Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Dependency of job satisfaction and job productivity on leadership style

Abstract

management leadership personnel

The research is focused on the analysis of dependency of different variables of work results on the leadership style. Despite the interconnections between various leadership styles and work results parameters are proven to exist, these connections remain to be understudied. According to the previous studies, there is no common theory on leadership that could answer the question, what leaders should do and how they should behave in order to successfully and effectively influence and improve the performance of a group, a team or an organization. The thesis evaluates the influence of the diverse leadership styles according to the situational theory of Hersey-Blanchard on the job satisfaction and productivity and describes the experiment which was carried on in order to analyze these interconnections. It is proposed that the level of job productivity and job satisfaction is the highest when the leadership style of a leader matches the development level of an employee. The master thesis concludes with limitations, suggestions for the future theoretical research, and implications for research and practical purposes.

Introduction

Nowadays we can observe the unique phenomenon that thousands of people in different spheres and environments take the responsibility of being a leader, promoting particular ideas, values and believes in order to harmonize the life of the followers, accomplish various goals, achieve success or bring something new to the society.

Focusing on the business environment, it can be concluded that leadership plays an inevitable role in prosperity, success and development of any organization. The number of new companies, firms and organizations in all spheres is rapidly and continuously growing, inevitably bringing difficulties for the competitors and making them struggle against each other in order not only to survive but also manage to blossom despite the competitive conditions. In such a harsh environment the presence of a leader becomes crucial. They are expected to influence the employees boosting their performance, motivating them and inspiring them to fulfill the organizational goals as according to many studies the employees are “the biggest asset of any firm and the main drivers of organizations that give life to the organizations and provide goals” (Shafie et al., 2013).

The subject of leadership has interested people around the world for many years and even decades. Leadership is a very complicated and complex concept (Douglas, 2012). As previous researches have shown, numerous theories on leadership have appeared in recent decades, developing diverse ideas and proposals of boosting the effectiveness of leadership (Bass & Bass, 2008; Raven & Rubin, 1976). However, there is no united leadership theory that could answer the question, how leaders should act in order to efficiently influence and improve the performance of a group, a team or an organization (Dinh et al., 2018). The research on leadership split up into two major layers: macro processes, where scholars focused on the follower-leader relationship (Chang & Johnson, 2010; DeRue & Ashford, 2010) and micro processes, where the cognitions, emotions and behaviors of the leader are evaluated (Bono & Ilies, 2010; Dihn & Lord, 2012; Trihas & Schyns, 2012). Focus on the cognitions and behaviors of leaders leads to the creation of the significant amount of diverse theories on the leadership styles or the particular approaches applied by the leaders in order to carry out their executive functions (Armstrong, 2012).

The studies have discovered that the leadership and leadership styles affect many different components that define work results. Thus, there were found the connections between leadership styles and job performance (Baum et al.б 1998; Cummings & Schwab, 1973; Howell et al., 2005), motivation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Kalar & Wright, 2007; Webb, 2007), organizational commitment (Bass, 1985; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Walumba, Wang, Lawler & Shi, 2004) and many others. The following master thesis focuses on 2 work outcomes: job productivity and job satisfaction.

The studies in different spheres indicate the strong connection between the job satisfaction and leadership styles, claiming that the job satisfaction strongly depends on a leadership style (Barling et al., 2002; Hamidifar, 2010; Ramey, 2002; Wexley & Yukl, 1984). As job satisfaction is the general attitude of an employee towards their job, the leadership can positively or negatively impact the level of job satisfaction through the leader-employee relations, supportiveness, transparency and other factors (Ramey, 2002).

Another work outcome that depends on the leadership style is job productivity. The topic of the connection between the leadership and job productivity is relatively understudied. While most of researchers insist that the implication of suitable leadership styles may positively influence job productivity (Dansereau et al., 1995; Humphrey, 2002; Lewis & Gilman, 2005) through supervision, sense of “self-worth” and motivation, some academics believe that the connections between leadership and job productivity are not thoroughly studied and uncovered (Sy et al., 2005).

Many researches have demonstrated that various leadership styles have a different impact on the work results of the employees. While some approaches make employees follow their bosses and improve the efficiency of their work, several leadership styles are considered to be inefficient and non-influential (Dvir et al., 2002; Judge et al., 2004). Therefore, it is important to observe the impact of various leadership styles on the diverse work outcomes.

Taking into consideration the fast-developing globalization and rapid changes in the business environment as well as the growing role of the employees` well-being, attitudes and feelings at the workplace, the theory of Situational leadership developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard and the Situational theory II developed by Ken Blanchard on the basis of the Situational Theory of Hersey-Blanchard can be considered relevant for the implication in the real life. As the companies and organizations are constantly developing, changing the inner structure, becoming more flexible and adaptable to new conditions and circumstances, the managers in the organizations are not limited by one and the same team or environment anymore. They need to find diverse approaches to the different groups of employees, to the new tasks and projects as well as to the conditions that the team is put into. Considering these circumstances, Hersey and Blanchard underline that there is “no single "best" style of leadership” and divide the leadership styles into 4 different types according to the amount “task behavior” and “relationship behavior” provided by a boss to his/her employees or members of the team (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969).

Therefore, the main research goal of the following thesis is to investigate how different leadership styles according to the Situational theory of Hersey and Blanchard influence job satisfaction and job productivity of employees.

The research objectives of the following master thesis are the following:

1. Identify whether the Hersey-Blanchard leadership styles influence job satisfaction and job productivity;

2. Investigate whether the highest levels of job satisfaction and job productivity can be achieved when the style of the leader matches the development level of an employee;

3. Identify whether there is one particular leadership style in the Hersey-Blanchard that has the most effective impact on job satisfaction and job productivity of an employee;

4. Investigate whether the impact of the leadership styles on job satisfaction and job productivity differ among Austrian and Russian students.

The significance of the research refers to the investigation of the connections between different leadership styles and job productivity and job satisfaction and, as the result, to the better understanding of processes that shape the leader-employee relationship. The study contributes to the sphere of organizational management and helps the managers to see the correlations between the leadership style and the job satisfaction and job productivity and successfully use these interdependencies in order to improve the effectiveness and performance of the organization.

Chapter I

I.I Work outcomes

I.I.I Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction caught the attention of the scholars in the mid-1930s and since that time a profound research of this topic has been carried out, especially in the field of organizational research (Currivan, 1999). According to Locke, job satisfaction can be defined as “a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one's job and what one perceives it as offering” (Locke, 1969).

Job satisfaction is viewed as a crucial and “desired indicator of organizational success” (M. de Menezes, 2012). It is an important attribute of all labor market matches as it is a useful summary measurement of utility at work (Bцckerman & Ilmakunnas, 2012). The reason why scholars in the field of organizational research attach such a great importance to job satisfaction is its strong connections with many other organizational variables. For example, there have been found correlations between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Agho et al., 1993; Lok & Crawford, 1999; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). Many researchers have examined the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction, which will be discussed in detail further (Judge et al., 2001, Locke, 1970; Platis, 2015). Moreover, there are ties between job satisfaction and management practices, organizational climate, cohesion and so forth (Burke, 1995; Downey et al., 1975, Odom et al., 1990). Therefore, job satisfaction can be observed from 2 different sides. On the one hand, job satisfaction is used to evaluate the emotional state and well-being of the employees (O'Driscoll & Brough, 2010). On the other hand, as job satisfaction is closely entwined with other organizational variables, it may serve as a predictor of increase or decrease in other variables as well as the outcome of changes of the job-related factors (Bьssing & Bissels, 1998).

Consequently, measurement of job satisfaction is a matter of high importance for the organizations that want to keep their employees highly involved and engaged, emotionally stable and productive.

One of the most well-known tools for measurement of job satisfaction is The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) developed in 1969 by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin. The Job Descriptive Index is a “facet” measurement which means that employees are required to analyze and evaluate the level of their satisfaction regarding 5 different dimensions: “the work”, “the coworkers”, “the payment”, “the promotion” and “the supervision”. The combination of these 5 dimensions provides an overall and comprehensive picture that describes whether an employee is satisfied with all aspects of their work and their job in overall (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969). Smith, Kendall, and Hulin rely on the power of words that would help employees to describe their thoughts, feelings and emotions about their job. Each dimension comprises a set of adjectives that can describe this dimension. An employee needs to mark each adjective with Y - “yes”, N - “no” or ? - “indecisive”.

Figure 1. Example of facets from the Job Descriptive Index (JDI)

The Job Descriptive Index considered to be one of the most valid and reliable tools to measure job satisfaction and is widely used in business (Ramayah, & Muhamad, 2001).

The next instrument for measurement of job satisfaction is The Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS) is developed by Warr, Cook, and Wall in 1979. The scale observes both extrinsic and intrinsic parameters related to job. It consists of 15 items that describe the job from diverse perspectives. An employee is supposed to mark on the seven-point Likert scale the number that reflects their attitude towards a particular item. “1” refers to “extremely dissatisfied”, while “7” means “extremely satisfied”. Intrinsic parameters include “work involvement”, which describes to which extent a person is involved into their current job; “intrinsic job motivation” characterizes the level of employeeґs motivation to do their job well; “higher order need strength” refers to the employeeґs needs that he/she considers to be the most important in their job (such as opportunity to learn, freedom in decision making, opportunities to use their abilities etc.); “perceived intrinsic job characteristics” describe the characteristics related to the employeeґs present job (“the amount of responsibility you are given”, “your chance of promotion”, “the attention to the suggestions you make” etc.); “job satisfaction” refers to the degree of employeeґs satisfaction with their current job; “life satisfaction” helps to evaluate whether an employee is satisfied with different aspects of their life at the present moment (health, family life, education, place for living etc.); “happiness” measures whether an employee is happy or unhappy at the present moment; “self-rated anxiety” measures whether a person is concerned or worried about particular aspects of their life (health, family, money etc.). Extrinsic parameters include “physical working conditions” describe whether the employee is satisfied with the working conditions in which they currently work (amenities, level of noise, place for work etc.); “fellow workers” refer to the relationship of an employee with their colleagues,; “immediate boss” characterizes the relationship of an employee with their boss, level of support expressed by the boss, level of stress associated with the boss; “rate of pay” refers to the satisfaction of an employee with the salary and rewards; “relations between management and workers” describe the interpersonal relations of employees and managers; “the way the organization is managed” describes the internal processes within the organization, “hours of work” relates to the amount of time the employee needs to spend for his/her duties and “job security” refers to the degree of safety the employee feels at their present job (Warr, Cook & Wall, 1979). The Job Satisfaction Scale has a very important benefit as it distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic values and allows to achieve a deeper understanding of the features that influence the employeeґs job satisfaction. However, it is stated that intrinsic features provide more information regarding the employeeґs well-being and satisfaction in comparison to extrinsic values (Lee & Allan, 2002; Taris, Feij & van Vianen, 2005).

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)) is the next tool that measures job satisfaction of employees. The extensive survey was developed by Weiss in 1967 and contains over 100 questions regarding 20 different aspects of job. There is also a shorter form of the survey which consists of 20 questions; however, the long version of the survey is recommendable in order to get a profound insight into the employeeґs attitudes regarding their current job. Both forms of the questionnaire aim to evaluate the employeeґs attitude towards such aspects of the work environment as independence, supervision, responsibility, working conditions and other.

Figure 2. Example of statements from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)

The participants are given statements describing each of 20 aspects and they are supposed to tick one of 5 offered options from “very satisfied” to “very dissatisfied” (Weiss et al., 1967). The two-factor survey observes extrinsic factors that describe the working conditions and intrinsic factors that give more information about the job itself. The main limitation of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire discussed by scholars is its length as a significant amount of time is required to fill in the survey can make an employee tired and distracted leading to the less considered answers from the employeeґs side (Jex, 2002).

The next tool to measure job satisfaction is multidimensional Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) developed by Spector in 1997. Being originally developed for the sphere of social services, quite soon the survey started being used in all types of organizations in private and public sectors. The Survey consists of 36 items (statements) that characterize 9 facets such as “salary, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent, rewards, operating procedures, co-workers, work and communication” (Spector, 1997). The statements can be answered with one answer chosen out of 6 options from “agree very much” to “disagree very much”.

Figure 3. Example of statements from the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

Comparing to other measurement tools, the Job Satisfaction Survey is very typical as the participants are required to give their answers (agree/disagree) to the statements regarding the job and working conditions, however the JSS is more descriptive (Jex, 2002).

Job satisfaction is a very important criteria for employees when they take a decision whether they want to stay at their previous job or to quit and find a new one. According to studies, people who are more satisfied with their job and have more positive feelings and attitudes about their working environment, responsibilities and colleagues, tend to keep they current job, while employees with higher levels of dissatisfaction are searching for new alternatives that would possibly satisfy them (Shobe, 2018). If employers want to keep the employees at their places in the companies, they should think about the factors that will stimulate the increase of employeesґ job satisfaction. Siengthai and Pila-Ngarm suggest that employers need to pay attention to such job characteristics as autonomy, feedback and variety. These characteristics are responsible for making the job more captivating which, in its turn, increases the interest of an employee in their daily tasks and job satisfaction. Moreover, they also highlight job redesign because when an employee works in one and the same company during several years, changes are crucial to revive their motivation, give new meaning to the job, enrich their working experience and, therefore, boost their satisfaction (Siengthai & Pila-Ngarm, 2016). Apart from the job characteristics, it is vital to create for the employees a good work/life balance. Being able to be more flexible and have time for the private life, relieves many stresses and concerns of employees and increases at the same time a higher commitment towards a company (Devi, 2012).

It is important to make job satisfaction one of the main priorities of employers and realize its significance, because when an employee is happy, the companyґs performance experiences positive improvement (Tumen & Zeydanli, 2016).

Job productivity

Productivity is one of the popular assessments to measure the efficiency of individuals or a group of employees and considered to be a very important factor for all organizations. There is no common definition that describes the meaning of productivity. However, most of the definitions created by the scholars are based on the idea of input-output ratio, but different units are chosen by diverse scholars to measure input and output. Van Niekerk describes productivity as “relationships between the inputs to the firm and the outputs of products which can be attributed to the improved efficiency of some specific resources, such as capital, money, materials or technology” (Van Niekerk, 1981). Hinrichs defines productivity as “including factors related to workersґ inputs such as costs, turnover, accidents, absenteeism and workersґ outputs as quantity, quality or value” (Hinrichs, 1978). Mill defines productivity as “relationship between the input of resources and the output of services” (Mill, 1989). Hameed and Amjad state that productivity “is the ratio how well an organization converts input resources into goods and services” (Hameed & Amjad, 2009).

Quite often people confuse the definitions of performance and productivity. The best way to distinguish them is to turn to the theory of John Campbell - an organizational psychologist who has developed one of the most common theories on work performance. According to his theory, while performance deals with the human behavior trying to specify how a particular person acts to accomplish a task, productivity is expressed in terms of outcomes, comparing input of efforts with the output of the work (Campbell, 1996).

Detailed research of the concept of productivity causes a lot of further debates. One of the main questions is how to successfully measure the productivity of employees. The studies prove that the universal tool to measure productivity does not exist. The figure below demonstrates some examples of productivity measurement and proves that every sector and industry require its own way of productivity measurement (Sauermann, 2016).

Figure 4. Example of measures of workerґs productivity

Hameed and Amjad discuss that the productivity measurement should be carried out in different ways for factory and workplace settings (Hameed & Amjad, 2009). The measurement of productivity can be quantitative, and, in this case, it is called objective productivity measurement. As it comes from the definition of productivity, output just needs to be divided by the input. In these case scholars suggest 2 options: total productivity measurement or partial productivity measurement. While total productivity measurement refers to the comparison of all outputs to all inputs used, the partial productivity can be measured by dividing the total output by one particular input (Misterek et al., 1992). Partial performance is more popular as in most of the cases all outputs and inputs summed up cannot be compared that easily. One of the most well-known examples of partial measurement is labor (direct) productivity measurement which is calculated by dividing the total number of unites produced (total output) by labor input (Kemppilд & Lцnnqvist, 2003). There are 4 different types of lab our input that can be used for calculations: man-hour, number of labors regarding the working time, costs for labors and number of direct labors (Ahn & Abt, 2006). Labor productivity highlights the important role of labor in received outputs stating that more useful labor provides better efficiency. One more possible way to measure the partial productivity is indirect productivity measurement which measures not output and input but the factors that have a connection to productivity and influence positive or negative changes in it. Such factors can be logistics issues, accuracy, defects, not efficiently used capacity and so forth (Sink, 1985).

Measurement of productivity with the help of quantitative methods poses a problem as such measures do not take into consideration the fluctuating quality of inputs and outputs (Misterek et al., 1992). Moreover, in the sphere of services some other factors need to be added to the calculations of productivity, for example, changes in the business processes, intangible assets or indirect influences that appear while the service is being provided (clientsґ satisfaction) (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 1998). Therefore, scholars also suggest measuring productivity with the help of qualitative methods. Subjective productivity measurement includes using the qualitative measurement, collecting data with the help of surveys, questionnaires, 360° evaluation or interviews (Clements-Croome & Kaluarachchi, 2000; Haynes, 2008; Leaman & Bordass, 2000). As well as objective productivity measurement, subjective measurement can be direct and indirect. Direct measurement refers to the surveys that are used so the employees could estimate their productivity themselves while indirect measurement include surveys based on the employeesґ perceptions of the factors that have an indirect impact on productivity, for example, waiting time needed. Subjective productivity measurement helps to collect more information and clearer estimate the employee productivity in the service business, however, it can be questionable as the employees “may not accept subjective judgements as well as they will accept the objective data”. Though subjective productivity is seen as beneficial for organizations because “it is better to use subjective judgements rather than have a system that incompletely measures something important to the unitґs work” (Pritchard, Weaver & Ashwood, 2012).

Correlation between Job Satisfaction and Job Productivity

The relationship between job satisfaction and employee productivity has been the topic of research for a long time. The prevalent point of view among the scholars is the positive impact of the high level of job satisfaction among employees on their productivity (Olley & Pakes, 1996; Ostroff, 1992; Patterson, Warr, & West, 2004; Wright & Cropanzano, 2007).

One of the first precursors of the studies on the job satisfaction/job productivity relationship belongs to Elton Mayo, who was exploring the effect of diverse conditions on the productivity of employees with the help of different experiments that got the name “The Hawthorne Studies” (Mayo, 1924). One of the main findings of the study was “The Hawthorne effect” (Weber, 2002). It stated that the participants of an experiment adjust their behavior and actions in response to the fact that they are being observed. The effect had an import implication for the workplace as it helped explaining how employees increase their productivity when they get more attention from their supervisors, coordinators and bosses (Mayo, 1924). This finding not only proved that the productivity of employees does not depend solely on their salary, but also stimulated scholars to search new links between productivity and non-monetary factors, in particular between productivity and job satisfaction.

Some scholars argue that the Maslow's needs hierarchy theory developed in 1943 also provides a significant basis for studying the job satisfaction/job productivity relationship. According to Maslow, the most crucial need that should be met include physiological and safety needs that represent bottom levels of Maslowґs pyramid. Only when these needs are satisfied a person starts to care about their “complex needs” - belonging, esteem and self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). Applying this theory to the working setting, Maslow states that rewards and benefits that include salary, insurance, pension contributions as well as sustainable companyґs policies provide for an employee fulfill the basic needs - physiological and safety. Building and developing relationship with the colleagues and supervisors help an employee to feel that their need of belonging is satisfied. Once satisfied an employee wants to feel that he or she is appreciated and valued as it requires their esteem need. The final step is to get the self-actualization need which is represented by their personal growth and development. As the theory explains that it is important for an employer to satisfy different groups of employeesґ needs, indirectly it also supports the idea of dependency of productivity on job satisfaction (Jerom, 2013; Villarica, 2011).

The next study that supports the positive impact of job satisfaction on productivity is the Happy-Productive Worker thesis. Using the ideas developed in the Hawthorne studies, it considers the happiness of employees as the psychological well-being (PWB) and further suggests controlling the job satisfaction/job productivity relationship by “control of the moderating effect of PWB”. According to the thesis, the relationship between job satisfaction and job productivity are cyclic: high productivity leads to benefits and rewards for an employee that stimulate their satisfaction and motivate them increase their productivity even more which again results in rewards and, consequently, higher satisfaction (Wright & Cropanzano, 2007). This statement can also be supported by scholars Bateman and Organ that argued that the relationship between job satisfaction and job productivity is not one-sided: not only job satisfaction influences job productivity, but also productivity can have an effect on job satisfaction (Bateman & Organ, 1983).

According to Sutermeister, there 2 main groups of factors that can influence productivity: technical and human. Human factors refer to personal characteristics of employees, their abilities and skills, while technical factors include the layout, the plant, the product and some others (Sutermeister, 1963). Apart from this, Sutermeister distinguishes “long” and “short” run. The long run is “such a time period in which all factors of production and costs are variable”. The short run is “the conceptual time period in which both fixed and variable cost of production exists” (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2004). Referring to Sutermeister again, high job satisfaction of employees can be referred to the “long run” as the high level of satisfaction of an employee reflects in reduction of high turnover, absenteeism and intended disruptions. Yet, these outcomes of high job satisfaction of employees can barely be seen in the “short” run (Sutermeister, 1963).

However, it is important to understand that job satisfaction is not a single factor that can have an impact on job productivity. A lot of studies that have been performed observe not only the influence of job satisfaction on job productivity, but also the impact of other factors. For example, Almazyed and Alaswad have introduced the theoretical framework that explain main parameters that impact the job productivity. According to this framework, job satisfaction along with commitment and job performance improves the job productivity of employees (Almazyed & Alaswad, 2016).

Figure 5. Theoretical Framework of the Study of Almazyed & Alaswad

Moreover, the research of Theodossiou and Vasileio shows that not only job satisfaction but also the fear of losing the job can have motivational effects on employees that make them increase their productivity decreasing the turnover and controlling efficiency wages (Theodossiou & Vasileio, 2007).

Leadership and leadership styles

Nowadays it is widely recognized that leadership is the key element of any organization. It is inevitable to imagine a company without a leader as he or she has an enormous influence on the outcomes of the companyґs actions. Due to their decisions and activities the company can be prosperous and successful or experience failures and even bankruptcy (Kader & Tang, 2016).

There are a lot of different definitions of the term “leadership”. Some say that leadership is “the application of techniques and principles which result in discipline, motivation, increased productivity and achievement of corporate objectives” (Sethi, 1997), others say that leadership is “the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals” (Dran, 2004). According to Tennenbaun, “leadership as interpersonal influence exercised in situations and directed through the communication, towards the attainment of a specific goal(s)” (Tennenbaun et al., 1968). Jacobs and Jaques say that “leadership is a process of giving purpose (meaningful direction) to collective effort and causing willing effort to be expended to achieve purpose” (Jacobs & Jaques, 1990). There is even a suggestion proposed by a scholar White that leadership can be defined just by one single word which is well-known around the world - a boss (White, 2005).

However, even despite all these definitions developed by diverse scholars differ from each other, all of them comprise several important implications. First of all, there is always an individual - a leader - involved in the process of leadership. A leader is a person who is able to see clearly the big picture, formulate goals needed to achieve the desired results and make their team follow these goals and fulfill the tasks and objectives that a leader sets up for members of the team. Secondly, a leader is always surrounded by their followers - subordinates - that follow the guidelines established by a leader and, therefore, formalize authority of the leader. Thirdly, main aim of leadership is to achieve particular goals, that is why a leader is influencing their team in order to accomplish these objectives. It is believed that leaders are able to find solutions to the prevailing amount of diverse organizational problems that the company may face (Daft & Marcic, 2006). Therefore, there is no surprise that the topic of leadership has attracted the significant attention of the scholars and has been carefully studied from the last decades of the XX till the present time.

According to the studies, one of the greatest challenges in the field of leadership is the necessity to distinguish the most efficient leadership styles that can be chosen and applied by leaders in the particular business environment in the most effective and productive way (Kader & Tang, 2016). The shift of attention from the leadership itself towards the different leadership styles can be explained by the fact that different leaders never behave in the same way. Therefore, relying on their personal traits, values and beliefs, leaders choose diverse models how to lead their teams, how to motivate employees, control them, improve their productivity, maintain healthy relationship among the team members as well as their well-being. Moreover, the performance of the organization can be improved as well if a leader chooses the right leadership style which is suitable for a particular environment and, therefore, successfully influences their team members. (Voon, Lo, Ngui & Ayob, 2011).

The reason why a wide range of the different leadership styles exists nowadays is the complex business environment. With fast developing globalization, varied cultural and economic circumstances and different organizational structures it is impossible for all the leaders of the world to pick up one particular style of leadership. Every country, industry, company and even team has its own peculiarities and specifics that always should be taken into consideration. (Duncan, 2009).

Abundance of variances how to influence, coordinate and control employees also led to the growth of the number of leadership style theories. They are divided into 4 big groups of theories. First group is trait theories. Theories in this group answer the question: “What type of person makes a good leader?”, meaning that the concentrate on the personal characteristics and traits and believe that good leaders possess common, similar personality traits that help them to be successful. Therefore, a person can only be born to become a leader, they cannot develop the necessary skills during their life (Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948; Lord et al., 1986; Judge & Bono, 2004). Trait theories highlight particular characteristics of a person that may be useful while leading other people, for example, assertiveness, responsibility, sensibility, self-confidence. The most prominent research within the group if trait theories is the theory of Big Five personality dimensions. Judge, Bono, Iles and Gerhardtl stated that there are 5 main personal characteristics such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness, that predict the effectiveness and emergence of a leader (Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002). However, this group is criticized for its “simplistic approach” as it rejects all the possible factors that have an impact on the development of a good leader. The second group of the theories is behavioral theories. They answer the question: “What Does a Good Leader Do?”. Behavioral theories support the point of view that the success of a leader depends on their behavior: whether they are ready to cooperate, what kind of relationship they develop with the team members, how they can insist and demand when it is necessary. One of well-known frameworks in this group is developed by Kurt Lewin. According to his theory leaders can be split in 3 groups: autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. Autocratic leaders tend to make all the decisions on their own not taking into consideration the opinion of their team. Democratic leaders involve team members into the process of making decisions, however the degree of the involvement can vary depending on a leader. Laissez-faire leaders give freedom to their team not intervening the decision-making process. However, scholars have understood that in many situations there are a lot of different approaches of leadership behavior that can be used meaning that the best leaders are those who can find the right way of behavior for a particular situation, team, company or environment (Lewin, 1939).

Of particular importance is the model of Blake and Mouton. They created a matrix consisted of 2 dimensions: task orientation and people orientation. With the help of the matrix Blake and Mouton divide leaders into 5 types: country club, team leader, autocratic, impoverished, middle of the road.

Figure 6. Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid

According to the scholars, the best leaders are those, who represent the mixture of task- and people-orientated skills. These best leaders also split into 3 groups. Transformational leaders (some scholars believe that they belong to the group of power and influence) - inspire and influence people in such a way that they achieve higher results. Transactional leaders think that the only motivation that can make people work hard is reward. Authentic leaders behave such a genuine, honest and sincere way that they build trustworthy and respectful relationship with their team and this relationship stimulates team members demonstrate higher performance (Blake & Mouton, 1964). Authentic leadership is considered by many scholars as the optimal leadership style, as in this case the leader possesses all the positive traits of character that are vital for leadership: resilience, self-awareness, openness, optimism, acts in accordance with the deepest moral standards and personal values. However, the topic of authentic leadership is still under-researched, and scholars have not managed to agree which elements comprise the authentic leadership and which do not belong to it (Allio, 2012).

The third group is power and influence theories - “What Is the Source of the Leader's Power?”. Power and influence theories study diverse ways how power and influence are used by leaders and observe diverse leadership styles rather as the result of combination of power and influence. The most famous theory in the group is the theory of French and Raven called 5 Forms of Power.

Figure 7. French and Raven's Five Forms of Power

French and Raven highlighted 5 main basis of power - legitimate, reward, expert, referent, coercive. By understanding these bases, a leader can use positive forms of power to improve the effect of leading others while avoiding negative forms (French & Raven, 1959).

The last group of leadership style theories is contingency theories (or situational theories). The scholars of this group support the idea that there is no right style of leadership and that leadership styles depend on situational factors - “How does the situation influence good leadership?”. Famous theories in this group include the Situational leadership theory of Hersey and Blanchard, which will be observed later in detail as the following research is based on this theory, and Path-Goal Theory of House and Mitchell. They highlight 4 different leadership styles basing on how a leader is stimulating the motivation of their employees.

Figure 8. Path-Goal Theory of House and Mitchell

By supportive leadership a leader creates a comfortable working environment for team members and helps them to build reliable and friendly ties. Directive leadership is carried on by giving the team members the precise directives and tasks and controlling how they are being fulfilled. Participative leadership is characterized by the high level of involvement of team member into the decision-making process. Achievement-oriented leadership is the type of leadership, when a leader sets up high goals, persuades team members that they will succeed and emphasizes the excellence of achieved goals and group performance (House & Mitchell, 1975).

Being acquainted with different leadership styles, understanding mechanisms suitable to every style and being able to switch between diverse styles and realize what style is appropriate for a specific situation is very important for all leaders in the current business environment characterized by complexity and diversity.

Situational theory of Hersey and Blanchard and Situational Leadership Theory II

The situational theories are based on the idea that a leadership style depends only on a current situation and that a situation determines what is the best strategy and the best leadership style. Consequently, followers of the situational leadership theories believe that there is no leadership style that can be considered as the best leadership style and that can be applied in any possible situation. The most efficient leader in this case is the one, who can be flexible and can easily adapt their leadership style in accordance with the nature of their team, specifics of the task and other circumstances that also relate to a goal. The key theory in the group of situational theories is the Situational Leadership Theory (SLT).

The Situational Leadership Theory was developed by 2 scholars - Dr. Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard in the 1970s-1980s. The model of Hersey-Blanchard indicates that there are several factors that should play role by choosing a right leadership style and contains 2 key elements - the leadership approach and the level of maturity. According to Hersey-Blanchard model the secret of the effective and successful leadership is the combination of a proper leadership approach with a correspondent level of maturity of the team members.

Hersey and Blanchard created a model that represents 4 main leadership styles. It is based on 2 axis - horizontal one is directive behavior (task-oriented), while the vertical one is supportive behavior (relationship-oriented).

Figure 9. Situational theory of Hersey and Blanchard

Directive behavior explains how much directives a leader provides for their team while supportive behavior reflects the degree of support that the employees get from a leader. Depending on the amount of task- and relationship orientation the following styles are highlighted.

Directing (S1) style is the most authoritative approach. The directing style is typically used when a leader has to deal with motivated but immature and incompetent team members, meaning that a leader has to provide a direct flow of information, including tasks and guidelines, that should be followed by the team. The team members are not involved into the decision-making process and the best behavior in this situation for a leader is to control and monitor all the activities of the employees. The employees get not only information about their goal but also instructions that describe step by step all the actions that should be taken in order to achieve this goal. Consequently, the approach is very task-oriented and there is a little or no concern about the team membersґ feelings.

Coaching (S2) style is described by a high task- and relationship orientation, which can be described as a two-way communication, however, it is still noticeable that the leader is in charge. He or she is always trying to “sell” their ideas, proposals or suggestions to the team members relying on the social and emotional side of the relationship and striving to persuade the followers that the chosen course of actions is the right one. Typically, this approach is used when the employees want to work, they are motivated, though they lack some necessary skills and abilities. In this case a leader makes them feel more secure by carefully explaining the decision-making process, paying to them more attention and answering all the possible questions that might appear. The coaching style helps the employees to feel more confident and secure especially when they see the progress during the fulfillment of a task.

Supporting (S3) style is characterized by a low task orientation and a high relationship orientation. This style is very useful for a leader when the team members are high-skilled, experienced and qualified, but the abundance of tasks makes them temporarily unmotivated. When such a situation happens, it is very important for a leader to show the compassion and support, build strong relationship within the team, share opinions and decision-making with the employees. Paying more attention to the relationship side of the style in this case helps the employees to feel independent again and be able to continue to cope with all tasks. It can be a beneficial idea for a leader to remind an employee about their previous successes and achievements and boost their confidence and trust in their own abilities.

Delegating (S4) style is the most democratic style among these 4 styles. In this situation the team members are very independent, and they are able to carry out their tasks without the additional help and support of a leader. Their own independence stimulates their motivation even more, therefore, a leader just monitors the actions of the employees without intervening their activities. Despite the idea of delegating sounds quite simple, its realization is way more complicated and almost impossible to achieve by most of leaders. It is recommendable for a leader to discuss a task with an employee at the beginning stage in order to confirm the final goal and the plan of realization of a task. However, a leader also needs to understand, that delegating requires from them to keep distance and trust the employees.

The second key element of Hersey-Blanchard model is the level of maturity. It can also be called the independence level of the employees. The level of maturity depends on several factors. One of the main factors in this regard is the amount of experience possessed by an employee. The more experience he or she has, the more independent he or she is and the higher is the possibility that an employee will be able to carry out the tasks on their own. In addition to this, the employees should be qualified, have skills and abilities that can help an employee to fulfill a task. Moreover, apart from the skills and experience, the employees should be highly motivated. Quite obvious is the fact that when a person only starts working in a new place, their level of maturity is lower than the one of their colleagues. Consequently, it takes some time for recently hired employees to adapt to a new working place, become more confident, boost motivation and increase their own level of maturity.

According to Hersey and Blanchard, a leader should choose a leadership style in accordance with the level of maturity. In other words, a leadership style depends on the level of competence and commitment of the employees. Hersey and Blanchard define 4 different levels of maturity. M1 level means that an employee is insecure and unqualified. As the employees at this level basically lack required skills, but they strive to work and carry out the tasks, the most suitable leadership style that can be chosen is the directive leadership style. A leader will help the employees to get more experience and necessary abilities by guiding the employees and giving them the clear instructions. M2 level relates to the confident, but unskilled employees that are willing to do a task, but they do not know how to fulfill it. Coaching style is the best leadership style in this situation as a leader serves as a coach helping the employees to gain the required knowledge by answering the questions and describing the plan of actions in detail. M3 level describes the employees that are able to carry out a task, however they are unmotivated or insecure. Supporting style is the best option for a leader working with the employees of the M3 level because main task of a leader at this stage is to support the team members and boost their confidence by reminding them about their previous successful experiences. M4 level of maturity means that the employees are very mature: they are confident, motivated and highly qualified. Consequently, the employees have all prerequisites to not only carry out their tasks independently but also take responsibilities for their activities. With such a team a leader can just monitor the actions of the employees. Such a democratic behavior of a leader describes the delegating leadership style (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977).

Kenneth Blanchard later developed further the original theory of Hersey-Blanchard. The revised theory got the name “The Situational Leadership II” (SLII model).

The main difference of SLII from the original theory of Hersey-Blanchard is the replacement of the term “maturity” with “development level”. The reason for such relabeling was the attempt to bypass the “stigma” of the idea of immaturity.