Motivating Peak Performance on Employee
Questionnaire (ML-rater version) and multiple regressions models were utilized to create a four-factor leadership model that identified the significant predictive leadership variables that correlate with motivation for extra effort among workers. This new model was slightly more predictive of variance in motivation toward extra effort (adjusted RE = 0. 64) than the individual models of transformational leadership, and much more predictive than the transactional leadership or laissez-fairer leadership models.
The four-factor leadership model simplifies the leadership recess by reducing the number of significant leadership behaviors from a possibility of nine factors to four significant leadership variables for consideration by leaders who desire to effectively increase motivation toward extra effort among their staff. The role of leadership has been examined in numerous empirical studies and countless articles, essays, and books.
From the early research of Lenin, Lippies, and White (1939) and the subsequent work of Bradford and Lippies (1945), laissez-fairer leaders have been identified as demonstrating a frustrating and less effective leadership style in many leadership situations. The lack of direct interaction between leaders and workers has consistently demonstrated a negative correlation with motivation toward extra effort among employees. Additional research has focused on the transactional leadership style with its composite behaviors of contingent reward and management-by-exception (Bass, 1985).
Transactional leaders achieve greater results through the use of management-bisection whereby workers are punished or rewarded for their Address correspondence to Kerry Webb, Texas Women’s university. P. O. BOX 425649, Denton, TX, 76204-5649. E-mail: [email protected] Deed 53 4 K. Webb actions. According to Bass (1985, 1990), leaders who utilize management-by-exception do not get involved with subordinates unless mistakes or deviations from the norm occur.
In such cases, the leader establishes a predetermined consequence or corrective action for specific failures and enforces punishments when required. Leaders who are more passive may wait to be notified of failures (Hater & Bass, 1988), but more active leaders look for failures and create systems to warn of potential workers who either maintain the status quo or strive to perform specific tasks with perfection. However, this leader behavior does not facilitate personal growth or increase motivation or loyalty from workers (Bass, 1985).
Transactional leaders and workers often engage in a reciprocal process of contingent rewards in management (Howell & Viola, 1993) in which each party strives to meet certain expectations or performs specific actions or behaviors in order to achieve a desired benefit or reward. This reinforcement strategy has been practiced for centuries and Bass (1990) has provided numerous historical illustrations to describe this type of leadership behavior.
Much of the research has revealed a positive correlation between intention rewards and organizational outcomes (Blanchard and Johnson, 1985; Howell & Viola, 1993; Lowe, Crock, & Submariner’s, 1996). Further research on leadership theory, much of which has been based upon Burns’ (1978) earlier research on political leadership, has identified an even more effective leadership style typically called transformational leadership.
Initially, transformational leadership was understood to include charisma, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Viola, Walden, & Einstein, 1988; Bass, 1990). As a result of supplementary research, two additional components of transformational leadership ere identified: inspirational motivation and idealized influence (Barbour, 1997; Hunt, 1999). Effectiveness among transformational leaders is measured by the effect of leader behaviors on followers.
Subordinates of transformational leaders verbalize feelings of admiration, respect, trust, and appreciation toward these leaders and are motivated to provide extra effort (Bass, 1985; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Transformational leaders are able to increase motivation toward extra Motivating Peak Performance 55 effort from their followers because the leader is able to motivate workers to higher bevels of personal expectation and individual commitment (Yammering & Bass, 1990).
Method Sample The population for this study consisted of 105 member institutions within the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CUE). Three vice presidents and/or chief officers were surveyed from each institution to determine the prevalent leader behaviors of the president and the effects of these leader behaviors on the motivation toward extra effort for the vice presidents and chief officers. The vice presidents selected for the survey worked in the areas of academic affairs, student life, and financial affairs.
The sample comprised participants who responded to the survey: 223 vice presidents and chief officers from 104 member CUE institutions. These respondents represented 25 provosts, 53 vice presidents of academic affairs, 46 vice presidents of business or financial affairs, 43 vice presidents or deans of student affairs, 21 executive vice presidents, five vice presidents for advancement, 11 other chief officer positions, and 24 chief officers who did not knowledge, experience, and ability to work in close proximity with the president of their given institution.