The Journal of Developing Areas

Volume 51 No. 4 Fall 2017

LEADERSHIP STYLES AND EMPLOYEES

MOTIVATION: PERSPECTIVE FROM AN
EMERGING ECONOMY
Muhammad Fiaz
Qin Su
Amir Ikram*
Xian Jiaotong University, China
Aruba Saqib
University of Engineering and Technology, Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Leadership deficit has been Pakistans most pressing issue for decades, and this problem is even more
pervasive in public organizations than private sector. Tackling the leadership crisis is now
increasingly a question of what constitutes an appropriate leadership style to augment motivation of
employees. Thus the purpose of the study is to explore the intriguing question of the most pragmatic
leadership style and its potential impact on employees motivation. For this purpose, autocratic,
democratic, and laissez-faire styles are considered as independent variables, while employees
motivation is the dependent variable. Data is collected via survey questionnaire, based on closed-
ended Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), from a sample of 110 senior level and middle
level managers working at WAPDA, an autonomous organization of Pakistan working under the
administrative control of federal government for the development of energy resources. Descriptive
statistics, reliability statistics, multiple regression model and analysis of variance are deployed to test
hypotheses of the study and derive practical implications. Autocratic leadership style is found to be
more dominant and exhibits significant negative relationship with employees motivation, whereas
democratic and laissez-faire leadership styles are shown to positively predict motivation of
employees. However, the positive relationship between democratic leadership and employees
motivation comes out to be insignificant, which depicts the bureaucratic and decentralized nature of
the organization. The research findings are in line with the theoretical assumptions for autocratic and
laissez-faire style, but inconsistent with democratic leadership style. The paper proposes the
preference for democratic and laissez-faire leadership style in the face of deleterious bureaucratic
environment. Though few researchers investigated the relationship between leadership styles and
employees performance, there is hardly any study that focuses on bureaucratic environment of an
emerging economy. The study offers broader policy implications to strengthen institutions by
establishing democratic leadership style. In a context marked by bureaucracy and sluggishness, top
management needs to focus on leadership development programs and pursuance of democratic
leadership style.

JEL Classifications: C12, D22, L32, M54

Keywords: Leadership style, autocratic leadership, democratic leadership, laissez-faire
leadership, employees motivation
Corresponding authors email address: amirikram12@hotmail.com
 144

INTRODUCTION
Leaders play a pivotal role in leading their followers to fulfill organizational goals
effectively. They need to communicate with their employees thoroughly, and manage
human capital, finance, and marketing wisely. In simple terms, leadership is a process by
which an individual motivate or influence others to achieve organization goals (Kesting et
al., 2016). It is the process of enhancing and encouraging the self-esteem of employees to
achieve organizational task and goals. Employee motivation is a way to achieve unusual
goals, in which they put effort above and beyond stated organizational goals.
Comprehensively speaking, employee motivation is the extent to which employees are
bound emotionally or psychologically towards the organization (Anitha, 2014). In
achieving organizational goals, employees are considered to be the most effective source.
Employees have the tendency to utilize the organizational capital efficiently and increase
the productivity and profitability of the organization. The well-qualified, capable and
talented workforce is needed to achieve organization strategic goals. In order to
advantageously utilize that asset, leadership style is considered being the most important
determinant to increase employee motivation. Induction of hardworking, commitment and
motivation in employees is at the core of an organizational success. The committed
workforce is an important success factor for organizations to achieve their desired goals.
The significant importance of committed workforce is that it has less intention to leave the
organization. The employees motivation, performance and productivity should increase if
they are treated with good leadership style. Leadership styles can be categorized as
autocratic, laissez faire, or democratic (Lewin, Lippitt & White, 1939; Bass & Stogdill,
1990). The government and semi-government institutions of developed economies have
attained maturity, and mostly following democratic leadership style (Giddens, 2013).
Different national cultures shape the mindset of individuals in a different way, thus there
can be differences in management styles and employee motivation throughout the world
(Hofstede, 1980). However, much attention has not been given towards examining the state
institutions of developing economies with respect to their leadership style. Thus
implications of leadership and the relevant leadership style is even more important for
emerging economies, such as Pakistan, which are marked by roller coaster period and
dynamic change. Thus it is imperative to analyze the pivotal organization of an emerging
economy and the prevalent leadership style.
The research paper examines the role of leaders and managers working in Water and
Power Development Authority (WAPDA), an autonomous organization assigned with the
vital tasks related to electricity sector of Pakistan. Its obligations include development of
water reservoirs, generation of electricity, transmission and distribution to the end users in
industry, commerce, trading, agriculture, domestic and various social sectors (WAPDA,
2016). Considering the fact that electricity crisis is perhaps the biggest problem that
Pakistan is currently facing (Ikram, Su & Sadiq, 2016), it is imperative to analyze the
entities and stakeholders involved from diversified perspectives; WADPA is primarily
responsible for electricity generation, and constitutes an integral entity in hydropower
development (Ikram, Su & Fiaz, 2017). We identify the elements of successful leadership
development, and assesses the competencies that needs to be developed. The objective of
the study is to determine the effect of autocratic, democratic and laissez faire leadership
style on employees motivation. For organizational effectiveness it is imperative to have
excellent leadership which should be complemented by higher levels of employees
 145

motivation. Next section provides a comprehensive view on the concepts of leadership

styles and motivation. Third section describes research methodology and theoretical
framework regarding the relationship of the most practiced leadership style with
employees motivation. Section four elaborates data analysis and hypotheses testing.
Lastly, the study offers concluding remarks regarding predominant leadership styles and
provides practical implications for prospective leaders and entrepreneurs alike.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Leadership styles

Leadership style is one of the most important human resource-related outcomes, and
perhaps one of the most studied topic in management and industrial psychology. This is
probably because leadership happens to be the core but sometimes contentious issue in
organizational research (Kesting et al. 2016; Meindl 2013; Puni, Ofei & Okoe 2014).
Psychologists Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) identified three major leadership styles,
namely, democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire styles. Leadership enables organizations
to be more productive and profitable, but the extent of success depends on the style of the
leader and the resultant environment created for employees to function well. Asrar-ul-Haq
and Kuchinke (2016) is of the view that the kind of leadership style exhibited by managers
to a large extent influences organizational valued outcomes such as low employee turnover,
reduced absenteeism, customer satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. Similarly,
leadership style controls interpersonal, reward and punishment that shapes employee
behavior, motivation and attitude which impacts on organizational performance (Pufi et al.
2014). It can either lead to inspiration or disenchantment among employees resulting in
increase or decrease productivity. Furthermore, leadership style at the workplace can affect
employees self-image either positively or negatively, particularly an employees health
(Kahn & Katz 1952). Most leadership theorists agree that the traits, style, and contingency
theories dominate the leadership literature (Jung et al. 2014; Kesting et al. 2016; Schein
2015). The leadership style movement started in 1945 at the Ohio State University.
Significantly, the Consideration and Initiating Structure study stood out from these
early contributions which provided the basic dimensions of leadership behavior in formal
organizations. Consequently, contributors like Likert (1961), Kahn & Katz (1952) also
expanded the works of their predecessors by basically analyzing the relationship between
supervisory behavior and employee productivity and satisfaction in 1947 at the University
of Michigan. Their studies identified two styles of leadership - Employee Centered (EC)
and Production Centered (PC) leadership. EC leaders focus more on employee goals and
satisfaction and less time in performing similar task assigned to employees. It is also
disinterested in punishing employees when they go wrong. On the other hand, PC leaders
are interested in output therefore spend more time in actual supervisory work related to
production and less attention on supervisory activities like planning (Avolio, Walumbwa
& Weber 2009). Globalization resulted in the highly diversified labor, thus it is important
to analyze leadership style from cross-cultural perspective. Bass (1997) observed that there
are few leadership strategies, for example, transactional and transformational leadership,
that transcend national boundaries. Laissez faire style of management let the employees
realize their potential without the undue meddling of management, thus it contributes
 146

towards transactional leadership and has positive impact on motivation (Chaudhry & Javed
2012).

Autocratic leadership

Autocratic leadership style (AL) places more emphasis on performance and low emphasis
on people. The focus of power is with the leader and all interactions within the group move
towards the leader. The leader unilaterally exercises all decision-making authority by
determining policies, procedures for achieving goals, work task, relationships, control of
reward, and punishment (Van Vugt et al. 2004). The basic assumption underlying
autocratic leadership style is based on the premise that, people are naturally lazy,
irresponsible, and untrustworthy and leaving the functions of planning, organizing, and
controlling to subordinate would yield fruitless results and so such functions should be
accomplished by the leader without the involvement of people. Further, Likert's (1961)
four management systems, characterized autocratic leadership style system as an
exploitative-authoritative system where power and direction come from the top
downwards, where threats and punishments are employed, and where communication is
poor and team-work is non-existent. Jung, Jeong and Mills (2014) described an autocratic
leadership style on a continuum and opined that autocratic leaders make decisions and
announce them, without inviting suggestions from subordinates. Autocratic leader relies
heavily on authority, control, power, manipulation and hard work to get the job done (Puni
et al. 2016). In the autocratic leadership system, formal centralized structures, procedures,
processes and mechanism are clearly defined and are enforced to ensure that subordinates
do their jobs efficiently within the rules. Punishments are often applied when mistakes are
made and sanctions are in the form of withholding attention or good assignment or making
people feel guilty. Motivation under this leadership style is by the means of economic
incentives which are extrinsic in nature and based on performance. Development within an
autocratic system comes from hard work and rarely does delegation of authority practiced.
Most theorists have identified autocratic leaders with authoritarian leaders simply because
research has proven that there is a strong positive correlation between autocratic leadership
style and authoritarianism (Chemers 2014; Schuh, Zhang & Tian 2013; Svolik 2013).

Democratic leadership

Bhatti et al. (2012) suggest that democratic leadership style focuses more on people and
there is greater interaction within the group. The leadership functions are shared with
members of the group and the leader is more part of the team. Similarly, Jones et al. (2016)
and Raelin (2012) suggested that the principles of democratic leadership is friendliness,
helpfulness, and the encouragement of participation. In the same vein, McGregor and
Cutcher-Gershenfeld (2006) described this leadership style as benevolent, participative,
and believing in people; they equated democratic leader to the Theory Y manager which is
associated with increased follower productivity, satisfaction, involvement, and
commitment. The philosophical assumption underlying democratic leadership style is that
naturally all people are trustworthy, self-motivated, like responsibility and challenging
work, and are encouraged by organizational conditions to foster teamwork, high
performance and satisfaction (Jones et al. 2016).
 147

Laissez faire leadership

The main emphasis of laissez faire leadership style is neither on performance nor people;
the philosophical assumption is that naturally human beings are unpredictable and
uncontrollable and trying to understand people is a waste of time and energy. On this
hypothesis, the leader tries to maintain a low profile, respects all constituencies within the
organization, tries not to create waves of disturbance, and relies on the few available
loyalists to get the job done (Chaudhry & Javed 2012). Laissez-faire leader lives and work
with whatever structure put in place without any suggestions or criticisms. Goals and
objectives are established only when necessary and required. The leader is not control-frisk
and abdicates controlling to employees. Such leaders shun decision-making as best as they
can and would like to avoid communication, and converses only when needed. Thus, the
business of employee development is not a concern to the laissez faire leader, as they
believe that employees can take care of themselves (Wong & Giessner 2015). It is pertinent
to mention here that in a study on the banking sector of Pakistan, laissez-faire leadership
style revealed negative relationship with employee performance outcomes (Asrar-ul-Haq
& Kuchinke 2016).

Evaluating motivation and it relationship with leadership

Employees motivation is dependent upon leadership styles to quite an extent, though is

varies from organization to organization. Bouckenooghe, Zafar and Raja (2015) argues that
motivation is a key component of leadership. They state that leadership is, amongst others,
the ability to motivate others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the
groups of which they are members. Asrar-ul-Haq and Kuchinke (2016) suggests that
motivation of employees in the public sphere is very important as the performance of
governments and their administrations affect our society much more than any other private
sector organization. With respect to measuring motivation, Tour-Tillery and Fishbach
(2014) differentiated between the outcome-oriented motivation to complete a goal and the
process-focused motivation that entails comprehensive elements of goal pursuance.
Fishbach and Choi (2012) compared the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on behavior
and advocated the creation of context to highlight and distinguish one of these dimensions,
for example through experimental designs. While investigating outcome-focused
dimension of motivation, Tour-Tillery and Fishbach (2012) evaluated motivation through
adherence to ethical, religious, and correctness standards over the course of successive
actions. They further suggested that means-oriented motivation is U-shaped, because
beginning and end activities are comprehended as more analytic for making self-
interpretations.
Democratic leaders rely upon group decision making and active member involvement,
autocratic styles are domineering and laissez-faire styles also known as the hands-off
styles minimize the leaders involvement. Therefore, Bhatti et al. (2012) reveal that
democratic leaders take great care to involve all members of the team in discussion, and
can work with a small but highly motivated team. Schwartz (2013) found a high
submissiveness among workers in democratic organizations, but those in autocratic
organizations expressed frustration and anger. Bouckenooghe et al. (2015) argues that the
effectiveness of group leaders is dependent on the criterion which was being used to assess
leadership. Thus, if leadership is assessed in terms of productivity, then autocratic style is
 148

most efficient but if the role is seen as maintaining good morale and a steady level of work,
democratic style is effective.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Relationship between independent and dependent variables is depicted in theoretical
framework (Figure 1). Based on the evidence from previous studies (Lewin et al., 1939;
Bass & Stogdill, 1990), three leadership styles are taken as independent variables, namely
autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire leadership styles. While employees motivation is
the dependent variable.

Theoretical framework

FIGURE 1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT

VARIABLES

LEADERSHIP
STYLES

Autocratic
Leadership

Democratic
Employees
Leadership
Motivation

Laissez-Faire
Leadership
 149

3.2 Regression Model and hypotheses formulation

In order to determine the association between employees motivation and leadership styles,
a multiple regression analysis employing three independent variables was carried out. The
operationalization of dependent and independent variables are as follows:

EM pfe = 0 + 1 (AL) + 2 (DL) + 3 (LF) + i +it (1)

Where,
EM pfe = Employees motivation (process-focused evaluation)
AL = Autocratic Leadership
DL = Democratic Leadership
LF = Laissez faire
i=unobservable heterogeneity
it= error term
0=constant variable
1, 2, & 3= Proportionate change in dependent variable due to independent
variables.
On the basis of aforementioned prior literature and multiple regression model, following
hypotheses are formulated:

H1: Autocratic leadership has a significant impact on employees motivation.

H2: Democratic leadership has a significant impact on employees motivation.
H3: Laissez-faire leadership has a significant impact on employees motivation.

Research design

Stratified sampling technique was used to collect data from 110 high and middle level
managers, working in WAPDA. The sampling technique ensured the proportionate
representation of both high-level and middle-level managers. The selection of WAPDA is
imperative from two perspectives: firstly, the persistent problem of power shortage asks
for critical examination of the entities and stakeholders involved (Ikram, Su & Fiaz, 2017);
secondly, the federal institutions of developing South Asian economies are notorious for
their bureaucratic style of governance. With respect to the research framework,
independent variables are leadership styles (Autocratic, Democratic, Laissez-faire) and the
dependent variable is employees motivation. The cross-sectional study makes use of
closed-end Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 2000), based on
Likert scale, as a survey instrument for data collection. For the purpose of evaluating
employees motivation, we relied on process-focused approach as elaborated by Tour-
Tillery and Fishbach (2014). We conduct the Cronbachs alpha test to valid the MLQ. As
per Table 1, the Cronbachs alpha for the autocratic leadership (AL) is 0.787, suggesting
 150

that the items have relatively high internal consistency. The alpha coefficient for the
democratic leadership (DL) is 0.682, depicting relatively low internal consistency. The
alpha coefficient for the Laissez faire (LF) is 0.890, which is highest as compared to other
two variables. The alpha coefficient for the employees motivation (EM) is 0.834 suggests
that the items have relatively high internal consistency. The overall alpha coefficient for
the four items is 0.787, signifying that the items have relatively high internal consistency
and thus survey instrument is expected to generate pragmatic results.

TABLE 1. RELIABILITY STATISTICS TEST

Variables Cronbach's Cronbach's Alpha Based on N of Items
Alpha Standardized Items

AL 0.787 0.771 5
0.682 0.634 5
DL
0.890 0.888 5
LF
0.718 0.778 20
Overall

Table 2 portrays that the value of N is valid for all the dependent and independent
variables. Similarly missing questions are found to be zero. The overall mean is found to
be 2.5160, and standard deviation is found to be 0.33397. The overall variance is found to
be 0.112. Therefore, all the results analyzed show significance and reliability of data.

TABLE 2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

AL DL LF EM Overall

Valid 110 110 110 110 110

N
Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 1.7618 3.4333 1.6455 3.2061 2.5160

Std. Deviation 0.4617 0.7075 0.5134 0.6289 0.3339

Variance 0.2130 0.5010 0.2640 0.395 0.112

Minimum 1.00 1.67 1.00 1.67 1.52

Maximum 3.20 4.67 3.33 4.67 3.31

 151

DATA ANALYSIS & HYPOTHESES TESTING

Reliability test and descriptive statistics endorsed the research methodology of the study.
Now, in order to empirically test the formulated hypotheses that we set forth in Section 3,
we deploy analysis of variance test (ANOVA) with the help of statistical software SPSS.

TABLE 3. MODEL SUMMARY

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the

Estimate
1 0.476a 0.226 0.197 0.41386
a. Predictors: (Constant), AL, DL, LF

In regression model (Table 3), R-value depicts multiple correlation coefficient

between the independent variables (predictors) and the dependent variable (). The multiple
correlation between the predictors (AL, DL and LF) and the dependent variable (employee
motivation) is 0.465, thus there is moderate positive relation between the variables. R
square is the ratio of the variance in the dependent variable solely or jointly explained by
the independent variables; the value of 0.226 shows that AL, DL and LF account for 2.26%
of the variation in employees motivation.

TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 5.255 4 1.314 7.670 .000b
Residual 17.984 105 .171
Total 23.240 109
a. Dependent Variable: EM
b. Predictors: (Constant), AL, DL, LF

The results of the study and hypotheses testing are primarily based on Table 4 and Table
5. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is depicted in Table 4, which shows that the effect of
predictor on dependent variable is statistically significant which is below 0.05. ANOVA
indicates that the model is reliable and best fitted at all conventional levels of significance.
Since p-value for F-statistic is less than the 5% level of significance, the overall model of
the study is significant and correctly specified. Table 5 shows that the value of beta and
standard error is deviating from variable to variable. The significance of AL is low, i.e.
0.164.

The study suggests that autocratic leadership (AL) has significant negative relationship
with employees motivation at WAPDA. The negative relationship between autocratic
leadership and motivation of employees is in line with the previous studies (Kipnis et al.,
1981; Jung et al., 2014). Lack of employees motivation can be traced back to the
 152

prevalence of autocratic leadership style. As suggested by Bass (1997), the democratic and
laissez-faire leadership styles depict positive relationship with employees motivation.
However, the analysis depicted that the values do not support significant relationship
between democratic leadership style and employees motivation. This discrepancy is
understandable as the bureaucratic environment hardly allows employees to participate in
decision making, and thus there is lack of democratic leadership.

TABLE 5. HYPOTHESES TESTING

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model
B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Decision
(Constant) 0.990 0.294 3.37 0.001
AL -0.192 0.067 -0.294 -2.87 0.005 Significant
DL 0.083 0.079 0.092 1.05 0.164 Insignificant
LF 0.079 0.070 0.107 1.12 0.009 Significant
EM 0.411 0.079 0.496 5.23 0.000
a. Dependent Variable: EM

The results of hypotheses are:

H1: Autocratic Leadership has a significant negative impact on employees motivation

H2: Democratic Leadership do not have significant positive impact on employees
motivation
H3: Laissez-Faire Leadership has a significant positive impact on employees motivation

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study is an effort to explore three prominent leadership styles and understand its
impact on the motivation of employees working in the federal or semi-government
institutions of Pakistan. Much like other public sector and semi-government institutions,
WAPDA has become victim of deleterious bureaucracy and sluggishness. It is vital to
strengthen such institutions by establishing democratic traditions and leadership style.
For this endeavor, we conducted cross-sectional study of WAPDA, an autonomous federal
institution of Pakistan, to examine the relationship between leadership style and
employees motivation. The observations of the study indicate that all three leadership
styles have their own importance with regard to enhancing employees motivation and
performance. Autocratic leadership style was found to be more rampant in our given
organization, which results in lack of employees motivation. Though autocratic style could
not be omitted altogether, but its dominance could be reduced to a certain level by the
training of prospective leaders in an appropriate way to enhance employees motivation.
 153

Meanwhile, preference for laissez faire and democratic leadership styles can enhance
productivity of the enterprise. This will boost employees morale and the resultant
voluntarily behavior will improve efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. The
significant positive relationship of laissez faire style suggests that motivational level is high
because this particular style let the employees to realize their potential without undue
meddling of management. (Chaudhry & Javed 2012). Adoption of democratic and laissez
faire style can lead to generation of positive outcomes on the part of employees. As noted
by Kesting et al. (2016), leadership styles are contingent upon environment and various
stages of innovation. Enterprises in Pakistan are facing widespread technical inefficiency
(Ikram, Su & Sadiq 2016), so entrepreneurs and leaders need to inculcate appropriate
leadership style to enhance productivity and performance. Besides, state owned and semi-
government owned institutions are notorious for their bureaucratic environment and
autocratic style of leadership. Since the organization under investigation, i.e. WAPDA,
operates under the administrative control of the federal government, it is inherently
characterized by bureaucratic environment. In this regard, the leadership and personality
traits can enhance performance by taking care of the negative impacts of bureaucratic
environment and ensuring democracy; personality traits of conscientiousness and
agreeableness comes handy for democratic style of leadership and enhancing performance
(Anwar et al. 2017).
Though the findings of this study are context specific, however they are in line with
the theoretical assumptions of autocratic style and laissez-faire style (Van Vugt et al. 2004;
Wong & Giessner 2015), but inconsistent with democratic leadership style (Raelin 2012).
The study has broader practical implications for researchers and academicians to better
understand the role and nature of leadership styles and their impact on motivation of
employees. Leadership deficit is perhaps Pakistans most pressing problem, and the study
provides at least a prime facie evidence on how leadership styles should be devised. Based
on the outcomes, top management in the state-owned societies should realize the
significance of effective leadership style and focus on leadership development programs.
The findings can be helpful for the managers and leaders to understand that which kind of
leadership style is most appropriate in terms of its outcomes and motivations, and how they
can modify their leadership styles to make it further result oriented. Furthermore, leaders
should empower their associates so that they can accomplish their responsibilities in an
effective manner. Empowerment includes providing training and education necessary for
delegated task completion. Caution must be taken while strategizing, as laissez-faire
leadership style exhibited negative association with employee performance outcomes in
terms of employee satisfaction in the context of Pakistan (Asrar-ul-Haq & Kuchinke 2016).
Though selection of appropriate leadership style is a contingency factor, our study suggests
the preference for the style that has both a high concern for people and a high concern for
the task, i.e. democratic style. The responses on Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) were self-report measures, and thus can lead to single-source bias; managers and
leaders at WAPDA themselves rated their leadership and has direct relevance of this with
their work, so the issues of social desirability and reactivity can arise. This problem can be
mitigated through cross-ratings, so it is recommended for future studies. Findings are less
generalizable as the sample size was limited to only semi-government institution. Future
researches may include other semi-government institutions and perform comparative
 154

analysis. It is further advised to address the moderating and mediating factors of leadership
styles and innovative work attitude.

ENDNOTES

* Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Key Lab
of the Ministry of Education for Process Control and Efficiency Engineering, and School of
Management of Xian Jiaotong University, China. The research contribution has also been facilitated
by National Natural Science Foundation of China [Project Number: 71371151] and Humanities
and Social Sciences of Ministry of Education Planning Fund [13YJA630078].

REFERENCES

Anitha, J., Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on

employee performance, 2014, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management.
Anwar, B., Xiao, Z., Fiaz, M., Ikram, A., and Younas, M.N., Are leaders
personality traits imperative for employees job performance? The Context of an
Emerging Economy, 2017, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 3, No. 4,
pp.0000.
Asrar-ul-Haq, M. and Kuchinke, K.P., Impact of leadership styles on
employees attitude towards their leader and performance: Empirical evidence from
Pakistani banks, 2016, Future Business Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 54-64.
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., and Weber, T.J., Leadership: Current
theories, research, and future directions, 2009, Annual review of psychology, Vol.
60, pp. 421-449.
Bass, B.M., Does the transactionaltransformational leadership paradigm
transcend organizational and national boundaries?, 1997, American
psychologist, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 130.
Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J., MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(2nd ed.), 2000, Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden
Bass, B.M. and Stogdill, R.M., Handbook of leadership (Vol. 11). 1990,
New York: Free Press.
Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G.M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M.A., and Shaikh, F.M., The
impact of autocratic and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction,
International Business Research, 2012, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 192.
Bouckenooghe, D., Zafar, A., and Raja, U., How ethical leadership shapes
employees Job Performance: The mediating roles of goal congruence and
psychological capital, 2015, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 129, No. 2, pp. 251-
264.
Carter, S.M., and Greer, C.R., Strategic leadership: Values, styles, and
organizational performance, 2013, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
1548051812471724.
Chaudhry, A.Q., and Javed, H., Impact of transactional and laissez faire
leadership style on motivation, 2012, International Journal of Business and Social
Science, Vol. 3, No. 7.
 155

Chemers, M., An integrative theory of leadership, 2014, Psychology Press.

Fishbach, A. and Choi, J., When thinking about goals undermines goal
pursuit, 2012, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 118,
pp. 99107.
Giddens, A., The third way: The renewal of social democracy, 2013, John
Wiley & Sons.
Hofstede, G., Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American
theories apply abroad?, 1980, Organizational dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 42-63.
Ikram, A., Su, Q., and Sadiq, M.A., Technical Efficiency and Its
Determinants: An Empirical Study of Surgical Instruments Cluster of Pakistan,
2016, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 647-660.
http://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v32i2.9601
Ikram, A., Su, Q. and Fiaz, M., Pakistans persistent energy crisis and
performance of private power producers, 2017, International Journal Business
Performance Management, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.0000.
Jones, S.S., Jones, O.S., Winchester, N., and Grint, K., Putting the
discourse to work: On outlining a praxis of democratic leadership development,
2016, Management Learning, 1350507616631926.
Jung, Y., Jeong, M.G., and Mills, T., Identifying the Preferred Leadership
Style for Managerial Position of Construction Management, 2016, International
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 47-56.
Kahn, R.L., and Katz, D., Leadership practices in relation to productivity
and morale. 1952, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Kesting, P., Ulhi, J.P., Song, L.J., and Niu, H., The impact of leadership
styles on innovation-a review, 2016, Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 3, No.
4, pp. 22-41.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S., Price, K. and Stitt, C., Why do I like thee: is it your
performance or my orders?, 1981, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 3,
pp. 324.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R.K., Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates, 1939, The Journal of social psychology,
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 269-299.
Likert, R., New patterns of management. Honewood, 1961, 111: Dorsey
Press.
McGregor, D. and Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., The human side of enterprise.
2006, McGraw Hill Professional.
Puni, A., Ofei, S.B. & Okoe, A., The effect of leadership styles on firm
performance in Ghana, 2014, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 6,
No. 1, pp. 177.
Raelin, J.A., Dialogue and deliberation as expressions of democratic
leadership in participatory organizational change, 2012, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Schein, E.H., Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice
of transformational change. 2015, G. R. Bushe, & R. J. Marshak (Eds.). Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
 156

Schuh, S.C., Zhang, X.A. and Tian, P., For the good or the bad? Interactive
effects of transformational leadership with moral and authoritarian leadership
behaviors, 2013, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 629-640.
Schwartz, S., Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying. 2013, In The
psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8).
Svolik, M.W., Contracting on violence the moral hazard in authoritarian
repression and military intervention in politics, 2013, Journal of Conflict Resolution,
Vol. 57, No. 5, pp. 765-794.
Tour-Tillery, M., and Fishbach, A., How to Measure Motivation: A Guide
for the Experimental Social Psychologist, 2014, Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, Vol. 8, No. 7, pp. 328341.
Tour-Tillery, M. and Fishbach, A., The end justifies the means, but only
in the middle, 2012, Journal of Experimental Psychology General, Vol. 141, pp.
570583.
Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S.F., Hart, C.M. & De Cremer, D., Autocratic
leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability, 2004, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1-13.
WAPDA, Introduction to WAPDA. 2016, Retrieved from <
http://wapda.gov.pk/index.php/about-us/present-setup-2>
Wong, S.I., and Giessner, S.R., The Thin Line between Empowering and
Laissez-Faire Leadership an Expectancy-Match Perspective, 2015, Journal of
Management, 0149206315574597.
Copyright of Journal of Developing Areas is the property of Tennessee State University,
College of Business and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.