Acceso abierto

Impact of Leadership on Business Performance – Leadership Analytical Concept

Mirko Talajic
Mirko Talajic
, 
Robert Kopal
Robert Kopal
 y 
Leo Mršić
Leo Mršić
   | 29 ago 2023
Research in Social Change's Cover Image
Acerca de este artículo
Artículo anterior
Artículo siguiente
Cite
Article Category: Original Scientific Article
Publicado en línea: 29 ago 2023
Páginas: 121 - 138
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rsc-2022-0009
Palabras clave
© 2022 Mirko Talajic et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Employee engagement framework. Source: Jewel and Reznik (2016, 37).
Employee engagement framework. Source: Jewel and Reznik (2016, 37).

Figure 2.

Employee engagement model and outcomes. Source: Wiley, Kowske and Herman (2010, 360).
Employee engagement model and outcomes. Source: Wiley, Kowske and Herman (2010, 360).

Figure 3.

Dimensions of Employee Value Proposition model. Source: Browne (2012, 43).
Dimensions of Employee Value Proposition model. Source: Browne (2012, 43).

Figure 4.

Linkage model of the EVP, employee engagement and business outcome measures. Source: Heger (2007, 125). AR, accounts receivable.
Linkage model of the EVP, employee engagement and business outcome measures. Source: Heger (2007, 125). AR, accounts receivable.

Figure 5.

Healthy and unhealthy engagement level – impact on performance.
Healthy and unhealthy engagement level – impact on performance.

Figure 6.

Four quadrants of leadership factors. Source: Dries and Pepermans (2012, 365).
Four quadrants of leadership factors. Source: Dries and Pepermans (2012, 365).

Figure 7.

Analytical leadership framework.Source: Author.
Analytical leadership framework.Source: Author.

Type ‘Enthusiast’.

Enthusiasts
Engagement EVP Potential Work - Life Balance Satisfaction
High engagement level (healthy engagement)Sometimes very close to the margins where leaders should helped them not to cross over the line into the unhealthy engagement area High EVPObserved company as a good place to workLike the organization's culture and see the opportunities for professional and personal growth. High potentialGreat potential for creativity and innovations.Proactive and independent in decision - making process.Work effectively most of the working time Good balanceBecause of high engagement, tend to deteriorate in this dimension. Very satisfied with the organizational culture and work they do.

Type ‘Parasite’.

Parasites
Engagement EVP Potential Work - Life Balance Satisfaction
Regulary disengagedNegativ impact on others Neutral EVPOnly determined by tie sallary Different range od potentialFull leader's control to nuke them work effectively Neutral to this dismesion (can have both high and low)Work less then they have to doNot ready to give even what expected from them Not satisfied with workIf satisfied it is probably because they can shirk

Global and macro drivers of engagement.

Global Drivers Macro Drivers
Good future perspective of the company An inspiring leader
Work-life balance Working environment that shows responsibility to the employees
Passionate about work Working environment that supports individual improvement and passion
Promising career path for the employee An inspiring leader
Safety Working environment that shows responsibility to the employees
Organization responsibility for the employee Working environment that shows responsibility to the employees
Education for competency improvement Working environment that supports individual improvement and passion
Recognition Managers who strive to peak team performance
Trust to leaders and leadership An inspiring leader
Team empowerment Managers who strive to peak team performance

Suggestions for measures related to quadrant III (Drive).

Quadrant III. Conation-Intrapersonal (Heart-Self) “Drive”
Factors R2 Range Suggested Measures
8. Results orientation .09–.19a Need for achievement—Thematic Apperception Test (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958)Need for achievement—Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (Edwards, 1959)Competitiveness index (Smither & Houston, 1992)
9. Perseverance .09–.21b Perseverance (Stoltz, 1997)(Lack of) perseverance (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001)Work drive (Lounsbury, Gibson, & Hamrick, 2004)
10. Dedication .08–.21c Extra-role behavior (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)Work engagement (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002)Organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1989)Internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966)

Suggestions for measures related to quadrant I (Analytical skills).

Quadrant I. Cognition-Extrapersonal (Head-Context) “Analytical skills”
Factors R2 Range Suggested Measures
1. Intellectual curiosity .15–.33a Intellectual curiosity (Kempa & Dube, 1973)Openness to experience (McCrae & Costa, 1997)Feedback-seeking strategy (Ashford & Tsui, 1991)Social intelligence (Silvera, Martinussen, & Dahl, 2001)
2. Strategic insight .02–.18b Critical thinking (Watson & Glaser, 1994)Strategic thinking (Stumpf, 1988)Business acumen (Bassellier & Benbasat, 2004)
3. Decision making .01–.58c Decision-making self-efficacy (Taylor & Betz, 1983)Decisiveness (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)Assertiveness (Rathus, 1973)
4. Problem solving .08–.21d Everyday problem solving—work domain (Cornelius & Caspi, 1987)Planful problem solving (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986)Attributional complexity (Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez. Peterson, & Reeder, 1986)

Suggestions for measures related to quadrant IV (Emergent leadership).

Quadrant I. Conation-Extrapersonal (Heart-Context) “Emergent leadership”
Factors R2 Range Suggested Measures
11. Motivation to lead .05–68a Motivation to lead (Chan & Drasgow, 2001)General managerial competence career anchor (Schein, 1978)Getting ahead, career success orientation (Derr, 1986)Peer nomination as a leader (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009)
12. Self-promotion .03–.71b Leader impression management (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998)Influencing strategies and styles (Manning & Robertson. 2003)Charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1994)Power (Finkelstein, 1992)
13. Stakeholder sensitivity .25–.60c Customer orientation (Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, 1993)Market orientation (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)Networking behaviors (Forret & Dougherty, 2001)Political skill (Ferris et al., 2005)

Suggestions for measures related to quadrant II (Learning agility).

Quadrant II. Cognition-Intrapersonal (Head-Self) “Learning agility”
Factors R2 Range Suggested Measures
5. Willingness to learn .17–.30a Learning agility—Choices Architect questionnaire (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2003)Willingness to learn from experience (Zakay, Ellis, & Shevalsky, 2004)Ability to learn from experience—Prospector instrument (Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997)
6. Emotional intelligence .01–.19b Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997)Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002)
7. Adaptability .06–.18c Adaptive performance (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000)Behavioral flexibility (Kaiser, Lindberg, & Craig, 2007)Openness to change (Susskind, Miller, & Johnson, 1998)Proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993)

Type ‘Worker’.

Workers
Engagement EVP Potential Work - Life Balance Satisfaction
Engaged but not high as EnthusiastsMostly determined by the sallary as their primary motivation factor Neutral EVPMostly determined by the sallary An average potentialLess potential for creativity and innovations.Less proactive and independent in decision - making process then Enthusiasts.More leader's control to make them work effectively Good balanceWork as much as they have to doNot ready to give above expected Mostly determined by the sallary
eISSN:
2463-8226
Idioma:
Inglés
Calendario de la edición:
Volume Open
Temas de la revista:
Social Sciences, Sociology, Culture, other, Political Sociology, Psychology
RSS Feed de revista