Blanchard stated that bosses can use the leadership styles effective only in the case when they take into consideration the development level of employees for a particular task. Every level is defined by the level of competence and the level of motivation of employees. There are 4 levels highlighted by Blanchard: D1 level describes an “enthusiastic beginner”, that has a high level of commitment but the low level of competence. D2 level - “disillusioned learner” - is characterized by the low level of commitment and limited level of competence. D3 level refers to employee with the high level of abilities (competence), however the level of motivation (commitment) can vary and typically it is relatively low. Such an employer can be described as a “capable but cautious performer”. D4 level characterizes a “self-reliant achiever” - a person with both high commitment and competence. According to Blanchard, the level of supportive and directive behavior of the leader need to match the level of commitment and competency of an employee. Therefore, the directing style of leadership suits to D1 level, coaching - to D2 level, supporting and delegation to D3 and D4 levels, respectively (Blanchard, 1985). Moreover, he believes that the development level of an employee can be develop with the time, transforming step by step from D1 into D4 (Blanchard, 1985).



Figure 10. Situational Leadership II

The model of Hersey and Blanchard suggests that leaders should develop the behavior with their teams based on context and understanding of the team members. Leader always need to take into consideration strong and weak points of the employees. Knowing the abilities of the team members will help leaders to understand to what extent they should control their group and how much they can rely on the team members. Consequently, it eases for a leader the process of choosing the right strategy.

However, there are several critical points that can be applied to a model and that also should be observed and considered. First of all, the hierarchy within the company should be taken into consideration as the higher levels of management can limit the authority of a leader and force them to choose more rigid types of leadership instead of looking at the level of maturity possessed by the employees and picking up the leadership style in accordance with the level. Secondly, different restraints should be considered as well. Time limits, limited resources and assets, importance of a project and other factors can make a leader to forget about democratic variants of the leadership styles. In this case a leader would take a task under his/her control and reject the idea of building their own behavior around the maturity level. One more possible problem can be the measurement of maturity. According to Goodson, "no absolute standard of readiness or maturity exists. ... Therefore, standardization is needed in order to clarify which subordinate populations should be considered 'ready' and which should not" (Goodson et al., 1989).

A strong benefit of a Hersey-Blanchard theory is that it makes a leader strive to be flexible and change their behavior paying attention to the specifics of a team that he or she is leading. Varying between the task support and emotional and social support a leader can achieve the perfect balance while leading the team and improve its efficiency and productivity. At the same time, the Situational Theory II believes, that the model stimulates employees to develop as well. The team members will strive to improve their skills and abilities in such a way that a style of their leader will move towards the delegation style, giving more freedom and responsibilities to the team members.

Presuppositions

The Situational theory II is based on the principal of the match between the leadership style of a leader and the development level of the employee. Only when the match of these parameters is achieved, the leader can achieve successful results and accomplishment of goals and tasks given to an employee. Moreover, a correctly chosen leadership style can have a positive influence on the different variables of work outcomes including job satisfaction and job productivity. Therefore, the author presupposes that when the leadership style of a leader according to Hersey-Blanchard matches the development level of an employee, the level of job productivity and job satisfaction is higher rather than when the leadership style and development level do not match. Consequently, among all possible combinations of the leadership styles and the development levels according to the Hersey-Blanchard theory and SLII theory, the level of job satisfaction and job productivity will be the highest when the match is present. Therefore, the Hypothesis 1 states that:

H1: The level of job satisfaction and job productivity is the highest, when the leadership style (S) and the development level (D) match.

The development level consists of 2 main parameters: commitment and competence, while the leadership style is based on 2 main characteristics: task-orientation and relationship-orientation. The match of the leadership style and the development level happens when the both parameters of a leadership style correctly respond to the parameters of the development level: if the commitment is low, the leadership style should be highly relationship-oriented, when the competence is low, the leadership style should be task-oriented and vice versa. The right combination of the parameters of the leadership style and the development level produces the most successful leadership which positively influence the results of the employees. Consequently, the wrong combination of the parameters, according to the authorґs opinion, could lead to the unsuccessful and unproductive leadership. The author presupposes that when both parameters of the leadership style do not match the characteristics of the development level, the leadership style can be considered as the least suitable for this development level. Therefore, for the Situational theory II, the least suitable leadership style for the D1 (“enthusiastic beginner” - high commitment/low competence”) would be S3 (“supportive” - high supportive/low directive leadership style). For the level D2 (“disillusioned learner” -low commitment/low competence) the least suitable leadership style is S4 (“delegating” - low supportive/low directive style). For the level D3 (“capable but cautious performer” - low commitment/high competence) the least matching style is S1 (“directing” - low supportive/high directive style). Finally, for the level D4 (“self-reliant achiever” - high commitment/high competence) the least suitable style is S2 (“coaching” - high supportive/high directive leadership style). Therefore, the hypothesis is:

H2: The level of job satisfaction and job productivity is the lowest, when the leadership style (S) and the development level (D) have the least suitable combination.

Chapter II

II.I Methodology

Methodology is a set of methods that are used in a specific research or study field, while a method can be described as a specific tool or a procedure that helps scholars or researches to accomplish a particular, established in advance, goal (Merriam-Webster, 2019). There 2 most significant types of methodology used in research: quantitative and qualitative. The decision which type of methodology is relevant for a particular study is always taken in accordance with the goal of a study, formulated research questions and the problem observed in the study (Holmes & Solvang, 1997).

The main characteristics of a quantitative methods are the reliance on the statistical information, significantly large pool of participants, collection of numerical data that can be organized in the form of tables, graphs and charts. Usually the main goal of the quantitative research is to specify and classify features and build further the complex statistical models in order to evaluate, analyze and describe a subject of observation (McDaniels & Gates, 2005).

Qualitative research is “an effort to understand situations in their uniqueness as part of a particular context and the interactions there” (Patton, 1985). Qualitative methods are more descriptive that quantitative methods providing a profound insight into a particular subject in matter. Qualitative methods are usually less formalized and more flexible (Holme & Solvang, 1997). Researchers that use qualitative research try to gain deeper understanding of human actions and activities and factors and prerequisites that lead to a particular behavior.

In order to accomplish the mail goal of the following master thesis the methods of qualitative research were used. The author focuses on the particular qualitative method - an experiment. An experiment allows to collect and analyze data on the consequences by manipulating the variables and observe the reactions of a control group to these changes.

In order to answer the research goal of the master thesis the following hypotheses are to be investigated:

H1: The level of job satisfaction and job productivity is the highest, when the leadership style (S) and the development level (D) match.

H2: The level of job satisfaction and job productivity is the lowest, when the leadership style (S) and the development level (D) have the least suitable combination.

Research design

The main goal of an experiment is to find and evaluate the interdependencies between the leadership styles and job satisfaction and job productivity. The Situational Leadership Theory of Hersey-Blanchard and SLII theory are chosen for the theoretical basis of the experiment.

The one person who represents a “leader” interacts with the certain number of participants - “employees” - one by one. An employee gets a particular task from a leader - to build a Lego model within a certain amount of time. The number of details given for a task exceed the number of details that are actually required for accomplishment of the task in 3 times meaning that the employee also had to find suitable details of the required color in the box filled with random various details. The goal that the employee should achieve is to accomplish the task correctly as soon as possible. The task should be repeated by the employee 4 times, every time he gets a new model to build. All the models are different however they are of the same complexity, all of them consist of 25 details.

The procedure of the experiment is divided into several steps.

The first step of the experiment is that the employee should build the Lego model while the leader uses the directing style of leadership meaning that he/she gives the employee clear instructions how to build a model and explains and monitors every step of accomplishing the task also providing them with a printed instruction.

The second step of the experiment is to fulfill the same task, however this time the leadership style of the leader is the coaching style. The leader again gives the clear instructions and puts a lot of emphasis on persuading the employee that the way he/she suggests accomplishing the task is the best solution.

The third step is to switch the leadership style from coaching to supporting. In this case the leader does not explain every single step to the employee and focuses more on encouraging the employee, boosting their confidence and motivation and providing support.

The last step is to build a model while the leader uses the delegating style. The leader only shows the picture of how a model should look like at the end and neither gives instructions to the employee nor monitors them. The leader relies on the abilities and motivation of the employee.

During every step the leader was relying on the guidelines with the recommended explanations, phrases and actions suitable for a particular leadership style (app. 1) The leader reads the instructions prior the experiment in order to know how to behave while representing one or another style of leadership and which materials and instructions to give to the employee.

The pool of participants consists of people with different development levels from D1 to D4 according to the Situational theory II meaning that the leader applies 4 different leadership styles to people that represent all 4 types of development levels getting diverse results and responses from them. After each step the employee fill out the surveys evaluating his experience right after the task. Therefore, the procedure of filling out the surveys also takes place 4 times.

	The leader
	S1	S2	S3	S4
The employees	D1	1 model	2 model	3 model	4 model
	D2	4	1	2	3
	D3	3	4	1	2
	D4	2	3	4	1

Figure 11. Matrix of the experiment

After the procedure several parameters related to job productivity and job satisfaction are measured.

First of all, objective job productivity is measured with 2 steps. The first one is labor productivity meaning that the number of units per a certain amount of time is measured. In this case it is calculated how many details were put within a minute. The second step is the measurement of accuracy. A table of correspondence is built in order to measure in percentage equivalent, how accurate task was fulfilled (app. 2).

Secondly, subjective job productivity is measured with the help of a survey (app. 3). The employee is expected to evaluate how fast and correctly the task was accomplished.

Thirdly, job satisfaction is measured as well with the help of survey based on the Job Satisfaction Survey of Spector (app. 4). However, to reflect the specifics of the experiment, the statements were adapted to be suitable for the process and result of the tasks given to the employee. 3 most relevant facets out of 9 were chosen for the adapted survey: supervision, operating procedures and work overall. The employee reflects on the process of fulfilling the task: how he/she felt while building a model, whether he/she was satisfied with the actions of the leader, whether he/she liked the process of building a model or he/she felt unconfident, insecure or stressed. After this the employee evaluates whether he/she was satisfied with the result of the task as well.

Selection

As one of the aims of the master thesis is to analyze whether the people from different countries would have diverse interdependencies between the leadership styles and job satisfaction and job productivity, the representatives from 2 countries - Russia and Austria - took part in the experiment.

Students of two universities - Higher School of Economics which is located in Russia (HSE) and Johannes Kepler University (JKU), which is the university of Austria - were chosen to participate in the empirical part of the master thesis.

Ranked as one of the top universities of Russia, Higher School of Economics is the leader in the sphere of education in Russia. The main goal of the university is to “renew the training of the Russian business community in economics” (“Numbers and facts -- National research university Higher School of Economics”, 2019). Having traditionally specializing in such subjects as economics, social sciences, HSE expanded and now it offers the programs in 33 areas of study.

Johannes Kepler University is one of the public universities in Austria, located in Linz. Being relatively young (established in 1966), the university is trying to gain an advantage by offering its students the future-oriented education, international experience due to collaboration with more than 150 universities and opportunities for scientific research as the university possesses the “JKU Science Park” with modern research facilities. The university offers more than 60 different academic degree programs (“Johannes Kepler University”, 2019).

During the experiment the leader was represented by one of the students of JKU who had volunteered to take part in the experiment.

The pool of participants - “the employees” - was selected. According to the scholars, there are two main ways to select the participant for an experiment - “the probability selection” and “the non-probability selection” (Holme & Solvang, 1997). While the non-probability selection refers to the random choice of people that would participate in an experiment, the probability selection requires a rational and deliberate choice.

The conditions of the experiment require the participants that would fit 4 different development styles, according to the Situational Leadership Theory II. Consequently, the probability selection was used in order to make a pool of participants. As it was already stated in the theoretical part of the thesis, a development style is based on 2 main pillars: motivation and abilities.

In order to simplify the process of selection, each development style will be assigned according to the following matrix:

	Motivation
Abilities	1;0 supporting	1;1 delegating
	0;0 coaching	0;1 directing

Figure 12. Matrix describing the development styles.

If a participant possesses necessary abilities in order to accomplish task, the factor is described through a digit “1”, if a participant does not have required abilities - “0”. If a participant is motivated to do a task, the motivation is described with a digit “1”, if is not - “0”. Therefore, the directing style reflects the code (0;0) the supporting style - (0;1), the coaching style - (1;0) and the delegating style - (1;1).

In order to establish whether a person is motivated for a task or not, the small survey was used (app. 5). The decision whether a person has abilities required for a task or not, was made on the basis of the Spatial Thinking Ability Test (STAT) (app. 5). According to the scholars, people who possess well-developed spatial thinking are able to mentally create a 3D-image after getting the 2D information and understand and analyze spatial shapes and associations (Gersmehl, 2005; Golledge et al., 2008a; Lee and Bednarz, 2012).

32 people were selected for an experiment with 8 people representing every delegating style. The equal number of Austrians and Russians were participating in the experiment - 16 Austrian and 16 Russian students.

Research data

After the experiment procedure the author had about 500 accomplished surveys. The data was divided into 5 categories according to the measured indicators: objective productivity, subjective productivity and job satisfaction, overall results, data of Austrian and Russian students. One more category compares the results of Russian and Austrian students. Within every category the data was classified by the development level of participants and arranged into charts that visually demonstrate the results of the experiment. As every group consisted of 8 people, the average of the results of all participants in the group was taken for the charts.

Objective productivity

Objective productivity was measured according to 2 parameters: labor productivity and accuracy. Labor productivity was measured by dividing the number of units that were added to the Lego model correctly by 7 minutes - the amount of time given for the task. If a participant finished faster than in 7 minutes, the number of units was divided by the time used by a participant to build a model. The result represents the number of details per minute.

Figure 13. Labor productivity among D1 group

D1 group is characterized by the low level of abilities but the high level of motivation. It demonstrated the highest level of labor productivity by the leadership style S1 - “directing” leadership style (2,95 units per minute). Relatively close to the highest result is the level of productivity achieved by participants when the leader was using the “coaching” leadership style S2 (2,83 units per minute). The lowest result was achieved by the leadership style S4 - “delegating” (2,14 units per minute).

The second parameter of the objective productivity measurement is accuracy measured with the table of correspondence. The table measures on the scale from 0 to 100% how many details out of 25 were put on the right place and how many of them were of the right color. If the model was not finished when the time was up, missing details were counted as “wrong place” and “wrong color”. The average result of 8 participants of the group was calculated and demonstrated in the charts.

Figure 14. Accuracy among D1 group

The highest level of accuracy according to both parameters was demonstrated by the group when the leadership style was S1 (84% both for “right place” and for “right color”). The lowest result - 66% for the “right place” and 60% for the “right color” was demonstrated in case when the leaders applied the “delegating” style (S4). Results for the leadership styles S2 are 81% and 79% for the “right place” and 80% and 76% for the “right color”, respectively and for the leadership style S3 - 74% and 72%.

Figure 15. Labor productivity among the group D2

Group D2 is characterized by the low level of motivation and competency. The highest level of labor productivity in this group was achieved when the leadership style “coaching” (S2) was implied - 3 units per minute. It is followed by the S1 style - 2,91 units per minute and the S2 style - 2,7 units per minute. The lowest level of labor productivity in this group can be observed when the leadership style S4 is used (2,54 units per minute).

Figure 16. Accuracy among D2 group

The highest level of accuracy can be seen by the leadership style S2 (86% for the “right place” and 80% for the “right color”), the lowest is by the leadership style S4 (75% and 74% for the “right place” and the “right color”). When the leader used the leadership style S1, the level of accuracy was both 81% for the “right place” and the “right color”, the leadership style S3 - 78% for the “right place” and 72% for the “right color”.

Figure 17. Labor productivity among D3 group

D3 group is characterized by the high level of competence, however the level of motivation is low. The highest level of labor productivity was achieved with the leadership style “supporting” (S3) - 3,33 units per minute. The next result is 3,08 units per minute reached when the leader applied the S4 style. It is followed by the leadership style S2 (2,91 units per minute) and the leadership style S1 (2,88 units per minute).



Figure 18. Accuracy among the group D3

The accuracy level in D3 group is the highest when the leadership style S3 is applied (90% for the “right place” and 88% for the “right color”). It is followed by the case when the leadership style S4 is used (86% for the “right place” and 82% for the “right color”). The leadership styles S2 and S1 are relatively close (82% and 80% for the “right place” and 80% and 80% for the “right color”, respectively).

Figure 19. Labor productivity among the group D4

The group D4 is described by both the high motivation and competency. The highest level of productivity in this group is observed when the leadership style “delegating” (S4) is applied - 3,48 units per minute. The leadership style S3 is on the second place (3,31 units per minute). When the leader applied the leadership style S2 the labor productivity was 2,9 units per minute, when the leadership style S1 - 3,15 units per minute.



Figure 20. Accuracy among the group D4

The level of accuracy in D4 group was the highest by the leadership style S4 (96% for both the “right place” and “right color”). The next result is 90% for the “right place” and 89% for the “right color” - the leadership style S3. When the leadership style S2 is used, the level of accuracy is represented by 85% both for the “right place” and the “right color”. By the leadership style S1 it is 81% for both parameters.

Subjective productivity

Subjective productivity was measured with the help of the survey. An employee was estimating their speed, accuracy and productivity. Moreover, they needed to give an answer to 2 questions: “Were the instructions of the leader helpful for accomplishment of the task?”, “Could you be more productive if the instructions were given in a different way?”. While the results of the estimation of the speed, accuracy and productivity of the participants in every group are taken in average, the charts demonstrating the answers to the questions represent the choices of all participants of the groups.

Figure 21. Subjective productivity among the D1 group (1)

In the group D1 the participants estimated that they were 65% fast (the lowest speed estimation within the group), 100% accurate (the highest accuracy estimation) and 92% productive (the highest productivity estimation within the group) when the leadership style S1 was applied. By the leadership style S2 the results were - 85% speed (the highest estimated speed), 100% accuracy, 86% productivity. It is followed by the results of 75% of speed, 95% accuracy and 83% productivity (the leadership style S3) and 80% speed, 95% accuracy and 79% productivity (the lowest estimated result in the group D1) by the leadership style S4.

Figure 22. Subjective productivity among the group D1 (2)

When the leadership styles S1 and S2 were applied by the leader, 8 participants in each of the cases estimated the instructions as helpful. By the leadership style S3 the proportion was 5:3 followed by the leadership S4 (6:2).

Figure 23. Subjective productivity among the group D1 (3)

When the leadership style S1 was applied, 6 participants considered this style to be the most productive for the task fulfilment and 2 - the leadership style S2. When the leadership style S2 was used - 5 people preferred the leadership style S1, 2 - the leadership style S2 and 1 - the leadership style S3. By the leadership style S3 4 people chose the leadership style S1 to be the most productive, 3 - S2, 1 - S3. Finally, when the leadership style S4 was applied, the participants did not change their opinion leaving the proportion 4:3:1:0.

Figure 24. Subjective productivity among the D2 group (1)

When the leader used the leadership style S1, the participants estimated their speed with 80%, accuracy with 100% (the highest estimation of accuracy in the group) and productivity with 93%. By the leadership style S2 the estimations were: 90% speed (the fastest in the group), 95% accuracy and 95% productivity (the highest estimated productivity in the group). The results gained when the leadership style is S3 are 75% speed, 95% accuracy and 81% productivity and when the leadership style is S4 - 70% speed (the lowest estimation of speed within the group), 95% accuracy and 76% productivity (the lowest estimation of productivity within the group).



Figure 25. Subjective productivity among the group D2 (2)

Answering the question “Were the instructions of the leader helpful for accomplishment of the task?”, 7 participants chose “yes” when the leadership style S1 was applied. When the leadership style S2 was used 8 participants considered the instructions helpful, when the leader used the leadership style S3 - 5. By the leadership style S4, the proportion was 4:4.

Figure 26. Subjective productivity among the group D2 (3)

When the leadership style S1 was applied, 4 participants considered this style to be the most productive for the task fulfilment and 4 - the leadership style S2. When the leadership style S2 was used - 2 people preferred the leadership style S1, 5 - the leadership style S2 and 1 - the leadership style S3. By the leadership style S3 3 people chose the leadership style S1 to be the most productive, 5 - S2, 1 - S3. Finally, when the leadership style S4 was applied, the participants did not change their opinion leaving the proportion 2:3:0:2.



Figure 27. Subjective productivity among the D3 group (1)

In the group D3 the participants estimated that they were 85% fast (the lowest speed estimation within the group), 100% accurate (the highest accuracy estimation along with the leadership style S2) and 85% productive (the highest productivity estimation within the group along with the leadership style S2) when the leadership style S1 was applied. By the leadership style S2 the results were - 86% speed, 100% accuracy, 85% productivity. It is followed by the results of 95% of speed (the fastest speed estimation within the group), 95% accuracy and 96% productivity (the highest estimated result in the group D1) when the leadership style S3 was applied and 92% speed, 95% accuracy and 95% productivity by the leadership style S4.

Figure 28. Subjective productivity among the group D3 (2)

When the leadership style S1 is applied by the leader, 4 participants considered the instructions to be helpful, when the leadership S2 - 5 participants. By the leadership style S3 7 participants estimated the instructions as helpful and the proportion was 62 by the leadership S4.



Figure 29. Subjective productivity among the group D3 (3)

When the leadership style S1 was applied, 1 participant considered this style to be the most productive for the task fulfilment and 1 - the leadership style S2, 4 - the leadership style S3, 2 participants - S4. When the leadership style S2 was used - 1 people preferred the leadership style S1, 2 - the leadership style S2 and 4 - the leadership style S3 and 2 - the leadership style S4. By the leadership style S3 1 person chose the leadership style S2, 6 people chose the leadership style S3 to be the most productive and 1 person - S4. When the leadership style S4 is applied, 6 people preferred the leadership style S3 and 2 - the leadership style S4.

Figure 30. Subjective productivity among the D4 group (1)

When the leader applies the leadership style S1, the participants estimated their speed with 85% (the fastest in the group), accuracy with 95% and productivity with 92% (the lowest estimation of productivity within the group). By the leadership style S2 the estimations were: 87% speed, 95% accuracy and 95% productivity. The results gained when the leadership style is S3 are 90% speed, 98% accuracy and 96% productivity and when the leadership style is S4 - 95% speed (the highest estimation of speed within the group), 100% accuracy (the highest estimation of accuracy in the group) and 98% productivity (the highest estimated productivity in the group).

Figure 31. Subjective productivity among the group D4 (2)

When the leadership style S1 is used 3 participants estimated the instructions to be helpful, when the leadership S2 - 2 participants. 5 chose “yes” when the leadership S3 is applied. Finally, the proportion was 7:1 when the leadership style is S4.

Figure 32. Subjective productivity among the group D4 (3)

When the leadership style S1 was applied, 1 participant considered this style to be the most productive for the task fulfilment, 1 - the leadership style S2, 3 people considered the leadership style S3 to be productive and 4 - the leadership style S4. When the leadership style S2 was used - 1 person preferred the leadership style S1, 2 people - the leadership style S2 and 5 - the leadership style S3. By the leadership style S3 1 person chose the leadership style S2 to be the most productive, 2 people - S3, 5 - S4. Finally, when the leadership style S4 was applied, 2 participants chose the leadership style S3 and 6 - the leadership style S4.

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured with the help of the Job Satisfaction Survey which contained 12 question, each of questions is worth 2 points. The highest number of points that refers to the highest level of satisfaction was 72 points. As in the previous charts, the average number of points gained by the group is demonstrated.

Figure 33. Job satisfaction among D1 group

The highest level of satisfaction was achieved by the participants of D1 group when the leadership style S1 was applied. The number of points received in the JSS is 68. After the accomplishment of the task with the “coaching” leader (S2), the level of satisfaction was also high - 66 points. When the leadership styles S3 and S4 were used, the level of satisfaction appeared to be represented by 62 and 58 points, respectively.

Figure 34. Job satisfaction among D2 group

The highest level of job satisfaction within D2 group can to be spotted in 2 cases: when S2 leadership styles were applied (66 points out of 72 for each of cases). The level of satisfaction reaches 64 points when the leadership style S1 is used, 60 points when the leadership style S3 was used while the lowest level of job satisfaction can be seen by the leadership style S4 (54 points).

Figure 35. Job satisfaction among D3 group

The results of the survey in the D3 group are relatively similar. The highest level of satisfaction was reached by the leadership style S3 (66 points). It is followed by 64 points achieved when the leader uses the leadership style “coaching” (S2 - 64 points). 62 points were scored in average by D3 group when the “delegating” style (S4) was applied and 58 points - when the “directing” style (S1).

Figure 36. Job satisfaction among D4 group

The highest level of the job satisfaction in D4 group was achieved by the implication of the leadership style S4 (70 points). The next result is 68 points reached by the leadership style “supporting” (S3). The lowest results refer to the leadership style S1 with the result of 58 points and the leadership style S2 with 56 points.

Overall results

After comparing the parameters within 4 groups, it was decided to also measure the results among all 32 participants in order to get an average result on the objective and subjective job productivity and the job satisfaction.

Figure 37. Labor productivity among all participants

The highest level of productivity can be seen in 2 cases, when the leadership style S1 and S3 were applied (2,97 units per minute). It is followed by the case when the leadership style S2 is used (2,91 units per minute). The lowest level of labor productivity can be seen by the leadership style S4 (2,81 units per minute)

Figure 38. Accuracy among all participants

The highest level of accuracy can be seen by the leadership style S1 (“directing” - 82,5%) followed by 81,6% reached when the leadership style S3 is applied. When the leader applied the leadership style S2 the level of accuracy is 81,25%, when the leadership style S4 - 79,3%.



Figure 39. Overall subjective productivity among all participants (1)

The participants estimated their speed with ~79% (the slowest among all participants), accuracy with ~99% (the highest estimation of accuracy in the group) and productivity with 90,5% when the leader applies the leadership style S1 (the highest estimation of productivity within the group). By the leadership style S2 the estimations were: 87% speed (the highest estimation of speed within the group), 97,5% accuracy and 90,25% productivity. The results gained when the leadership style is S3 are ~84% speed, ~96% accuracy and ~89% productivity and when the leadership style is S4 - 85,5% speed, ~96% accuracy and ~87% productivity (the lowest estimated productivity in the group).

Figure 40. Subjective productivity among all participants (2)

When the leadership style S1 is applied by the leader, 5,55 participants considered the instructions to be helpful, when the leadership S2 - 5,75 participants. By the leadership style S3 5,5 participants estimated the instructions as helpful and 5,75 people chose “yes” by the leadership S4.



Figure 41. Job satisfaction among all participants

While the results among all 4 leadership styles are very close, the highest level of satisfaction was achieved by participants when the leadership style S3 was applied (64 points). The use of leadership styles S2 and S1 gave the results of 63 and 62 point, respectively. The lowest level of satisfaction was achieved by the implication of the leadership style S4 - 61 points.

Data of Austrian and Russian students

The following category represents the data collected during the research in accordance with the nationality of the participants.

Figure 42. Labor productivity among Austrian and Russian students

The highest level of productivity in the group D1 was by the leadership style S1 both for the Austrian students (2,92 units per minute) and the Russian students (2,98 units per minute). In the group D2 the highest level of labor productivity can be seen by the leadership style S2 for both Austrian and Russian students (2,88 and 3,12 units per minute, respectively). In the group D3 the highest results are 3,52 units per minute for Austrian students and 3,14 units per minutes for Russian students (the leadership style S3). The leadership style S4 brought the best results for the Austrian (3,59 units per minute) and the Russian (3,37 units per minute) students in D4 group.

Figure 43. Accuracy among Austrian and Russian students

The results of accuracy measurement go along with the results of labor productivity. In the group D1 the highest level of accuracy was achieved by the leadership style S1 for both groups of students (83% for Austrians and 85% for Russians). In the group D2 - 85% for the Austrian students and 84,5% for the Russian students. When the leadership style S3 is used in the group D3 the results for the Austrian and Russian groups are the highest (90% and 88%, respectively). In the group D4 the highest results are 98% for the Austrians and 94% for the Russians when the leadership style S4 is applied.

Figure 44. Subjective productivity (1) among Austrian students

The highest level of speed estimated by the Austrian group in the group D1 was 84% (by the leadership style S4), the highest level of accuracy - 100% (by the leadership style S1 and S2) and the highest level of productivity - 89% (by the leadership style S1). In the group D2 the highest level of speed is 85% (by the leadership style S2), the highest level of accuracy is 100% (by the leadership style S1) and the highest level of productivity is 91% (by the leadership style S2). In the D3 group the estimations were 97% for speed (by the leadership style S3), 100% (by the leadership style S1 and S2) and 98% for productivity (by the leadership style S4). In the group D4 the highest level of speed is 98% (by the leadership style S4), the highest level of accuracy - 100% (by the leadership style S4) and the highest level of productivity - 99% (by the leadership style S4).

Figure 45. Subjective productivity (1) among Russian students

By the Russian students the estimations in the D1 group were 88% (by the leadership style S2) for the highest speed, 100% (by the leadership styles S1 and S2) for the highest accuracy and 95% (by the leadership style S1) for the highest productivity. In the D2 group the highest results were 85% for speed (by the leadership style S2), 100% for accuracy (by the leadership style S1), 99% for productivity (by the leadership style S2). Highest results for the group D3 were 92% for speed (by the leadership style S3), 100% for accuracy (by the leadership style S1 and S2) and 94% for productivity (by the leadership style S4). The highest level of speed estimated in the group D4 was 92% (by the leadership style S2), the highest level of accuracy - 100% (by the leadership style S4) and the highest level of productivity - 99% (by the leadership style S2).



Figure 46. Subjective productivity (2) among Austrian and Russian students

Analyzing the answers to the question: “Were the instructions of the leader helpful for the accomplishment of the task?” only positive answers were taken into consideration in this category. In the group D1 14 Russian students considered the instructions to be helpful (5 people by both the leadership styles S1 and S2) and 13 Austrian students (4 people by the leadership style S4). In the group D2 12 Russian students (5 people by the leadership style S1) and 12 Austrian students (3 person by each of leadership styles) agreed that the instructions were helpful. In the group D3 9 Russian students considered the instructions to be helpful (3 people by both the leadership styles S1 and S2) and 13 Austrian students (5 people by both the leadership styles S3 and S4). In the group D4 8 Russian students (3 people by the leadership style S4) and 9 Austrian students (4 people by the leadership style S4) agreed that the instructions were helpful.

Figure 47. Subjective productivity (3) among Austrian and Russian students

Answering to the question “Could you be more productive if the instructions were given in a different way?” 9 Austrian students preferred the leadership style S2 and 15 Russian students preferred the leadership style S1 in the group D1. In the group D2 the situation slightly changed - 10 Austrian students chose the leadership style S2 while 10 Russian students - the leadership style S1. 11 Austrian students and 9 Russian students in the group D3 preferred the leadership style S3. In the group S4 11 Austrian students and 8 Russian students chose the leadership style S4.

Figure 48. Job satisfaction among Austrian and Russian students

The highest level of job satisfaction in the group D1 was spotted among the Russian students when the leadership styles S1 were applied (70 points) and among the Austrian students - as well by the leadership style S1 (66 points). In the group D2 the highest level of job satisfaction can be seen by the Austrian group and by the Russian group when the leadership styles S2 is used (64 points and 68 points, respectively) The Austrian students achieved the highest level of satisfaction in the group D3 when the leader used the leadership style S3 (66 points) as well as the Russian students - 66 points. In the group D4 the highest level of job satisfaction can be seen by both the Austrian and the Russian group when the leadership styles S4 was used (71 points and 69 points, respectively).

Discussion

In the following part of the master thesis the results of the experiment will be analyzed and discussed in accordance to the goal of the master thesis and the theoretical basis. The discussion will be split into subparts in order to simplify the process of understanding of the received data.

Objective job productivity

As it could be observed in the graphs above, in case of all 4 groups the highest level of labor productivity and accuracy was detected when the leadership style of the leader matched the development level of the participants (Figures 13, 15, 17, 19). The finding proves one of the statements of the Situational Theory of Hersey-Blanchard that states the effective leadership can be achieved through the right combination of the leadership style and the development level (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). Moreover, it supports the idea of the master thesis that the level of job productivity is high when there is a match between the leadership style and the development level.

Furthermore, the lowest level of objective job productivity was observed in 3 groups out of 4 when the development level was combined with the least matching leadership style. Figure 15 demonstrates that the lowest level of labor productivity within the group D2 (low commitment, low competence) was combined with the leadership style “delegating” (S4 - low directive, high supportive). The same situation happens in the group D3 and D4. As it can be observed on the Figure 17, the combination of the leadership style “directing” (S1 - high directive, low supportive behavior) with the development level D3 (low commitment, high competence) gave the lowest result regarding the labor productivity within the group. Figure 19 demonstrates the same conclusion by the match of the S2 leadership style (low directive, high supportive behavior) with D4 level.

Accuracy parameter reflects the results received by the measurement of the labor productivity, demonstrating that the highest level of accuracy in all 4 groups was spotted when the leadership style matched the right development level. The lowest level of accuracy was seen also in 3 groups out of 4 as by the labor productivity - when the leadership style was combined with the least suitable development level (Figure 16, 18, 20).

Looking at the Figures 13-20 and the overall result on the labor productivity, the main idea of the Hersey-Blanchard theory is supported that there is no best and the most effective leadership style as there is no single leadership style that significantly and clearly stand out above the others.

Therefore, combining results of 2 parameters of objective productivity, it is possible to draw a conclusion that the objective productivity is high when the leadership style of the leader matches the development level of an employee, while it is the lowest when the leadership style is combined with the least matching development level.

Subjective job productivity

According to the Figures 21, 24, 26, 29, in all 4 cases the employees estimated that they had the highest level of productivity when the leadership style of the leader was matching the development level of the employees. However, the lowest result of the productivity measurement was present only in 2 cases when the leadership style was combined with the least matching development level (Figures 24, 26).

Moving to the question “Were the instructions of the leader helpful for the accomplishment of the task?” (Figures 22, 25, 28, 31), the results demonstrate that biggest number of participants in every group was satisfied with the instructions when the leadership style of the leader and matched the development level of the employees. The finding was expected as when each leadership style has its own way of presenting of the instructions to an employee, from clear explanations of every step (leadership style S1 - “directing”) to lack of guidelines (leadership style S4 - “delegating”) that is necessary for the representatives of the D4 development level as other way of instructing they see as the restriction of their freedom in the task accomplishment (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977).

At the same time, the biggest number of participants chose the answer “no” claiming the instructions to be not useful when the when the leadership style was combined with the least matching development level. Overall result to the question demonstrates that there is no leadership style that would be outstanding and by which the biggest number of participants would consider instructions to be helpful (Figure 40).

As for the question "Could you be more productive if the instructions were given in a different way?", the most of participants preferred the leadership style that matched their development level (Figures 23, 26, 29, 32).

Job satisfaction

The highest level of the job satisfaction can be observed in all 4 groups when the leadership style of the leader matched the development level of an employee (Figures 32-35). The finding supports the theory of Hersey-Blanchard. When an employee receives the amount of support and instructions proportional to their level of commitment and competence, the level of their job satisfaction is higher rather than when the support and guidelines do not match with their abilities and motivation.

The situation with the lowest level of job satisfaction is analogical to the lowest level of objective job productivity. In 3 out of 4 groups (excluding D1 group) the lowest level of job satisfaction was observed when the leadership style was combined with the least matching delegating style. The explanation for this is that when an employee expects some particular actions from the leader but gets the opposite (for example, an employee needs more support and direction and the leader instead does not participate at all at the task accomplishment), the level of their job satisfaction noticeable drops.

Similar results of the groups while analyzing job satisfaction and job productivity can be supported by the statement of many scholars that insist that the level of job satisfaction influences the job productivity (Patterson, Warr, & West, 2004; Wright & Cropanzano, 2007).

Cultural differences

Figure 42 and 43 demonstrate that in all 4 groups for both Russian and Austrian students the results of the labor productivity and accuracy measurement were the highest when the leadership style was combined with the least matching delegating style. Moreover, except for the group D1, the lowest level of labor productivity and accuracy can be observed when the leadership style is combined with the least matching development level.

As for the subjective productivity, the Austrian students estimated in 3 out of 4 groups (except for the group D1) that they had the highest level of productivity when the leadership style of the leader was matching the development level of the employees (Figure 44). However, in case of Russian students, only in one group (D2) they estimated that the highest level of productivity was achieved when the leadership style of the leader was matching the development level of the employees (Figure 45).

Furthermore, observing the results of job satisfaction measurement, Figure 48 demonstrates that both Russian and Austrian students demonstrated the highest level of job satisfaction when the leadership style of the leader matched the development level of the employees.

Therefore, the Russian and Austrian student demonstrated relatively similar results by the measurement of labor productivity and accuracy (2 parameters of objective productivity) and job satisfaction. However, the results of their self-evaluation in the survey that was used for the measurement of subjective productivity differ. The similarity of the results of the Austrian and Russian students inspires the idea of the universality of the Hersey-Blanchard theory and possibility of its successful implication in different cultural environments and contexts. Nevertheless, the comparative research on other various cultures should be carried on in order to prove and support this idea.

...