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.