TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Title page. . . . . . . . . . i
Approval page. . . . . . . . . .ii
Certification. . . . . . . . . iv
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . v
Acknowledgement. . . . . . . . vi
Table of contents. . . . . . . . . vii
List of tables. . . . . . . . . ix
List of figures. . . . . . . . . xi
Abstract. . . . . . . . . . xii
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION. . . . . 1
Background to the study. . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the problem. . . . . . . 8
Purpose of the study. . . . . . . . 9
Significance of the study. . . . . . . . 10
Research Questions. . . . . . . . 11
Scope of the study. . . . . . . . . 12
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . 13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF
RELATED LITERATURE. 14
Conceptual Framework . . . . . . 15
Theoretical Framework. . . . . . . . 31
Theoretical Framework for the study. . . . . . 31
Empirical Studies. . . . . . . . 52
Summary . . . . . . . . . . 63
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH
METHODS. . . . 66
Research Design . . . . . . . . 66
Population of the study. . . . . . . . 67
Sample of the Study. . . . . . . . 68
Instruments for data collection. . . . . . . 69
Validity of the instruments. . . . . . . 69
Reliability of the instruments. . . . . . . 70
Administration of the instruments. . . . . . 71
Methods of data analysis. . . . . . . . 71
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS. . . 72
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS,
CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS,LIMITATIONS
OF THE STUDY AND SUGGESTIONS FURTHER
STUDIES. . . . . . .111
Interpretation and discussion of findings . . . 111
Implications of the findings. . . . . . . 123
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . 125
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . 126
Limitations of the study. . . . . . . . 127
Suggestions for further study. . . . . . . 127
Summary of the study. . . . . . . . 128
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . 131
APPENDIXES. . . . . . . . . 141
APPENDIX I: Questionnaire (for the University Librarians). 141
APPENDIX II: Questionnaire (for the subordinates). . 145
APPENDIX III: Pre-Validated Instruments. . 150
APPENDIX IV: Validators comments. . . . 161
Comments made during proposal. . . . 163
Comments made during seminar presentation. . 164
APPENDIX V: Letter of introduction
to respondents for testing The research instruments . . . . . 166
APPENDIX VI: Formula for Cronbach
Alfa . . . . 166
APPENDIX VII: Computer printout on
multiple regression
analysis
and means. . . . . . 167
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
1. Population of University libraries and Librarians. . . .68
2. Mean and SD of
responses on autocratic leadership style. .73
3. Mean and SD of
responses on democratic leadership style. .74
4. Mean and SD of
responses on bureaucratic leadership style. .76
5. Mean and SD of
responses on laissez-faire leadership style. .78
6. Mean of mean
and SD of responses on leadership styles. . .79
7. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of experience on
autocratic
leadership style. . . . . . .80
8. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of experience on
democratic
leadership style. . . . . . .83
9. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of experience on
bureaucratic
leadership style. . . . . . .86
10. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of experience on
laissez-faire
leadership style. . . . . . .89
11. Mean of mean and
SD of responses on influence of experience
on
leadership styles. . . . . . . .92
12. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of experience
on the job
performance of professional librarians. . . .93
13. Mean and SD of responses on influence of
university
ownership
on autocratic leadership style. . . . .95
14. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of university
ownership
on democratic leadership style. . . . .96
15. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of university
ownership
on bureaucratic leadership style. . . . .98
16. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of university
ownership
on laissez-faire leadership style. . . . .99
17. Mean of mean and
SD of responses on influence of
University ownership
on leadership styles. . . . .100
18. Mean and SD of
responses on influence of university ownership
on the job
performance of professional librarians. . . .102
19. Mean and SD of
responses on the level of performance
of professional
librarians. . . . . . . .104
20. Mean and SD of
responses on the influence of university
librarians’
leadership styles on the job performance of
professional
librarians. . . . . . . .106
21. Regression of
leadership styles, experience and ownership
on job
performance. . . . . . . .108
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Dimensions
of leadership…………………………….…………….35
2. The
Hersey – Blanchard life cycle theory………….………………39
3. Leadership
role path-goal approach…………………………..……43
4. Reddin’s
basic leadership styles……………………………………45
5. Reddin’s
effective and ineffective expression of leadership styles..46
6. One-dimensional
leadership styles…………………………………62
ABSTRACT
The major
purpose of this study was to determine the influence of University librarians’ leadership
styles on the job performance of professional librarians in university
libraries in North Central Zone of Nigeria.
In carrying out this study, 5 research questions were posed and 4 null
hypotheses was formulated and tested. The
entire population which consisted of all the 78 professional librarians and all
the 9 university librarians in the 9 (4 federal and 5 state) university
libraries in North Central Zone of Nigeria were used because of the smallness
of the population size. Two sets of instrument which include: University
Librarians’ Leadership Styles Questionnaire (ULLSQ) and Job Performance of Professional
Librarians Questionnaire (JPPLQ) were used. The research questions were
answered using mean. The Hypotheses was tested at 0.05 level of significance using
Multiple Regression Analysis. The major findings of the study showed that: The
university librarians in North Central Zone of Nigeria adopted more of
democratic leadership style. This is followed by the bureaucratic leadership
style less laissez-faire leadership style and far less autocratic leadership
style. University librarians’ leadership styles do not significantly influence
the job performance of professional librarians. Experience of the university
librarians do not significantly influence the job performance of professional
librarians. Ownership of university significantly influenced job performance of
professional librarians with Federal university professional librarians
performing better than their State counterpart. The level of job performance of
professional librarians was low. The joint influence of leadership styles,
experience and ownership on performance of the professional librarians was significant.
Based on the above findings, it was recommended that university librarians
should be supervised and closely monitored by the university authorities to
ensure that the autocratic and laissez-faire ones among them are checked. That
university authorities should through seminars and workshops encourage the
usage of democratic leadership style in the administration of university
libraries. Appointment of university librarians should not be on the basis of
their experience alone but on the basis of their attainment of high academic
qualifications. That State Government owned universities should endeavour to
provide better conditions of service for their professional librarians.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
The
University Librarians are the pivots around which all major and important
university library functions revolve.
This means that the approach they adopt in directing, guiding and
controlling the staff under them determine the pace of progress in their
libraries. That is if the University
Librarians control, direct or guide the staff under them properly by adopting
ideal leadership style, staff will show greater commitment to their duty.
But
unfortunately some university librarians are no longer effective and committed
to their duties. Staff on their part
become nonchalant about library work which invariably have negative impact on
their job performance. According to
Adamaechi and Romaine (2002) leadership is very essential in any kind of group
or organization and it can mean the difference between success or failure of
any group or joint activity. Hence for
enterprise to achieve its goals the leadership position of such enterprise must
be occupied by competent leaders.
Leadership
as a concept has been defined by so many writers Ngoka (2002) defined it as the
process of influencing others towards organizational performance and
achievement of goals. According to Igbo
(2002) leadership is a process of influencing group activity towards goal
achievement. It is the behaviour of an
individual when he is directixng and guiding the activities of the group
towards a common goal. His success or
failure in attaining the goals of the organization depends largely on his
ability to effectively organize and manipulate the human and material resources
available to him. This in turn depends
on his leadership styles.
Scholl
(2000) refers to leadership style as the pattern of behaviour used by a leader
in attempting to influence group members and make decision regarding the
mission strategy and operation of group activities. Clark (2000)
perceived leadership style as the manner and approach of providing direction,
implementing plans and motivating people.
Ukeje, Akabogu and Ndu (1992) opined that job performance has to do with
the employees strength and weaknesses in his effort to accomplish task. Rhode (1989) defined job performance as an
act of performing a job either well or badly.
University
Librarians should ensure effective leadership style that will lead to maximum
job performance. Ram (2001), Mgbodile
(2004), Melling and Little (2004) described autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire leadership styles
extensively. According to them an
autocratic leader is a leader who is high-handed in his administration. He is
the centre of all the activities that go on in the establishment where he is a
leader. A prime determinant of action,
all authority emanated from him and ends with him. He monopolizes the
decision-making process and takes decisions all alone. He believes his ideas and thoughts to be
superior to those of his subordinates and considers involving them in decision-making
as a waste of time. The interest and
welfare of the worker is not taken into consideration as the leader regards him
just as a mere tool for production. As
part of his non-consideration for worker’s welfare he resorts to commands,
harsh and abusive language to induce compliance. He uses threats
