perception project 735 grp 1

8/9/2019 Perception Project 735 Grp 1

1/26

LEADERSHIP, POWER AND

POLITICS IN ORGANISATION.PSY 735

CLASS RESEARCH ON THE TITLE:

PERCEPTION AND REACTION TOLEADERSHIP

BY GROUP ONE:

AJIJO SAMUEL O154088NWANCHUKWU CHUKWUEMEKA A154814

NWANZE TITILOLA O154961TAIWO O MOSES153726OGHINAN PAUL E117165ENIGBOKAN JOHN S

154620

OSHINFOWOKAN IBIKUNLE J82409

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY,FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES,UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, IBADAN,

NIGERIA

LECTURER IN CHARGE:DR B. UDEGBE,

JUNE, 2010


2/26

Abstract

This research was set to investigate subordinate perception of leadership. The following research

questions where the direction of the reserchers, 1. What are the contemporary perceptions of

subordinate about leadership? 2.Do perception about who a leader is a function of a recognized

relative pattern of attributes, behaviors or the contingent of the situation? 3.Would people

perception play a role in the way they evaluate and relate with their leader?

A sample of 128 subjects were used: 73 males and females, on the job status 45 (35.2%) were

junior staff, 54 (42.2 %) were intermediate staff, while 29 (22.7%) were from the senior staff

cadre. 52(40.6%) of the sample were married, 75 (58.6%) were singles, while 1 (0.8%) was a

widowed. As for the educational status of the respondent; 16(12.5%) had SSCE, 19 (14.8%) had

OND/NCE, 18(14.1%) had HND, 51(39.8%) had Bachelor degree, 23(18.0%) had Masters

degree, while 1 (0.8%) indicated others. The distribution of respondents among industries:

Military had 9 (7.0%), finance had 18(14.1%), communication had 18(14.1%), law had 6 (4.7%),

construction had 3 (2.3%), Manufacturing had 13 (10.2%), retail had 10 (7.8%), education had

20 (15.6%), medical had 4(3.1%), government had 16 (12.5%), while 11(8.6%) respondents

indicated others. The result shows The relationship between Age and Experience (p< 0.01,

df=126) was significant, The result in the table above shows that there is no significant joint

influence of age, sex and experience on section C f(3, 121)=2.005, p>0.05. While, Age only has anindependent influence on section C; t(126)=-2.345, p


3/26

INTRODUCTION

Leadership as a concept stretches beyond the confines of geographical

locationsand time. In the word of a leadership expert; The leader of group is seen

as the arbiter of the people's fate, the man [woman] on whom it depends whether the

group shall be comfort or in confusion, this leadership expert observation was

astute, signaling not only the importance of the leaders role but also suggesting the

power he or she holds by virtue of decisions made and propels one to consider how

leadership has been perceived and reacted to over the years. Despite the multitude of

definitions that exist of leadership, a popular conceptualization is a persons ability

to influence a group of people to achieve a particular goal (Hersey, Blanchard &

Natemeyer, 1979; Northouse, 2007). The leaders attempt to influence subordinates

suggests the inherent communication in leadership and ties in closely with the

definition of power.

It is undoubtable to know that there are factors that affect whether or not

leaders will influence their subordinates, that are contingent on the leadership style

adopted by the perceived leaders in question which in turn boomerang in the way(s)

the subordinate react to the leader and his/her style. Studies have indicated that there

are some eternal and internal factors that greatly affect the kind of leadership style

adopted and hence the way the perception adopted.

The connection between peoples perception and different dimensions of

leadership hasreceived scholarly attention in the past. Traits theorists at the turn of

the 20th century for instance, have looked at the physical or personality

characteristics that can be used to differentiate leaders from followers. Stodgill

(1948) and Mann (1959) highlighted five traits tended to differentiate leaders: (1)

3


4/26

intelligence, (2) dominance, (3) self confidence, (4) level of energy and activity and

(5) task relevant knowledge.

However, Robert Lord (1986) reanalyze past studies, Lord concluded that

people have Leadership prototypes that affect their perceptions of who is and who is

not a leader. Peoples prototype is a mental representation of the traits and behaviour

that they believe a leader possessed. Lords research demonstrated that people are

perceived as being when they exhibit traits associated with intelligence, masculinity,

and dominance. Traits play a central role in how we perceive leaders

Other associations have been drawn by situational and contingency theorists

of leadership such as Fiedler (1967) and Hersey et al. (1979). From the behavioral

perspective of leadership, Blake and Mouton (1964) highlighted power as one of the

universal features present in an organizational context that helps to determine

leadership style. With the background of power, purpose and people, Blake and

Mouton created the Managerial Grid, later renamed the Leadership Grid (Blake &

McCanse, 1991), which reflected the leadership styles one could have based on twokey dimensions: Concern for production and the concern for people.

Trait and behavioral theories fail to provide explanations as to why certain

leadership behaviors or phenomena occur, while leadership attribution theories

attempt to describe underlying reasons. One theory focuses on implicit leadership

theories of followers, while the other leadership attribution theory focuses on

attributions made by the leader. The recognition of various rating errors led

researchers to develop the leader attribution theory. Researchers found that actual

ratings of leader behavior were very similar to expected behavior of imagined

leaders (Staw, 1975). The issue came to be important because in much of the

research the legitimacy of the leader was based on follower perceptions. Leaders

4


5/26

were being defined or the quality of their leadership was being judged based on

followers ratings. The theory holds that people have assumptions about what an

effective leader is and does, and they judge the leaders actual behaviors in terms of

their implicit theories. Lord (1985) proposed that leader are seen as effective when

there is a high overlap in what a follower expects of a generic leader and what they

perceive in a specific leader. Also Lord believes that inferential processes occur so

when a team is successful then the leader is seen as displaying effective leadership.

Several factors could influence these attributions, including: (a) past attribution of

good leadership is likely to continue; (b) if a leaders characteristics dont match

with a follower s preconceived ideas about a what a good leader is like, then

leadership is likely to be rated poorly; (c) extreme outcomes are likely to be

attributed to leadership instead of other causes. The approach indicates that

leadership may reside beyond the actions or traits of the leader in the perceptions

of the followers.

More recently, a study of 6, 052 middle level managers from 22 European

countries reveled that leadership prototypes are culturally based; in other words,leadership prototypes are influenced by the national cultural values

It is no doubt that both history and culture have had a great influence on the

concept of leadership in Africa. In the traditional African context, leadership and

power belongs to a selected few, the initiated and those who have been favored by

the gods. The responsibility of ensuring the transfer of leadership power in

traditional Africa was the duty of king makers. The core philosophy behind the

concept of leadership in traditional Africa was that it did not tolerate any form of

challenge or opposition because it was divine. leadership in much of Africa is

determined either by a traditional outlook of everlasting rule, or pressure from

great powers. (Tongkeh, 2009)

5


6/26

It is no doubt that the study of leadership is constantly expanding with a multitude of

scholars around the world contributing to it. The current study also attempted to

contribute to that pool of understanding by focusing on perception and reaction of

the subordinate to leadership in various sphere of human endeavour, and the

differences or similarities on a cross-cultural level. The idea for this study was

sparked by the Lords conclusion that people have Leadership prototypes that affect

their perceptions of who is and who is not a leader and accordingly, this study

explored whether a peoples prototypes of leadership would affect the relationship

and reactions to leadership.

The review of literature, therefore, leads to several areas of inquiry regarding

perception and reactions to leadership. Thus, the following research questions seek

to be answered.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study was guided by the questions: following

1.What are the contemporary perceptions of subordinate about leadership?

2. Do perception about who a leader is a function of a recognized relative pattern

of attributes, behaviors or the contingent of the situation?

3. Would people perception play a role in the way they evaluate and relate with

their leader?

6


7/26

LITERATURE REVIEW

The basis of perception

The fundamental questions can be put as follows: how does an external reality

influence the perception of the human species? What are the steps in that influence?

How can the influence be conceptualised?

We know that sight perception depends on the flow of photons in through the pupils

and absorbed in the retina. The photons are or exist beyond the confines of us, and

without them there is no sight perception. The other senses can be discussed in a

similar manner. Therefore with the operation of our senses we do know there is

something there that can and is influencing the sensory mechanisms within

ourselves, but we do not necessarily know what it is that is causing the sense

experience. Modern virtual reality is testimony to the extent that our senses can be

manipulated.

It is very difficult for people to engage in 'un-interpreted perception'. But it is

possible for people to stop seeing a book as a book and to see it as lines, rectangle,

parallelogram, etc. The question remains whether or not this is still interpretation,

certainly it is more fundamental. However this particular aspect of the debate is not

crucial to our argument.

Theories of Perception

Two major classes:

1. Bottom-up : perception builds up hierarchically from a set of primitive

"features" to our internal representations.

7


8/26

2. Top-down : perception starts with a set of primitives, but our perceptual

experience is influenced by higher-level processes, such as knowledge and

context.

Bottom-up theories

All bottom-up theories rely on the notion that perception builds upwards from a

foundation of primitives to a representation our cognitive system can use.

This takes place without any influence from higher cognitive processes.

Five main theories:

Direct perception

Precursor to behaviorism Perception is a direct result of stimulus energy affecting

receptor cells. No higher cognitive processes or internal representations are

necessary

Template/Exemplar theory

We store examples of all the objects we have seen as exemplars ortemplates.

We compare a perceived object to this set of exemplars until we find a match.

Prototype theory

Instead of storing many exemplars or rigid templates, we store aprototype, which is

kind of like the average of an object.

8


9/26

We compare a perceived object to these prototypes until we find the closest match.

Feature theory

Perception starts with the identification of basic features that are put together into

more complex objects, which are put together into more complex objects, etc. until

we identify an object.

Structural description theory

Kind of like a three-dimensional version of feature theory, where rather than having

lines and corners as the basic features, simple geometric shapes, called geons, are

the basic features.

We recognize objects by matching the geons we are looking at to the stored geons in

memory.

Top-down theories

Top-down theories posit varying degrees of influence of higher cognitive processes

on what we actually perceive.

The primary example of this is the effect of context on perception, such as in the

Word Superiority Effect. In a study on Perceived Leadership Behavior and

Subordinates Job Satisfaction in Midwestern NCAA Division III Athletic Departments done

on selected Division III athletic programs at private colleges in the Midwestaddressed the association between head coaches job satisfaction, assessed using the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and perceptions of athletic directors

leadership behavior, measured with the Leadership Practices Inventory. A

statistically significant association was found between coaches perceptions of the

9


10/26

athletic directors leadership and coaches satisfaction. No statistically significant

association surfaced between the directors self-perceptions and coaches

satisfaction. Additionally, to a significant degree, discrepancy between directors

perceptions of leadership and coaches perceptions of leadership was associated with

diminished job satisfaction. Top dissatisfiers were extrinsic factors, which included

supervisory behavior (William 2008).

Leader Member Exchange

Leadermember exchange (LMX) theory contends that leaders develop separate

relationships with each of their subordinates through a series of work-related

exchanges (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987). These relationships

range from those which are based on exchanges directly specified by the

employment contract (low LMX relationships) to those which include the exchange

of both material and nonmaterial goods that extend beyond what is required by the

employment contract (high LMX relationships; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). High LMX

relationships tend to be characterized by mutual respect, liking, and trust

(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). LMX traditionally has been considered a

unidimensional construct (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen, Novak, &

Summerkamp, 1982; Graen & Scandura, 1987).

However, several theorists (e.g. Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden, Sparrowe, &

Wayne, 1997) have argued that treating LMX as a multidimensional construct more

appropriately characterizes the leadermember relationship and allows for more

complete descriptions of its relationships with important individual and

organizational outcomes. Consequently, Liden and Maslyn (1998) developed a

multidimensional scale (the LMX-LSPS) leaders subordinate perception scale

designed to measure subordinate LMX. However, Liden et al. (1997) noted that

10


11/26

future LMX research should assess the generalizability of the LMX-LSPS and

should also develop a supervisor version of the multidimensional LMX scale.

Accordingly, the current study addresses these issues and contributes to the existing

LMX / subordinate leaders perception and reactions to leadership research as

described below.

The current study has the following objectives. The first objective is to assess the

dimensionality and validity of subordinate perceptions and reactions to leadership

with the current studys sample. Establishing the generalizability and validity of the

perceptions and reactions to leadership is important if appropriate inferences are to

be drawn about how the perception and reactions to leaders scale relates to

important individual and organizational out comes or criteria.

A better understanding of which aspects of the LP (leaders perception) relationship

impact individual attitudes and behaviours will help us to develop and refine our

theories about LMX. Additionally, an understanding of how the LMX-LP and

LMX-LSPS (leaders subordinate Perception scale) relate to important individual and

organizational criteria may help practitioners develop interventions aimed at

improving employee attitudes and behaviours.

Traditionally, LMX has been treated as a global construct that represents a measure

of the general quality of the exchange relationship between a supervisor and a

subordinate (Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen et al., 1982; Graen & Scandura, 1987).

More recently, however, Dienesch and Liden (1986) argued that there is no clear

theoretical or empirical justification for the traditional conceptualization of LMX as

a unidimensional construct. Rather, they maintained that the theoretical

underpinnings of LMX theory (e.g. role theory, social exchange theory) are more

consistent with a multidimensional perspective. Role theory (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,

11


12/26

Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) served as the foundation for the formulation of LMX

(Graen, 1976). Graen and Scandura (1987) proposed that leadermember

relationships develop as a result of a variety of role making episodes. Essentially,

supervisors communicate role expectations to subordinates through work

assignments. To the extent that subordinates comply with these role expectations,

supervisors reciprocate by providing work-related resources, challenging work

assignments, and increasing a subordinates autonomy (Graen & Scandura, 1987).

Accordingly, LMX originally was conceptualized as a unidimensional relationship

based on work-related exchanges. However, role theory posits that roles are

inherently multidimensional (Katz & Kahn, 1978). For example, concepts such as

role ambiguity and role conflict (Kahn et al., 1964) are indicative of the differential

roles people can assume in the workplace (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Mintzberg

(1973) has argued that the manager alone plays the following roles within an

organization: figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesman,

entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator and negotiator. Similarly, while

some subordinates may focus on the task-related aspects of their positions, others

may concentrate on non-job specific behaviours such as helping co-workers or

showing dedication (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1997). Thus, different

types of LMX relationships are likely to emerge depending on the roles assumed by

dyadic members (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Liden et al.,

1997). LMX also can be understood from a social exchange theory perspective

(Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Liden et al., 1997). As the term

leadermember exchange implies, LMX relationships are grounded in social

exchanges. Blau (1964) noted that social exchanges, as opposed to economic

exchanges, result in feelings of increased obligation, gratitude and trust.

Consequently, as the number of social exchanges between supervisors and

subordinates increases, the quality of the leader member relationship probably

12


13/26

becomes stronger. In the organizational environment, a variety of different material

and non-material goods are exchanged in social interactions (Liden & Maslyn,

1998). For example, advice, information, effort, social support and friendship have

each been identified as potential social currencies (Krackhardt, 1990; Liden et al.,

1997; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). Dienesch and Liden (1986) argued that leader

member relationships can be differentiated based on the social currencies being

exchanged. Thus, just as leadermember relationships can result from several

different types of social exchanges, these dyadic relationships are most appropriately

assessed when they are differentiated based on those exchanges. Accordingly, dyads

that appear to be similar when measured with a unidimensional LMX scale (i.e. high

in quality) can in actuality be predicated upon different types of exchanges and may

be very dissimilar in nature (Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Liden et al., 1997). For

example, one LMX relationship may be based on both members being willing to

work extra hours to finish projects, while another may be based on both members

enjoying each others company. Both of these leadermember dyads might report a

high level of LMX, but their interactions (as well as the antecedents and

consequences of those interactions) might be very different. As such, assessing

LMX with a unidimensional measure may be deficient in capturing the entire scope

or nature of LMX relationships. Dienesch and Liden (1986) initially suggested that

LMX relationships are based on three different exchange currencies: perceived

contribution to the exchange (contribution), expressions of public support (loyalty),

and mutual affection (affect). Subsequent research indicated that a fourth dimension

(i.e. professional respect) was required to more fully capture LMX relationships

(Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Consequently, Liden and Maslyn (1998) developed and

validated the LMX-LSPS to measure these four LMX dimensions, which assesses

the LMX relationship from the perception perspective of the subordinate. One of

Dienesch and Lidens (1986) general criticisms of LMX research is its reliance on

13


14/26

small, narrow samples. Likewise, Liden and Maslyn (1998) noted the need for the

LMX-LSPS to be validated with different samples and organizations.

National culture and leadership

Resarch on cross cultural applicability of leadership literature has suggested that

national culture is an important factor in determining the effectiveness of leadership

style. Individuals (emloyees) are first socialized into culture and this act as a lense

through which they perceive their environment, leaders inclusive. This is because

the leaders and subordinate are sensitive o cultural condition. Hoofstede, (1980)

identified four dimensions of culture as follow:

1. Individualism versus collectivism.

2. Power distance

3. Uncertainty aviodance

4. Masculinity versus feminity.

These dimensions identified are useful in understanding how subordinate perceive

and react to leadership.

Richmond, Wagner and McCroskey (1983) explored the relationships between

leadership style, power and conflict management style by focusing on shared

perceptions of superiors and subordinates on these focal areas. Among other

findings, their study revealed the impact of power use, leadership style and conflict

management style on employee satisfaction. Leaders who were perceived as using

more referent power and activity-based conflict management style were associated

with employee satisfaction and lower amounts of communication anxiety.

Additionally, leaders who relied less on coercive power were also associated with

satisfaction of the subordinates, solidarity and lower communication anxiety. Their

study also indicated that reward power was negatively linked with subordinate

14


15/26

solidarity. Richmond et al. (1983) also argued that supervisors, or those in

leadership positions, need to be trained to be made aware of the variety of power

options available to them since not many programs focus on this aspect.

Contrary to Richmond et als (1983) finding on reward power, Rahim et al.(2001)

found that a managers use of contingent-based reward power can enhance

subordinate job performance and improve their conflict management style. The

study also found that referent power is more effective than the other power bases in

influencing subordinates. Akin to the training suggestions of the Richmond et al.

(1983) study, Rahim position power sources effectively.

While these suggestions on power perception by subordinate and different aspects of

leadership provide valuable insight, an important question emerges when reviewing

the universality of these (Rahim et al. 2001) suggested that managers should be

trained to use both their personal findings (perception of subordinate). Are these

associations regarding power, leadership style and impact on subordinates

perception likely to hold true across different cultures demography? This beckons an

insight into the cultural dimensions and cross-cultural research on leadership

perception.

As mentioned above one of the external factors that determine who is likely to

emerge as a leader in many Africa setting are factors such as age and lineage. In a

qualitative study of the conception of leadership among Nigeria communities,

findings revealed that respondents from six geopolitical zones of the country felt that

personal virtue, contribution to the community, achievement, heredity and age were

the important factors that can make a member of attain a community leadership

position. (Udegbe, Okurame, Shenge, 2001)

15


16/26

METHOD

A sample of 128 subjects were used: 73 males and females, on the job status 45

(35.2%) were junior staff, 54 (42.2 %) were intermediate staff, while 29 (22.7%)

were from the senior staff cadre. 52(40.6%) of the sample were married, 75 (58.6%)

were singles, while 1 (0.8%) was a widowed. As for the educational status of the

respondent; 16(12.5%) had SSCE, 19 (14.8%) had OND/NCE, 18(14.1%) had HND,

51(39.8%) had Bachelor degree, 23(18.0%) had Masters degree, while 1 (0.8%)

indicated others.

The distribution of respondents among industries: Military had 9 (7.0%), finance

had 18(14.1%), communication had 18(14.1%), law had 6 (4.7%), construction had

3 (2.3%), Manufacturing had 13 (10.2%), retail had 10 (7.8%), education had 20

(15.6%), medical had 4(3.1%), government had 16 (12.5%), while 11(8.6%)

respondents indicated others.

INSRUMENTS

The instrument (Leaders subordinate pereption scale) was used in elicitinginformation in this study. The questionnaire which is made up of three sections.

Section A includes the demographic variables of subjects such as sex, age,

occupational status, marital status, working experience, educational qualification

and industry type.

Section B consisted of 20 items measuring subordinates perception of their superior

behavioural style developed by MSc leadership 2009/2010 group 1. The scale has a

Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient of 0.88. face and content validity was used.

Section C consisted of 36 items measuring the leaders power base and the reaction

of followers. The scale has a reliability coefficient of 0.884 for the present sample.

16


17/26

DESIGN

The design for is study was the expost-facto design. The design was adopted as a

result of the groups inability to manipulate any of the dependent variables of

interest. The independent variables were Gender, occupational status, experience,

educational status and type of organization, while the dependent variables were the

perception of leaders behaviour and power bases and the subordinates reaction.

PROCEDURE

The scale was administered one to one to the participants after rapport was

established by each member of the group who met with the respondent. The purpose

was communicated to them and they were encouraged respond to all the items

truthfully as there are rights or wrong answer. There was no time limit however

respondents were advised not to waste time.

The key that were used as guide was also stated for example; Disagree strongly (1),

Disagree a little (2), Neither agree nor disagree (3), Agree a little (4), and Agree

strongly (5).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The Pearson product moment correlations statistics was used to determined the type

of relationship that existed among the variables. T- Test independent statistics was

used the influence of marital status on section C. The Multiple Regression Analysis

was also to determine if experience, sex and age will predictor independently or

jointly the subordinates perception reaction. One way ANOVA was used todetermine effects of the variables on the sections. All analysis were done with SPSS

0.14 version.

17


18/26

RESULT

The Pearson Product Moment Correlation statistics was used to intercorrelate the

score of all the 128 participants on age, experience, section B and Section C in order

to find out the type of relationship that exist among the measures. Table 1 shows the

result of the correlation matrix.

Table 1: Correlation Matrix for the four measures.

1 2 3 4

Age

Experience .631**

Section B -.162* -.049

Section C -.122 .062 .711**

Note: **= significant at p


19/26

Age -.269 -2.345 p0.05

Experience .230 2.010 p>0.05

The result in the table above shows that there is no significant joint influence of

age, sex and experience on section C f(3, 121)=2.005, p>0.05. While, Age only has

an independent influence on section C; t(126)=-2.345, p0.05.

To further determine, if there is significant effect of educational status on Section C

and also occupational status on section C, the one way ANOVA was used to

analysis the data. The result are presented in the table below

Table 4: One way ANOVA showing the Effect of Educational status on Status on

Section C.

Sources Ss df ms f P

19


20/26

Between

group

38.25 4 9.561 0.33 Ns

Within

group

3565.61 122 292.23

Total 35689.8

6

126

The result on the table presented above in which the p value was not significant, it

shows that educational status has no significant influence on Section C, f (4, 122) =

0.33, p> 0.05.

For the analysis on the effect on the effect of Occupational status on Section C. the

result is presented in the table below.

Table 5: One way ANOVA showing the Effect of Occupational status on Section C.

Sources SS df ms f P

Between

group

28.692 2 14.35 0.05

0

Ns

Within

group

35773.11

2

125 286.19

Total 35801.81 127

The result on the table presented above in which the p value was not significant, it

shows that Occupational status has no significant influence on Section C, f (2, 125)

= 0.050, p> 0.05.

In order to also determine whether the respondents industry has effect on theSection C, the One ANOVA was also used. The result is presented in the table

below.

Table 5: One way ANOVA showing the Effect of Industry- type on Section C.

20


21/26

Sources SS df ms f P

Between

group

1925.45 10 192.544 0.66

5

Ns

Within

group

33876.37 117 289.542

Total 35801.81 127

The result in the table above shows that industry has no significant effect on section

C, f (10, 117) = 0.665, p>0.05

DISCUSSION

The present study surveyed the aspect of subordinates perception and reaction to

leadership. Lord (1985) proposed that leader are seen as effective when there is a

high overlap in what a follower expects of a generic leader and what they perceive

in a specific leader.

The finding of the study support the postulaton of Rahim et al, 2001 which states

that cultural and demographic variation(age, sex, education, industry, mariatl status,

year of experience.) exist in subordinates perception of leaders.However, therewas no influence of subordinate Age on perception to leadership.

Organisational climates and culture differ from one organisation to another, and

leadership is a bed rock which determine organisational climate and culture. The

similarity found among the various industries could be attributed to cultural

similarity among leaders in this various organisation. Are these associations

regarding power, leadership style and impact on subordinates perception likely to

hold true across different cultures? This beckons an insight into the cultural

dimensions and cross-cultural research on leadership perception, Hoofstede, (1980)

As mentioned above one of the external factors that determine who is likely to

emerge as a leader in many Africa setting are factors such as age and lineage. In a

21


22/26

qualitative study of the conception of leadership among Nigeria communities,

findings revealed that respondents from six geopolitical zones of the country felt that

personal virtue, contribution to the community, achievement, heredity and age were

the important factors that can make a member of attain a community leadership

position.

(Udegbe, et al; 2001)In a qualitative study of the conception of leadership

among Nigeria communities, revealed that respondents from six geopolitical zones

of the country felt that personal virtue, contribution to the community, achievement,

heredity and age were the important factors that can make a member of attain a

community leadership position.

CONCLUSION

There Has been A long history of research on and theorizing about leadership. Team

or organisational success has been said to be greatly influenced By The qulaity of it

leadership. Just as the connection between peoples perception and different

dimensions of leadership has received scholarly attention in the past. The study

concluded age of subodinates will detremine the perception of their leadership

behavioural style.

REFERENCES

Blake, R. R., & McCanse, A. A. (1991). Leadership dilemmas Grid solutions.Texas: Gulf Publishing Co.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Texas: Gulf PublishingCo.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1978). The new managerial grid. Texas: GulfPublishing Co.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III. Texas: Gulf

Publishing Co.

22


23/26

Chatterjee, S. R. & Heuer, M. (2006). Understanding Indian management in a time

of transition (pp. 11-27). In H. J. Davis, S. R. Chatterjee, M. Heuer

(Eds.),Management in India: Trends and Transitions. (pp. 11-27). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dickson, M. W., Hartog, D. N. D., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on

leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new

questions. TheLeadership Quarterly, 14, 729-768.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967).A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D.

(Ed.), Studies in social power(pp. 150-165). MI: The University of Michigan.Green, D. R. (1999). Leadership as a function of power. The Journal of the

Association ofProposal Management Professionals. 54-56

Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.

Fisher College of Business, retrieved March 11, 2009 from

http://fisher.osu.edu/offices/fiscal/lbdqHuang, Z., & Palvia, P. (2001). ERP implementation issues in advanced and

developing countries.Business Process Management Journal, 7, 276-284. 42

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: A communication

perspective (4th ed.). Illinois: Waveland Press.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Natemeyer, W. E. (1979). Situational leadership,

perception, and the impact of power. Group and Organization Management,

4, 418-428Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate

perceptions of supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory

power.Human Relations, 43, 221 237.

Hofstede, G. (1980) (b). Cultures consequences: International differences inworkrelatedvalues. (Integral ed.) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related

values. (Abridged ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,

and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (2008). Values Survey Model. Retrieved on February 25, 2009 from

http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/index.html.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of themind. New York: McGraw-Hill

Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations:

Relationships in transition.American Psychologist, 45, 179-189.

Kanter, R.M. (1977), Men and women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

23
http://fisher.osu.edu/offices/fiscal/lbdqhttp://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/index.htmlhttp://fisher.osu.edu/offices/fiscal/lbdqhttp://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/index.html


24/26

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1997). Intraorganizational influence

tactics: explorations in getting one s way. In Vecchio, R. P. (Ed.),

Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence inorganizations (pp. 124- 143). Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

Koslowsky, M., Schwarzwald, J., & Ashuri, S. (2001). On the relationship between

subordinates compliance to power sources and organizational attitudes.

AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 50(3), 455-476.

McClelland, D. C. (1975).Power: The inner experience. New York: Wiley.Natemeyer, W. E., & McMahon, J. T. (2001). Leadership and power. In W. E.

Natemeyer, J. T. McMahon (Eds.), Classics of organizational behavior (pp. 249-251). Long Grove: IL: Waveland Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.).

CA:SagePublications.

Pfeffer, J. (2003). Developing and exercising power and influence. In Porter, L. W.,

Angle, H. L., & Allen R. W. (Eds.), Organizational influence processes (pp.15- 32). New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Porter, L. W., Angle, H. L., & Allen R. W. (2003). Influence, power and politics. In

Porter, L. W., Angle, H. L., & Allen R. W. (Eds.), Organizational influence

processes (pp. 3- 13). New York: M. E. Sharpe.Rahim, M. A. (1989). Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction

with supervision: Evidence from a national sample of managers. Journal of

Management, 15, 545-557.Rahim, M. A. (1988). The development of a leader power inventory. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 23, 491-503.Rahim, M. A., & Afza, M. (2001). Leader power, commitment, satisfaction,

compliance, and propensity to leave a job among US accountants. TheJournal of SocialPsychology, 133, 611-625.

Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model

of leader power, subordinates styles of handling conflict, and job

performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 191-211.

Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments.Journal

ofSocial Issues, 49 (4), 227-251. 44

Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model ofinterpersonal influence.Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8, 1-22.

Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and

measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal ofApplied SocialPsychology, 28, 307-332.

24


25/26

Reber, B. H., & Berger, B. K. (2006). Finding influence: Examining the role of

influence in public relations practice. Journal of Communication

Management, 10, 235-249.

Richmond, V. P., Wagner, J. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1983). The impact of

perceptions of leadership style, use of power, and conflict management style

on organizational outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 31, 27-36.

Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J.

(2000).Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States,

Mexico, Poland and India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of

power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 643-658.

Sinha, J. B. P. (1990). A model of effective leadership styles in India. In A. M.

Jaeger &

R. K. Kanungo (Eds.), Management in Developing Countries (pp. 252-263). New

York:Routledge. Stodgill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description

Questionnaire XII: An Experimental Revision. Fisher College of Business,

retrieved March 11, 2009 from http://fisher.osu.edu/offices/fiscal/lbdq

Tzu, S. (1996). The Art of War. (Adapted by S. Rudnicki). West Hollywood, CA:Dove Books.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism: New directions in social

psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of

Personality, 69, 907-924.Udegbe, I.B., Okurame, D.E., and Shenge, N.A.(2001) Conception of Leadership

among Communities in Nigeria. In I.B. Udegbe (ed) Dynamics of Leadershipin Contempoary Nigerian Communities. Ibadan; Social Sciences andReproductive Health Research Network

Vecchio, R.P. (2003). Power, politics, and influence. In Vecchio, R. P. (Ed.),

Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in

organizations (pp. 71-97). IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Vredenburgh, D., & Brender, Y. (1998). The hierarchical abuse of power in work

organizations.Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1337 1347. 45

Ward, E. A. (1998). Managerial power bases and subordinates manifest needs as influences on psychological climate. Journal of Business and Psychology,

12(3), 361-178.Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press

Wong, J., Wong, P. N. K., & Heng, L. (2007). An investigation of leadership styles

and relationship cultures of Chinese and expatriate managers in multinational

25
http://fisher.osu.edu/offices/fiscal/lbdqhttp://fisher.osu.edu/offices/fiscal/lbdq


26/26

construction companies in Hong Kong. Construction Management and

Economics, 25, 95-106.Yavas, U. (1998). The bases of power in international channels. International

MarketingReview, 15, 140-150.

Yukl, G. A. (1981).Leadership in organizations. NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in

downward and lateral relations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 416-423.

perception project 735 grp 1

Documents