Table of Contents

Authors’ Declaration of originality................................................................... I

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................III

Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................6

1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................6

1.1 Purpose statement..........................................................................................8

1.2 Objectives......................................................................................................9

1.4 Significance...................................................................................................9

1.3 Hypothesis...................................................................................................10

Chapter 2: Literature Review.........................................................................11

2.0 Literature Review........................................................................................11

2.1 Theoretical Model........................................................................................15

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework...............................................................16

3.0 Theoretical Framework................................................................................16

Chapter 4: Data / Methodology......................................................................17

4.0 Tools of data collection................................................................................17

4.1 Sampling technique and sample..................................................................17

4.2 Measure........................................................................................................17

4.3 Methodology................................................................................................18

Chapter 5: Analysis..........................................................................................19

5.0 Data screening.............................................................................................19

5.1 Results..........................................................................................................19

5.1.0 Descriptive statistics.................................................................................20

5.1.1 Histogram.................................................................................................21

5.1.2 Scatter Plot................................................................................................25

5.1.3 Correlation................................................................................................28

5.1.4 Regressions...............................................................................................31

Chapter 6: Discussion Conclusion..................................................................34

6.0 Discussion....................................................................................................34

6.1 Conclusion...................................................................................................35

References..........................................................................................................36

1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing discussion about leadership styles and its impact on various aspects of
employee performance and their work-related health. It has been suggested that leadership
factors had an influence on the increasing work-related ill health, but these suggestions have
rarely been based on scientific studies. Although relationship between leaders and
subordinates has gradually been more focused, but it is still scientifically unclear as to
what extent and in what ways leaders influence the health of employees. The figure
below demonstrates how leaders may influence the health of employees.
The leader can be described as a possessor of the tools to create and change the
structure and culture within an organization. These prerequisites have been influenced
managers’ leadership style, managers’ health and also legitimate the communication
processes, feedback and reward systems. According to Schein (1992) it is the middle-
and low level managers who primarily influence the subordinates, their stress and
health outcomes. They execute and determine the boundaries for the subordinates.
The European states have experienced structural changes in labor market and living
conditions during the last two decades, which are discussed as factors that may
influence health levels in populations (Theorell & Vogel, 2003).
The structural changes have led to new demands on employees’ flexibility and ability
to handle changes, which is referred to as a health risk (Aronsson & Sjögren,1994,
Arnetz, 1996). There is no consensually agreed-upon definition of culture. Culture is
variously defined in terms of commonly shared processes: Shared ways of thinking,
feeling and reacting; shared meanings and identities; shared socially constructed
environments; common ways of interpreting how technologies are used; and
commonly experienced events (House, Wright & Aditya, 1997). It is almost self-
evident and no surprise to common sense that leadership possesses such power, as it is
a social process itself and the social climate develops as social process. Studies of
different kinds have verified the role of leadership style for the climate formation;
correlation studies (EKvall and Arvonen 1984, EKvall, Frankenhaeuser and Parr

2
1996), case-studies (tedgard 1987), action-research (Marrow, Bower and seashore
1967), and studies with experimental design (Litwin and Stringer 1968). Yet it is not
productive to include leadership in the climate concept and treat it as a special
dimension of

the climate alongside of other dimensions. James and jones (1974) opposed making
leadership style a part of the climate concept. They pointed out that “closeness of
supervision” is a “leadership process variables”, and that it should be treated as such;
nothing is to be gained by bringing it into the climate concept.
With the ever changing business landscape of more and innovative competitors, most
service firms recognize the need to introduce innovations and new technologies within
their organizational processes to stay in the market, or to retain their competitive
advantage compared to their rivals. One of the most often used models explaining
technology acceptance is the technology acceptance model (TAM) by Davis et al.
(1989). It was the first model to state that psychological factors, perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use of the new technology, are central in influencing its use.
Since the model allows for the addition of external variables, numerous extensions
have been made. These relate to technology-based factors like perceived enjoyment
and perceived attractiveness (Van der Heijden, 2003, 2004), personal factors like
personal innovativeness (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998, 1999), or interpersonal factors
like trust (Geffen et al., 2003). Also concrete management actions like offering
training and education, and organizational technical support have been shown to play
a role in influencing individual usage of innovations (Schillewaert et al., 2005). Less
attention, however, has been given to the influence of the overall leadership style in an
organization. We, therefore, extend TAM with two styles: transactional leadership and
transformational leadership. These concepts were developed by Burns (1978) on the
basis of observing political leadership, and extended by Bass (1985). Despite the fact
that the styles cannot be seen as opposite ends of a continuum (Avolio and Bass,

3
1991), they are different in nature. We expect them to play similar roles in the context
of technology acceptance, but via different mechanisms.
In this observe, the responsibility of leaders, as well as their performance in increasing
their subordinates is above some question. Although more leadership styles introduced
(eg. transformational and transactional) but out of which some is more productive for
increasing subordinates performance and some is not more important. Effective
leadership styles have much solution for arising problem in the subordinates work and
increasing their performance. In fact, the performance of leaders, as with performance
of employees in universal, is a build in relation to diversity fundamental dimensions
such as different leadership styles and advance technology acceptance.

With all these matters considering the main purpose of this chronological mixed
methods study is t investigate effective leadership styles that enhance subordinates
performance in first phase with intent of using this information in the second phase to
generalize the findings. In particular, most of the research exploring the different
effective leadership styles relation with the performance and also introduced
innovative technology in the developing countries & services and manufacturing
companies.
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the different effective leadership
styles. The paper is structured as follows. First, a short literature overview is given on
the concept of leadership styles. Secondly, a conceptual framework is built by
formulating hypotheses on the effects of leadership styles and the employee’s
performance and health. Thereafter the empirical study is described and its results
have been presented. Therefore, the present study is aim to investigate the perceptions
of leaders and subordinates performance in the small medium and large organization
in India and other countries using different leadership styles.

4
1.1 PURPOSE STATEMENT (AIM OF INVESTIGATION)

For the purpose of higher performance of employees and subordinates we must use
effective leadership styles and leadership styles also important for the health of
employees. Research also described that effective leadership styles can enhance the
productivity performance and commitment with their job and organization. So the
execution of leadership styles is one way that with use of different leadership styles
leaders can construct commitment and job satisfaction of employees that increase their
performance.

Therefore, aim of this quantitative study has been, in first to investigate and recognize
the impact of leadership styles on employee’s performance and health in small and
medium enterprises (SMEs) in India and to further investigate the different leadership
styles that increase employee’s performance among different leaders using structured
questionnaire.

5
 1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

 To investigate leaders view on employees performance that how they perform good
quality and low quality and how leadership styles impact on their performance.

 To investigate leaders experiences about different leadership styles and how they feel
about these styles?

 To investigate leader’s opinion about employee’s health that contributes their

employee’s performance.

 To create the foundation for evolving effective and performance oriented leadership
styles.

6
1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

1. The present study has been significant in number of ways. It has been
contributed to the body of knowledge by: Firstly, since the present area is
highly under researched in India and developing countries. No study has been
found to investigate the leadership styles to increase employee’s performance
and their health in India . So, the present study supposes that the findings of the
present study has been helped the leaders in organization of India in particular
and those in developing countries in general to answer the long standing
question of how to enhance leader’s performance. In addition, the exclusive
findings of the study may also help to understand the difference between
leadership styles in developed countries and those in under- developed
countries. It has been also strengthen the argument that since mass of the
research on the topic is conducted in developed countries and their findings
cannot be exactly applied in developing countries. Therefore, the present study
has been contributed in the literature of leadership styles that impact on
employee’s performance and their health. Thus, has been represented the
situation of developing country like India especially the organizational
secretor.

2. Secondly, no research has been found on leadership styles, employee’s

performance and satisfaction especially in India .
3. Subordinates who are not committed and satisfied with the leadership styles
may likely to put less effort in the organization field as compared to the
employees with the high level commitment and satisfaction.
4. Although, the present study has been aim to provide guidelines to leaders to
understand how employees perform better.
5. Therefore identifying those leadership styles that tend to enhance commitment
and satisfaction which leads to employees performance would be a significant
bane fit for the organization.

7
1.4: Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1:
H1: there is relationship of Employee Performance and their Health with
Transformational style.
H0: there is no relationship of Employee Performance and their Health with
Transformational style
Hypothesis 2:
H1: there is relationship of Employee Performance and their Health with Democratic
style.
H0: there is no relationship of Employee Performance and their Health with
Democratic style
Hypothesis 3:
H1: there is relationship of Employee Performance and their Health with Laissez fair
style.
H0: there is no relationship of Employee Performance and their Health with Laissez
fair style

8
 Chapter 2

2.0: LITERATURE REVIEW:

Leadership styles
There are different approaches to studying leadership. Yukl (1994) considers the trait
approach and the charismatic/transformational leadership approach as two major
research avenues to the concept of leadership. The first, focusing on personal
attributes of successful leaders, has mainly been used in psychology. In organizational
studies, the second approach is used more often. Originally the theory of charismatic
leadership was coined by House (1977), stating that a charismatic leader is generously
accepted and obeyed by followers by having a strong need for power and a high self-
confidence.
Parallel to this conception of charismatic leadership, the concepts of transformational
and transactional leadership were developed by Burns (1978) on the basis of
observing political leadership. Bass (1985) further extended these notions and applied
them in an organizational
setting. In his theory transformational and transactional leadership are not defined to
be on a single continuum, but as two separate concepts. A leader could possess
elements of both styles. The transformational style of leadership is characterized by
charisma, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirational
motivation. Charisma can be defined as the degree to which the leader behaves in
admirable ways that cause followers to identify with the leader (Judge and Piccolo,
2004) or the amount of faith, respect, and inspiration he instills (Bass, 1985; Bycio et
al., 1995). Individual consideration refers to the ability of a leader to consider
subordinates individually, by delegating projects to stimulate people, creating learning
experiences, and paying attention to the personal needs of these followers. Intellectual
stimulation is the act of encouraging new ways of thinking, reasoning before acting,
and enabling subordinates to analyze problems from many different viewpoints
(Avolio and Bass, 1988). Finally inspirational motivation is inspiring and empowering
followers to enthusiastically accept and pursue challenging goals and a mission (Bass,

9
1985). Transactional leadership on the other hand is characterized by contingent
reward and management-by-exception. The former refers to whether a leader rewards
his followers when they act in accordance with contracts, rules, norms, agreed-upon
objectives, or expend the necessary effort on a certain task (Howell and Avolio, 1993).
(Mitch McCrimmon) introduces some benefits of transformational leadership style.
There is no doubt that being able to inspire people, stimulate them to think differently
and pay attention to their needs are great
ways for a leader to behave. If you have good content and integrity and can present a
case for change with enough enthusiasm to inspire people, you are more likely to win
them over than if your communication style is sleep-inducing. Being inspirational is
most useful in situations where there is no evidence or the facts are unclear. This is
especially true with clashes of values or standards of behavior. (Martin Luther King)
appealed to a basic sense of fair play to move the U.S. Supreme Court to outlaw
segregation on buses. The facts alone wouldn't have done it.
Democratic Style:

The Democratic Leadership Style was first described Lewin, Lippitt, and White in
1938 along with the autocratic leadership and the laissez-faire leadership styles. The
democratic style was also included by (Daniel Goleman in 2002) as one of his six
leadership styles. The democratic leader gives followers a vote in nearly every
decision the team makes. The process involved with being a democratic leader is very
time consuming because decisions are nearly always made together. The democratic
leadership style is able to quickly build flexibility and responsibility and can help
identify new ways to do things. This leadership style is best used when the followers
are knowledgeable about the organization's process and change is needed. For
example, this style is used when the leader needs to introduce fresh ideas into the
organization to help with an old process.
Democratic bosses are consultative, inclusive, humanistic, and focus on people. They
build consensus, thrive on informality, are tolerant of conflict, and get an entire team
credit. There are two types of democratic managers. The consultative democrat will
listen carefully to everyone’s input, and even change their approach if it seems

10
reasonable, but makes the final decision. On the other hand, the participative
democrat relies on group consensus to make decisions. (John Kotter).

Laissez Faire style:

Subordinates and employees are allowed and appreciated to participate

in decision making, this is Laissez Faire style of leadership (Lewin, Liippit, and
White, 1939). But to get fruitful results, employees must be responsible, experienced
and mature. Leaders who adopt this style of leadership (Schilling, 2008) provides a
guideline or policy to achieve goals and supervise the employees in order to make
followers work by remaining on track, the remaining work is of employees that how
they satisfy the customers. As much employees are sincere with their work and
cooperative with each other, they can get goals easily (Ogbonna et al.,2000).

The Laissez Faire Leadership Style was first described (Lewin, Lippitt, and White in
1938) along with the autocratic leadership and the democratic leadership styles. The
laissez faire style is sometimes described as a "hands off" leadership style because the
leader provides little or no direction to the followers. The characteristics of the laissez
faire style include: Allows followers to have complete freedom to make decisions
concerning the completion of their work or ask questions of the leader . The leader
provides the followers with the materials they need to accomplish their goals and
answers questions to the follower's questions. (Lewin, Lippitt and White) were one of
the first to categorize leadership styles in terms of behavioral characteristics. Prior to
their work, leadership traits were the focus of leadership studies.
The impact of leadership on subordinates’ job satisfaction
Results from several studies indicate that there is a relationship between perceived
leadership style and the job satisfaction of subordinates. Chiok Foong Loke (2001)
found that leadership behaviors explained 29% of job satisfaction and Lucas (1991)
that leadership style perceptions predicted 36.6% of the variance in job satisfaction
scores among nurses. Bratt et al. (2000), present results indicating that job stress and
nursing leadership are the most influential variables in the explanation of job

11
satisfaction among nurses. Sorrentino et al. (1992) found significant correlations
between head nurse behaviour and job satisfaction in subordinates as well as a
moderating effect of leadership on job anxiety and support perceived by nurses.
Upenieks (2002) found that clinical nurses employed at “magnet” hospitals experience
greater levels of empowerment and job satisfaction than do nurses employed at “non-
magnet” hospitals. This is due to access to work empowerment structures within their
practice environments. Differences in leadership effectiveness between magnet and
non-magnet nurse leaders that accounted for differences in job satisfaction of nurses
included greater visibility and responsiveness by magnet leaders, better support of
nurse
autonomous decision-making by magnet leaders and greater support of a professional
nursing climate among magnet leaders.

High power motivation in nurse managers has been found to correlate negatively with
use of good leadership behaviors and high staff nurse job satisfaction. Managerial
motivation for achievement, on the other hand, correlated positively with use of good
leadership behaviors
and high nurse job satisfaction (McNeese-Smith, 1999). Skogstad & Einarsen (1999)
found positive correlations between a changes centered leadership style and
subordinates’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment and evaluations of the
leader’s competence. Upenieks (2003) investigated nurse leaders’ perceptions of what
comprises successful leadership in today’s acute inpatient environment. The results
show that 83% of the nurse leaders validated that access to power, opportunity,
information, and resources creates an empowered environment and a climate that
fosters leadership success. Access to these factors also enhances good work
satisfaction among nurses. Research results from several studies indicate that both
consideration and initiating structure behaviours of leaders are positively related to job
satisfaction among subordinates (Kennerly, 1989, Bare-Oldham, 2002, Alsubaie,
1997).

12
Boumans & Landeweerd (1993) found that nurses are most satisfied if the head nurse
pays much attention to both “social” and “instrumental” leadership and that social
leadership alone also contributes positively to nurses’ reactions to their job, whereas
instrumental leadership alone leads to health complaints. Butler & Cantrell (1997) also
found both consideration and initiation of structure leadership behaviour to have
positive effects on the productivity of group members. Other studies reveal a positive
relationship only between consideration leadership behaviour and job satisfaction
among subordinates (Zigrang, 2000, Payden, 1997) or at least that this relationship is
stronger than the one between initiating structure leadership behaviour and job
satisfaction (Haddad & Samarneh, 1999, Pakard & Kauppi, 2000, Pool, 1997). Results
by Schriesheim & Murphy (1976) indicate that in low-stress jobs, leadership
consideration enhances job satisfaction and performance, but in high-stress jobs,
leadership structure is helpful. High structure has dysfunctional effects only when
accompanied by low consideration.
The impact of leadership on subordinates’ health (stress and burnout)
Leadership has in a number of studies been referred to as one of many possible
sources of employee health and stress at the work place (McVicar, 2003, Jonsson,
Johansson, Rosengren, Lappas & Wilhelmsen, 2003) but the magnitude of its impact
varies across studies. Stordeur, D´hoore & Vandenberghe (2001) found leadership
dimensions to explain 9% of the variance in emotional exhaustion and Gordick (2002)
found that transformational leadership explained 2% of the variance in coping with
organizational change and that it was not a significant predictor of perceived stress. In
a large prospective study of a random sample of Swedish employees Oxenstierna et al
(2004) found that lack of decision authority as well as lack of support from work
mates were powerful predictors of longlasting sick leave (at least 60 days). Support
from superiors had no statistically significant effect.
Some studies indicate a moderate relationship between leadership styles and
burnout/emotional exhaustion/depersonalization (Langner, 2002; Webster & Hackett,
1999). Vealey, Armstrong, Comar & Greenleaf (1998) found perceived coaching
styles/behaviours predictive of athlete burnout. But several studies have found no

13
impact of leadership on health of subordinates, or the results indicate that the role of
leadership is inferior to other work related and demographic factors (Mazur & Lynch,
1989, Lubofsky, 2002, Bernin and Theorell, 2003). Stordeur, Vandenberghe & D
´hoore (1999) found that leadership dimensions were not significantly related to
burnout once stressors like job strain, lack of social support, conflict at work and
feeling that the job is threatened were included in the regression model. These
findings are supported by results from Gordick (2002) and Widerszal-Bazyl (2003).
Widerszal-Bazyl (2003) points out that social support plays an especially important
role. She suggests that further research should focus on the indirect relationship
between leadership and employee health and analyze to what extent supervisors
influence e.g. demands, control and social support, which are known to have a strong
impact on employee health.

14
 2.1 Theoretical Model:

Transformational
Style

Performance of
Democratic Job
employee &
Style Satisfaction
Health

Laissez Faire
Style

15
 Chapter 3:
3.0 Theoretical Framework
My study utilizes the previous researchers work and according to their research
studies I have made my own phenomena to check it in India i environment. Here I
discussed some theories related with my study.
There are different approaches to studying leadership. Yukl (1994) considers the trait
approach and the charismatic/transformational leadership approach as two major
research avenues to the concept of leadership. The first, focusing on personal
attributes of successful leaders, has mainly been used in psychology. In organizational
studies, the second approach is used more often. Originally the theory of charismatic
leadership was coined by House (1977), stating that a charismatic leader is generously
accepted and obeyed by followers by having a strong need for power and a high self-
confidence.
Results from several studies indicate that there is a relationship between
perceived leadership style and the job satisfaction of subordinates. Chiok Foong Loke
(2001) found that leadership behaviors explained 29% of job satisfaction and Lucas
(1991) that leadership style perceptions predicted 36.6% of the variance in job
satisfaction scores among nurses. Bratt et al. (2000), present results indicating that job
stress and nursing leadership are the most influential variables in the explanation of
job satisfaction among nurses. Sorrentino et al.
Some studies indicate a moderate relationship between leadership styles and
burnout/emotional exhaustion/depersonalization (Langner, 2002; Webster & Hackett,
1999). Vealey, Armstrong, Comar & Greenleaf (1998) found perceived coaching
styles/behaviours predictive of athlete burnout. But several studies have found no
impact of leadership on health of subordinates, or the results indicate that the role of
leadership is inferior to other work related and demographic factors (Mazur & Lynch,
1989, Lubofsky, 2002, Bernin and Theorell, 2003). With the support of all these
studies this quantitative study aims to measure the impact of leadership on employees
performance and their health.

16
 Chapter 4:

Data / Methodology

4.0: Tools of data collection

In order to find data on performance of employees and their health, I will collect data
on four Variables: Performance of employees and their health, Transformational
leadership style, Democratic leadership style and Laissez Fair leadership style. For
that the present study is quantitative in nature because I have used quantitative data
which is collected through questionnaire. Then the first step of my study has been to
make worth by the validity by using positivism approach. Positivism paradigm has
been used in this study. It focused on understanding the ideology of multiple
participants on their locations and Work place.
 The major benefit of the questionnaire is that we may collect the actual
information based on our research through specific questions.
 This method of data collection is also time saving.
Weaknesses
 Missing value is one of the demerits of the questionnaire.
4.1: Sampling Technique and Sample

The Population of my study will be SMEs in which the sample size of 100 employees
will taken for conducting the study by using simple random sampling in order to
generalize the findings in the particular sector.
4.2: Measures
In case of measuring Performance of Employees and their health, Leadership styles
(Transformational style, Democratic style, and Laissez Faire Style) only questionnaire
will be used. Participant data was obtained through in one survey with 5-point scale.
Participant will ask a few questions. The survey contained a total of 13 questions and
took approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Measure for each variable is
defined below:

17
 4.2 Methodology:

When, I will collect the data from the participants then I will use the SPSS software
for the analysis of the data. In this analysis, the test I will use define below:

After putting the data into SPSS I will use Descriptive statistic to get the overall
summary of the variables. In the table of descriptive statistic, the value shows of
mean, Standard deviation and also the maximum and minimum values. These values
define the response rate of the respondent. Then to get the graphical information about
the variables, I will use the histogram with normal curve. Next, I will use the scatter
plots to check the relationship of dependent variable independent variable is
significant or not. After this for checking that the relationship is weak, moderate or
strong between dependent variable and independent variable. In the last to check the
value that how much change comes in dependent variable due to independent variable,
I will use the Regress analysis.

18
 Chapter 5:

Analysis

This study has used the most common and famous statistical software in order to
present results of survey. After defining the variables which are Performance of
employees and their health, Transformational leadership style, Democratic leadership
style and Laissez Fair leadership style. After putting the questionnaire data into SPSS
total number of variable shown are 13. Then I utilize the “Compute” option in this
software, after using this option finally we got three independent variable which are
used in through out the study.

5.0: Data Screening:

Data screening is use to check the information I get from the participants is accurate
and find out the any missing value. After that I coded all returned questionnaires in to
SPSS software for data analysis. After that I will use different test for analysis. Let’s
discussed the detail of each variable one by one in the result portion.

5.1: Results:

In this portion all the results with their interpretation were shown and being discussed
one by one.

19
5.1.0: Descriptive Statistic:

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Employee Performance and

100 2.20 4.20 3.4200 .41439
Health

Transformational Style 100 2.75 5.00 3.7975 .52907

Democratic Style 100 2.67 5.00 3.9367 .59684

Laissez Fair Style 100 1.00 5.00 2.1000 1.11464

Valid N (listwise) 100

Interpretation:

The above table presents the descriptive statistics that show the overall picture of all the three

independent and one is dependent variable. The data has been taken from 100 participants. In

the above table the mean values and the values of standard deviation of all the four variables

have been shown. Mean value provides the idea about the central tendency of the values of a

variable. For example if we observe the above output to assess the average response rate or

the respondent then we come to know the mean of different variables like Employee

Performance and Health (3.42), Transformational Style (3.79), Democratic Style (3.93) and

the mean of Laissez Fair Style is (2.10). Standard deviation gives the idea about the

dispersion of the values of a variable from its mean value. So, if we observe then in the

response rate for the variable Transformational Style value of standard deviation is (0.52)

which is the lowest value as compare to other independent variables value. But if we observe

the value of Laissez Fair Style is (1.11) which is quite high as compare to other independent

variable.

20
5.1.1: Histogram:

Figure 1.0

Interpretation:
The figure 1.0 reflects the graphical representation of the bars is showing the response of the
respondents related to Employee Performance and Health. The maximum response of the
value relies between 3.5 and 4 which means neutral and agree respectively. The minimum
value relies between 1 and 2 which means that least employees are disagree about the affect
of leadership style on employee performance and his health. And the bars are not normally
distributed. Because the curve is from right to left, the maximum values are in right side.

21
Histogram:

Figure 1.1

Interpretation:
The figure 1.1 reflects the graphical representation of the bars is showing the response of the
respondents related to Transformational Style. The maximum response of the value relies
between 4 and 4.5 which means agree and near to Strongly agree respectively. The minimum
value relies between 1 and 3 which means that least employees are disagree about the affect
of transformational style on employee performance and his health. And the bars are just
normally distributed. Because the curve is in the approximately in middle.

22
Histogram:

Figure 1.2

Interpretation:
The figure 1.2 reflects the graphical representation of the bars is showing the response of the
respondents related to Democratic Style. The maximum response of the value relies between
4 and 5 which means agree and Strongly agree respectively. It means most of the people are
agree that democratic leadership style mostly affect the employee performance and his health.
The minimum value relies between 1 and 3 which means that least employees are disagree

23
about the affect of Democratic style on employee performance and his health. And the bars
are not normally distributed.

Histogram:

Figure 1.3

Interpretation:
The figure 1.3 reflects the graphical representation of the bars is showing the response of the
respondents related to Laissez Fair Style. The maximum response of the value relies between
1 and 2which means strongly disagree and disagree respectively. It means most of the people
are strongly disagree that Laissez Fair leadership style do not affect the employee
performance and his health. The minimum value relies between 4 and 5 which means that
least employees are agree about the affect of Laissez Fair style on employee performance and

24
his health. And the bars are not normally distributed. Because bars are from left to right the
maximum value lies in the left side.

5.1.2: Scatter Plots:

Figure 1.0

Interpretation:

Figure 1.0 shows the results of scatter plot matrix where we intend to have some idea about
the relationship between Employees Performance & Health and Transformational style of
leadership. If we observe then the flow of line is come from left to right which shows the
negative relationship between Employees Performance & Health and Transformational style
of leadership.

25
 Figure 1.1

Interpretation:

Figure 1.1 shows the results of scatter plot matrix where we intend to have some idea about
the relationship between Employees Performance & Health and Democratic style of
leadership. If we observe then the flow of line is come from right to left which shows the
positive relationship between Employees Performance & Health and Democratic style of
leadership.

26
 Figure 1.2

Interpretation:

Figure 1.2 shows the results of scatter plot matrix where we intend to have some idea about
the relationship between Employees Performance & Health and Laissez Fair style of
leadership. If we observe then the flow of line is come from right to left which shows the
positive relationship between Employees Performance & Health and Laissez style of
leadership.

27
 5.1.3: Correlations
Table 1.0

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Employee Performance and

3.4200 .41439 100
Health

Transformational Style 3.7975 .52907 100

Table 1.1

Correlationsa

Employee
Performance Transformational
and Health Style

Employee Performance and Pearson Correlation 1 -.103

Health
Sig. (2-tailed) .306

Transformational Style Pearson Correlation -.103 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .306

a. Listwise N=100

Interpretation:
According to this table the Mean and Standard deviation in Employees
Performance and health is 3.42 and .41 respectively. And in Transformational style the mean
and standard deviation is 3.79 and 0.52 in the same sequence. The table 1.1 is representing
the correlations between the Employees Performance and health and Transformational style.
The value given of r= -0.103 which shows the negatively correlated and the value of p= 0.306
which is greater than significance level of 0.05. So we will accept Ho and reject H 1 that
means the relationship between both the variables is not significance.
Now we see that the relation is weak, moderate or strong. For this purpose we take the value
of Pearson correlation. In the above correlation table the Pearson value between Employees

28
Performance and health and Transformational style is -0.103 which is less than 0.33, it shows
the weak relationship between these two variables.

Correlation:

Table 1.2
Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Employee Performance and

3.4200 .41439 100
Health

Democratic Style 3.9367 .59684 100

Table 1.3

Correlationsa

Employee
Performance
and Health Democratic Style

Employee Performance and Pearson Correlation 1 .527*

Health
Sig. (2-tailed) .040

Democratic Style Pearson Correlation .527* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .040

a. Listwise N=100

Interpretation:
According to this table the Mean and Standard deviation in Employees
Performance and health is 3.42 and .41 respectively. And in Democratic style the mean and
standard deviation is 3.93 and 0.59 in the same sequence. The table 1.3 is representing the
correlations between the Employees Performance and health and Democratic style. The value
given of r= 0.527 which shows the positively correlated and the value of p= 0.040 which is
less than significance level of 0.05. So we will reject Ho and accept H 1 that means the
relationship between both the variables is significance.
Now we see that the relation is weak, moderate or strong. For this purpose we take the value
of Pearson correlation. In the above correlation table the Pearson value between Employees
Performance and health and Democratic style is 0.527 which is greater than 0.33 and less
than 0.67, it shows the moderate relationship between these two variables.

29
Correlation:

Table 1.4
Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Employee Performance and

3.4200 .41439 100
Health

Laissez Fair Style 2.1000 1.11464 100

Table 1.5

Correlationsa

Employee
Performance Laissez Fair
and Health Style

Employee Performance and Pearson Correlation 1 .035

Health
Sig. (2-tailed) .730

Laissez Fair Style Pearson Correlation .035 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .730

a. Listwise N=100

Interpretation:
According to this table the Mean and Standard deviation in Employees
Performance and health is 3.42 and .41 respectively. And in Laissez Fair style the mean and
standard deviation is 2.10 and 1.11 in the same sequence. The table 1.5 is representing the
correlations between the Employees Performance and health and Laissez Fair style. The value
given of r= 0.035 which shows the positively correlated and the value of p= 0.730 which is
greater than significance level of 0.05. So we will accept Ho and reject H1 that means the
relationship between both the variables is not significance.
Now we see that the relation is weak, moderate or strong. For this purpose we take the value
of Pearson correlation. In the above correlation table the Pearson value between Employees

30
Performance and health and Laissez Fair style is 0.035 which is less than 0.33, it shows the
weak relationship between these two variables.

5.1.4: Regression

Table 1.0

Variables Entered/Removedb

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 Laissez Fair
Style,
Democratic
. Enter
Style,
Transformational
Stylea

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance and

Health

Table 1.1

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .110a .012 -.019 .41827

a. Predictors: (Constant), Laissez Fair Style, Democratic Style,

Transformational Style

Interpretation:

In above table we can see the change in dependent variable due to change in independent
variable. We can calculate this change easily by multiplying the value of Adjusted R square
with 100 the result will shown in % which is the change ratio. For this case value of R square
is .012 X 100 = 1.2 which means the 1.2% change in Employees Performance and health
because of independent variable.

31
Table 1.2

ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .205 3 .068 .390 .761a

Residual 16.795 96 .175

Total 17.000 99

a. Predictors: (Constant), Laissez Fair Style, Democratic Style, Transformational Style

b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance and Health

Interpretation:

Multiple regression is used to investigate how leadership style affects the Employees
Performance and health in services industries. The above table show the value of F value
which is ..390 and the value of P = .761. Which shows that relationship is not statistically
significant.

Table 1.3
Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 3.629 .416 8.731 .000

Transformational Style -.080 .080 -.102 -.997 .321

Democratic Style .020 .071 .029 .081 .039

Laissez Fair Style .008 .038 .020 .198 .843

a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance and Health

32
Interpretation:
Coefficient table presents the results of the regression analysis. The objective of the
regression in this study is to find such an equation that could be used to find the impact of
leadership style on Employees Performance and health. The specified regression equation
takes the following form:

Employees Performance and health = C + B (Transformational style) + B (Democratic style)

+ B (Laissez Fair)

If we Separately solve the equation then:

Employees Performance and health = C + B (Transformational style)

Employees Performance and health = 3.629 – 0.080

Employees Performance and health = 3.549

3.55 % Employees Performance and health affected by Transformational style.

Employees Performance and health = 3.629 + 0.020 (Democratic style)

Employees Performance and health = 3.649

3.65 % Employees Performance and health affected by Democratic style.

Employees Performance and health = 3.629 + 0.008 (Laissez Fair)

Employees Performance and health = 3.637

3.637 % Employees Performance and health affected by Laissez Fair

These values shows that the exact percentage of independent variables which affect the

dependent variable.

33
 Chapter 6:

Discussion

6.0: Overall Discussion:

The major purpose of this study is to identify the most effective Leadership style to increase
the performance of employees and their health, different tools have been used in order to
fulfill the requirements of the research. Findings after statistically analyzing the data are
discussed here in detail. First of all the table of Descriptive statistics is presented which is
showing the values for means, std. deviation and maximum and minimum values from
respondents. The overall findings for this table is that mostly values in Mean table are close
to 3 and 4 which means that most of the respondents are strongly agree and some are agree
with the assumptions that training raise the performance of employees. The highest value is
noted for democratic style showing the mean which is 3.93 near to agree on the other hand
the lowest value of mean in laissez fair is 2.10 more close to disagree option. After
descriptive statistics I used histogram which graphically presenting the response of the
employees to the questionnaire. This graph Is telling that democratic leadership style has
more impact on employees and develop their performance. Then I use scatter plot to check
the relationship between dependent and independent variable , whether it is positive or
negative. I have applied separate scatter plot for each pair of variable to make understanding
easier and understandable. In order to check the relationship between dependent and
independent variables, the correlation test has been used. The findings from this table is
shown there is positive relationship between performance of employees and health with
democratic leadership style. In last I have used multiple regression to find out the exact
percentage of change in dependent variable due to independent variable. The coefficient table
presents the results of the regression analysis. The objective of the regression in this study is
to find such an equation that could be used to find what is the best method of training to
increase the performance of employees. This is the main purpose to use this analysis it
provide more realistic values and data by which we can easily asses that what is change in
dependent variable due to independent variable. I got the significance value of democratic
style is 0.039 that is less than 0.05. which means there is association of performance of
employees and their health with democratic style.

34
6.1: Conclusion:

The aim of this study is to find out the best leadership style that can fully help
to increase the performance of the employees. Past researchers have mostly focused on
impact of just training on performance. This study is focusing on the styles of the leaders, so
that the leaders can adopt the style than may leads the performance of the employees at the
maximum level.
After analyzing all the statistical data I found that democratic style has more affect on
employee performance as compare to the other variables. So the purpose of my study is
fulfilled that which leadership style is better to increase employee performance. According to
(Daniel Goleman in 2002) The democratic leadership style is able to quickly build flexibility
and responsibility and can help identify new ways to do things. On the other hand, the
participative democrat relies on group consensus to make decisions to raise performance.
(John Kotter). Secondly the transformational leadership style is also has good impact on the
performance of employees. The demerit of my research is that I have collected so limited data
from the SME sector and furthermore I will expand my study by switching to the
multinational companies and also include other leadership styles.

35
REFERENCING

Aronsson, G., Sjögren, A. (1994). Samhällsomvandling och arbetsliv.

Omvärldsanalys
inför 2000-talet. Solna: National Institute for Working Life
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “A conceptual and operational definition
of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology”, Information
Systems Research,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 204-15.

Arnetz, B. (1996). Techno-Stress: A Prospective Psychophysiological Study

of the
Impact of a Controlled Stress-Reduction Program in Advanced
Telecommunication
Systems Design Work. Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine. Vol
38
Arvonen, J. (1995). Leadership behavior and coworker health. A study in
process
industry. (801): Department of Psychology, Stockholm University.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1988), “Transformational leadership, charisma,
and beyond”, in
Hung, J.G. et al. (Eds), Emerging Leadership Vistas, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MD,
pp. 29-50.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1991), The Full Range of Leadership
Development, Bass, Avolio and
Associates, Binghamton, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The
Free Press, New York,
NY.

36
Burns, J.H. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bowers, D.G. & Seashore, S.E. (1966). Predicting organizational
effectiveness with a
four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11,
238-263.

37