Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. 10(4): 746-751 (2017)
Investigating the role of modern leadership styles and
thinking style with productivity
Farah Shahraki-Sanavi
, Mahmod Ghorbani
* and Fariba Shahraki-Sanavi
Ph.D Student Educational Management, Zahedan University of Medical Science, Zahedan, Iran
Associate Professor, Department of Management, Mashhad Unit, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran
Ph.D Student Health Education & Promotion, Health Promotion Research Center, Public Health Department,
Zahedan University of Medical Science, Zahedan, Iran
Productivity is one of the most important indicators in the organization process and a variety of programs designed
to maximize it. This indicator has a direct relationship with organizational success and pro tability. The factors and
components that are related to employee productivity and performance are leadership styles and thinking styles.
Therefore, this study was designed to examine the role of leadership styles (modern leadership) and thinking style
with productivity. The statistical population of this study consisted of all staff and of cials of Kerman education and
training organization. Out of 291 subjects, 165 subjects were selected according to Morgan table using convenient
sampling method and completed modern leadership style, thought style and productivity questionnaires. The results
of the research showed a signi cant positive and signi cant relationship between the thinking style and its com-
ponents and modern leadership style and its components. Modern leadership style and thinking style are a strong
and appropriate predictor of productivity. According to the results obtained, in order to increase productivity and
ef ciency, it is necessary to pay attention to the leadership styles and its methods, and the style of thinking and
strengthening it according to organizational needs.
*Corresponding Author:
Received 27
Oct, 2017
Accepted after revision 21
Dec, 2017
BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455
Online ISSN: 2321-4007 CODEN: USA BBRCBA
Thomson Reuters ISI ESC and Crossref Indexed Journal
NAAS Journal Score 2017: 4.31 Cosmos IF: 4.006
© A Society of Science and Nature Publication, 2017. All rights
Online Contents Available at:
DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/10.4/21
Farah Shahraki-Sanavi et al.
Applying ef cient manpower and their capabilities to  t
the needs of the organization and company is one of the
most important organizational and productive challenges.
The human resources are the basis of the plans and the
speci c program and the core of planning in achieving
different policies. Hamdi et al. (2014). Organizational suc-
cess depends on human resources, and in all production
and service organizations, these are the human resources
that are the core of the executive and the main supplier of
the organization’s interests Cogin, et al. (2016).
The importance of human resources in achieving
organizational goals is crucial in this  eld. In fact, solu-
tions and programs that improve the performance and
ef ciency of workforce and organization are one of the
ultimate goals of a system. Productivity is a qualitative
and quantitative component in relation to maximizing
the performance and functionality of each domain, and
its purpose is to manpower, exploitation to the optimum
possible extent of the talents and abilities of the work-
force and management to achieve the designated pro-
gram. Achieving productivity and proper utilization of
the factors in its place requires the proper management
in certain areas Bloom et al. (2011).
Therefore, management and leadership are a key fac-
tor in this regard. Leadership and organizational manage-
ment refers to the formulation of policies and lines of spe-
ci c administrative and commercial frameworks that the
organization and company members meet in accordance
with that movement and the basic needs of the organi-
zation Downe et al. (2016). What kind of leadership is
most effective and what determines the leadership style
results from the style of thinking and its related programs.
Bierema (2016). Thinking style addresses the conceptual
framework and indicators of individual assessment of the
environment and conditions that make decisions or con-
clusions in line with it, Goldman et al. (2015).
In other words, the thinking style is an indicator that
plans, evaluates and concludes the basic and editorial
principles of a person and organization, a thinking style
that includes a variety of varieties, the product of the
educational environment, the scope of knowledge and
knowledge, experience, developmental structures, and ...
and it is the basis of decision making in different cat-
egories. Bouhali et al. (2015).
Therefore, thinking style and its related factors devel-
ops the leadership and management style of an organi-
zation or institution. Various researches have shown that
there are certain relationships between managerial styles
and leadership, and the ef ciency and various manage-
ment components of employees and subordinates.
Various researches have shown a direct and speci c
relationship between management styles with organi-
zational commitment and loyalty to the organization
(Yahaya and Fawzy (2016) with employee motivation and
performance El-Zayaty (2016) with self-esteem and self-
ef cacy Owoseni (2014), etc. For example, Bambale et al.
(2016) have shown that senior management styles and
directors of each unit directly predict employee behavior
and their behavior, and type of behavior and account-
ability of employees is also identi ed and indexed for
management and its related factors. As mentioned ear-
lier, there is a clear relationship between leadership style
and thinking with productivity and performance, but
recognizing the best management style and thinking is
an obscure problem that still has not been de nitive.
The modern leadership, which has concerned the
employees and intervention, and the style of dealing with
them is the foundation for successful leadership on the
balance of intervention, evaluation, and type of relation-
ship Khan et al. (2016). For example, transformational
leadership structures can facilitate the performance of its
followers as a result of the leader’s permeability, in which
the overall framework shows that raising awareness of
the evolutionary leadership attributes and its importance
and value in developing its characteristics from the clan,
the idealistic intrusive behavior, motivation Inspirational,
intellectual motivation, individual considerations and an
ideal in uence on his followers to raise personal ambi-
tions for a single collective goal in the organization, mis-
sion or vision of the organization, Blackwell (2006).
The pragmatic leadership, which refers to the correct
intervention and the ful llment of the requirements of
the job and the subsequent reasonable demands, or the
unconstrained leadership that guides the basis of its pro-
cess without direct involvement in the work, all refer to
the existence of different leadership styles and imple-
ment it in order to increase the revenue of the organi-
zation and participation. Considering the importance of
the mentioned categories, this research studies the rela-
tionship between modern leadership styles and thinking
style with productivity.
The conceptual model based on the hypotheses of this
research shows that in this research, we investigate the
relationship between thinking style, executive, judiciary
and legislative thinking, and modern leadership styles,
including transformational, pragmatic and Laissez fair
leadership, and its effects on productivity.
This research describes current and existing conditions
and examines existing relationships. Therefore, the
Farah Shahraki-Sanavi et al.
FIGURE 1. Conceptual Model of Study
Table 1. Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
VariablesNumberSigni cance
Executive Thinking Style1650.25
Judicial Thinking1650.14
Legislative Thinking1650.22
Transformational Leadership Style1650.38
Pragmatic Leadership Style1650.27
Laissez Fair Leadership Style1650.28
Ef ciency1650.39
nature of this descriptive research is also a correlation
and applied.
In this research, two  eld and library methods were
used to collect information and complete the ques-
tionnaire. The library method has been used to collect
and complete theoretical foundations of the research.
In order to analyze the inference and the relationships
between research hypotheses and data collection, the
eld method has been used for statistical analysis and
the questionnaire has been completed.
In this research, the society consisted of all employees at
Kerman education and training organization. They were
291 subjects. It should be noted that due to the nature of
the research design and existing researcher-made ques-
tionnaire, to  ll the questionnaire from both the person-
nel and employees as well as managers and leaders can
be used. According to the form of work and dispersion
of sample members and according to Morgan table, 165
of them were selected as sample of research using con-
venient sampling.
The Sternberg and Wagner thinking styles questionnaire,
which has 24 questions, measures levels of executive,
judicial, and legislative thinking styles. The similarity of
this test in Iranian sample according to the theoretical
Nazari Far et al. (2010) was 0.75.
A Researcher-Made Questionnaire Was Used to
Measure Modern Leadership Styles. The questionnaire
has 18 questions, its content validity has been con rmed
by three faculty members and experts in this  eld. The
internal consistency of females for the whole test per-
formed by Cronbach’s alpha of 0.905, and for the sub-
scale of pragmatic and transformational leadership and
Laissez fair leadership respectively, is 0.856, 0.894 and
0.794, which is due to the fact that Cronbach’s alpha for
the entire questionnaire and subscales is more than 0.7.
This questionnaire is reliable and an appropriate tool for
measuring modern leadership style.
The Human Resources Productivity Questionnaire
was presented by Hersey and Goldsmith in the 1980s
based on the Achilles model. This questionnaire aims
to assess the level of human resource productivity in
the organization of dimensions. The questionnaire has
a 5-point Likert scale, and Daniali, Deh et al. (2013) has
an acceptable content validity and a reliability of 0.831,
which indicates the proper internal consistency of the
test subjects.
89 percent of the members of the research were married
and 86 percent had university degrees and high levels,
of which 78 percent were men. At  rst, the results of the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test are examined to determine
the normality of the community and the possibility of
performing a parametric test.
Given that the critical size in all of the studied com-
ponents is greater than the signi cance level of 0.05,
null hypothesis is rejected and opposite hypothesis is
con rmed and a parametric test is possible. In the fol-
lowing, the correlations of the research variables are
The results obtained from the statistical analysis
of the correlation matrix of all the components of the
research examined have been shown to be as follows:
There is a positive and signi cant relationship between
productivity and components of executive thinking,
Farah Shahraki-Sanavi et al.
Table 2. Matrix of Correlation Between Research Variables
RowResearch Variables1234567
1Executive Thinking
2Judicial Thinking0.26*1
3Legislative Thinking0.42**0.26*1
Leadership Style
5Pragmatic Leadership
6Laissez Fair
P<01 *P<05
Table 3. Analysis of Variance Regression
ModelTotal SquareFreedom DegreeSquare AverageFSigni cant Level
Thinking Style1654.1122827.05616.370.000
Modern Leadership Style1785.3842892.69218.410.000
Table 4. Regression Coef cient of Thinking Style and Modern
Leadership Style on Productivity
Coef cient
Coef cient
Coef cient
legislative thinking, transformational leadership style,
and pragmatic leadership at the level of 0.01. There is
a signi cant correlation between productivity and judi-
cial thinking and Laissez fair leadership at the level of
0.05. In our relationship between the components of
the research with each other, except for the relationship
between judicial thinking; with transformational leader-
ship and Laissez fair leadership, no signi cant relation-
ship was observed. There was a signi cant relationship
between judicial thinking with executive and legislative
thinking and pragmatic leadership at the level of 0.05.
The rest of the relationships was positive and signi cant
at the level of 0.01.
After analyzing the correlation, the regression test
was used to evaluate the distribution of the dispersion
and the differences between the dependent variable and
the independent variable. The linear regression test has
some hypotheses, which is referred to below:
Given the fact that the distribution of the scores is
normal and the type of scale of the variables is of a dis-
tance type, a linear regression test can be used. Another
of the hypotheses about the use of independence regres-
sion are errors from one another (the difference between
the actual values and the predicted values by the regres-
sion equation.) Durbin-Watson Test is used to check the
independence of errors. The value of the test statistic is
from one to four variables, and if the range of this sta-
tistic is from 1.5 to 2.5, the assumption of independence
between errors is accepted. Durbin-Watson statistics in
this study are for independent variables of thinking style
and modern leadership style. The order is equal to 2.05
and 1.89, which indicates a lack of correlation between
errors and the possibility of linear regression in this
The results of regression analysis of variance were
used to verify the validity of the linear relation in the
entire regression model, since the signi cance is less
than 0.01, null hypothesis is rejected and opposite
hypothesis is con rmed. The linear regression model is
valid in both variables.
As seen in Table 4, the value of the multiplicity corre-
lation coef cient between the three predictive variables
entered in each component of the thinking style and
the leadership style to the model and criterion variables
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.
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
Signi cant
Productivity 8.41 164 0.001 0.752
Farah Shahraki-Sanavi et al.
priority among employees of Islamic Azad University, Izeh
Branch. Journal of Productivity Management, 7 (27): 51-8-0
Downe, R., Cowell, R., Morgan, K. (2016).
What Determines
Ethical Behavior in Public Organizations: Is It Rules or Leader-
ship? Public Administration Review,76(6):898-909.
El-Zayaty, N (2016). An Exploration of Leadership Styles and
Motivation in Egyptian Business Organizations. Walden Dis-
sertations and Doctoral Studies. Walden University
Goldman, E, F., Andrea, R. , Follman, J.M. (2015) Organiza-
tional practices to develop strategic thinking, Journal of Strat-
egy and Management,8(2):.155-175,
Gholipour, Rahmatollah; Faghihi, Abolhassan; Hamid-
ian, Maria; Hamidian, Sahar (2011). The Effects of Types of
Employment on Human Resource Ef ciency: A Case Study
of the Ministry of Petroleum and the Ministry of Science and
Research and Technology, Shahed University Journal of Sci-
ence and Research, Year Eighteenth, No. 47: 212-213.
Hamdi, A., Bashir, K.A., Amur, M. A. (2014). “Factor Analysis
of Obstacles Restraining Productivity Improvement Programs
in Manufacturing Enterprises in Oman,” Journal of Indus-
trial Engineering, vol. 2014, Article ID 195018, 7 pages, 2014.
Khan R, Bukhari A, Channar ZA (2016) Effects of Leadership
Style on Health Care Organizational Performance: A Survey of
Selected Tertiary Care Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Int J Econ
Manag Sci 5:333. doi:10.4172/2162-6359.1000333
Keskes I. (2014). Relationship between leadership styles and
dimensions of employee organizational commitment: A criti-
cal review and discussion of future directions. Intangible Capi-
tal, 10(1): 26-51.
Nazari Far, Farhad; Abolghasemi Najafabadi, Mehdi; Hosseini
Hafshejani, Touraj, Kamali, Hadi (2010) The Function of Think-
ing Styles and its Relationship with Academic Achievement
among Students at Technical Faculty of Engineering, Psychol-
ogy and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran. Curricu-
lum Planning for Knowledge and Research in Educational Sci-
ences, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch (Isfahan), 7
(25): 1-20
Owoseni, O. (2014). Emotional Intelligence and Perceived Lead-
ership Behaviour Effectiveness in Organizations International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 2 [Special
Issue – January 262]
Propeli, S., Rizvi, I, A(2016). Drivers of Employee Engagement:
The Role of Leadership Style. Global Business Review , 17(4):
Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar, Mukesh Kumar
Barua (2014) Organizational Climate, Climate Strength and
Work Engagement Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences,133:286-294doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.195.
Schuler, R., Jackson, S. E. (2014) “Human resource manage-
ment and organizational effectiveness: yesterday and today”,
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Per-
Yahaya, R., Fawzy, E , (2016) “Leadership styles and organiza-
tional commitment: literature review”, Journal of Management
Development, (2):190 – 216.