How Can Line Manager Leadership Style Affect Employee Satisfaction - Research Proposal Example

Dissertation Proposal Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Table of Contents Introduction 3 Leadership and the organization 7 Leadership styles 8 Role of line managers in promoting organizational goals and culture 9 Methodology 12 Research design 12 Data collection 12 Research Ethics 13 Timescale 14 Resources 15 References 16 How can line manager leadership style affect employee satisfaction? Introduction Line managers and their role in enhancing employee satisfaction have elicited a great debate. Organizational survival and sustainability in today’s global and fast paced work environment has necessitated a balance between meeting employee's needs and wants alongside the key organizational strategic goals and objectives. The bottom line is performance which organizations need to understand (Keegan and Hartog, 2004). The dynamics of the relationship between employees executing daily tasks and actions of first line managers are needed in accomplishment of desired results. Leadership has been associated with top level management with limited view on the relationship of first line managers with employees and how the top level leadership is channeled through line managers. The critical point is establishing an overall satisfaction and motivation level among employees within an organization. In recent past, many organizations have faced a great challenge in finding and retaining high performing employees who are able to execute and implement the required strategies and actions essential for a competitive edge in a global economy (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). The existence of employee satisfaction is one factor that is related to retaining high performing employees. The satisfaction of employees is determined by their perceptions or feelings regarding the job, line managers or supervisors, environment, recognition, peers, security, and other factors. Employees remain the most important asset in any organization without which its goals and objectives cannot be attained. The performance of its people as noted by Drucker (2009, p.308) has given way to the famous phrase “People are our greatest asset” and defines the real difference between one organization and another. Several factors involved in determining employee satisfaction has been previously mentioned but an argument has come out strongly to portend that the relationship between an employee and the first line manager is the most critical of the factors. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) suggest that the productivity of an employee and tenure of talent determined by their relationship with the immediate supervisor or line manager. The first line manager, if truth be known, is one of the principal reasons why an employee exits an organization. An employee in most cases masks this disconnect with reason not necessarily stated at the event of employee exit interview. Many state that they needed a new career change or challenge. Maslow (1998) contends that a satisfied need will no longer a motivator of an employee’s behavior. The “hygiene theory” developed by Frederick Herzberg and his associates regarding motivation classifies by job dissatisfiers and satisfiers in a job setting. The “satisfiers” suggested by Herzberg are five factors which appear play significant roles in job satisfaction in an organization (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 2011). He mentioned that the satisfiers consist of; advancement, recognition, achievement, work, and responsibility. The factors that engendered job dissatisfaction are; working conditions, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, and company policy. However, he concluded that dissatisfaction factors did not in any way increase job satisfaction. Goughnour (2001, p.32) claims that employees who are disgruntled are a cost to employers and lead to financial loss in fields like training new employees, rehiring, and advertising when it is assumed that the disgruntled employee exit the organization. Disgruntled employees who still stay with the organization or company bring additional costs which are attributed to lost productivity. The disgruntled employee and the peers are also potential moral issues within the organization as they tend to have on-the-job injuries and higher absentee rates when compared to other more satisfied employees (Keegan and Hartog, 2004). He suggests that companies and organizations when handling these factors need to realize that more satisfied employees are preferable than disgruntled employees who are under-performing assets. Productive employees are believed to be happy employees. The management’s expectation regarding desired goals and objectives is reached within an organizational context when the statement is tied together with the correlation of employee satisfaction (Thronhill and Saunders, 1998). Blanchard and Spencer (1982, p.19) articulate that people with good feelings about themselves, generate desirable results. This study of high importance as the line managers have direct employee interaction and the frequency of interaction of the employees with the line managers is also very high in organizational context (Keegan and Hartog, 2004). The literature on the issue of employee satisfaction in relation to the leadership style is focused more on the leadership at an organizational level and its impacts on the employee motivations and engagement. The literature assumes that the line managers and there leadership styles are a product of organizational leadership at the top level and also the organizational culture (Harris, 2001). Thus, it remains to be understood if the line managers replicate the style of leadership of the organization and the impact they have on the employee satisfaction within the organizational context (Keegan and Hartog, 2004). This research addresses the context of the influence of line manager leadership style on employee satisfaction. Research objectives and questions This study will focus on how line manager’s leadership style can affect employee satisfaction. This study of high importance as the line managers have direct employee interaction and the frequency of interaction of the employees with the line managers is also very high in organizational context (Keegan and Hartog, 2004). The issue of employee satisfaction in relation to the leadership style is focused more on the leadership at an organizational level and its impacts on the employee motivations and engagement. Line managers provide a replica to the style of leadership an organization desires and the impact they have on the employee satisfaction within the organizational context is immense. This research addresses the context of the influence of line manager leadership style on employee satisfaction. The research objectives are; (a) To investigate the influence of line manager's leadership style on employee satisfaction (b) To identify distinctive effective behaviors of line managers needed to improve employee satisfaction and motivate employees (c) To evaluate the appropriate leadership style line manager utilize to positively impacts employee satisfaction Questions; a) How does a line manager's leadership style on employee satisfaction? b) What distinctive effective behaviors of line managers are needed to improve employee satisfaction and motivate employees? c) Which appropriate leadership style line does a line manager utilize to positively impacts employee satisfaction? Literature Review Leadership and the organization Line managers remain the major information conduit for employees with regard to daily information on adherence to organization objectives, goals and job performance. Every organization has high regard for line manager especially to the employees who perceive them as crucial. Keegan and Hartog (2004) observe that the line managers directly interact with employees in a way that the frequency of contact is connected to the attainment of organizational goals and objectives. Extensive research has obtained understanding the leadership behaviors and traits of the line managers have an impact employee satisfaction. According to Thornhill and Saunders (1998), employee satisfaction is largely influenced by the leadership style that is honed at the organizational level and directly influences employee engagement and motivations. The organizational style of leadership influences a variety of factors like job satisfaction, turnover intention, stress, and performance that are key to organizational success. Leadership style and culture propagated at the top level shapes the traits and behaviors of line managers towards employees (Benson, 2009; Harris, 2001). Line managers have a high potential of replicating the style of leadership within the organization and directly impact employee commitment and satisfaction (Keegan and Hartog, 2004; MacNeil, 2003). However, it remains to be understood whether the organization leadership style streams from top management along line managers to employees in equal magnitude and zeal. Posner and Kouzes (2012, p.33) advocate that there is need for employees to believe in the messenger so as to believe the message. This law on leadership directs employees to trust their line managers if they are to buy into any form of communication. Organizational goals, objectives and culture are exhibited in the top management and the leadership culture will dictate the achievement of those goals by employees. Line managers remain the messengers of communicating major changes within organizations as opposed to senior leadership (Birch, 1996). Employees portray better relationships with supervisors and that they are satisfied when receiving information from their immediate supervisors. Line managers communicate corporate values, culture, beliefs and philosophy of the organization in informal contexts such as face-to-face which to employees is quite effective. On the other hand top management communicates to middle managers through e-mails, videos, publications, or town hall meetings which is in tandem to organizational culture. Leadership style of line supervisors or managers is depicted on daily basis making them opinion leaders in the organization. According to Maxwell (2001) integrity is the most significant ingredient of leadership. He reiterates that the words of the managers must match up their deeds. He notes that a leader needs to earn trust from his or her authenticity and consistency. He notes that the relationship between line managers and employees must facilitate motivation and/or action towards congruent objectives and goals upon establishment of the trust.  Leadership styles Bach and Edwards (2012) asserts that the significance of leadership is founded on favorable attitudes directed on supervision and aimed at attaining employee job satisfaction. Northouse (2004) in Leadership: Theory and Practice confirms that several studies were done in the 1950s and 1960s on how managers could employ their leadership behaviors to maximize level of job satisfaction among employees. The studies have since validated that leadership is significant in making a differences in job satisfaction (Northouse, 2004; Failla & Stichler, 2008). Moreover, Yousef (2000) shows that leadership behavior has a positive relationship with employee job satisfaction and that a manager must adopt proper leadership behavior in organizational improvement. The theories tested and developed in Western organizations remain valid for non-Western countries. Lock and Crawford (2004) observe that the impact of leadership style on job satisfaction has no significant difference in western and eastern organizations hence regarded as a universal tool to gauge failure or success of any organization (Bass 1990). Holden and Roberts (2004) suggest that autocratic leadership style leads to lower job satisfaction levels as opposed to a democratic leadership style that engenders higher job satisfaction levels. Democratic leadership also provides higher job satisfaction than laissez-faire leadership (Bass, 1990; Savery, 1994). For instance, Savery (1994) found out that democratic leadership style relates positively to federal employees’ commitment and job satisfaction in Western Australian. However, Benson (2009) did not find any relationship between employee job satisfaction and leadership behaviors in the Iranian Isfahan University Hospitals which employed participative leadership style. In addition, Erkutlu and Chafra (2006) contends that laissez-faire leadership style yielded negative results in organizational performance like low commitment by followers, high stress levels and low satisfaction in boutiques and hotels. According to Britton and Stallings (1986, p.41) participatory management style is effective in increasing employee productivity and satisfaction, promoting receptivity to changes, and lowering absence rates. There are four attributes that are critical in participative management; consensus on goals, trust, egalitarianism, accountability and collective responsibility (Turner & Müller, 2005). It suggests that top management should provide the foundation for future first line managers to obtain information to aid in their development and career growth (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Top management must also provide existing first line managers with tools and information that enhances their individual leadership style and future approaches to better employee satisfaction in their own work groups. McConville and Holden (1999) opine that line managers need to participate in determining future organizational strategic objectives and strategies to increase their management effectiveness and the overall improvement in employee satisfaction. Role of line managers in promoting organizational goals and culture Buckingham and Coffman (1999, p.34) note that managers trump companies even if the organization offers excellent employee-focused benefits. They suggest that an employee’s immediate manager is extremely crucial. The premise is that in the long term, a solid relationship between a manager and his or her employees will outweigh organizational benefits. The statement: “A great manager in an old-fashion company is better to work for than to work in an enlightened, employee-focused culture company having a terrible manager” highlights this comparison. Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) notes that while some believe that compensation or money is the principal ingredient to increased employee satisfaction, a more recent research imply otherwise. They suggest that compensation is the most common reason for exiting employees in organizations experiencing high turnover (Failla & Stichler, 2008; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). For those with low turnover, intrinsic reasons like good relationships with managers and work satisfaction are the main reasons for staying. This evidence suggests that satisfaction on the job is determined by causes different from those causing dissatisfaction. It remains that motivation and satisfaction emanate from higher needs being met while compensation and benefits satisfy lower end needs (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). Idealized influence is a significant quality in leadership that has an impact on organizational success and commonly employed in conjunction with relationship behaviors. The experience of line managers helps in idea development and how or when to apply the various leadership styles in attainment of higher organizational goals (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006). The stick and carrot approach of getting the work done should be replaced by a more humane style by line managers. The leadership approach is the behavior that influences a team or group in achieving organizational goals. Nehles, et al. (2006) suggests that different theories need to be applied depending on the uniqueness of situations. They note that line managers face a challenge of fitting the theory, knowledge, and skills of the top leadership into the situation. Müller and Turner (2007) and Pinto and Slevin (1988a) contends that managers employing employ transformational leadership especially idealized influence and relationship-oriented approach enjoy greater organizational success. MacNeil (2003) suggests that line managers consciously exercise ‘switch leadership’ or not with the objective of producing a more desirable outcomes. Wood and Wood (2002) notes that Mintzberg’s managerial theory reiterated the ‘leader’ role among the ten managerial roles he defined. In this role, the line manager needs to motivate and develop the environment in which his subordinates they work. The managerial role model founded by Mintzberg has elicited a lot of studies in recognizing the people managerial role. Several authors have added to the Human Resource devolution literature in advancing the argument that people management responsibilities have considerably increased in the past few decades owing to the emergence of Human Resource Management as opposed to a pressure on HRM strategic contribution and personnel management (Thornhill & Saunders, 1998; Ulrich, 1997). Line management responsibility of HRM is believed to be critical in contributing to the firm’s strategy realization (Hersey & Blanchard, 2007; Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006). Line managers occupy a central place in achieving core business objectives hence having a direct impact on discretionary behavior, their subordinates’ motivation, and commitment. Strategic human resource management has attributed the central role of line managers of their strategic contribution to the firm. Purcell et al. (2003) contends that HRM role of line managers consists of a leadership component and a management component. The management concerns relate with the enactment of formal and specific HR practices that include the line manager responsibilities such as training activities, recruitment practices, and performance appraisals. Leadership style portrayed by line managers is exhibited in the way they continuous display a wide set of leadership behaviors such as recognizing worthy contributions, providing support to subordinates, and consulting subordinates about crucial decisions (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005). All these aspects are aimed to influencing employee behavior and attitudes and providing structure and direction with regard to employee’s working lives. These leadership components influence how employees’ perceive on how they are managed. As a consequence they will impact on employee attitudes, behavior and satisfaction (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006). Human resource recognition of line managers will impact on organizational objectives since the culture and values are implemented by line managers in daily activities. Methodology Research design This study remains a qualitative research design since it guides the researcher in obtaining experiences, opinions, feelings and perceptions of the respondents. Merriam (2009) suggests that qualitative techniques engage the respondents in a way that it registers their feelings and attitudes. This will be important in seeking the opinions of line managers as well as expression of satisfaction among employees. Judd and Reis (2014) provide important perspectives on how to draw on inferences, statements and conclusions based on the direction of causal relationships. Similarly, since this is an exploratory study there is more to asking questions and probing more so as to obtain crucial information and gain new insights on the subject area (Saunders, Thornhill & Lewis, 2012). This study is also adaptive and flexible to changes hence expanding the scope and allowing for new areas to be investigated. The study will also utilize more extensive resource especially from secondary sources to gain more insights on leadership styles and employee satisfaction. The research on employee satisfaction has been critical given that many organizations have devoted their resources to maximize on employee productivity through research and development. Data collection This study is a survey of an organization in the hospitality industry. Questionnaires are suitable in this case because they are easier to administer and code. The questions are structured which allows the respondent to have a logical response and fill depending on the options provided. The validity and reliability of questionnaires in the field of employee motivation is high meaning that it does not require piloting. The study is basically about employee satisfaction on the perspective of line managers (Judd & Reis, 2014). It is beneficial to employees since they are direct participants in the research of leadership styles. The respondents will be sampled from a pool of 1200 employees and 15 line managers in one organization that has a large number of employees and functions in the hospitality industry. The questionnaires will be divided into five sections of which all will be structured and precise. Participants responding to structured questionnaires find it easy to attempt each question and ask the research assistant for any area that poses a challenge or remains vague. The study evaluated all the available options before making a decision on what data collection tool to be used. The questions will be compared to those available of surveymonkey.com to ascertain reliability of the instrument. The ending questions will be open ended to allow respondents (line managers) to provide their views on certain aspects of leadership and whether their chosen leadership style has any influence on employee satisfaction (Saunders et al. 2009) All of the questionnaires will be delivered by a research assistant to the target population which will be sampled through stratified random sampling. Collection will also follow a similar pattern after completion. All the instruments will be collected within a week. Research Ethics The study acknowledges that much of the work especially on secondary research is attributed to other authors. The text will carry in-text citations and referencing of all the borrowed material. Paul (2010) notes that information provided in the questionnaires should be kept confidential and anonymous unless authorized by the respondent. The questionnaires will not provide sections that demands provision of more personal information. The respondents will be compelled or coerced to fill the questionnaires instead a consent form will be provided for each respondent. All the filled forms will be used for purposes of completing the academic project and will not be shared with other organizations within the competition or industry. The research assistant will observe reasonable integrity and decorum when approaching respondents with courteous language and seeking attitude. The assistant will also be required to verbally thank all the participating respondents whether they accepted or declined (Paul, 2010). Data will not be manipulated but all the responses will be analyzed as provided by the respondents Timescale Task To be completed by Developing and defending the research proposal 2nd April, 2014 Developing research instruments 4th April, 2014 Testing the research instrument 10th April, 2014 Administering and collection of questionnaires 25th April, 2014 Data analysis 5th May, 2014 Writing and completing the research dissertation 20th May, 2014 Submission and defense of the dissertation 1st June, 2014 The table above shows the timelines for the management of activities leading into submission and presentation of the final project. Saunders et al. (2009) provides for flexibility and change in research so that new aspects and challenges are included without compromising on quality and content of the research project. Consultation with the supervisor will be done at all times. The problems that one might face in achieving this would be assessing the line managers of different organizations and also the respondent bias in answering the questions might be on a higher side. One other significant issue would be the width of the research topic. The strategies that would be adopted to mitigate these problems are Through scaling down further by applying filters on the industry sector and the country of research, feasibility of the research would be achieved. Through the use of networks and also approaching organizations for interviews, enhances the capabilities of accessing the line managers. Through the use of neutral questions that draw subjective responses, the respondent bias may be mitigated. Resources The research data in this study is classified into two categories; primary and secondary. The sources of secondary data will be elaborate with information sourced from books, journals and articles. These materials will be accessed from the online libraries and periodical sections of Leeds Metropolitan University. Access to these resources will be guaranteed after registering as a member and being accessed through usernames and passwords. Journals of management will be common as other search sites like Sage online Journals and Emerald. The British Library will also be of help in providing comparative studies not available in sources at the University. Writing and data collection materials will be prepared. This will require financial resources to a tune of £850 to complete the whole dissertation. References Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2005). Coping With Downsizing: A Comparison of Executive-Level and Middle Managers. International Journal of Stress Management, 12(2), 117. Bach, S. & Edwards, M. (2012). Managing Human Resources: Human Resource Management in Transition. John Wiley & Sons. Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power?. Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929-943. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31. Benson, J.D. (2009). The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Managers' Use of Specific Directive and Supportive Behaviors. ProQuest. University of Phoenix. Birch, D.O. (2008). The Relationship Between Leadership Qualities and Effective Leadership by Middle Managers in an Airline Maintenance Operation. ProQuest. Capella University. School of Business. Blanchard, K. & Spencer, J. (1982). The One minute Manager. Fontana/Collins. Britton, P.R. & Stallings, J.W. (1986). Leadership is empowering people. University Press of America. Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (1999). First, Break All The Rules: What The World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently. Simon and Schuster. Drucker, P.F (2009). Management. Butterworth-Heinemann. Erkutlu, H.V. & Chafra, J. (2006). Relationship between leadership power bases and job stress of subordinates: Example from boutique hotels. Management Research News, 29(5): 285- 297. Failla, K. R., & Stichler, J. F. (2008). Manager and staff perceptions of the manager's leadership style. Journal of Nursing Administration, 38(11), 480-487. Goughnour, D.S. (2001). Central Office Inquiry: Assessing Organization, Roles, and Actions to Support organizational Improvement. WestEd. Harris, L. (2001). Rewarding employee performance: line managers' values, beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(7), 1182-1192. Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H. (2007). The Management of Organizational Behaviour. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Herzberg, F.,Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B.B. (2011). The Motivation to Work. Journal of business and organization. Transaction Publishers. Vol. 1:65-76. Holden, L., & Roberts, I. (2004). The depowerment of European middle managers: Challenges and uncertainties. Journal of Managerial Psychology,19(3), 269-287. Judd, C.M. & Reis, H.T. (2014). Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality psychology. Cambridge University Press. Keegan, A. E., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: a comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line managers. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 609-617. MacNeil, C. M. (2003). Line managers: facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams. Employee Relations, 25(3), 294-307. Maslow, A. H. (1998). Maslow on Management. John Wiley and Sons. Cornell University. Maxwell, J.C. (2001). The Power of Leadership. David C Cook. McConville, T., & Holden, L. (1999). The filling in the sandwich: HRM and middle managers in the health sector. Personnel Review, 28(5/6), 406-424. Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. John Wiley & Sons. Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21-32. Nehles, A. C., van Riemsdijk, M., Kok, I., & Looise, J. K. (2006). Implementing human resource management successfully: a first-line management challenge. management revue. The International Review of Management Studies, 17(3), 256-273. Northouse, P.G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage. Paul, O. (2010). The Student'S Guide to Research Ethics. McGraw-Hill International. Pinto, J. & Slevin, D.P. (1988a). The Project Champion: Key to Implementation Success, Project Management Journal, 1 (1) 15-20. Posner, B.Z. & Kouzes, J.M. (2012). The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations. Journal of Business Leadership Challenge. Vol. 204: 189-213. Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front‐line managers as agents in the HRM‐performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20. Rad, A. M. M., & Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006). A study of relationship between managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services, 19(2), 11-28. Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard business review, 81(12), 46-55. Renwick, D. (2003). Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view. Employee Relations, 25(3), 262-280. Saunders, M., Thornhill, A. & Lewis, P. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Financial Times Prentice Hall. Savery, L.K. (1994). The influence of the perceived styles of leadership on a group of workers on their attitudes to work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 15(4): 12- 18. Thornhill, A., & Saunders, M. N. (1998). What if line managers don’t realize they’re responsible for HR?. Personnel Review, 27(6), 460-476. Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on projects: a literature review. Project management journal,36(2), 49-61. Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human resources. Harvard business review, 76, 124-135. Wood, J.C. & Wood, M.C. (2002). Henri Fayol: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management, Volume 2. Taylor and Francis. Yousef, D.A. (2000). Organizational commitment: a mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1): 6-24. Read More