Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Impact of Leadership on Business Performance – Leadership Analytical Concept Cover

Impact of Leadership on Business Performance – Leadership Analytical Concept

Research in Social Change
Volume 14 (2022): Issue 1 (December 2022)
By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Aug 2023
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

The employee engagement scorecard.

graphic/j_rsc-2022-0009_tab_001.jpg

[i] Source: Kumar and Pansari (2015).

Figure 1.

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

Table 2.

Global and macro drivers of engagement.

Global DriversMacro Drivers
Good future perspective of the companyAn inspiring leader
Work-life balanceWorking environment that shows responsibility to the employees
Passionate about workWorking environment that supports individual improvement and passion
Promising career path for the employeeAn inspiring leader
SafetyWorking environment that shows responsibility to the employees
Organization responsibility for the employeeWorking environment that shows responsibility to the employees
Education for competency improvementWorking environment that supports individual improvement and passion
RecognitionManagers who strive to peak team performance
Trust to leaders and leadershipAn inspiring leader
Team empowermentManagers who strive to peak team performance
Figure 2.

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

Figure 3.

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.

Figure 5.

Healthy and unhealthy engagement level – impact on performance.

Table 3.

Type ‘Enthusiast’.

Enthusiasts
EngagementEVPPotentialWork - Life BalanceSatisfaction
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 EVP
Observed company as a good place to work
Like the organization's culture and see the opportunities for professional and personal growth.		High potential
Great potential for creativity and innovations.
Proactive and independent in decision - making process.
Work effectively most of the working time		Good balance
Because of high engagement, tend to deteriorate in this dimension.		Very satisfied with the organizational culture and work they do.
Table 4.

Type ‘Worker’.

Workers
EngagementEVPPotentialWork - Life BalanceSatisfaction
Engaged but not high as Enthusiasts
Mostly determined by the sallary as their primary motivation factor		Neutral EVP
Mostly determined by the sallary		An average potential
Less 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 balance
Work as much as they have to do
Not ready to give above expected		Mostly determined by the sallary
Table 5.

Type ‘Parasite’.

Parasites
EngagementEVPPotentialWork - Life BalanceSatisfaction
Regulary disengaged
Negativ impact on others		Neutral EVP
Only determined by tie sallary		Different range od potential
Full leader's control to nuke them work effectively		Neutral to this dismesion (can have both high and low)
Work less then they have to do
Not ready to give even what expected from them		Not satisfied with work
If satisfied it is probably because they can shirk
Figure 6.

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

Table 6.

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

Quadrant I. Cognition-Extrapersonal (Head-Context) “Analytical skills”
FactorsR2 RangeSuggested Measures
1. Intellectual curiosity.15–.33aIntellectual 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–.18bCritical thinking (Watson & Glaser, 1994)
Strategic thinking (Stumpf, 1988)
Business acumen (Bassellier & Benbasat, 2004)
3. Decision making.01–.58cDecision-making self-efficacy (Taylor & Betz, 1983)
Decisiveness (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994)
Assertiveness (Rathus, 1973)
4. Problem solving.08–.21dEveryday 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)

Notes: R2 range = effect size range across studies including this factor as a prodictor of leadership effectiveness or a similar outcome measure.

a See Ashford and Tsui (1991): Judgo. Colbert, and Ilies (2004); and Sllverthorne (2001).

b See Fleming (2004) and Young. Arthur, and Finch (2000).

c See Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2001) and Ames and Flynn (2007).

d See Connelly et al. (2000) and Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996).

Source: Dries and Pepermans (2012, 371).

Table 7.

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

Quadrant II. Cognition-Intrapersonal (Head-Self) “Learning agility”
FactorsR2 RangeSuggested Measures
5. Willingness to learn.17–.30aLearning 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–.19bEmotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997)
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002)
7. Adaptability.06–.18cAdaptive performance (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000)
Behavioral flexibility (Kaiser, Lindberg, & Craig, 2007)
Openness to change (Susskind, Miller, & Johnson, 1998)
Proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993)

Notes: R2 range effect-size range across studies including this factor as a predictor of leadership effectiveness or a similar outcome measure.

a See Elchinger and Lombardo (2004) and Fleming (2004).

b See Kerr, Garvin. Heaton, and Boyle (2006) and Rosete and Clarrochi (2005).

c See Crant and Bateman (2000) and Hall, Workman, and Marchioro (1998).

Source: Dries and Pepermans (2012, 372).

Table 8.

Suggestions for measures related to quadrant III (Drive).

Quadrant III. Conation-Intrapersonal (Heart-Self) “Drive”
FactorsR2 RangeSuggested Measures
8. Results orientation.09–.19aNeed 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–.21bPerseverance (Stoltz, 1997)
(Lack of) perseverance (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001)
Work drive (Lounsbury, Gibson, & Hamrick, 2004)
10. Dedication.08–.21cExtra-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)

Notes: R2 range effect-size range across studies including this factor as a predictor of leadership effectiveness or a similar outcome measure.

a See Fleming (2004) and Janssen and Van Yperen (2004).

b See Atwater. Dionne, Avolio, Camobreco, and Lau (1999); Norman, Avolio. and Luthans (2010); and Pillai and Williams (2004).

c See De Cremer and van Knippenberg (2004) and Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002).

Source: Dries and Pepermans (2012, 372).

Table 9.

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

Quadrant I. Conation-Extrapersonal (Heart-Context) “Emergent leadership”
FactorsR2 RangeSuggested Measures
11. Motivation to lead.05–68aMotivation 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–.71bLeader impression management (Gardner & Cleavenger, 1998)
Influencing strategies and styles (Manning & Robertson. 2003)
Charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1994)
Power (Finkelstein, 1992)
13. Stakeholder sensitivity.25–.60cCustomer orientation (Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, 1993)
Market orientation (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)
Networking behaviors (Forret & Dougherty, 2001)
Political skill (Ferris et al., 2005)

Notes: R2 range effect-size range across studies including this factor as a predictor of leadership effectiveness or a similar outcome measure.

a See Lowe et al. (1996) and Vilkinas, Shen, and Cartan (2009).

b See Howell and Higgins (1990): Lowe et al. (1996); and Sosik (2005).

c See Douglas and Ammeter (2004) and Mehra, Dixon, Brass, and Robertson (2006).

Source: Dries and Pepermans (2012, 373).

Figure 7.

Analytical leadership framework.

Source: Author.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rsc-2022-0009 | Journal eISSN: 2463-8226
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 121 - 138
Published on: Aug 29, 2023
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
leadership,
engagement,
business outcome,
employment,
value proposition,
employee type
Related subjects:
Social sciences,
Sociology,
Culture,
Sociology, other,
Political sociology,
Psychology,
Psychology, other

© 2023 Mirko Talajic, Robert Kopal, Leo Mršić, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 14 (2022): Issue 1 (December 2022)
Previous article