Leadership Practices and Productivity of Academic Staff in ...

American Journal of Academic Research Volume 1, Number 2, 2016

Original Research Article

Leadership Practices and Productivity of Academic Staff in Polytechnics in Nigeria Halilu Dahiru Abba¹, Ijeoma B. Anumaka², Sofia Sol Gaite³ College of Education Open, Distance & E-Learning, Kampala International University 1 [email protected] 2 [email protected] 3 [email protected] Citation: Abba, H.D., Anumaka, I.B., & Gaite, S.S. (2016). Leadership Practices and Productivity of Academic Staff in Polytechnics in Nigeria. American Journal of Academic Research, 1, A56-A68. Retrieved from http://www.asraresearch.org/ajarvol-1-no-2-2016/ ABSTRACT The study examined the influence of leadership practices on productivity of academic staff in polytechnics in Nigeria. The co relational study involved 285 respondents from six polytechnics. Data were collected using a self-administered a questionnaire which validity the reliability was confirmed through Factor Analysis and Cronbach Alpha test. The constructs of leadership practices were examined. Descriptive analysis involved the use of means, while multiple regressions were used to test the hypotheses. The results revealed that transformational leadership was a positive significant predictor of academic staff productivity. This led to the conclusion that transformational leadership was an important factor for enhancing staff productivity. Therefore, it was recommended that managers of organisations such as polytechnics should emphasise the transformational leadership practice in providing leadership to the institution. Key Words: academic staff, leadership practices, polytechnic, productivity, transactional, transformational leadership INTRODUCTION Workforce productivity remains a primary element for success in most organisations (Haenisch, 2012). Workforce productivity is the output per employee hour and quality considered (Leblebici, 2012). Productivity is efficiency in production, This actually represents how much output an individual or organisation obtains from a given set of inputs. Productivity is typically understood to be an output–input-ratio. Employee productivity is important for the successful performance of organisations in way that that it leads to accomplishing of organisational goals and objectives (Raza, Anjum and Zia 2014), effective performance of tasks (Yukl, 2008), efficient use of resources (Rahman and Rahman, 2009), quality of output, workmanship, adherence to standards, and customer satisfaction (Ayinde, 2014). In organisations such as polytechnics, academic staff productivity is considered in terms of teaching, preparing for class, research and scholarly activities, student research supervision, supervising internship, working with students on American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

A56



activities other than coursework, interacting with students outside classroom, innovation and conducting community service activities (Sullivan, Mackie, Massy & Sinha, 2012).According to Meyer (1998), faculty workload is calculated by three measures, namely the total number of hours each week that faculty work to meet their job responsibilities, the weekly number of hours spent in instructional activities, and the weekly number of hours spent on scholarly activities. Anumaka and Ssemugenyi ( 2013), Reed, Enders, Lindor, McClees and Lindor (2011), Oyekan, (2014), Wamala and Ssembatya ( 2015) and many others, have carried out studies on employee productivity to establish its correlates. However, as those studies suggest, there has been a bias of those studies towards universities, thus excluding the polytechnics context. This research examined the productivity of academic staff in polytechnics in Nigeria .It was therefore carried out with the purpose of linking productivity with the leadership practices in the polytechnics and not universities. Leadership theories-transactional and transformational leadership theories, suggested some variables of leadership practices which relate to employee productivity. The transformational theory suggests that transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation It has been observed that a leader might transform subordinates interest and at the same time motivate his followers or subordinates in order to achieve greater goals and higher productivity in any organization. Bolden (2003), explained that transactional leadership is an emphasis on the importance of relationship between the head and the subordinates and usually focusing on mutual benefits. This relationship might result into rewards, recognition as well as return on hardwork.Transactional leaders recognise the actions of their subordinates in order to achieve outcomes and develop agreements with them, which makes clear what they want receive if they do something right and what will happen if they do something wrong (Waldman, Ramirez, House & Puranam, 2001). Basing on the propositions of these two theorists, it is reasonable to suggest that leadership practices may be related to productivity of academic staff even in polytechnics. RELATED LITERATURE Transformational leadership refers to the practice where one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Chandna and Krishnan, 2009). Therefore, transformational leadership practices are mechanisms employed by leaders to get extraordinary things done. Transformational leadership practices include modelling, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act and encouraging the heart (Abu-Tineh, Khasawneh and Al-Omari, 2008). The leaders generate enthusiasm and excitement for the common vision from others (Kouzes & Posner, 2002).Modelling involves the leaders exhibiting the behaviour they expect from followers by setting example (Sharma & Jain, 2013).According to Kouzes and Posner (2003), challenging the process means that leaders venture out into the unknown. Leaders guide followers through innovation, change, or the unknown. People are encouraged to follow because leaders create a a climate that is conducive for experimentation. A follower feel supported and willing to join in the risk (Posner, 2015).Enabling others to act refers to fostering collaboration and strengthening others (Kouzes and Posner, 2010). People are encourage and motivated to achieve the goals set by the organisation (Abu-Tineh et al., 2008). Encouraging the heart involves encouraging and American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

A57



caring about employees while focusing on the team’s results. Leaders relate to employees with kindness, respect and fairness which increases productivity (Al-Baradie, 2014). Obiwuru, Okwu, Akpa and Nwankwere (2011) investigated the effects of leadership style on organisational performance in small-scale enterprises in Nigeria. The findings of the study revealed that transformational leadership style had a positive but insignificant effect on performance. Pradeep and Prabhu (2011) studied the relationship between effective leadership and employee performance in public and private sector organisations in India. Their findings revealed that transformational leadership had a significant positive relationship with the employee performance/ outcomes. Singh (2015) examined the relationship between the leadership styles and employee productivity in private and foreign banks of US origin in India. The findings indicated that transformational leadership played a significant role in predicting employee productivity in foreign banks. Paracha, Qamar, Mirza, Hassan and Waqas (2012) studied the impact of leadership style (transformational and transactional leadership) on employee performance in private schools in Pakistan. Their results indicated that transformational leadership has a significant positive correlation with employee performance. Thamrin (2012) analysed the influence of transformational leadership and employee performance in shipping company in Jakarta, Indonesia. The results showed that transformational leadership had a positive significant influence on employees’ performance. Wang, Oh, Court right and Colbert (2011) in a meta-analysis on transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels found out that transformational leadership has a positive significant relationship with individual and team level organisational performance. However, as the above studies suggest, many earlier studies have been carried out in the context of Asia such India (Pradeep and Prabhu, 2011; Singh, 2015), Pakistan (Paracha et al., 2012) and Thamrin (2012) Indonesia. Besides, all the other studies found that transformational leadership had a positive significant effect, in which the Nigerian context. Obiwuru et al. (2011) found that it had an insignificant effect. These gaps thus made it necessary for further research in the Nigerian context to investigate the hypothesis that: Transformational leadership influences academic staff productivity. Transactional leadership focuses on the role of supervision, organisation and group performance. The transactional leader promotes compliance of followers through both rewards and punishments.Transactional leaders use reward and punishments to gain compliance from their followers (Odumeru and Ogbonna, 2013). Transactional leaders are focused on short- term goals, standards, procedures, rules and control (Nikezić, Purić & Purić, 2012). Transactional leaders recognise what the followers want and help them to achieve goals through an exchange. The leader approaches followers with the promise of reward. Transactional leadership practices are namely; contingent reward and management by active or passive exception (Xirasagar, 2008). Contingent rewards are rewards that are connected to the performance of the employee. If employee puts efforts it is recognised by the rewards (Chaudhry and Javed, 2012). Contingent rewards (such as praise) are given when the set goals are accomplished on-time, ahead of time, or to keep subordinates working at a good pace at different times throughout completion (Odumeru and Ogbonna, 2013). Active management-by-exception means that the leader continually looks at each subordinate's performance and makes changes to the subordinate's work to make corrections throughout the process (Gujral, 2012). Whenever there is deviation from the rules and regulations, management by expectation happens and the actions for corrections taken (Chaudhry and Javed, 2012).Passive exception refers to the situation where American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

A58



leaders wait for issues to come up before fixing the problems (Odumeru & Ogbonna, 2013). A passive engagement leader gets involved in the process only when standards are not met, or performance is not achieved (Densten, 2006). Passive leaders will not provide the needed normative presence to convey expectations regarding employees’ behaviour and their treatment of one another (Harold & Holtz, 2015).Ejere and Abasilim (2013) investigated the impact of transactional and transformational leadership styles on organisational performance in the Nigeria using employees of Akwa Ibom Water Company Limited, Uyo. Their results showed that transactional leadership style had positive impact on organisational performance. Obiwuru et al. (2011) investigated the effects of leadership style on organisational performance and found out that transactional leadership style had a significant positive effect on organization performance. Ojokuku, Odetayo and Sajuyigbe (2012) examined the impact of leadership style on organisational performance in selected Banks in Ibadan Nigeria. Regression results showed that transactional leadership as a negative and insignificant predictor of organisational performance. Pradeep and Prabhu (2011) in their study conducted in India revealed that transactional leadership had a significant positive relationship with employee performance. On the other hand, Paracha et al. (2012) in their study has established a significant positive correlation between transactional leadership and employee performance. Singh (2015) found out that transactional leadership played a significant role in predicting employee productivity in private banks in India.However, the findings above present an empirical gap. Whereas all the other studies found that transactional had a positive significant effect, Ojokuku et al. (2012) in a study in Nigeria found that it had a negative insignificant effect. This controversy made it imperative for this study in the context of polytechnic in Nigeria to test the hypothesis that: HI Transactional leadership is a correlate of academic staff productivity. METHODOLOGY Instrument Using the quantitative approach, survey and descriptive design, were used and data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ). The questionnaire comprised three sections. Section A was on the background characteristics of the respondents with questions on the polytechnic, ownership of the polytechnic, position of the respondent in the polytechnic and terms of employment. Section B covered the items on leadership practices (independent variable). Section C covered the dependent variable (DV) which is academic staff productivity with five aspects namely teaching, supervision, research and publications, innovation and community services. The questions in section A were nominal questions with appropriate responses required. The questions in sections B and C were ordinal questions scaled using the four-point Likert scale from a minimum of 1 strongly disagree (SD), 2 disagree (D), 3 agree (A) and 4 strongly agree (SD). Sample Size Using the self-administered questionnaire (SAQ), data were collected from 285 respondents from sixpolytechnics that were three federal and state owned. The sample size was attained using twostage sampling whereby in the first stagethe polytechnics were clustered according to states. In American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

A59



stage two, the polytechnics were stratified according to ownership, that is federal or state owned. The polytechnics studied were as follows; State Polytechnic and Hussaini Adamu Federal Polytechnic in Jigawa State; Nuhu Bamalli State Polytechnic and Kaduna Federal Polytechnic in Kaduna; Mohammed Abdullahi Wase Federal Polytechnic and Kano State Polytechnic in Kano State; Hassan Usman Katsina State Polytechnic and federal Polytechnic Katsina in Katsina State; Kebbi State Polytechnic and Federal Polytechnic, Birnin-Kebbi in Kebbi; Sokoto State Polytechnic and Kaura Namoda Federal Polytechnic in Sokoto; Abdul Gusau Polytechnic and Federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda in Zamfara State. Data Management The data collected were processed by coding all data questionnaires, entering them into the computer using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), summarising them using frequency tables and editing them to remove errors. To establish validity, Factor Analysis and only items that loaded 0.50 once on the component/ factor were adopted (Marsh, Morin, Parker & Kaur, 2014). Reliability was determined by calculating Cronbach alpha using SPSS. All the items attained reliability above the benchmark 0.7 (Amin, 2005) as follows; teaching (α = 0.873), supervision (α = 0.763), publication (α = 0.811), innovation (α = 0.809), community service (α = 0.930), transformational leadership (α = 0.893) and transactional leadership (α = 0.783). The data analysis involved descriptive and regression analyses. Descriptive analysis involved percentages from the frequency tables and the mean. Regression analysis involved building a predictive model by regressing the numerical index of the dependent variable that is academic staff productivity on the numerical indexes of the independent variables (IVs), namely transformational and transactional leadership practices. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to carry out data analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents The data on demographic characteristics of the respondents of the study in Table 2 indicate that that a typical respondent was an academic staff of Kaduna Polytechnic Kaduna State (24.6%), from federal polytechnics (55.8%), principal lecturer (18.6%) and employed on permanent terms (90.4%). Table 4. Respondents Demographic Characteristics Item Categories Polytechnic Kaduna Polytechnic Kaduna State Federal Polytechnic Kazaure Jigawa State Katsina State Polytechnic Kano State Polytechnic Sokoto State Polytechnic The federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda Total American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

Frequency 70 59 47 39 40 30 285

Percent 24.6 20.7 16.5 13.7 14.0 10.5 100.0 A60


Ownership of the polytechnic Position of appointment

Terms of employment

Federal State Total Assistant Lecturer Lecturer III Lecturer II Lecturer I Senior lecturer Principle Lecturer Chief lecturer Total Permanent Probation Contract Part-time Total


159 126 285 47 32 28 41 46 52 33 279 254 6 16 5 281

55.8 44.2 100.0 16.8 11.5 10.0 14.7 16.5 18.6 11.8 100.0 90.4 2.1 5.7 1.8 100.0

Employee Productivity The dependent variable was divided into aspects namely; teaching, supervision, publications, innovation and community services.The items were scaled using the four-point Likert scale ranging from a minimum of 1 for the worst case scenario (strongly disagree) to a maximum of 4, which is the best case scenario (Strongly agree). Table 2(a) illustrates that for teaching, all the nine items had means of about 3, and an overall mean of about 3, which on the scale used corresponded to “agree” and hence a good overall self-rating of the respondents on teaching. Table 2 (b) also illustrates that for supervision, all the four items had means of about 3, and an overall mean of about 3, which on the scale used corresponded to “agree” and hence a good overall self-rating of the respondents on supervision. Table 2 (c) indicates that for publications, all the seven items had means of almost 3, and an overall mean of about 2.90, which on the scale used corresponded to “agree” and hence a good overall self-rating of the respondents on publications. Table 2 (d) indicates that for innovation, all the four items had means of about 2, and an overall mean of about 2, which on the scale used corresponded to “disagree” and hence a poor overall self-rating of the respondents on innovation. Table 2 (e) reveals that for community service, all the eight items had means of about 3, and an overall mean of about 3, which on the scale used corresponded to “agree” and hence a good overall self-rating of the respondents on community service. Table 2: Means on Employee Productivity Constructs a) Teaching Productivity

Mean

I offer a simple, clear, concise language during lecturers. I keep the interest of student alive during lessons I am compassionate and tolerant to students to some extent. I offer a sufficient number and quality of course related resources.

3.19 3.42 3.45 3.35

American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

Overall mean 3.23

A61



I have consultation time to attend to the students. I facilitate my teaching on time I do extra time of teaching if it is necessary I finish my syllabus on time. b) Supervision Productivity

3.20 3.08 3.21 3.14 Mean

Whenever my supervisees need me I am available I help students to complete their dissertations/ research project within the stipulated time I motivate my students to work hard on their studies. visit students on industrial assignment/attachment c) Publication Productivity

3.24 3.30

I have published locally and international I have been able to produce an occasional paper. I have published a paper in conference proceedings locally and internationally I have produced a journal article I have written a technical report I have written a book chapter I have authored a scientific peer-reviewed bulletin d) Publication Innovation I have patented some innovations I made. I have made original products in the course of my duties with the students I spend time trying to create products invest machineries for industries. My products produced while working in this polytechnic are already in the market e) Community Service As a member of staff of this polytechnic I participate in community events I have participated in community improvement programmes as a member of this polytechnic I am involved in offering training sensitisation and mobilisation services to community I am involved in promoting the civic duties of the community I am Involved in collaborations with communities and stakeholders. As a member of staff, I participate in community activities As a member of staff I am involve in training the youth in community activities. As a member of staff, I personally make financial contributions to the community.

3.46 2.90 Mean 3.04 3.12 3.11 3.33 2.95 2.33 2.48 Mean 2.19 2.43 2.21 2.21 Mean 3.33 3.31

Overall mean 3.22

Overall mean 2.90

Overall mean 2.26

Overall mean 3.26

3.10 3.07 3.02 3.24 3.04 3.12

The independent variables in the study were two constructs that define leadership practices, namely; transformational and transactional leadership practices. Table 3 (a) shows that for American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

A62



transformational leadership, all the 10 items had means of approximately 3, and also an overall mean of approximately 3, which on the scale used corresponded to “agree” and hence a good overall rating the use of the transformational leadership practice in the polytechnics. Table 2 (b) reveals that for transactional leadership, had9 items with means of about 3 and one item with a mean of about 2, and an overall mean of about 3, which on the scale used corresponded to “agree” and hence a good overall rating of the use of the transactional leadership practice in the polytechnics. Table 2: Means on Leadership Constructs a) Transformational Leadership My superiors in instil pride in me I am provided reassurance of overcoming obstacles by my superiors My superiors promote among staff My superiors behave consistently with values. My superiors express confidence in me. My superiors provide me encouragement. My superiors talks enthusiastically about my performance My superiors encourage me to express my ideas I am provided advice for development by my superiors My superiors recognise my achievements b) Transactional Leadership

Mean 2.66 2.83 2.75 2.83 3.20 3.02 2.93 2.95 2.96 2.99 Mean

My superiors try to control misunderstandings among the staff My superiors tracks my mistakes My superiors enforces rules and policies My superiors look for mistakes My superiors make clear what one can expect to receive when goals are achieved My superiors monitor me as I execute tasks to maintain performance level My superiors work within the organisational rules and policies. My superior motivate me by working in my interests

2.99

My superiors stress correct actions to improve performance

2.91

Overall mean 0.893

Overall mean 2.83

2.47 2.90 2.22 2.66 2.80 2.91 2.65

Statistical Model for Prediction Employee Productivity Using Leadership Practices To establish whether the leadership practices predicted the employee productivity of the academic staff in polytechnics, the dependent variable namely, employee productivity was regressed against the independent variables leadership practices the results on the same results are in Table 4.


A63


Table 4: Regression of Employee Productivity on Leadership Practices Standardised Leadership Practices Β Transformational leadership 0.148 practices Transformational leadership -0.008 practices


Significance p 0.016 0.906

Adjusted R2 = 0.038 F = 5.512, p = 0.005 The results in Table 4.32 show that the two leadership practices explained 3.8% of the variation in academic staff productivity (adjusted R2 = 0.038). This means that 96.2% of the joint variation was accounted for by other factors not considered under this paper. The regression model was significant (F = 5.512, p = 0.005 < 0.05). Only the transformational leadership practice (β = 0.148, p = 0.016 < 0.05) was a positive significant predictor academic staff productivity while transactional leadership practice (-0.008, p= 0.906 > 0.05) was not. The study revealed that the first hypothesis (HI) that transformational leadership influences academic staff productivity was supported. This finding was consistent with the finding by Pradeep and Prabhu (2011) that transformational leadership had a significant positive relationship with the employee performance/ outcomes. Similarly, Paracha et al. (2012) indicated that transformational leadership significantly positivelly correlated with employee performance. Likewise,Singh (2015) found that transformational leadership had significant role in predicting employee productivity.Equally, Thamrin (2012) showed that transformational leadership had a positive significant influence on employees’ performance. Further still, Wang et al (2011) revealed that transformational leadership positively significantly related with individual and team level organisational performance However, the finding was inconsistent with the finding by Obiwuru et al. (2011) that transformational leadership style had a positive but insignificant effect on performance. However, with the finding consistent with most of the earlier studies, the results suggest that transformational leadership has a positive significant relationship with academic staff productivity. On the other hand, the findings revealed that transactional leadership practice had an insignificant influence on employee productivity. This finding supports the finding byOjokuku et al. (2012) that transactional leadership was an insignificant predictor of organisational performance. However, this was contrary with the findings of other scholars. For instance,Ejere and Abasilim (2013) found that transactional leadership style had positive impact on organisational performance. Similarly, Obiwuru et al. (2011) revealed that transactional leadership style had a significant positive effect on performance. Pradeep and Prabhu (2011) in their study in India revealed that transactional leadership had a significant positive relationship with employee performance. Likewise, Paracha et al. (2012) established a significant positive correlation between transactional leadership and employee performance. Still, Singh (2015) found out that transactional leadership played a significant role in predicting employee productivity in private banks in India. These results suggest that the influence of transactional leadership was depended on the context of different organisations. The study findings above reveal that that the most appropriate leadership practice was the transformational leadership American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

A64



practice. This study therefore recommends that managers of organisations such as polytechnics should emphasise the transformational leadership practice in providing leadership to their staff. CONCLUSIONS Extant scholarly literature reveals that employee productivity has a significant positive influence on performance of organisations. Productive employee accomplish organisational goals and objectives, effectively perform of tasks,use resources efficiently, have quality of output, workmanship, adherence to standards and lead to customer satisfaction. This paper reported on a survey on employee productivity in polytechnic in North Western Nigeria with the purpose linking employee productivity with two leadership practices, namely transformational and transactional. In this attempt, the study closed gaps such as the study being carried out in the context of polytechnics and in the context of Africa that had been largely ignored by earlier studies. The study also emphasised that transformational leadership was a significant predictor employee productivity which had disputed by scholars such as Ojokuku et al. (2012) that transactional leadership was an insignificant predictor of organisational performance. RECOMMENDATIONS The findings of this study have practical significance to managers of academic institutions in Nigeria such as polytechnics. In particular, the finding that transformational leadership is a significant a positive predictor suggests that it is an important factor of employee productivity. Therefore, this study recommends that managers of organisations such as polytechnics should emphasise the transformational leadership practice in providing leadership to their staff. Conversely, the finding that transactional leadership did significantly predict employee productivity leads to the assumption that it is not a very important factor in the effort to promote productivity of academic staff. REFERENCES Abu-Tineh, A. M., Khasawneh, S. A., & Al-Omari, A. A. (2008). Kouzes and Posner's transformational leadership model in practice: The case of Jordanian schools. Leadership & organisation development journal, 29(8), 648-660. Al-Baradie, R. S. (2014). Encouraging the heart. International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 1(1), 11-16. Amin, M. E. (2005). Social Science Research: Conception, Methodology and Analysis. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere University Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic literature, 49(2), 326-365. Anumaka, I. B., & Ssemugenyi, F. (2013). Gender and work-productivity of academic staff in selected private universities in Kampala City, Uganda. International Journal of Research in Business Management, 1(3), 29-36.


A65



Ayinde, H. (2014). Employee welfare programmes: Panacea towards improving labour productivity in the service sector in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(10), 78-81. Bolden, R., Golsling,J.,Marturano,A. and Dennison.(2003) A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks; Centre for leadership studies, university of Exeter,UK From: http//www.leadershipstudies.com Chandna, P., & Krishnan, V. R. (2009). Organisational commitment of information technology professionals: Role of transformational leadership and work-related beliefs. Tecnia Journal of Management Studies, 4(1), 1-13. Chaudhry, A. Q., & Javed, H. (2012). Impact of transactional and laissez faire leadership style on motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 258-264. Densten, I. L. (2006). Negotiating extra effort through contingent rewards. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 27(1), 38-49. Ejere, E. I., & Abasilim, U. D. (2013). Impact of transactional and transformational leadership styles on organisational performance: empirical evidence from Nigeria. The Journal of Commerce, 5(1), 30-44. Givens, R. J. (2008). Transformational leadership: The impact on organisational and personal outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(1), 4-24. Gujral, G. S. (2012). Leadership qualities for effective leaders. New Delhi, India: Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. Haenisch, J. P. (2012). Factors affecting the productivity of government workers. SAGE Open, 17. Harold, C. M., & Holtz, B. C. (2015). The effects of passive leadership on workplace incivility. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 36(1), 16-38. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The five practices of exemplary leadership. New Jersey, USA: Pfeiffer Wiley Publishers. Leblebici, D. (2012). Impact of workplace quality on employee’s productivity: case study of a bank in Turkey. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 1(1), 38-49. Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modelling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. Nikezić, S., Purić., & Purić, J. (2012). Transactional and transformational leadership: development through changes. International Journal for Quality research, 6(3), 285-296. Obiwuru, T. C., Okwu, A. T., Akpa, V. O., & Nwankwere, I. A. (2011). Effects of leadership style on organisational performance: A survey of selected small scale enterprises in IkosiKetu council development area of Lagos State, Nigeria. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(7), 100-111. Odumeru, J. A., & Ogbonna, I. G. (2013). Transformational vs. Transactional leadership theories: Evidence in literature. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(2), 355-360. Ojokuku, R. M., Odetayo, T. A., & Sajuyigbe, A. S. (2012). Impact of leadership style on organisational performance: a case study of Nigerian banks. American Journal of Business and Management, 1(4), 202-207. Oyekan, O. A. (2014).Resource situation as determinants of academicstaff productivity in Nigerian Universities.European Journal of Globalization and Development Research, 9(1), 545-551. American Scholarly Research Association www.ASRAresearch.org

A66



Paracha, M. U., Qamar, A., Mirza, A., Hassan, I., & Waqas, H. (2012). Impact of leadership style (transformational & transactional leadership) on employee performance & mediating role of job satisfaction: Study of private school (educator) in Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(4), 55-64. Pradeep, D. D., & Prabhu, N. R. V. (2011). The relationship between effective leadership and employee performance. Journal of Advancements in Information Technology, 20, 198207. Rahman, S., & Rahman, M. (2009). Impact of land fragmentation and resource ownership on productivity and efficiency: The case of rice producers in Bangladesh. Land Use Policy, 26(1), 95-103. Raza, H., Anjum, M., & Zia, S. M. (2014). The impacts of employee’s job performance behaviour and organisational culture on organisational productivity in pharmaceutical industries in Karachi. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(12), 285-400. Reed, D. A., Enders, F., Lindor, R., McClees, M., & Lindor, K. D. (2011). Gender differences in academic productivity and leadership appointments of physicians throughout academic careers. Academic Medicine, 86(1), 43-47. Sharma, M. K., & Jain, M. S. (2013). Leadership management: Principles, models and theories. Global Journal of Management and Business Studies, 3(3), 309-318. Singh, K. (2015). Leadership style and employee productivity: A case study of Indian banking organisations. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 8(2), 39-67. Sullivan, T. A., Mackie, C., Massy, W. F., & Sinha, E. (2012). Improving Measurement of Productivity in Higher Education (Editors). New York, USA: National Academy of Sciences. Thamrin, H. M. (2012). The Influence of Transformational Leadership andOrganisational Commitment on Job Satisfaction andEmployee Performance. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(5), 566-572. Townsend, B. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2007). Workload issues and measures of faculty productivity.The NEA Higher Education Journal: Thought & Action, 23, 7-20. Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R.J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134-143. Wamala, R., & Ssembatya, V. A. (2015) Productivity in academia: An assessment of causal linkages between output and outcome indicators. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(2), 184-195. Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270. Worthington, A. C., & Lee, B. L. (2008). Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Economics of education review, 27(3), 285-298. Xirasagar, S. (2008). Transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership among physician executives. Journal of Health organization and management, 22(6), 599-613. Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organisational effectiveness. The leadership quarterly, 19(6), 708-722.


A67



Copyright: © 2016 Abba, Anumaka, & Gaite. Authors retain copyright and grant American Scholarly Research Association a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Users can share, adapt, and make commercial use of articles as long as proper credit is given to authors and the original publisher.


A68