Job Satisfaction and Leadership in Organizational Behavior - Coursework Example

Job satisfaction and leadership in organizational behavior: Introduction: Organizational behavior is essentially a study of the interrelationships ofpeople and their attitudes towards their work in an organization. The purpose of the study of organizational behavior is to develop a holistic approach towards achieving better performance at work on the part of all entities involved and to achieve individualistic and collective social objectives. It focuses on such areas as rational change management, interpersonal communication, the definition and achievement of goals and effective leadership that are fundamental to the progress and development of an organization. The most fundamental factor on which any organization depends is the philosophy of the managers and the solidarity of their leadership in guiding the organization towards its goals. It is the driving factor for the organization because it decides the traits of the organizational culture that comprises both formal and informal matters of the organization and the environment prevalent in the organization that influences the moods and hence the performance of all personnel working in the organization. Employees working in an organization derive the motivation required for good performance from the quality of their work life as decided by the organizational culture. Employees’ satisfaction with their job is fundamental to the development of their personal willingness to follow the instructions of the leaders in the hierarchy of an organization. The development of a supportive organizational culture is more likely to result in enhanced commitment to the work on the part of the employees. (Rashid et al, 2003 cited in Yiing and Ahmad, 2008, p. 78). This paper aims at evaluating this argument with special reference to research done in the past and reasonable justification. Discussion: Before getting into an in depth analysis of the relationship of job satisfaction and the prevalent style of leadership in an organization, it is customary to define job satisfaction. “Methodologically, we can define job satisfaction as an employee’s affective reaction to a job, based on a comparison between actual outcomes and desired outcomes.” (Mosadeghrad, 2003b cited in Rad and YarMohammadian, 2006, p.12). According to Mosadeghrad’s definition of job satisfaction, it is essentially a measure of the compliance of employees’ actions to those that are expected out of them by their leaders. Results of a research conducted by (Liu, Siu and Shi, 2010, p. 470) on exploring the role of trust as a mediator between the leader and the self efficacy suggested that there exist both direct and indirect influences of the transformational leadership on the job satisfaction of the employees. This is fairly simple to understand. In the research by (Liu, Siu and Shi, 2010), the researchers identified job satisfaction as an aggregate of an employee’s experiences and perceptions about his job which is essentially a generic approach towards the definition of job satisfaction. In fact, job satisfaction is a general term used for highlighting different aspects of the job that influence the performance of employees which include the employees’ interaction with different entities as supervisor and coworkers as well as the employees’ stance on their salary, promotion and self acknowledgement. The way a supervisor deals with the personnel given under his jurisdiction by the managers decides the sort of feelings that the workers develop for the supervisor. This provides evidence for the argument that the transformational leadership directly influences the satisfaction of employees with their supervisor. But this forms merely one individual component of the term “job satisfaction” that is related to the employees relationship with their supervisors. Therefore, this component of job satisfaction does not, in any way, influence the satisfaction of the employees in other potential areas of concern as payment and promotion which are not directly related to the supervisor. This led (Liu, Siu and Shi, 2010) to the conclusion that transformational leadership affects job satisfaction both directly and indirectly. Many times the employees fail to earn the confidence of their leaders in a sophisticated working environment. This might happen because of a lack of communication between the employees and their leader which is necessarily one of the key variables of the operative model cultivating in the respective organization. Lack of communication also leads to the development of ambiguities between the employees and their leader that have an adverse effect on the employee-leader relation. The effect of operative models on the relationship between the employees and the leaders can be elaborated by a brief explanation of the various types of operative models conventionally exercised in the organizations. According to (Clark, 2010), the operative models for organizations may be fundamentally classified into four types, namely the Autocratic model, the Custodial model, the Supportive model and the Collegial model. They are discussed below briefly with special emphasis on their influence on the workers’ satisfaction and performance: The Autocratic model: This model of leadership essentially places all power in the hands of the leader and the employees are supposed to blindly carry out their leader’s orders. Communication is vertical and hence, minimal. Workman spirit is missing and hence the performance of the employees is minimized. The Custodial model: This operative model is based on management of the economic resources as per the directions of the leader. Employees work upon the instructions of their leader and the resulting cooperation is passive in nature. The Supportive model: This model emphasizes on the development of an enhanced communication and interaction between the leader and the employees. The employees are recognized for their efforts and their performance is enhanced. The Collegial model: The Collegial model encourages the development of a working environment in which the employees work parallel to the leader. Besides, all potential barriers in the way of effective communication between the employees and the leaders are removed. This inculcates self discipline and a sense of responsibility in the employees and they work enthusiastically. If we draw an analysis of the level of trust placed in the employees from the models of operation employed in organizations discussed above, we will conclude that the last two models show an enhanced attitude of trust in the employees on the part of the leaders as the leaders tend to share their responsibilities with their subordinates which can never be achieved unless the leaders have faith in their employees. That is the reason why workers’ cooperation with their leaders is increased and the results are positive. This shows that trusting employees is one of the most fundamental prerequisites of effective management and leadership. Trust has been defined as “a psychological state comprising a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations about the intentions or behavior of another”. (Rousseau et al, 1998 cited in Yang and Mossholder, 2009, p. 50). According to this definition, leaders in the last two operative models essentially trust their employees when they allow them to decide for matters the leaders themselves would be held accountable for, and this attitude on the part of the leaders brings positive results. No leadership is effective unless it manages to inculcate a sense of responsibility and enthusiasm in the followers. Hence, trust can be considered as one of the prerequisites of achieving effectiveness in organizational leadership. In order to achieve the objectives of the organization, leaders need to adapt themselves to the culture prevalent in the work environment. Bringing a change is not a matter of one day. It involves dealing with intricate psychological underpinnings of the employees. Adjustment of the leadership style as per the expectations of the organization’s subordinates is indeed, one of the most basic managerial skills and also a way to earn the employees’ confidence and satisfaction. (Meunjohn, 2009, p. 260). History provides a lot of evidences to justify the statement that employees’ job satisfaction is an outcome of the effective leadership of the management. (Johns, 1998 cited in Politis, 2005, p. 205) involved 232 union employees in his research discovered a minor, but positive association between the leadership structure and the subordinates’ satisfaction. Besides, in another research conducted by (Ortiz et al, 2008, p. 17), the researchers explored reasons for the resignation of nurses in different countries across the world. They concluded that reason for resigning from job was area specific as three nurses from different regions were reported to have resigned for different reasons. The reason of resignation in Central Africa, North America and South East Asia was personal safety, leadership and management and payment respectively. Although these are three different causes of resignation yet all branch from one common point of concern i.e. job satisfaction. Also, in all cases, irrational style of leadership is essentially the causes of employees’ dissatisfaction. Conclusion: Traditionally, leaders have failed to gain the love and affection of their subordinates in a vast majority of cases because of lack of trust and communication between the leaders and the employees. “To date, however, the respective research on respect offered only limited insights into which specific leadership behaviors would lead to subordinates perceiving themselves as being treated respectfully.” (Eckloff and Quaquebeke, 2009, p. 350). Considering the innumerable management failures of the past, it is imperative that the leaders realize the need of a fundamental change in their attitude and make it more favorable for their subordinates. “Consideration leadership involves inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration dimensions.” (Chen et al, 2009, p. 129). So leaders willing to gain employees’ appreciation need to adjust their body language as well as verbal communication with due respect to these intrinsic features of leadership. This would require the leaders to partially deviate from their usual style of management and the organization should allow that to happen. The organization should let the leader manoeuvre as per the demand of the organizational culture as it is one of the important leadership factors that have an impact on the efficiency of the organization. (Andersen, 1995, p. 262 cited in Larsson and Vinberg, 2010, p. 318). References: Chen, T., Hwang, S. and Liu, Y. (2009). Employee Trust, Commitment and Satisfaction as Moderators of the Effects of Idealized and Consideration Leadership on Voluntary Performance: A Structural Equation Investigation. International Journal of Management. 26 (1). 127 – 141. Retrieved 30 July 2010 from http://www.allbusiness.com/trends-events/investigations/13483113-1.html. Clark, D. R. (2010). “Leadership and Organizational Behavior”. Retrieved 30 July 2010 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadob.html. Eckloff, T. and Quaquebeke, N. V., (2009). Defining Respectful Leadership: What It Is, How It Can Be Measured, and Another Glimpse at What It Is Related to. Journal of Business Ethics. 91:343–358. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0087-z. Larsson, J. and Vinberg, S. (2010). Leadership behaviour in successful organisations: Universal or situation-dependent? Total Quality Management. 21 (3). 317 – 334. doi: 10.1080/14783360903561779. Liu, J., Siu, O. and Shi, K. (2010). Transformational Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Trust in the Leader and Self-Efficacy. International Association of Applied Psychology. 59 (3). 454 – 479. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x. Meunjohn, N., (2009). Expatriates’ Leadership Behaviours and Local Subordinates’ Extra Effort, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness. The Business Review, Cambridge. 13 (2).260 – 266. Retrieved 30 July 2010 from http://www.jaabc.com/brcv13n2preview.html. Ortiz, M., Carraher, S. and Cellum, J., (2008). Job satisfaction: Psychological and leadership influences on nurse turnover in Central Africa, North America and South East Asia. Proceedings of the Academy of Health Care Management. 5 (2). Retrieved 30 July 2010 from http://www.alliedacademies.org/public/proceedings/Proceedings23/AHCM%20Proceedings.pdf. Politis, J. D., (2005). Self-leadership behavioural-focused strategies and team performance: The mediating influence of job satisfaction. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 27 (3). 203 – 216. doi: 10.1108/01437730610657721. Rad, A. M.M. and YarMohammadian, M. H., (2006). A study of relationship between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services. 19 (2). 11 – 28. doi: 10.1108/13660750610665008. Yang, J. and Mossholder, K. W., (2009). Examining the effects of trust in leaders: A bases-and-foci approach. The Leadership Quarterly. 21. 50 – 63. Retrieved 30 July 2010 from www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua. Yiing, L. H. and Ahmad, K. Z. B., (2008). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment and between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 30 (1). 53 – 86. doi: 10.1108/01437730910927106. Read More