According to Puni et al. (2016), leadership refers to the ability to influence subordinates and motivate them to achieve specific targets as well as maintain cooperation within a group. Moreover, leadership is a strategic process through which employees are inspired to exploit their potential for growth and development. From the perspective of Zhon et al. (2018), leadership is termed as the process that influences the determination of goals and the motivation of followers’ behavior to achieve group culture improvement goals. Nonetheless, leadership may be executed in a variety of forms which are categorized into varied leadership styles. A leadership style refers to the factors that leaders employ to influence their subordinates, aiming at the attainment of pre-determined goals. Thus, measuring leadership style can be realized through the observation of indicators like strategy, pattern, behavior, and organizational goals. Also, among the factors that influence the leadership style that is implemented are persuasion, rewards, authority, and threats (Zhon et al., 2018).
The leadership style that organizational leaders choose to use is critical because they significantly influence employee performance (Zhon et al., 2018). Among the most common leadership styles that corporate leaders apply are authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire leadership. Authoritarian leadership is characterized by the leader’s retention of a lot of power and decision-making authority. This kind of leadership is most effective when used in the case of new and untrained employees or instances of short-term technical projects. Democratic leadership is the opposite of the latter because it emphasizes the collaboration of the leader and their subordinates in decision making. Everyone’s opinion is considered before a decision is reached. Thus, the said leadership style is crucial to the improvement of both job satisfaction and teamwork. Finally, laissez-faire leadership is the least formal leadership style as the leader has little, if any control, over a group. This type of leadership is appropriate for use when dealing with highly educated, and skilled employees or a workforce that loves what they do and are, therefore, self-driven in task execution (Puni et al., 2016). Hence no single leadership style can be termed as the most appropriate to lead, but depending on the leadership circumstances, the technique that optimizes employee performance is the most suitable (Zhon et al., 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Moreover, for leaders to optimize employee performance, they must understand that intrinsic values have a higher influential capacity compared to external motivators, as Herzberg proposes. The intrinsic motivators that influence job performance include responsibility, advancement, and growth. However, the external motivators that affect employee performance are not job-related. Herzberg refers to the same as hygiene factors, which despite not having a role in motivating employees at the workplace must be present. They include salaries, workplace relationships, and company policies. Thus, researchers argue that providing the extrinsic motivators to eliminate employee dissatisfaction would only result in a neutral employee state, as intrinsic motivators are the key to boosting employees’ drive to work (Samuel & Chipunza, 2009).
The research conducted by Kurniawan et al. (2018), affirms the principles of Herzberg’s theory. The study aimed at establishing the correlation of work conflicts, organizational commitment, employee performance, and work stress. The author’s findings indicated that work conflict and work stress significantly affected employees’ organizational commitment. On the other hand, work conflict-affected employee performance whereas work stress did not directly impact performance among employees. Furthermore, organizational commitment was deemed to play a significant role in employee commitment. Therefore, leadership success within an organization depends on the ability of leaders to understand the dynamic between the extrinsic and intrinsic employee motivators proposed by Herzberg (Samuel & Chipunza, 2009), especially in the context of the correlation between the various organizational factors explored by Kurniawan et al. (2018). Organizational leaders that seek to maintain high employee performance levels and organizational profitability must effectively manage work conflict and job stress. Also, Zhon et al. (2018) support Herzberg’s proposition as their conclusion indicates that when leadership style, working conditions, and rewards systems are combined, they simultaneously affect job performance, but individually they either have minimal or no impact on the same.
Additionally, research proves that the leadership nature in organizations influences turnover rates and the intent of employees to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (CBWs). Leadership that hinders good employee relations is a significant influencer of employee turnover as a result of the loss of both job commitment and satisfaction. Researchers indicate that employees often leave their jobs because of poor treatment from organizational leaders and those that stay under such conditions are less committed to their jobs, owing to low job satisfaction levels. Regardless, they still exhibit a high turnover intention (Puni et al., 2016).
Therefore, Samuel and Chipunza (2009) propose that for leaders to enhance employee retention within the organization, they should introduce practices like performance-based promotion systems and eliminate promotion based on seniority. The authors also emphasize the need for organizational leaders to focus on educating, training and developing employees as a means of increasing employee retention. Finally, they advocate for implementation of work-autonomy and goal setting to enhance the objectivity of performance appraisal.
References
Kurniawan, R. B., Sularso, R. A., & Titisari, P. (2018). The Effect of Work Conflict and Job Stress on Employees Performance with Organizational Commitment as an Intervening Variable. Jurnal Manajemen Dan Kewirausahaan, Vol 6, Iss 1, Pp 1-8.
Puni, A., Prof, Agyemang, C. B., & Asamoah, E. S., Dr. (2016). Leadership Styles, Employee Turnover Intentions and Counterproductive Work Behaviours. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 5(1). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Albert_Puni/publication/290797675_Leadership_Styles_Employee_Turnover_Intentions_and_Counterproductive_Work_Behaviours/links/569b9e8408aeeea985a5703c/Leadership-Styles-Employee-Turnover-Intentions-and-Counterproductive-Work-Behaviours.pdf .
Samuel, M. O., & Chipunza, C. (2009). Employee retention and turnover: using motivational variables as a panacea. African Journal of African Journal of Business Management, 410-415.
Zhon, J.E.A., Isfenti, S., and Rulianda, P.W. (2018). The Effect of Leadership Style, Reward System, And Working Conditions on Employee Work Performance. Junior Scientific Research, 126-135.
