ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2
Acknowledgement
The Author is using this opportunity to express the gratitude to everyone who
supported me throughout the course of this MBA project.
I am thankful for their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticism and
friendly advice during the project work.
I am sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and illuminating views on a
number of issues related to the project.
I am expresses warm thanks to Brooklyn Academy, Mr. Sayed El-Taweel for their
support and guidance.
Finally I would also like to thank my MBA colleague MS. Maysa Helal who gave me
the full support for more than two years during all MBA courses that she attended with me.
Thank you,
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement.…………………………………………………………………….…....
Table of Contents………………….………………….……………………………… …….
2
3
List of Table………………………………………….….....………………………………..
4
List of Figures……………………………......……………………………………………...
4
5
1. Introduct…………………………………………………………………………..
5
1.1. Background of the Study………………….……………………………...
1.2. Research Objective…………………………….…………………………
8
1.3. Research Question……………………………….……………………….
8
2. Management Styles…………………………………….…………………………
9
2.1. What is Management Styles………………………...……………………
2.2. Effective Management Style……………………………………………...
9
9
10
13
2.4. Types of Management Styles……………………………….......………...
16
3. Organizational Effectiveness…………………………………………..…………
17
3.1. What is Organizational Effectiveness……………………………………..
19
3.2. Measuring Organizational Effectiveness……………………...…………..
19
3.2.1. How can Organizations Measure Effectiveness…………………..
24
2.3. The Behavior Management Process………………………….…………..
4. The Impact of Management Styles on Organizational Effectiveness…………….
5. Management Styles and Organizational Effectiveness…………………………...
27
5.1. Relation Between Management Styles and Organizational
27
Effectiveness…………………………………………………………………...
5.2. Measuring Instrument……………………...……………………………...
5.3. Results………………………...………………………..……….…………
5.4. Testing of Hypothesis……………………………………………………..
5.5. Discussion………………….…...………………….……………………...
28
28
29
31
32
6. Conclusion……………………………...………………………………………...
References………………………………...………….……………………………………...
34
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
4
List of Tables
Table-1: Pearson correlation: Showing the relations of leadership style dimensions and
Organizational performance …………………………………………………….. 29
b
Table-2: Model Summary ………………………………………………………………... 30
b
Table-3: ANOVA ………………………………………………………………………... 30
a
Table-4: Coefficients …………………………………………………………………….. 31
List of Figures
Figure-1: Elements of Successful Behavior Management ……………………………….. 11
Figure-2: Organizational Effectiveness ………………………………………………….. 16
Figure-3: Approaches to Organizational Effectiveness ………………………………….. 18
Figure-4: Measurements Model for Organizational Effectiveness ………………………. 22
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
5
1. Introduction
The relationship between management styles (MS) and organizational effectiveness
(OE) cannot be overemphasized. Management styles (MS) are one of the important factors
that affect organizational effectiveness (OE). A good match between the style of management
and operating realities of an organization will substantially influence its level of
effectiveness. In each organization, management style (MS) influences the performance of
individual employee and work groups, and thereby the whole organization‘s performance.
1.1. Background of the Study
OE is a common phenomenon, which has been extensively addressed by many
researchers worldwide due to its importance to the organization (e.g. Angle & Perry, 1981;
Kim, 2001; Lio & Nyhan, 1994; Lo, Ramayah, & Min, 2009). OE has been linked to the
performance of organizational constituents, their loyalty, organizational citizenship behavior,
counterproductive behavior, employees‘ aggression, job satisfaction, and other individual and
group constructs. Committed employees are expected to perform at a greater level than their
uncommitted counterparts (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989). They are
willing to work extra hours when the job requires them to do so. They are also willing to
promote the organization as a favorable place to work at. Due to its diverse accrued benefits
to the organization, some researchers have devoted their effort to investigate the antecedents
of OE (e.g. Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Lok & Crawford, 2004; Meyer, Allen, & Smith,
1993). These factors can be categorized into four groups; organizational factors, including
leadership, culture, structure and processes; individual factors, including personality traits,
emotional quotient, intellectual quotient, and spiritual quotient; job factors, including job
characteristics, and remuneration systems; and environment factors, including social
relationships and physical environment. The focus of this research is on the influence of MS
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
6
styles on employees‘ OE.
MS is the most prevalent factors that influence employees‘ attitudes and behaviors including
OE. Managers have adopted various styles when they lead others in the organization (Brown,
2003; Cheong, 2008; Chiang & Wang, 2012; Clark, Hartline, & Jones, 2009; Cox, 2001).
Some are using democratic, people or relationship centered approach and others prefer
autocratic, production-centered method in order to achieve a similar goal, which is OE. The
choice of a style is contingent on diverse factors such as personality traits of managers,
followers‘ acceptance of the managers, their readiness, task complexity and the norms and
values embraced by the organizational members. Therefore, managers must possess special
ability to diagnose the organizational environment, accurately identify the contingent factors
and subsequently make a sound decision in leading the organization towards success. Here,
emotional intelligence ability offers great help to guide a manager in choosing the right MS.
Emotional intelligence is a set of abilities to accurately assess the emotions of self and others,
regulate the emotions to achieve the desired state and use the emotions towards achieving the
expected performance (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Emotional intelligence has been defined
differently by different authors but the objective of having this intelligence is similar; to
achieve the desired emotional state so that the employees are able to attain their expected
performance. Managers with high emotional intelligence are able to correctly scan the
organizational environment, weigh the possible consequences of their actions and select the
most appropriate MS acceptable by the followers. This research is meant to highlight ― The
impact of Managerial Styles on Organizational Effectiveness‖, which comprises normative,
affective and continuance commitment. Existing work in this area is discussed and relevant
propositions are formulated to facilitate the future effort towards the enrichment of the related
knowledge.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
7
MS is the approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people
(Northouse, 2015). Managers should identify the best MS to manage their employees in the
organization. Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States once said, ―A leader is a
man who can persuade people to do what they do not want to do, or do what they are too lazy
to do‖. MS is a process, involves influence, occurs within a group contact, and involves goal
attainment. Using this claim, leadership is defined as a process where an individual influences
a group of other individuals to achieve a common goal. In other words, the manager is the
inspiration and director of the action. He or she is the person in the group that possesses the
combination of personality and skills that make others want to follow his or her direction. In
business, MS is strongly linked to performance. Effective managers are those who are able to
increase their company‘s bottom lines.
MS is very important in order to manage and control employees and organizations. The
suitability of MS to be used in an organization is based on the sector of business in which
they are operating. An effective manager is someone who knows how to inspire and relate to
subordinates, knows how to increase the employees‘ motivation and make employees loyal to
the organization. The most universal MS concerns transactional, transformational and laissezfaire. These three styles are commonly applied in various organizations nowadays.
Transactional MS is about power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish according to
employees‘ performance. If employees perform well, the manager will reward them, but if
their performance is not as expected, they will be punished. In transformational MS,
managers show the value of workers concentrating on what benefits their work team can
achieve rather than on individual interests, they know how to motivate employees, know how
to read them and know how to handle them. In laissez-faire MS, managers have minimum
involvement in decision making. They allow employees to make their own decisions but they
are still responsible for the outcome. Laissez-faire works best when people are capable and
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
8
motivated in making their own decision and opinion. The employees are confident and there
is no requirement for central coordination.
1.2. Research Objective





 To build a solid understanding for the different MS and for the OE.
 To identify the MS that has a great positive impact on OE.
1.3. Research Question
 What is the MS that has a great positive impact on OE and when to use it?
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
9
2. Management Styles
A Manager is the person responsible for planning and directing the work of a group
of individuals, monitoring their work, and taking corrective action when necessary.
(F. John Reh)
2.1. What is Management Styles
MS is a managerial parlance often used to describe the how of management. It is a
function of behavior associated with personality (McGuire, 2005). MS can be understood as a
way to manage an organization. According to Schleh (1977), MS is ―the adhesive that binds
diverse operations and functions together‖. It is the philosophy or set of principles by which
the manager capitalizes on the abilities of the workforce. MS is not a procedure on how to do
but it is the management framework for doing. A MS is a way of life operating throughout the
enterprise and permits an executive to rely on the initiative of the personnel of an entity.
The manner in which an organization manages its employees and their work activities and
will vary depending upon factors such as the characteristics of employees, the work activities
engaged in, and the culture of the organization. A successful MS should effectively build
teams and be able to motivate.
Instructor: (Shawn Grimsley)
2.2. Effective Management Styles
Effective MS is the extent to which a leader continually and progressively leads and
directs followers to a predetermined destination agreed upon by the whole group. It is the
manner of approach to issues of the managers towards achieving the goals of their
organization by transforming various resources available to any organization into output
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
10
through the functions of management (Field &Dubey, 2001). Khandwalla (1995b) considered
MS as the distinctive way in which an organization makes decisions and discharges various
functions of goal setting, formulation, implementation of strategy, corporate image building,
dealing with key stakeholders and other basic management activities.
2.3. The Behavior Management Process
To connect the building block skills we‘ve been talking about to the process of behavior
management. In essence, effective behavior management involves a series of basic steps. At
each step, one or more of the building block skills must be brought to bear if you are to
successfully navigate the ongoing process of managing behavior. This connection between
knowledge, skills, and process is illustrated in Fig. 1. Arguably, some building blocks are
important at every step in the process (such as self-insight and perception skills). But for the
sake of clarity, we will focus only on the most important building blocks for each step. In any
event, effective behavior management involves addressing four sets of issues in sequence
(ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT)
 Identify the behavioral challenge: Maintain, improve, or redirect behavior? This first
step requires that managers understand what types of behaviors are critical for
outstanding performance in their organizational context. Once that‘s done, managers
should assess whether the behaviors they‘re currently seeing are consistent with those
criteria. And ―consistency‖ can be defined in a variety of ways. For example, if
appropriate customer service behaviors are missing, management should redirect
employees and encourage a different set of behaviors. On the other hand, good
customer service behaviors may be present but may not be performed frequently
enough to result in outstanding performance (e.g., record sales and customer retention
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
11
rates). If so, then the management challenge is to encourage employees to improve
what they‘re already doing. Of course, it‘s also possible that employees may be doing
exactly what they need to do to achieve success. In that case, management‘s job is to
ensure that the environment continues to support such positive behavior.
But regardless of what the behavioral challenge is, figuring it out is essentially a
perception process. And that means managers need all the self-insight and perception
skills they can muster. Without those skills, the odds of coming up with an accurate
behavioral assessment are slim indeed.
Building Block
The Knowledge
Foundation
Skills
The Behavior
Management
Process
Identify the challenge:
Maintain, improve, or
Self-insight and perception
redirect existing behavior?
skills
Identify causes of current
Ability to analyze
behavior
Understanding
situations correctly
organizational behavior
Ability to inspire, motivate,
and lead
Choose a solution or
strategy for achieving
Personal Dlexibility and
behavioral goals
adaptability
Implement strategy, then
monitor and adjust as
needed
Fig. 1: Elements of Successful Behavior Management (ORGANIZATIONAL
BEHAVIOR AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT)
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
12
 Identify the causes of current behavior. After determining the behavioral challenge in
step 1, managers must identify what drives employees‘ current behavior. In part, this
means understanding what is important to employees and what motivates them. It also
means looking at yourself in the mirror and asking how your goals, skills, and
characteristics might be impacting employee behavior. So good perception skills and
self-insight continue to be extremely important. This is also the time to start
examining how the context (e.g., how work is organized, the corporate culture, etc.)
might be influencing employee behavior, either alone or in combination with
employee and management factors. For instance, if employees are not behaving
cooperatively or are otherwise failing to act as a team, consider whether the corporate
culture implicitly encourages competition and rewards political gamesmanship. As we
said earlier, employees exist in a multilayered environment. And that means that
managers must be excellent diagnosticians if they are to accurately identify the causes
of employee behavior.


 Choose a solution or strategy for achieving behavioral goals. The third step involves
generating options and selecting a strategy for maintaining, improving, or redirecting
behavior. Of course, managers‘ analytical and diagnostic skills remain critical here,
especially as they pertain to devising possible alternatives for responding to
behavioral challenges. It‘s at this point that a thorough grasp of what theories and
practices ―work‖ in organizational behavior proves helpful. Managers are able to
generate better solutions if they know what organizational behavior has to offer and
can accurately weigh the pros and cons of alternatives within the demands of the
context. And in many cases, managers won‘t be doing that alone. They might consult
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
13
with peers, superiors, and subordinates or lead a group charged with responding to the
behavioral challenges facing the unit or company. So when generating options and
choosing strategies, managers may have to persuade and inspire those involved in the
decision- making process. Plus, once a solution or strategy is selected, managers may
have to convince others of its merits before implementation can proceed. Of course,
this presumes that managers‘ inspiring, motivating, and leading skills are up to the
task.
 Implement the strategy, then monitor and adjust as needed. In many ways, this last step
is the toughest of all. Implementation means that managers must develop a clear time
frame for taking specific action steps. Managers also must be prepared to inspire,
persuade, and motivate subordinates to embrace the steps necessary to actually modify
existing behavior. Plus, it may be that the steps required fall outside managers‘
personal styles or comfort zones. Managers need to be prepared for that possibility and
able respond in an adaptive fashion. In addition, things rarely go exactly as planned.
Ideally, managers should try to anticipate what might go wrong and develop some
contingencies for dealing with them. Monitoring behavior and making adjustments as
needed are usually necessary as well. Overall, this final step puts managers‘ leadership,
flexibility, and adaptability to the test.


2.4. Types of Management Styles
In an organization, managers perform many functions and play many roles. They are
responsible for handling many situations and these situations are usually different from one
another. When it comes to handling such situations, managers use their own MS. (Shirjeel
Yunus)
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
14
Some MS may be best for the situation and some may not be. Therefore, awareness on
different types of MS will help the managers to handle different situations the optimal way. In
short, a MS is a leadership method used by a manager.
Several MS have evolved hitherto as distinct managers utilized differing approaches in
performing responsibilities in the course of their official work. Sequel to the emergence of
styles of management, scholars have identified and described a variety of formal styles of
management since the 1950‘s.
Likert (1967) classified four approaches of management that constitute a continuum of
participative, paternalistic, exploitative and autocrative, and consultative MS, while Burn and
Stalker (1961) identified organic and mechanistic styles of management. Furthermore,
Minzberg (1973) considered entrepreneurial and strategic planning as forms of MS adopted
by managers in organizational entities. In recent times, commonly exhibited styles of
management
includes
authoritarian,
coercive,
authoritative,
democratic,
affiliative,
permissive, indifferent, coaching, pacesetting, visionary, bureaucratic and defensive styles of
management (Effere, 2005)
McGuire (2005) explored basic MS and different managers in the pharmaceutical industry
and came up with charismatic, persuasive, consultative, transactional, transformational and
delegating styles. A survey was conducted by Worrall (2004) in United Kingdom and found
that most managers were bureaucratic and restrictive in their MS which were not conducive
to development of high performance cultures for creativity and innovation to flourish in most
organizations. Blandchard (1994) reduced MS to four basic types. They are directing,
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
15
supporting, coaching and delegating while Khandwalla (1995b) articulated ten dimensions of
management styles such as conservative, participative, bureaucratic, paternalistic,
authoritarian, organic, entrepreneurial, visionary, professional and altruistic.
Pascale and Athos (1981) examined the Japanese style of management sequel to the
economic success of Japan. These scholars highlighted that the Japanese management style
underscores paternalism, lifetime employment, seniority, lifelong learning, collective
decision-making, hard work, co-operation ethics, continuous adaptation and improvement.
The MS of the American companies differed markedly from Japanese style and it pays
attention to core values, high flexible structure, business unit autonomy, interactivity and
innovation.
De gens (1997) advocates the adoption of management of tolerance for learning organizations
and knowledge-based companies instead of action-oriented MS. Harbison and Myers (1969)
classified MS as autocratic, paternalistic, participative and Laissez-faire while another
emerging MS is theory z proposed by William Oluchi.
There are several MS identified and grouped by different management scholars. It is clearly
evident that the classification of MS is overlapping and homogenous with slight diversity. It
is observed that the variation of MS arises due to differences in the types of business
organization, nature of staff of these organizations and settings. This demonstrates that
nations have basic management styles with modifications largely due to the influence of
cultural distinctions and peculiarities.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
16
3. Organizational Effectiveness
The history of studies on OE can be taken back to the first authors who wrote on
organization and who were trying to organize human labor so as to produce the highest
output. However, effectiveness was conceived to be synonymous with efficiency until the
twentieth century. Probably under the influence of this tradition, the founders of the Classical
School were content with developing ―universal‖ principles to increase efficiency.
(Mustafa TOSUN)
Highly effective organizations exhibit strengths across five areas: leadership, decisionmaking and structure, people, work processes and systems, and culture. The research and
ideas shared here explore these areas in depth, providing useful resources for leaders looking
to improve the effectiveness of their organizations. (Nicki Roth)
Fig. 2: Organizational Effectiveness (Nicki Roth)
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
17
3.1. What is Organizational Effectiveness
―The concept of organizational effectiveness (OE) is otherwise called organizational
success or organizational worth which associates with goal attainment‖.
According to Onwuchekwa (1999), an examination into effectiveness is to evaluate how well
an organization is doing in relation to some set standards.
Georgopoulos and Tenneubaum (1957) posit that OE is the extent to which an organization as
a social system with the resources and means at its disposal fulfils its objectives without
incapacitating its means and resources and without placing undue strain upon its members.
However, Quang (2002) proposes seven measurement criteria of OE. These measurement
criteria are employee‘s satisfaction, profitability, growth rate of sales or revenue, financial
growth, competitiveness of the company‘s products and services, public image and good will
and leader in Technology. The measurement criteria postulated by this scholar is quite
impressive and cuts across a wide range of issues. It is not restricted to financial performance
of any organization as was the case in the past.
OE is basically about the ability of the organization to meet its set goals and objectives given
the resources at its disposal, every organization has certain predetermined goals and
objectives that it looks up to, each time any of these goals is met, the organization is
considered effective in that regard. measuring it is a function of what the organization‘s core
business is.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
18
Generally speaking, the term of OE describes the degree to which an organization realizes its
goals (ETZIONI 1964). Also it define narrowly as the amount of physical output for each unit
of productive input, productivity has been a human concern for centuries. The Chinese
philosopher Mencius (372–279BC)
Fig. 3: Approaches to OE (DAFT 1998)
Fig. 3: Approaches to Organizational Effectiveness (DAFT 1998)
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
19
3.2. Measuring Organizational Effectiveness
An old business adage says that: ―Whatever cannot be measured cannot be managed‖
(Herman Miller)
3.2.1. How Can Organizations Measure Effectiveness
Effectiveness helps to shape a more practical definition. Not surprisingly however, we had
more success in thinking through what an ineffective organization would look like:







 Missed targets and goals.
 High levels of unmitigated risk.
 Unnecessary turnover of leaders and high potential staff.
 Lack of ROI on key strategic projects and investments.
 Lower levels of customer / partner / supplier / employee satisfaction levels.
 Cultural confusion - where we say one thing but do another.
 Inadequate clarity of roles and accountabilities and the authority to make decisions.
 Lack of nimbleness – encouraged by too many organizational layers, bureaucratic
processes or governance, poor information relays, and policies that stifle common
sense.
 ‗Firefighting‘ as a strategy.
Consequently, an effective organization likely has a set of metrics that:
 Holds individuals accountable for their individual performance. That means clarifying
individuals‘ roles, responsibilities, and their authority to make decisions.

 Identifies and communicates ‗acceptable‘ levels of risk (and the cost of not managing
risk adequately).
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

20
 Measures a leader‘s behavioral impact and how that influences others‘ performance.
 Clarifies ‗what good looks like‘ since people cannot be effective if they don‘t
understand the (qualitative and quantitative) performance standards.


 Identifies the drivers for success to more consistently replicate performance.
 Identifies critical feedback loops so individuals learn and develop confidence in their
analysis and decisions.

 Challenges everyone to perform at the next level in the organization.
Yet, as Susan Cantrell, research fellow at the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change, points
out, knowledge workers resist being measured, ―both because they have no history of being
measured and because they believe it might take the ‗magic‘ out of their work. Most high-end
knowledge workers...tend to work on unique, one-off, highly specialized problems, making it
impossible to have one measure for all such knowledge workers. Moreover, many knowledge
workers...work interdependently, making it difficult to isolate one knowledge worker‘s
contribution from another‘s. And, because the work performed is generally unobservable, a
knowledge worker could be working for months, or sometimes even years, before an output is
tangibly realized.
Based on her analysis of several firms, Cantrell cites five best practices for measuring highend knowledge work.
 Involve knowledge workers and top management in identifying measures. Sometimes
the most obvious element is the one missed. If knowledge work is critical to the
business, top management better be involved in setting measurements and making
sure they align with corporate strategy. And if knowledge workers are really valuable
to the organization, then they better have a say in setting their work practice and
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
21
effectiveness measures so they have ownership.
 Identify only a few, simple measures that are ―good enough.‖ Complex measures
confuse and frustrate both managers and knowledge workers. It is better to sacrifice
accuracy for clarity when using measurements to guide the efforts of knowledge
workers.

 Build a causal chain of evidence. Cantrell identifies four areas of measurement for
high-end knowledge workers and says the goal is to implement measures in each of
them:

 The impact of an intervention (such as a new workplace design) or multiple
interventions (such as a change in organizational structure and an information
technology implementation)



 The individual‘s work practices
 The individual‘s effectiveness
 The overall impact on organizational effectiveness.
 Don‘t rely on measures alone. If the organization‘s goal is to guide, motivate, or even
control knowledge workers‘ behavior, it must supplement measurement with strong
cultures and value systems. Measurements may be attractive for their apparent
preciseness, but they must be tempered with the observations, experience, and
common sense of managers.
 Compare apples to apples. Knowledge work is idiosyncratic, so avoid generalizing
among groups, either in terms of what measurements apply or what impact an
intervention may have.
As an example of Cantrell‘s ―causal chain of evidence,‖ Michael O‘Neill of Herman Miller
conducted research to identify a ―casual model‖ that shows the logical relationships between
organizational, workplace, and technology design features, and subsequent effects on
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
22
employee behavior and business outcomes (see Figure 4). This model was empirically tested
as part of a long-term research project with a major customer in the shipping industry. The
company wanted to examine the impact on collaboration and efficiency of business processes
of a major consolidation of employees from four locations into one. The redesign project
included some new furniture and improved adjacencies between key individuals and groups.
Organization Design
Hierarchical
Networked
Virtual
Workplace Design
Psychological and
Work Practices
Behavioral Effects
Ownership
Business Impacts
Increase market share!
First to market!
Sense of privacy
Self esteem
organization components)
Comfort
Lighting Storage
JobSatisfaction
Project speed
Worker compensation costs
Square
Collaboration
and quality
Employee retention
Footage
Morale
Enclosure
Customer complaints
Expense ratio!
(Individual, group and
Customer retention!
New products
On-time deliverables
Layout
Amount of work
completed
Innovation
Business Process
Effectiveness
Technology Design
Type of IT system
Tools and processes
Fig. 4: Measurements Model for Organizational Effectiveness - ―Herman Miller‖
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
23
As measurement allows management, management implies control, or at least the
ability to guide and direct. Failing to foster the effectiveness of individuals in achieving
overall organizational goals carries a high price. According to the Gartner Group, 50 percent
of workplace investments through 2005 will focus on the productivity of knowledge workers.
By the end of 2007, organizations will target 20 percent of all investment in information and
communication technologies at improving knowledge worker productivity.
Yet, researchers at the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change found that among 40 firms
they studied, ―all of which had knowledge work at the core of their businesses, very few had
made specific attempts to improve or enhance these workers‘ efforts. In fact, many
organizations took affront to the idea of focusing on high-end [knowledge] workers (HEKW)
at all. They argued that HEKWs were not treated differently because their firm had an
inclusive, democratic culture, and it would be damaging to the culture to treat any group of
workers in a privileged fashion. Yet several of these firms had distinct approaches for dealing
with senior executives. We believe the primary reason is that executives don‘t know how to
attack the problem of improving HEKW performance.
Beyond identifying measures that relate to achieving overall business goals, efforts to
increase organizational effectiveness by helping knowledge workers be more productive
seems to involve three key areas:
1) Establishing a culture of trust that gives people autonomy
2) Creating vital workplaces
3) Providing healthful physical support for individuals.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
24
4. The Impact of Management Styles on Organizational Effectiveness
The objective of this section is to identify the style or styles of managers adopted by
the managers, and examine its effect on workers‘ performance, which invariably translated to
organizational performance. (R. M. Ojokuku et al )

 Charismatic MS:
By far the most successful trait-driven MS is charismatic. Charismatic managers have
a vision, as well as a personality that motivates followers to execute that vision. As a
result, this MS has traditionally been one of the most valued. Charismatic manager
provides fertile ground for creativity and innovation, and is often highly motivational.
With charismatic managers at the helm, the organization‘s members simply want to
follow. It sounds like a best-case scenario. There is however, one significant problem
that potentially undercuts the value of charismatic managers: they can leave. Once
gone, an organization can appear rudderless and without direction. The floundering
can last for years, because charismatic managers rarely develop replacements. Their
manager is based upon strength of personality.
As a result, charismatic manager usually eliminates other competing, strong
personalities. The result of weeding out the competition is a legion of happy followers,
but few future managers (Michael, 2010).



 Transactional MS:
The wheeler-dealers of transactional managers are always willing to give you
something in return for following them. It can be any number of things including a
good performance review, a raise, a promotion, new responsibilities or a desired
change in duties. The problem with transactional managers is expectations.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
25
Transactional MS is defined as the exchange of rewards and targets between
employees and MS, (Howell &Avolio, 1993). Transactional managers fulfill
employee needs of rewards when targets are met (Bass, 1990; Howell &Avolio, 1993;
Humphreys, 2002). Pounder (2002) defines this style, as the transaction of needs
fulfillment from both sides of the organization and employees.

 Transformational MS:
Transformational MS focuses on the development of followers and their needs.
Managers exercising transformational MS focus on the development of value system
of employees, their motivational level and moralities with the development of their
skills (Ismail et al., 2009). Transformational manager acts as a bridge between
managers and followers to develop clear understanding of follower‘s interests, values
and motivational level. It basically helps follower‘s achieve their goals working in the
organizational setting; it encourages followers to be expressive and adaptive to new
and improved practices and changes in the environment (Bass, 1994).




 Autocratic MS:
Autocratic managers are classic ―do as I say‖ types. Typically, these managers are
inexperienced with management thrust upon them in the form of a new position or
assignment that involves people management. Autocratic managers retain for
themselves the decision- making rights. They can damage an organization irreparably
as they force their ‗followers‘ to execute strategies and services in a very narrow way,
based upon a subjective idea of what success looks like. There is no shared vision and
little motivation beyond coercion. Commitment, creativity and innovation are
typically eliminated by autocratic manager.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
26
In fact, most followers of autocratic managers can be described as biding their time,
waiting for the inevitable failure this manager produces and the removal of the
manager that follows (Michael, 2010).

 Bureaucratic MS:
Bureaucratic managers create, and rely on, policy to meet organizational goals.
Policies drive execution, strategy, objectives and outcomes. Bureaucratic managers
are most comfortable relying on a stated policy in order to convince followers to get
on board. In doing so they send a very direct message that policy dictates direction.
Bureaucratic managers are usually strongly committed to procedures and processes
instead of people, and as a result they may appear aloof and highly change adverse.
The specific problem or problems associated with using policies to lead are not
always obvious until the damage is done. The danger here is that managers‘s greatest
benefits, motivating and developing people, are ignored by bureaucratic leaders
(Michael, 2010).



 Democratic MS:
Tannenbanum and Schmidt, (1958) describe democratic manager as one where
decision-making is decentralized and shared by subordinates. The potential for poor
decision-making and weak execution is, however, significant here. The biggest
problem with democratic manager is its underlying assumption that everyone has an
equal stake in an outcome as well as shared levels of expertise with regard to
decisions. That is rarely the case. While democratic manager sounds good in theory, it
often is bogged down in its own slow process, and workable results usually require an
enormous amount of effort.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
27
5. Management Styles and organizational Effectiveness:
Most research showed that MS has a significant relation with OE, and different MS
may have a positive correlation or negative correlation with the OE, depending on the
variables used by researchers (Fu-Jin et al., 2010).
McGrath and MacMillan (2000) report that there is significant relationship between MS and
OE. Effective MS is seen as a potent source of management development and sustained
competitive advantage, MS helps organization to achieve their current objectives more
efficiently by linking job performance to valued rewards and by ensuring that employees
have the resources needed to get the job done. Sun (2002) compares MS with the OE in
schools and enterprises, and found that MS had a significantly positive correlation with the
OE in both schools and enterprises.
Broadly speaking, manager performance is identical with OE. Business management
attributes their successes to leadership efficiency, that is, the MS of administrative
supervisors has a considerable effect on the OE (Sun, 2002). Fu- Jin et al. (2010) opine that
when executives use their MS to demonstrate concern, care and respect for employees, it
would increase interest of employees in their work and enable them to put up better
performance, thereby affecting their job satisfaction positively. Howell and Frost (1989) cited
in Fu-Jin et al, 2010) also confirm that there is a positive relation between MS and OE.
5.1. Relation Between MS and OE
Research sample and data collection, the study covered twenty (20) randomly selected.
A structured questionnaire was used in gathering relevant data from the branch managers,
heads of operations and accountants face to face respectively. 60 questionnaires were filled
and returned by the respondents.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
28
5.2. Measuring Instrument
Leadership scale adopted by Zhu (2002) and Li (2002) was used in this research work,
manager behavior was divided by its frequency performance into 5 levels, including ―never‖,
―little‖, ―occasionally‖, ―often‖ and ―always‖ as scored by Likert‘s five-point scoring. Sample
of questions were: ―My supervisor rewards performance when his/her expectations are
fulfilled‖, ―My supervisor will provide a new thinking approach for my difficult problem‖,
―My supervisor is not present when he/she is needed‖, ―My supervisor will inspire me with
new ways to think about old problems‖, ―My supervisor speaks enthusiastically about our
goals as a team‖, ―Unless the problem gets worse, my supervisor interferes‖, ―My supervisor
makes me feel proud of being a member of the department‖, ―I am confident in my
supervisor‖.
In respect to measuring the reliability of the scale, the reliability coefficients (Cronbach‘s) of
the charismatic manager, the transactional manager, the transformational manager, the
autocratic manager, the bureaucratic manager and the democratic manager were 0.823, 0.791,
0.807, 0.644, 0.790 and 0.754 respectively.
OE scale was used to assess respondents‘ level of their OE compare with their competitors.
The scale was subjected to item analysis in order to ensure it is valid and reliable and it
yielded reliability alpha of .76.
5.3. Results
The result in table (1) shows that manager dimensions have both positive and negative
relationship with OE, specifically, charismas style of manager, transactional style of manager,
and bureaucratic style of manager have negative effect on OE with (r= - 0.337, -0.186, 0.287: df = 53; P<.001) respectively. This implies that charismas style, transactional style, and
bureaucratic style do not induce employees to perform as expected. This indicates that
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
29
these styles of manager demoralize employees and this may lead to high turnover intension.
However, transformational style, autocratic style and democratic style have positive effect on
organizational performance with (r =0.215; 0.016 and 0.109: df = 53; P<.001) respectively,
which indicate that transformational style, autocratic style and democratic style induce
employees.
Table 1. Pearson correlation: Showing the relations of leadership style dimensions and organizational performance.
Variables
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
OE
22.033
1.5619
1.000
Charismas MS
3.6833
1.3960
-0.337**
1.000
Transactional MY
3.0833
1.0623
-0.186**
0.224
1.000
Transformational MS
4.7667
0.4265
0.215**
-0.240
0.193*
1.000
Autocratic MS
1.9500
1.4193
0.016**
-0.042
-0.310
-0.188
1.000
Bureaucratic MS
2.3167
0.8923
-0.287*
-0.122
0.222*
-0.337
0.200
1.000
Democratic MS
4.9500
6.6623
0.109**
-0.204
-0.100
0.073
-0.047
-0.047
Note: **P<.001 * P<.05 (R. M. Ojokuku et al.)
5.4. Testing of Hypothesis
Ho: MS dimensions have no significant effect on the OE. The result shows that MS
dimensions (charismas, transactional, bureaucratic, transformational, autocratic and
democratic style of manager) were joint predictors of OE (F (6, 53) = 2.635; R
2
= 0.23; P
<.05). The predictor variables jointly explained 23% of the variance of OE, while the
remaining 77% could be due to the effect of extraneous variables. Charismas MS (β = -0.395;
t = -2.511; P<.05); bureaucratic MS (β =-0.562; t = -2.208; P<.05) were significantly
independent predictors of OE.
This implies that both have negative significant effect on followers and performance. This
means that Managers‘s greatest benefits, motivating and developing people are ignored and
this will not induce employees to perform as expected. Furthermore, transactional MS (β= 0.61; t = -0.296; P ns) has negative effect but not significant on followers and performance.
7
-
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
30
However, transformational style of manager (β = 0.44; t= 0.298; P<.05) and democratic style
of manager (β = 0.001; t= 0.010; P<.05) were significantly independent predictors of OE.
This implies that both have positive significant effect on followers and performance. This
indicate that transformational and democratic styles of managers focus on the development of
value system of employees, their motivational level and moralities with the development of
their skills and this induce employees to perform as expected. Also bureaucratic MS (β=
0.072; t = 0.581; P ns) has positive effect but insignificant on followers and performance.
b
Table 2. Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Std. Error of
Durbin-
Square
the Estimate
Watson
a
.479
1
.230
.143
1.44632
1.060
a. Predictors: (Constant), democratic, autocratic, transactional, transformational, charismas, bureaucratic
b. Dependent variable: orgp stands for organistion performance (R. M. Ojokuku et al.)
b
Table 3. ANOVA
Model
1
Sum of Squares
DF
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Regression
Residual
33.066
110.867
6
53
5.511
2.092
2.635
.026
Total
143.933
59
a. Predictors: (Constant), democratic, autocratic, transactional, transformational, charismas, bureaucratic
b. Dependent variable: orgp (R. M. Ojokuku et al.)
a
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
Table 4. Coefficients
Model
31
a
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
t
Sig.
7.988
.000
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
24.053
3.011
Charismas
-.395
.157
-.353
-2.511
.015
Transactional
-.61
.206
-.041
-.296
.768
Transformational
.616
.541
.044
.298
.017
Autocratic
.080
.137
.072
.581
.564
Bureaucratic
-.562
.254
-.321
-2.208
.032
Democratic
.000
.092
.001
.010
.012
a.Dependent variable: orgp (R. M. Ojokuku et al.)
5.5. Discussion
The objective of this research work was to examine the significant effect of MS on
OE. From the result, it was discovered that there is positive and negative correlation between
MS dimensions and OE, the model gives good account of dependent variable of OE on MS
dimensions. The coefficient of determinant of R= 0.23 indicates that 23% variation in OE is
accounted for by good MS. This finding agrees with the work of Howell and Frost (1989),
Fu-Jin et al. (2010), Obiwuru et al (2011), and Jeremy et al. (2011) that MS has significant
effect on OE.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
32
6. Conclusion
MS have significant effects not only in small businesses but also in the world's largest
corporations. These styles affect everyone from senior management to the newest college
intern. They create the corporate culture that influences the organization and its performance.
Managers in today‘s globalized business environment characterized by rapid change
should be equipped with emotional intelligence abilities so that they are able to effectively
exercise their management roles. MS are very much contingent on the organizational
environment, thus, rendering none of the MS as superior than the other. The emotional
intelligent ability of the managers is crucial to ensure that the MS chosen by the managers can
be executed effectively to enhance the employees‘ organizational commitment. Emotional
intelligence of leaders can be gradually developed through individual reflective exercises
where the managers assess their emotional states as a result of various emotional stimulating
events. It can also be developed through frequent observation and assessment of others‘
emotional states. Besides, it can also be nurtured by continuously applying appropriate
strategies to deal with negative as well as positive emotions. These strategies can range from
suppressing to amplifying the desired emotions so that the energy emerged from these
emotions can be manipulated to stimulate managers to engage in productive activities.
(Business and Management Studies Vol.2, No.1; March 2016)
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
33
Finally, This study has investigated the effect of MS on OE. The results of this study
revealed that there is strong relationship between MS and OE. On the basis of the findings of
this study, it can be concluded that MS has both positive and negative effect on OE.
The study found that transformational and democratic MS, in which employees are allowed to
have sense of belonging, carry out higher responsibility with little supervision, and followers
are helped to achieve their visions and needs enhance organizational efficiency. Surprisingly
autocratic MS also has positive effect on performance although is insignificant. It is
concluded that transformational and domestic MS are the best for the management.
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
34
References
(1998). Can America‘s workforce grow old gracefully? 59–60; and Hymowitz, C. (1998).
Young managers learn how to bridge the gap with older employees. B1.
Azka .G, Tahir. M, Aslam. M & Syed.T (2011). Transformational leadership,
employee engagement and performance: mediating effect of psychological
ownership. African Journal of Business Management, .5(17), 7391-7403.
Bass B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill's handbook of leadership: theory research
and managerial applications 3rd edition. NY: Free Press.
Bennis W. (2007). The challenge of leadership in the modern
world: introductiontospecial issues.Am.Psychol.,62(1),2-5.
Brown, E. (1999). A day at Innovation U. Fortune, April 12, 163–166; and Port, O., and
J. Carey (1997). Getting to ‗eureka!‘ Business Week, November 10, 72–76.
Byrne, J. A. (1997). Management theory—or fad of the month? Business Week, June
23, 47; Munk, N. (1999). How Levi‘s trashed a great American brand. Fortune,
April 12, 83–90; and Taylor, A. (1998). Consultants have a big people problem.
Fortune, April 13, 162–166.
De Gens, A. (1997). The Living Company: Habits for survival in Turbulent
Environment. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business school press.
DRISKELL, J. E., SALAS, E. & HOGAN, R. (1987). A taxonomy for composing
naval teams. Naval Training Systems Center, Human Factors Division (Code
712), Orlando, FL.
Edwin R. Dean, ―The accuracy of the BLS productivity measures,‖ Monthly Labor
Review (February 1999): 24-34.
ESSENS, P. J. M., VOGELAAR, A. L. W., MYLLE, J. J. C., BLENDELL, C.,
PARIS, C., HALPIN, S. M., BARANSKI, J. V. (2005). Military Command Team
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
35
Effectiveness: Model and Instrument for Assessment and Improvement.
NATO RTO technical report.
Fu-Jin .W, Shieh .C & Tang . M. (2011). Effect of leadership style on organizational
performance as viewed from human resources management strategy. African
journal of business management, 4(18), 3924-3936.
Howell J. M, Avolio B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidatedbusiness unit performance. J. Serv. Mark., 16, 487-502.
Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of
efficiency. New York: Viking.
KLIMOSKI, R. & JONES, R. G. (1995). Staffing for effective group decision
making: Key issues in matching people and teams. In R. A. GUZZO, E. SALAS
& Associates (eds.). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations.
San Francsico: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
McGuire, R. (2005) ‗Which Management Style to Use‘ London: The Pharmaceutical
Journal 275 (9)
Michael O‘Neill, Ergonomic Design for Organizational Effectiveness (Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 1998), 24.
Michael O‘Neill, Patty Bergquist, Meldrena Chapin, Michelle Robertson, and Paul C.
Smith, ―Effects of Flexible Work Environment Design and Ergonomic Training
on Employee Performance and Business Process,‖ Interim Report to the OERC
(May 2003).
Michael O‘Neill, telephone interview, 30 June 2003.
McGrath, G. R & MacMillan, I. C. (2000). Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for
continuously creating opportunity in an age of uncertainty. Harvard Business
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
36
School Press Books.
Peter F. Drucker, ―Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge,‖ California
Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Winter 1999): 79-94.
PETERS, T. & WATERMAN, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence. New York, London:
Harper & Row.
Richard Florida, Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community and Everyday Life (New York: Perseus Books Group, 2002). ScottLadd, B., Travaglione, A., & Marshall, V. (2006). Causal inferences between
participation in decision making, task attributes, work effort, rewards, job
satisfaction and commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
27(5), 399-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730610677990
SEILER, S. & PFISTER, A. (under review). ―Why did I do this?‖ – Understanding
leadership behavior based on the dynamic five-factor model of leadership. Journal
of International Leadership Studies.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic
leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics,
and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 41(4), 387-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257080
Shellenbarger, S. (1997). Work gets wilder as employees insist on stable family life.
The Wall Street Journal, July 16, B1.
Thomas H. Davenport, ―What Are High-End Knowledge Workers and Why Study
Them?‖ Accenture Institute for Strategic Change, Art of Work, Issue Fourteen,
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
37
August 28, 2001.
Turner, J. R., & Lloyd-Walker, B. (2008). Emotional intelligence (EI) capabilities training:
Can it develop EI in project teams?. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 1(4), 512-534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17538370810906237
Unamka & Ewurum, U.J.F (1995). Business Administration. Enugu: Precision
Pointers & Publishers.
Vroom VH, & Jago A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. Am. Psychol,
62(1), 17-24.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations:
transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes
and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1083-1101.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000114219
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(3), 243-274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1
Worall, L. (2004). The Business Energy Survey. London: Chartered Management
Institute.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. India: Pearson Education.