Impact of Leadership Substitute and Leadership Neutralizer on Performance Outcome - Essay Example

? Conjectural View on conjoint impact of Leadership Substitute and Leadership Neutralizer on Performance Outcome Part Introduction In this essay, the researcher has selected the research paper named as “Examining the effects of substitutes for leadership on performance outcomes” to produce an academic review. The research paper was written by Michael K. Muchiri and Ray W. Cooksey and the research paper was published in Leadership & Organization Development Journal in the year 2011. In the later section of the study the researcher will try to create a mini report on the basis of understanding gather through preparing the academic review. Academic Review The research paper was more about examining the indirect and direct impact of leadership substitutes on performance outcomes. Hence, pertinent research question for the paper was, “how leadership substitutes can influence the performance outcomes?” Michael K. Muchiri and Ray W. Cooksey used research works of various research scholars such as Arnold et al (2005), Lowe and Gardner (2001), Yukl (2010), Dionne et al. (2005), Avolio and Bass (2002) and Parry (2004) to define the leadership behaviour. The researchers’ duo also stressed on the fact that how particular leadership behaviour has relationship with social setting and what leadership strategy can be embodied to improve the performance outcomes of subordinates. In such context, Lowe and Gardner (2001) argued personal characteristics, organisational context and group processes can be served as alternatives for leadership or substitutes which have the capacity to create hierarchical leadership effects on subordinates (Muchiri and Cooksey, 2011). Writers of the research paper strongly argued that there cannot be a definite measure or definition of leadership because leadership is dependent on situational and social context. Dionne et al. (2005) argued that situational variables can not only act as substitute but also increase the effectiveness of leader’s behaviour. Muchiri and Cooksey (2011) argued that situational substitute can enhance the leadership ability influence and job performance of subordinates. Although, the research paper focused various aspects leadership substitutes but the researcher did not shed light on leadership neutralisers which can reduce the effectiveness of leadership. Careful analysis of the research works of Burke (2004), McArdle and Reason (2008), Hicks (2002), McNiff and Whitehead (2002) and Klosko (2000) reveal the fact that leadership has direct relationship with organizational dynamics (OD) process and an individual can play situational role to direct the activity of subordinates. Such kind of research findings supports the existence of leadership substitute which can even make leadership unnecessary. On the other hand, leadership neutralisers do not replace leadership but eradicate the influence of leadership. Muchiri and Cooksey (2011) also pointed out that there are leadership enhancer variables such as organizational environment, talented employee pool and employee which can significantly improve the impact of leadership on performance of subordinates. Research scholars such as Burke (2004), McArdle and Reason (2008), Hicks (2002), McNiff and Whitehead (2002) and Klosko (2000) stressed on democratic leadership aspects while other research scholars argued that democratic culture can be treated as leadership neutralisers. The researcher believe that research work of Michael K. Muchiri and Ray W. Cooksey has its own merit but scope of the research paper can be enhanced by considering leadership in general rather than confining the research transformational leadership and social processes of leadership. The researcher duo used the transformational-transactional leadership theory proposed by research scholars such as Avolio and Yammarino (2002), Avolio and Bass (2004) and Avolio (2005) to develop their theoretical arguments. On the other hand, research works of Parry and Meindl (2002), Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2001) and Bartram and Casimir (2007) were used in order to define elements of social process leadership. It is evident from the research work of previous research scholars such as Casimir et al. (2006) and Sarros, Cooper and Santora (2008) that both transformational and social process leadership can impact the overall performance of subordinates in organization. Research paper never tried to elaborate the detail of the substitute which can be acted as the predictor for performance outcomes. Very little discussion was done about defining the nature of the substitutes and researchers duo quickly jumped on to hypothesis development. The researcher duo used following research questions or hypothesis in the research paper; How leadership substitutes can predict employees’ performance outcomes? How leadership substitutes can moderate employees’ performance outcomes? How leadership substitutes can mediate employees’ performance outcomes? The research paper selected variables like work design, reward, methodological tasks, employee capacity and staff support as the substitute for leadership. The researchers conducted sample survey through close ended questionnaire in order to collect data from 177 Australian local council employees and then they analyzed the data through item cluster statistics and multiple regression analysis. The researchers found that leadership substitutes can positively influence the performance outcomes and these substitutes have the capacity to modify performance outcomes. Criticism The research paper should be criticized for three reasons, 1- selection of a public organization has decreased the empirical value of the research paper because Australian local council is not known for its business activities, 2- leadership substitutes are not categorized on the basis of their ability to neutralize or enhance effectiveness of leadership and 3- the researchers had assumed the existence of transformational-transactional leadership in Australian local council but they did not provide justification behind such assumptions. Although research scholars such as Walumbwa and Schaubroeck (2009), Walumbwa et al. (2005, 2007, 2010 and 2011), Judge and Piccolo (2004) and Kirkman et al. (2009) pointed out that leadership can influence performance outcomes in an organization but these research scholars also argued impact of leadership differs in accordance with organizational structure. Zhu, Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber (2009), Fernandez, Cho and Perry (2010) and Ingraham and Getha-Taylor (2004) noted that role of leadership is pretty ambiguous in public and government controlled organization. It is evident from the above argument that selection of a government controlled organization by Michael K. Muchiri and Ray W. Cooksey was questionable hence future researchers should try to understand the impact of leadership substitutes on performance outcome in private and business centred organization. Future researchers should differentiate leadership substitute and leadership neutralizers and try to understand their individual impact on performance outcomes in a business organization. There are opportunities for future researchers to take conjectural view on the relationship between performance outcomes and leadership substitutes and use statistical tools to understand the relationship. Incorporating more predictors can also improve the comprehensiveness of the study and can also dig deep about the relational matrix between leadership substitute and performance outcome. However, research paper of Michael K. Muchiri and Ray W. Cooksey should be appreciated for its academic quality and the researcher will take help of the research paper published by these two scholars in order to develop theoretical argument in the next section. The research paper of Michael K. Muchiri and Ray W. Cooksey was one of the first in its genre and also scholarly enough to be classified as good-read. Part 2 Introduction It is evident from the above academic review of that leadership substitutes play important role in predicting performance outcomes in a government controlled organization but how leadership substitute can impact the performance outcome in private organization has remained unanswered. Another important thing is that the role of leadership neutralizers on performance outcomes has been long been ignored by the research scholars. According to limited knowledge of researcher, Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004) first identified the role of leadership neutralizers on overall effectiveness of leadership hence the topic is pretty much contemporary which has immense scope for conducting research. Kellerman (2004) and Kets de Vries (2006) also argued that potential of leadership can be destructed due to organizational and behavioral inefficiency of leaders. The researcher has pretty much influenced by the theoretical arguments of above mentioned research scholars and decided to conduct research on conjoint impact of leadership substitute and leadership neutralizers on performance outcomes. Following research questions will be used as major research objectives in the paper; 1. What is the role of leadership substitutes on performance outcomes in private sector business? 2. What is the role of leadership neutralizers on performance outcomes in private sector business? 3. Is there any relationship exist between leadership substitute and leadership neutralizer? The researcher will use quantitative methodology in order to predict the relationship between predictors such as leadership substitutes and leadership neutralizers with dependent variable such as performance outcomes. Very few researchers tried to understand the integral relationship between leadership substitute and leadership neutralizers hence research result will fill the gap in the literature review on the topic. Literature Review Introduction Ford and Seers (2006) gave importance on leader-member-exchange (LMX) model as important substitute of leadership while Dionne et al. (2002) pointed out that organizational environment can be classified as leadership neutralizer. However, much confusion still exist regarding the definition and properties of both leadership substitute and leadership neutralizers. In the next, section the researcher will briefly describe the properties of both the predictors in order to develop theoretical argument and hypothesis in the paper. Leadership Substitute It is evident from the research works of Schneider, Salvaggio and Subirats (2002), Dawson et al. (2008) and Lindell and Brandt (2000) that supportive organizational climate can significantly reduce the importance of leaders and can automatically influence organizational members to improve their performance. Dickson, Resick and Hanges (2006) also argued that knowledge sharing and transparent organizational climate can automatically increase engagement level of employees and can motivate them to perform well. Other research scholars such as Gonza?lez-Roma?, Peiro? and Tordera, (2002), Colquitt, Noe and Jackson (2002) and Moliner et al. (2005) pointed out that individual capability and transparent organizational climate can work as substitute for leadership. In such context, following hypothesis can be drawn. Hypothesis 1: Leadership substitutes can improve performance outcomes in private sector business. Careful analysis of the research works of research scholars such as Roberson et al. (2007) reveals the fact that nature of the job can work as self instigator for employees to improve performances because people love to those works which can bring psychological enjoyment to them and in those cases no leadership influence is required in order to improve performance of them. Hence nature of the work can be treated as potential substitute for leadership when it comes to influencing performance outcomes. Bolino and Turnley’s (2009) and Harmon and van Dyne (2008) stressed on the fact that issues like proper reward system, personal capability, cordial relationship with colleagues can even influence an employee to perform well and these factors can be treated as potential substitute of leadership in situational context. On the basis of above argument, following sub hypothesis can be formulated. H1a: Nature of work as leadership substitute can improve performance outcomes in private sector business. H1b: Transparent reward facility as leadership substitute can improve performance outcomes in private sector business. H1c: Cordial and knowledge sharing organizational environment as leadership substitute can improve performance outcomes in private sector business. H1d: Individual capability as leadership substitute can improve performance outcomes in private sector business. Leadership Neutralizers Toor and Ogunlana (2008) and Toor and Ofori (2009) pointed out that negative leadership behaviour can make the need for guidance of a leader completely unnecessary and such negative attitude of leaders can be treated as leadership neutralizers. Toor and Ogunlana (2008) pointed out that “anti-subordinate” behaviour and incompetency of leader can create problem for subordinates and negatively affect their performance outcomes. On the basis of above argument, following hypothesis can be drawn; Hypothesis 2: Leadership substitutes can decrease performance outcomes in private sector business. Careful analysis of the research works of Hartman (2000), Powl and Skitmore (2005) and Low and Chuan (2006) reveals the fact that non-supportive leadership attitude towards subordinates negatively affect their performance outcomes. Powl and Skitmore (2005) conducted research on behaviour of project managers in construction project and found that sub-ordinates do not respect leaders who are lazy and incompetent. Such level of disrespect quickly becomes the driver for lack of motivation among workers in the workplace which subsequently decrease the performance output from workers. Schaubroeck et al. (2007), Phua (2004) also found that personal insensitivity can make a leader irrelevant among subordinates, which is the other form of leadership neutralizers. Dionne et al. (2002) pointed out that organizational structure and environment can be treated as perfect neutralizes which can mitigate the influence of leaders on subordinates. Dionne et al. (2002) pointed out factors like unambiguous routine and mechanistic job responsibilities for subordinates which can decrease the need of guidance of leaders, bureaucratic organizational structure etc can be classified as leadership neutralizers. In such context, following sub hypothesis can be drawn; H2a: Non-supportive leadership attitude can decrease performance outcomes in private sector business. H2b: Presence of incompetent leaders can decrease performance outcomes in private sector business. H2c: Unambiguous routine can decrease importance of leaders in influencing performance outcomes in private sector business. H2d: Bureaucratic organizational structure can decrease importance of leaders in influencing performance outcomes in private sector business. Third hypothesis in the research paper can be summarized in the following manner; Hypothesis 3: There is relationship exist between leadership substitutes and leadership neutralizers. Research Methodology The researcher has conducted close ended questionnaire survey of 50 workers working in a private manufacturing company. Database of these employees was collected from the manufacturing company and then collected the data from respondents through personal administration. Convenience sampling method was used to select the 50 respondents (Creswell, 2009; Bryman and Bell, 2003; Curwin and Slater, 2008; Davies, 2007 and Gray, 2009). Sekaran, and Bougie (2009) and Saunders, Lewis and Thornhil (2007 and 2009) pointed out that researchers should use both primary and secondary data for preparing research report. The researcher has used academic journals as secondary sources to prepare the theoretical argument and close ended questionnaire survey as primary data sources. Analysis and Discussion Research Question 1- Leadership Substitute Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics Durbin-Watson R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .205a .042 -.043 .53174 .042 .492 4 45 .742 1.225 a. Predictors: (Constant), Individual Capability, Transparent Reward, Knowledge Sharing Environment, Work Nature b. Dependent Variable: Performance Outcome It is evident from the multiple regressions analysis that there very weak relationship exist between leadership substitutes and performance outcomes in private sector. Low Durbin-Watson test value is also showing that there is significant amount of autocorrelation exist between leadership substitutes and performance outcomes. ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression .556 4 .139 .492 .742b Residual 12.724 45 .283 Total 13.280 49 a. Dependent Variable: Performance Outcome b. Predictors: (Constant), Individual Capability, Transparent Reward, Knowledge Sharing Environment, Work Nature Calculated F value (at 0.05 significance level and 49 degrees of freedom) is lower than tabulated F-value in F-distribution table hence the researcher has failed to reject null hypothesis and accepted the fact that Leadership substitutes cannot improve performance outcomes in private sector. Another thing is that significance level .742 is greater than significance level of 0.05 hence none of the sub hypothesis are accepted. Hence it can be said that, transparent reward, nature of the work, organizational environment and individual capability cannot be replacement of leadership in private business organizations. Research Question 2- Leadership Neutralizer Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics Durbin-Watson R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .538a .289 .226 .45803 .289 4.576 4 45 .003 1.503 a. Predictors: (Constant), Bureaucratic, Incompetent, Work Routine, Non Supportive b. Dependent Variable: Performance Outcome It is evident from the regression table that there is weak positive correlation exist between leadership neutralizers and performance outcomes. ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 3.840 4 .960 4.576 .003b Residual 9.440 45 .210 Total 13.280 49 a. Dependent Variable: Performance Outcome b. Predictors: (Constant), Bureaucratic, Incompetent, Work Routine, Non Supportive Calculated F value (at 0.05 significance level and 49 degrees of freedom) is greater than tabulated F-value in F-distribution table hence the researcher has failed to accept null hypothesis and accepted the fact that Leadership neutralizers can improve performance outcomes in private sector. Model Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Beta 1 (Constant) 2.654 5.235 .000 Non Supportive .336 .505 3.386 .001 Incompetent -.016 -.022 -.155 .877 Work Routine .232 .368 2.598 .013 Bureaucratic -.213 -.329 -2.195 .033 Significance for work routine, bureaucratic structure and non-supportive behaviour of leaders are lower than accepted significance level of 0.05, hence hypothesis related to these three variables can only be accepted. It can be said that non-supportive attitude of leaders can decrease their necessity among subordinates while scheduled work routine and bureaucratic organizational structure can even decrease the influence of leaders on performance outcomes in private business organization. Research Question 3- Leadership Substitute and Leadership Neutralizers ANOVA Leadership Substitute Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 1.752 8 .219 2.056 .063 Within Groups 4.368 41 .107 Total 6.120 49 Calculated F value (at 0.05 significance level and 49 degrees of freedom) is lower than tabulated F-value in F-distribution table hence the researcher has failed to reject null hypothesis and found that there is no relationship exist between Leadership Substitute and Leadership Neutralizers. Limitations Small sample size. Convenience sampling cannot represent the behaviour of whole population. Lack of scope for conducting multivariate analysis Conclusion and Recommendation It is evident from the above analysis, leadership substitute cannot influence performance outcomes in private organization while leadership neutralizers play important role in decreasing influence of leaders on performance outcomes. Future researchers should conduct analysis with large sample size and they should also conduct the multivariate analysis with more than one sample organizations. Reference List Arnold, J., Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Robertson, I., Cooper, C. and Burns, B., 2005. Work psychology. 4th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M., 2002. Developing potential across a full range of leadership: Cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M., 2004. Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler set. 3rd ed. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Avolio, B. J. and Yammarino, F. J., 2002. Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Amsterdam: JAI. Avolio, B. J., 2005. Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O. and Weber, T. J., 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), pp. 421-49. Bartram, T. and Casimir, G., 2007. The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28(1), pp. 4-19. Bolino, M. C. and Turnley, W. H., 2009. Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader-member exchange relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 20, pp. 276-86. Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2003. Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burke, W. W., 2004. Organization development: What we know and what we need to know going forward. OD Practitioner, 36(3), pp. 4-8. Casimir, G., Waldman, D., Bartram, T. and Yang, S., 2006. Trust and the relationship between leadership and follower performance: Opening the black box in Australia and China. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(3), pp. 72-88. Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A. and Jackson, C. L., 2002. Justice in teams: antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, pp. 83-109. Creswell J. W., 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. California: Sage Publications. Curwin, J. and Slater, R., 2008. Quantitative methods for business decisions. 6th ed. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA. Davies, M. B., 2007. Doing a successful research project: Using qualitative or quantitative methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Dawson, J. F., Gonza?lez-Roma?, V., Davis, A. and West, M. A., 2008. Organizational climate and climate strength in UK hospitals. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, pp. 89-111. Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J. and Hanges, P. J., 2006. When organizational climate is unambiguous, it is also strong. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, pp. 351-64. Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E. and James, L. R., 2002. Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory: Leadership effects and common-source bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), pp. 454-64. Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Howell, J. P. and Villa, J., 2005. Substitutes for leadership, or not. Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), pp. 169-93. Fernandez, S., Cho, Y. J. and Perry, J. L., 2010. Exploring the link between integrated leadership and public sector performance. Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), pp. 308-23. Ford, L. R. and Seers, A., 2006. Relational leadership and team climates: Pitting differentiation versus agreement. Leadership Quarterly, 17, pp. 258-70. Gonza?lez-Roma?, V., Peiro?, J. M. and Tordera, N., 2002. An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 465-73. Gray, D. E., 2009. Doing Research in the real world. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Harmon, S. J. and van Dyne, L., 2008. Targeted role-making: A new perspective on LMX with implications from group level performance. San Francisco, CA: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Hartman, F. T., 2000. The role of trust in project management. Calgary: Project Management Institute Research Conference. Hicks, D., 2002. The promise(s) of deliberative democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2), pp. 223-60. Ingraham, P. W. and Getha-Taylor, H., 2004. Leadership in the public sector: Models and assumptions for leadership development in the federal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24(2), pp. 95-112. Judge, T. A. and Piccolo, R. F., 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), pp. 755-68. Kellerman, B., 2004. Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kets de Vries, M., 2006. The spirit of despotism: understanding the tyrant within. Human Relations, 59, pp. 195-220. Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X. and Lowe, K. B., 2009. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), pp. 744-64. Klosko, G., 2000. Democratic procedures and liberal consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindell, M. K. and Brandt, C. J., 2000. Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp. 331-48. Low, S. P. and Chuan, Q. T., 2006. Environmental factors and work performance of project managers in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp. 24-37. Lowe, K. B. and Gardner, W. L., 2001. Ten years of the leadership quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), pp. 459-514. McArdle, K. L. and Reason, P., 2008. Action research and organization development. Ch. 8, in Cummings, T.G. (Ed.). Handbook of organization development. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. pp. 123-36. McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J., 2002. Action research: Principles and practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge/Falmer. Moliner, C., Mart??nez-Tur, V., Peiro?, J. M., Ramos, J. and Cropanzano, R., 2005. Relationships between organizational justice and burnout at the work-unit level. International Journal of Stress Management, 12, pp. 99-116. Muchiri, M. K. and Cooksey, R. W., 2011. Examining the effects of substitutes for leadership on performance outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(8), pp. 817-836. Parry, K. W. and Meindl, J. R., 2002. Models, methods, and triangulation: Researching the social processes in our societies. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Parry, K. W. and Proctor-Thomson, S. B., 2001. The social processes of leadership (SPL): From qualitative to quantitative analyses. Auckland: New Zealand Academy of Management Annual Conference. Parry, K. W., 2004. Comparative modelling of the social processes of leadership in work units. Journal of Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 10(2), pp. 69-80. Phua, F. T. T., 2004. Modeling the determinants of multi-firm project success: A grounded exploration of different participant perspectives. Construction Management and Economics, 22, pp. 451-9. Powl, A. and Skitmore, M., 2005. Factors hindering the performance of construction project managers. Construction Innovation, 5, pp. 21-51. Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K. and Santora, J. C., 2008. Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15(2), pp. 145-58. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhil, A., 2007. Research methods for business students. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhil, A., 2009. Research methods for business students. 4th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Schaubroeck, J., Walumbwa, F. O., Ganster, D. C. and Kepes, S., 2007. Destructive leader traits and the neutralizing influence of an ‘enriched’ job. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), pp. 236-51. Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N. and Subirats, M., 2002. Climate strength: A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 220-9. Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R., 2009. Research methods for business. 5th ed. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley& Sons. Toor, S. R. and Ofori, G., 2009. Authenticity and its influence on psychological well-being and contingent self-esteem of leaders in Singapore construction sector. Construction Management and Economics, 27(3), pp. 299-313. Toor, S. R. and Ogunlana, S. O., 2008. Critical COMs of success in large-scale construction projects: Evidence from Thailand construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), pp. 420-30. Walumbwa, F. O. and Schaubroeck, J., 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), pp. 1275-86. Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A. and Oke, A., 2010. Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), pp. 517-29. Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J. and Avolio, B. J., 2007. Leadership, individual differences and work attitudes: A cross-culture investigation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(2), pp. 212-30. Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Wang, P. and Shi, K., 2005. Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(3), pp. 2-16. Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B. and Oke, A., 2011. Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), pp. 4-24. Yukl, G. A., 2010. Leadership in organizations. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C. and Bader, P., 2004. Leader traits and attributes. in Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T. and Sternberg, R. J. (Eds). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 101-24. Zhu,W., Avolio, B. J. and Walumbwa, F. O., 2009. Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group Organization Management, 34(5), pp. 590-619. Appendices Surveying questions Tick only one option by giving tick mark to options regarding the following statement... Values, 1- Strongly Disagree, 2- Disagree, 3- Neutral, 4- Agree and 5- Strongly Agree Code No. Statement Variable Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1. You do not need guidance of leader for improving performance if nature of work is stimulating enough. Predictor- Leadership Substitute 2. You do not need guidance of leader for improving performance if there is transparent reward facility in the organization. Predictor- Leadership Substitute 3. You do not need guidance of leader for improving performance if there is knowledge sharing environment exist in your organization. Predictor- Leadership Substitute 4. You do not need guidance of leader for improving performance because you are capable enough to do the job. Predictor- Leadership Substitute 5. Your performance gets hampered due to non-supportive leadership attitude. Predictor- Leadership Neutralizers 6. Your performance gets hampered due to supervision of incompetent leaders. Predictor- Leadership Neutralizers 7. You do not need guidance of leader for improving performance due to unambiguous work routine. Predictor- Leadership Neutralizers 8. You do not need guidance of leader for improving performance due to bureaucratic setting in your organization. Predictor- Leadership Neutralizers 9. Presence of leaders can encourage you to perform well. Dependent Variable 10. Proper guidance of leaders can decrease the task ambiguity. Dependent Variable Response Sheet Read More