THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE ON JOB PERFORMANCE

ABSTRACT

This is a study borne out of the passion for the growth of Nigerian Firms and the increment in the country’s’ level of income by increase in productivity through the job performance of the employees aided by the adoption of an effective and efficient leadership style. The success or failure of any organisation can be contributed to its style of leadership used by the management. This research work aims at assessing the impact of leadership style in achieving organisation goals. The instrument that will be use for the collection of data will be questionnaire will be randomly distributed and the research type will be descriptive method. The obtained data will be sorted, analyzed and interpreted through simple percentage count and statistical computation. Hence, this study will point out that the success or failure of any organisation is largely dependent on the type of leadership style that exists in the organisation, thus, encouraging every organisation to seek for good and the most effectiveways of managing their organisation.

CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER ONE

1.1    INTRODUCTION

Leadership can be thought of as both property of individuals and a process carried out by individuals. As property, leadership is a set of qualities possessed or attributed to those who carry the leadership process. As a process, leadership is an exercise of influence to facilitate and motivate the behaviour of others. Inspite of the possibility of leadership occurring in very diverse manners, the ease with which it can be observed and the extensive research focused on it, remains a puzzling subject for managers and educators.

Despite many studies of leadership, one prominent researcher has proposed that the concept of leadership has outlived its usefulness and should be abandoned in favour of some other concept Miner (1975). But the leadership concept will not go away and researcher are still pursuing a steady flow of leadership studies.

Many people consider managers as leaders but it is possible to be a leader without necessarily being a manager and vice-versa. However, being a leader is an integral part of being an effective management. To some, the words manager and leader carries very different meanings. Peter and Austin (1970) draw a distinction between managers and leaders, they associated manager with words like pronouncers, decision makers, referee, cop, controlling and restraining people. Leadership by contrast is about coping with change, part of the reason is that it has become so important in recent years that the business world has become more competitive and volatile, faster technological change, greater international competition, deregulation of markets, over capacity in capital intensive industries, an oil carter and the changing demographics  of the work force are among the factors that have contributed to this shrift. But for leadership achieving a vision, requires motivating and inspiring, keeping people moving in the right direction despite major obstacles to change by appealing to basic but often untapped human needs, value, emotions and aspirations.

Leaders may be classified according to a number of principles. By far, the most common form of classification has been of leadership style. Among the earliest studies of leadership was that of LIPPITT and WHITE (1943), they categorized leadership styles as “Autocratic”, “Democratic” and “Laissez-Faire”. The Ohio state university leadership studies were the first and most significant major effort at identifying leaders bevahiour. During the past 30 – years they focused their attention on two leading behaviour which are “Initating structure and consideration”.

The University of Michigan institute for social Research has since 1942 conducted a number of studies in industrial settings to explore relationships between principles and styles of leadership and job performance. They have argued that “Employee centered” supervision are higher producers of job satisfaction than “Job centered” supervision Likert (1961).

SELVIN (1961) developed a three dimensional structure of perceived leadership climate;

i.             Paternal in which the leaders are respected, feared and scorned.

ii.           Persuasive in which the trainees have confidence in their leaders who give them strong support.

iii.          Arbitrary in which the leaders were perceived as a loof, primitive, inconsistent, untrustworthy and nonunderstanding of confidence.