1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

Organization is a globalized society that is continuously trying to achieve

enhancement of the performance with various and different application and practices

(Ahmad & Aldakhil 2012). Management with ineffective and unethical behavior can

have an impact not only to the organization but as well as to employees’ well-being

(Chukwura, 2016). The general problem in all entry-level jobs is how to cope with a

distribution of proficiency (Whetzel, McDaniel & Pollack, 2012). According to Durga

and Prabhu (2011), the leadership categories matter in every organization in

pursuing believes to solve issues and task of the organization. It is also concerned in

resolving issues of individuals along with organization itself.

If an organization truly listens to their employees, they will feel more valued

according to Bin (2015). Transparent communication is critical for employee (Daprix

& Faghan, 2011). Truss et al., (2013) believes that employee engagement has the

potential to raise performance and profit of the organization.

In the United States of America, the study of Gottfredson and Aguinis (2017),

states that leadership behavior has an effect on the employees’ job performance,

when the leader handles its employees in a good way, the job performance of the
 2

employees significantly rises and becomes high. The leaders are the ones who help

the employees to improve their job performance. In Malaysia, the study of McCann et

al., (2014), explained that the leadership affects the performance of the employees in

different aspects in the working field. It is also a predictor of the productivity skills of

the employees to work efficiently. In the Philippines, the study of Buenviaje, Refozar,

Encio, Perez and Laguador (2017), states that leadership behavior significantly

affects the performance of the employees when the leaders encourage their

employees, they will be taunted to do more and perform their works better.

Leaders have a positive influence in employees work in the achievement of

the mission and vision objectives and standards of the organization (Nortje, 2010).

Nortje (2010) in connection to Devi (2009) & Stairs (2005) stated that employers who

are more engage with their employees often more likely to produce an increase in

productivity and performance. Mangnga (2012), supported that the organizations’

success highly depends on the leaders and employees itself, as they are the

powerful, source and wheels of the activity in the local organization.

The related foregoing studies show the inconsistency of result whether the

leadership style applied in management has a relationship with the job performance

of the employees. The specific targets of this study are the mechanics of Davao City

that lacks result and information. Gimuguni et al., (2014) have reported a positive

relationship of leadership behavior and job performance, this counters to the study of

Aboushaqah et al., (2015) which resulted to a negative relationship of leadership

behavior and job performance. This suggested that the evidence on these leadership
 3

behaviors in relation to job performance in terms of mechanics is inconsistent and

lacking.

Research Objectives

The main purpose of this study was to determine the significant relationship

between leadership behavior and job performance of mechanics in the automotive

shops. Specifically, this study has the following objectives:

1. To assess the level leadership behavior of managers in terms of:

1.1. initiating structure ; and

1.2. leadership participation

2. To ascertain the job performances of mechanics in terms of:

2.1. task performance; and

2.2. contextual performance

3. To determine the significant relationship between leadership behavior

and job performance of mechanics in the automotive shops.

 4

Hypothesis

The hypothesis will be tested at 0.05 level of significance:

Ho: There is no significant relationship between leadership behavior and job

performances of mechanics in the automotive shops

 5

Review of Related Literature

This section presents the discussions related to the independent and

dependent variables of the study. The leadership behavior has the following

indicators namely the initiating structure and leadership participation.The job

performance of mechanics has task performance and contextual performance as

indicators.

Leadership Behavior

Leaders may try different forms of leadership behavior towards different

employees in order to have direct and closer relationship in every individual (Wu et al.

2010). Leaders in organization are apparently the biggest asset of any firms; “the

main drivers of organization are employees. The driver of such moved is the

manager who provides leadership” (Shafie et al., 2013). Paracha et al., (2012), states

that leaders plays an essential role in the achievement of goals and boosts

employees’ performance.

Initiating structure. Stipulated in a study of Lim (2012), initiating structure is

often concerned with the facilitation of the organization production. Leaders who also

practiced this type of leadership behavior also try to communicate and apply reward

system that motivates employees to work productively. Initiating structure indicates a

directive style in which the leader sets work expectation and sets procedure that
 6

explains what and how things are done (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts, 2009).

As stated by Rowold (2014), initiating structure serves as the strategic and follower

task-facilitation leadership functions that are critical for organization and employee

performance.

Some initiating structure leaders also maintain psychological distance on the

employees and detach from the interactions, this usually occurs on purely tasked-

oriented leaders who find it hard to trust their subordinates (Sahertian & Soetjipto,

2011). As stated by Anderson (2013), the effectiveness of a leader depends on the

self-awareness of the leader that will reflect to the consistency of how the leader will

manage the group. The ability to access the deeper dimensions within oneself that

leads to breakthroughs in self-awareness is a trait of a developed leader.

Leadership Participation. Leadership participation presented joint decision

making and shared influence among employees. Leadership participation necessities

consulting with subordinates and the assessment of their viewpoints and

recommendation before the manager decide. It also corresponds with consensus,

consultation, delegation and involvement (Dionne, Sayama, Hao & Bush, 2010).

Dolatabadi and Safa (2010), found in their study that the effect of leadership

participation in the employees have positive results as they are more committed,

satisfied and higher performance in their job.

Leadership participation was discovered to be accommodating in motivating

managers and employees to participate and work more fruitfully together which will

develop decision making (Byrd-Poller, 2013). Also, leaders enable employees on the
 7

strategic planning who will lead on minimizing role uncertainty and role conflict.

According to Huang, Iun, Liu, and Gong (2010), leadership participation may affect

performance through different mechanisms for managerial and non-managerial

subordinates respectively. It was stated that leadership participation present

motivational and exchange-based mechanism.

The literature above stated that the leadership behavior has two indicators

namely: initiating structure and leadership participation. These types of leadership

states that the leader sets standards in achieving goals of the organization and often

involved in facilitating the subordinates. These types of leadership behaviors varies

from communicative relationship between the superior and the members and also

interactive and forms attachment to the workers but some managers also sets

limitation and often detach to the employees.

Job Performance

Job performance is the attained outcome of actions and skills of the

employees (Prasetya & Kato, 2011). According to Ashraf, et al., (2018), employees of

a certain institution expect fair treatment especially praises and criticisms among their

colleagues and co-workers. If the work environment is said to be fair, it will provide

opportunity of effective voice, sense of security, dignity and esteem which probably

has positive response in their job performance.

High-performing employees with a good job performance have a general

mental ability that handles the task given to them (Barrick & Mount, 2009; Kramer,
 8

Bhave & Johnson, 2014). According to the study of Le et al., (2011), workers’

personality characteristics affect the work related behavior and results to impact of

task performance. Moreover, Jackson, (2014) stated that, employees who have low

emotional intelligence, are usually nervous, high-strung, stress prone, moody, and

exhibit low self-esteem, which these characteristics affects one’s ability to develop as

an individual leading to poor performance.

Task Performance. Activities which are directly involved to support

accomplishments of core job tasks of an employee play an important factor to

function an organization (Le Pine, Zhang, Crawford & Rich, 2016). According to

Mohammed and Wang (2018), task performance is an important factor in the

essential functioning of an organization. Individual job performances have many sets

of activities that contribute to the organization in different ways. Accordingly, it is

important to understand the different aspects of jobs performance by analysing it

through experience. The first narrow aspect of job performance is task performance,

which is the activity that is assigned to an individual that supports the

accomplishment of tasks involved in an organization’s technical core.

The leadership style, initiating structure and leadership participation and its

effectiveness within the organization team-building leaders are claimed to have a

positive impact on the efficiency of the organization by influencing the team members’

job performance (Mohammed & Wang, 2018). Inuwa (2016), adopted measures of

employee performance as core task performance, which includes in-role performance,

 9

safety performance and creativity of the employee to perform the task at hand given

by the organization.

Contextual Performance. In definition, contextual performance is a set of

intrapersonal and volitional conduct that reinforces the motivational and social

context in which organizational job is accomplished (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine &

Bachrach, 2010). Moreover, it is not properly required from the job but it helps to

maintain social and psychological context of an organization. In addition, when an

individual invest energy into their work, they should have higher contextual

performance to maintain their behavior in facilitating social and psychological context

in the organization (Christian, Garza & Slaughter, 2011).

Contextual activities create the context or social environment in the technical

core of the organization it is also for the appraisal to all behaviors that have specific

and discretionary behavior (Salgado & Cabal, 2011). According to Díaz-Vilela, et al.,

(2015), contextual performance is also known as citizenship performance which

aimed at benefiting other individuals and the organization. Those behaviors are not

directly related to job task, but having an important impact on organizational, social,

and psychological contexts. These behaviors present as catalyzers for efficient

complying tasks.

The literature above states that the contextual performance focuses on the

social and psychological context of the organization and also relates to the appraisal

behavior that has specific behavior. On the other hand, task performance focuses

more on the hand tasks by the employer on a specific time which provides an
 10

opportunity to voice out opinions to their superior on their task. Contextual

performance is concerned on the aspects of an individual’s performance which

maintains and enhances an organization’s social network.

Theoretical Framework

This study was anchored on the Path-goal theory of House and Mitchell (1975),

which states that leader's behavior is essential for good performance as its purpose

of the impact on subordinates' recognition of path goals and the allurement of the

goals. As the leader behavior elucidates these goals, the satisfaction, performance

and leader acceptance will increase. The discrete relationship between leader

behaviors will rely on the personality of the subordinates and the task environment.

In accordance to the theories: Theory X and Theory Y of McGregor (1960),

claims that leadership behaviors are based on a supposition about employees.

Theory X hypothesizes that employees hate work and will evade it if possible. These

employees have lack of ambition, hate responsibility and choose to be led.

Managerial behaviors will incorporate pressuring employees, administer their work

and govern their behaviors. On the other hand Theory Y hypothesizes that

employees can sight work as a positive experience given the right working conditions

and they enjoy taking on responsibilities. The managerial behavior includes providing

encouragement, positive reinforcement and rewards.

 11

Correlation Between Measures

Leadership behavior affects the job performance of its employees in either

positive or negative way. It is on how the leaders treat their members, where trust is

given by the leader to its employee and motivates them to perform well (Chen, et al.

2014). Walumbwa et al., (2011) stated that leader behavior is significantly related to

the job performance of their subordinate. This occurs through the interaction between

the leader and the subordinate.

 12

A B

Leadership Behavior Job Performance

Initiating Structure Task Performance

Leadership Participation Contextual Performance

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

 13

Significance of the Study

This study can contribute to the organization, manager, mechanics and future

researchers. The organization, where this study would be able suffice information on

leadership styles and job performance of mechanics that other automotive shops

already put into action and implemented in putting order in the automotive shops.

The managers, in order for them to apprehend their strategies used in order to

manage their mechanics well and good for them to become productive in their

distinctive jobs. The newly employed mechanics, for this study showcase

performance of employees in the automotive shops especially in having good

communication with their superiors on-site that resulted to boosting of employees

performance. The future researchers, who seek study related to the leadership

behavior and job performance of the mechanics.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were operationally defined for the purpose of getting a

clear understanding of this study;

Leadership behavior refers to role modeling which is important element in the

development of individual team members as it enables the team to observe an

example on which they can base their own performance and behavior.
 14

Job performance refers to the work related activities expected of an employee

and how well those activities were executed and the assessment of whether an

employee has done their job well. It is an individual evaluation measured based on a

single person’s effort.

 15

Chapter 2

METHOD

This chapter described the study’s research design, research locale,

population and sample, research instrument, data collection, and statistical tools.

Research Design

This study is designed as a quantitative study, aiming to understand the

relationship between leadership behavior and the job performance of their employees

at automotive shops along Cabaguio Avenue, in Davao City. Babbie (2010) stated

that quantitative research methods emphasize and highlight objective measurements

and the statistical, numerical or mathematical analysis of data collection. McLeod

(2017), stated that the data from a quantitative research can be interpreted with

statistical analysis, and since statistics are based on the principles of mathematics,

the quantitative approach is viewed as scientifically objective, and rational (Carr,

1994 & Denscombe, 2010). Mahler (2016), stated that quantitative research is all

about quantifying opinions, attitude, behavior and defined variable to arrive to

conformity of the research hypothesis. Correlational research design is used by the

researchers which asses the relationship at the two variable. Seligman, Peterson,

and Valliant (1988), defined correlational research design as naturalistic observation,

 16

measurement can be more or less straightforward when making with archival data.

This also used the non-experimental design which is defined as purely observational

and the result are expected to be pure descriptive Thompson (2007).

Research Locale

The research locale of this study is located along J.P. Cabaguio Avenue,

Davao City. The researchers considered this area as a good location to get the

information needed for the study's success since many automotive shops are located

in this area. The respondents of the research are the mechanics of the automotive

shops and were surveyed in their working place.

 17

Figure 2. Map of the Philippines Pointing Davao City

 18

Population and Sample

The respondents of this study were the mechanics working at automotive

shops along J.P. Cabaguio Avenue, Davao City. The researchers found 10

automotive shops with an overall number of 107 mechanics. The researchers used

universal sampling method which refers to the selection of sample where not all the

people in the population have the same profitability of being included in the sample

and each one of them, the probability of being selected is unknown (Grinnell &

Williams, 1992).
 19

Table 1.

Frequency distribution table for number of Mechanics in the Automotive shops.

Shop # Shop name Number of mechanics

1 JS5 AUTO PARTS 5

2 KAWASAKI MOTOR PARTS TRADING 3

3 SIOK MOTOR PARTS INC. 5

4 REAL LUBEMAN AGDAO 21

5 NRS AUTO SHOP 7

6 BANAWE ALL-AUTO SERVICE CENTER 5

7 CLASSIC AUDIO WORKS &PERFORMANCE 7

8 JOMARO CAR SERVICES 5

9 PHILDCCO 9

10 DECO MACHINE SHOP, INC. 40

Total number of mechanics: 107

 20

Research instrument

The questionnaire for leadership behavior was adopted from the study of Lim

(2012), to distinguish the connection between instrument and instrumentation. The

adopted survey questionnaire is used to measure the performance of the managers

based on the point of view of their employees.

Table 1. Items of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ) with means

and standard deviations (SD) on a 0-4 range.

Items Mean SD
Task Performance (TP) scale
In the past 3 months…
P1 I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time. 2.80 0.95
P2 My planning was optional. 2.47 0.98
P3 I kept in mind the results that I had to achieve in my work. 3.11 0.81
P4 I was able to separate main issues from side issues at 2.83 0.82
work.
P5 I was able to perform my work well with minimal time and 2.32 1.00
effort.
Contextual Performance (CP) scale
In the past 3 months…
CP1 I took on extra responsibilities. 2.24 1.09
CP2 I started new tasks myself, when my old ones were 2.57 1.13
finished.
CP3 I took on challenging work tasks, when available. 2.32 1.08
CP4 I worked at keeping my job knowledge up-to-date. 2.28 1.15
CP5 I worked at keeping my job skills up-to-date. 2.42 1.02
 21

In evaluating the leadership behavior, the following factors are evaluated by

these five orderable gradations of respective range of means and description was

used as follows:

Range of Means Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High This indicates that the factors

of leadership behavior are
always manifested.

3.40-4.19 High This indicates that the factors

of leadership behavior are
oftentimes manifested.

2.60-3.39 Moderate This indicates that the factors

of leadership behavior are
occasionally manifested.

1.80-2.59 Low This indicates that the factors

of leadership behavior are
seldom manifested.

1.00-1.79 Very Low This indicates that the factors

of leadership behavior are
never manifested.
 22

The questionnaire for job performance was adapted from the study of

Koopmans, et al. (2014). It is used to measure the job performance of the mechanics

in the automotive shops in the areas of task performance and contextual

performance.

Section 2: Perceived Leader Behavior (House and Dessler 1974)

How often does your superior performed according to the statements below?
Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always
1 2 3 4 5
Initiating Structure
He lets group members know o o o o o
what is expected of them.

He decides what shall be done o o o o o

and how it shall be done.

He makes sure that his part is o o o o o

the group is understood.

He schedules the work to be o o o o o

done.

Leadership Participation
When faced with a problem, he o o o o o
consults with his subordinates.

Before making decisions, he o o o o o

gives serious considerations to
what his subordinates have to
say.

He asks subordinates for their o o o o o

suggestions concerning how to
carry out assignments.

Before taking action, he o o o o o

consults with his subordinates.

He asks subordinates o o o o o
suggestions on what
assignments should be made.
 23

In the assessment of the job performance of mechanics, these five

orderable gradations of respective range of means and description were the factors

used:

Range of Means Descriptive Level Interpretation

4.20-5.00 Very High This indicates that the factors

of job performance are
always manifested.

3.40-4.19 High This indicates that the factors

of job performance are
oftentimes manifested.

2.60-3.39 Moderate This indicates that the factors

of job performance are
occasionally manifested.

1.80-2.59 Low This indicates that the factors

of job performance are
seldom manifested.

1.00-1.79 Very Low This indicates that the factors

of job performance are never
manifested.
 24

To be able to measure the relationship of the two variables, the researchers

used Pearson (r) as a measuring device to determine the significance between the

independent variable and dependent variable

Pearson r Quantitative Description

±1 Perfect

±0.75 to < ±1 Very high

±0.50 to ±0.75 Moderately high

±0.25 to ±0.50 Moderately low

>0± to <±0.25 Very low

0 No correlation
 25

Data Collection

The following steps were observed in the gathering of the needed for the study.

For the formality and validation of the study, they wrote a letter to Maam Fe Q. Emuy,

MAEd, IBED principal, to conduct the survey. Upon approval, the researchers asked

permission to the managers of the shops to conduct the survey. After the approval,

the researcher started the distribution of the questionnaire to the mechanics. The

researchers assisted the mechanics in answering the survey questionnaire.

Afterwards, the researchers tallied the ratings from the respondents in Microsoft

Excel and submitted it to the statistician to be analyzed.

Statistical Tools

This study used the following statistical tools in processing the gathered data.

Mean. This statistical tool was used to determine the level of leadership

behavior of managers and the job performance of mechanics. It measured the central

tendency or the area in which the results are more concentrated.

Standard Deviation. This statistical tool was used to measures the amount of

data dispersion around the mean. It is used to understand how spread out a data set

is. A low standard deviation means that most of the numbers are very close to the

average. A high standard deviation means that the numbers are spread out.

Pearson-r. This statistical tool was used to measure the significant

relationship between leadership behavior and job performance.

 26

Chapter 3

RESULTS

In this chapter, the interpretation of the findings and results regarding the

leadership behavior of managers and the job performance of the employees are

presented.

Leadership Behavior

The summary of the level of leadership behavior of manager was determined

using the mean, standard deviation, and Pearson - r of this study and the response

given by respondents.

Table 1.

Level of Leadership Behavior

Indicator Mean Std. Deviation Descriptive Equivalent

Leadership participation 4.27 .615 Very high

Initiating structure 4.17 .503 High

Overall 4.22 .445 Very high

Table 1 showed the level of leadership behavior which has two indicators:

leadership participation and initiating structure. The first indicator showed that
 27

leadership participation has (M = 4.27, SD = .615) and has a descriptive equivalent of

very high which means that the leadership participation of managers are always

manifested. On the other hand, initiating structure as the second indicator has (M =

4.17, SD= .503) and has a descriptive equivalent of high which is interpreted as the

behavior manifested oftentimes. The overall mean for the level of leadership behavior

has (M= 4.22, SD = 4.55) of all the respondents a descriptive equivalent of very high

which is interpreted as always manifested.

Job Performance

The summary of job performance of mechanics was determined using the

tools and result to the data below based on the answers of the respondents.

Table 2.

Level of Job Performance

Indicator Mean Std. Deviation Descriptive equivalent

Task performance 4.34 .509 Very high

Contextual performance 4.24 .543 Very high

Overall 4.29 .474 Very high

As indicated in table 2, the overall computation of the job performance of

mechanics attained a high level with an overall mean of 4.29 which described as very

high and interpreted as always manifested. This means that the job performance of

the mechanics is always manifested. Moreover, there are two indicators: task
 28

performance and contextual performance of mechanics and is interpreted as very

high in terms of job performance. The indicator task performance acquired a mean of

4.34 which is the highest mean between the indicators; it is described as very high

and interpreted as always manifested. Moreover, contextual performance of

mechanics gained a mean of 4.24 which described as very high and interpreted as

always manifested.

Leadership Behavior and Job Performance of Mechanics

The independent variable which is leadership behavior with indicators:

initiating structure and participative leadership were correlated to the job performance

with indicators: contextual performance and task performance.

Table 3.

Correlation between leadership behavior and job performance

Job performance
Leadership Task Contextual Decision
Behavior Performance Performance Overall on H0

Leadership .235* .293* .294* Moderately low

Participation .015 .002 .002 Reject

.220* .054 .149 Very low

Initiating Structure .023 .583 .125 Accept

.286* .232* .287* Moderately

Overall .003 .016 .003 low
Reject
Significant at α .05 Level of Significance.
 29

Exhibited in table 3 is the correlation between leadership behavior and job

performance with an overall computed r - value of .287 which is described as

moderately low and a p - value of .003 lesser than .05 level of the significance of the

study that led to the decision for the rejection of the null hypothesis. Therefore, there

is a positive significant correlation between the indicators of leadership behavior and

job performance of mechanics: initiating structure, leadership participation, task

performance and contextual performance

Task performance is correlated to leadership participation with a computed r –

value of .235 which is described as very low and a p - value of .015 which rejected

the decision on the null hypothesis. Contextual Performance is also correlated to

leadership participation with a computed r - value of .293 which is described as

moderately low and a p - value of .002 which rejected the decision on the null

hypothesis. In addition, task performance is correlated to initiating structure which

attained a computed r - value of .220 which is described as very low and a p - value

of .023 which rejected the decision on the null hypothesis. In the case of contextual

performance to initiating structure, it attained r - value of .054 which is described as

very low and a p - value of .583 which accepted the decision on the null hypothesis.

The overall result of task performance in relation to leadership behavior attained

a computed r – value of .286 as described as moderately low and a p value of .003

which indicates a correlation that rejects the decision on the null hypothesis. In the

overall result of the contextual performance in relation to leadership behavior attained

a computed r – value of .232 which described as moderately low and a p value

of .016 which rejected the decision on the null hypothesis as it indicates a correlation.
 30

The leadership participation in relation to job performance acquired a computed r -

value of .294 which is described as moderately low and p value of .002 that indicates

a correlation that led to the rejection of the decision on the null hypothesis.

Furthermore, the overall result for the initiating structure in relation to job

performance attained a computed r - value of .149 which is described as very low

and a p- value of .125 which led to the accepted decision for the null hypothesis.
 31

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

This chapter shows the summary according to the results and interpretation

based on the data in chapter 3. The conclusion and recommendations drawn out

from the chapter 3 are also presented.

Level of Leadership Behavior

Leadership behaviors of managers in this study were high level as seen in the

results of the survey conducted. This means that respondents frequently reckon

leadership behavior in their task performance and contextual performance where

they see leadership behavior as an essential part of management in able to be more

productive and good in their work. Certainly, the mechanics which is our respondents,

consider performing well with a good leadership behavior.

The high level of leadership behavior of managers is associated with what

Paracha et al., (2012) said that leaders play an essential role in the achievement of

goals and boosts employees' performance. It is how managers lead their

subordinates to become more productive and to perform better. Moreover, Shafie et

al., (2013) stated that leaders in an organization are apparently the biggest asset of

any firms; the main drivers of organization are employees. The driver of such moved

is the manager who provides leadership. Leadership participation and initiating

 32

structure are two types of leadership behavior which managers can be evaluated.

Managers can root their leadership behavior and able to manifest the effects to

employees' job performance. In addition, leaders may try different forms of leadership

behavior towards different employees in order to have direct and closer relationship

in every individual (Wu et al., 2010).

Initiating structure in this study showed the highest descriptive equivalent or

always exhibited. Initiating structure indicates a directive style in which the leader

sets work expectation and sets procedure that explains what and how things are

done (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts, 2009). As stated by Rowold (2014),

initiating structure serves as the strategic and follower task-facilitation leadership

functions that are critical for organization and employee performance. The outcome

of the conducted survey indicates the essence of initiating structure on supervising

employees. Moreover, Lim (2015), said that leaders who also practice this type of

leadership behavior also tries to communicate and applies reward system that

motivates employees to work productively.

Leadership participation also obtains a descriptive equivalent of high or always

exhibited. Dionne, Sayama, Hao and Bush (2010), interpreted leadership

participation as a joint decision making and shared influence among employees

presented by the leaders, in the way of explaining, the leadership participation

prerequisites discussing the employees' perspective and suggestions before making

decisions. Huang, Iun, Liu and Gong (2010), stated that leadership participation may

affect job performance through different mechanisms for managerial and non-

managerial subordinates respectively. Correspondingly, Dolatabadi and Safa (2010),

 33

articulated in their study that the effect of leadership participation in the employees

have positive results as they are more committed, satisfied and shows higher

performance in their job. That is reinforced by the results in the conducted survey on

the mechanics which is manifested frequently.

Level of Job Performance

Job performances of mechanics in this study were high as seen in the results

of the conducted survey. This means that respondents always manifest task

performance and contextual performance in performing their work. This study shows

that the mechanics' job performance was outstandingly escalated in task given work

as well as internal and volitional conduct.

The high level of job performance of employees is affiliated according to

Ashraf, et al., (2018) that employees of a certain institution expect fair treatment

especially praise and criticism among their colleagues and co-workers. If the work

environment is said to be fair which provide opportunity of effective voice, sense of

security, dignity and esteem then more probably that they will have positive response

in their job performanceIn addition, Barrick and Mount (2009); Kramer, Bhave and

Johnson (2014) stipulated that high-performing employees have been the best

selecting potential that has a general mental ability that is a strongest indicator of a

good job performance.

Task performance as an indicator of job performance is very high or always

manifested. The task performance of the employees’ activities that are directly
 34

involved in or directly support the achievement of core job tasks (Le Pine, Zhang,

Crawford & Rich, 2016). The results proclaimed the importance of task performance

in terms of mechanics’ performance on working. According to Mohammed and Wang

(2018), task performance is an important factor in the essential functioning of an

organization. Furthermore, the leadership styles and its effectiveness within the

organization team-building leaders claimed to have a positive impact on the efficiency

of the organization by influencing the team members’ job performance.

Contextual performance was also given importance as an indicator of job

performance which has a descriptive equivalent of high or manifested recurrently. As

defined by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2010), contextual

performance is a set of intrapersonal and volitional conduct that reinforces the

motivational and social context in which organizational job is accomplished.

According to Díaz-Vilela et al., (2015), contextual performance is also known as

citizenship performance, those behaviors is not directly related to job task, but having

an important impact on organizational, social, and psychological contexts. These

behaviors presented as catalyzers for efficient complying tasks. The product of the

conducted survey implies the importance of contextual performance in the

performance of the mechanics. In addition, Christian, Garza and Slaughter (2011)

stated that with high contextual performance maintaining their behavior in facilitating

social and psychological context in the company reflects in the employee's vitality to

work.
 35

Correlation of Variables

Leadership behavior has a significant relation to the job performance of

mechanics. It is also anchored in the Path-goal theory of House and Michelle (1975)

which states that leader's behavior is essential for good performance as its purpose

of the impact on subordinates' recognition of path-goal and allurement of the goals.

When the leader behavior elucidates these goals, the satisfaction, performance and

leader acceptance is supposed to increase. The discrete relationship between leader

behaviors will rely on the personality of the subordinates and the task environment.

Moreover, it can also be connected to the theories: Theory X and Theory Y of

McGregor (1960), which claims that leadership behaviors are based on a supposition

about employees. In Theory X stated that employees where are lack of ambition,

hate responsibility and choose to be led. Here will be a managerial behavior such as

pressuring employees, administer their work and govern their behaviors. On the other

hand, Theory Y hypothesizes that employees can sight work as a positive experience

given the right working conditions and they enjoy taking on responsibilities. Here,

managerial behavior includes providing encouragement, positive reinforcement and

rewards. Hence, leader behavior is significantly related to the job performance of

their subordinate this occurs through the interaction between the leader and the

subordinate according to Walumbwa et al. (2011), resulting to the effects the job

performance of its employees in either positive or negative way. It depends with the

behavior of the leader and how they treat their members (Chen, et al., 2014).
 36

Conclusion

In the assessment for the level of leadership behavior of managers in terms of

leadership participation and initiating structure, this study shows that managers

handled their employees by instructing what work should be done and at the same

time giving assistance to the employees' performance whether what they have done

or the problems they encountered.

In ascertaining the level of job performance of mechanics in terms of task

performance and contextual performance, this study implicates that the mechanics

accomplished the core job task of their organization and finish their own individual

task on time and with efficiency. In the task performance, it implies that the

mechanics always done and finishes the task given to them by their managers with

less time consumed but still in an efficient manner. Furthermore, contextual

performance implicates that the mechanics are able to integrate their emotions while

working in order to accomplish the task that was assigned to them.

The determined positive significant relationship between leadership behavior

of managers and job performance of mechanics in the automotive shops should tell

the managers to facilitate and set goals for their organization while they actively

participate with the employees and make joint decisions with them by consulting their

viewpoints and recommendation before deciding. By this, it enables the employees to

become more committed satisfied and give higher performance on their job.
 37

Recommendation

Based on the findings of the study recommendations are drawn out. First is

that managers may employ the results of this study to the workplace to tighten the

performance of mechanics in the field; this could also boost the performance of the

shop. Next is that students may also benefit to this study since leadership style of

managers, leaders or superiors are not just limited to the automotive shop for as long

it is organization that is led by someone. And future researchers may also use this

research and findings to support their causes and problems especially that the

students from schools are being deployed and practiced to their respective working

site, they may actualize the performance styles to actively participate in the

organization. Lastly this study recommends a seminar by the industry which will be

conducted by the managers to help their organization's performance and the

relationship between superiors and subordinates.

 38

References

Aboshaiqah, A., Hamdan-Mansour, A., Sherrod, D. Alkhaibary, A. & Alkhaibary, S.

(2014). Nurses’ perception of managers’ leadership styles and its associated

outcomes. American Journal of nursing research, 2 (4), 57-62.

Ahmad, A., & Aldakhil, A., (2012). Employee engagement and strategic

communication in saudi arabian banks. IBIMA business review, 2012, 13-21.

Anderson, B. (2013). Flexible, agile, innovative, authentic: How can we best develop

such creative leaders?. Leadership excellence, 30(12), 19-20.

Ashraf, M., Vveinhardt, J., Ahmed, R., Streimikiene, D., & Mangi, R. (2018). Exploring

intervening influence of interactional justice between procedural justice and job

performance: Evidence from South Asian Countries. Amfiteatru

economic, 20(47), 169-184.

Babbie, E. (2012). The practice of social research. 12th ed. Belmont, ca: Wadsworth

cengage, 2010; muijs, daniel. Doing quantitative research in education with

spss. 2nd edition. London: Sage publications.

Barrick, M. & Mount, M. (2009). Handbook of principles of organizational behaviors:

Selection on conscientiousness and emotional stability (p. 19-39). Chichester,

United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Bin, A. (2015). The relationship between job satisfaction, job performance and

employee engagement: An explorative study. Issues in business management

and economics, 4(1), 1-8.

 39

Buenviaje, M., Refozar, R., Encio, H., Perez, M., & Laguador, J. (2017). Leader

motivating language affecting faculty members’ work performance from a

private academic institution in the Philippines.

Byrd-Poller, L. (2013). Exploring the relationship between role conflict, role ambiguity

and general perceived self-efficacy: A quantitative study of secondary

assistant principals (doctoral dissertation, the George Washington University).

Carr, L. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative

research: What method for nursing?. Journal of advanced nursing, 20(4), 716-

721.

Chen, X., Eberly, M., Chiang, T., Farh, J., & Cheng, B. (2014). Affective trust in

chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance.

Journal of management, 40(3), 796-819.

Christian, M., Garza, A., & Slaughter, J. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative

review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance.

Personnel psychology, 64(1), 89-136.

Chukwura, F. (2016). The impact of selected leadership styles and behaviors on

employee motivation and job satisfaction (doctoral dissertation, University of

Maryland University College).

D’Aprix, R., & Fagan-Smith, B. (2011). Open communication cultures: Best practice

in a changing world. Strategic communication management, 15 (5), 36-39.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: For small-scale social research.

Mcgraw hill.
 40

Devi, V. (2009). Employee engagement is a two way street. Human resource

management international digest, 17, 3-4.

Díaz-Vilela L., Rodríguez N., Isla-Díaz R., Díaz-Cabrera D., Hernández E., &

Rosales-Sánchez C. (2015). Relationships between contextual and task

performance and interrater agreement: Are there any?. Retrieved from

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139898.retri

eved on november 8, 2018.

Dionne, S., Sayama, H., Hao, C., & Bush, B. (2010). The role of leadership in shared

mental model convergence and team performance improvement: An agent-

based computational model. The leadership quarterly, 21(6), 1035-1049.

Dolatabadi, H., & Safa, M. (2010). The effect of directive and participative leadership

style on employees’ commitment to service quality. International bulletin of

business administration, 9(1), 31-42.

Durga, D. & Prabhu, N. (2011). The relationship between effective leadership and

employee performance. International conference on advancements in

information technology, 20, 198-207.

Gimuguni, L., & Nandutu, J., Magolo, A., (2014). Effect of leadership styles on

performance of local governments in Uganda. A case of Mbale district.

Gonzales, M. (2014). Hear what employees are not saying: A review of literature.

Journal of education and training studies, 2(4), 119-125.

Gottfredson, R., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Leadership behaviors and follower

performance: Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales

 41

and underlying mechanisms. Journal of organizational behavior, 38(4), 558-

591.

Grinnell M. & Williams M. (1992). Research in social work, 3 th edition, Prentice hall,

New York.

House, R., & Mitchell, T. (1975). Path-goal theory of leadership (no.tr-75-67).

Washington Univ. Seattle dept of psychology.

Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance

work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects

on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of organizational

behavior, 31(1), 122-143.

Inuwa, M. (2016). Job satisfaction and employee performance: An empirical

approach. The millennium university journal, 1(1), 90.

Jackson, L. (2014). The work engagement and job performance relationship:

Exploring the mediating effect of trait emotional intelligence.

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D., Chonko, L., & Roberts, J. (2009). Examining the impact of

servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of personal selling &

sales management, 29(3), 257-275.

Kramer, A., Bhave, D., & Johnson, T. (2014). Personality and group performance:

The importance of personality composition and work tasks. Personality and

individual differences, 58, 132-137.

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., De Vet, H. C., & Van der Beek, A.,

(2014). Construct validity of the individual work performance

 42

questionnaire. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 56(3),

331-337.

Le, H., Oh, I., Robbins, S., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a

good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job

performance. Journal of applied psychology, 96(1), 113-133.

Le Pine, M., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E., & Rich, B., (2016). Turning their pain to gain:

Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance.

Academy of management journal, 59(3), 1036-1059.

Lim, C. (2012). The impact of perceived leadership and ethical leadership behavior

on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. (doctoral dissertation, Utar).

Mahler, P. (2016, April 26). Qualitative vs. Quantitative research – what is what?.

Retrieved from https://imotions.com/blog/qualitative-vs-quantitative-research.

Retrieved on November 10, 2018.

Mangnga, D., (2012). Employee performance in the department of marine and

fisheries of south sulawesi province, sarjanaskription, department of

administration public, faculty of social and political science. Hasanuddin

University.

Mccann, J., & Sweet, M. (2014). The perceptions of ethical and sustainable

leadership. Journal of business ethics, 121(3), 373-383.

Mcgregor, D. (1960). Theory x and theory y. Organization theory, 358, 374.

Mcleod, S. (2017). Quantitative vs. Quantitative research. Retrieved from

https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html. Retrieved on

november 8, 2018.
 43

Mohammed, A., & Wang, J. (2018). Leadership Styles and Job Performance: A

literature review. Journal of international business research and marketing,

3(3), 40-49

Nortje, A. (2010). Employee engagement through leadership [electronic version].

Management today, 18-20.

Paracha, A. Qamar, A. Mirza, Inam-ul- Hassan, and H. Waqas (2012). Impact of

leadership style (transformational & transactional leadership) on employee

performance & mediating role of job satisfaction study of private school

(educator) in Pakistan, Global. Journal of management and business research,

vol. 12.

Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D., (2010). Organizational y

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical

literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3),

513-563.

Prasetya, A., & Kato, M. (2011). The effect of financial and non financial

compensation to the employee performance. Paper presented at the 2nd

international research symposium in service management, Yogyakarta,

Indonesia.

Rowold, J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Extending the transformational –

transactional leadership paradigm German. Journal of human resource

managementt, 28(3),367-390.

Rich, B., Lepine, J., & Crawford, E. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and

effects on job performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635.

 44

Sahertian, P., & Soetjipto, B. (2011). Improving employee s organizational

commitment, self-efficacy, and organizational citizenship behavior through the

implementation of task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership behavior.

The business review, Cambridge, 17(2), 48-60.

Salgado, J., & Cabal, A. (2011). Performance appraisal in the public administration of

the principality of asturias: An analysis of psychometric properties. Journal of

work and organizational psychology, 27, 75-91.

Shafie, B., Baghersalimi, S. & Barghi, V. (2013). The relationship between

leadership style and employee performance Singaporean. Journal of business

economics and management studies, 2, 21-29.

Shahzadi, I., Javed, A., Pirzada, S., Nasreen, S., & Khanam, F., (2014). Impact of

employee motivation on employee performance.european journal of business

and management, 6(23), 159-166.

Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E., (2013). The role of employee

engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance,

citizenship and deviant behaviors. The international journal of human resource

management, 24(13), 2608-2627.

Stairs, M., (2005). Work happy: Developing employee engagement to deliver

competitive advantage. 21(5): 7-11.

Thompson, C., & Panacek, E., (2007). Research study designs: non-experimental.

Air medical journal, 26(1), 18-22.

 45

Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee

engagement, organizational performance and individual well-being: Exploring

the evidence, developing the theory.

Walumbwa, F., Mayer, D., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A.,

(2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of

leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification.

Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 115(2), 204-213.

Whetzel, L., McDaniel, A., & Pollack, J. (2012). Work simulations. The handbook of

work analysis: Methods, systems, applications and science of work

measurement in organizations, 401-418.

Wu, J., Tsui, A., & Kinicki, J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in

groups. Academy of management journal, 53(1),90-106.

 46

Table 1. Items of the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ) with means

and standard deviations (SD) on a 0-4 range.

Items Mean SD
Task Performance (TP) scale
In the past 3 months…
P1 I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time. 2.80 0.95
P2 My planning was optional. 2.47 0.98
P3 I kept in mind the results that I had to achieve in my work. 3.11 0.81
P4 I was able to separate main issues from side issues at 2.83 0.82
work.
P5 I was able to perform my work well with minimal time and 2.32 1.00
effort.
Contextual Performance (CP) scale
In the past 3 months…
CP1 I took on extra responsibilities. 2.24 1.09
CP2 I started new tasks myself, when my old ones were 2.57 1.13
finished.
CP3 I took on challenging work tasks, when available. 2.32 1.08
CP4 I worked at keeping my job knowledge up-to-date. 2.28 1.15
CP5 I worked at keeping my job skills up-to-date. 2.42 1.02
 47

Section 2: Perceived Leader Behavior (House and Dessler 1974)

How often does your superior performed according to the statements below?
Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always
1 2 3 4 5
Initiating Structure
He lets group members know o o o o o
what is expected of them.

He decides what shall be done o o o o o

and how it shall be done.

He makes sure that his part is o o o o o

the group is understood.

He schedules the work to be o o o o o

done.

Leadership Participation
When faced with a problem, he o o o o o
consults with his subordinates.

Before making decisions, he o o o o o

gives serious considerations to
what his subordinates have to
say.

He asks subordinates for their o o o o o

suggestions concerning how to
carry out assignments.

Before taking action, he o o o o o

consults with his subordinates.

He asks subordinates o o o o o
suggestions on what
assignments should be made.