcher used as case study.
            Individual who are itching to go into business but for fear of how to make efficient and effective use of human resources and human relations, will avail themselves the knowledge enshrined in this study.
            This study will also serve as a spring board for students and researcher who are interested in leadership styles and perceived organizational support and their influence on job involvement.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this study some recommendations are vital;
            What is the style prevailing and which ever style of leadership one wants to adopt, it must combine with the general functions and roles of leadership and the existing organizational climate and structure to determine organizational effectiveness.
            Organizations survive on the performances of employees. When workers achieve high level of performance, the organization thrives, but when their performances are poor, the organization suffers, All these depends on the level at which worker perceives the organization. Therefore, leaders efforts in organization should be geared at encouraging, peak performance through reward or compensation schemes in order to create in the worker a fulfill spirit and the feeling that the organization values their contribution which will in turn make the worker to perceive the organization as supportive and in trying to reciprocate the affection shown by the organization their will be high level of performance.

CONCLUSION
        This study has given insight into how leadership styles and perceived organizational support influence job involvement of workers in an organization.
            The findings led to the conclusion that there is no best form of leadership style. It can only be inferred that the choice of leadership style adopted by a leader is contigent upon the prevailing circumstance.
Furthermore the findings of this study led to the conclusion that employees form a general perception concerning the degree to which the organization values their contribution and care about their well being, if the organization is supportive employees will reciprocate and vise versa. Finally the findings has also revealed that employees would view many actions by the agents/leaders of the organization as representing the organization itself. So leaders should take note.

REFERENCES
Auerbach, A (1996) The world of work: An Introduction to industrial/ organizational psychology Chicago Brown and Benchmark publisher.
Baridam D.(1989), Monography on organizational Behaviour and   development University of port-Harcourt
Bass, B.M Barret, G.V, (1981) People, work and organization  Bosten, Allyn and Bacon.
Cribbin A.J. (1992) Effective managerial leadership USA America manager Association Inc.
Dickson, W.J (1589) Management and the worker Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Ejiofor, P.O, (1985) Management style in result oriented services managing people for Desire Result. Owerri Government Press.
Fagboungbe, B.O. Lonye S.O, (1995) Industrial psychology. Ojota Lagos; kole consult.
Graham H.T. (1980) Human Resource management London; Mac Donald and Evans Ltd.
Jewell, L.N. (1998) Contemporary industry/organizational Psychology (3rd Ed.), pacific Groove, (A Brooks Cole publishing Co.
Lawless J.D (1979), Organizational Behaviour,” The psychology of             effective management. New Jessey practice            Hall, Inc.
MacGregor D. (1960), The Human side of Enterprise kokarkusha;   Mc Graw-Hill Ltd.
Mescon (1997) Management Industrial And Organization Effectiveness;  New York: Harper and Row publisher.
Muchinsky, P.M, (1990), Psychology Applied To Work, California Brook /Cole publishing company.
 Nwachukwu C, (1993), Management theory and Practice, Onitsha; African Feb, Publishers Ltd.
Offor C.N. (2006), Elements of Organizational Psychology Chiwabo partners Consults 17 ichida street umudioka, Awka.
Robbins, F.E, (1996), Industrial and Organizational Behaviour,” Concepts Controversies and Application (5th Ed). New    York,” Prentice –Hall.
Sector, F.E, (1996) Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Research and Practice New York, John; Wiley and sons.
Smith, R. B, Wang, Z.M & Laung K. (1997)“, Leadership Decision making and cultural context leadership Quarterly. 8 (4), 413-431.
Smither, R.D (1998). The Psychology of work and performance (3rd Ed), New York, Longman.
Steer, R.M, Porter, L.W, (1975) Motivation And Work Behaviour New  York Graw –Hill.
Tannebaum (1958), How to Choose A Leadership pattern, Boston; Little Brown and Co.
Tiffin, J & Mc Cormick, E.J (1996), Industrial Psychology (5th Ed).             Engle-wood cliffts, N. J Prentice –Hill I.C.
Tompson, J.D.(1967) Organization Analysis, A Sociological view”, London; Tavistoc Publications.
Tompson, P & Mc, Hugh, D (1990) work Organizations; A Critical Introduction, Baingstoke, UK; Macmillian Education.
Woodward, J. (1965) Industrial Organizational Theory & practice London oxford University press.
Kgil, D. (1998) “Charismatic Leadership And Organizational Hierachyi Attribution of Charisma to close And Distance Leaders”, Leadership Quarterly 9(2), 161- 176.
 Yukl, Y. (1998) Leadership In Organization (4th Ed) New Jersey – Hall.
Amell s, Elesa berger: R, Fasolo P & Lynch P (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance. The moderating influence of socio-emotional needs Journal         Of Applied Psychology, 83 (2), 288-297.
Cobb S. (1976), Social Support as a moderator of Life Stress; Psychosomatic Medicine 38 300- 314.
Cohen, S.& wills, T.A (1985) Stress, Social Support and the buffering hypothesis psychological bulletin 98, 310-357.
Eisenberger, R, Anneli S, Rexwinkel B, Lynch P.D & Rhoades (2001) Reciprocation of Percieved Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1) 42-51.
Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison s & Sowa D, (1985), perceive organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3), 500-507.
Gaertner K.N, and Nollen S D (1989). Career experiences. Perceptions of employment practices and psychological commitment to the organization. Human relations 42 975-991.
George, J.M., Reed, T.F, Ballard, K.A. Colin, J and fielding J. (1993). Contact with AIDS Patients as a Source of work related distress effects of organizational and social support. Academy of management Journal, 36, 157-171.
Ladd. D. (199). Do two dimensions of OCBs have different conelates? Unpublished masters thesis, purdue University, West Lafayettle, Indiana.
Leather P, Lawpence C, Beale. D and Cox, T (1998). Exposure to                           occupational violence and the buffering effects of intra-                               organizational support.            Work and stress 12, 161-178.
Levinson H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9,370-390.
Rhoodes. L, and Eisenberger, R (2002)  Perceived Organizational   Support. A review of the Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4), 698- 714.
Robblee, M.A. (1998) Confronting the threat of organizational downsizing. Coping and health. (Doctoral dissertation,// www, / proquest. Com/Vmi) Dissertation Abstracts    International: Section B : The science and Engineering, 59 (6-B) 3072.
Shore, L M. and shore, T.H. (1995). Perceieve Organizational support and organizational Justice. In Croponzano, R.S and K. T 9. Kacmar (Eds.) organizational politics, Justices and Support: Managing and Social Climate of the work place, 149.164. Westport, CT: Quorum Venkatachalam, T 9. (1995). Personal hardiness and perceived Organizational support as links. In the role stress outcome relationship: A person environment fit model. Doctoral dissertation, llwww./ proquest. Com/umiJ). Dissertation Abstracts, international section A: Humanities and social science, 56 (6).2328.
Witt, L.A. (1991). Exchange ideology as a moderator of job attitudes Organizational citizenship behaviors relationships, Journal of Applied Social psychology, 21.        1490-1501.
Share on Google Plus

Declaimer - Unknown

The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin

READ RECENT UPDATES HERE