Psychological

Communication

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

ABSTRACT

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.

KEY WORDS: PRODUCTIVITY, MODERN LEADERSHIP STYLE, THINKING STYLE, TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

746

ARTICLE INFORMATION:

*Corresponding Author: faribasanavi@gmail.com

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

reserved.

Online Contents Available at:

http//www.bbrc.in/

DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/10.4/21

Farah Shahraki-Sanavi et al.

INTRODUCTION

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.

MODEL OF STUDY

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.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research describes current and existing conditions

and examines existing relationships. Therefore, the

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF MODERN LEADERSHIP STYLES AND THINKING STYLE WITH PRODUCTIVITY 747

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.

SOCIETY AND SAMPLE

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.

RESEARCH TOOL

THINKING STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE

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.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

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

investigated.

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,

748 INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF MODERN LEADERSHIP STYLES AND THINKING STYLE WITH PRODUCTIVITY BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF MODERN LEADERSHIP STYLES AND THINKING STYLE WITH PRODUCTIVITY 749

Farah Shahraki-Sanavi et al.

Table 2. Matrix of Correlation Between Research Variables

RowResearch Variables1234567

1Executive Thinking

Style

2Judicial Thinking0.26*1

3Legislative Thinking0.42**0.26*1

4Transformational

Leadership Style

0.41**0.080.36**1

5Pragmatic Leadership

Style

0.52**0.20*0.41**0.58**1

6Laissez Fair

Leadership

0.39**0.090.39**0.38**0.36**1

7Productivity0.49**0.24*0.43*0.52**0.51**0.31*1

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

ModelRegression

Correlation

Coef cient

Determination

Coef cient

Standard

Error

Beta

Coef cient

Thinking

Style

0.48423.420.590.42

Leadership

Style

0.52727.770.660.40

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

study.

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

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

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS INVESTIGATING THE ROLE OF MODERN LEADERSHIP STYLES AND THINKING STYLE WITH PRODUCTIVITY 751

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, https://doi.org/10.1108/

JSMA-01-2015-0003.

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.

doi:10.1155/2014/195018.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.476.

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):

565-579.

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-

formance1:.35-55, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-01-2014-

0003.

Yahaya, R., Fawzy, E , (2016) “Leadership styles and organiza-

tional commitment: literature review”, Journal of Management

Development, (2):190 – 216.