Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

RESEARCH ARTICLE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Copyright © 2015 American Scientific Publishers Advanced Science Letters


All rights reserved Vol. XXXXXXXXX
Printed in the United States of America

Directive leadership and Satisfaction:


A unique relationship
Sajeela Rabbani1, Rabia Imran2*, Sumaira Shamoon3
1, 3
Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan
2College of Commerce and Business Administration, Dhofar University, Salalah, Oman

The research was aimed at examining the impact of directive leadership on job satisfaction. Furthermore, it investigated
the moderating role played by power distance and personality dimensions i.e. Neuroticism, Extraversion and
Conscientiousness on the said relationship. A purposive sample of 137 respondents from public sector organizations of
Pakistan was selected for the study. The results revealed that directive leadership has an impact on job satisfaction
however, in a negative direction. The hypothesized moderating role of Neuroticism and Extraversion were supported
whereas, Conscientiousness and power distance were not found to paly a significant role as moderators. Limitations
and direction for future research were also discussed.
Keywords: Directive Leadership, Power distance, Personality, Job satisfaction

1. INTRODUCTION leader’s authority is strong and followers have low ability


A number of variable affect the behavior of and external locus of control. Such leaders provide
employees towards job and organization itself. One of guidance for what to do and how to do and make followers
the most important variables in this regards is comprehend what is expected through specified
leadership1. Leadership is about developing a vision performance standards11
for future and setting direction2.It has been extensively Research on administrative leadership in
researched, and found to be important in determining bureaucratic firms is inadequate to understand the
success or failure of the organizations. It has profound leadership dynamics in such firms12. Leader’s style and
impacts on employee outcomes like job satisfaction, specifically directive leadership style is most probably
performance, stress, innovation and organizational associated with commitment and satisfaction of employees
citizenship behavior3,4. in Asian firms and it is also well implied in public sector
Job satisfaction refers to the degree to which organizations12,13. This study attempts to evaluate impact
employees like their work5. It depicts how pleased is of directive leadership style on subordinate’s job
one with the job6. The feeling of satisfaction varies satisfaction. The proposed scenario is reasonably factual in
according to the type of the job and the expectations public sector firms of Pakistan where a strong bureaucratic
employees have from it7. It is a complex experience structure prevails, with strong authority and so directive
that employees have and is largely dependent on leadership is most relevant style which might determine
elements in the work environment with leadership job satisfaction.
style being the most important one8,9. The researchers The available literature also highlighted that
studying the concept of leadership and their effect of characteristics of subordinates, environment, organization
job satisfaction found them strongly related8. and work serve as moderators (either enhancers or
Besides, many researchers applied the extension rule neutralizers) of leadership styles and employee
to the However, the satisfaction is largely related to the outcomes14,15.
style of the leader. The right mix of these two factors In countries which score high on power distance
always lead to organizational success10 (like Pakistan), people perceive unequal distribution of
*
Email Address: rabiaimran@yahoo.com; power among members and firms have hierarchical order
rimran@du.edu.om places. High power distance provides power, authority and
Among different leadership styles directive leadership control to the leadership with formal rules and regulations
style is rarely recommended but is extensively used when to strengthen leaders. such scenario autocratic leadership is
likely to prevail like directive leadership. Although
1
Adv. Sci. Lett. X, XXX–XXX, 2015 RESEARCH ARTICLE

directive leadership generally reduce job satisfaction environment within the individual of those psychophysical
however, the personality type and prevailing culture can systems that determine his/her unique adjustment to the
make employees satisfied despite directive leadership environment”. Allport41 provided five traits model of
style. To investigate this, current research aims to examine personality naming Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness
the power distance and personality as moderators in the to experience, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
relationship between directive leadership and job Individual own characteristics and environmental
satisfaction. attributes can enhance leadership and employee outcomes
LITERATURE REVIEW relationships14. Dispositional assets of individuals also
Leadership is one of the major contextual elements in have affective nature for certain relationships which exist
determining employee performance by providing them in organizational settings43. Being dispositional asset,
information and giving them feedback24,25. Directive personality of an individual may also serve as moderator
leadership is one style of leadership that can do wonders in between relationships of directive leadership and job
certain situations. Directive leaders highlight structure to satisfaction as being the personal attributes of individual,
their subordinates in accordance with the vision, make because these have direct impact on individual
them aware of performance expectations, tell them what to satisfaction21.
do and how to accomplish task thus provide complete Profound impact of Big-five personality was found on job
guidance in all aspects of work26. They heavily rely on satisfaction through underlying mechanism of job
authority and position powers provided by the organization characteristics44. It is still blurred that which personal
and decide on unshared information27. Directive leadership aspects of employees are dispositional sources of job
approach strengthens those employee behaviors which satisfaction and need further investigation42. Since the
help in compliance to rules and formal processes and logical nature of conscientiousness, extraversion and
conduct decision making without much input from neuroticism determine job satisfaction level of
subordinates 28. employees21,42. It is also logical that directive leadership
Research indicated that leadership has effects on would result in jib satisfaction when personality type of an
productivity, performance, satisfaction and commitment of employee is encouraging. Thus we presume the following
employees. Among these outcomes job satisfaction is moderating effects of personality traits on directive
explained by leadership style more than other outcomes29. leadership-job satisfaction relationship ignoring
Job satisfaction is a positive attribute of someone towards agreeableness and openness to experience for this study.
one’s job and pleasant feeling about his work30. It is also H2: Neuroticism will moderate the relationship of
identified that job satisfaction is the association of directive leadership and job satisfaction
employee expectation from job and what one gets from H3: Extraversion will moderate the relationship of
job31. directive leadership and job satisfaction
Studies reported mixed effects of directive leadership on H4: Conscientiousness will moderate the relationship of
job satisfaction. Some of these studies revealed that it directive leadership and job satisfaction
doesn’t often affect job satisfaction32, 33 some revealed their Power distance is one the dimensions of national culture as
negative relationship34, and some confirmed the positive identified by Hofstede45. According to Hofstede power
impact of directive leadership and job satisfaction35,36. distance element of culture depicts the distribution of
Association of initiating structure, autocratic, structure power in that society. High power distance cultures are
oriented leadership (directive leadership) and job those in which people perceive unequal distribution of
satisfaction of employees have mixed results in literature36, power while in low power distance societies, people feel
38, 39
. From these, directive leadership is linked with Asian justified power distribution. Pakistan is a high power
firms’ employees’ outcomes like commitment and distance society and in such societies some people have
satisfaction37, 40. Moreover, when the special concern is high powers than other and formal authorities of power
about public sector firms, directive leadership also work. positions are strong23.
In such situation when there is leader who score high on Power distance is used as moderator in many relationships.
directive style will increase job satisfaction of subordinates Such as Justice, perceived organizational support and
but when employee perceptions for performance are high employee outcomes46,47 and so on. Due to interactional
the results are different 37. nature of power distance, this study has introduced it as a
H1: directive leadership has an impact on employee job moderator of directive leadership style of manager and job
satisfaction satisfaction of the subordinate; such that when power
Importance of individual’s own attributes play distance is high the relationship between directive
significant role in determining attitudes towards job like leadership is strong.
job satisfaction17. Personality serves as the major H5: Power distance moderates the relationship between
dispositional asset of the individual that affect one’s directive leadership and job satisfaction
satisfaction level with the job21. Personality research in METHODOLOGY
organizational behavior emerged since the comprehensive Sample and Data Collection
work of Allport41. He defines personality as “Dynamic The study contains a purposive sample of 137 employees

2
RESEARCH ARTICLE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

of a number of public sector organizations of Pakistan. 1 Directive Leadership -1.76* Accepted


Data were collected through personally administered Moderations
questionnaire. Explanation of the research purpose, (Interaction Terms)
voluntary participation and data confidentiality was 2 Directive Leadership* .221* .030* Accepted
communicated on start of questionnaire and voluntary Neuroticism
participation. 3 Directive Leadership* 2.142* .035* Accepted
Extraversion
Measures
4 Directive Leadership* 1.262 .008 Rejected
The concept of Directive leadership was measured using 6 Conscientiousness
item scale developed by Sagie et al.,26. Personality traits 5 Directive Leadership* .501 .008 Rejected
were measured by using 12 item NEO-FFI personality Power distance
inventory developed by Costa & McCrae48. Overall job *p <0.05

satisfaction was measured with 7 item instrument Table 2 shows results of multiple regression analysis used
developed by Cook et al.,63. Power distance was measured to test direct and moderated hypothesized relationships.
with 5 items scale developed by Yoo et.al.,49. All variables Respondents’ age, gender and tenure being the control
were measured by using five point Likert-type scales. variables were entered in the first step, then independent
Control variables: We used age, tenure and gender as variable (directive leadership) and moderator (Neuroticism,
control variables due to their potential impact on job extraversion, Conscientiousness and power distance) was
satisfaction. entered in step 2 separately, followed by interaction terms
RESULTS of moderators and directive leadership in Step 3.
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities The main effects for hypothesis 1. Directive leadership was
(N=137) negatively related to job satisfaction (β = -1.76, p <.05).
This result was opposite to that was anticipated in first
M SD I II III IV V VI
I hypothesis thus rejecting it.
Job Satisfaction 3.43 .92 (0.89) The interaction terms of directive leadership with
II
Directive 3.49 0.71 **
-.278 (0.84) Neuroticism (β =2.21, p<.05; R2 change =.030, p<.05)
III
Leadership
and Extraversion (β = 2.142, p.<05; R2 change =.035
IV
Neuroticism 3.03 0.36 **
.253 *
-.229 (0.63) p<.05) were significant for job satisfaction and the
Extraversion 3.44 0.39 **
.346 **
.338 .106 (0.67) value of R2 change for both of the models exhibit the
V
Conscientiousn 3.56 0.54 .127 **
.367 **
.043 .489 (0.74)
additional variance explained by adding the
VI
ess interaction term is according to or more than the
Power Distance 2.74 0.79 **
.329 .020 **
.323 -.122 -.104 (0.69) typical range set for moderator effects in the field
*p <0.05, ** p <0 .01; Parenthesis values in bold show alpha reliabilities of scales. studies52.
Table 1 Shows correlation, reliabilities of the scales and However, the interaction terms of directive
descriptive statistics of the variables. The mean values vary leadership with Conscientiousness (β =1.262, p>05; R2
from 2.74 to 3.56 for power distance and conscientiousness change =.008 p>.05) and power distance (β =.401,
respectively. The correlation shows that Job satisfaction is p>05; R2 change =.008 p>.05). were insignificant for
negatively and significantly related with Directive job satisfaction.
leadership (r=-.278, p<.01); positively and significantly Discussion
related with Neuroticism (r=.253, p<.01), Extraversion Although studies conducted on path goal theory
(r=.346, p<.01); and power distance (r=.329 p<.01). acknowledge the influence of directive leadership on
However, no significant relationship was found between employee outcomes but there are still distinctions like
Job satisfaction and Conscientiousness (r=.127, p>.05). All our study that results do not match with the suppositions
the reliability values are above .60 that shows that the of the theory always. We investigated path goal theory
scales are reliable to be used in current context50. with a new model containing job satisfaction,
Moderation Analysis: personality traits and power distance. Not only we
For testing moderation moderated multiple regression tested main effects of directive leadership but also
analysis was used57. In first step control variables were explored how personality of an individual as a
entered, in second step independent and moderator dispositional factor and power distance as a contextual
variables were entered. In the third step, the interaction factor affect DL and JS relationship. Our findings
term of the independent and moderator variable is entered. suggest that in Pakistani cultural context directive
If the interaction term proves significant then there is leadership cast detrimental effects on employee job
confirmed moderation. satisfaction. Use of such leadership style, specifically in
our sample of public sector is not favorable for creating
satisfied employees. This effects satisfaction of
Table 2. Main Effects and Moderated Regression Analyses (N=137) employees negatively. This outcome was also discussed
Hypotheses Impacts β Results
ΔR2 by House & Mitchell14 in path goal theory early
Direct Impact
researches that individuals who perceive themselves as
high performers would not be satisfied with a directive
3
Adv. Sci. Lett. X, XXX–XXX, 2015 RESEARCH ARTICLE

boss. Similarly, such other reasons may prevail in strength itself. A new model is presented with
public sector firms of Pakistan. With such directive contextual aspect, power distance and dispositional
styles having rigid procedures and guidelines aspect personality. A limitation to the study was limited
employees may not feel comfortable and their sample, time constraints, and discretion of the
autonomy is also not much there, thus they feel less researcher for not performing longitudinal study. Future
satisfied. studies should consider other environmental, situational
Relationship of a directive leadership style and and individual specific features for their models and test
employee job satisfaction does not prevail in isolation. path goal theory in cross-cultural settings. Although our
Our study also realized that individual’s own study extended our knowledge about moderating effects
personality traits and cultural orientation is also of personality and culture on employee attitude,
influential in determining job related attitude such as however there is enough room to fill for the existing
job satisfaction. This study tested neuroticism, gaps in the literature.
extraversion and conscientiousness traits of big five REFERENCES
personality model as moderators of DL and JS [1] Mahdi, O. R., Mohd, E. S. B. G., & Almsafir, M. K. (2014).
relationship. Extraverts often found satisfied being Empirical Study on the Impact of Leadership Behavior on
Organizational Commitment in Plantation Companies in
inspired by motivational factors like admiration and Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,109,
gratitude on their achievements and so experience more 1076-1087.
job satisfaction. In the presence of a directive leader, [2] Long, C. S., & Thean, L. Y. (2011) Relationship between
whose behavior has diminishing impact on his/her leadership styles, Job satisfaction and employees' Turnover
intention: A literature review. Research journal of business
satisfaction, but still he/she will be satisfied and his/her management, 5 (3), 91-100
traits of extraversion serve as a shield. Thus we realize [3] Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & Van Emmerik, H. (2007).
moderation of extraversion. Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship
Conscientious individuals are responsible and high on behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational
determination and commitment, therefore gain Behavior, 28(8), 1035-1057.
[4] Shim, W. S., & Steers, R. M. (2012). Symmetric and
promotions and incentives at work place which makes asymmetric leadership cultures: A comparative study of
them pleased and so satisfied53. No moderation of leadership and organizational culture at Hyundai and
conscientiousness, the weakening of DL and JS Toyota. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 581-591.
relationship was opposite to what we expected. This [5] Ellickson, M. C., & Logsdon, K. (2002). Determinants of job
satisfaction of municipal government employees. Public
might be because of the above mentioned performance Personnel Management, 31(3), 343-358.
perceptions of oneself, which may oppose the directive [6] Kabir, M. N., & Parvin, M. M. (2011). Factors affecting
behavior of one’s boss. employee job satisfaction of pharmaceutical
Neurotics frequently experience negative moods and sector. Australian Journal of Business and Management
thus their job satisfaction levels are lesser21. If there is Research, 1(9), 113-123.
[7] Al-Hussami, M. (2008). A study of nurses' job satisfaction:
a directive boss, who is contributing to demise one’s job the relationship to organizational commitment, perceived
satisfaction neurotic trait of one’s personality serve to organizational support, transactional leadership,
strengthen the impact of this negativity. Therefore, transformational leadership, and level of education. European
neuroticism in our study proved as a potential Journal of Scientific Research, 22(2), 286-295.
[8] Gharibvand, S., Mazumder, M. N. H., Mohiuddin, M., & Su,
moderator of DL and JS relationship. Z. (2013). Relationship between Leadership Style and
Individual level power distance as being the cultural Employee Job Satisfaction: Evidence in Malaysia
factor affects many relationships in management Semiconductor Industry, Transnational Corporations
research. Similarly, in case of public sector of Pakistan Review, 5(2), 93-103.
we found that it does not serves as potential moderator [9] Xie, J.L. and Johns, G. (2000). Interactive effects of absence
culture salience and group cohesiveness: A multi-level and
of DL and JS relationship. cross-level analysis of work absenteeism in the Chinese
Besides the above findings, our study also contributes context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
to the notion that theories of west should be generalized Psychology, 73, 31-5
to east. So in our study cultural context of Pakistan [10] Voon, M. L., Lo, M. C., Ngui, K. S., & Ayob, N. B. (2011).
The influence of leadership styles on employees’ job
presented that path goal theory model can be applied to satisfaction in public sector organizations in
non-western countries with some exceptions of results Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Management and
from these areas. Our intention to incorporate cultural Social Sciences, 2(1), 24-32.
element in this study was deliberate and got directions [11] Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2007). Effective leadership.
from some previous studies’ future directions in Thomson South-Western.
[12] Wart, M. V. (2003). Public‐Sector leadership theory: An
organizational behavior research54. assessment. Public administration review, 63(2), 214-228.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH [13] Ali, A. Y. S., Sidow, M. A., & Guleid, H. S. (2013). Leadership
This study is conducted particularly on public sector of styles and job satisfaction: empirical evidence from
Pakistan, which makes it more specific for a sector. Mogadishu universities. European Journal of Management
Sciences and Economics, 1(1).
Testing path goal theory in a different cultural setting [14] House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of
like Pakistan was the main goal of this study which is a leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 81.

4
RESEARCH ARTICLE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[15] Schriesheim, C. A., & Fulk, J. L. (1981, August). Subordinate Team Citizenship. International Journal of Leadership Studies,
Self-Perceptions of Performance as a Moderator of the Effects 2( 3), 2007, 171-193
of Directive Leadership: A Path-Goal Theory Extension. [35] Ispas, A., & Babaita, C. (2012). The effects of leadership style
Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 1981, No. 1, pp. on the employees’ job satisfaction and organizational
146-150). Academy of Management. commitment from the hotel industry. Proceedings of the
[16] House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader international management conference, 6(1), pp. 254-262).
effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly, 321-339. [36] Maqsood, Bilal, Nazir, & Baig (2013). Manager’s Leadership
[17] Li, N., Liang, J. &Crant J.M. (2010).The Role of Proactive Styles and Employee’s Job Satisfaction. Human and Social
Personality in Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Science Research, 1(2 ), 139-144
Behavior: A Relational Perspective, Journal of Applied [37] Malik, S., Hassan, H., & Aziz, S. (2011). Path Goal Theory: A
Psychology, 95 ( 2), 395–404. Study of Employee Job Satisfaction In Telecom Sector.
[18] Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: In 2011 International Conference on Management and
The search for universals in personality lexicons. Review of Service Science (pp. 127-134).
personality and social psychology, 2(1), 141-165. [38] Malik, S. H. (2013). Relationship between Leader Behaviors
[19] McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1985). Openness to and Employees' Job Satisfaction: A Path-Goal
experience. Perspectives in personality, 1, 145-172 Approach. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social
[20] Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Sciences, 7(1).
personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. [39] Yun et al. (2007). Leadership and teamwork: the effects of
Personnel Psychology; spring 1991; 44, 1 leadership and job satisfaction on team citizenship,
[21] Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job International Journal of Leadership studies, 22 (3), 171-193.
satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of [40] Ali, A. Y. S., Sidow, M. A. &Guleid, H. S. (2013). Leadership
Applied Psychology, 88(4), 750. styles and job satisfaction: empirical evidence from
[22] Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and Mogadishu universities. European Journal of Management
job satisfaction: A review and theoretical Sciences and Economics, 1(1), 1-10
extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision [41] Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: a psychological
Processes, 86(1), 67-98. interpretation. Oxford, England: Holt. xiv 588
[23] Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's [42] Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor
consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-
organizations across nations. Sage. analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 530.
[24] Imran, R., Zahoor, F., & Zaheer, A. (2012). Leadership and [43] Yan, Y., Zou, J. & Zhu, X. (2013). How People-organization
performance relationship: Culture matters. Leadership, 3, 557. Value-Fit Affects Work Engagement: the Moderation Role of
[25] Martin, Laio & Bush (2012). Directive versus empowering Conscientiousness. International Conference on Applied
leadership: A field experiment comparing the impact on task Social Science Research (ICASSR 2013)
proficiency and proactivity, Academy of management Journal, [44] Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality
56 (5), 1372-1395 and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job
[26] Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai‐Hamburger, Y., Te'eni, D., characteristics. Journal of applied psychology, 85(2), 237.
& Schwartz, D. G. (2002). An empirical assessment of the [45] Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational
loose–tight leadership model: quantitative and qualitative practices and theories. Journal of international business
analyses. Journal of Organizational Behavior,23(3), 303-320. studies, 75-89.
[27] Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team [46] Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power
process on performance and innovation in functionally distance as a moderator of the relationship between justice and
heterogeneous teams. Journal of management, 32(1), 132-157. employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese
[28] Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims, H. P. (2013). employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-
Examining the differential longitudinal performance of 711
directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy [47] Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level
of Management Journal, 56(2), 573-596. cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational
[29] Loke, J. (2001). Leadership behaviors: effects on job support–employee outcome relationships in China:
satisfaction, productivity and organizational Comparing the effects of power distance and
commitment. Journal of nursing management, 9(4), 191-204. traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715-
[30] Robbins, S. P. & Judge. T. A. (2007). Organizational Behavior, 729.
Twelfth Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle, River, [48] Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors
New Jersey are basic.Personality and individual differences, 13(6), 653-
[31] Imran, R. (2013 February). Chapter three predicting job 665.
satisfaction through rewards; stress as a moderator. In [49] Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring
psychology at work in Asia: Proceeds of 3rd and 4rth Asian Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual
Psychological Association Conferences and 4rth International level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of
conference on Organizational Psychology (p.18). Cambridge International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210.
Scholar Publishing. [50] Sekaran, U. (2000).Research methods for business: A skill
[32] El-Nahas, T., Abd-El-Salam, E. M., & Shawky, A. Y. (2012). building approach: John wiley & Sons. Inc.P.308-313
The impact of leadership behavior and organizational culture [51] Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S.
on job Satisfaction and its relationship among organizational (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
commitment and turnover intentions: a case study on an the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Egyptian company. The Business & Management [52] Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in
Review,3(1), 66. personality psychology. Journal of personality, 59(2), 143-178.
[33] Tsai, R. L. (2008). Reconsidering Gobitis: An Exercise in [53] Furnham, A., Petrides, K.V.,Jackson, C.J. & Cotter, T.(2002). Do
personality factors predict job satisfaction? Personality and Individual
Presidential Leadership. Washington University Law
Differences, 33,1325–1342
Review, 86(2), 363-443. [54] Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational
[34] Yun, S., Sims, H.P & Salam, S. (2007). Leadership and behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31,386-4
Teamwork: The Effects of Leadership and Job Satisfaction on

5
Adv. Sci. Lett. X, XXX–XXX, 2015 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Potrebbero piacerti anche