CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
Before now the believe held was that leaders were born and not made. Prior to 1920s, it was widely believed that leadership was properly of the individual’s uniqueness, endowed with abilities and traits which made it possible for them to become leaders. Moreover, these abilities and traits were believed to be inherited.
Numerous research works have been carried out exclusively on leadership and the studies have provided different definitions and dimensions of leadership which has resulted into what looks like “Leadership theory Jungle” Research works on leadership at the beginning of this century focused on traits aspects of leadership. Efforts were made to discover the traits or combinations of traits that are required to make a good leader.
However,
studies have revealed that there is no single basic pattern of activities and
personality traits that are consistent across leaders. The personality
characteristics of leaders are important but those which are essential depends
on the circumstances presented. This calls to mind, that someone does not
become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits
rather leaders must bear some relevant characteristics in relation to the
activities of a good leader.
There
is no institution or organization that can operate and survive without an
effective leadership. A leader must be able to adopt a style of leadership at
any given time to suit the prevailing circumstances. Leadership style according
to Bandom (1959) refers to the pattern of constellation of leadership
behaviours that characterize a given leader. The style of leadership chosen by
a leader/ manger, creates an atmosphare where workers contribute optimally to
the attainment of co-operate objectives, the consideration of leadership style
constituted a managerial delimma. The management is optimized by several
questions, such as, can anyone undertake leadership role or only a favoured
few? Are the favoured few born or made? Is there a particular act to it or a
particular style that can be measured? Is it possible to be productive? There
have been efforts targeted towards providing answers to the above questions,
studies so far on leadership style have come up with two commonly accepted
styles of leadership. They are authoritarian or autocratic style and democratic
or participatory style.
An authoritarian leader otherwise
known as task oriented leader seeks no assistance in making decisions
concerning the organizational setting. He pays greater premium to the
organizational demand and little or no attention to individual employees
demands. This style of leadership tends to impose high pressure on subordinates
through tight works standards and tensed atmosphere. His major goal is to
ensure that tasks are preformed as specified and whose job satisfaction is
derived mainly from seeing that his goal of effective task performance is
achieved above all other things.
Democratic
or participatory style also known as employee oriented leadership style has as
its major focus on the inter-personal relationship that exists in an
organization their main goal is to ensure that a congenial social environment
prevail, which will facilitate emergence of high employee morale and job
satisfaction. They do not only provide opportunities for employees to take part
in decision making concerning their jobs, but also incorporate their
suggestions into the final decision. They are willing to make subordinates feel
at is case with them, and help them in their personal problems. Participation
has a motivating influence on workers as it requires them to use their
conscious mentality in work activities. Also it makes job look interesting and
challenging and makes goal conciseness by reducing conflict and increasing
co-operation, furthermore it imposes sense of commitment on workers target
towards optimal performance.
Research also on
perceived organizational support began with the observation that if managers/
leaders are concerned with their employees involvement/ commitment to the
organization, employees are focused on the organizations commitment. For
employees the organization serves as an important sources of socio- emotional
resources, such as respect, caring and tangible benefits such as pays. Being
regarded highly by the organization helps to meet employees needs for approval,
esteem and affiliation. Positive valuation by the organization also provides an
indication that increased effort will be noted and rewarded. Employees
therefore take an active interest in the regard with which they are held by their
employer.
Organizational
theorists and researchers have frequently
alluded to employment as the trade of efforts and loyalty for such
socio-emotional benefits as esteem and approval. Social exchange theory was
developed to explain the initiation, strengthening and continued maintenance of
interpersonal relationship between individuals and their work organizations.
Central to social exchange theory is the norm of reciprocacity which obligates
people to respond positively to favourable treatment received from others.
Employees
view of employment as a reciprocal exchange relationship may be encouraged by
the anthropomorphic attribution of benevolent or malevolent intent to the
organization (Levinson 1965). Such personification of the employer as suggested
by Levinson is abetted by its legal, moral and financial responsibility for the
actions of its agents, by organizational policies, norms and culture that
provide continuity and prescribe role
behaviours and by the power that the organization exerts over individual
employees. Thus, employee would view many actions by agents of the organization
as representing the organization itself. The norm of reciprocacity requires
employees to respond positively to favourable treatment from ones employer.
Hence
the research topic, influence of perceived organizational support (POS) and
leadership style on Job involvement of workers in an organization.
Organizations
survive on the basis of the leadership style adopted and the employees
perceived organizational support. Workers achieve high level of performance
depending on how. Involved they are to the organization or how committed they
are to the organization. Workers performance in an organization can be
attributed to the extents to which they are involved in their work.
When
workers achieve high level of performance the organization thrives but when
their performances are poor, the organization suffers. Workers performances are
as a result of many complex factors. When observing the level of performance
achieved by any two workers difference in their achievements can usually be
seen, sometimes these differences are the result of disparities in innate
skills and in some cases, they are due to differential treatment in their
salaries or because of different perception of the Job itself.
Organizational
effectiveness which is the out come of job involvement of workers is heavily
dependent on the style of leadership and employees perceived organizational
support. A seemingly good leadership style and high perceived organizational
support creates a climate and structures that are conducive and permits group
coherence tending towards the achievement and accomplishment of organizational
goals with minimal energy input. The climate in an organization presents the
characteristics of the actions taken consciously or unconsciously within the
organization which affects human behaviour, it could be the personality or
impression of the organization as perceived by its members. It is therefore
important at this point to note that it is not necessarily the real climate
(environment) that influence human behaiour, rather it is the climate
represented by leaders in organizations, their activities as well as the
conditions as perceived by the workers. These include the type of supervision
given and received, the nature and direction of communication flow, the
perceived reward or punishment structure, the attainment of employees socio
emotional needs, the benefits that the employer will grant to the employee
e.t.c.
These
are after manipulated and measured and form the basis for defining
organizational environment, it also serves as a source of identifying pressure
constraint that affect job involvement of workers in an organization.
Therefore,
it is pertinent that climate and organizational effectiveness are specified in
terns of individual or group responses to facets of performance, job
satisfaction, job commitment and job involvement. moreover, there is not best
or most suitable climate, rather. It is the responsibility of the management to
determine what type of climate will be most suitable or appropriate for the
organization. the relationship between climate and achievement of
organizational effectiveness depends on the degree of control the workers have
over attainment of the goal activities.
It
is believed that perceived organizational support and leadership style affects
work effectiveness which is an outcome of job involvement.