Leadership Practices and Productivity of Academic … Practices and Productivity of Academic Staff...

American Journal of Academic Research Original Research Article

Volume 1, Number 2, 2016

American Scholarly Research Association A56

www.ASRAresearch.org

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/ajar-

vol-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

mailto:[email protected]







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





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





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 two-

stage sampling whereby in the first stagethe polytechnics were clustered according to states. In





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 Frequency Percent

Polytechnic Kaduna Polytechnic Kaduna State 70 24.6

Federal Polytechnic Kazaure Jigawa State 59 20.7

Katsina State Polytechnic 47 16.5

Kano State Polytechnic 39 13.7

Sokoto State Polytechnic 40 14.0

The federal Polytechnic Kaura Namoda 30 10.5

Total 285 100.0





Ownership of the

polytechnic

Federal 159 55.8

State 126 44.2

Total 285 100.0

Position of

appointment

Assistant Lecturer 47 16.8

Lecturer III 32 11.5

Lecturer II 28 10.0

Lecturer I 41 14.7

Senior lecturer 46 16.5

Principle Lecturer 52 18.6

Chief lecturer 33 11.8

Total 279 100.0

Terms of

employment

Permanent 254 90.4

Probation 6 2.1

Contract 16 5.7

Part-time 5 1.8

Total 281 100.0

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 Overall

mean

I offer a simple, clear, concise language during lecturers. 3.19 3.23

I keep the interest of student alive during lessons 3.42

I am compassionate and tolerant to students to some extent. 3.45

I offer a sufficient number and quality of course related resources. 3.35





I have consultation time to attend to the students. 3.20

I facilitate my teaching on time 3.08

I do extra time of teaching if it is necessary 3.21

I finish my syllabus on time. 3.14

b) Supervision Productivity Mean Overall

mean

Whenever my supervisees need me I am available 3.24 3.22

I help students to complete their dissertations/ research project within the

stipulated time

3.30

I motivate my students to work hard on their studies. 3.46

visit students on industrial assignment/attachment 2.90

c) Publication Productivity Mean Overall

mean

I have published locally and international 3.04 2.90

I have been able to produce an occasional paper. 3.12

I have published a paper in conference proceedings locally and

internationally

3.11

I have produced a journal article 3.33

I have written a technical report 2.95

I have written a book chapter 2.33

I have authored a scientific peer-reviewed bulletin 2.48

d) Publication Innovation Mean Overall

mean

I have patented some innovations I made. 2.19 2.26

I have made original products in the course of my duties with the students 2.43

I spend time trying to create products invest machineries for industries. 2.21

My products produced while working in this polytechnic are already in the

market

2.21

e) Community Service Mean Overall

mean

As a member of staff of this polytechnic I participate in community events 3.33 3.26

I have participated in community improvement programmes as a member

of this polytechnic

3.31

I am involved in offering training sensitisation and mobilisation services to

community

3.10

I am involved in promoting the civic duties of the community 3.07

I am Involved in collaborations with communities and stakeholders. 3.02

As a member of staff, I participate in community activities 3.24

As a member of staff I am involve in training the youth in community

activities.

3.04

As a member of staff, I personally make financial contributions to the

community.

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





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 Mean Overall

mean

My superiors in instil pride in me 2.66 0.893

I am provided reassurance of overcoming obstacles by my

superiors

2.83

My superiors promote among staff 2.75

My superiors behave consistently with values. 2.83

My superiors express confidence in me. 3.20

My superiors provide me encouragement. 3.02

My superiors talks enthusiastically about my performance 2.93

My superiors encourage me to express my ideas 2.95

I am provided advice for development by my superiors 2.96

My superiors recognise my achievements 2.99

b) Transactional Leadership Mean Overall mean

My superiors try to control misunderstandings among the

staff

2.99 2.83

My superiors tracks my mistakes 2.47

My superiors enforces rules and policies 2.90

My superiors look for mistakes 2.22

My superiors make clear what one can expect to receive

when goals are achieved

2.66

My superiors monitor me as I execute tasks to maintain

performance level

2.80

My superiors work within the organisational rules and

policies.

2.91

My superior motivate me by working in my interests

2.65

My superiors stress correct actions to improve performance 2.91

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.





Table 4: Regression of Employee Productivity on Leadership Practices

Leadership Practices

Standardised

Β

Significance

p

Transformational leadership

practices

0.148 0.016

Transformational leadership

practices

Adjusted R2 = 0.038

F = 5.512, p = 0.005

-0.008 0.906

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





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.





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, 1-

7.

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 Ikosi-

Ketu 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.





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, 198-

207.

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.





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.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngokiet
View:	229 times
Download:	1 times

Leadership Practices and Productivity of Academic … Practices and Productivity of Academic Staff...

Documents