750 INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF MODERN LEADERSHIP STYLES AND THINKING STYLE WITH PRODUCTIVITY BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Farah Shahraki-Sanavi et al.
are respectively 0.48 and 0.33. Value The coef cient of
explanation is equal to 0.23 and 0.28, that is, 23% of the
variation of the criterion variable, which is productivity,
is explained by the three variables related to the think-
ing style and 28% by the components of the modern
leadership style, they explain the rest of the variation of
the criterion with other variables that the researcher did
not consider and did not enter into the model. The mean
of a statistical society was used to identify the status of
the research variables as appropriate or not.
The null hypothesis: Productivity of the organization
is not a good situation.
The opposite hypothesis: Productivity in the organi-
zation is in good condition.
Considering that the signi cance obtained is lower
from the critical value of the table, the community aver-
age is appropriate in terms of productivity, thus the null
hypothesis is rejected and the productivity variable is in
good condition.
Adjusting, directing, and employing reasonable
human resources is the most important goal in the
organizational management and major part of the pro-
gram in achieving the goals set in its different domains.
Schuler et al. (2014). In 1913, Munsterberg argued that
some employees are more suitable than others for some
work. Gholipour et al. (2011). This is rooted in this topic.
Organizations that are principally engaged in the opti-
mum exploitation of their organizational elements,
including human resources, should be given the high-
est precision in putting anyone in their proper place.
Chaudhary et al. (2014).
In other words, the correct use of resources depends
on the ability to apply correctly, and the correct use of
resources and manpower depends on the correct man-
agement and leadership of the organization Bell (2013).
The importance of this topic is to the extent that the
productivity is result of quality and the proper use of
resources in this area, the leadership style and organiza-
tional leadership is rst of all the type of thinking and
leadership style and management, and this is the speci c
routine of the program.
Due to the importance of the topic mentioned in this
study, the role of thinking styles and modern leadership
styles on productivity has been investigated. Consider-
ing the desired bases and indicators, as well as statistical
analysis of the research ndings, both the thinking style
and the leadership style (New) affects organizational
productivity and achievement of predetermined indi-
cators, according to researches such as Keskes (2014),
which showed that organizational productivity is dis-
tinctly affected by leadership style and the intellectual
model of organization management.
Propeli et al. (2016) researched on the intellectual
model and organization management as an important
factor in achieving optimal performance and produc-
tivity, and a positive and positive relationship between
these components and productivity was observed. In
other words, thinking styles is motivating path and
movement of each person undoubtedly lead to this style
of thinking and cognition, the way of management and
leadership of a person, and therefore, there is a certain
relationship between thinking style and leadership style.
On the other hand, organizational leadership style
and how to deal with employees and the type of struc-
tural relations governing the organization and the com-
pany, which determines the interactions and connections
of the members of the organization and leadership in
general indicators and affairs, due to the importance of
these relationships in the organization’s executive pro-
cess. The productivity and performance of the company
are predicted and analyzed. Therefore, there is a clear
and meaningful relationship between thinking styles
and leadership with productivity.
REFERENCES
Bambale, A.J. Kassim,I.S. Musa,L.(2016). Effect of Emotional
Leadership on Employee Performance among Staff of Tertiary
Institutions in Gombe. Journal of Resources Development and
Management, 19:23-30
Bell, R. M. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study with
Ronald Reagan as Exemplar. Emerging Leadership Journeys,
6(1): 66-74.
Bierema, L.( 2016).
Women’s Leadership
Troubling Notions
of the “Ideal” (Male) Leader. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 18(2): 119-136.
Bloom, N., Van Reenen, J.;(2011) Human Resource Manage-
ment and Productivity”; Handbook of Labor Economics.
Bouhali,R., Mekdad, Y.,Lebsir,H., Ferkha, L.(2015). Leader Roles
for Innovation: Strategic Thinking and Planning. Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 181:72-78
Blackwell, S. S. (2006). The in uence of perceptions of organi-
zational structure & culture on leadership rolerequirements:
The moderating impact of locus of control & self-monitoring.
Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 12(4): 1-27.
Cogin, L.J., Nj, J.L., Lee, I.(2016). Controlling healthcare profes-
sionals: how human resource management in uences job atti-
tudes and operational ef ciency. Human Resources for Health,
8: 10.1186/s12960-016-0149-0.
Daniali, Deh Houz, Mahmoud, Allameh, Seyyed Mohsen Man-
souri, Hossein (2013) Investigating and identifying the factors
affecting human resource productivity and determining their
Table 5. T Test of Independent Sample
t Freedom
Degree
Signi cant
Value
Difference
Average
Productivity 8.41 164 0.001 0.752