Leadership Effects Development On Employee Performances In Pakistan Management Essay
Qaiser Abbas, et al. (2009), in this study, explains that Leadership development has a great impact on employee performance. Factors that influence employee performance are coaching, training and development, empowerment, participation and delegation. These leadership factors influence 50% employee performance, other factors like commitment, motivation, trust in organization, compensation and rewards also influences employee performance.
Employee performance is an important building block of an organization. Every employee contributes towards the success of the organization. Organization cannot progress by one or two individual’s effort. Success depends on teamwork. Managers give input to use their abilities and innovative ideas. There are many expectations from managers; they have to work really hard to satisfy their boss. Managers are experienced enough to deal with various issues, sometimes they run to their boss for guidance. They can work effectively and efficiently when there is an effective leadership program for their assistance and to build leadership qualities in them.
Leadership development is becoming an increasingly critical and strategic imperative for organizations in the current business environment (Sheri-Lynne, Parbudyal 2007)
Leadership development program is aimed to assist employees in improving their skills and in doing their work effectively and efficiently. Organizations have to compete across the globe so this program is of great importance to them as they have to face business challenges.
Tirmizi identified importance of leadership. The 6-L framework dimensions developed by Tirmizi are:
1. Leads and encourage change
2. Lives by example
3. Lauds achievement
4. Lends a vision
5. Leverages learning and development
6. Looks out for others
The variables discussed in this paper are already mentioned in the introductory paragraph whose general relationship is shown in the diagram below:
This diagram shows that coaching, training and development, empowerment, participation, delegation effects employee performance, which as a result bring about organizational change. Talking about each variable relationship briefly, the writer considers coaching as an important technique to increase performance. Training and development is to make employees more skillful and it fills the gap between actual performance and desired performance. This concept has been explained by the Bramley’s Individual Model of Training as depicted in the diagram below:
Bramley’s Individual Model of Training
Coming towards empowerment, Duvall (1999), defines success as achievement, accomplishment and attainment which is a consequence of empowerment. Participation means involving employees in problem solving. When employees come across organizational problems, they experience how to handle such situations. This creates a sense of contribution towards organization’s success. They have opportunity to give ideas.
Delegation means giving responsibility and authority which means that Employee exercise his authority for making decisions that are beneficial for the organization. On the basis of all these assumptions the writer considered a positive relationship between leadership development and employee performance.
Talking about implications of this article in my research paper, I get to know that Training and Coaching are the learning processes in which employees learn skills whereas Participation, Delegation and Empowerment are implementation tools. Employee performance depends on leadership development factors but it also depends on other factors i.e. attitudes, commitment, motivational factors and trust in organization. A blend of all these factors influences employee performance completely which as a result bring about organizational change.
Coupled effects of knowledge and leadership
Shazia Akhtar (2010), in this study, draws attention towards the need to change for organizations in this highly competitive environment for long term survival. The changes help the organizations to sustain in market, achieve competitive edge and to generate profits. Organization’s performance is influenced by employee productivity and job satisfaction, which are influenced by working conditions of the organization. Organization’s significant aim is to find innovative employees who have that magic company is looking for. Leaders play a vital role in inspiring and influencing employees and also cultivating innovative behavior among them. The Leadership traits that shape employees innovative behavior, extracted from the study of De Yong and Den Hartog are:
In innovative role model trait leaders with creativity encourage their employees to be like them and to be innovative. Leaders who acted as model of creativity promoted employees to be more creative for example in De Yong and Den Hartog study, one of front runner employee said
“I am always looking for ways to do things better and improve results. It stimulates some of the employees to do the same.”
On intellectual stimulation leaders wanted their employees to solve problems by giving possible solutions. Leaders wanted them express their opinion on different proposals. Stimulating knowledge diffusion means to diffuse ideas at all levels of organization. To share ideas with subordinates actually creates a communication network among all. Issues are resolved when problems are shared. Lack of communication and sharing declines employees motivation and eliminates ideas. Providing vision to employees i.e. showing them a straight path to move on to achieve company’s goal and targets. Delegating them sufficient autonomy so that they might not face any difficulty in handling any issue. This creates a sense of contribution and motivation among employees. Sharing leadership with employees makes them work more diligently and efficiently. Leaders should support for innovation. Give sufficient autonomy to subordinates to implement ideas. Employees should not be penalized for doing mistakes as it is a part of learning process, Supportive attitude accelerates the innovation process. Previous research by Hellstrom on association between Organizing feedback and innovative behavior illustrated that employees are ready to show their innovative behavior when leaders give feedback on their proposal. Recognition is an important attribute i.e. recognize employee’s work through appreciation and awards i.e. certificates of achievement. Rewards; monetary compensation of employees is also very important trait that shapes an employee’s innovative behavior and loyalty towards organization. Providing resources to generate more productive outcomes. Availability of resources is directly related to innovative outcomes. Leaders with insufficient resources are not able to achieve their target and so is competitive advantage. Keep a check on employees time after time to check their efficiency of doing work. Monitoring and employee efficiency are correlated. Monitoring should be done to ensure progress. Task assignment attribute is important to check employee efficiency from time to time. Give challenging tasks to employees and then evaluate their work. Task assignment influences idea generation, the more they take interest in job the more innovative ideas are likely to flourish.
Now coming towards the implication of this study to my research paper, by studying this paper I get to know that the traits in managers are not sufficient but the Knowledge level of leadership traits in middle manager’s is constantly changing. Knowledge and leadership have a huge impact on organizational success and a blend of both helps in achieving competitive advantage. If managers are well educated on leadership traits, it is helpful to their understandings and Leaders may exhibit these leadership traits in different ways based on situation such as leader might consult employees more than once to ensure that innovative ideas are implemented successfully.
HR Practices and Leadership Styles as Predictors of Employee Attitude and Behavior: Evidence from Pakistan
Khurram Shahzad, et al. (2010), in this study, talks about Human Resource Management practices and leadership styles conducted in private and public sector universities. Such practices are valuable in creating human capital. The writers have emphasized the effect of leadership styles on organizational commitment and citizen behaviors (critical determinants of organizational effectiveness by Katz, 1964) among university teachers.
The results of this study were very interesting and revealed that both human resource practices and leadership styles positively predicted organizational commitment of faculty members however they were unable to predict citizenship behaviors.
The writers used the Katz Framework (1964), and applied it on the situation currently prevailing in Pakistan. The findings of the interviews are summed up in table 1.1 given below:
Table 1.1: Responses of the university employees as per Katz Framework
Katz (1964) Frame Work for Effective Organizations
Situation of Public Sector
Situation of Private Sector
Emphasis on employees on carry out their assigned roles
Emphasis on retaining employees
Emphasized to some extent
Emphasis on employees to exhibit extra-role behavior
The above results clearly revealed that the important aspect of organizational effectiveness that is extra-role behavior (organizational citizenship behavior) is clearly not emphasized in both public and private sector universities. It is also found that employee retention (through organizational commitment) is not at all emphasized in public sector universities and partially emphasized in private sector universities.
Most managers of the universities were found totally unaware of the fact that organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment is related to organizational outcomes can be consciously managed through organizational factors like human resource management practices and leadership style. Although the mangers have some idea these concepts but application of these concepts in the area of their responsibility is not taken care of.
Leadership Styles for the Five Stages of Radical Change
Dr. Kathleen K. Reardon, et al. (1998), in this study, continues prior work on radical change with theory and research on leadership style. Leadership experts agree that a key challenge facing leaders now and in the future is responsiveness to radical change. Using the Leadership Style Inventory, leaders can determine which stages of radical change they are equipped to handle. Further the article explores how individual and group leadership style limitations can be dealt with to ensure radical change success.
The key component of successful leadership now and in the next century is proactive and effective responsiveness to change. Experts agree that successful leaders must be flexible and capable of adapting to new conditions, open to novel alternatives, and willing to take greater risks (Kotter, 1990; O’Toole, 1996).
The leadership styles shown in Figure below were derived from work on the Leader-ship Style Inventory (LSI) developed by Rowe, Reardon, and Bennis (1995). The inventory identifies differences in style used by leaders that are based on the following two questions: How adaptive are leaders when dealing with the issues they face? How do leaders communicate with, persuade, and energize employees in the process of change?
The LSI identifies four basic styles: commanding, logical, inspirational, and supportive. One of its major strengths is that it also describes combinations of the basic styles called “patterns.” These patterns help to describe the complexity be-hind leader behavior and competence for radical change. Details are provided in the table below:
Most leaders do not possess a single style, but a combination. These combinations indicate which styles leaders are pre-disposed to use.
From the article we get to know that change is not an event but an extended process. Each stage of that process benefits from different leadership orientations. Strategy researchers have proposed that change involves at least three stages: initiation, formulation, and implementation (Webb and Dawson, 1991; Pettigrew, 1987; Child and Smith, 1987, Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1994. Another model (Rowe and Mann, 1988) proposed four factors in the change process: Decision maker’s style, organizational culture, employees’ willingness to change, and acceptance of change based on a match among values, culture, and decision style. John Kotter (1990), proposed that leading change requires: establishing direction, aligning people, and motivating and inspiring. The model shown in this article in the figure below draws upon Kotter’s model but adds two stages described by Kotter but not specifically stated in his model: launching and maintaining.
After talking about the variables discussed in this study I move forward towards the implication of this study to my research paper. After studying it I get to know that, leaders need to be aware of their predispositions. The LSI provides that information. By linking the LSI with the Five-stage Radical Change Model, leaders can see where their own and their peoples’ strengths and challenges lie. Knowing what you’re best suited for and what might be more effectively led by others is critical to achieving success in today’s environment of radical change.
Need for Leadership: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan
Mohmood A. Bodla, et al. (2010), in this study, explores the moderator effect of situational variables in leadership literature around the globe. However, this area is the most neglected area among the behavioral scientists of Pakistan. Therefore, their study seeks to find out the moderator effect of need for leadership in relation with leadership characteristics on subordinates’ behavioral outcomes using the need for leadership framework of de Vries (1997), in Pakistani work settings.
A decade ago, de Vries (1997) suggested that need for leadership prevails in each follower and this need influences leadership efforts in predicting the subordinates work outcomes. According to author, need for leadership is a social, contextual, and quasi need (p. 92) which is linked with variety of individual’s, task and organizational characteristics simultaneously that affect leadership efforts on subordinates’ behaviors.
First, need for leadership is ascribed as a social need. The term social refers; this need is stimulated among individuals while working in a group. According to McClelland (1953), people acquire different needs as result of social interactions with others. It is clear that most of the employees’ work related activities are performed in a group. While working in groups, people develop strong sense of belongingness with each other and try to perform certain activities which are in interest of common goal. In these groups, some people play the role of leaders, while others act as subordinates. According to de Vries (1997), the need which is provoked by the leader among subordinates due to his position power or the need activated among individuals adhering group’s goal is need for leadership.
Second, need for leadership is a contextual need. Contextual refers to work environment and type of work individuals have to perform. According to House (1971), in case of highly professional jobs, where tasks are ambiguous and methodological variant and work activities are non routine, subordinates may feel insecure due to role ambiguity and have strong desire for leaders’ interventions which serve to reduce the role ambiguity whereas, in case of routine and dull tasks, followers may desire strong social support from their leaders. In both situations, desiring different leadership (e.g. instrumental leadership or supportive leadership) by followers reflect the situational aspects of need for leadership. Besides the work settings, followers’ characteristics are also important for determining the need for leadership. For example, trained, experienced, and qualified employees require less hierarchical guidance (i.e. need for leadership) than their less able and less trained colleagues (Kerr and Jermier, 1978).
Third, need for leadership is a quasi need. Quasi refers to the position of need for leadership that it takes place. Unlike the primary needs e.g. hunger, thirst or shelter needs postulated by Maslow (1943), this need is a secondary need and mainly related to mental activities (De Vries, 1997).
Coming towards the implications of this paper to my research, through it I get to know that, to what extent, the results of moderator effect in leadership research are improved using the single moderator variable and how much these results are beneficial for practicing managers.
For the practitioners, the results of the study are strongly convincing them that they must understand the need for leadership of their followers before exercising their leadership practices. Moreover, for future researchers, this theory seems promising and demanding more research in the future.
Leadership and Change Management
June Kaminski (2000), in this study, draws attention towards adaptation to change which has become a common agenda for organizations of all types – health care, business, social, governmental, educational, and cultural.
“Change is no longer an irregular outing, an inconvenient upheaval to be undertaken once every ten years. Change is something we have to learn to live with, to structure and to manage. Change is here to stay, and the winners will be the ones who cope with it.”- (Bainbridge, 1996, p. 4)
But according to the writer, the change process is not so easy and a lot of obstacles hinder your progress. Some factors that contribute towards resistance to change are:
Functionalism and most importantly
People’s attitude towards change
Change within organizations occurs on countless levels. Lewin (1951), gave his model of change in his “force field model”. He characterized change as a state of imbalance between driving forces and restraining forces. If these forces were balanced no change could take place. Change is inherent in every context. Change is disruptive, messy, complicated, and unpredictable but is still manageable (Bainbridge, 1996). Change is risky especially when it encompasses different sectors within an organization. Wilson pointed out that a shift from emergent models of change to planned ones has steadily occurred over the past two decades. A total shift is not advised though, since the political and economic context of the surrounding environment cannot be ignored, and must also be adapted to.
Coming towards the variables discussed, the very culture of an organization needs to be reshaped to properly support the new processes introduced. Structures, reward systems, appraisal measurements and roles need redefinition (Bainbridge, 1996). Leadership styles and management procedures must shift and adapt, and ways of relating with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders need refining. Technological advances and capabilities must be introduced, and preparation of the workforce to work with the new IT structures is needed.
Change has become perpetual. In order to cope, organizations need a design process with strategies and guidelines for thriving amongst a multitude of changes.
The creation and design process within an organization is role of leaders. Change process which encompasses human resources, IT adoption, and upgrades, tools and techniques as well as basic rules and controls within the organization and are mandate of leaders engaged in the management of change (Bainbridge, 1996). Leaders are responsible for bridging the gap between strategy decisions and the reality of implementing the changes within the structure and workforce of the organization. “Underlying this principle is the fact that almost everything in an organization’s infrastructure has an influence on some other part of it. Management style affects culture, technology affects the way staff interact with customers, internal communication methods affect how people work together,” (Bainbridge, 1996, p. 37). A holistic approach to change management encourages the redesign and adaptation to change at all organizational levels. In essence, process itself can become the platform for change to occur, as well as the protector of the existent daily operations.
Leaders are the “champions of change” within an organization. Adaptive leaders provide direction, protection, orientation, conflict control, and the shaping of norms while overseeing the change process within the corporate structure (Conger, Spreitzer & Lawler, 1999). Transformative leaders share fundamental characteristics that allow them to enable organizational members in the change process (Conger, Spreitzer & Lawler, 1999).
The steps to transform an organization are:
Establishing a sense of urgency
Forming a powerful guiding coalition
Creating a vision
Communicating the vision
Empowering others to act on the vision
Planning for and creating short term wins
Consolidating improvements and producing still more change
Institutionalizing new approaches
Further Bainbridge (1996), outlined a five step process of redesign for organizations undergoing planned change. The five steps included:
The design stage to determine overall requirements
The definition stage where the design is specified and documentation of the design stage requirements occurs
The development stage, where new capabilities are cultivated through training, education and restructuring
The dismantling stage, where redundant parts of the organization are removed or converted into new capabilities
The deployment stage, where new capabilities are introduced into the new organizational environment, both internally and externally
By reading this paper I get to know that, the leader, as a person, is the most important tool for change. The leader’s spirit, insight, wisdom, compassion, values, and learning skills are all important facets in the capabilities to lead others to embrace change and redesign strategies.
So, the key to successful organizational change is heroic and learned change management by competent and visionary leaders. Change can be managed in a top-down style or as a highly participative exercise from all levels of personnel. Change is context specific, meaning that no single change process is appropriate for every situation or corporate entity.
Leaders are responsible for setting the context for change within an organization. A culture and vision must be cultivated that can support the planned changes, and deal with unplanned change. Leaders must be able to counsel, teach, coach, and reward employees as they adopt and move through the change process. For lasting change to occur, habits, attitudes, and values at all levels of an organization must be congruent with the vision and goals inherent in the process.
Leadership and the Aging Workforce: The Impact of Leadership Style on the Motivation of Older Employees
Heike Bruch, et al. (2006), in this study, examines the effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles on the goal commitment of younger and older employees.
The transactional and transformational theories of leadership were developed by Burns (1978) in politics and they were applied to organizational management by Bass (1985). Transactional leadership is based on the exchange of resources to fulfill contractual obligations and is typically represented as setting objectives and monitoring and controlling outcomes. Transformational leadership goes beyond transactions and involves influences on the beliefs, needs and values of followers, eventually helping followers achieve extraordinary goals The term goal has been defined as the object or aim of an action to attain a specific standard of proficiency on a given task within a specific time frame (Latham, 2000; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002), with effective goal setting representing one of the key levers for enhancing employee motivation.
After creating a proper frame work on the above mentioned variables the results of this research showed that transactional leadership is positively related to employees’ goal commitment, with transformational leadership augmenting this effect. Moderator hypotheses were partially confirmed, such that the relationship between transformational leadership style and goal commitment was strongly positive for younger employees, while this relationship was slightly negative for older employees. In contrast, age was not found to moderate the relationship between transactional leadership and goal commitment.
Leadership Style, Organizational Politics, and Employees’ Performance
Eran Vigoda-Gadot (2006), in this study, aims to examine perceptions of politics among public sector employees as a possible mediator between the supervisor’s leadership style and formal and informal aspects of employees’ performance (Organizational Citizenship Behavior – OCB).
Burns (1978) identified two basic factors in the interaction between leadership and employees. One factor stems from the leader’s ability to deliver rewards and punishments (transactional leadership). The second factor is the leader’s ability to rally his staff and urge them to cooperate in achieving the organization’s goals (transformational leadership). The expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), and the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen, 1976; Wang et al., 2005) supported the need for a more balanced relationship between leaders and members and the idea of fair treatment of the individual. Reciprocity, fair exchange, and a low level of organization politics appear to be influential in the context of leadership style and performance.
The current study examined the relationship between two types of leadership and formal and informal performance in the light of the knowledge accumulated in recent years regarding organizational politics. The findings demonstrate that organizational politics can be considered an influential mediator between leadership and performance beyond the direct relationship already established in the literature. As previously suggested by Ammeter et al. (2002) and others, a constant tension exists between the individual’s involvement in political dynamics, his/her aspiration to develop and promote self-interests, and the goal of improving organizational performance.
According to this study, transformational leadership may have a positive direct effect on employees’ performance by structuring an environment that is perceived as less political in nature and is rooted in notions of fairness and equity. Such an environment should motivate employees to demonstrate excellent performance, both formally and informally, by higher levels of in-role behaviors and enhanced organizational citizenship behavior.
A Study of the Relationship between Leadership Styles and Employee Job Satisfaction at Islamic Azad University Branches in Tehran, Iran
Fatemeh Hamidifar (2009), in this research, found that the dominant leadership styles were transformational and transactional and employees were moderately satisfied with their job. The results show that different leadership style factors will have different impacts on employee job satisfaction components. Individualized consideration and laissez-faire are strong predictors of all the job satisfaction factors.
The major concepts discussed by the researcher are Transformational leaders, Transactional leaders and the concept of laissez-faire. Transformational leaders do more with followers and colleagues than transactional leaders do (Avolio et al. 1991). Instead of a simple exchange and agreement, transformational leaders provide a vision and a sense of mission, inspire pride, and gain respect and trust through charisma (Bass et al. 1990). Transactional leaders communicate with their subordinates to explain how a task must be done and let them know that there will be rewards for a job done well (Avolio et al. 1991). Laissez- faire leadership is a passive kind of leadership style. There is no relationship exchange between the leader and the followers. It represents a non-transactional kind of leadership style in which necessary decisions are not made, actions are delayed, leadership responsibilities ignored, and authority unused. A leader displaying this form of non-leadership is perceived as not caring at all about others’ issues. Job satisfaction may be defined as a positive emotional response from the assessment of a job or specific aspects of a job (Locke 1976; Smith et al. 1969). It is influenced by many factors such as: the working conditions, work itself, supervision, policy and administration, advancement, compensation, interpersonal relationships, recognition, and empowerment (Castillo & Cano 2004).
Now coming towards the relationship between the leadership styles and job satisfaction, Leadership style is an important determinant of employee job satisfaction. The reactions of employees to their leaders will usually depend on the characteristics of the employees as well as on the characteristics of the leaders (Wexley & Yukl 1984). Employee job satisfaction is influenced by the internal organization environment, which includes organizational climate, leadership types and personnel relationships (Seashore and Taber 1975).
The quality of the leader-employee relationship – or the lack thereof – has a great influence on the employee’s self-esteem and job satisfaction (Chen & Spector 1991; Brockner 1988; DeCremer 2003). Employees are more satisfied with leaders who are considerate or supportive than with those who are either indifferent or critical towards subordinates (Yukl 1971).
As Wilkinson & Wagner (1993) argued, it is stressful for employees to work with a leader who has a hostile behavior and is unsupportive. If subordinates are not capable of figuring out how to perform the work by themselves they will prefer a leader who will provide adequate guidance and instructions (Wexley & Yukl 1984).
Negative leader-employee relations reduce productivity and increase absenteeism and the turnover to the organization can be quite high (Keashly, Trott, & MacLean 1994; Ribelin 2003).
The results show that each leadership style factor will impact the employee job satisfaction factors differently. All the results indicate that individualized consideration, a transformational sub-variable, positively influences all the job satisfaction factors. On the other hand, however, laissez-faire leadership significantly and negatively influences them. Therefore special attention should be given by leaders to motivators such as employee recognition, good working conditions, communication, competitive salaries, and promotion in order to improve job satisfaction among non-teaching staff.
Missing Links in Understanding the Relationship between Leadership and Organizational Performance
Fenwick Feng Jing (2008), in this study, draws attention towards the gaps in understanding the relationship between leadership and organizational performance. Further this paper reviews the published literature and identifies these gaps, highlighting implications for future research into the leadership-performance relationship.
Although the definition of leadership is contentious, many practitioners and scholars argue that leadership creates the vital link between organizational effectiveness and people’s performance at an organizational level. Many writers assert that leadership behaviors can facilitate the improvement of both leaders’ leadership capability and induce or encourage employees to work better improves their commitment and satisfaction. This ultimately contributes to enhancing organizational performance. However, research into the leadership-performance relationship is not conclusive. Many scholars have critically examined the effectiveness of leadership paradigms and behaviors (Analoui, 1999; Avery, 2004; Drath, 2001; House and Aditya, 1997; Kakabadse et al., 1999; Shamir et al. 1993; Shamir and Howell, 1999; Yukl, 1999). They conclude that existing research on the leadership-performance relationship is full of difficulties and has many unsolved problems, including methodological problems. Thus, conclusions cannot be drawn about the extent to which leadership behaviors and styles facilitate the improvement of organizational performance. One problem relates to the quality of performance measurement. When selecting the measurements of performance, previous researchers have employed financial measurements or non-financial measurements, rather than employing both kinds of measures in order to enhance the validity of the research. They have neglected the interrelationship between financial performance and customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. This provides a narrow measurement of performance that may not have appropriately evaluated the sought-after performance effects appropriately. Thus, both financial measurements and non-financial measurements of performance are essential in order to enhance research validity. Additionally, previous scholars (e.g. Bass, 1985) have focused on a limited range of leadership paradigms (e.g. transactional and visionary). Classical and organic paradigms have been omitted when researching the leadership-performance relationship. This truncates leadership measurements. While Bass has claimed that visionary leadership is almost always more effective than transactional leadership, other researchers (e.g. Avery, 2004) argue that there is no single leadership paradigm that is the most effective. Instead, an organization should adopt the leadership style that suits the context in which the leadership and followers interact. Therefore, future research should be extended by encompassing a broad conceptualization of leadership such as that offered by Avery’s (2004) four leadership paradigms. This broadens the scope of the leadership perspectives and measures.
Moreover, most previous empirical studies into the effects of leadership on performance (Lim and Ployhart, 2004) have been directed toward individual-level outcomes, such as individual satisfaction and performance. Little attention has been paid to the influence of a leader on group or organizational processes and outcomes (Conger, 1999; Yukl, 1999). Yukl (2002) points out that the visionary leadership literature has focused too narrowly on dyadic processes, and calls for greater attention to team-based studies. Both of these issues represent additional gaps in the existing research. Furthermore, even where previous studies have examined the link between leadership paradigms and behaviors and have shown a positive relationship, none has explained the nature of this connection, and therefore, how and why leadership affects performance. Future research needs to address this deficiency.