Hypotheses

Taking into consideration all above mentioned findings, it is possible to conclude that Hypothesis 1 (H1), which states that “the level of job satisfaction and job productivity is the highest, when the leadership style (S) and the development level (D) match”, can be supported. The hypothesis is proved by the findings received by the measurement of 2 parameters of objective job productivity, the measurement of subjective productivity and the measurement of job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2 (H2), which states that “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”, is partly proved as it was supported by the findings received by the measurement of objective job productivity and job satisfaction but was not supported by the findings received by the measurement of subjective productivity.

Unexpected results explanation

Objective job productivity

One of the eye-catching results regarding objective job productivity is related to the accuracy. As it can be seen on the Figures 12, 14, 16 and 18, the parameters “the right place” and “the right color” are always similar when the leadership style “directing” (S1) is applied. This can lead to the consequence that the quality of work is higher by the “directing” leadership style, as one of the main tasks of the leader in this case is to control and monitor every step taken by an employee meaning that a mistake will be noticed when a leader checks the amount of the finished work or when they monitor the process of the task accomplishment. Moreover, looking at the Figure that demonstrate the overall accuracy, it can be seen that the average accuracy of all 4 cases was the highest.

However, as it can be seen out of the Figures 21, 24, 26, 29 that refer to the subjective productivity, the speed by the implementation of the “directing” leadership style was the lowest among 3 out of 4 groups according to the estimations of the employees. Therefore, the S1 leadership style provides the higher quality of the task but slows down its accomplishment what reflects negatively the job productivity.

Moreover, an interesting conclusion can be made out of the Figures 36 and 37: the lowest level of both the labor productivity and the accuracy (when the average of the results of 32 participants is taken) can clearly be seen when the leaders uses the leadership style S4. This finding leads to the idea that simply giving the task to an employee and not monitoring/controlling it during the process of accomplishment can lead to low job productivity, especially in the case when an employee is quite inexperienced in the field.

Subjective job productivity

One of the most striking findings relates to the evaluation by the employees of their work. Comparing the figures with the results of labor productivity and accuracy measurement (Figures 13-20) with the results of subjective productivity measurement (Figures 21, 24, 26, 29) it can be easily noticed that the estimation made by the employees regarding the speed, accuracy and productivity of their work strongly differ from the results received with the help of quantitative measurement of the labor productivity and accuracy. In all cases the results estimated by the employees are higher than the results that were received by more objective measurement tools. The finding highlights one of the main problems associated with the subjective measurement tools - the fact that the employees may use the subjective productivity for their own benefit, presenting their results in a better way than they actually are and affecting the judgement of the managers. Moreover, sometimes the employees cannot estimate themselves in a realistic way and see their own flaws which also seems as a disadvantage of the subjective system of measurement.

Furthermore, in 3 out of 4 cases (except for the group D4), the level of accuracy was estimated by employees as 100% when the leadership style D1 was applied. This proves the statement above that when the leader monitors the process of the task accomplishment, the level of accuracy increases.

Job satisfaction

While according to the Figure 41 the level of satisfaction overall was very high, one result in the group D4 attracted the attention while analyzing the data as it was 70 points out of 72 when the leadership style S4 was used. This result is also followed by the result of 68 points out of 72 when the S3 leadership style was applied in the group D4. These 2 results are the highest results regarding job satisfaction in all 4 groups and very close to the maximal number of points that could be achieved in the JSS. Consequently, out of these results it is possible to establish that when an employee with high level of commitment and competence is given more responsibilities and freedom over the task, the possibility of high job satisfaction is significantly increasing, and an employee keeps the positive attitude towards their work.

Cultural differences

In 3 out of 4 groups (except for the group D4) the Austrian students estimated that the speed was the slowest when the leadership style S1 was applied, while the accuracy was the highest (Figure 44). The Russian students as well estimate the highest level of accuracy when the leadership style S1 was used in 3 groups (except for the group D4) (Figure 45). Consequently, when the participants were permanently controlled and monitored, they felt that they are more accurate as the leader checks their actions. Only the group D4, where the participants need more responsibilities and freedom in decision-making process as well as the fulfillment of the task, according to Hersey and Blanchard, did not feel that the control of the leader makes them more accurate (Hersey & Blanchard, 1977). They estimated the level of accuracy (as well as the level of speed) the highest when the leadership style S4 is applied by the leader (Figures 44, 45).

In addition to this, the results of the questions "Could you be more productive if the instructions were given in a different way?" and “Were the instructions of the leader helpful for the accomplishment of the task?” did not support the main ideas of the master thesis (Figures 46, 47). While in all 4 cases the Austrian students stated that the instructions of the leader were helpful when the leadership styles S3 and S4 were used, the Russian students mostly chose that the instructions were more helpful when the leader applied leadership styles S1 and S2. It can be concluded that the Austrian students feel more comfortable when they are given more freedom in decision-making and accomplishment of the task, while the Russian students prefer the leadership styles where more thorough guidelines are given, and they are more controlled during the task accomplishment.

Recommendations and implications

Before moving to the conclusions, the following master thesis offers different suggestions on the future research that can be developed and the implications that can be used in practice.

It should be taken into consideration that the following master thesis has focused solely on the Situational theory of Hersey-Blanchard and Situational Leadership theory II with 4 leadership styles highlighted by the authors. Therefore, the experiment in the empirical part of the master thesis was offering participants no more than 4 leadership styles, collecting data based only on those styles and analyzing which leadership style has the superior and the most effective impact on job productivity and job satisfaction. However, in order to receive more accurate and precise results on the dependency of job satisfaction and job productivity on diverse leadership styles, other different leadership styles should be analyzed and evaluated in the future research.

Moreover, the time constraints have a particular meaning in the following research as, according to some scholars, the impact of the leadership styles on diverse work outcomes can be significant and noticeable only in the long-term perspective (Humphrey, 2002; Judge et al., 2001, Sy et al., 2005). Therefore, it is recommendable to carry out another experiment that would make it possible to collect data and observe the long-term impact of the leadership styles on job productivity and job satisfaction.

Apart from this, the pool of the participants can be extended in case of the future research on the topic in order to increase the validity and credibility of the hypotheses formulated in the following master thesis.

Furthermore, it is possible to extend the number of measurement tools to gain the deeper understanding of the connections between the leadership styles and job productivity and job productivity. The different outcomes that focus also on the gender, different fields of work, ethnicity and other criteria can be provided.

In addition to this, the paper only slightly touched upon the cultural differences in productivity and satisfaction influenced by the leadership style and in attitude of different cultures towards the diverse leadership styles. While the following master thesis only states that the differences between different nationalities exist, it does not make an attempt to explain the reasons for such differences or make a deeper research on the diverse attitude and behavior of different nationalities under different circumstances (in the case of the thesis - under various leadership styles). Nevertheless, the following master thesis can serve as an inspiration and motivation for the future research on the cultural differences of nationalities regarding the leadership styles and their impact on various work outcomes.

Moving to the implications of the following thesis, first of all, the results of the analysis on the dependency of job satisfaction and job productivity on the leadership styles can be of a particular interest for the students of business administration, HR, general and strategic management in order to become better future leaders, bosses and managers.

Moreover, the results of the thesis are of significant importance at all organizational levels of any firm, company or organization as managing people in the most effective way is the key to success in a long-term performance of any company which makes it crucial to teach managers and bosses of a company how to recognize the strengthens and weaknesses of their employees and lead using their strong sides while working on weak ones. Therefore, the courses for the leaders of the companies based on the results of the master thesis are suggested as well as the possibility of mentoring of the managers by the professionals. The main idea is to highlight the importance of being able not only to develop personal leadership qualities but also to adapt easily to the skills and motivation level of the employees. The leadership can be effective only when the two-way communication is created. The results of the master thesis can be used to build the program of the coursesґ program and improve the leadership effectiveness.

To add, the following master thesis underlines the importance of the regular evaluation of the employees. Knowing the attitude of the employees towards their work and the results that they have achieved makes it easier for the leader to become aware of the factors that should be taken into consideration and adjust to them to increase the level of job satisfaction and job productivity of the employees as well as other work outcomes. Working on the weak points highlighted by the employees during the evaluation the leader can stimulate their employees in order to achieve better outcomes. Also, the feedback system helps to improve the two-way communication between managers and the employees and create trustworthy and transparent atmosphere in the company.

Limitations

Certain factors, that may have had the effects on the following research, need to be taken into consideration when the findings of the research are discussed.

First of all, the important fact that was already mentioned above its that the following master thesis as well as the experiment was based on the Situational theory of Hersey-Blanchard and Situational Leadership Theory II meaning that only certain number of leadership styles were analyzed within the process of the experiment.

Moreover, the size of the participantsґ pool which consists of 36 participants. Additional participants may have contributed to the greater number of findings and stronger results on the hypotheses. The bigger pool of participants could have perceptions of bigger number of employees in order to decrease the level of generalization of the master thesisґ findings.

One more possible limitation is time constraints meaning that the timeframe for data collection was relatively short, which could influence the results of the experiment, considering the fact that some scholars suggest that the leadership styles influence job satisfaction and job productivity in the long-term period as it was already mentioned above. Therefore, the future research on the topic is recommended in order to extend the findings.

Conclusion

The following master thesis is aimed at the exploration of the connection between leadership styles, in particular the leadership styles defined by the Situational theory of Hersey-Blanchard and job productivity and job satisfaction. Leadership is the interaction process among a leader and their followers, while the leader does its best to succeed in the accomplishment of a task. Consequently, it is a matter of significant importance for any organization to have a leader whose leadership style will be effective to successfully archive organizational goals and high performance. Various leadership styles are needed for diverse situations and people that are led and every leader should understand when to apply a particular style. An appropriate leadership is crucial for the achievement of organizational tasks, goals and overall success of the organization.

The data analysis has demonstrated that there is an impact of the leadership styles according to Hersey-Blanchard on job productivity and job satisfaction. Right match of the appropriate leadership style of a leader to the development level of an employee can positively affect the job productivity and job satisfaction of employees while the wrong match of the style and level can lead to the negative impact on the productivity and satisfaction.

The topic of the correlation between the leadership styles and work outcomes, in particular job productivity and job satisfaction, should be further researched. For example, the procedure of the experiment can be developed in more detail, extending its time constraints and tool measurements. Furthermore, the research on the influence of other leadership styles on different work outcomes can be carried out as well as the research on the cultural impact of the connection between the leadership styles and job productivity and job satisfaction.

The results of the experiment, based on the measurements of parameters that were defined in the Chapter 1, have revealed that: (a) the level of job satisfaction and job productivity is the highest, when the leadership style (S) and the development level (D) match; (b) the level of job satisfaction and objective job productivity is the lowest, when the leadership style (S) and the development level (D) have the least suitable combination. The hypotheses support that leadership styles have the influence on job productivity and job satisfaction. Moreover, the main idea of the Situational theory of Hersey-Blanchard which states that the most effective leadership can be achieved when the leader is flexible and adapts their leadership styles to the development level of the employees is supported and proved. In addition to this, the results of the experiment support the idea of the Hersey-Blanchard Situational theory that there is no best leadership style which is applicable to any group or people, a task or a situation.

As for the cultural context, the findings have demonstrated that match of the leadership style to the development level produced the equal impact among the Austrian and Russian students on the job productivity and job satisfaction. The results stimulate the following research in this sphere for evaluation of universality of the Situational leadership theory for various cultures.

The following master thesis helps leaders to understand what is necessary to enhance job satisfaction and job productivity levels of the employees. The findings of the study suggest that the leaders working in the organizations may get significant advantages from managing their employees in an effective way using the appropriate leadership style which motivate and stimulate them to achieve greater results in the workplace. Therefore, it is important to make the leaders aware of different leadership approaches and circumstances when they need to be used. Workshops, seminar and courses devoted to the topic of the influence of leadership styles on diverse work outcomes such as job satisfaction and job productivity should be organized for the managers of the companies in various fields. What is important, is that such trainings should be created bearing in mind the needs and abilities of the employees.

In conclusion, the following master thesis has successfully contributed to the existing literature by analyzing and exploring the impact of the leadership styles on job satisfaction and job productivity through the empirical research. Good leadership is one of essential preconditions for any successful and prosperous company. The master thesis is expected to help promoting practices for the managers in order to develop a high quality of leadership among the leaders in organizations. Moreover, it is hoped that the study will stimulate the further research of the topic and interest of the scholars and, consequently, helping the practitioners in developing new leaders.

References

1. Agho, A. O., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1993). Determinants of Employee Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Test of a Causal Model. Human Relations, 46(8), 1007-1027. doi:10.1177/001872679304600806

2. Ahn, S., & Abt, R. C. (2006). Productivity measurement with improved index numbers: Application to the sawmills and planing mills industry of the U.S.: 1947-2000. Forest Policy and Economics,8(3), 323-335. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.02.006

3. Allio, R. J. (2012). Leaders and leadership - many theories, but what advice is reliable? Strategy & Leadership, 41(1), 4-14. doi:10.1108/10878571311290016

4. Almazyed, K., Alaswad, A., & Olabi, A. (2016). Study on the Key Factor Parameters to Increase Productivity in Construction and Manufacturing Industries. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 114, 012097. doi:10.1088/1757-899x/114/1/012097

5. Armstrong, M. (2016). Armstrongs handbook of management and leadership for HR: Developing effective people skills for better leadership and management. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.

6. Aura O., Ahonen G., Hussi T., Ilmarinen J. (2014). Strategisen hyvinvoinnin johtaminen Suomessa 2014 - tutkimusraportti. Helsinki: Pohjola Vakuutus Oy ja Suomen Terveystalo

7. Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488-496

8. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

9. Bass, B. M. (2009). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. Simon & Schuster

10. Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employee "Citizenship", Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.

11. Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology,83(1), 43-54. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.43

12. Blake, R., & Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company

13. Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (2013). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through nalnal leadership®. New York, NY: William Morrow, an imprint of HarperCollins

14. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317-334

15. Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (1998). Beyond the productivity paradox. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 41(8), 49-55

16. Burke, R. J. (1995). Management Practices, Employees Satisfaction and Perceptions of Quality of Service. Psychological Reports,77(3), 748-750. doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.77.3.748

17. Bьssing, A., & Bissels, T. (1998). Different Forms of Work Satisfaction. European Psychologist, 3(3), 209-218. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.3.3.209

18. Campbell, J. P., Glaser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance variability, in K. R. Murphy (ed.). Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 258-299.

19. Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2010). Not all leader-member exchanges are created equal: Importance of leader relational quality. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 796-808.

20. Cummings, L.L. and Schwab, D.P. (1973), “Performance in Organisations: Determinants and Appraisal,” Foresman and Company, Glenview, Scotland

21. Currivan, D.B. (1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 495Ѓ]524

22. Daft, R.L., & Marcic, C. (2006). Understanding management (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education.

23. Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., Markham, S. E., Alutto, J. A., Newman, J., Dumas, M., . . . Keller, T. (1995). Individualized leadership: A new multiple-level approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 413-450. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90016-0

24. DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35, 627-647.

25. Denison D.R., Hooijberg R. & Quinn R.E. (1995). Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524-540

26. Devi A.C., & Rani S.S. (2012). Personality and work - life balance. Journal of Contemporary Research in Management, 7, 23-30

27. Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2012). Implications of dispositional and process views of traits for individual difference research in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 651-669

28. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for reasearch and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628

29. Downey, H.K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J.W. Jr (1975). Congruence between individual needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 149Ѓ]55

30. Dran, Gisela Von. (2004), “Leader - an earned Title who”. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiJ946zsvzhAhVNxYUKHc68DwwQFjABegQIBBAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Flida.ffos.hr%2F2004%2Fppt%2Fsubota%2FLIDA_2004_Gisela_von_Dran.ppt&usg=AOvVaw3X5ypsiDLBtxRUeYklnjki [2 May 2019]

31. Duncan, K., (2009). Leadership and Communication Improving leadership and communication Skills for Municipal Managers and Supervisors. Municipal Management Program, 1-22. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwii6qHbs_zhAhUHLBoKHT3YDSYQFjAAegQIBBAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Famcto.com%2Fimis15%2FDocuments%2FKevin%2520Duncan%2520-%2520Leadership%2520and%2520Communication.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2642Xwjk-V65ctxM-Bzkmg [2 May 2019]

32. Eales-White, R. (2005). The effective leader. London: Kogan Page.

33. Ewen, R.B. (1964). Some determinants of job satisfaction: A study of the generalisability of Herzberg's theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, pp. 161

34. Furnham, A., Eracleous, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(8), pp. 765

35. Gersmehl, P. (2014). Teaching geography. New York, NY: The Guilford Press

36. Golledge, R.G., Marsh, M.J., & Battersby, S.E. (2008). A Conceptual Framework for Facilitating Geospatial Thinking. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98 (2), 285-308

37. Goodson, J.R., McGee, G.W. and Cashman, J.F. (1989). Situational leadership theory: a test of leadership prescriptions. Group and Organizational Studies, 14(4), 446Ѓ]461

38. Hamidifar, F. (2010). A study of the relationship between leadership styles and employee job satisfaction at Islamic Azad University Branches in Tehran, Iran. AU-GSB e-J., 3, 45-58

39. Harris, D. H. (1994). Organizational linkages: Understanding the productivity paradox. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

40. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of Organizational Behavior 3rd Edition- Utilizing Human Resources. New Jersey/Prentice Hall

41. Hill, G.W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517-539

42. Hinrichs, J.R. (1978). Practical Manaqement for Productivity, Van Nostrand Reinhold, UK

43. Holme, I.M., & Solvang, B.K. (1997). Forskningsmetodik, om kvalitativa och kvantitativa metoder. Studentlitteratur, Lund

44. House, R.J., Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, l-97

45. Howell J. M., Neufeld. D., Avolio B. J. (2005), “Examining the Relationship of Leadership and Physical Distance with Business Unit Performance,” The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 273

46. Humphrey, R.H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 493-504

47. Jex, S. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. John Wiley & Sons

48. Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits - self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80

49. Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. & Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Organisational Behaviour, 19, 151

50. Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768

51. Kader A.N., & Yee T.S. (2016). Does Multiple Leadership Styles Mediated by Job Satisfaction Influence Better Business Performance? Perception of MNC Employees in Malaysia. SHS Web of Conferences. 23. 02005. 10.1051/shsconf/20162302005.

52. Kalar, T., & Wright, D.L. (2007). Leadership theory and motivation of medical imaging employees. Radiology Management, 29(6), 20-28

53. Kemppila S., & Lonnqvist A. (2003). Subjective productivity measurement. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(2), 531-537

54. Lee, J., & Bednarz, R. (2012). Components of Spatial Thinking: Evidence from Spatial Thinking Ability Test, Journal of Geography, 111, 15-26.

55. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142

56. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10 (2), 271-301. doi:10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366

57. Lewis, C.W., & Gilman, S.C. (2005). The Ethics Challenge in Public Service: A Problem-solving Guide. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

58. Lilian M. de Menezes, (2012) Job satisfaction and quality management: an empirical analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(3), 308-328

59. Locke, E.A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309Ѓ]36.

60. Locke, E.A. (1970). Job satisfaction and job performance: a theoretical analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 484Ѓ]500.

61. Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and organizational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organizational change and development. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 20, 365Ѓ]373

62. Mayo, E. (1924). Revery and industrial fatigue. Journal of Personnel Research, 3, 273-281

63. McDaniels, C., & Gates, R. (2005). Marketing Research. Hoboken: John Whiley & Sons Inc

64. Methodology. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology [2 May 2019]

65. Misterek, S.D.A., Dooley K.J., & Anderson J.C. (1992). Productivity as a performance measure. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 12(1), 29-45

66. Odom, R.Y., Boxx, W.R., & Dunn, M.G. (1990). Organizational cultures, commitment, satisfaction, and cohesion. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14, 157Ѓ]169

67. O'Driscoll, M.P., Brough, P. (2010). Work Organization and Health. In Occupational Health Psychology, 2nd ed.; Leka, S., Houdmont, J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Chichester/West Sussex, UK, 57-88

68. Olley, S. G., & Pakes A. (1996). The dynamics of productivity in the telecommunications equipment industry. Econometrica, 64(6), 1263-1297.

69. Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 963-974

70. Patterson, M., Warr, P., & West M. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 193-216

71. Pritchard, R., Weaver, S., & Ashwood, E. (2012). Evidence-Based Productivity Improvement. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis

72. Ramey, J.W. (2002). The relationship between leadership styles of nurse managers and staff nurse job satisfaction in hospital settings. M.A. Thesis, The Graduate College of Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia

73. Ramayah, T., Muhamad J. (2001). JOB SATISFACTION: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR ALTERNATIVES TO JDI

74. Raven, B.H. and Rubin, J.E. (1976). Social psychology: People in groups. New York: John Wiley

75. Samuelson P.A. & Nordhaus, W.D. (2004). Economics, 18th ed., [end] Glossary of Terms, "Long run" and "Short run."

76. Sauermann, J. (2016) Performance measures and worker productivity. IZA World of Labor, 260. doi: 10.15185/izawol.260

77. Sethi, R. (1997). Tips for Effective Leadership, Beacon Books, New Delhi, India

78. Shobe, K. (2018). Productivity Driven by Job Satisfaction, Physical Work Environment, Management Support and Job Autonomy. Bus Eco J., 9, 351. doi: 10.4172/2151-6219.1000351

79. Siengthai S., Pila-Ngarm P. (2016). The interaction effect of job redesign and job satisfaction on employee performance. Evidence - Based HRM, 4, 162-180

80. Sink D.S. (1985). Productivity Management: Planning, Measurement and Evaluation, Control and Improvement, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA

81. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally

82. Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

83. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press

84. Sutermeister, R. A. (1963). Toward an Integrated Concept of Productivity. American Behavioral Scientist, 6, 11-12. doi: 10.1177/000276426300600505.

85. Sy, T., Co?teм S. & Saavedra R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone and group processes. Applied Psychology, 90(2), 295

86. Taris, R., Feij, J. A., & van Vianen, A. E. (2005). Met expectations and supplies-values fit of Dutch young adults as determinants of work outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(3), 366-382

87. Tenuenboun A.S. (1968). Control in Organization, Mcgraw Hill, Newyork

88. Theodossiou, I. & Vasileiou, E. (2007). Making the Risk of Job Loss a Way of Life: Does It Affect Job Satisfaction? Research in Economics, 61. doi: 10.1016/j.rie.2007.03.002

89. Trichas, S., & Schyns, B. (2012). The face of leadership: Perceiving leaders from facial expressions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 545-566

90. Tumen S., & Zeydanli, T. (2016). Social interactions in job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 37, 426-455

91. Vandenberg, R.J., & Lance, C.E. (1992). Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management, 18, 153Ѓ]67

92. Van Niekerk, W.P. (1981). Productivity and Work Study, UK, Pretoria: Butterworth

93. Villarica, H. (2011, August 18). Maslow 2.0: A New and Improved Recipe for Happiness. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/maslow-20-a-new-and-improved-recipe-for-happiness/243486/ [2 May 2019]

94. Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 515-530

95. Warr, P., Cook, J. D., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scales for the measurement of work attitudes and psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 58, 229-242

96. Webb, K. (2007). Motivation peak performance: Leadership behaviours that stimulate employee motivation and performance. Christian Higher Education, 6(1), 53-71

97. Weber, A., & Weber, A. (2015, August 06). The Hawthorne Works. Retrieved from https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/88188-the-hawthorne-works [2 May 2019]

98. Weiss, D., & Davis, R.V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

99. Wexley, K. N., & Yukl, G. A. (1984). Organizational Behavior, People and Processes in Management. Richard D. Iwin, Homewood, Illinois

100. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2007). The happy/productive worker thesis revisited. Personnel and Human Resource Management, 26, 269-307

Appendixes

Good afternoon! Thank you for participating in the experiment. Now I will explain you what exactly you need to do. Here you can see the box with the Lego details of different colors. There are more details that you will need for building the model, therefore, youґll need to choose the suitable details out of all details in the box. I am the leader who gives you the instructions and checks the results of your task, while you are the employee who is responsible for the task accomplishment. Your task is to build a Lego model within 5 minutes. You will need to repeat the procedure 4 times meaning that you need to build 4 different models, but all of them are of the same level of complexity. I will give you instructions in 4 different ways according to 4 different leadership styles. After every step (every model) you will need to fill in 3 surveys where you will estimate your subjective and objective productivity and job satisfaction: how productive you were during the task accomplishment and whether you were satisfied with the process of building a model, with the instructions and the result. Letґs start.

I. Delegating style

The employee has the necessary level of knowledge and motivation; therefore, the leader should not intervene into the process of the task accomplishment giving the employee the freedom of decision-making.

Before the task accomplishment:

The leader tells the employee the standard introduction. Afterwards, he/she gives to the employee the picture of the model.

- Here is the picture of the model that you need to build. As it was already said, all the necessary details are in the box. You have 5 minutes and you are free to choose how you are going to build the model. I am not giving any further information, after 5 minutes I will check your result.

During the task accomplishment:

The leader does not participate in the process of accomplishing the task in any ways, only expecting the result. It is allowed to answer questions if they appear, however, if the leader feels that the employee has too many questions, he/she needs to explain politely that the employee should make the decisions themselves.

- I am sure that you can find a solution yourself.

- I am sorry, I cannot help you with this as this task is your responsibility.

II. Supporting style

As the employee is expected to have skills and experience for a task, the main goal of the leader is to inspire, motivate and support the employee while he/she is fulfilling the task.

Before the task accomplishment:

The leader tells the employee the standard introduction. Afterwards, he/she gives to the employee the picture of the model.

- Here is the picture of the model that you need to build. As it was already said, all the necessary details are in the box. You have 5 minutes and you are free to choose how you are going to build the model. I am not giving any further information, after 5 minutes I will check your result. I believe that this task will not be a problem for you because… (you have already had experience in doing it/ you are very good at doing it/ you have all the necessary abilities to succeed)

Other possible phrases at the beginning of the task:

- If you first think about how exactly you are going to accomplish the task and what steps should be taken in order to build the model, you will easily finish the task on time!

- Imagine, how great it will be when you manage the task!

- You only need to begin and then you will feel that it is in your power to accomplish it.

During the task accomplishment:

The most important for the leader to see when the employee needs to be motivated as it can be during all the stages or only at the beginning/end of the task.

The leader does not give any recommendations; however, he/she should come 2-3 times to the employee and support them during the process.

- You are doing great!

- If you keep going like this, you will finish without any obstacles soon!

- Good job, the most important is not to stop!

- It looks almost like on the picture already!

- Come on! You can do it!

- You have almost finished, donґt stop!

When the employee almost finishes the task:

- You see, you have almost finished! It is great!

- The model looks nice, you only need a couple of details to finish it!

- I knew that you can manage this!

III. Coaching style

The employee is motivated for the task, however, does not have enough skills to accomplish the task. Therefore, the leaderґs task is to give the detailed instructions for the task, the picture of the model and answer all questions that the employee might have. Moreover, the leader should introduce one way of doing the task and persuade the employee that this style is the best one to fulfill the task and that the employee should use exactly this way.

Before the task accomplishment:

The leader tells the employee the standard introduction. Afterwards, he/she gives to the employee the picture of the model.

- Here is the picture of the model that you need to build. Look at it carefully, pay attention to all the colors and try already to understand how the details are connected among each other. Here is the instruction with all the steps how you can build the model. It is clear, which detail you add after which one. Letґs quickly look through the instructions together in case something is not clear for you. I would suggest you to first find and take out of the box all the details that will be necessary for your model and only afterwards start building a model. I believe it will save some time and you will not get distracted from building when you constantly have to interrupt and search for another detail in the box. That is why, I think it is a possible solution for you. Moreover, you probably should start from the bottom as it will be more comfortable for you. You will make the basis of your model and it will be easier for you not to hold parts in your hands but put the model on the table and add the missing parts. Do you have any questions regarding the task and how to build the model? (answer the questions if they appear)

During the task accomplishment:

The leader observes the process monitoring the actions of the employee and correcting him/her if the employee added the wrong detail.

- I guess that it should not be like this.

- If you look at the picture, you will see that the model looks a bit different.

- I guess, that this detail is not the right one. Check the instructions and the picture one more time.

Moreover, the leader answers the questions of the employee if they may appear and also he/she motivates the employee to accomplish the task

- You are doing great!

- If you keep going like this, you will finish without any obstacles soon!

- Good job, the most important is not to stop!

- It looks almost like on the picture already!

- Come on! You can do it!

- You have almost finished, donґt stop!

IV. Directing style

The leader controls, monitors and decides upon every step of the employee.

Before the task accomplishment:

The leader tells the employee the standard introduction. Afterwards, he/she gives to the employee the picture of the model.

Here is the picture of the model that you need to build. Look at it carefully, pay attention to all the colors and try already to understand how the details are connected among each other. Here is the instruction with all the steps how you can build the model. It is clear, which detail you add after which one. Letґs quickly look through the instructions together in case something is not clear for you. Look, the first detail that should be taken is …. (The leader discusses every element of the model with the employee: which detail should be added to the model one after another). I will support you and help you with every step. You always need to discuss it with me whether the model is being built in the right way and only after this you may continue. Should we start?

During the task accomplishment:

The leader always controls and monitors the actions of the employee, checking the task after every step made by the employee.

- So, I think we should start with this part of the model, we need to find this and this details in the box and put them together.

- Okay, that is correct, now you need to add this detail, do you see on the picture?

- No, that is wrong, you need to change this one, it is in the wrong place/of the wrong color

- Let me see what youґve done so far

- Now you need to find this detail and put it here, do you see?

- Let me find this detail

- Now it is right!

Objective productivity measurement

I. Labor productivity measurement

____ unites / 7 min = ____ unites/min

II. a table of correspondence for a task (building a Lego model)

Subjective productivity survey

The employee

1. Speed of your work (mark with the cross)

Low speedFast speed

2. Accuracy of your work

Inaccurate Accurate

3. Productivity

Unproductive Productive

4. Were the instructions of the leader helpful for accomplishment of the task?

5. How do you think, could you be more productive if the instructions were given in a different way? Choose the most suitable option.

Directing (S1): The employee is not involved into the decision-making process; a leader controls and monitors all the activities. The employee gets instructions that describe step by step all the actions that should be taken in order to achieve this goal.	Coaching (S2): a two-way communication, however the leader is still in charge. They offer their way of accomplishing, carefully explain the decision-making process, answer all the possible questions that might appear.	Supporting (S3): a leader shows compassion and support, shares opinions and decision-making with the employee. He pays more attention to the relationship side rather than to the accomplishment of the task relying in this case on the employee.	Delegating (S4) style: the employee is very independent. A leader discusses a task with an employee at the beginning stage and then the employee carries out the task without the additional help and support of a leader.

Job satisfaction survey

	Please circle the one number for each question that comes closest to reflecting your opinion about it	Disagree strongly Disagree moderately Disagree slightly Agree slightly Agree moderately Agree strongly
1	I felt comfortable and confident fulfilling the task	1 2 3 4 5 6
2	I clearly knew what I need to do	1 2 3 4 5 6
3	I felt stressed because I lacked time for the task fulfillment	1 2 3 4 5 6
4	The leader provided me with the enough amount of instructions	1 2 3 4 5 6
5	The leader was monitoring too much my actions during the task fulfillment	1 2 3 4 5 6
6	I expected more help from the side of the leader	1 2 3 4 5 6
7	I got as much support and motivation from the leader as I needed	1 2 3 4 5 6
8	I would prefer to have more freedom accomplishing the task	1 2 3 4 5 6
9	The task was too complicated	1 2 3 4 5 6
10	I enjoyed the process of accomplishing the task	1 2 3 4 5 6
11	I liked the interaction process with the leader during the task	1 2 3 4 5 6
12	I am satisfied with the results of the task	1 2 3 4 5 6

Selections of participants

Part I. Motivation survey

1. Describe the level of your motivation to fulfill the task

2. Explain the reason for your motivation (lack of motivation) for the task

3.

Part II. Abilities.

Example of the questions from the SPAT

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...