¹Ph.D Student Educational Management, Zahedan University of Medical Science, Zahedan, Iran

²Associate Professor, Department of Management, Mashhad Unit, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

³Ph.D Student Health Education & Promotion, Health Promotion Research Center, Public Health Department, Zahedan University of Medical Science, Zahedan, Iran

Corresponding author Email: faribasanavi@gmail.com

Article Publishing History

Introduction

Applying efficient manpower and their capabilities to fit 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 specific program and the core of planning in achieving different policies. Hamdi et al. (2014). Organizational success 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 field. In fact, solutions and programs that improve the performance and efficiency 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 workforce and management to achieve the designated program. 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 factor in this regard. Leadership and organizational management refers to the formulation of policies and lines of specific administrative and commercial frameworks that the organization and company members meet in accordance with that movement and the basic needs of the organization 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 conclusions 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 categories. Bouhali et al. (2015).

Figure 1: Conceptual Model of Study

Therefore, thinking style and its related factors develops the leadership and management style of an organization or institution. Various researches have shown that there are certain relationships between managerial styles and leadership, and the efficiency and various management components of employees and subordinates.

Various researches have shown a direct and specific relationship between management styles with organizational commitment and loyalty to the organization (Yahaya and Fawzy (2016) with employee motivation and performance El-Zayaty (2016) with self-esteem and self-efficacy 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 accountability of employees is also identified and indexed for management and its related factors. As mentioned earlier, 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 definitive.

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 relationship 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 influence on his followers to raise personal ambitions for a single collective goal in the organization, mission or vision of the organization, Blackwell (2006).

Table 1: Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Variables	Number	Significance
Executive Thinking Style	165	0.25
Judicial Thinking	165	0.14
Legislative Thinking	165	0.22
Transformational Leadership Style	165	0.38
Pragmatic Leadership Style	165	0.27
Laissez Fair Leadership Style	165	0.28
Efficiency	165	0.39

The pragmatic leadership, which refers to the correct intervention and the fulfillment of the requirements of the job and the subsequent reasonable demands, or the unconstrained leadership that guides the basis of its process without direct involvement in the work, all refer to the existence of different leadership styles and implement it in order to increase the revenue of the organization and participation. Considering the importance of the mentioned categories, this research studies the relationship between modern leadership styles and thinking style with productivity.

Table 3: Analysis of Variance Regression
Model	Total Square	Freedom Degree	Square Average	F	Significant Level
Thinking Style	1654.112	2	827.056	16.37	0.000
Modern Leadership Style	1785.384	2	892.692	18.41	0.000

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 nature of this descriptive research is also a correlation and applied.

In this research, two field and library methods were used to collect information and complete the questionnaire. 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 field method has been used for statistical analysis and the questionnaire has been completed.

Table 2: Matrix of Correlation Between Research Variables
Row	Research Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	Executive Thinking Style	1
2	Judicial Thinking	0.26*	1
3	Legislative Thinking	0.42**	0.26*	1
4	Transformational Leadership Style	0.41**	0.08	0.36**	1
5	Pragmatic Leadership Style	0.52**	0.20*	0.41**	0.58**	1
6	Laissez Fair Leadership	0.39**	0.09	0.39**	0.38**	0.36**	1
7	Productivity	0.49**	0.24*	0.43*	0.52**	0.51**	0.31*	1
**P<01 *P<05

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 questionnaire, to fill the questionnaire from both the personnel 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 convenient 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 confirmed by three faculty members and experts in this field. The internal consistency of females for the whole test performed by Cronbach’s alpha of 0.905, and for the subscale 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.

Table 4: Regression Coefficient of Thinking Style and Modern Leadership Style on Productivity
Model	Regression Correlation Coefficient	Determination Coefficient	Standard Error	Beta Coefficient
Thinking Style	0.484	23.42	0.59	0.42
Leadership Style	0.527	27.77	0.66	0.40

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 first, 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 components is greater than the significance level of 0.05, null hypothesis is rejected and opposite hypothesis is confirmed and a parametric test is possible. In the following, 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 significant relationship between productivity and components of executive thinking, legislative thinking, transformational leadership style, and pragmatic leadership at the level of 0.01. There is a significant correlation between productivity and judicial 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 leadership and Laissez fair leadership, no significant relationship was observed. There was a significant 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 significant at the level of 0.01.

Table 5: T Test of Independent Sample
	t	Freedom Degree	Significant Value	Difference Average
Productivity	8.41	164	0.001	0.752

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 distance type, a linear regression test can be used. Another of the hypotheses about the use of independence regression are errors from one another (the difference between the actual values and the predicted values by the regression 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 statistic 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 significance is less than 0.01, null hypothesis is rejected and opposite hypothesis is confirmed. The linear regression model is valid in both variables.

As seen in Table 4, the value of the multiplicity correlation coefficient between the three predictive variables entered in each component of the thinking style and the leadership style to the model and criterion variables are respectively 0.48 and 0.33. Value The coefficient 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 thinking 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 organization is in good condition.

Considering that the significance obtained is lower from the critical value of the table, the community average 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 program 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 optimum exploitation of their organizational elements, including human resources, should be given the highest 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 management 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 organizational leadership is first of all the type of thinking and leadership style and management, and this is the specific 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. Considering the desired bases and indicators, as well as statistical analysis of the research findings, both the thinking style and the leadership style (New) affects organizational productivity and achievement of predetermined indicators, according to researches such as Keskes (2014), which showed that organizational productivity is distinctly 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 productivity, 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 structural relations governing the organization and the company, 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 process. 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

1. 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
2. Bell, R. M. (2013). Charismatic Leadership Case Study with Ronald Reagan as Exemplar. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6(1): 66-74.
3. Bierema, L.( 2016). Women’s Leadership Troubling Notions of the “Ideal” (Male) Leader. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(2): 119-136.
4. Bloom, N., Van Reenen, J.;(2011) Human Resource Management and Productivity”; Handbook of Labor Economics.
5. Bouhali,R., Mekdad, Y.,Lebsir,H., Ferkha, L.(2015). Leader Roles for Innovation: Strategic Thinking and Planning. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181:72-78
6. Blackwell, S. S. (2006). The influence of perceptions of organizational structure & culture on leadership rolerequirements: The moderating impact of locus of control & self-monitoring. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 12(4): 1-27.
7. Cogin, L.J., Nj, J.L., Lee, I.(2016). Controlling healthcare professionals: how human resource management influences job attitudes and operational efficiency. Human Resources for Health, 8: 10.1186/s12960-016-0149-0.
8. Daniali, Deh Houz, Mahmoud, Allameh, Seyyed Mohsen Mansouri, Hossein (2013) Investigating and identifying the factors affecting human resource productivity and determining their priority among employees of Islamic Azad University, Izeh Branch. Journal of Productivity Management, 7 (27): 51-8-0
9. Downe, R., Cowell, R., Morgan, K. (2016). What Determines Ethical Behavior in Public Organizations: Is It Rules or Leadership? Public Administration Review,76(6):898-909.
10. El-Zayaty, N (2016). An Exploration of Leadership Styles and Motivation in Egyptian Business Organizations. Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. Walden University
11. Goldman, E, F., Andrea, R. , Follman, M. (2015) Organizational practices to develop strategic thinking, Journal of Strategy and Management,8(2):.155-175, https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-2015-0003.
12. Gholipour, Rahmatollah; Faghihi, Abolhassan; Hamidian, Maria; Hamidian, Sahar (2011). The Effects of Types of Employment on Human Resource Efficiency: A Case Study of the Ministry of Petroleum and the Ministry of Science and Research and Technology, Shahed University Journal of Science and Research, Year Eighteenth, No. 47: 212-213.
13. Hamdi, A., Bashir, K.A., Amur, M. A. (2014). “Factor Analysis of Obstacles Restraining Productivity Improvement Programs in Manufacturing Enterprises in Oman,” Journal of Industrial Engineering, vol. 2014, Article ID 195018, 7 pages, 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/195018.
14. 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
15. Keskes I. (2014). Relationship between leadership styles and dimensions of employee organizational commitment: A critical review and discussion of future directions. Intangible Capital, 10(1): 26-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.476.
16. Nazari Far, Farhad; Abolghasemi Najafabadi, Mehdi; Hosseini Hafshejani, Touraj, Kamali, Hadi (2010) The Function of Thinking Styles and its Relationship with Academic Achievement among Students at Technical Faculty of Engineering, Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran. Curriculum Planning for Knowledge and Research in Educational Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch (Isfahan), 7 (25): 1-20
17. Owoseni, O. (2014). Emotional Intelligence and Perceived Leadership Behaviour Effectiveness in Organizations International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 2 [Special Issue – January 262]
18. Propeli, S., Rizvi, I, A(2016). Drivers of Employee Engagement: The Role of Leadership Style. Global Business Review , 17(4): 565-579.
19. Richa Chaudhary, Santosh Rangnekar, Mukesh Kumar Barua (2014) Organizational Climate, Climate Strength and Work Engagement Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133:286-294doi: 1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.195.
20. Schuler, , Jackson, S. E. (2014) “Human resource management and organizational effectiveness: yesterday and today”, Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance1:.35-55, https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-01-2014-
    0003.
21. Yahaya, R., Fawzy, E , (2016) “Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature review”, Journal of Management Development, (2):190 – 216.