Determine which leadership style (Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leader) maximizes the dependent variables (Job Performance, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction) for remote workers.

The of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction in a Remote Setting

Chapters 1, 2, & 3

 

Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 4 Purpose of the study 7 Statement of the Problem 7 Definition of Terms 7 Theoretical Framework 8 Research Questions and Hypotheses 9 Scope of the Study 9 Significance of the Study 10 Summary 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 36 Research Design 36 Quantitative Causal Comparative Design 36 Research Questions 37 Table1. 38 Population and Sample 39 Remote employees 39 Quantitative Sample Size 39 Instrumentation 40 Data collection 41 Validity 43 Reliability 44 Data Analysis: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) 45 Research Procedures 46 Protection of Human Rights 46 Ethics 47 Delimitations and Limitations 47 Assumptions, Risk, and Biases 48 Data Assumptions 48 Assumption 1 50 Assumption 2 50 Assumption 3 50 Assumption 4 51 Assumption 5 51 Assumption 6 52 Assumption 7 52 Assumption 8 52 Assumption 9 52 Assumption 10 53 Table 2. 53 Significance of the Study 55 Summary 55 References 57 Appendices 65 Appendix A: Informed Consent Form for Participants 66 Appendix B: Demographics 67 Screening Questionnaire for Participants 67 Appendix C: Research Permission 68 IWPQ Permission to Use 69 Appendix D: MLQ Permission 71 Appendix E: MLQ 72 Appendix F: Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ) 74 Appendix G: G*Power 77 Appendix H: SurveyMonkey 78 The Questionnaire: 78 Appendix I: Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) 80 Appendix J: Permission for Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) 82

 

Chapter 1: Introduction

 

Apart from the continuous advancements in technology, the world has continued to accept the need of remote work setting. After the COVID-19 breakout, the idea of remote working has not only been effective but it has also shown a promising future due to the increased employee performance and satisfaction. However, remote work setting has also presented a few challenges that majorly depend on type of leadership applied which also aligns with the needed work structure and culture. With this information in mind, the paper will highly focus on analyzing the impact of various leadership styles and approaches on employee motivation, performance, and job satisfaction on remote setting. The extensiveness of the research will be guided by different factors that largely ‘touch’ on issues affecting productive and proactive work environment, i.e., organizational structure, management, culture, and the nature of work setting.

 

When dealing with workers on a remote work setting, the style of leadership approach has to capture various essential details that affect employee motivation and satisfaction. Any employee working in a remote work setting is expected to experience a number of challenges which can vary depending on the individual’s personality and background. In most cases, employees will be expected to feel isolated, pressured, lack structure, and have difficulty in separating personal life and work (Chen, Liu, & Zhang, 2020). On the same note, workers in remote work setting have been described to have a lot of difficulties when it came to effective communication and collaborations among the management structure. These issues are a direct result of geographical difference and the aspect of facing various additional problems. In response to these challenges, majority of employees in remote workplace tend to feel unmotivated and unsatisfied with their work since everyone tends lose interest to that common goal.

 

In any work setting, attaining effective leadership can be quite challenging which makes it even more difficult when it comes to remote setting. It’s important to start by noting that leadership plays a very crucial role in promoting effective communication that translates to a proactive and productive workforce (Chen, Liu, & Zhang, 2020). Following the above comment, remote workplace creates a bit complicated scenario of which the absence of physical leadership prompts out various challenges such lack of motivation, guidance, and most importantly support from one another. Though Karim & Abbas, (2020) findings, leadership style has a significant connection with how employees view their work experience and how they find their place within an organization. For instance, participative and transformational leadership styles have been commended on improving employee performance while at the same time increasing their job satisfaction.

 

Despite having various challenges, remote working has shown very promising prospects in terms of employee performance, motivation, and satisfaction. According to the report from big IT companies such as Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and others, workers have shown an increased sense of creativity while work in remote areas as compared when they are operating within their work stations. This finding has forced most of these companies to review working policies with workers being allowed to work more remotely. While implementing such a plan, there must be full account of all features affecting employees where the style of leadership chosen must be able to offer each employee with the needed inspiration and guidance. In relation to remote work setting, the instilled leadership style has to cover each individual traits as it would highly depend on their reactions without being supervised (Chen, Liu, & Zhang, 2020).

 

Depending on the nature and type of workforce, the ability to choose the right style of leadership can be a little difficult than most us would assume or expect. For example, it would take a very different actions to give direction to non-skilled workforce as compared to semi-skilled or skilled workforce (Goleman, 2000). Because of this issues, various scholars and researchers have devoted a lot of their efforts in identifying leadership determinants across different time and cultures. As times keep on changing, the world has been forced to change or to quickly adapt to the new demands of workplace environment (Allred, Crawford, David, & Anderson, 2018). For instance, a lot of ‘giant’ companies around the world have resulted on exploiting cheap labor on foreign countries which showcases the essence of output cost while disregarding employee wants and needs. If anyone would closely check, one would see or find out that most these companies contradict their organizational goals, culture, and ethics just to increase their returns.

 

Over the past few decades, there have been a lot of research done of styles of leadership and the context in which they suitably work. In general, leadership style can be described as an approach or structure used to direct or coordinate team or teams to achieve a common goal. Therefore, it’s essential to note that leadership plays a crucial role in any organization in relation to providing employees with motivation, direction, and purpose of achieving the organization mission and goals. According Araz & Azadegan-Mehr, (2021), for any leadership style to be considered effective, it must have a well-structured communication channel that allows smooth flow of information without or with minimal distortion. With this in mind, effective leadership style must be reliable in terms of delivering messages while at the same time positively influencing employee’s attitude. These aspects have been identified in the paper as one of the main features that must accounted when choosing a leadership style for remote workers.

 

Across the paper, there are various styles covered which all have different approaches and application. However, in regards to the topic at hand, participative and transformational leadership style have a significant impact on remote working employees. These two types of leadership have been described to have a great influence on employee’s performance, motivation, and satisfaction. The main elements that have contributed to this success is the fact that employees are able to express their ideas and emotions to one another by participating in decision making process (Allred et. Al., 2018). On the other hand, depending on the nature of work, the style of leadership also tends to vary with some work, such in the security sector, being sensitive than others thereby requiring more rigid structures.

 

In summary, it’s important to note that effective leadership style is also highly dependent on the organization structure and culture irrespective of whether it’s operating physically or remotely. Apart from only offering direction, an effective leadership style has to set a tone for the organization by establishing a clear vision, mission, goals, and values that helps it to thrive. Therefore, the alignment of leadership style and organizational structure and culture is significantly important in achieving employee’s performance, motivation, and job satisfaction. Depending on the organizational structure and culture, effective leadership style has to maintain control and ensure compliance with the rules and regulation.

 

Chapter 2: Literature Review

 

According to Den Hartog and Koopman (2001), leadership is a crucial aspect of organizational management, and it plays a significant role in determining employee motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational culture. A leader’s behavior, actions, and communication style can significantly influence these three factors. First, leadership affects employee motivation. Leaders can inspire, motivate and encourage their followers to achieve their goals (Amabile et al., 2004). Effective leaders can create a shared vision and mission that fosters a sense of purpose and belonging among their employees. By doing so, leaders can create a sense of ownership and accountability among their employees, which can increase their motivation to perform their job duties to the best of their abilities.

 

Second, leaders who are supportive, approachable, and willing to listen to their employees can foster a positive work environment, thus impacting job satisfaction. Leaders who recognize and appreciate their employees’ efforts and contributions can help to create a culture of recognition and appreciation. This type of culture can increase employee job satisfaction and create a sense of belonging within the organization. Finally, leadership affects organizational culture. The behavior and actions of leaders can significantly influence the organizational culture. Leaders who promote open communication, collaboration, and teamwork can foster a culture of innovation and creativity (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). In contrast, leaders who are hierarchical, controlling, and resistant to change can stifle creativity and create a negative culture.

 

Several factors influence leadership, and they include the leader’s personality, the followers’ expectations, the organizational culture, and the external environment (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The leader’s personality plays a crucial role in shaping the leadership style that they employ. For instance, authoritarian leaders tend to be dominant, assertive, and controlling. On the other hand, democratic leaders tend to be sociable, friendly, and approachable. The followers’ expectations also influence the leadership style that a leader employs. Leaders who are appointed to lead a team with experienced and skilled followers may adopt a democratic leadership style because they recognize that their followers have valuable contributions to make.

 

A study conducted by O’Reilly and Chatman (1996) established that organizational culture also plays a significant role in shaping leadership. Leaders who are appointed to lead organizations with a bureaucratic culture may adopt an authoritarian leadership style because the culture values compliance and adherence to rules and regulations. On the other hand, leaders who are appointed to lead organizations with a flexible culture may adopt a laissez-faire or transformational leadership style because the culture values innovation and creativity. The external environment also influences leadership. According to Goleman (2000), leaders who operate in a stable environment may adopt a laissez-faire leadership style because the environment is predictable, and there is little need for supervision. On the other hand, leaders who operate in a volatile environment may adopt an authoritarian leadership style because the environment requires quick decisions and decisive action.

 

Just as leadership styles, leadership theories are of importance to leaders. These theories aim to explain the nature of leadership, how it evolves, and how it is practiced. Numerous theories have been proposed over the years, and they can be broadly categorized into trait, behavioral, contingency, transformational, and situational theories. Trait theories propose that leadership is a function of an individual’s inherent traits, such as intelligence, self-confidence, and assertiveness (Lussier & Achua, 2015). These theories suggest that individuals with certain characteristics are more likely to emerge as leaders and are better suited to leadership roles. Early trait theories focused on identifying specific personality traits that were associated with effective leadership. For example, the “Great Man” theory proposed that leaders were born, not made, and that they possessed innate qualities such as intelligence, charisma, and confidence (Dinh et al., 2014). Later trait theories focused on identifying broader categories of traits, such as the Big Five personality traits (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience).

 

In comparison, behavioral theories focus on identifying the specific behaviors that effective leaders exhibit. These theories propose that leadership is not based on inherent traits but rather on learned behaviors. The Ohio State University studies identified two dimensions of leader behavior: initiating structure (the extent to which a leader defines and organizes tasks and roles) and consideration (the extent to which a leader shows concern for the well-being and personal needs of employees) (Amabile et al., 2004). Another influential behavioral theory is the contingency theory of leadership, which proposes that effective leadership depends on the situation in which it is practiced (Dinh et al., 2014).

 

Contingency theories are also critical and propose that effective leadership is contingent upon the specific situation in which it is practiced. These theories suggest that different situations require different types of leadership behaviors or styles. The most well-known contingency theory is the situational leadership theory, which proposes that leaders should adjust their leadership style to the development level of their followers. The path-goal theory of leadership is another contingency theory that suggests that leaders should provide guidance and support to employees to help them achieve their goals (Dinh et al., 2014).

 

Transformational theories have gained the attention of various authors in the recent past. These theories propose that leadership is a process of inspiring and motivating followers to achieve their full potential. They suggest that effective leaders are those who can articulate a vision and inspire others to work towards it. The transformational leadership theory proposed by James MacGregor Burns (1978) suggests that effective leaders are those who can inspire followers to transcend their self-interests and work towards a shared vision. Bass and Avolio (1994) later developed the full range model of transformational leadership, which includes four components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

 

Another set of theories entail the situational theories, which propose that leadership effectiveness depends on the specific situation in which it is practiced. These theories suggest that leaders must adapt their leadership style to the situation in order to be effective. The situational leadership theory proposed by Hersey and Blanchard (1982) suggests that leaders should adjust their leadership style to the development level of their followers. The leader-member exchange theory is another situational theory that proposes that leaders develop unique relationships with each of their followers, and that the quality of these relationships affects leadership effectiveness (Lussier & Achua, 2015).

 

Without a doubt, effective leadership has a significant impact on organizational success. Effective leaders can improve the organization’s performance by setting goals, inspiring and motivating employees, promoting innovation and creativity, and fostering a positive work environment. According to Den Hartog and Koopman (2001), leaders who can create a positive work environment are more likely to have satisfied employees who are loyal to the organization. A positive work environment fosters collaboration, teamwork, and mutual respect, which leads to increased productivity and job satisfaction as established by Van Knippenberg et al. (2004).

 

Additionally, leaders who can inspire and motivate employees can create a sense of purpose and direction for the organization just as highlighted by Goleman (2000). This can lead to increased employee engagement, which can improve organizational performance. Effective leaders also promote innovation and creativity, which can lead to new ideas and products that can help the organization stay competitive. Leaders who promote innovation and creativity are more likely to have employees who are willing to take risks and try new things (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

 

Various researchers have studied leadership development and training, which has been established to be critical to the success of organizations. Effective leaders are needed to motivate and inspire employees, create a positive organizational culture, and achieve strategic goals (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). Taking into account the significance of leadership development and training, research has shown that effective leaders can positively impact employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational performance (Dinh et al., 2014). However, many organizations struggle to develop effective leaders. A lack of leadership development and training can result in low employee morale, high turnover rates, and a decline in organizational performance (Lussier & Achua, 2015).

 

There are various approaches to leadership development and training. Some organizations use internal development programs, while others hire external consultants to provide training. Research has shown that the most effective leadership development programs are those that are tailored to the individual needs of the leader. Additionally, effective leadership development programs should be based on evidence-based practices and should involve ongoing feedback and coaching (Dinh et al., 2014).

 

For both traditional and remote work settings, research has shown that leadership development and training can have a positive impact on employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational performance as documented by Lussier and Achua (2015). Effective leadership development programs can also lead to increased innovation and creativity within the organization. However, the impact of leadership development and training can vary depending on the specific program and the individual leader. Despite the importance of leadership development and training, there are many challenges that organizations face in implementing effective programs. One of the main challenges is the cost of leadership development and training programs (Lussier & Achua, 2015). Additionally, some organizations struggle to identify the most effective approaches to leadership development and training.

 

In relation to the need to attain optimum results, it is paramount to evaluate the effectiveness of leadership development and training programs before implementation. Leadership development and training programs are designed to improve the knowledge, skills, and abilities of individuals in leadership roles. The aim is to enhance leadership effectiveness, productivity, and organizational outcomes. The effectiveness of these programs can be evaluated based on various factors, including the program’s content, delivery, and outcomes. Firstly, the content of the program is a critical factor in evaluating its effectiveness. The program should be designed to meet the specific needs of the participants, be based on current research and best practices, and cover a wide range of topics related to leadership. The content should also be relevant to the participants’ roles and responsibilities.

 

Secondly, the delivery of the program is crucial. The program should be delivered in a manner that is engaging, interactive, and tailored to the participants’ learning styles. The delivery method could include a combination of classroom sessions, online modules, simulations, and coaching sessions. The program should also provide opportunities for participants to practice their skills and receive feedback from their peers and instructors. Moreover, the outcomes of the program should be evaluated to determine its effectiveness. The outcomes could include improved leadership skills, increased productivity, improved employee engagement, and retention rates. The evaluation should be conducted at different intervals, such as immediately after the program, six months, and one year after completion. Studies have shown that leadership development and training programs can be effective in improving leadership skills, increasing productivity, and improving employee engagement and retention rates. For instance, a study by the Center for Creative Leadership found that leadership development programs improved participants’ self-awareness, interpersonal skills, and ability to manage and lead teams effectively.

 

The advent of remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has brought a new dimension to leadership research. Leaders in remote settings face a unique challenge in ensuring that employees remain motivated, productive, and satisfied. Notably, remote work settings are unique because they lack face-to-face communication, which can lead to a lack of trust, communication, and collaboration (Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002). In a remote work setting, leaders need to create a sense of community and maintain open communication channels to ensure employee engagement and productivity. As organizations adopt remote work, leaders must be able to adjust their leadership styles to suit the remote work environment.

 

The study conducted by Chen, Liu, and Zhang (2020) indicate that leadership is an essential component of organizational success, and effective leadership is even more critical in a remote setting. In such a setting, leaders must also be able to adapt to the challenges and opportunities presented by the virtual work environment. However, it is paramount for leaders to grasp an understanding of these associated opportunities and challenges. According to Gajendran and Harrison (2007), remote work provides many opportunities for both employees and employers in the sense that it promotes flexibility. Employees can work from anywhere, and employers can benefit from a workforce that is not limited to a specific geographical area. This flexibility can also reduce stress levels and increase job satisfaction, which can translate into increased productivity (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Remote work also reduces operational costs for organizations, such as rent, utilities, and office supplies. This cost-saving allows companies to invest in other areas, such as employee training and development. Additionally, remote work allows organizations to access a more diverse pool of talent, regardless of geographic location (Bughin et al., 2018). Remote work also presents opportunities for work-life balance. With remote work, employees can better manage their personal responsibilities, such as childcare or caring for elderly parents. This flexibility can also reduce the likelihood of burnout, which is a significant problem in the workplace (Moen et al., 2015).

 

While remote work presents many opportunities, it also presents various challenges. One of the significant challenges is communication. Golden et al. (2020) document that remote work can create communication barriers, such as time zone differences, language barriers, and technological issues, which potentially lead to misunderstandings, delays, and reduced productivity. Another significant challenge is isolation. Remote workers may feel isolated from the rest of the team, leading to feelings of loneliness and disengagement (Kim & Wind, 2020). This can also lead to reduced collaboration and difficulty in building relationships with colleagues. With this in mind, managing remote workers is also a challenging task. According to McGregor and Harris (2018), leaders and managers may struggle to manage the performance of remote workers and may find it difficult to provide feedback. Additionally, remote workers may face difficulties in balancing their work and personal lives, leading to them being workaholics and increasing employee burnout (Golden et al., 2020).

 

Leaders are mandated to address the challenges of remote working to reap maximized benefits and attain desirable outcomes. They must provide clear communication and guidance to their employees, build trust and rapport, and foster a sense of community among the team. Research has shown that effective communication is critical in remote work environments (Golden et al., 2020). Leaders must be able to communicate effectively through various virtual channels such as video conferencing, instant messaging, and email. Furthermore, leaders must also be able to address the unique challenges faced by remote workers, such as feelings of isolation and lack of support. The role of leadership in promoting employee well-being and mental health in a remote setting is crucial (Golden et al., 2020). Leaders must be able to provide support and resources to their employees to promote well-being and prevent burnout. Without a doubt, the role of leadership styles in a remote setting cannot be overemphasized.

 

Leadership is a multifaceted phenomenon that has been studied by researchers from different perspectives over the years. Various authors argue that leadership style is an essential factor that can influence employee behavior, performance, motivation, and job satisfaction in a remote setting (Chen, Liu, & Zhang, 2020; Goleman, 2000). According to Goleman (2000), there are six leadership styles: coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. These leadership styles have been linked to significant inputs and outcomes in the traditional setting, despite the minimal drawbacks. For starters, coercive leadership style entails the use of threats, punishments, and force by leaders to get their followers to comply with their instructions. It is often used in situations where quick and decisive action is required, or in situations where there is a high level of uncertainty or risk. While coercive leadership can be effective in certain situations, it can also be damaging to organizations and their followers, particularly if it is applied in a remote work setting as documented by Kelloway, Francis, and Gatien (2012).

 

One of the key concerns with coercive leadership is its impact on the psychological well-being of individuals. Research suggests that leaders who rely on coercive tactics can create an environment of fear and anxiety, leading to reduced job satisfaction, increased stress, and decreased commitment among followers (Kelloway et al., 2012). This can also lead to increased turnover and absenteeism, as well as a decline in productivity and performance (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012). Moreover, coercive leadership can also create a toxic organizational culture that is focused on compliance rather than collaboration and innovation (Pearce & Conger, 2003). This can hinder creativity and hinder progress towards organizational goals. On the other hand, some studies have found that in certain situations, such as during times of crisis, coercive leadership can be an effective means of managing the situation and achieving the desired outcome (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In addition to the impact on individuals and organizations, research has also explored the factors that influence the use of coercive leadership. One key factor is the leader’s personality traits, such as their need for control and their level of aggression (Zhang & Bednall, 2016). Another factor is the organizational culture and its tolerance for authoritarian leadership styles (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012).

 

Authoritative leadership style has proved to be significant in both the traditional and remote work environments since the involved leaders who use this style provide clear direction and goals and allow their followers to exercise their own creativity and initiative in achieving the set goals. This leadership style is characterized by a focus on the big picture, a vision for the future, and a willingness to take risks. Research suggests that authoritative leadership can have positive effects on organizations and employees, even those in the remote work setting. Leaders who adopt an authoritative style tend to have a clear vision for the future and are able to communicate that vision effectively to their followers, creating a sense of purpose and direction (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). This can lead to increased motivation, job satisfaction, and commitment among followers (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006).

 

Moreover, authoritative leadership can also lead to higher levels of innovation and creativity in remote work settings (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004). By giving followers the freedom to exercise their own creativity and initiative, leaders can tap into the unique talents and perspectives of their followers and encourage them to take risks and try new things. In addition to the positive effects on individuals and organizations, research has also explored the factors that influence the use of authoritative leadership. One key factor is the leader’s level of expertise and knowledge in their area of work (Yukl, 2010). Leaders who have a high level of expertise are better able to provide direction and guidance to their followers, while also allowing them to exercise their own creativity and initiative. Another factor is the organizational culture and its emphasis on innovation and risk-taking (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Organizations that value innovation and creativity are more likely to adopt an authoritative leadership style, as it allows for the exploration of new ideas and the pursuit of ambitious goals. For authoritative leaders in a remote setting, leaders are mandated to strike a balance between providing clear direction and allowing their followers to exercise their own creativity and initiative, which can be achieved by creating a culture of trust, collaboration, and open communication.

 

Affiliative leadership is another leadership style of significance in any work setting, where the leaders prioritize building positive relationships with their followers. This leadership style emphasizes creating a supportive and collaborative work environment that fosters trust, open communication, and teamwork. In correlation to this, affiliative leadership style has been adapted by leaders in the remote work setting. Such leaders tend to create a supportive and nurturing work environment that fosters trust, open communication, and teamwork (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). This can lead to increased job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment among followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Moreover, affiliative leadership also promotes invention as established by Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, and Kramer (2004). By creating a supportive work environment that encourages open communication and collaboration, leaders can tap into the unique talents and perspectives of their followers and encourage them to take risks and try new things.

 

Additionally, research has also explored the factors that influence the use of affiliative leadership. One key factor is the leader’s personality and interpersonal skills (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Leaders who are empathetic, supportive, and good listeners are more likely to adopt an affiliative leadership style. Another factor is the organizational culture and its emphasis on collaboration and teamwork (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). Organizations that value collaboration and teamwork are more likely to adopt an affiliative leadership style, as it fosters a sense of unity and collective effort. Overall, while affiliative leadership can have positive effects on individuals and organizations, it is important for leaders to balance the need for collaboration and support with the need for clear direction and decision-making. This can be achieved by creating a culture of trust, open communication, and shared decision-making.

 

Democratic leadership style is another leadership style that has gained the attention of researchers and has been established to be one of the widely applied styles across organizations. This style emphasizes on collective decision-making, participation, and involvement of all members in the decision-making process. In this approach, leaders act as facilitators, encouraging their team members to share their ideas and perspectives, leading to better decision-making, team building, and job satisfaction. A study conducted by Avolio and Gardner (2005) on the impact of democratic leadership on work-related attitudes and behaviors found that employees working under democratic leaders were more satisfied with their jobs and demonstrated higher levels of performance compared to those working under authoritarian or laissez-faire leaders. Another study conducted by House and Aditya (1997) found that democratic leadership had a positive impact on employee motivation and job satisfaction, leading to higher levels of productivity and profitability in the organization. Moreover, research has also shown that democratic leadership can have a positive impact on employee productivity. A study conducted by Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg, and Boerner (2008) found that teams working under democratic leaders demonstrated higher levels of creativity and innovation compared to those working under authoritarian leaders. This is because democratic leaders foster an environment that encourages the sharing of diverse perspectives and ideas, leading to a more innovative and creative work culture.

 

However, democratic leadership is not without its limitations. One potential drawback of this approach is that it can be time-consuming, as it involves a collective decision-making process that may take longer than a unilateral decision-making process. Additionally, research has shown that democratic leadership may not be suitable in situations where quick decision-making is essential, such as in emergency or crisis situations. With this understanding, leaders must be aware of its limitations and carefully assess the situation before implementing this approach. Researchers should also aim at addressing the gap pertaining to the impact of democratic leadership style in remote work setting.

 

Unlike other leadership styles, the pacesetting and coaching styles of leadership have been the subject of much attention and discussion in the recent past. The pacesetting style of leadership emphasizes setting high standards and goals for followers, with the expectation that they will work hard to achieve them. Leaders who adopt this style of leadership expect their followers to meet or exceed their expectations, and they often take a hands-on approach to ensure that these standards are met. This leadership style is effective in certain situations, such as when dealing with highly motivated and skilled employees or when there is a need for quick results. However, research has shown that the Pacesetting style can have negative consequences on employee well-being and motivation. A study conducted by Goleman et al. (2002) found that the Pacesetting style was the least effective leadership style and had the most negative impact on employee performance and job satisfaction. This is because the Pacesetting style can lead to burnout and high turnover rates among employees, as they struggle to keep up with the high standards set by their leader.

 

On the other hand, the coaching style of leadership involves a supportive and developmental approach to leadership, aimed at helping followers reach their full potential. Leaders who adopt this style of leadership provide guidance, feedback, and support to their followers, helping them develop the skills and abilities they need to succeed. This leadership style is effective in improving employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction, particularly in a remote work setting. A study conducted by Grant and Hartley (2013) found that leaders who adopted a Coaching style had more engaged and committed employees, resulting in higher levels of productivity and job satisfaction. The reason for this outcome is because the coaching style creates an environment where employees feel valued and supported, leading to increased job satisfaction and motivation. Moreover, research has shown that the Coaching style is effective at developing the skills and abilities of employees. A study by Boyatzis and McKee (2005) found that leaders who used the Coaching style were more effective at developing the skills and abilities of their employees, leading to improved performance and career advancement opportunities. Despite the effectiveness of the coaching style, it is important to note that the leadership style has its limitations. This style can be time-consuming and may not be suitable for situations that require quick decision-making. Moreover, leaders who adopt this style must be skilled at providing constructive feedback and guidance, as it can be challenging to strike a balance between support and micromanagement.

 

Both the pacesetting and coaching styles of leadership have their strengths and limitations. The Pacesetting style can be effective in certain situations, but it should be used sparingly to avoid negative consequences on employee well-being and motivation. The Coaching style, on the other hand, is effective in improving employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction, but leaders must be skilled at providing constructive feedback and guidance to their followers.

 

Taking into account the different leadership styles and the associated impact, a style can be effective in one work setting or situation and fail in another. In relation to this, some leadership styles hardly yield results when applied in a remote work setting, even though it has been tried and tested in the traditional setting. A study by Wang and Huang (2020) found that while affiliative leadership style positively affects employee job satisfaction in a remote work setting, its impact in the traditional setting is far much more tangible with significant outcomes. Similarly, Chen et al. (2020) found that democratic leadership style positively affected employee job satisfaction and motivation in a remote work setting, with maximized output experienced in a traditional work setting. In the context of the remote work setting, additional leadership styles will be considered, including structural, participative, servant, freedom-thinking, and transformational.

 

According to Robbins and Judge (2017), Structural leadership is a leadership style that emphasizes strict adherence to rules and regulations. Structural leaders are generally known for their expertise in organizing and developing efficient and effective systems and structures within the organization. Such structures are typically characterized by clear lines of authority, precise job descriptions, and formalized procedures. In this same context, Bass (1985) document that structural leadership styles are characterized by a high degree of control and direction by the leader. While it’s a leadership style on its own, it has subsets of applicable styles, including the autocratic leadership style, where the leader makes all decisions without any input from the followers. Autocratic leaders tend to have a low level of trust in their followers and use their power and authority to enforce their decisions (Bass, 1985). This style is effective in emergency situations that require quick decisions, but it can lead to employee dissatisfaction, resistance, and high turnover rates in the long run (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011).

 

Bureaucratic leadership is also considered a structural leadership style. In this style, the leader follows the rules and procedures to the letter, with little to no room for creativity or deviation from the established norms. Bureaucratic leaders tend to prioritize the maintenance of the status quo over innovation and experimentation (Bass, 1985). This style is effective in situations where consistency and predictability are essential, such as in financial institutions or government agencies. Another structural leadership style is Laissez-faire leadership, in which the leaders provides little to no guidance or direction to their followers, leaving them to work independently. Laissez-faire leaders tend to be hands-off and trust their followers to make the right decisions. This style can be effective in situations where the followers are highly skilled and self-directed, such as in academic research, but it can lead to a lack of accountability and direction in the long run (Bass, 1985).

 

Research has shown that the structural leadership style can be effective in different situation, having both positive and negative effects on employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction. For example, Autocratic leadership can be effective in emergency situations that require quick decisions, while Bureaucratic leadership can be effective in situations where consistency and predictability are essential. Notably, the structural leadership style can lead to improved organizational efficiency and productivity. O’Reilly and Chatman (1996) establish that structural leaders often have a clear understanding of the organization’s goals, which allows them to develop processes that enable employees to work more efficiently.

 

However, on the other hand, structural leadership can also adversely impact employee motivation and job satisfaction. Research has shown that strict adherence to rules and regulations can lead to a lack of autonomy and a sense of micromanagement, which can lead to decreased job satisfaction (Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). Employees may also become disengaged when they feel that their contributions are not valued or when they feel that their input is not sought after. Moreover, research has shown that the structural leadership style is more effective in certain organizational contexts than others. In organizations with complex procedures and regulations, the structural leadership style can be more effective (Robbins & Judge, 2017). However, in organizations with more fluid and dynamic environments, the structural leadership style may be less effective, as it may not provide the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the environment.

 

In a remote work setting, the application of structural leadership yields beneficial results. A study conducted by Barling et al. (2015) established that structural leadership was positively related to employee performance, as it provided employees with a clear sense of direction and focus. The study also found that the use of rules and procedures helped remote employees to stay on track and meet their goals. Structural leadership also impacts employee engagement, which is an essential aspect of employee motivation and commitment. According to a study by Graham et al. (2019), structural leadership styles can positively impact employee engagement in a remote work setting, addressing the issues where employees feel isolated. The study found that the use of clear guidelines and expectations helped remote employees feel more connected to their work and their organization. Other relevant impacts of structural leadership are associated with increased employee satisfaction and reduced employee burnout in a remote work setting. According to a study by O’Boyle Jr. et al. (2015), the use of clear guidelines and expectations helped remote employees feel more satisfied with their work and their organization. The study also found that the use of rules and procedures helped remote employees to feel more in control of their work, which contributed to their overall satisfaction. Structural leadership styles can also help prevent employee burnout in a remote work setting (Sonnentag et al, 2012). The study found that the use of rules and procedures helped remote employees to manage their workload effectively, which reduced their risk of burnout.

 

Participative leadership style includes involving subordinates in the decision-making process, seeking input, and encouraging collaboration among team members. The virtual nature of remote work requires leaders to employ more explicit communication and actively seek input from team members. Research has shown that participative leadership style can have a positive impact on employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction in remote work settings. A study conducted by Araz and Azadegan-Mehr (2021) found that participative leadership style increased team performance and job satisfaction in virtual teams. Additionally, the study showed that participative leadership style positively affected employee motivation, leading to a greater sense of engagement in virtual teams. Moreover, a study conducted by Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland, Demerouti, and Olsen (2016) found that participative leadership style in remote work settings improved employee job satisfaction, mainly due to increased autonomy and job control. In support of this, Zhang et al. (2020) established that participative leadership promotes enhanced employee performance and innovation in a virtual team environment.

 

Also, a study by Maertz et al. (2021) found that participative leadership styles were positively associated with employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in a remote work setting. Another study by Ehrhart et al. (2020) found that participative leadership styles were positively associated with employee psychological safety in a remote work setting, through which it reflects positively on employee engagement and team performance. Furthermore, a study by Chou et al. (2021) found that participative leadership style was positively associated with employee trust in a remote work setting. The study also found that participative leadership styles had a significant positive impact on employee task performance, innovation, and job satisfaction in a virtual team environment.

 

There has been a growing interest in the servant leadership style, which emphasizes serving the needs of employees and promoting their personal and professional development. In remote work settings, servant leaders prioritize the needs of their team members and work to create an environment that fosters collaboration, trust, and open communication. With various studies conducted on servant leadership, its significance pertaining to employee motivation, job satisfaction, and performance in remote work settings has been established. A study conducted by Kim, Lee, and Lee (2021) found that servant leadership was positively associated with job satisfaction and employee motivation in virtual teams. The study also found that servant leadership had a significant positive effect on employee performance.

 

In remote work setting, a study by Nielsen, Marrone, and Ferris (2017) found that servant leadership in remote work settings was associated with higher levels of team commitment and trust, which in turn led to increased job satisfaction and motivation. The study also found that servant leadership had a positive impact on team performance. Due to a servant leader’s emphasis on empathy and listening skills, servant leaderships helps alleviate the feelings of isolation and disconnection. Proper implementation of this leadership styles ascertains that leaders are better positioned to build trust with their employees by showing genuine concern for their well-being and creating a safe space for open communication. As documented Sendjaya et al., the developed trust can lead to higher job satisfaction and better performance from employees. Additionally, servant leadership promotes a sense of belonging among remote employees. Servant leaders prioritize collaboration and teamwork, which can help remote employees feel more connected to their colleagues. In this same context, servant leaders foster a culture of inclusivity, which can help to create a sense of belonging for employees from diverse backgrounds (Sendjaya et al., 2008).

 

Liden et al. (2008) also argue that servant leadership enhances employee motivation and engagement, mainly since leaders using this style tend to empower their employees by providing them with the necessary resources and support to excel in their roles. This empowerment ascertains that subordinates feel valued and supported by their leaders, thus reflecting positively on employee engagement and motivation. Furthermore, servant leaders provide their employees with opportunities for personal and professional growth, which can lead to increased job satisfaction and loyalty to the organization (Liden et al., 2008). According to Sendjaya et al. (2008), servant leadership promotes a culture of accountability and responsibility, which can help to create a sense of ownership among employees, leading to higher levels of productivity and quality of work (Sendjaya et al., 2008).

 

Freedom-thinking leadership style emphasizes on empowering employees to take ownership of their work and providing them with the freedom to make decisions and explore new ideas. In remote work settings, this style can be particularly effective as it allows employees to work independently while still feeling supported and valued. Research has shown that freedom-thinking leadership can have a positive impact on employee creativity, job satisfaction, and performance in remote work settings. A study conducted by Karim and Abbas (2020) found that freedom-thinking leadership was positively associated with employee creativity in remote work settings. The study also found that freedom-thinking leadership had a significant positive effect on employee job satisfaction. Additionally, a study by Allred et al. (2018) found that freedom-thinking leadership in remote work settings was associated with increased employee performance. The study also found that this leadership style had a positive impact on employee job satisfaction. Zhou et al. (2019) found that freedom-thinking leadership was positively associated with employee innovative behavior in remote work settings. The study also found that this leadership style had a positive impact on employee job satisfaction.

 

In a remote setting, this style of leadership can be particularly effective as it helps to build trust and foster a sense of community among team members. It also promotes increased employee engagement. A study by Gallup (2017) found that employee engagement is lower among remote workers than their in-office counterparts. However, leaders who embrace freedom-thinking can help to mitigate this issue by providing employees with the tools and resources they need to be successful, and by empowering them to make decisions and take ownership of their work (Allred et al. (2018). When employees feel like they have control over their work and are trusted to make decisions, they are more likely to be engaged and motivated. Another benefit of freedom-thinking leadership in a remote setting is improved communication. Remote working arrangements can make communication more challenging, but leaders who embrace this style can overcome these barriers by encouraging open and transparent communication as documented by Zhou et al. (2019). By empowering employees to speak up and share their ideas, leaders can create a culture of trust and collaboration that helps to drive innovation and problem-solving. However, it is worth noting that freedom-thinking leadership is not without its challenges. For example, leaders must strike a balance between providing autonomy and maintaining accountability. When employees have too much freedom, it can be difficult to ensure that they are meeting their goals and producing quality work. Leaders must also be careful to avoid micromanaging, as this can undermine the trust and autonomy that are the hallmarks of this style of leadership.

 

Another relevant leadership style applicable in a remote setting is transformational leadership. This leadership style focuses on inspiring and motivating employees to achieve their goals and aspirations. Also, it emphasizes on the importance of empowering employees and creating a supportive and collaborative work environment. In most instances, the transformational leader serves as a role model for their followers and encourages them to transcend their self-interest for the benefit of the organization. This style of leadership has gained considerable attention from researchers and practitioners due to its positive impact on employee motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass and Riggio (2006) argue that this leadership style is defined by four key elements, which reflect heftily on the outcomes. These elements, otherwise referred to as the 4I’s include dealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Idealized influence refers to the leader’s ability to serve as a role model for their followers, inspiring them to emulate their behavior and values while inspirational motivation involves the leader’s ability to articulate a compelling vision and inspire their followers to achieve higher levels of performance. Intellectual stimulation involves the leader’s ability to challenge their followers to think creatively and critically, promoting innovation and learning. Finally, individualized consideration involves the leader’s ability to provide personalized support and recognition to their followers, taking into account their individual needs and strengths (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

 

According to Avolio, Zhu, Koh, and Bhatia (2004), transformational leadership is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among employees. Furthermore, transformational leaders are more likely to promote a positive work environment, where employees feel supported, recognized, and empowered. This positive work environment can lead to higher levels of employee engagement and productivity, as well as lower turnover rates (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership has also been found to have a positive impact on organizational performance, including financial performance, innovation, and customer satisfaction. According to Jung, Wu, and Chow (2008), transformational leadership is associated with higher levels of organizational innovation, as well as higher levels of customer satisfaction. Furthermore, transformational leaders are more likely to promote a culture of excellence and continuous improvement, leading to higher levels of organizational performance and competitiveness (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

 

In remote work settings, transformational leaders use technology to maintain communication and build relationships with employees, leading to increased trust and engagement. A study by van der Velden et al. (2020) found that transformational leadership was positively associated with employee job satisfaction and performance in remote work settings. The study also found that transformational leadership had a significant positive effect on employee motivation. Huang et al. (2020) also found that transformational leadership in remote work settings was positively associated with employee creativity. The study also found that transformational leadership had a positive impact on employee job satisfaction. Zhu et al. (2020) found that transformational leadership was positively associated with employee well-being in remote work settings. The study also found that transformational leadership had a positive impact on employee job satisfaction and engagement. Furthermore, a study by Liao, Liu, and Liu (2017) found that transformational leadership style positively affected employee job satisfaction and performance in a remote work setting. Transformational leaders inspire and motivate employees to achieve their full potential, which can lead to increased employee satisfaction and performance.

 

To conclude this section, leadership styles are of significance in shaping the success of organizations in a remote work setting. The changing nature of work has forced organizations to embrace remote work, and leaders must adapt to the new reality to achieve organizational goals. The literature indicates that different leadership styles can have varying impacts on remote employees and the overall organizational performance. The literature shows that transformational leadership can be effective in motivating remote employees, enhancing job satisfaction, and improving organizational performance. Transformational leaders who exhibit idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration can inspire remote employees to achieve higher levels of performance and engagement. They can also create a positive work environment that fosters innovation, learning, and continuous improvement.

 

While the leadership trajectory contributes towards the outcomes, communication is an essential factor that influences the effectiveness of leadership styles in a remote work setting. A study by Kim and Beehr (2020) found that communication quality mediated the relationship between leadership styles and employee job satisfaction in a remote work setting. In other words, leaders who communicate effectively and frequently can enhance the positive effects of their leadership styles on employee job satisfaction, regardless of the leadership style applied. Another important factor that can influence the effectiveness of leadership styles in a remote work setting is the level of autonomy provided to employees.

 

The literature also points out the need for leaders to embrace technology and leverage it to achieve organizational goals in remote work settings. Leaders who use technology effectively can facilitate communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among remote employees. They can also use technology to monitor employee performance and ensure accountability. Without a doubt, it is important for leaders to adopt a leadership style that is appropriate for the situation and the needs of their followers. In some cases, a hands-on approach may be necessary, while in others, a supportive and developmental approach may be more effective. By understanding the strengths and limitations of different leadership styles, leaders in remote work settings can create a work environment that fosters employee well-being, motivation, and performance.

 

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

 

The purpose of this is to determine which leadership style (Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leader) maximizes the dependent variables ( Job Performance, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction) for remote workers across the United States. The chapter included an overview of the research design and rationale, study participants, sampling method and instrumentation, data collection, analysis, and ethical considerations taken in the design. Chapter 3 contains a descriptive discussion of the conduct of this study, and how it informed the problem. The detailed explanation supports future design replication, data collection, and analysis. The description of the population and sample ensured that the reader could understand the research participants. The One-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) data analysis approach allowed valid and reliable data processing. As described, data analysis procedures, followed ethical practices. The chapter’s discussion on limitations and delimitations expands the discussion in chapter 1. The researcher intends to use SurveyMonkey collect my participants from all across the United States.

 

Research Design

 

Quantitative Causal Comparative Design

 

Based on the application of this design in establishing the connection between variables (independent and dependent) (Bloomfield, & Fisher, 2019), this quantitative casual comparative study is objectified to establish the significance of various leadership styles on employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction in a remote setting. It is without a doubt that working remotely has been continuously adapted, particularly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In correlation to this, it is paramount to understand the aspects of remote working and what it entails in terms of productivity. As Bloomfield and Fisher (2019) establish, a quantitative casual comparative study supports the comparison of two variables. As such, this study’s selected design will facilitate the comparison of five essential levels of leadership styles commonly associated with working environments in relation to job satisfaction, motivation, and employee satisfaction. With the aid of questionnaires, this study’s research questions will include; 1) Is there a statistically significant difference in job performance between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles? 2) Is there a statistically significant difference in motivation between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles? 3) Is there a statistically significant difference in job satisfaction between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles?

 

These questions govern this study’s research. Given the nature of the study, the independent variable is defined by the five levels of leadership styles, including structural leadership, participative leadership, servant leadership, freedom-thinking leadership, and transformational leadership (Alheet, Adwan, Areiqat, Zamil, & Saleh, 2021). The dependent variables to be discussed in this section are performance, motivation, and satisfaction. With remote working being the mantra in most organizations globally, this study will make significant contributions towards revolutionizing and enhancing productivity in this type of setting. For applicable results, the sample size in this study was 100 remote workers. With the application of MANOVA, statistical analysis will be integrated to compute the results acquired from the questionnaires, through which the research questions will be adequately addressed.

 

Research Questions

 

The purpose of this is to determine which leadership style (Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leader) maximizes the dependent variables (Job Performance, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction) for remote workers.

 

The tools that will be used for the study will be the informed consent form (see Appendix A), demographic characteristics questions (see Appendix B), and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (see Appendix E), and individual work performance questionnaire (IWPQ) (see Appendix F), and the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (see Appendix I). The number of participants were generated from G*Power (see Appendix G). The researcher will need written permission from the instruments author to use these instruments. The independent variable will be Leadership Styles. The dependent variables will be Job performance, motivation, and Job satisfaction.

 

Table1. Variables Table

 

Variables

 

 

Definition

 

 

Operational definition

 

 

Measurement Level

 

 

Data source/ Instruments

 

 

 

 

Leadership styles (independent)

 

 

The leaders’ methods and approaches when governing others

 

 

Structural, participative, servant, freedom-thinking, or transformational

 

 

Nominal

 

 

Questionnaires/Survey Response

 

 

 

 

Performance (dependent)

 

 

The productivity of the employees

 

 

The level employees collaborate to attain the set organizational objectives and goals

 

 

Ordinal scale

 

 

Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motivation (dependent)

 

 

The motivation level exposed on behalf of the employees

 

 

The drive promoting enhanced performance

 

 

Ordinal scale

 

 

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

 

 

 

 

Satisfaction (dependent)

 

 

The satisfaction of the employees with their jobs

 

 

The function of the positive perceived emotion in close relation to contentment of employees.

 

 

Ordinal scale

 

 

Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

 

 

 

 

The following research questions guide this quantitative study:

 

RQ1: Is there a statistically significant difference in job performance between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles?

 

H1o: There is not a statistically significant difference in job performance between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles. H1a: There is a statistically significant difference in job performance between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles.

 

RQ2: Is there a statistically significant difference in motivation between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles?

 

H1o: There is not a statistically significant difference in motivation between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles.

 

H1a: There is a statistically significant difference in motivation between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles.?

 

RQ3: Is there a statistically significant difference in job satisfaction between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles?

 

H1o: There is not a statistically significant difference in job satisfaction between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles.

 

H1a: There is a statistically significant difference in job satisfaction between remote workers with Structural Leader, Participative Leader, Servant Leader, Freedom-Thinking Leader, and Transformational Leadership styles.

 

Population and Sample

 

The population will be comprised of employees. The target population will be remote workers will be employees from organizations where strategic management will be studied. The unit of analysis is the individual employee.

 

The consent request included a brief description of the study, goals for the study, and sources of data to be collected. A timeline for the study was provided along with this researcher’s commitment to providing aggregate data from the study after completion.

 

Quantitative Sample Size

 

The researcher will be recruiting participants using two recruitment plans. first plan for recruitment will be using Survey Monkey and the alternative plan, in the event not enough participants can be obtained, will be to use Facebook groups.

 

When conducting quantitative research, the sample size calculation is based on the researcher’s needed effect size, which is the difference between the mean responses of the two groups, the alpha error or false positive error, and the statistical power (Gogtay, 2010). An a priori analysis was conducted utilizing G*Power 3.1.9.4 (see Appendix G) software to determine the minimum necessary sample size for this study to achieve significance.

 

The estimated sample size used for this study was 45 remote workers. 15% will be added for possible attrition, and another 15% will be added for possible use of nonparametric tests. Thus 30% totalted will be added to the sample size of 45 to get a sample size of 60. The effect size is going to be .15, the alpha level is going to be .5, the power is going to be .8, the number of groups is going to be 5, and the number of response dependent variable will to be 3. When the data is placed in G*Power, the total sample size will be 45. (see Appendix G).

 

The sample size as determined by G*Power. I will add 15% for possible attrition and another 15% for possible use of nonparametric. Each participant will be informed of the research objectives and fill out consent forms (see Appendix A) before participating in the study. Data collected will be kept confidential by the researcher for 5 years. After 5 years the data will be deleted, or shredded (Bloomfield & Fisher, 2019). There will also be an age range of the participants from 18 to 60 years of age.

 

Instrumentation

 

Instrumentation refers to the tools or means researchers used to measure various research variables (James, Patrick Biddix, 2016). Each instrument is selected based on the research goals. The research will use a questionnaire to collect information on various variables related to leadership styles in a remote setting (ie. work from home). According to (Leung, 2001), questionnaires are used to collect information from participants the researcher is interested with. Furthermore, a questionnaire is applicable in research when to collect factual data. Consequently, the investigators must ensure that the questionnaires are highly structured to allow the same types of information to be collected from a large number of people in the same way and for data to be analyzed quantitatively and systematically (Leung, 2001). The research will use questionnaires to obtain critical information on independent variables. The survey instruments used for the study will be comprised of the informed consent form (see Appendix A), demographic characteristics questions (see Appendix B), and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (see Appendix E), and individual work performance questionnaire (IWPQ) (see Appendix F), and the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) also known as Job Satisfaction Index (JSI) (see Appendix I). Data for the survey will stem from G*Power (see Appendix G).

 

For JSS the Cronbach’s Alpha (α) coefficient of internal consistency was then used to measure the reliability of the JSI constructed from the survey data. These values are also compared to the acceptability threshold values. The tool is considered to be internally consistent if α is equal to or bigger than 0.7. Four dimensions had an α value greater than 0.65 while two dimension had α values of 0.52 and 0.42. However, the α value for the overall JSI is 0.78, which is above the 0.7 threshold value. Keeping in mind that the greater the number of items for which we calculate α, the higher the value α, these values are indicative of the internally consistency and reliability of the tool. Further, the calculated 0 value was 0.82, which is higher than the overall α [ 52 ]. The results from the inter-item co-relation, comparison of responses of items within each dimension, the α and 0 tests indicate that the calculated JSI is reliable and internally consistent.

 

For the reliability of the individual items of MLQ, CFA regression weights for the MLQ-5X indicated that all of the items presented a λ ≥ .50 (R 2 ≥ .25), ranging from .51 to .83. The exceptions were item four, concerning Active Management by Exception subscale, with a λ = .17 and, item 17, concerning Passive Management-by Exception subscale, with a λ = .20, showing a reduced contribution for the leadership constructs they represent. Regarding CFA regression weights for the MSLS, all of the items presented a λ ≥ .50, ranging from .54 to .91. With no exception, all MSLS items showed a significant contribution for the constructs they represent. Regarding construct reliability, and the composite reliability (CR) criteria, the MSLS and MLQ-5X did not present problems in this domain, showing a good reliability of the leadership subscales (CR ≥ .70) (Table 2). Even though the Cronbach’s alpha criteria of two of the MLQ-5X subscales (Management-by-Exception Active and Management-by-Exception Passive) assumed problems of internal consistency, their values were near the acceptable (i.e., α =.687 and α = .696, for this study).

 

 For the IWPQ subscales, a mean score is calculated by adding the item scores, and dividing their sum by the number of items in the subscale. Hence, the IWPQ yields three subscale scores that range between 0 and 4, with higher scores reflecting higher task and contextual performance, and higher counterproductive work behaviour. The psychometric properties of the IWPQ have been tested and results indicated good to excellent internal consistency for task performance (α = 0.78), contextual performance (α = 0.85) and counterproductive work behaviour (α = 0.79).

 

Data Collection

 

Information pertaining to the significance of different leadership styles (independent variable) as applied in a remote setting will be collected with the aid of questionnaires. The dependent variables for this study will include job satisfaction, motivation, and employee performance as tabulated above. Responses from the questionnaires will be used adequately for the collection of data. The validity and reliability of the instruments used for data collection are vital as they will shape the results of the study (Heale & Twycross, 2015). For this study, the general population was the (WFH) employees.

 

Following approval from the South University Institutional Review Board (IRB), an electronic survey will be deployed via organizational email. To collect data for this study, the researcher will use a convenience sample of remote Work from Home (WFH) employees. In convenience sampling, “the ease with which potential participants can be located or recruited is the primary consideration” (Sarstedt et al., 2018). Participants had to be remote works from any state. The criteria to participate were /based upon descriptions of age range, and work from home experience. To determine the appropriate sample size, the researcher used G*Power 3.1.9.4 software.

 

Prior to participation individuals who are interested in completing the survey based upon the email received will be provided with the informed consent information. The informed consent details the participants’ rights while participating in the study, including explaining how the collected data will be used. This informed consent also will document the overall purpose and intent of this study. Finally, the informed consent information will include any potential risks and benefits, also information about resources available if the participant is harmed in any way during the study (see Appendix A). Participants will be informed that there will be no compensation for their participation and that the participation in the research study will be completely voluntary. Those who desired to proceed with the survey will be asked an inclusionary question to determine if they meet the requirements for participation in the study. These individuals will be asked if they are at least the age of 18 through 64, if they are a remote worker, if they have at least 6 months of experience in remote work, and if they are male or female. If the individuals do not meet these requirements, they will be excluded from participation in this study.

 

The researcher did not disclose the names of anyone to any of the participants who are in the study. The names of participants remained anonymous from data collection to the reporting of findings. The remote participants were not asked to disclose identifying information in their survey. Each participant was given an identifying number that was used strictly for reporting and record keeping purposes.

 

Before using this survey, the researcher obtained permission to use it from the creators of the survey instrument. The researcher will explain why she used it and mention that the study’s data would be shared with the creators of the survey if requested. The researcher did not provide actual data results from the study but only shared the summary of the findings. All the data from the surveys, including the surveys themselves, are being kept secure and stored on a flash drive and held in a locked cabinet. Any data collected by a paper form will be stored for three years, after which the data shall be destroyed appropriately, and digital data shall be deleted from the flash drive after three years as well (Redus, 2020).

 

Validity

 

Validity is described as the extent to which quantitative research measure or instrument accurately assesses what it is to measure (Heale & Twycross, 2015). In this sense, it ascertains that the results computed are applicable, and accurate. For this study, different types of validity will be considered, including external, internal, criterion-related, construct, and content validity. While external validity refers to the extent to which the research findings can be generalized to other populations or settings, internal validity refers to the extent to which the research can establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Additionally, criterion-related validity refers to the relation between the research instrument hand the external criteria. According to Heale and Twycross (2015), construct validity refers to the extent to which the research instrument measures the defined construct, and the content validity refers to the extent to which the research instrument or measure covers all aspects of the construct. With the consideration of the documented information, the role of validity in this research revolves around ensuring that the research measure and instrument are accurate and attain the desired objective in relation to assessing what is intended to be measured.

 

The survey instruments used for the study will be comprised of the informed consent form (see Appendix A), demographic characteristics questions (see Appendix B), and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (see Appendix E), and individual work performance questionnaire (IWPQ) (see Appendix F), and the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (see Appendix I). Data for the survey will stem from G*Power (see Appendix G). The researcher is the only individual who can access the file as the computer is password protected. Data will be kept on the computer for five years after the study is completed (University of Virginia, 2022) The statistical software program (SPSS Version 27) will be used in the research once responses are gathered. The MLQ, IWPQ, and JSS has been found to be a psychometrically strong measure with a Cronbach’s alpha of .873, indicating good internal consistency (O’Connor & Casey, 2015). Test-retest results for the scale indicate good reliability (r=0.797, p<0.001)’ (O’Connor & Casey, 2015). Additionally, scale developers found there to be adequate assessment in the areas of measurement error, content validity, hypotheses testing, and structural validity’ (O’Connor & Casey, 2015).

 

Reliability

 

Reliability is significantly intertwined with how trustworthy the attained results are and its application in the study to eliminate possible errors and threats (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Heale and Twycross (2015) documented that reliability refers to “the extent to which a research instrument or measure produces consistent and stable results over time.” This study will consider inter-rater reliability which refers to the extent to which different persons produce consistent results as well as internal consistency reliability which refers to the extent to which the questions in the questionnaire are related to each other. Reliability of this study can be attained by testing the validity of the instruments used as well as taking measures to minimize the measurement error.

 

The reliability of the instruments being used is an essential part of the research study. The reliability concept deals with the assessments’ ability to be duplicated while the results are trustworthy across different settings (Rollnick et al., 2019). Threats to reliability exist throughout the entire process of research, and researchers need to be proactive and try to minimize these threats to the research as much as possible (McClelland et al., 2015). The instruments’ reliability refers to the level at which the collection tool being used can present stable and consistent results. The study’s reliability is always sample dependent, so it may vary from study to study (Scollione & Holdan, 2020). The level of reliability determines the overall accuracy of the results (Mohajan, 2017). When a study has high levels of reliability, another researcher should be able to replicate the study and reassess the outcomes (Rutkowski & Delandshere, 2016). This researcher considered several different types of reliability for this study, and each type is uniquely relevant to the situations where measurements are used (Kamper, 2019).

 

Data Analysis: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) 

 

While descriptive statistics facilitates the completion of different variables of a study, inferential analysis supports the investigation of the relationship between dependent and independent variables. In correlation to this, it is without a doubt that these analysis tools are of significance to this study. With the aid of these tools, the data collected will be analyzed by integrating MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance), through which each of the variables will be analyzed at a given time (Scheiner, 2020). The use of a 5-Likert scale will play a critical role in the collection of data since it supports the assignment of numeric values to the leadership questions in the questionnaire. In this same context, the dependent variables will be measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with number 1 being termed as strongly disagree while number 5 will be assigned to strongly agree. The center of the scale will read “neither agree nor disagree”. Additionally, SPSS was used in analyzing the data.

 

Research Procedures

 

Technology will be instigated to facilitate the procedures of the research, particularly in selecting the sample population. Organizations that have adopted remote working will be contacted to provide access to their employees. A representative sample of 100 remote workers will be scheduled to answer the questionnaires. However, the participants will be required to have worked remotely for at least 6 months. Also, the willingness of the employees to take part in the study was significant as it would ascertain accurate results will be collected. The questionnaires will be disseminated, answered, and submitted online, with strict adherence to a governing set of rules.

 

The research procedure for this study will entail sample selection, through which participants from remote working settings will be selected. The next procedure will be collecting data on the styles of leadership of different leaders, with the consideration of employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction. Significant methods that will facilitate data collection include questionnaires and possibly performance evaluation. The most critical part of this study is defined by data analysis, which will make use of statistical methods, including MANOVA as discussed above. This step will provide insight on job satisfaction, motivation, and employee performance as related to various leadership styles.

 

Protection of Human Rights

 

The selected participants will be required to be willing to provide honest and unbiased information. They are also subjected to have an understanding of what the study entails and what the data collected will be used for. The sample will be assured that their information will be protected and used only for the purpose of the study. This will be done by assuring note a consent form that will be sent out online to each of the work-from-home employees. Taking the Belmont Report into account, the study ought to integrate the ethical principles of beneficence, respect for individuals involved, and non-maleficence (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Beneficence is to protect and defend the rights of others, prevent harm, remove conditions that will cause harm, help persons with disabilities, and rescue persons in danger (Varkey, B. (2021). Nonmaleficence (do no harm) Obligation not to inflict harm intentionally (Warren T. Jahn,2011). It was also critical for the interest of this study that the involved work from home employees remained anonymous to eradicate any form of possible opinion bias and scrutiny. In correlation to this, confidentiality and anonymity will be highly integrated throughout the study. Confidentiality are rules promises someone sets through agreements that limits an access or places restrictions on different types of information. Anonymity is when a person is identified as unknown, untraceable, or unreachable. The difference between the two is anonymity is not guaranteed if any personally identifiable (PII) information will be collected. Confidentiality is when only the investigator(s) can identify the responses of individual participants. 

 

Ethics

 

This study adhered to the ethical guidelines for conducting quantitative research as documented by Belmont Research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979), through which it was ensured that the participants were treated with upmost respect and beneficence was integrated as well. Additionally, the vital parameters of confidentiality, credibility, confirmability, and transferability were used to stipulate an enhanced research process. These parameters ensured that the study valued the relevance of moral principles and ethics. In addition to this, the ethical standards of this study played a central role in the data processing and associated procedures.

 

Delimitations and Limitations

 

Limitations refer to factors that may affect the generalizability or external validity of the study whereas delimitations refer to the specific choices made by the researcher in the design of the study (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018).. The analysis addressed if there was a relationship between the dependent and independent variables, but it did not offer a reason why a relationship is present. Potential limitations are also laid in the nature of self-reporting. Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) noted although self-reports in data are appropriate when interest was in newcomer perceptions, a comparison of newcomers’ perceptions to those of other sources of information may have been fruitful for further understanding the process. When stating newcomer, this means a person that has recently arrived in a place or joined a group. Delimitations are set by the researcher with definitions the researcher decides to set as the limit of their work and may be concerned with objectives, variables, and study samples (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2019). The research design helps pinpoint any problems that may rise throughout the process of research and analysis ( Maheshwari, V. K., 2018).

 

Assumptions, Risk, and Biases

 

For starters, it was hoped that the participants will provide accurate results that would not contaminate the collected information. Despite involving the organizations that have adopted remote working, there is a risk that some participants contacted don’t have relative experience as remote workers. It is also notable that a significant population work remotely, and as such, could pose a threat to the results of the study. The only bias associated with this study is attributed to the limit of only using remote workers as the sample population of choice.

 

Data Assumptions

 

Once the data is cleaned, data screening will be conducted to assess the underlying assumptions. SPSS will be used to evaluate the assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, linearity, and multicollinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

 

Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used to analyze data to determine if assumptions were met. The research questions address potential differences between multiples dependent variables; therefore, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) will be utilized to analyze (French et al., 2008). Descriptive statistics are used to summarize the data and inferential statistics are used to test the hypotheses. MANOVA also allows for a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the phenomena being studied by the researcher (Allen, 2017). Finally, measuring the multiple response variables together will provide more chances at discovering the factor that is central to the investigation (Allen, 2017). A one-way MANOVA answered the five research questions regarding what leadership style characteristics does their supervisors or managers fall under when measuring the dependent variables. The level of significance was p < .05, meaning there was a 5% chance that a difference existed in the 5 leadership styles. The Alpha level is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true. Also, the current study will be determined whether a mean difference exists between those five leadership styles as well. Conducting an F-test could provide an overall comparison of whether the means of the five groups of five leadership styles If the obtained F is larger than the critical F, the null hypotheses is rejected (Gravetter & Larry, 2016). A null Hypothesis is when there are no relationship between variables, and no differences between groups. The one-way MANOVA creates a linear combination of the three dependent variables to generate a grand mean and determine if there were group differences in the dependent variables.

 

In order to run a one-way MANOVA, ten assumptions needed to be addressed one at a time to ensure the sample could be analyzed using this test, which consisted of (1) two or more dependent variables on a continuous level, (2) one independent variable has two or more categorical, independent groups, (3) independence of observation, (4) no univariate or multivariate outliers, (5) multivariate normality, (6) no multicollinearity, (7) linear relationship between dependent variable for each independent group, (8) adequate sample size, (9) homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and (10) homogeneity of variances (Statistics, 2015).

 

Assumption 1

 

Assumption 1 requires two or more dependent variables measured at the continuous level (Statistics, 2015). Assumption one was satisfied for the study, as there are three dependent variables measured on a Likert-type scale (Complete Dissertation, 2023). It is shown that, in a multigroup context, an analysis of Likert data under the assumption of multivariate normality may distort the factor structure differently across groups. In that case, investigations of measurement invariance (MI), which are necessary for meaningful group comparisons, are problematic. Analyzing subscale scores computed from Likert items does not seem to solve the problem ( Lubke, G. H. & Muthén B. O., 2009).

 

Assumption 2

 

Assumption 2 requires one independent variable with two or more categorical, independent levels (Statistics, 2015). The term level is typically reserved for groups that have an order (Statistics, 2015). The study has one independent variable (Leadership Styles) with five levels (structural leader, participative leader, servant leader, freedom-thinking, leader, and transformational leader). The second assumption was satisfied.

 

Assumption 3

 

Assumption 3 requires independence of observation where there is no relationship between the participants in any of the groups. Having different participants in each group is a way to address this assumption (Statistics, 2015). Assumption three was met as the data had different participants in each of the multigroups.

 

Assumption 4

 

This assumption is commonly tested in SPSS by following the Explore procedure. Any data that are more than 1.5 box-lengths from the edge of their box are classified by SPSS as outliers and are noted by circular icons, and data more than three box-lengths away are noted by an asterisk. For the second portion of the fourth assumption, the presence of multivariate outliers for the three dependent variables can be examined using Mahalanobis distance (Laerd, 2015). Although this is not a fool proof method, it is the more straightforward approach (Statistics, 2015).

 

Assumption 5

 

Assumption 5 requires multivariate normality, which means normally distributed data for each of the groups in the independent variable is expected (Statistics, 2015). This assumption is commonly tested by utilizing the Shapiro-Wilks test for normality in SPSS by following the seven-step Explore procedure. If the Sig. values of the Shapiro-Wilks test is greater than 0.05, the data is normal. If it is below 0.05, the data significantly deviate from a normal distribution. The values that are acceptable are the p-value. A P-P plot is best when used to explore extremely peaked distributions, while a Q-Q plot is best used to explore the influence of tails of a distribution. This test is commonly utilized if the sample size is less than 100 participants.

 

Assumption 6

 

Assumption 6 requires that there be no multicollinearity, which means that the dependent variables should be reasonably correlated with each other (Statistics, 2015). If the correlations are too high (greater than 0.9), there is risk for multicollinearity, which is problematic for a MANOVA (Statistics, 2015). The threshold for determining whether multicollinearity is present is r > .70 (Crossley, Subtirelu, & Salsbury, 2013). Utilizing the Bivariate procedure in SPSS, Pearson correlations between the dependent variables are analyzed to determine correlation between the variables (Statistics, 2015). If this assumption is violated, the researcher would consider using more conservative statistics for determining significance. The researcher can use alternative  F statistics (Welch’s or Brown-Forsythe; see Field, 2013) to determine if the researcher have statistical significance.

 

Assumption 7

 

Assumption 7 requires a linear association between the dependent variables for each group of independent variables (Statistics, 2015). A scatterplot matrix for each group of the independent variables identifies if there is linear relationship (a straight line) or not (a curved line). If the variables are not linearly related, then there is a loss of ability to identify differences (Statistics, 2015). In SPSS, after splitting the data file to separate out the independent levels, the Chart Builder procedure was utilized to assess linearity through scatterplot (Statistics, 2015).

 

Assumption 8

 

Assumption 8 requires a sufficient sample size. Laerd (2018) stated that the larger the sample size the better, but at a minimum, there need to be as many participants in each group of the independent variable as there are number of dependent variables. Assumption eight, demonstrating adequate sample size, was satisfied upfront by using a priori power analysis (see Appendix G). According to Cohen (1988), research studies with a medium (.50) to large (.80) effect size should contain 30 participants per cell (group) which should produce approximately 80% power.

 

Assumption 9

 

Assumption 9 requires homogeneity (similar or comparable) of variance-covariance matrices (matrix of all possible pairs of variables) (Statistics, 2015). After un-splitting the file, the assumption could be tested by utilizing Box’s M test of equality of covariance in SPSS. The important row is the significance level (p-value) of the Box’s M test. If the test is not statistically significant (i.e., p > .001), there is homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices and no assumptions are violated (Statistics, 2015).

 

Assumption 10

 

Assumption 10 requires homogeneity (same) of variances. Assuming the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices were not violated, a Levene’s test of equality of variances procedure in SPSS is run (Statistics, 2015). The one-way MANOVA assumes that there are equal variances between the groups of the independent variable. The important column is the Sig. which represents the significance level (p-value) of the test. If the test is not statistically significant (greater than .05), there are equal variances and the assumption of homogeneity of variances has not been violated (Statistics, 2015).

 

Meeting assumptions is a requirement for obtaining accurate results when using a one-way MANOVA as seen below in Table 2; however, it is common for data to violate one or more of these assumptions. When data violate assumptions, the researcher must use correct data, use an alternative test, or proceed with the analysis despite the violation of assumptions.

 

Table 2. Assumption Strategies for One-Way MANOVA

 

Assumption

 

 

Test

 

 

Alternate Fail Procedure

 

 

 

 

1. Two or more continuous DVs

 

 

Design feature

 

 

Change design or analysis

 

 

 

 

2. Two or more categorical IVs

 

 

Design feature

 

 

Change design or analysis

 

 

 

 

3. Independence of observations

 

 

Design feature

 

 

Change design or analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. No univariate or multivariate outliers

 

 

Review SPSS box plots; Mahalanobis distance test

 

 

Verify data entry or measurement errors; keep and transform or evaluate effect by running one- way MANOVA with and without outliers, or remove

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Normality of DV distribution or multivariate normality

 

 

Shapiro-Wilk test

 

 

Transform DVs, run one-way MANOVA; or keep as one-way MANOVA is somewhat robust to normality deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. DVs moderately correlated

 

 

Pearson correlation coefficient test between DVs

 

 

If low correlation, use multiple one-way ANOVAs. If high correlation, remove DV with high correlation or combine scores for new DV

 

 

 

 

7. A linear relationship between each pair of DVs for each IV group

 

 

Scatterplot matrix

 

 

Transform one or more DVs; remove non-linear DV, or keep and accept a loss of power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Adequate sample size

 

 

Minimum in each IV group as the number of DVs

 

 

 

 

 

Increase sample size

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Homogeneity of variances

 

 

Box’s test of Equality of Covariance Matrices

 

 

Proceed if equal samples of IVs. If unequal sample sizes, transform or keep and use Pillai’s Trace instead of Wilk’s Lambda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Homogeneity of variance- covariance matrices

 

 

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances test

 

 

Transform to equalize variances or continue and accept lower statistical significance and run different post-hoc tests

 

 

 

 

To determine the appropriate sample sizes, the researcher used G*Power version 3.1.9.4 software. Based upon the number of variables, the minimum sample size for the one-way MANOVA was 45 participants (As seen in Appendix G). For the input parameters the effective size is 15, probability is 0.05, power, is 0.8, the number of groups are 5, and the response variables are 3.To account for attrition, 15% was added to the minimum sample, 15% for possible use of nonparametric tests, and 30% added to the sample size of 45 which should total 60 in the final sample. It conserves more of your data, because all available data from cases are included. Missing data in quantitative research can lead to loss of important information, increase for standard errors, weaken generalization of findings, and reduce statistical power (Dong & Peng, 2013).

 

Significance of the Study

 

The relevance of this study is associated with its contributions towards facilitating an understanding of the different leadership styles and the variables of job satisfaction, motivation, and employee performance in a remote setting. The study will explore the impact of structural, servant, freedom-thinking, participative, and transformational leadership styles on the productivity, performance, and satisfaction of employees. Taking the attained results into account, the study will provide evidenced results establishing the most productive leadership style. Additionally, the study will facilitate the development of strong bonds between employees and their leaders with the aim of enhancing employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction.

 

Delimitations and Limitations

 

Limitations refer to factors that may affect the generalizability or external validity of the study whereas delimitations refer to the specific choices made by the researcher in the design of the study (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). While the selected research design will facilitate the attainment of applicable results, it is associated with various limitations and delimitations that will be discussed in this section. In consideration of the sample population, the length of remote working experience was a limitation of interest. Without sufficient experience, the study could yield undesirable results. Another limitation is tied down to the problem statement in the sense that only remote workers were considered. It would be of importance if traditional workers would participate in the study as it will facilitate a usable comparison of the various leadership styles utilized.

 

Summary

 

This casual comparative study was purposed to determine the relationship between independent and dependent variables by establishing role of leadership styles on employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction in a remote setting. With the aid of questionnaires, significant information will be collected from a sample size of 45 remote workers. A quantitative methodology will be integrated to scrutinize and analyze the data collected, forming the basis of this third chapter. In correlation with the limitation attributed to the sample population, various challenges were associated with the study. Regardless, the ethical standards in association facilitated the attainment of dependable results. With an understanding of the methodology to be incorporated, the subsequent chapter will cover the vital aspects of data collection and analysis.

 

References

 

Allred, K. G., Crawford, E. R., David, E. M., &amp; Anderson, L. A. (2018). Freedom-Thinking Leadership in Remote Work Settings: Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of Leadership &amp; Organizational Studies, 25(2), 160-172.

 

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5-32.

 

Araz, O. M., &amp; Azadegan-Mehr, M. (2021). The impact of participative leadership on team performance, job satisfaction, and motivation in virtual teams. Information &amp; Management, 58(2), 103391.

 

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.

 

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.

 

Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2015). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 498-510.

 

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

 

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., & Olsen, O. K. (2016). Effects of a job crafting intervention on job demands and job resources: a before-after study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 583-604.

 

Bughin, J., Manyika, J., Woetzel, J., Nyquist, S., Abdulla, S., Bahl, G., & Sanghvi, S. (2018). Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy. McKinsey Global Institute.

 

Chen, J., Liu, C., & Zhang, R. (2020). How does leadership style affect employee job satisfaction and performance in a virtual work environment? Evidence from China. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 101345.

 

Chou, H. W., Liao, Y. T., & Chen, C. Y. (2021). Effects of participative leadership style on team performance in virtual teams: The role of team trust. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102165

 

Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 166-187). Sage Publications.

 

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives.  The leadership quarterly,  25(1), 36-62.

 

Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Chung-Herrera, B. G., & Nadler, K. (2020). Leadership in the virtual workplace: The role of psychological safety. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(4), 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820910252

 

Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, D. V., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446.

 

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.

 

Gallup. (2017). State of the American workplace. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx

 

García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.

 

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2020). Telecommuting’s differential impact on work-family conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(12), 1392–1411. doi:10.1037/apl0000537

 

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.

 

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.

 

Graham, J. R., Shafritz, J. M., & Borins, S. F. (2019). Perspectives on public management and governance. Routledge.

 

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.

 

Huang, L., Huang, X., & Wei, F. (2020). Transformational leadership and employee creativity in a remote work setting: the role of innovative climate and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 443-452.

 

Karim, N., &amp; Abbas, M. (2020). Impact of freedom-thinking leadership on employee creativity in remote work settings: Mediating role of employee job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 112, 1-11.

 

Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., & Gatien, B. (2012). Bullying at work: The impact of shame and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 249-254.

 

Kim, H. J., Lee, D., & Lee, C. (2021). Servant leadership and employee motivation in virtual teams: A moderated mediation model of job characteristics and trust in leader. Sustainability, 13(6), 3076.

 

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67-79.

 

Liao, C., Liu, C., & Liu, Z. (2017). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee job satisfaction: A study

 

Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2015).  Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development. Cengage learning.

 

Maertz Jr, C. P., Bashaw, E. R., & Peterson, M. F. (2021). The impact of participative leadership on remote employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(1), 89-103

 

Nielsen, T. M., Marrone, J. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2017). The impact of servant leadership dimensions on leader-member exchange among virtual team members. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(4), 487-499.

 

O’Boyle Jr., E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2015). Exploring the relation of leadership style to employee turnover, employee satisfaction, and company financial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1645-1662.

 

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157-200.

 

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of present-day understanding of leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3-22). Sage Publications.

 

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Organizational behavior. Pearson.

 

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2012). ” Did you have a nice evening?” A day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 825-837.

 

van der Velden, M., Kramer, A., & de Lange, A. (2020). Leadership and employee outcomes in a virtual workplace: The role of job crafting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(3), 379-394.

 

Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.

 

Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of business unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 566-579.

 

Zhang, X., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). Exploring the relationship between personality and leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 369-384.

 

Zhou, X., Li, X., & Liang, J. (2019). Empowering leadership and employee innovative behavior in a remote work setting: The moderating role of task interdependence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(3), 731-753.

 

Zhu, J., Feng, Y., & Chen, S. (2020). Transformational leadership and employee well-being in a remote work setting: Mediating roles of social support and communication frequency. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-15.

 

Appendices

 

Appendix A: Informed Consent Form for Participants

 

You are invited to participate in a web-based online survey on The Role of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction in a Remote Setting. This is a research project being conducted by Ameki Williams, a student at South University.  It should take approximately 1-2 minutes to complete.

 

PARTICIPATION

 

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You may refuse to take part in the research or exit the survey at any time without penalty. You are free to decline to answer any particular questionyou do not wish to answer for any reason.

 

BENEFITS

 

You will receive no direct benefits from participating in this research study. However, your responses may help us learn more about whether great forms of leadership truly exist among of strategic management and leadership traits on employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction in the United States for remote work. 

 

RISKS

 

There are no foreseeable risks involved in participating in this study other than those encountered in day-to-day life.

 

CONFIDENTIALITY

 

Your survey answers will be sent to a link at SurveyMonkey.com where data will be stored in a password protected electronic format. Survey Monkey does not collect identifying information such as your name, email address, or IP address. Therefore, your responses will remain anonymous. No one will be able to identify you or your answers, and no one will know whether or not you participated in the study.

 

CONTACT

 

If you have questions at any time about the study or the procedures, you may contact my research supervisor, Professor Robert Widner via phone at  507-382-3411  or via email at  [email protected] . 

 

If you feel you have not been treated according to the descriptions in this form, or that your rights as a participant in research have not been honored during the course of this project, or you have any questions, concerns, or complaints that you wish to address to someone other than the investigator, you may contact the South University Institutional Review Board at  [email protected] . 

 

ELECTRONIC CONSENT: If you choose to participate in this survey, you are agreeing that you have read the above information, voluntarily agree to participate, and are 18-64 years of age or older. Thank you.

 

Appendix B: Demographics

 

Screening Questionnaire for Participants

 

1. Are you at least the age of 18 through 64?

 

A. Yes

 

B. No

 

2. Are you in a remote worker?

 

A. Yes

 

B. No

 

3. Do you have at least 6 months of experience in remote work?

 

A. Yes 

 

B. No

 

4. Are you a male or female?

 

A. Male

 

B. Female

 

  Appendix C: Research Permission

 

IWPQ Permission to Use

 

Appendix D: MLQ Permission

 

 Appendix E: MLQ

 

Appendix F: Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ)

 

Koopmans, L. (Linda) < [email protected] >

 

Mon 5/30/2022 3:27 AM

 

Appendix G: G*Power

 

Appendix H: SurveyMonkey

 

The Questionnaire:

 

Leadership Styles for Remote Workers

 

-This questionnaire is for remote workers to choose which Characteristics best describes which leadership style their supervisors or Managers are. 

 

1. Structural Leader 

 

• Reward and punishes team members based on performance

 

• Insist on clear goals

 

• Experiment

 

2.  Servant Leader

 

• Listens

 

• Empathy

 

• Awareness

 

3.  Participative (Democratic) Leader

 

• Open-Minded

 

• Encouraging

 

• Communication

 

4.  Freedom-Thinking Leader

 

• Give employees freedom to perform

 

• Stays out the way

 

• Comments and helps when needed

 

5.  Transformational Leader

 

• Inspires

 

• Empowers

 

• Strong role model

 

Appendix I: Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

 

 

 

 

 

JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY

 

Paul E. Spector

 

Department of Psychology

 

University of South Florida

 

​Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION

 

ABOUT IT.

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree very much

 

Disagree moderately

 

Disagree slightly

 

Agree slightly

 

Agree moderately

 

Agree very much

 

 

 

 

1  

 

 

I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

There is really too little chance for promotion on my job.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

4  

 

 

I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

I like the people I work with.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

Communications seem good within this organization.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

Raises are too few and far between.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

11

 

 

Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

My supervisor is unfair to me.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

13

 

 

The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

15

 

 

My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

16

 

 

I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

17

 

 

I like doing the things I do at work.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

18

 

 

The goals of this organization are not clear to me.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH QUESTION THAT COMES CLOSEST TO REFLECTING YOUR OPINION

 

ABOUT IT.

 

​Copyright Paul E. Spector 1994, All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree very much

 

Disagree moderately

 

Disagree slightly

 

Agree slightly

 

Agree moderately

 

Agree very much

 

 

 

 

19 

 

 

I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

20

 

 

People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

21

 

 

My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

22

 

 

The benefit package we have is equitable.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

23

 

 

There are few rewards for those who work here.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

24

 

 

I have too much to do at work.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

25

 

 

I enjoy my coworkers.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

26

 

 

I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

27

 

 

I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

28

 

 

I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

29

 

 

There are benefits we do not have which we should have.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

30

 

 

I like my supervisor.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

31

 

 

I have too much paperwork.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

32

 

 

I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

33

 

 

I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

34

 

 

There is too much bickering and fighting at work.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

35

 

 

My job is enjoyable.

 

 

          1     2     3     4     5     6

 

 

 

 

36

 

 

Work assignments are not fully explained.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.