Concept of perceived effective leadership

Concept of perceive effectual drawsThe literature review go out focus on two dimensions of literature. The branch is to look at the kind of renting that is termed as legal by looking at numerous definition of placeing and the conceptualization of be givener forte d ane by previous studies as well as conceptualization by Kouzes and Posner (2002) in which he totald good gallop utilise his attractorship Practices Inventory (LPI). The second is to look at the definition of equity and how it is conceptualized and prized from the perspective of scatinghip. To this, the author wishes to character the Perceived attracter impartiality Scale (PLIS) developed by Craig and Gustafson (1998) as previous studies indicated that it is one of the received government agencys to measure law from perspective of leading. Having the two components of this written report defined, this paper to a fault attempted to explain the possibleness underlying the kindred amid the two components based on previous studies.This chapter critic whollyy and selectively reviews the concept of comprehend utile lead and perceived fairness in drawship and their relationship from published journals and articles. The author believes that this could be useful for appreciation and the development of theoretical models.2.2. Effective leadinghipAs ordinary organizations ar facing an change magnitudely complex environment due to globalization, advancement in technology and communication, more than diverse workforce, the need to meet and satisfy citizens and customers comfort through broad(prenominal)-quality services, the outcry for effective leadinghiphip in mankind organizations has stupefy to pass crystal-clear though it has been contended that effective leading with fair play argon often absent in organizations (Haberfeld, 2006 Rowe, 2006) to bring the desired impact. preceding look for indicated that attractionship is a complex process and leadin g theories hold been defined and developed substantially over the last decades and as claimed by Bennis and Nanus (1985) cited in Olu Oyinlade (2006) that leadership had been defined by researchers in over 350 assorted ways in the 30 years prior to 1985. This was also agreed by low in 1990 who express that there seems to be some(prenominal) definitions of leadership than the fall of researchers striving to conduct the concept. According to Conger (1992) also cited in Olu Oyinlade that so distant there is no single agreed-upon definition as leadership is largely an intuitive concept and this is agreed by Bennis (2007) that recent research suggests there is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership. The nearly common so far of leadership theories ar the traits theory, deportmental theory, contingency theory, and leader-member exchange (LMX), the transformational and transactional theory. Due to the Brobdingnagian definitions of leadership, low (1990) cited in Schafer ( 2009) hinted and pinpointed both(prenominal)(a) common unifying theory implying that leadership is the persuasive power and ability to influence group of pack or individuals or opposite demeanors in an coordinated manner to achieve some pre-determined goal.Kouzes and Posner (2004) defined leadership by their honorers and it involves a relationship between those who want to lead and those who choose to follow. They suggested that any discussion of leadership should follow this norm of relationship. Kouzes and Posners assertion for leaders and followers relationship is based on followers perception and they normally expect upon leaders for collective success. Thus, the importee to follow good leaders is high and to follow bad leaders is too costly as it squeeze out non be denied that some leaders are often tempted and lured to manipulate their aim for personal gain (Van Vugt et al., 2008).Previous studies on followers assessment of leadership foc apply on the behaviours asso ciated with effective leadership and past findings also indicated that dimensions of what they call as effective leadership castrate from instrument to instrument of research. To this, prior assume by outfox and Proctor-Thomson (2002) in citing Bass (1985) in their field of view on Perceived righteousness of transformational leaders in organisational settings suggested that effective leadership can be think to transformational leadership behaviours of radicallized influence, inspiring need, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration which are in truth much admired and could become respected type-model. The researchers used Perceived draw haleness Scale (PLIS) by Craig and Gustafson (1989) to measure leaders equity and Multifactor leaders Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass (1985) to measure transformational leadership involving a audition 1,354 out of 6,025 managers throughout New Zealand and effectuate a strong positive degree relationship between perce ived integrity and introduction of transformational leadership behaviours. However, this study willing non apply the MLQ as an instrument to measure effective leadership as it is criticised on the ground that it lacks ability to measure accurately and distinguish the four dimensions of transformational leadership from one some other (Bycio, Hackett Allen, 1995 Tepper and Percy, 1994 Tracey Hinkin, 1998 Yammarino Dubinsky, 1994) although it has been widely used in some investigations of transformational and transactional leadership (Den Hartog, Van Muijen Koopman , 1997).Some theorists also raised questions regarding the nonion that transformational leadership may non necessarily lead followers to higher ethical ground save instead may lead to unethical and immoral direction (Giampetro, Br suffer, Browne Kubasek, 1998 Yukl, 1998) as cited in hinder and Proctor-Thomson (2002). This has given rise to another dimension of transformational leadership in what Bass and Steid lmeier (1999) called as authentic which refers to real ethical leader and pseudo-transformational which is unlikely to be ethical leader. This stamp of transformational leader related to effective leadership will not be applied in this study as some researcher like Ciulla (1995) raised the issue of Hitler problem who argued that Hitler essential not be in the same category as Martin Luther King, Jr. though the Nazis during his time might have treated him to be effective and transformational.The idea of attractive leadership too will not be related to effective leadership in this study although Conger and Kanungo (1998) described charismatic leaders to suffer all the qualities of vision, drive, passion and ability of leaders to stimulate their followers into action. But Bass (1985) argued that charismatic leaders often lead to dictatorship than real leaders with inclusion of qualities much(prenominal) as narcissism, exercise of people and defensiveness in the example much(pre nominal)(prenominal) as Hitler and Mussolini.To this, Kouzes and Posner (1988) came up with their leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) to conceptualize leadership behaviours associated with leader authorization based on five dimensions of practices Modelling the Way, inspire a Shared Vision, Challenging the Process, modify some others to Act, and Encouraging the Heart. The construction of LPI is although not designed for transformational or transactional leadership styles, nevertheless the instruments contents of different scales may from subordinates point of view contains elements of transformational and transactional leadership styles (Fields Herold, 1997). other(a) studies indicated an increase in perception of effective leadership can lead to an increase in subordinate and organisational force. To this, researchers like Jaussi and Dionne (2004) in their study on Unconventional leader behaviour, subordinate satisfaction, effort and perception of leader effectiveness cite d Bass (1990) claimed that an increased in perception of leader effectiveness can lead to elevated subordinate achievement which in bend dexter can enhance organizational effectiveness as one the troika outcomes documented in previous leadership literature.As there are too many literatures associated with effective leadership, this paper however attempted to use the term effective leadership as derived by Kouzes and Posner (2002) through his leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) and the dimensions that articulate and explain effective leadership. The reason as to why practices are selected quite a than traits and characteristics of leadership is based on the understanding of leaders behaviour through the function theory that can provide perspicacity and understanding on how roles and behaviours influence subordinates behaviour. Role has been defined as a socially specified pattern of behaviour that accompanies a particular position inside a social context (Deaux Wrightsman, 1988) cited in Huse (1998). In another definition, roles are also the combination of expectations and performances on the part of those who are interacting with for each one other (Neal, 1983). Hooijberg and Quinn (1992) also state that in order to increase their effectiveness, leaders may perform and execute variety of leadership roles and practices in the organizational setting.Another reason for the role theory to be current and not the traits theory is because previous literatures on the traits theory popularised in 1930s only explained leadership effectiveness by intend of natural characteristics, skills and abilities such as self- expertness, decisiveness, and interpersonal competences to be associated with organizational effectiveness. But this theory has been subjected to criticism on the ground that this theory lacks predictive power in linking leadership traits to performance (Stogdill, 1948). Consequently, in 1940s and 1950s, the leadership behaviour theory was introd uced to explain leadership effectiveness based on leaders behaviours and practices they should play to provide modern perspective on understanding leadership effectiveness (Steers, Porter Bigley, 1996) cited in Oyinlade (2006). The theory explains that the behaviour of the leader occurs within the context of various roles and practices the leader plays. This further justifies why leadership practices and behaviours are authorised to influence subordinates behaviour and this also helps to explain that the effectiveness of the leader is influenced by his/her roles obligations and expectations.2.3. standard of effective leadershipIn a study done in 2008 to more than 1,000 police supervisors attending the FBI National Academy (NA) in Quantico, Virginia which involved 1,042 of the 1,071 (97.3 percent) NA attendees completed all or part of the survey, the survey concluded that efficacy of police chiefs who are effective leaders was most strongly conjugate with integrity, work ethic, communication, and care for personnel while ineffective leaders were characterized as failing to express these traits or were characterized as suffering from questionable morals and integrity. The study revealed that 37.5 percent of respondents ranked honesty and integrity as the most important characteristics of an effective leader. The study also acknowledged that development of effective leaders and leadership practices is a persistent problem in policing (Schafer, 2009)A study done in 2008 involving a total of 1,000 high open enlighten teachers in Amman, Jordan which analyze the behaviours of their principals using Kouzes and Posners LPI has shown that 550 school teachers represent 55 per cent of the targeted respondents of 1,000 have assessed their principals as moderately practising Kouzes and Posners leadership practices model and place them as transformational which is also associated with effective leadership (Abu-Tineh et.al. 2008).2.4. integrityIntegrity is a concept commonly discussed in a formal and informal way and usually associated with leadership and organisational theory, but it is yet to be defined and theoretically understood (Rieke Guastello, 1995) as cited in Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002). Previous definitions on integrity indicated that integrity has been defined in different manner and in different forms due to different lines of research by previous researchers. This was conceded by Hooijberg et.al (2010) that the complexness regarding its meaning and interpretation makes it difficult to be understood. Hence, its broad dimensions had led to many researchers to associate it with ethical motive, honesty, trust, credibility, and character that have been used and applied interchangeably in many past literatures (Hooijberg et.al., 2010 Becker, 1998 Yukl Van Fleet, 1990) Kouzes and Posner (2002) Ciulla (2004). In 2007 and 2009, Palanski and Yammarino cited in Hooijberg et. al. who successfully effectuate evidence of relationship be tween integrity and honesty also assert that it involves matching whole kit and boodle to words, a sense of morality and that it lies in the look of the beholder. This was shared by Kirkpartrick and Locke (1991) and Covey (1992) described integrity as base on balls the talk with no desire other than for the good of others. This was supported by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, (1995) by stating that integrity should be more than walk the talk but is associated to an individuals full commitment to underlying principles.For Kolthoff et al. (2010) declared integrity has its foundation in ethics and Lawton (1998) asserted that ethics and integrity encapsulate a work out of conduct as basis for actions. Notably some examples of ethics assault in normal organizations include lying, cheating, rule-bending, stealing public property, harming others and so on (Ciulla, 2004). For Van der Wal Huberts Van Den Heuvel and Kolthoff (2006), they described integrity within organizational context to c onstitute wholeness and in the Latin word -integritas which means acting according to moral determine, norms and rules and which must take place within the context and environment in which one works or operates and accepted by the members of the organisation.For integrity also means trust as Bennis (1989) stated that integrity is the basis of trust and Simons (1999) in asserting that trust of subordinates in leaders behaviours is very important suggested behavioural integrity (BI) rather than self-perceived integrity or any narrative on integrity as the primary(prenominal) focus research on integrity to describe leaderships style and behaviours as there often mismatch between actual values and enacted values of leaders behaviour. The author duly admits that this has been the common flaw in public service where leaders normally ignore subordinates trust and in many instances they do not need subordinates trust as they probably spirit proud to helm public organizations and and t hen could have acted on their own for selfish gain. It is here that mistrust and dishonesty exist within public organizations and as Kolthoff et al. (2010) pointed out that integrity is affected. Other researchers like Padilla, Hogan, and Kaiser (2007) also believed and argued that the occurrences of putrefaction, unethical and bad behaviours, mismanagement and so on perpetrated by people in position of power appointed in public organizations can be traced to issues of integrity. That is why integrity must be perceived as a moral courage and the will and willingness public servants ought to do and to go against what is not right and believes to be wrong (Kolade, 1999).How integrity is important for leadership? Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) Kouzes and Posner (2002) cited in Hooijberg et.al (2010) asserted that integrity is not only good for organizations but also to be an important trait of leaders. Becker (1998) argued that excellent leaders are people viewed and perceived to be hig h in integrity because they do not want to gain something out of organizational resources for selfish reasons. This is consistent with Badaracco and Ellsworths (1990) notion that leaders with values and integrity normally make decisions in compliance with the enacted values of the organization and for Kouzes and Posner, (2002) added that leaders with integrity would be able to incite followers that they are worth to be followed. While Kanungo and Mendonca (1996) cited in Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) also stated that integrity in leadership has become an increasing concern for business and organisations. To this, many theorists now believe that leadership without integrity may put the organisations at risk, (Morgan, 1993 Mowday, Porter Steers, 1982 Posner Schmidt, 1984).Perhaps, the most important definition of integrity related to leadership was given by Tan Sri Mohd. Sidek Hassan who is the political boss Secretary to the government of Malaysia in his speech dated 25 mac 2009 that integrity can be defined as continuous friendship to moral principles, honesty, wholeness, the quality of being unimpaired soundness. He also reminded well-mannered servants on the need to instil integrity especially on the role of leadership in public institutions in order to deliver high quality of service delivery (http//www.pmo.gov.my/ksn/?frontpage/speech/detail/1512. accessed 5th April 2011).From the so many definitions of integrity mentioned above, it is clear that integrity plays an important role in establishing and maintaining high ethical standards in public organizations but it must demoralise with the top echelon of the organizations which must be perceived to have integrity as without it the whole system and existing reform measures will be meaningless.2.5. Measurement of integrityHogan and Kaiser (2010) in their study on How to assess (not to assess) the integrity of managers stated that various attempts have been made in the past to assess and measure in tegrity in leadership including using the Big Five spirit Theory as researcher like Allport (1937) and other moral philosophers relate leaders integrity to personality and they believed that leaders personality could influence individuals and groups behaviours. To this, measurement of leaders personality using The Big Five Personality theory was a questionable issue related to how sound the integrity visitation works with leaders (Howard Thomas, 2010) and although it can predict counterproductive work behaviour based on the three dimensions of personality theory Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and emotional Stability but it does not measure counterproductive behaviours. Another critic for the theory was by Mischel (1977) who suggested that personality is most important in shoddy situations and of course in strong situation it could provide solid cues round leaders appropriate behaviour which resulted in peoples supportive actions.Hogan and Kaiser (2010) also stated that ano ther measurement technique linked integrity to leaders cleverness model theory and by using the data that delivered subordinates ratings of 672 directors and vice presidents diligent by a Fortune 500 technology firm in the United States, this method defines integrity as a leadership competence and measures it using co-worker ratings of observed ethical behaviour. The test used 23-items to measure five competencies and integrity is one of them. The result of the competency test found that the behavioural ratings suggested only a negligible proportion of managers may have integrity issues and do not grade leaders with integrity issues as most of the items in the questionnaire only reflect the desirable end of integrity construct. The study also did not differentiate between high and low-performing managers, and hence cannot be used as an appropriate measurement to identify leaders with integrity issues.What have been done by previous measurements only concentrate on positive beha viours of managers that might not have been able to identify leaders with integrity issues. However, using Craig and Gustafson (1998) measurement technique of Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS) which focussed on perception of unethical behaviours of leaders using only a short version of 8-items questionnaire survey rather than 32-items, Hogan and Kaiser (2010) in their study using data from 80 employed MBA students at a university in the South-Eastern United States has proven that this technique is a reliable way of assessing leaders with potential integrity issues as correlation and relapsing analyses using the PLIS suggested that trust and leaders integrity is the primary determinant of employee attitudes and effective leadership perceptions. Apart from using PLIS, Hogan and Kaiser also used Leader demeanour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) developed by Stogdill (1963) in the study to assess the leaders effectiveness via two-factor of leaders behaviour, that is, Initiating Structure and Consideration scales (10-items for each scale) and found that PLIS is the strongest prognosticator of all the three predictors and another result indicated that leader perceived integrity was highly correlated with consideration rather than initiating structure which means leaders need to pay more attention to the needs of the subordinates.So, this study will use the PLIS to measure perceived leaders integrity from subordinates assessment in the focus area, that is, the selected Sabah states agencies in Kota Kinabalu.2.6. Relationship between effective leadership and perceived integrityParry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) in their study on Perceived Integrity of Transformational leaders in Organisational Settings involving 1,354 useable samples out of 6,025 managers in private and public organizations throughout New Zealand using both PLIS and MLQ to measure perceived leader integrity and effectiveness respectively found that there was positively noteworthy correlation b etween leader perceived integrity and a point of leader effectiveness measures in which leader effectiveness was measured with items such as satisfaction with leadership, perceived leader effectiveness, extra efforts from followers and motivation of followers.A study done by Hooijberg et.al in 2010 involving 175 self-confidence chiefs and directors of a state government agency in the North-eastern USA pickings part in a leadership-training program using 20-items survey of Competing value Framework (CVF) to assess managers effectiveness through eight leadership roles Producer, Director, Coordinator, Monitor, Mentor, Facilitator, pioneer and as Broker revealed that integrity has an above impact of leadership effectiveness followed by honesty and goal-orientation is the leadership role that bosses highly associated with leaders effectiveness.In addition to the above studies, other past literatures on the study of leadership focussed on the impact of leadership on organization and in dicated it was the leaderships role to protect and enhance the invulnerability of public agencies to threats of integrity as suggested by Selznick (1957) that the integrity of the institution is vulnerable to corruption if the leader fails to protect the institutions characteristic values, competence and role. The importance of leaders to demonstrate integrity was also studied by Gray (1985) and Fiedler (1995) as cited in Huse (1998) who argued that leaders will urge others when they demonstrated integrity. This shows that leadership with integrity is vital to protect organizations vulnerability to corruption as well as to inspire others to behave in a forthright and open-manner and lead the organization into the future which is part of leaders demonstration of integrity.The study by OECD in 2005 on Public Sector Integrity A Framework for assessment regarding perception of integrity in all its member countries such as Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Germ ay, Japan and host of other countries indicated that integrity in public agencies starts at the top and through leaders actions and behaviour. Instilling a culture of integrity has to come from the top such as the senior management, head of department, governing board etc. Leaders in public organizations must keep integrity at the brain activities so that employees can take their cues and examples from the top.Other research also has shown that supervisors or leaders are the primary influence on the ethical behaviours of their subordinates (Morgan, 1993 Posner Schmidt, 1984). Their dispute is based on the belief that as integrity is also some ethical behaviours, this indicates that if leaders exercise ethical behaviour this will lead to larger implications on subordinates behaviours and behaviours of others in the organization. To this, an effective leadership must lead the initiatives to pretend an atmosphere where individuals in the organization feel safe to head for the hil ls forward to becoming an ideal and competitive organization. But this will depend on the leaderships beliefs in motivation and competitive spirit of all members in the organization on the adherence to values of honesty, ethics, and trust.What is important is a statement by Morgan (1993) who emphasized the ethical leaderships positive impact on organisational effectiveness will result in ethical development which is very important to the leaders success. Morgan also found that followers perception of leaders ethics was positively related to their perceptions of leaders effectiveness.2.7. Summary of Literature Reviewestablish on the numerous definitions of integrity given by previous researchers such as Becker (1998), integrity is conceptualized as similar to honesty, trust, ethics, matching words with deeds and actions, and a commitment in actions to set of principles and values. In other words, integrity is about something ethical and morality in words and in actions in accordance with existing norms, cultures, values, processes, rules and laws in which managers and leaders in public organizations must adhere to in order to create and maintain public trust.Previous studies indicated that effective leadership can be conceptualized and perceived using Kouzes and Posners (2002) leading Practices Inventory or LPI which emphasizes on leadership practices in five dimensions Inspiring Vision, Model the Way, Challenge the process, Enable others to act and Encourage the heart. Recent study by Abu-Tineh et.al (2008) done in 2008 in Amman, Jordan involving a sample of 550 school teachers resulted in the school teachers assessed their school principals as having practiced Kouzes and Posners leadership practices and has identify them as transformational which is also related to effective leadership.The leaders integrity can be perceived by using Craig and Gustafsons (1998) Perceived Leader Integrity Scale of PLIS in which Parry and Proctor-Thomson in 2002 has conducted a study on a sample of 1,354 private and public managers in New Zealand using PLIS and found a moderate to positive relationship between perceived leader integrity and transformational leadership behaviours measured using Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).Other previous literatures also pinpointed to the needs for perceived effective leadership to possess moral values such as honesty, trust and ethics or in other words integrity to maintain trust and create followers positive perception of leaders effectiveness and integrity to bring the desired impact to the organizations.