Role of Leadership

Transactional leadership is found significantly related to job success while transformational leadership and job success are found highly related with career satisfaction. The results of regression analysis show that job success is more dependent on transformational and transactional leadership as compared to career satisfaction. Managerial implications are presented based upon these results. JELL Classifications: MOM, MOM Keywords: Transactional leadership, transformational leadership, job success and career satisfaction.

Introduction Organizations all over the world are deeply concerned with understanding, searching and developing leadership. Regardless of the type of organization, leadership is discerned to play a vital role in establishing high performing teams. Leaders are facing greater challenges than ever before due to the increased environmental complexity and the changing nature of the organization. If we trace back into history, it becomes evident that leaders should have the ability to draw out changes in relation with environmental demands.

The current era not only demands having a competitive edge and sustained profitability but also the maintenance of ethical standards, complying with civic commitments and establishing a safe and equitable work environment. Leadership is one of the critical elements in enhancing organizational performance. Being responsible or the development and execution of strategic organizational decisions, leaders have to acquire, develop and deploy organizational resources optimally in order to bring out the best products and services in the best interest of stakeholders.

In short, effective leadership is the main cause of competitive advantage for any kind of organization (GHz et al. , 2005; Viola, 1999; Load et al. , 1992; Rowe, 2001 Leaders are conferred the opportunity to lead, not because they are appointed by senior managers; they lead because they are perceived and accepted by followers as leaders (Baseman, 2008). In fact a leader has to provide the followers what is needed to keep them productive and proceed towards the shared vision.

But if the leaders fail to provide what was promised before, it flourishes the sense of distrust and De-motivation. Thus a leader needs to be focused on his followers’ needs both within and outside the organization to keep them moving ahead consistently. Another main quality of a leader is “foresight”. Leaders can anticipate the future likelihoods and plan alternative strategies to meet uncertainties. Such traits are common in historical leaders. This sense of anticipation is believed to be innate and cannot be produced in managers.

O Prague Development Center www. Pipe. CZ -29- Business & Economic Horizons career satisfaction BE-I-I, April, 2010 Theoretical background and research model Literature on leadership shows a progressive pattern, which starts from focusing on the attributes and characteristics of a leader, then concentrates on behavior and later emphasizes on the conceptualized nature of the leadership. The concept of leadership starts with the unique focus on the theory of “Great Man”.

The proponent of the great man theory assumes that leaders are born and eave innate qualities; therefore, leaders cannot be made. The word “Man” was deliberately used to signify the role of males only. Initially, leaders were thought to be those having success stories which were largely associated with military men (Bolder, 2004). Even management scholars and organizational psychologists are still in favor of the great man idea (Organ, 1996). Early research on leadership further sheds light on the common traits that distinguish leaders from followers.

The underlined philosophy pertained, if anyone has traits such as adaptive, responsive, ambitious, achievement-orientated, assertive, decisive, energetic, resisters, self-confident etc, then he is a leader or potential leader (Stodgily, 1974; McCall, 1983). Later the leadership theories were more inclined towards behavioral styles that leaders exhibited in the past. Behavioral paradigms were stimulated to know the behavioral aspects of leaders so that people could be trained as leaders (Robbins and Coulter, 2009).

The next school of thought originated in the form of situational theories, which assumed that appropriate leaders’ behavior varies from one situation to another. The best course of action or leadership behavior is required in accordance with the situational variable Griffin, 1999). Subsequent and almost similar theories were proposed as contingency theory which was primarily concerned with specific environmental variables that determine the best leadership style suited with the situation.

No uniform leadership style is the best rather various variables like the leadership style, qualities of the followers and aspects of the situation play significant role in overall success (Hicks and Gullet, 1987; Griffin, 1999). Contemporary literature on leadership mainly focuses on the two main dimensions of leadership i. E. Transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is entered on elderflower exchanges. Followers perform according to the will and direction of the leaders and leaders positively reward the efforts.

The baseline is reward which can be negative like punitive action, if followers fail to comply with or it can be positive like praise and recognition, if subordinates comply with the intent and direction settled by a leader and achieve the given objectives. Four core facets of transactional leadership as described by Shoehorning et al. , (2000) are contingent rewards, active management by exception, passive management by exception and laissez-fairer. Other center of attention for most of the researchers and experts is transformational leadership which shows the other extreme.

Transformational leaders alter the beliefs and attitudes of followers and inspire the subordinates in their own interests parallel with the betterment of the organization (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders facilitate new understandings by increasing or altering awareness of issues. Resultantly, they foster inspiration and excitement to put extra efforts to achieve common goals. According to Burns (1978), transformational leadership is also based on four dimensions such as charisma, communication, intellectual automation and individualized consideration.

Some researchers interchangeably use transformational leadership as charismatic leadership. But according to McLain and AY-Mari (2008), numerous differences between these two terms exist like charisma being one among the qualities of a transformational leader rather than the sole element, the effect of situational variableness or uncertainty on both approaches, transformational behavior De-emphasizing charisma, the charismatic leader’s possible self-centeredness and the probable negative effects of charismatic leadership (McLain and Lamar, 2008).

It is also leveled that transformational leadership is more prevalent at upper levels of management than at lower levels (Itchy and Chichi, 1984. ) Transactional and transformational leadership has been of great interest to many researchers in the current era. Adopting either transformational and transactional leadership behavior helps in the success of the organization (Leviathan et al. , 2009). This might be the reason that different authors of the recent past considered transactional and transformational leadership as predicating variables and investigated their relatedness with other criterion variables.

Both ramifications leadership and transactional leadership help in predicting subordinates’ satisfaction with their leaders (Bennett, 2009). However, in some situations both cannot provide the ultimate satisfaction to their subordinate and partially contribute as explanatory variables. As the study of Chem. et al. , (2005) found that followers were satisfied with the contingent reward dimension of transactional leaders and individualize consideration of transformational leaders.

In the same way the study of Jansen et al. , (2009) concluded that the transformational leadership behaviors contribute – 30 C Prague Development Center www. Pipe. CZ BEN, April, 2010 significantly to exploratory innovation while transactional leadership behaviors facilitate improving and extending existing knowledge and are associated with exploitative innovation (Jansen et al. , 2009). Transactional and transformational leadership behaviors provided varying results in different scenarios.

In some situations, transformational leadership behavior was found significantly affecting predicting variable and in some cases transactional leadership behavior. Transactional leadership style provides high satisfaction and organizational identification as compared to transformational leadership style (Www, 2009; Patriotic and Martin, 2005) despite the reason transactional leaders have substantial influence on the followers (Baseman, 2008). At contrast, in another study transformational leadership had large influence on followers’ performance and innovation than transactional leaders (Brenner et al. 2007) as well as it was more significantly associated with team cohesiveness, work unit effectiveness and organizational learning as compared to transactional leadership (Stashes and Slowly, 2006; Lowe et al. 1996; Agrees et al. , 2008). Transformational leaders also help in the acceptance of organizational change (Boomer et al. , 2004) especially when it is about accepting technology and acquisition (Speeches et al. , 2005; Mechanic and Keller, 2007).

Having effective communication skills, transformational leaders tend to have higher agreement on the strategic goals of the organization (Person and Viola, 2004). They voluntarily help their employees and prevent the occurrence of work-related problems (Person and Viola, 2004), which ultimately enhances job satisfaction among employees (Scandal and Williams 2004; Mechanic and Keller, 2007). They become more committed and have less turnover intentions (Scandal and Williams, 2004; Rafter and Mark, 2004). Figure 1. Search Model The success stories of transformational leaders are manifold. At contrast to transactional leaders, normally transformational leadership was given extensive support in most of the organizational setting. As the findings of MacKenzie et al. , (2001) revealed that transformational behaviors had strong association with sales performance and organizational citizenship behavior than transactional leader behaviors. In addition, transformational leadership had important effects on creativity at both the individual and organizational levels (Smuggling and Lisle, 2007).

Therefore, managers at upper level exercising the transformational leadership may yield a competitive advantage to the organization (GHz et al. , 2005). Extensive research has been conducted on contemporary leadership styles and their impact on different constructs, however significant contribution conceptualized with Pakistani environment is yet to be imparted. Therefore, this study was an attempt to determine the impact of transformational and ramifications leadership style on job success and career satisfaction. 31- Methodology Participants Organizations operating in the capital city of Pakistan were treated as the population of this study. An attempt was made to collect responses from the private sector only, therefore, Task, Hawaii, Manson and other companies were approached for data collection. Incumbents working at the lower and middle level of management with at least five years length of service were targeted as they are in better position to apprise about the leadership behavior of their supervisor, job success and career satisfaction. Procedure

It was also decided to collect at least 50 questionnaires from each organization for equal representation therefore, a total of 100 questionnaires were floated in each organization using inviolability convenience (accidental / haphazard) sampling method. Questionnaires also contained brief background information about the purpose of the study and measures of confidentiality. Questionnaires were mailed to the respondents; however in some cases self-administered surveys were also conducted. Surveys were completed anonymously and returned to the researchers.

Later, data was punched and analyzed through SPAS-17. O. Measures Transformational leadership and Transactional Leadership (TTL) Transformational Leadership style was assessed with 13-times of transformational Leadership Behavior Inventory (TTL) developed by Foodstuff et al. , (1990). This scale originally measures six dimensions of transformational leadership however, three core transformational leader behavior dimensions i. E. Articulating a vision, having high performance expectations and providing intellectual stimulation, were investigated based on a five point Liker scale (MacKenzie et al. 2001) ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Contingent reward and contingent punishment were used as two dimensions to measure transactional leadership behavior. Contingent punishment was assessed with three items based on the study of Photodiodes et al. (1984) while a four-item contingent reward behavior scale was assessed based on the study of Foodstuff et al. (1984); Foodstuff and Organ (1986). All the seven items were based on five point Liker scale ranging from 1 to 5. Career Satisfaction Career satisfaction was measured through five items developed by Greenhouse et al. , (1990).

Participants indicated the extent to which they were currently satisfied tit the income, advancement, goals, acquiring new skills and success achieved during span of their career on a five point Liker scale ranging from 1 to 5. Job Success The construct of job success was measured through various perceived facets of their jobs like their emotional attachment with the job, satisfaction with performance, achievements comparing colleagues, earnings and supervisor’s satisfaction. Five items were taken from the study of Smithies (2007) and the participants responded to each item on a five-point Liker scale ranging from 1 to 5.

After proper punching of data in the SPAS-17. O, Cockroach’s alpha coefficients (Table 1) were calculated which showed high reliability of the instrument. Table 1 . Cockroach’s alpha coefficients Variables Job Success Career Satisfaction Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership Cockroach’s Alpha S . 847 . 814. 919. 742 N of Items 55 137 -32 O Prague Development Center vow. Pipe. CZ Data analysis The Respondents Survey respondents included 65% males and 35% females. Majority of the respondents were between 21 years to 30 years of age showing 54% of whole sample while between the age ranges 31 to 40 were 34%.

Furthermore, 48% f respondents had master level of education while 38% MS/M. Phil level of education. Above master level were as low as 6%. It was attempted to collect responses from both levels therefore the responses were collected from managerial (45%) and non-managerial (55%) levels. It was also found that the monthly earning of majority of the respondents (45%) ranged between RSI. 21 000 to 30 000. Respondents earning more than 30 000 monthly income were around 38% and below than RSI. 21 000 were 17% only.

Moreover, 56% respondents had 1-5 years’ experience while the other significant figure of 23% was for employees tit work experience ranging between 6 to 10 years with their respective organization. The rest of the figures calculated in this regard were 3% and 18% for less than a year and 10 years or above, respectively. Table 2. Demographic analysis Age 20 or below 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41 or above Male Female Bachelors Masters MS/M. Phil PhD 2% 26% 28% 17% 17% 9% 65% 35% 8% 48% 38% 6% Job Income Level Managerial Non Managerial Below 1 0,000 11,000-20,000 21 31 41 Above 50,000 Less than a year 1-5 yr. -10 yr. 10 or above 55% 2% 15% 45% 15% 12% 23% Gender Qualification Years with this Organization Descriptive Analysis Table 3. Descriptive analysis Statistic 3. 7113 3. 5538 3. 5774 3. 7639 Mean Stud. Error . 05448 . 06565 . 05925 . 04231 Stud. Deviation . 84226 1. 01 285. 91604. 65414 Variance . 709 1. 026. 839. 428 Job Success Career Satisfaction Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership Aggregate mean of 3. 58 for transformational leadership explains the employees’ perception about a facilitating and team oriented leadership style of the supervisor.

The managers are not only concerned with reward and punishment but also consider their personal feelings before acting. The mean value of 3. 71 for bob success signifies that employees consider their job a success story. It reveals their positive attitude towards their earnings, career progressions, supervisors and career achievements. The mean value for career satisfaction is calculated as 3. 55 depicting the satisfaction level of employees toward different parameters associated with their span of career.

Employees are C Prague Development -33- Descriptive analysis reveals positive results of all variables (Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, job success and career satisfaction). The highest calculated mean value 3. 76 of transactional leadership shows that employees feel that their supervisors always give them positive feedback when they perform well and even points them out when their performance is not up to the mark. Found highly satisfied with the progress they have made towards meeting their goals for income, advancement, development of new skills etc.

In a nutshell, they are satisfied with the progress they have made towards overall career goals. Correlation values given in Table 4 show that both independent variables are positively correlated with dependent variables. Transformational and transactional leadership styles are found positively related to job success and rarer satisfaction. The highest value of 059 between job success and career satisfaction shows that when employees feel that their earnings are better than their colleagues’ earning and they have acquired a good position upward in the hierarchy, it generates a sense of emotional attachment with their organization.

All such feelings further lead towards satisfaction with career goals and achievements. A high positive correlation value 0. 54 between transformational leadership and career satisfaction shows that when a supervisor explicitly articulates a vision, establishes group norms and provides a model for success, t ultimately leads to satisfaction with the income, advancement and skill development throughout the career. Table 4. Correlation Matrix Success Leadership 1 Career Satisfaction 1 Transformational Leadership . 462** . 545** 1 . 333** Transactional Leadership The correlation value of 0. 2 between transformational leadership and job success reveals that when a supervisor appreciates innovative ideas and challenges his follower to think about old problems in new ways, it subsequently provides a feeling of job success which further discerns a sense of attachment with the organization. Transformational leadership style is also found highly correlated with job success. The correlation value of 0. 46 between these two pertains to a positive but relatively insignificant relationship between transformational leadership and job success.

It shows that when the supervisor settles group goals and foster group norms, it ultimately provides sheer satisfaction with supervisor and emotional attachment with the organization. Table 5. Regression analysis R 0. 683 R Square 0. 466 TLS (XSL and XX) on JUS (Y) Adjusted R Square 0. 461 Standardized Coefficients Stud. Error 0. 2498 0. 0467 0. 0652 Beta 0. 830 0. 5344 stud. Error of the Estimate 0. 619 t 0. 7549 5. 5886 10. 5536 Sigh. 0. 4511 0. 0000 0. 0000 (Constant) Transformational Leadership Transactional Leadership Unsubstantiated Coefficients B 0. 886 0. 2610 0. 6877 Table 5 presents the regression outcomes, which shows that the dependence of transformational leadership and transactional leadership TLS (independent variables) on job success JUS (independent variable). Regression analysis shows that 45. 39 % of the variation in job success is explained by two independent variables, while 54. 61% is the inherent or unexplained variability. Correlation efficient, express the degree to which two or more predictors, independent variables are related to the dependent variable.

We have the values of explanatory coefficients as 0. 26 and 0. 68, respectively. Their “t” values show the significant and comparatively high relatedness of both predicting variables with criterion variable. -34- Table 6. Regression analysis R 0. 550 R Square 0. 302 TLs (XSL and XX) on CSS (Y) Adjusted R Square 0. 296 Standardized Coefficients Stud. Error 0. 3435 0. 0642 0. 0896 Beta 0. 5128 0. 0915 stud. Error of the Estimate 0. 851 t 2. 8834 8. 8468 1. 5782 Sigh. 0. 0043 0. 0000 0. 1159 Unsubstantiated Coefficients B 0. 9903 0. 5681 0. 414 Table 6 shows the results of the impact of both transformational leadership and transactional leadership (independent variable) on career satisfaction (dependent variable). All it shows that both predicting variables explain around 29. 28% variability in criterion variable while 70. 72% is the inherent variability or the variability explained by other extraneous variables. The coefficient values were determined as 0. 57 and O. 14 (Table 6) for explanatory variables. In this second model, only the coefficient value of transformational leadership is found significant as t = 8. Tables 5 and 6 confirm the interdependence of transformational and transactional leadership styles on job success and career satisfaction. The independent variables are found highly predictive for the dependent variables as the impact is much higher. Furthermore, coefficient vales are also found significant. Conclusion Data collected through questionnaires shows that employees working in the private sector perceive supervisors as more inclined towards exercising transactional leadership style as compared to transformational leadership style.

They share an exchange relationship with their employees. Rewards and punishments are the tools that are being used to positively and negatively influence the person. Since the transactional leadership is based on contingent reward and punishment behavior, therefore supervisors positively reward the individuals with praise or recognition when they perform at or above expectations. Similarly, negative rewarding approach is also used in the form of correction, coercion, criticism, and/or other forms of punishment, when performance is below the expected standard.

The analysis further gives the positive and relatively higher value of transformational leadership style which vales that partial or full transformational leadership approach has also been applied, which is about a visionary manager with cohesive group norms and establishing innovative thinking within the groups. In addition to transactional leadership style, some employees think that their managers also articulate a clear vision and provide a model for group or departmental success.

They are focuses to flourish new ideas and innovative thinking to bring out great performance. About job success and career satisfaction, employees are found highly satisfied with what they have achieved during the span of their career eke earning, advancement, skill development and professional goals. Moreover, they also feel that their supervisors are satisfied with them and they feel a sense of emotional attachment with the organization they are working with, which ultimately gives them a sense of job success.

The correlation results show a significant relationship between transformational leadership style with career satisfaction. Supervisors who have a clear vision and facilitate the acceptance of group goals lead towards satisfaction with different parameters associated with career. Another high correlation value between job success and career attestation shows that when employees have a sense of emotional attachment with their organization, it is because of the achievements that he/she acquired during course of time.

Transactional leadership style is found positively and significantly related to job success as compared to transformational leadership style, which pertains to the provision of either positive rewards in case of meeting established goals or negative rewards when the performer fails to achieve the desired objectives.