APPLIED RESEARCH Essay Guru only

Applied Research_R7038-T_AN18070208Review of Information Sources

Tracey Joseph

Argosy University

July/29th/2018

Background of the Research Topic

Leadership is increasingly being recognized as an indicator of employee satisfaction and performance. For many years, scholars and the corporate society have sought to determine a combination of the right leadership behavior that can fuel success. Researchers place their emphasis on the variety of kinds of leadership that have been characterized as being destructive or constructive. To understand the sets of behaviors that constitute these types of leadership, Krasikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) proposed a framework for understanding destructive leadership that sums up the extant destructive leadership studies and its new kinds of directions. By assessing the present literature on about destructive leadership and deriving using organizational leadership theory, Krasikova, Green and LeBreton (2013) identified the underlying characteristics and mechanisms that define destructive leadership. Destructive leadership is characterized by traits such as abusiveness, negative supervision, petty tyranny, as well as bullying and harassments in the workplace. Numerous studies have in the past sought to examine the dimensionalities of these kinds of leadership. The antecedents and impacts of destructive leadership have been well documented in the leadership literature. Although studies abouton these kinds of leadership have continued to growexpanded phenomenally, there are various challenges andstill gaps that have not yet been identifiedexist in the literature. Comment by Michelle Cheasty: Such as? Comment by Michelle Cheasty: Such as?

According to Krasikova, Green and LeBreton (2013), there is an absence of a unified definitions forof destructive leadership, and clarifying this definition could that can help to clarify boundaries of the construct and distinguish it from the related phenomena. In addition, multiplicity of constructs utilized to offer a description of the phenomenon of destructive leadership such as abusive, petty tyranny, and pseudo transformational leadership, makes it harder to conceptualize destructive leadership. Further, the researchers argue that there is need to develop a unified theoretical framework based on common understanding of what destructive leadership is and what it is not. In the same way, O'Donnell, Yukl and Taber (2012) suggest the need to examine the relationship between leadership behavior and employee performance and relationship. According to O'Donnell, Yukl and Taber (2012), there exists a strong association between leadership behavior and the quality of the exchange relationships with a follower. This relationship between leadership behavior and the quality of the exchange relationships can be conceptualized with the utilization of a many metrics of leader-member interactions and a different sample. Using a correlational design, O'Donnell, Yukl and Taber (2012) sought to explore the specific behaviors of their managers and the quality of leader-follower relationship. After conducting a regression evaluation that incorporated other important behaviors associated with constructive leadership such as supportive, delegating, and leading through example, the researchers found that these traits are significantly related to positive employee outcomes such as good relationship and satisfaction. Thus, constructive leadership has been found to generate positive outcomes in previous research between leadership and employee relationships. Constructive leadership is also a major metric of transformational leadership. The implications of studies carried out by O'Donnell, Yukl and Taber (2012) is that there is need for researchers to identify specific leader traits that stand a high likelihood to support development of stronger exchange association with individual followers. Comment by Michelle Cheasty: Name who Comment by Michelle Cheasty: What do you mean by this? Different groups of people?

These early research findings by (state researchers) indicate that leadership behaviors influence the working climate and employee behaviors. Reinforcing this idea, Makaske (2015) draws a sharp distinction between destructive and constructive leadership by identifying their respective characteristics. According to Makaske (2015), these dissimilarities can be viewed in terms of both positive leadership behavior and contra productive leadership behavior. These behaviors can either generate positive or negative working climate. After conducting a survey of employees through video observations, Makaske (2015) noted that those employees often responded in different ways to different leadership behaviors. Therefore, the researcher proposes the need for organizations to establish and reinforce a culture of positive leadership. For instance, positive behaviors that promoted group coordination resulted in employee satisfaction and enhanced performance. According to Makaske (2015), leaders have an influential impact on the working climate of teams. Therefore, if a working climate has an impact on team efficacy, it would be probable for leaders to influence the team efficacy by influencing the working climate of the team. Comment by Michelle Cheasty: What dissimilarities? Comment by Michelle Cheasty: Which researcher?

In many groups, leadership can be observed in almost all or more members of a specific group. This becomes a social influence procedure between these members. Leadership is also a specialized role that is exerted usually by one group member who has more impacts. There are also no agreements as to the similarities between leadership and management, though researchers deduce that there are overlaps between the two. One of the most popular studies about leadership was carried out by Burns in 1978 (Makaske, 2015). According to Burns, leadership can be described as the concept of leaders influencing followers to take certain courses of action to attain collective goals that reflect the values and motivations, including wants, necessities, and aspirations of both leaders and followers. This definition is commonly recognized by and utilized in the corporate society to generate employee satisfaction, reduce turnover, and improve employee performance. According to Makaske (2015), this definition is in line with the ideal concept of positive leadership or constructive behavior. Comment by Michelle Cheasty: What researchers? Comment by Michelle Cheasty: Is this from Makaske’s article- or did you get Burns’ from 1978

In addition, Makaske (2015) observes that transformational leaders are basically leaders who subscribe to the positive leadership behavior. This is because some of the characteristics of constructive leaders are also shared by transformational leaders. They include: charisma, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, as well as idealized influence. The leader should delegate tasks to arouse learning experiences, offer coaching, and teach and treat each follower as individuals. The leader should also stimulate employees to reason in new and creative ways. These factors generate conditions that support positive employee climate and performance. Positive leadership style goes hand in hand with improved and more empowered workforce. A more educated human resource team is more eager to gain new insights and apply their capabilities. This can enable them to improve their performance under a leader that gives a sense of mission, stimulated learning experiences, as well as encouragement of new ways of reasoning. Therefore, positive leadership behaviors help to improve employee performance and creativity. Comment by Michelle Cheasty: Needs citation Comment by Michelle Cheasty: Who created these? Be sure to cite Comment by Michelle Cheasty: According to whom?

Unlike constructive leadership, Woestman (2014) supported that destructive leadership can easily be known by evaluating the attitudes, perceptions, and views of employees or subordinates. In this regard, destructive leadership is most likely to manifest itself through high employee turnover rates, reduced levels of job satisfaction, increased work-related stress or depression, and inability to effectively undertake one’s duties. According to Woestman (2014), destructive leadership can be observed in almost all levels of corporate society. For instance, subordinate-directed traits are perceived more than organizational-directed patterns and sexual harassments. Woestman (2014) asserted that there is a historical agreement on the idea of investigating negative leadership. In the last 50 years, scholars argued that behavioral expectations for all roles in companies normally have certain shortcomings. They also fall soemwheresomewhere between required and prohibited traits. In real world situations, companies normally conceptualize these required anticipations for an employee using job descriptions and overall organizational goals. This often leaves out the prohibited traits to policies, legal memos, and societal taboos. Although theorists such as Getzels and Guba did not provide specific definitions of the meaning of requirements and prohibitions, they explained that one responsibility of leaders is to integrate the needs of an organization and the demands of the staff members in ways that are institutionally productive and personally self-fulfilling for all members. Building on these theoretical foundations, there is need to explore required behaviors as activities that support the realization of both institutional and personal level demands. Prohibited behaviors can also be described as activities that frustrate or minimize either the organizational productivity or people’s satisfactions.

Further, Sheard, Kakabadse and Kakabadse (2013) remarked that destructive leadership behaviors normally lead to damages to institutions that the leaders themselves have been entrusted to manage. While pointing out the kind of destructive behaviors that are difficult, Sheard, Kakabadse and Kakabadse (2013) attempted to explain why leaders often reduce themselves to unattractive behaviors. After examining the previous studies, Sheard, Kakabadse and Kakabadse (2013) develop a model that is made up of two directions. They include leader’s perceptions to the company that they lead, and the sufficiency that the leader possesses. Having this kind of knowledge enables the corporate society to offer managers with the tactical mechanisms to safeguard them against destructive tendencies and support them to reduce the elements of destructive behaviors in both their friends and themselves.

Sheard, Kakabadse and Kakabadse (2013) observed that certain leadership oppositions are normally hard for people to successfully undertake. Leaders are often set up to fail. Other people, on the other hand, experience difficulties in their efforts to lead corrupt, and incompetent companies that often frustrate appropriate procedures. In these environments, no leaders can be successful in their efforts to introduce positive working climates. Nonetheless, there are major differences between filed leadership and derailed leadership. Biased judgment or inadequate capability to operate well, often takes place with the absence of quality. On the other hand, the introduction of quality results in derailments. The derailed leaders are possibly great and are usually endowed with enthusiasm and determination. Nonetheless, when some things go wrong, their levels of self-confidence and courage can deteriorate and spiral out of control. Comment by Michelle Cheasty: Always? Comment by Michelle Cheasty: What about all the companies who appoint new management or do rebranding?

Why the Research Project Is Important to My Field

There are various reasons why this research project is important to my field of study. First, the project’s outcomes will add new insights into ways of making leadership work for the success of organizations. It is through leadership that an organization can be described as either functional or dysfunctional (Goldman, 2010). For instance, dysfunctional firms often express various characteristics and traits such as reduced levels of performance and efficiency. Key indicators of employee performance are good leadership. The corporate norms, culture, and behaviors at a point in time can be influenced by the kind of people who have been tasked to make decisions on behalf of an organization (Givhan, 2014). Therefore, having a leader that is not only supportive, but also makes employees feel that they are an important part of the organization, helps to nurture positive outcomes such as employee satisfaction. Comment by Michelle Cheasty: For applied research- you are looking at a single company. How will this help that company?

This study also may reinforces previous researches done relating to the existence of a strong relationship between leadership behaviors and organizational performance. For instance, leaders may influence performance by shaping their behaviors, perceptions, and levels of satisfaction. This study will may recommend the most suitable leadership styles and behaviors that if properly applied, can result in positive performance (Cázares, 2012).  Many forms still grapple with increased employee turnover. High turnover rates often result in high operational costs since companies must allocate a lot of financial resources to recruit and train new employees. To retain a team of highly talented, motivated, and experienced workforce from joining competitors, companies should have good leadership practices. Considering the above, this study maywill shed light on the importance of inculcating good leadership practices among employees and managers.

References Comment by Michelle Cheasty: 8 references. None older than 10 years.

Cázares, F. L. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviors among public employees. A

Givhan, R. N. (2014). Finding Function in a Dysfunctional Organization. New York:

Goldman, A. (2010). Destructive leaders and dysfunctional organizations: A therapeutic

perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gurchiek, K. (2005). Bullying: It's

Krasikova, D. V., Green, S. G., & LeBreton, J. M. (2013). Destructive leadership: A theoretical

review, integration, and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1308-

Makaske, I. C. (2015). The effect of leadership behavior on work climate and team

O'Donnell, M., Yukl, G., & Taber, T. (2012). Leader behavior and LMX: a constructive

replication. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 143-154.). Retrieved on (2018, July 28th)

Sheard, A. G., Kakabadse, N., & Kakabadse, A. (2013). Destructive behaviors and leadership:

The source of the shift from a functional to dysfunctional workplace. Int'l J. Soc. Sci.

Woestman, D. S. (2014). Destructive leader behavior: assessing public school leader behaviors

and workplace attitudes (Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Illinois University). Retrieved

from

http://commons.lib.niu.edu/bitstream/handle/10843/17773/Woestman_niu_0162D_11985

.pdf?sequence=1. Retrieved (2018 July 26th)