A Study Of Leadership Style, Counter Productive Behavior And Group Effectiveness
Abstract
This study is an attempt to solve the dilemma of leadership behaviour of managers towards subordinates. Most of the line past literatures refers to the fact that the heads should be separated from their behaviour depending on the needs of the subject and the level of maturity. But the current study demonstrates that the behaviour of the leader’s segregation hampers the effectiveness of the group. Moreover, this differentiation also leads to an increase in the harmful behaviour of workers. Research data is collected by structured questionnaires from 71 working groups. The study tested a model, which dealt with a group of key leadership and differentiated targeted individual leadership. The research findings revealed that differentiated Individual focused leadership is negatively associated with group efficiency by increasing countermeasures, while group-cantered leadership is positively associated with group efficiency by lowering counterparty productivity. There will also be discussions about the management of the research and the future impacts.
Keywords: LeadershipDifferentiated individual focused leadershipGroup focused leadershipGroup effectivenessCounterproductive work behaviorsLeaders and subordinates
Introduction
This research attempts to solve an unprecedented question of the effect of leadership on the efficiency of a group by examining the role played by the intermediary role of counterproductive work. Previous studies have highlighted the behaviour of leaders in their subordinates and their impact on team performance/group (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). An important issue in research and literature about effective leadership is the lack of consensus on behavioural patterns that are appropriate and relevant to leaders (Bass & Bass, 2009). Some of the 90's in the early twentieth researchers claim that the behaviour of the leadership, differentiation is very important for the leaders, because this leads to personal development of employees. During the last decade of the 20th century leaders in leadership researches and charismatic leaderships were very dominant, so both models and perspectives of transformational and charismatic leadership grew massively (Munduate & Medina, 2004). Transformation leaders are real-minded leaders who lead the win-win strategy. The present study seeks to clarify the apparently different dimensions of the two-variable leadership perspective, that is, individualized goals and teamwork that address the efficiency of a group as a mediator of counterproductive work methods. Literature has been made into two dimensions. The first is the dimension of leadership given by Yammarino, Dionne, Uk Chun and Dansereau (2005). The second dimension is the dimension/perspective of counterfeit behavior, and this is done by conceptualizing the concept of leadership and adverse behaviour at team or workgroup level. This research is unique in that it has analysed the role of Counter Productive Behaviours. The results of investigating the consequences of unbundling the leader also reveal the weakening of the team's efficiency as a result of the differentiation of managers (Wu et al., 2010). The results of the present study suggest that this differentiation not only weakens the efficiency of the group, but also adds harmful behaviors. Working groups are the heart of the 21st century organizations. Organizations where employees work hand in hand under the supervision of the director. In an organization where managers and subordinates often interacted, it was found that the outgoing group of followers stated that they were not appreciated for their payments. As a result, their level of encouragement was also less than the internal group of subgroups / followers. Because of this unrest, they did not express their opinions freely and were suppressed in the groups. In addition, their contribution to organizational decision-making is nominal (Burris, Rodgers, Mannix, Hendron, & Oldroyd, 2009).
This special leadership style brings with it a charismatic or idealized effect element. Modern agenda and leadership literature emphasize that leadership is not just a feature of people sitting in a pinnacle / peak environment, rather than a common property. Leaders are supposed to develop leadership qualities especially for those who work for them. This concept is the essence of transformation leadership, in other words not just leadership, but also the construction of future leaders. Transformation leaders can make dramatic improvements in their organizations because they are not just leaders who are partners with them. They look attentively on their followers according to their parents. They serve as instructors for their subordinates. Four seemingly different dimensions of leadership behaviour generally relate to transformation leadership: (Avolio et al, 2004). Charisma or Idealized Influence (recently has broken into idealized behavioural models and "idealized attributes" (Avolio & Bass, 2004), leaders expresses strong loyalty and arousing emotions in their followers, leaders communicate the significance of organization goals by widespread use of symbols and images using "intellectual stimulation" , which represents the style of leadership that increases the problem solving capabilities of the followers and encourages them to see from a different perspective and from a completely new perspective on the problems they face (Avolio et al, 2004). The symbols and images used by the leaders make learning easier and add to the understanding of all subjects. "In an Individual Review" the director gives personal attention and advice to the followers and acts as an advisor. He guides and guides every employee who works under his supervision. In order to develop the perceptions of common values and beliefs, group-specific transformation leaders need enough time with their followers to influence their value systems that lead to team efficiency. Leaders who own time to followers can better understand and be able to get the most out of them. In reality, leaders and their followers want to share confidence.
Theory and hypothesis
Adding research from an individual to a group level requires two practices to be included in the first, focusing on the whole group, and the second group focusing on individual members of the group. Based on the literature discussed above, a conceptual model is proposed, which includes two management behavioural dimensions, i.e. individualized and group specific. Their impact on the efficiency of a group is directly and indirectly examined through the behaviour of harmful work.
The division of leadership into two parts focusing on individual and second grouping focuses on understanding the topic thoroughly. The upper circuit of Figure
Differentiated Individual Focused Leadership
Research related to differentiated management is encouraged by the LMX theory, which is a Leader member exchange, such as Dansereau, Graen & Haga's (1975) research. The propositions of this theory are that leaders change their behavior/leadership style in response to followers'/individual disagreements and thus offer differentiated individual focused leadership to all members of the group, resulting in subdivisions divided into two groups: the first group is the one who receives more attention from the leader and is closer the leader is called "in." The second group is the one who gets less attention from the leader and is not closer to the leader, and it is on the outer layer and is referred to as the "out." As the name suggests, the inner layer is closer to the leader than The Leader Member Exchange theory suggests that leaders who use different types of leadership use to create groups of followers, so these behaviours lead to grouping of subordinates into two groups, the first group being in the groups, and the other being the out group. The group has a closer relationship with the leader, which is a common example of prevailing job settings, especially in Pakistan. This group enjoys a lot of benefits because of this proximity to the leader. The second group is an outer group that is closer to the leader and feels that he is a delayed child.
High level of differentiation reflects the fact that the group has many notions of the Transformational Leadership style. These perceptions lead the employees to assess their leaders low or high. High grades describe the successors' satisfaction. On the other hand, if there is no separation or is very low, the followers look at the leader from the unified angle and their perceptions are the same in relation to the leader's behaviour are consistent throughout the group with only a small range (Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010). Four constructions based on differentiated individual management are developed and give authority to individual employees. First, House's Charismatic Leadership Theory (Shamir et al, 1993) states that "high expectations of communicating" are those behavioural attitudes that focus on the leader's expectations regarding the quality of work, excellence, and classroom duties performed by followers. Leaders expect subordinates of high-quality work and exceptional performance. Leaders can use a number of techniques to upgrade their subordinates' performance, such as annual and semi-annual reviews. They can also set challenging goals for individual followers. The challenges faced by managers motivated employees to meet their realization needs.
Secondly, "development of a successor" refers to those behaviours that enhance the skills and abilities of individual workers. Bass stated that leaders develop personal abilities of their subordinates "with individual discretion", it is defined so that it takes accurate account of each employee's performance needs. The manager acts as a director or advisor to their subordinates.
Thirdly, "mental stimulation" means cultivating followers through dubious assumptions and achieving challenges in new ways. Creator-driven creativity with the right leadership solutions is very important for employee mental stimulation. For example, leaders can encourage healthy criticism, freedom of expression.
Fourthly, "explicit recognition", as the name suggests, is called to admire and recognize the subordinates to attain the goals by inventing innovative approaches. Admiration and reward are subordinated, as those who reward their achievements will receive positive feedback from the leader and act as a driving force for better performance. This construct comes from an "indirect award" which is the dimension of business orientation that emphasizes when giving and taking relationships, ie by offering them rewards to achieve a certain goal (Bass, 1985).
According to Blakesley (2010) indirect prizes also include emotional exchanges involving executive behaviour that give personal recognition to followers Blakesley (2010). These behaviours have a positive impact on employee engagement and self-efficacy (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004).
Group Focused Leadership
This leadership style is based on the idea that the leader's behaviour is similar to the whole group and as a result of it, the subordinates have almost the same perceptions about the behaviour of their leader. Group Focused Leadership is based on the notion of uniformity of behaviours of the leaders and as a result there is uniformity in the perceptions of the subordinates regarding their leader. In fact, the literature on the group-focused transformational leadership says that in it all the group members experience the same leadership behaviours (Korek, Felfe & Zaepernick-Rothe, 2010). Group-focused leadership rests on the belief of a standardized leadership style, it is based on the notion that leaders look at the group as a whole and as a result treat each of them in the same way (Keller and Dansereau, 1995). The perceptions about the leader's behaviour by the group members are assumed to be the same throughout the group and shared within the entire work unit (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).
There are two types of transformational leadership behaviours i.e., 'inspirational motivation' as well as idealized influence will more likely influence Workgroup as a whole instead of its individual members as both these behaviours emphasize on common purpose and shared values Philosophy. In this particular style, the leaders are very sensitive to the verbal as well as nonverbal cues of their subordinates in order to propose attractive visions to the group members. Both the idealized influence and inspirational motivation lay emphasis on building a collective vision in the organization (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004).
A lot of past reviews and meta-analyses conducted by Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, (2003) and Burke et al. (2006) emphasized that the Styles/Behaviours of Leaders provide guidance and support to the work groups in achieving the organizational targets.
Indicators of Group focused leadership
Firstly, 'emphasizing group identity' may be demonstrated as laying stress on mutual characteristics among the group members (Shamir et al, 1993). Those leaders who work on the existence of mutual characteristics among the group members are able to create the separate identity of the Workgroup / work team that they supervise. These behaviours are demonstrated in the dimension of idealized influence. In this dimension the followers admire and respect their leaders provided that they give more importance to the group as a whole work unit, by laying stress on the collective identity. Secondly, 'communicating a group vision' means that the leader displays an ideally attractive picture of the group's future. In this particular mode, the leader talks impressively about the optimistic future of the organization. 'Inspirational Motivation', refers to those behaviours that motivate and inspire the subordinates and direct them towards shared vision that ultimately will boost the confidence of group members towards collective goals. For example, leaders can talk optimistically and confidently about the bright future of the group by focusing on the passionate medium term plans of the upcoming years.
Secondly, team building is described as the behaviour of a leader who is aimed at inspiring cooperation, resolving conflicts and promoting mutual trust among group members. In other words, in his very perspective, the leader performs the function of integration of the Workgroup. Integration is an important aspect of Human Resource Management. Although team building is one of the core leadership behaviours, yet it is ignored by the majority of researchers. This dimension emphasizes that the leader must ensure that the whole group moves in the same direction towards one common goal (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).
Counterproductive Behaviours
As far as the definition of counterproductive work behaviours is concerned, it is commonly referred to as those behaviours in which the employees voluntarily or intentionally get involved and are against the interests of their organization. It is a term that refers to those behaviours of employees that harm an organization and its employees. The existence of these behaviours is very alarming for the wellbeing of all the employees working in that particular organization and are also a major hindrance in the achievement of organizational goals. Benett and Robinson have called these behaviours as deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Group Effectiveness
According to Sundstrom, De Meuse, and Futrell (1990) The term "work team" or "work group" refers to the group of individuals / persons who share a common responsibility and are interdependent on one another and are collectively / jointly responsible for the outcomes of the entire Workgroup. ("Team" and "group" are used interchangeably here.) "Group effectiveness" includes both group viability and group performance (Sundstrom et al., 1990).
Indicators of Group Effectiveness
Performance of teams is the best guide to measuring the effectiveness of teams. Work performance/efficiency can be measured by a variety of techniques, both traditional and modern evaluation methods can be used to measure team/team performance. The viability of the group suggests that a working group can also make an effective contribution in the future. The third indicator used to measure the efficiency of a group is social norms.
“There is a positive relationship between Group focused leadership and group effectiveness”.
The introduction of the leadership process in the organization is properly distributed and implemented from the point of view of the efficiency of a team chairman, depending on the successor's perception of the leader as a group member. If the leader is able to represent the group's identity, which is considered to be a key role, it will lead to the effectiveness of leadership. The theory of social identity is based on the above principles (Van Knippenberg, 2011). In this particular style, the leader follows the configuration approach (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) in that the behaviour of the leaders is different among the different members of the group, giving more attention and attention to certain elected members by giving them more benefits. As a result, different members of the same group have varying experiences of leadership.
There is a negative relationship between Individual focused leadership and group effectiveness.
So the hypothesis of the current study is a hypothesis that is the first. The results of Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolon and Sutton (2011) reported on the influence of leadership transformation on the efficiency of the group and the leader's personal values. The effectiveness of the organization could be improved by affective engagement (Kunze et., 2015). According to Mount, Ilies and Johnson (2006) Counterproductive behaviours are largely related to the behaviour of leaders towards their subordinates.
Individual focused leadership relates positively to counterproductive behaviour.
Counteractive Behavior Behavior can be a kind of protest against the organization's employees' unfair injustice. Literacy in Contextual Behavior shows that these behaviors can be both collective and individuals. These are also related to individual and organizational deviance.
Counterproductive Behaviour mediates the relationship between group focused leadership and group effectiveness.
Counteractive behaviour may be related to the manager's different treatment of employees. This conveys the relationship between the individual targeted transformation leader and the efficiency of the group (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter & Ng, 2001).
Counterproductive Behaviour mediates the relationship between individual focused leadership and group effectiveness.
Counteracting behavioural patterns are also called distortions of some of the researchers in the labour force who consider labour deviance to be related to a number of factors such as weighting requirements, stress and strain, etc. These requirements may in turn increase the level of stress associated with harmful work behaviour.
Problem Statement
An important issue in research and literature about effective leadership is the lack of consensus on behavioural patterns that are appropriate and relevant to leaders (Bass & Bass, 2009). Some of the 90's in the early twentieth researchers claim that the behaviour of the leadership, differentiation is very important for the leaders, because this leads to personal development of employees. During the last decade of the 20th century leaders in leadership researches and charismatic leaderships were very dominant, so both models and perspectives of transformational and charismatic leadership grew massively (Munduate & Medina, 2004). Transformation leaders are real-minded leaders who lead the win-win strategy. The present study seeks to clarify the apparently different dimensions of the two-variable leadership perspective, that is, individualized goals and teamwork that address the efficiency of a group as a mediator of counterproductive work methods.
Research Questions
-
What is the impact of group focused leadership on counterproductive behaviours?
-
What is the impact of differentiated individual focused leadership on counterproductive behaviour?
-
What is the impact of counterproductive behaviour on group effectiveness?
-
What is the impact of group focused leadership on group effectiveness?
-
What is the impact of differentiated individual focused leadership on group effectiveness?
-
What is the mediating role of counterproductive behaviour between the relationship of focused leadership and group effectiveness?
-
What is the mediating role of counterproductive behaviour between the relationship of differentiated individual focused leadership and group effectiveness?
Purpose of the Study
The past literature has raised open questions as to how leaders can improve team efficiency and motivate individual employees at the same time. What behavioural leaders must describe in order to improve the development of an individual and group at the same time as individualized individual management facilitates employee development only to employees who receive more attention from their leaders and have negative impacts on others. Literature also suggests ways to reduce contradictory behaviour, which is a hot issue nowadays due to the enormous costs associated with these behaviours. The results of this study are supported by the Leader Member Exchange theory, and this theory states that when leaders differentiate their behaviour toward followers, they are divided into two groups, namely group and group. The group has employees who get more personal attention from their leaders and are closer to the leader.
Research Methods
In the current study, primary data is collected through structured questionnaires. The first survey sample consisted of 80 working people working full time in Faisalabad public sector and private sector, including healthcare, banking, textiles and education. The heterogeneity and diversity of the study sample increases the generalizability of the results of the current research. Out of the study samples, the groups with a response rate below 60% were excluded. The final sample consisted of 71 group leaders and 475 respondents. The working groups consist of 2-15 members. The average size of the group was 6.9 and the standard deviation of the group 2.58 and the response rate in each group ranged from 95 to 100 percent. As mentioned above, the survey data was collected by structured questionnaires. The members of the group filled out questionnaires on the behaviour of directors and their own behaviour in computing productivity, while managers completed questionnaires on the effectiveness of the team. A hypothetical model is proposed (Figure 3.1), which has been tested for the hypothesis mentioned in the previous chapter. Regression equations are proposed for testing the hypothesis. Sobel products are calculated by direct and indirect effects. Two regression models provide two coefficients given in equations 1 and 2 for group-specific management. Similarly, equations 3 and 4 are proposed for individual regenerative leadership differentiated for two regression models and the results are reviewed by Preacher & Hayes, 2004).
Leadership
Items of leadership are extracted from the multifactor leadership questionnaire. (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The complete instrument regarding both individual focused and group focused Leadership is the same as adopted by Wang & Howell, (2010). ‘All items are recorded on a five point likert scale (Ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree)’ (Wang & Howell, 2010).
Counterproductive work behaviour
The Counter Productive work behaviour is measured through Counterproductive Work Behaviour tool as developed and used by Spector and Fox, (2003). 17 items are taken from the instrument developed by them (Spector and Fox, 2003). ‘’All the responses are recorded on a five point likert scale’’ ( 1= never, 2= very rarely, 3= sometimes,4= frequently,5= daily).
Group Effectiveness
Group performance
The five-item scale for measuring group performance was taken from Neuman (2000). Model group performance items were “This team meets all objectives for work completed” and “This group is very good at planning how to accomplish its work objectives” ( Neuman, 2000). Group performance will also be measured by the help of five point Likert scale.
Group viability
Two item of team viability scale are taken from Evans and Mathur, (2005) and DeStephen and Hirokawa (1988). Sample/model items were “My team should continue working together as a unit in the future”. Two items have been taken from the tool developed by Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998).
Social Norms
The scale for measurement of social norms was taken from the “need for affiliation scale” named as “Manifest Needs Questionnaire” The wording of the items was changed from individual to group level to make them fit for measurement of group effectiveness.
Findings
As the data regarding Individual Focused Leadership, Group Focused Leadership and counterproductive behaviour was gathered from subordinates working under leaders. Therefore aggregation of data was done. In order to justify the aggregation of data ICC(1) and ICC(2) values were calculated separately for all the variables one by one. The values of ICC (1) and ICC(2) ensure the validity of the research data. The results of ICC(1) justify that the people effects are random whereas ICC(2) value ensure that both the effects of people and measures are random(Wu et al., 2010).
Although the value of both ICC(1) and (ICC 2) are a bit higher and this may be due to variation in the group sizes which as shown in the graph given below. Secondly due to non-interaction among the group members these values are a little higher. Although these values are higher yet the aggregation of data is justified.
Computation of direct and indirect effects
Indirect effects are computed by multiplying two regression coefficients obtained from two regression models and is similar to Jude and Kenny’s (1981) approach. The direct effects are shown through t value. The data regarding differentiated individual Focused Leadership and Group Focused Leadership is analysed in two steps. In the first step the effects of group focused leadership and counterproductive Behaviour on group effectiveness are checked. This is done through integration of Sobel and SPSS(Preacher & Leonardelli, 2003).
This table shows direct indirect and overall effects. The first column shows the paths the first three paths represent the direct paths whereas the fourth path is the indirect path. The last column shows the level of significance all paths i.e, direct and indirect paths are significant and this supports partial mediation effects.
In the second step the second mediation model incorporated in it the other independent variable i.e, Differentiated Individual Focused style of leadership with the same mediator as in the first model i.e, Counterproductive work behaviour.
The table shows that the group effectiveness relates negatively to both counterproductive behaviour and individual focused leadership whereas the individual focused leadership relates positively to counterproductive behaviour.
The third path also depicts negativity of relationship as counterproductive behavior is also negatively associated/ related to group effectiveness. The fifth column shows the significance of all the paths that shows partial mediation.
The group effectiveness which is the most critical element is the current research is reported in the above graph/bar chart. The different lengths along the bar chart show the effectiveness of the different groups. Those bars whose length is smaller are representing the in-effective groups whereas the bars of longer length represent the effective group of the study as reported by the managers/ leaders.
Results and Discussion
This study has tested the effects of two independent variables, namely individualized individual management and group-specific management of the team's efficiency. The results of the study showed that the management's leadership behaviour is conducive to the efficiency of the group, while the differentiated individual focus on leadership has a negative impact on the efficiency of the team. The results of the study support the partial conciliation of harmful behaviours in the case of independent variables (individualized individual and group-specific managers) in relation to dependent variables. The results of this study on group-centric leadership are in conflict with previous research results with Burke et al. (2006) with a differentiated Individual Focused Leadership, as it reduces the overall effectiveness of the group. These observations are also against the general wisdom of Hirschhorn (1992), he gave a common wisdom which simply stated that each leader must understand deeply the needs of each person/subject. The leader-led group successfully seeks out to address individualized individual needs, together with the needs of the group. But the current study finds that managers cannot respond to the individual needs of their followers at the expense of the needs of the whole group as it acts as a barrier to the effectiveness of the group. Secondly, this study also reveals the role of mediator of adversarial behaviour, organizations with evidence of harmful behaviours are in danger of the effectiveness of the group, regardless of the management style, and the results also reinforce the role of the mediator of malicious behaviour.
Conclusion
In the first phase, the effect of the Group's centralized leadership is reviewed through the efficiency of the group as an intermediary that is counter-productive. Significant results of both direct and indirect impacts show that there is a close link between leadership behaviour and group efficiency, while adverse behaviour mediates the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
The effects of the group leading to individualized leadership identified in the second stage on the effectiveness of the group are reviewed through an intermediary. The empirical findings of the research suggest that differentiated individual management weakens or reduces group efficiency while group-specific management increases the efficiency of the team.
The conclusion is that the careful selection of the leader's behaviour is important but not enough to eliminate harmful behaviours that reduce the efficiency of the team. Efforts should therefore be made to reduce these factors causing behaviour.
It is now proposed that future researchers should explore leadership at group-level phenomena by taking into account the impact of group-level views on the successor's welfare. Leaders should understand the meaning of "Me" and "I" in groups (Hogg & Reid, 2006).
The research has raised open questions as to how leaders can improve team efficiency and motivate individual employees at the same time. What behavioural leaders must describe in order to improve the development of an individual and group at the same time as individualized individual management facilitates employee development only to employees who receive more attention from their leaders and have negative impacts on others. This result also suggests ways to reduce contradictory behaviour, which is a hot issue nowadays due to the enormous costs associated with these behaviours. The results of this study are supported by the Leader Member Exchange theory, and this theory states that when leaders differentiate their behaviour toward followers, they are divided into two groups, namely group and group. The group has employees who get more personal attention from their leaders and are closer to the leader.
Future implications
This research can help guide leadership behaviour as it tells them to distinguish or undermine the followers; it is a continuation of the research on the effect of leadership on group efficiency, where they presented the role of different members of the group's experiences (Wu et al., 2010). The negative effect of distributed decentralized individual leadership is also indirect but harmful behaviour. This research is unique and different, because it involves a changing factor in context behaviour. The research aims to make a healthy contribution to literature in leadership style and in the literature of harmful behaviour.
This study is also contradicted by the findings of Fiedler (1978), which considers that leaders must use a differentiated management style to cope, in particular, with the circumstances and characteristics of the successors.
The empirical evidence of the study can help guide the behaviour of people who can learn from the results of this study that if they draw their attention to individuals, they must do so at the expense of the group's efficiency.
Because of leadership in individual focused leadership, individuals with less attention from the leader feel that they are being denied justice and are committed to harmful behaviours that undermine the effectiveness of the team. The negative impact of differentiated management on the efficiency of a group is a direct and indirect agent (Counter Productive Behaviour).
Limitations of the study
Each study carried out has certain limitations that need to be addressed as they serve as a useful guide for future researchers when they open up tools for those areas where the gap is loosened and they can expand their research at the same time. First of all, this research focuses primarily on group-specific and differentiated individual-focused leadership, which are the areas of change management. Future research may be another type of leadership, such as leadership, leadership and business leadership, a much more realistic style. Secondly, this study has taken into account the role of mediator of adversarial work behaviour; future researchers can test the role of variable variables in this scenario. Thirdly, the Group Focused Leadership (ICC) 2 values are not very satisfactory, but support the pooling of data, and this is due to the size of the groups being grouped, as some of the groups consist of only two who work with one boss. Fourth, due to time and resources, the sample size of the group leaders is only 71 and 475 respondents. Finally, future researchers may have working groups with more respondents to improve the generalizability of research results. Current studies also include very small workgroups with only two or three respondents. There is not much consistency in the sizes of the groups for a limited time and resources; In addition, it is not possible to generalize the results of the results of the research, as coherence can only be achieved at the expense of generalizability. On the other hand, group variation can be reduced in future studies.
References
- Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnarie: Manual & Review Copy. Mind Garden.
- Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of organizational behavior, 25(8), 951-968.
- Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 83(3), 377.
- Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan.
- Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.
- Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 207.
- Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of applied psychology, 85(3), 349.
- Blakesley, S. (2010). Storytelling as an Insightful Tool for Understanding Educational Leadership in Indigenous Yukon Contexts. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy.
- Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The leadership quarterly, 17(3), 288-307.
- Burris, E. R., Rodgers, M. S., Mannix, E. A., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2009). Playing favorites: The influence of leaders' inner circle on group processes and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(9), 1244-1257.
- Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425.
- Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational behavior and human performance, 13(1), 46-78.
- DeStephen, R., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1988). Small group consensus: Stability of group support of the decision, task process, and group relationships. Small Group Behavior, 19(2), 227-239.
- Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of organizational change management, 17(2), 177-193.
- Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435-457.
- Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet research, 15(2), 195-219.
- Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The Contingency Model and the Dynamics of the Leadership Process1. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 59-112). Academic Press.
- Hirschhorn, L. (2002). Managing in the new team environment: Skills, tools, and methods. iUniverse.
- Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Sutton, A. W. (2011). Person-organization value congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 779-796.
- Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self‐categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication theory, 16(1), 7-30.
- Keller, T., & Dansereau, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 48(2), 127-146.
- Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational research methods, 3(3), 211-236.
- Korek, S., Felfe, J., & Zaepernick-Rothe, U. (2010). Transformational leadership and commitment: A multilevel analysis of group-level influences and mediating processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 364-387.
- Kunze, F., Raes, A. M., & Bruch, H. (2015). It matters how old you feel: Antecedents and performance consequences of average relative subjective age in organizations. Journal of applied psychology, 100(5), 1511.
- Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel psychology, 59(3), 591-622.
- Munduate, L., & Medina, F. (2004). Power, authority, and leadership. Encyclopedia of applied psychology, 10, 91-99.
- Neuman, W. L. (2000). The meanings of methodology. Social research methods, 60-87.
- Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
- Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717-731.
- Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2003). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Retrieved January 5, 2005.
- Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The leadership quarterly, 15(3), 329-354.
- Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization science, 4(4), 577-594.
- Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2003). Reducing subjectivity in the assessment of the job environment: Development of the Factual Autonomy Scale (FAS). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 417-432.
- Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American psychologist, 45(2), 120.
- Van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1078-1091.
- Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of applied psychology, 95(6), 1134.
- Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90-106.
- Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human relations, 43(10), 975-995.
- Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 879-919.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
01 May 2018
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-039-6
Publisher
Future Academy
Volume
40
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-1231
Subjects
Business, innovation, sustainability, environment, green business, environmental issues
Cite this article as:
Shahzad, M. A., & Dongjun, D. (2018). A Study Of Leadership Style, Counter Productive Behavior And Group Effectiveness. In M. Imran Qureshi (Ed.), Technology & Society: A Multidisciplinary Pathway for Sustainable Development, vol 40. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1096-1110). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.05.87