© Kamla-Raj 2018 J Soc Sci, 55(1-3): 81-91 (2018)

DOI: 11.258359/KRE-174

The Effect of Participative and Directive Leadership on

Team Effectiveness among Administrative Employees in a
South African Tertiary Institution
Clement Bell1, Nicole Dodd2 and Themba Mjoli3

University of Fort Hare, Department of Industrial Psychology, King William’s Town Road,
P. Bag X1314, Alice 5700, South Africa
E-mail: 1<[email protected] >, 2<[email protected]>,
3
<[email protected]>

KEYWORDS Administration. Directing. Effectiveness. Leadership. Participation. Team

ABSTRACT The paper examined the effect of participative and directive leadership style on team effectiveness
among administrative employees in a South African tertiary institution. The paper employed a quantitative design,
and a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data. The respondents were selected using a non-probability
sampling method to achieve a sample size of 246 out of the population size of 676 administrative employees of
the university. The paper employed descriptive and inferential statistics in the form of Pearson’s correlations and
multiple regression methods in analysing data. The results showed that participative and directive leadership
individually have a significant effect on team effectiveness among administrative employees of the university.
They also revealed that a participative and directive leadership additively has a significant impact on team
effectiveness among administrative employees of the university. The paper recommended that South African
organisations should employ these leadership strategies in their quest for team excellence.

INTRODUCTION knowledge of people to achieve a competitive

advantage (Verma et al. 2016). Managers of dif-
The value of teams and their operations in ferent organisations employ teams as a strategy
organisations have been examined since the to establish highly responsive organisations. As
1920s. However, the forces exerted by the global such, they use teams to transform organisations
economy have heightened the need for differ- and increase their capabilities. Team structures
ent organisations to optimise the use of their enable team members to provide unique skills
teams (Shuffler et al. 2011). Effective function- which could help to develop an innovative or-
ing of organisations is strongly contingent on ganisation which is ready to deal with today’s
the teamwork (Emmerik et al. 2011). A team is organisational challenges (Daspit et al. 2013).
comprised of two or more people working to- Teams are regarded as highly effective vehicles
gether to enable performance and attainment of which operate effectively in contemporary or-
the main goals of the organisation (Sarkar and ganisations. Effective team members possess
Ray 2017). Different scholars have observed a adequate skill resources to achieve the impor-
significant increase in the use of team structures tant goals of the organisation (Sarkar and Ray
in today’s organisations (Hajro et al. 2017). Such 2017). These researchers, therefore, argue that
developments have come because of high lev- team effectiveness is the behaviour that is ori-
els of competition in the current dynamic busi- ented towards the goal of performing organisa-
ness environment which has forced organisa- tion-specific responsibilities using effective
tions to be more adaptable than ever before communication, cohesion, collaboration and
(Daspit et al. 2013). The advances in uses of cooperation.
technology have also heightened the level of The mission of the University of Fort Hare is
competition. Furthermore, globalisation of the “to produce high quality education of interna-
business world has contributed to this challeng- tional standards contributing to the advance-
ing environment which has also increased the ment of knowledge that is socially and ethically
value of team structures (Chou et al. 2008). Or- relevant, and applying that knowledge to the
ganisations have, therefore, adopted a team scientific, technological and social-economic
strategy to combine different experiences and development of the nation, continent and glo-
82 CLEMENT BELL, NICOLE DODD AND THEMBA MJOLI

bal world” (Student Guide 2018: 3). To strategi- tive leadership behaviours are conducive to team
cally position and invent itself so that it can performance (Ceri-Booms et al. 2017). Therefore,
attain the international educational standards, based on the background given above, the pa-
the university has organised its operations per sought to assess the effect of participative
around team structures because they produce and directive leadership style on team effective-
higher levels of organizational effectiveness as ness among administrative employees of a South
compared to traditional and bureaucratic struc- African tertiary institution.
tures that were common at the university. This
development resulted in restructuring, re-engi- Objectives
neering and downsizing within the university.
The work environment has become very com- The objectives of this research paper are to
plex and sophisticated. This change of the struc- determine the effect of participative and direc-
ture of the organisation has caused problems tive leadership on team effectiveness and to
between administrative managers and their sub- determine the additive effect of participative and
ordinates. As such, there is high turnover and directive leadership on team effectiveness
poor performance among the administrative em- among administrative employees in a South Af-
ployees. It was found that high administrative rican tertiary institution. In the same manner,
employee turnover of eighteen percent at Fort several hypotheses were formulated in this re-
Hare University was caused by job dissatisfac- search paper, which indicates that participative
tion and poor employee morale. This prevailing leadership has a significant effect on team effec-
situation has led to a perpetual loss of highly tiveness, directive leadership has a significant
qualified and experienced administrative em- impact on team effectiveness, and participative
ployees within the institution of higher learning and directive leadership styles combined have a
(Ngabase 2012). significant additive effect on team effectiveness
The problems that the university is experi- among administrative employees of a South Af-
encing are caused by ineffective leadership. Poor rican tertiary institution.
relations between leaders and their subordinates
compromise the quality of service of the univer- Literature Review
sity. Thus, poor leadership has destroyed the
human spirit that is critical to ensuring the effec- The Effect of Participative Leadership on Team
tiveness of the university in delivering service Effectiveness
excellence (Bell and Murugan 2013). It has threat-
ened the survival of the university. The outcomes Participative leadership is defined as the pro-
of such poor leadership include employee stress, cess of jointly making decisions or having a
disenchantment, lack of creativity, cynicism, high shared influence in decision-making by a leader
employee turnover and poor performance (Bell and his or her subordinates (Benoliel and So-
and Murugan 2013). The loss of many compe- mech 2014). Other researchers perceive this style
tent administrative employees has resulted in as entailing perceiving employees as critical
the loss of competitive advantage for the uni- knowledge resources who make up the hub of
versity (Nyengane 2007). The uses of team struc- an organisation. Participative leaders focus on
tures are highly effective in achieving organisa- interpersonal interactions and socialisation. As
tional goals when the team members are led ef- such, it is the same as an empowering leader-
fectively (Polychroniou 2009). Scholars argue ship paradigm (Mroz et al. 2018). It is a very
that there are various empirical studies on the significant concept in research, strategy devel-
success of different leadership styles that refer opment, and organisation management (Chen
to the association between styles and different and Tjosvold 2006; Fatima et al. 2017). However,
measures of performance such as the effective- there is a deficit of empirical studies that have
ness and efficiency of organisations (Richter been entirely devoted to assessing the effect of
2018). Other researchers argue that different lead- this style on team effectiveness (Sagie et al. 2002).
ership styles produce unique motivational forc- Researchers have argued that using a participa-
es that also affect team functioning differently tive leadership style is effective in team situa-
(Bell et al. 2014). Furthermore, other researchers tions. It has indispensable benefits (Somech and
specifically argued that directive and participa- Wenderow 2006; Richter 2018). As such, using
THE EFFECT OF PARTICIPATIVE AND DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP 83

such a leadership strategy is very crucial for able benefits. It can generate the social capacity
managing teams effectively (Somech 2005; New- necessary for effective organisations and improv-
man et al. 2016). Such a leader’s behaviour af- ing the quality of the decisions, enhancing team
fects the effective reactions of team members members’ motivation, and contributing to the quality
(Somech 2010). This leadership style produces of their work-life (Bell and Mjoli 2014; Fatima et al.
high levels of team outputs (Bell and Mjoli 2014). 2017). Participative leadership, therefore, provides
As such, it helps to solicit for new ideas from the best strategy in contemporary organizational
team members and this produces high perfor- environments (Somech 2010). It increases team
mance levels in work teams. It also provides a members’ commitment and work satisfaction. And
basis for understanding complex leadership be- in times of organizational change, it promotes higher
haviours in team circumstances. Furthermore, it levels of change acceptance and effectiveness (Fa-
motivates team members to develop more effec- tima et al. 2017). The cognitive variables of infor-
tive work systems and processes (Bouwmans et mation sharing and quality of ideas, as well as
al. 2017). motivational ones, facilitate the effect of this style
The more consistent merits of participative of leadership on team performance (Bouwmans et
leadership behaviour are found in decision-mak- al. 2017; Fatima et al. 2017).
ing processes (Sagie et al. 2002). It reduces prob- Participative leadership also stimulates think-
lems among diverse team members in heteroge- ing processes that promote quality decisions
neous team functions by creating an environ- leading to task performance. These processes
ment of open exchange of ideas (Lewis et al. include clarification of problems, information
2002; M¹czyñski and Su³kowski 2017). Partici- seeking, knowledge sharing, quality of ideas,
pative leadership, therefore, facilitates diverse and synthesis of ideas (Bouwmans et al. 2017).
perspectives to be put forward and thereafter Furthermore, it promotes team goal commitment,
help to achieve a consensus among team mem- self-efficacy, leader–subordinate mutual trust,
bers (Heller et al. 2007). It also promotes knowl- and ownership of decisions (Sagie et al. 2002;
edge sharing and the development of team mem- Lee et al. 2017). It is also very effective for deci-
bers’ competencies (Somech 2010; Buengeler et sion initiation and continuous development of
al. 2016). This leadership style motivates team team members (Somech 2005). Lastly, but not
members to rethink and reflect on their ideas least, it leads to improved team innovation and
and consider other ideas that may not be known team members’ attitudes towards work (Bouw-
to them previously. This, therefore, creates a mans et al. 2017). These extant arguments, there-
good team environment where ideas are openly fore, yield to the following hypothesis:
given, discussed, thoroughly analysed, and re-
flected on (Fatima et al. 2017). Furthermore, it H1: Participative leadership has a significant
encourages team members to find new opportu- effect on team effectiveness
nities and challenges and, therefore, to get knowl-
edge through acquiring, sharing, and integrat- The Effect of Directive Leadership on Team
ing ideas (Somech 2005; Fatima et al. 2017). Effectiveness
Participative leadership has a strong poten-
tial for achieving team performances that organ- Directive leadership is defined as the pro-
isations cannot attain using traditional bureau- cess of providing the subordinates with a frame-
cratic structures (Somech 2010; Kim and Beehr work for decision-making and action that is in
2018). As such, it is very critical today when agreement with a leader’s perspective (Sagie et
organisations are struggling to adjust and in- al. 2002; Somech 2006). It entails the leader who
vent their structures to respond to a growing is taking the ultimate power and control over all
demand for flexibility, concern for quality, and decision-making processes. This type of leader
the requirement for a high level of commitment does not see any value in allowing subordinates
among team members to their work (Ceri-Booms to participate in the process of making decisions
et al. 2017). Scholars have also argued that the and expects them to follow instructions given
problems facing organisations today are too by the leader (Mroz et al. 2018). It is also com-
heavy for any leader to solve alone. As a result, monly perceived as a task-oriented behaviour
allowing team members to participate in the de- with a strong tendency to control discussions,
cision-making process provides many indispens- dominate interactions, and personally direct task
84 CLEMENT BELL, NICOLE DODD AND THEMBA MJOLI

completion (Clark and Waldron 2016; Haar et al. qualities contribute to increasing team members’
2017). Researchers have also argued that using work performances. As such, highly directive
a directive leadership style has crucial and in- leaders promote the highest level of team mem-
dispensable benefits in team circumstances (So- bers’ work performance (Nobile 2015).
mech and Wenderow 2006). As such, it produc- Furthermore, directive leadership strength-
es high levels of team performances. It also helps ens the behaviours of adherence to rules and
to develop clear rules of conduct in work teams, procedure and attention to details, which also
and this helps to produce high levels of perfor- promotes team members’ work performances
mance. Furthermore, it stimulates team members (Nobile 2015; Mohiuddin 2017). It helps to im-
to develop effective work processes and sys- prove team member’s competences. As such, in
tems (Sagie et al. 2002; Ceri-Booms et al. 2017). functionally diverse teams, team members are
Directive leaders show a strong sense of inner capable of giving back the inputs their leaders
purpose and direction (Nobile 2015; Haar et al. have guided them to provide. Directive leader-
2017). As such, they motivate team members to ship, therefore, encourages team members to
take actions that support the leader’s strategy offer highly critical inputs, suggestions and so-
for the organisation. Their strategies are, there- lutions, which improves the processes of team
fore, transformational. reflection (Somech 2006). As such, the follow-
Directive leadership encourages team mem- ing hypothesis has been proposed:
bers to transcend challenging goals and achieve
high levels of performances (Nobile 2015; Ceri- H2: Directive leadership has a significant
Booms et al. 2017). It also provides clear goals, effect on team effectiveness
which turn organisational objectives into short-
term goals and serve as a standard guide for The Additive Effect of Participative and
team members (Sagie et al. 2002; Abecassis- Directive Leadership on Team Effectiveness
Moedas and Gilson 2017). Other researchers ar-
gue that it stimulates reflection processes (Burke Researchers have regarded participative and
et al. 2006). As such, this leadership style also directive leadership as the contrasting styles at
the opposite ends of a single continuum (Green-
helps to improve the exchange and processing
berg 2011). But although these two leadership
of knowledge, which in turn, leads to perfor- styles were first considered as terminal points
mance improvement. Directive leadership behav- of a leadership style continuum, which meant
iours further increase the work commitment and that an increase in the focus on directive would
involvement of the team members (Ceri-Booms come at the expense of employee participation
et al. 2017). and the opposite, the notion that leaders can
The organisational knowledge and intellec- serve both spheres largely independent of one
tual abilities of directive leaders help to improve another took a strong stance later (Richter 2018).
team performance (Burke et al. 2006; Nobile These styles are not regarded as mutually exclu-
2015). The strategies of these leaders assist in sive (Hansen and Villadsen 2010). Investigating
the acquisition and diffusion of knowledge these two leadership styles simultaneously is a
among team members, which in turn, also pro- crucial response to a call by researchers and
motes team efficiency. The motivation factors practitioners to leave the traditional perspective
associated with this style also facilitate the in- and then adopt an inclusive strategy (Bell et al.
fluence of the directive leadership on team per- 2014). This makes it easy to perceive leadership
formance (Sagie et al. 2002; Iqbal et al. 2015). behaviour in genuinely new and different ways.
The most critical motivation factor induced by a Moreover, leaders can choose between the two
directive leadership style is the willingness of seemingly opposite styles of leader behaviours
team members to expend more effort on work. It (Bell et al. 2014). Both leadership styles help in
promotes goal attainment by serving as a source increasing team effectiveness (Somech 2006).
of feedback for team members (Somech 2005; The perceived contradiction between participa-
Gelfand et al. 2007). As such, the evaluation and tive and directive behaviours is not visible and
control of team members’ work are the behav- both are effective in improving team performanc-
ioural qualities of this leadership style. Direc- es (Sagie et al. 2002).
tive control allows the leader to adapt team re- Each leadership style promotes motivation-
sources and goals when required. These stated al processes, which in turn, promote teams’ work
THE EFFECT OF PARTICIPATIVE AND DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP 85

performance and innovation (Bell et al. 2014; Ceri- when team members’ commitment is needed for
Booms et al. 2017). Building on the seemingly decisions to be accomplished. And they tend to
conflicting demands of the two leadership styles, be directive when they have enough knowledge
researchers argue that team members led by a required for making a decision. They also em-
directive leader cannot fully contribute to task ploy more directive practices when they sus-
accomplishment. And competent team members pect a conflict among team members (Sagie et al.
are more likely to participate in the task if their 2002). Furthermore, researchers argue that when
leader is participative than if the leader is direc- the organizational strategy is articulated leaders
tive (Sagie et al. 2002). Another scholar argues are directive, and when operational decisions
that participative and directive leadership are are critical, they employ a more participative lead-
compatible with each other (Somech 2005). As ership practice (Sagie at al. 2002). These extant
such, transformational leaders use both practic- arguments, therefore, lead to the following
es. They show a strong sense of inner purpose hypothesis:
and direction, and they also motivate team mem-
bers to take actions that support the leader’s H3: Participative and directive leadership has
strategy (Somech 2006). Further, they show par- a significant additive effect on team
ticipative orientation by giving autonomy to team effectiveness
members and thereby developing their capaci-
ties to achieve broad organizational goals. The MATERIAL AND METHODS
two key qualities are perceived as communicat-
ing a strategy and empowering the team mem- The current paper adopted a quantitative
bers to achieve the strategy (Somech 2006). research design. The quantitative research ap-
Other researchers also see a leader as some- proach strongly makes use of empirical analysis
one who uses either loose or tight leadership to reach conclusions, and it enables the re-
practice according to the prevailing team circum- searcher to test hypotheses (Hair et al. 2008).
stances (Bell et al. 2014). These scholars argue The research population for the present study
that the perception that participative and direc- included administrative employees working at
tive leadership practices can be integrated is Fort Hare University in the Eastern Cape Prov-
uncommon in South African organisational team ince in South Africa. The administrative depart-
contexts. As such, there is knowledge deficien- ments that were included in the study are the
cy in these areas. The Japanese managers have Human Resources, Finance, Registrar, Student
fully accepted the workers’ innovative ideas and Administration, Communications and Market-
are willing to adopt and implement their sugges- ing, Examinations, Payroll, Library, Information
tions and recommendations for the improvement Technology, Accommodation, Maintenance, and
of team performances. The two leadership styles Institutional Support. The present study em-
complement each other. This perspective is sup- ployed a non-probability sampling method to
ported by the loose–tight leadership theory, select respondents from the population. As
which suggests an amalgamation of directive such, a convenience sampling technique was
and participative leadership practices (Sagie et used. The sample size that was used in the
al. 2002). present study was calculated using Raosoft Sam-
Researchers, however, argue that the inte- ple Size Calculator. Raosoft sample size calcula-
gration of these leadership styles does not nec- tor is web-based software used to calculate the
essarily produce a coherent and stable leader’s sample size when the population is given. It also
style. It produces a dynamic one in which either computes the critical value for the normal distri-
participative or directive leadership becomes bution (Raosoft Inc. 2004). The sample size n
more potent, depending on the prevailing team and margin of error E are given by the following
situational factors (Bell et al. 2014). However, formula:
participative leadership is more favoured than
directive leadership (Richter 2018). Other re-
searchers further perceive it as more warm and n=Nx/((N-1)E2+x
competent compared to directive ones (Mroz et
al. 2018). Leaders tend to be participative when Where N is the population size, r is the frac-
a high technical quality strategy is required or tion of responses that one is interested in, and
86 CLEMENT BELL, NICOLE DODD AND THEMBA MJOLI

Z(c/100) is the critical value for the confidence adopted from Litwin and Stringer (1968) was
level c. Using a population size of 676, five per- used. Directive leadership questionnaire includ-
cent margin of error, ninety-five percent confi- ed seven items that measure the extent to which
dence level and an expected response distribu- a leader provides the subordinates with a frame-
tion of fifty percent, the recommended minimum work for decision-making and action that is in
sample size is (n= 246). The margin of error is the favour with the leader’s vision. The sample items
amount of error that can be tolerated. However, are, “my supervisor expects team members to
the researchers distributed 286 questionnaires follow his or her instructions precisely”, “my
to the respondents and 246 questionnaires were supervisor makes most decisions for team mem-
fully completed. Hence, the response rate was bers”, and “my supervisor supervises team mem-
66.7 percent. This paper used a structured ques- bers very closely”. The reliability level of alpha
tionnaire because of its ability to provide the was .809. The respondents used bi-polar (six-
most satisfactory range of reliable data. point) scales, with two opposing responses on
both ends ranging from extremely disagree (1)
Data Collection Method to extremely agree (6).
The data collection method which was em- Team Effectiveness
ployed for this paper was only the primary data
collection method. The primary data was col- To measure the extent to which teams dis-
lected using the administration of survey ques- played team effectiveness behaviours and pro-
tionnaires to the administrative employees of cesses, the researchers used the LaFasto and
Fort Hare University. Permission was obtained Larson (2001) team effectiveness scale. It has
from the Human Resources Management Depart- eleven items that measure team effectiveness.
ment of the University to collect data from the This scale clusters behaviours into two dimen-
employees, and thereafter the questionnaires sions of team effectiveness. These dimensions
were distributed by the researchers to the re- are leader and team effectiveness (Mahembe
spondents. The researchers continued visiting 2010). Sample items are, “achieving the team goal
the respondents to motivate them to complete is a higher priority than any individual objective”,
the questionnaires and to collect those ques- “team members trust each other sufficiently to
tionnaires that were fully completed. Thus, such accurately share information, perceptions, and
a procedure continued until a required sample feedback”, and “our team leader is willing to con-
size was achieved. front and resolve issues associated with inade-
quate performance by team members”. The reli-
Research Instruments ability level of alpha was 929. The respondents
used a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from
Participative Leadership
strongly disagree (1) to 7 strongly agree (7).
To assess the extent to which a leader dis-
played participative leadership behaviour, a scale Data Capturing and Analysis
adopted from Arnold et al. (2000) was used. Par-
ticipative leadership questionnaire included six Data was captured and coded in Microsoft
items that measure the extent of involvement in Excel. To test and analyse all the proposed hy-
various decisions. The sample items are, “my potheses, descriptive and inferential statistics
supervisor encourages team members to express were used. Statistical Package for the Social Sci-
their ideas or suggestions”, and “my supervisor ences (SPSS) was, therefore, used to test alpha
uses our team member’s suggestions to make reliability coefficients of the research scales and
decisions that affect us”. The reliability level of to compile descriptive and inferential statistics
alpha was 877. The respondents used a 5-point in the form of Pearson’s correlations and multi-
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree ple regressions when hypotheses were tested.
(1) to strongly agree (5).
RESULTS
Directive Leadership
This section will discuss the key findings of
To assess the extent to which a leader dis- the present study. As such, the demographic
played directive leadership behaviour, a scale profile of the sample will be presented. Thereaf-
THE EFFECT OF PARTICIPATIVE AND DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP 87

ter, the main findings and the relationships be- Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the par-
tween the relevant variables will be presented. ticipants (n=246)

Variable Participant Frequency Percent

Demographic Profile of the Sample characteristics (%)

A total of two hundred and forty-six admin- Gender Female 146 59.4
Male 100 40.7
istrative employees of the university participat- Age (in years) 20-29 82 33.3
ed in this research paper. Among the sample 30-39 66 26.8
group, 59.4 percent were females and 40.7 per- 40-49 54 21.9
cent were males. With regards to age, 33.3 per- 50-59 39 15.9
cent were between the age group of 20-29; 26.8 >60 5 2.0
Education High school 17 6.9
percent were between the age group of 30-39; Level Certificate 32 13.0
21.9 percent were between the age group of 40- Diploma 38 15.5
49; 15.9 percent were between the age group of Degree 89 36.2
50-59, and 2.03 percent were between the age Postgraduate degree 7 0 28.5
Home Xhosa 173 70.3
group of 60 and above. Also, with regards to Language Zulu 17 6.9
education levels, 6.9 percent had a high school Afrikaans 26 10.6
qualification; thirteen percent had a certificate; English 17 6.9
15.5 percent had a diploma; 36.2 percent had a Sepedi 13 5.3
degree, and 28.5 percent had a post-graduate
degree. Lastly, but not least, with regards to leadership has a significant effect on team effec-
home languages, 70.3 percent spoke Xhosa; 6.9 tiveness among administrative employees of the
percent spoke Zulu; 10.6 percent spoke Afri- university. The results shown in Table 2, there-
kaans; 6.9 percent spoke English, and 5.3 per- fore, also demonstrate that directive leadership
cent spoke Sepedi. The demographic profile of has a significant effect on team effectiveness
the sample is presented in Table 1. among administrative employees of the univer-
sity (Leader team effectiveness: r=0.22; p=0.000;
Results from Tested Hypotheses Team effectiveness: r=0.14; p=0.029; Total team
effectiveness: r=0.27; p=0.000). The p-values
The first hypothesis proposed that partici- (probability) were also significant at both 00.5
pative leadership has a significant effect on team and 0.01. The null hypothesis was, therefore,
effectiveness among administrative employees rejected and the alternative one favoured. The
of the university. The results shown in Table 2, third and last hypotheses proposed that partic-
therefore, demonstrate that participative leader- ipative and directive leadership put together
ship has a significant effect on team effective- have an additive effect on team effectiveness
ness among administrative employees of the among administrative employees of the univer-
university (Leader team effectiveness: r=0.57; sity. The results in Table 3, therefore, also dem-
p=0.000; Team effectiveness: r=0.45; p=0.000; onstrate that the multiple correlation values are
Total team effectiveness: r=0.59; p=0.000). The 0.591, 0.908 and 0.869 with the R-squared values
p-values (probability) were significant at both being 0.350, 0.824 and 0.755. The results also
00.5 and 0.01. The null hypothesis was, there- show Beta weights of (Total team effectiveness:
fore, rejected and the alternative one accepted. β = 0.250; p<0.000; leader team effectiveness:
The second hypothesis proposed that directive β = 0.797; p<0.000; team effectiveness: β = 0.646;

Table 2: Descriptive statistics and inter-correlation matrix of study variables (individual level) (N = 246)

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

Participative leadership 23.1 4.8 0.000 **

Directive leadership 30.3 5.4 0.029 * 0.000 **
Leader team effectiveness 20.7 5.10 0.000 ** 0.029 * 0.000 **
Team effectiveness 38.10 7.10 0.000 ** 0.000 0.000 ** 0.000 **
Total team effectiveness 59.7 12.9 0.000 ** 0.000 0.000 ** 0.000 ** 0.000 **
*
p < .05; **p < .01.
88 CLEMENT BELL, NICOLE DODD AND THEMBA MJOLI

Table 3: Multiple regression between participative and directive leadership, on the one hand, and
team leader effectiveness, team effectiveness, and total team effectiveness on the other (N = 246)

Variables Multiple R2 A R2 Standard F Sign Beta t Sig t

R error F

Total T Effectiveness (dep-) 0.591 0.350 0.344 4.679 65.312 0.000 b

Participative (indep-) 0. 250 6.570 0.000
Directive (indep-) 0.148 2.831 0.005
Leader T Effectiveness 0.908 0.824 0.822 0.43434567.442 0.000 b
(dep-)
Participative (indep-) 0.797 567.442 0.000
Directive (indep-) 0.163 2.310 0.012
b
Team Effectiveness (dep-) 0.869 0.755 0.753 0.4901374.615 0.000
Participative (indep-) 0.646 26.400 0.000
Directive (indep-) 0.111 3.447 0.001

p<0.000) for the relationship between participa- cognitive processes related to decision-making
tive leadership and team effectiveness. The same among university administrative employees.
results show Beta weights of (Total team effec- Other researchers also argued that participative
tiveness: β = 0.148; p<0.005; leader team effec- leadership has a strong potential for promoting
tiveness: β = 0. 163; p<0.012; team effective- team performances that organisations cannot
ness: β = 0.111; p<0.001) for the relationship attain using traditional top-down structures (Kim
between directive leadership and team effective- and Beehr 2018). This, therefore, implies that it
ness. The results, moreover, show that R- has the capacity to enhance performance among
squared values are (R2 = 0.350, 0.824 and 0.755) the university’s administrative employee teams
for participative and directive leadership, respec- compared to bureaucratic structures. Participa-
tively. The p-values (probability) were signifi- tive leadership was regarded as a very critical
cant at both 00.5 and 0.01. The null hypothesis leadership strategy when organisations are
was, therefore, also rejected and the alternative struggling to adjust and invent their structures
one adopted. to respond to a growing demand for adaptabili-
ty, management of quality, and the requirement
DISCUSSION for a high level of commitment among team mem-
bers to their work (Ceri-Booms et al. 2017; Kim
Hypothesis One and Beehr 2018). This argument, therefore, im-
plies that this style of leadership could enable
Having tested the first hypothesis, which the administrative employees of the university
states that participative leadership has a signif- to be highly adaptable, quality conscious and
icant effect on team effectiveness, the null hy- achieve high work commitment levels. Further-
pothesis was rejected in favour of the alterna- more, other researchers suggested that partici-
tive one. This shows that participative leader- pative leadership generates the social capacity
ship significantly affects team effectiveness that is critical for improving the quality of the
among administrative employees of the univer- decisions and for contributing to the quality of
sity. This finding was reinforced by Bouwmans employees’ work-life (Bell and Mjoli 2014; Fati-
et al. (2017) who argued that participative lead- ma et al. 2017). As such, the extant argument
ership motivates team members to develop more means that this leadership style has the power
effective work systems and processes. They ar- to improve the quality of decisions and work-
gued that it stimulates reflective processes such life among the administrative employees of the
as the clarification of problems, information seek- university.
ing, knowledge sharing, quality of ideas, and
synthesis of ideas that promote quality deci- Hypothesis Two
sions leading to the performance of tasks (Bou-
wmans et al. 2017). This implies that participa- In testing the second hypothesis, which
tive leadership style enhances the motivation to states that directive leadership has a significant
establish more effective work structures and effect of team effectiveness, the null hypothesis
THE EFFECT OF PARTICIPATIVE AND DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP 89

was also rejected and the alternative one adopt- employees of the university. Supporting this find-
ed. This implies that directive leadership has a ing, a researcher argued that both leadership
significant impact on team effectiveness among styles could help increase team effectiveness
administrative employees of the university. This (Somech 2006). As such, the perceived contra-
finding was also supported by Ceri-Booms et al. diction between their behaviours is not visible
(2017) who argued that directive leaders encour- and both are effective in improving team perfor-
age team members to transcend challenging mances (Sagie et al. 2002). Each leadership style
goals and achieve high levels of performances. promotes motivational processes, which in turn,
As such, their directive control allows the lead- boost teams’ work performance and innovation
er to adapt team resources and goals when re- (Bell et al. 2014; Ceri-Booms et al. 2017). Howev-
quired to enhance the highest level of team mem- er, in support of the finding that participative
bers’ work performances (Nobile 2015). These leadership has a stronger effect than directive
extant arguments, therefore, suggest that this leadership on team effectiveness, a researcher
argued that participative leadership is more
leadership style helps to empower the adminis-
favoured than directive leadership (Richter
trative employees of the university to achieve 2018). These extant arguments, therefore, sug-
difficult goals and high levels of performances. gest that these two leadership styles put together
Other researchers further argued that directive could help to increase team effectiveness by
leadership style strengthens the behaviours of improving motivational processes, team perfor-
adherence to rules and procedure as well as at- mance and innovation among administrative
tention to details, which also promotes team employees of the university. But a participative
members’ work performances (Mohiuddin 2017). style has more power than directive style in pro-
Reinforcing the same argument, other research- moting team effectiveness among administrative
ers argued that it stimulates team members to employees of the university. Furthermore, re-
develop effective work processes and systems searchers argued that a leader is someone who
(Sagie et al. 2002). This implies that this style of uses either loose or tight leadership practice ac-
leadership can enforce the rules and provide the cording to the prevailing team circumstances (Bell
work culture that promotes effective performance et al. 2014). As such, the two leadership styles
among the administrative employees of the uni- could complement each other (Sagie et al. 2002).
versity. Furthermore, it was suggested that di- This implies that participative and directive lead-
rective leaders show a strong sense of inner ership integrated could enhance team effective-
purpose and direction. As such, they motivate ness among administrative employees of the uni-
team members to take actions that support the versity by supporting each other depending on
leader’s strategy for the organisation (Haar et al. their prevailing team circumstances.
2017). This suggests that this style of leader-
ship has the power to foster a direction and there- CONCLUSION
by promote alignment with the leader’s strategy
among the university’s administrative employ- Participative and directive leadership styles
ees’ behaviours. are a very significant concept in research, strat-
egy development and organisation management.
There is a deficit of empirical studies that have
Hypothesis Three been fully devoted to examining the effect of
these styles on team effectiveness among ad-
In the third hypothesis, the null hypothesis ministrative employees of the university. Re-
was rejected after some statistical testing was searchers argued that using these leadership
performed. The hypothesis stated that partici- styles is of utmost importance in team situations.
pative and directive leadership styles combined As such, the objective of this paper was to as-
have a significant additive effect on team effec- sess the individual and additive effect of partic-
tiveness. The results showed that the two lead- ipative and directive leadership on team effec-
ership styles combined have an additive effect tiveness among administrative employees of the
on team effectiveness among administrative university. These objectives of this paper were,
employees of the university. However, the re- therefore, achieved. It was, therefore, conclud-
sults also showed that participative leadership ed that participative and directive leadership
has a stronger impact than directive leadership have a significant effect on team effectiveness
on team effectiveness among administrative among the administrative employees of a uni-
90 CLEMENT BELL, NICOLE DODD AND THEMBA MJOLI

versity. Furthermore, it was also concluded that REFERENCES

participative and directive leadership combined
have a positive and significant additive effect Abecassis-Moedas C, Gilson LL 2017. Drivers and levels
of creative leadership: An examination of choreogra-
on team effectiveness among administrative phers as directive and integrative leaders. Innov Or-
employees. However, it was also concluded that ganisation and Management, 20(2): 122-138.
while participative leadership accounts for higher Arnold JA, Arad S, Rhoades JA, Drasgow F 2000. The
amounts of variances in team effectiveness than empowering leadership questionnaire: The construc-
tion and validation of a new scale for measuring lead-
directive leadership, both account for highly sig- er behaviours. J Organ Beh, 21: 249-269.
nificant proportions of variances in team effec- Bell C, Mjoli T 2014. The effect of participative leader-
tiveness among the administrative employees ship on organisational commitment: Comparing its
of the university. effects on two gender groups among bank clerks. A
Bus Man, 8: 451-459.
Bell C, Murugan C 2013. The relationship between con-
RECOMMENDATIONS scientiousness, extraversion and leadership effective-
ness among local government managers in Eastern
Some critical recommendations have been Cape, South Africa. A Bus Man, 7: 4386-4397.
Bell C, Murugan C, Nel P 2014. The impact of partici-
provided to different organisations including the pative and directive leadership on organisational cul-
institutions of higher learning in South Africa. ture: An organisational development perspective. M
The paper recommends that different South Af- Soc Scie, 5: 2039-2117.
rican organisations should employ the individ- Benoliel B, Somech A 2014. The health and perfor-
mance effects of participative leadership: Exploring
ual approaches of participative and directive the moderating role of the big five personality di-
leadership in their quest to promote team effec- mensions. Europ J Work and Organisat Psychol, 23(2):
tiveness, depending on their specific team cir- 277-294.
cumstances. This paper also recommends that Bouwmans M, Runhaar P, Wesselink R, Mulder M 2017.
Fostering teachers’ team learning: An interplay be-
organisations should adopt a relatively new par- tween transformational leadership and participative
adigm of leadership in South African organisa- decision-making? Teac and Teache Educatio, 65: 71-
tions in pursuit of team effectiveness, which 80.
embraces the complementary power of both par- Buengeler C, Homan AC, Voelpel SC 2016. The chal-
lenge of being a young manager: The effects of con-
ticipative and directive leadership. Thus, they tingent reward and participative leadership on team-
should perceive these leadership styles as mu- level turnover depend on leader age. J Organ Behav,
tually inclusive and convergent instead of di- 37: 1224-1245.
vergent ones. Furthermore, the paper recom- Burke CS, Stagl KC, Klein C, Goodwin GF, Salas E et al.
2006. What type of leadership behaviours are func-
mends that more research should be conducted tional in teams? A meta-analysis. Lead Quart, 17:
on these variables in different organisational con- 288-307.
texts to confirm the validity of these findings. Ceri-Booms M, Curºeu PL, Oerlemans LAG 2017. Task
and person-focused leadership behaviors and team
This will then enable the generalisability of these performance: A meta-analysis. H Resou Managem
findings in other organisational contexts. Rev, 27(1): 178-192.
Chen YF, Tjosvold D 2006. Participative leadership by
LIMITATIONS American and Chinese managers in China: The role
of relationships. J Manage Stud, 43: 1727-1752.
Chou L, Wang A, Wang T, Huang M, Cheng B 2008.
The major limitation of the study was the Shared work values and team member effectiveness:
shortage of funding for transportation and oth- The mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness.
Hum Relat, 61: 1713-1742.
er logistics of conducting research. The study Clark KD, Waldron T 2016. Predictors of leadership
was, therefore, only carried out in one institu- behavior in early career white-collar professionals:
tion of higher learning. Furthermore, the non- The roles of personal characteristics and career con-
text. J Lead and Organis Stud, 23(1): 27-38.
probability sampling method used in this re- Daspit J, Tillman CJ, Boyd NG, Mckee V 2013. Cross-
search paper was not effective enough to pro- functional team effectiveness: An examination of
duce results that could be generalised in other internal team environment, shared leadership, and
organisational situations. cohesion influences. Tea Perform Manage, 19: 34-
56.
Emmerik HV, Jawahar IM, Schreurs B, Cuyper ND 2011.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Social capital, team efficacy and team potency. C
Develop International, 16(1): 82-99.
Fatima T, Safdar S, Jahanzeb S 2017. Participative lead-
This research was funded by the Govan ership and employee creativity: Moderating role of
Mbeki Research and Development Centre (Uni- need for achievement. N Inter J Busin and Mana-
versity of Fort Hare, South Africa). gem, 12(1): 1-14
 THE EFFECT OF PARTICIPATIVE AND DIRECTIVE LEADERSHIP 91

Gelfand MJ, Erez M, Aycan Z 2007. Cross-cultural orga- iting intern performance: evidence from china. H
nizational behaviour. Ann Rev of Psycholo, 58: 479- Resou Managem, 55(1): 53-67.
514. Ngabase X 2012. The Effect of Perceived Organisation-
Greenberg J 2011. Behaviour in Organisations: Under- al Support and Organisational Commitment on Turn-
standing and Managing the Human Side of Work. over Intention among Academic Staff at the Univer-
USA: Pearson Education International. sity of Fort Hare. Master’s Thesis, Unpublished. South
Haar SV, Koeslag-Kreunen M, Euwe E, Segers M 2017. Africa: Fort Hare University.
Team leader structuring for team effectiveness and Nobile JD 2015. The directive communication of Aus-
team learning in command-and-control teams. S Grou tralian primary school principals. Inter J Leader in
Resear, 48(2): 215-248. Educat, 18(2): 239-258.
Hair JF, Wolfinbarger M, Ortinau DJ, Bush RP 2008. Nyengane MH 2007. The Relationship between Leader-
Essentials of Marketing Research. New York: McGraw- ship Style and Employee Commitment: An Explor-
Hill Companies Inc. atory Study in an Electricity Utility of South Africa.
Hajro A, Gibson CB, Pudelko M 2017. Knowledge ex- Master’s Thesis, Published. South Africa: Rhodes Uni-
change processes in multicultural teams: Linking or- versity.
ganizational diversity climates to teams’ effective- Polychroniou PV 2009. Relationship between emotion-
ness. Aca Management Journal, 60(1): 345-372. al intelligence and transformational leadership of su-
Hansen JR, Villadsen AR 2010. Comparing public and pervisors: The impact on team effectiveness. Tea
private managers’ leadership styles: Understanding Perform Manage, 15: 343-356.
the role of job context. Inter Pub Management Jour- Raosoft Inc 2004. Raosoft Sample Size Calculator. From
nal, 13(3): 247-274. <http://www. raosoft.com/samplesize.html> (Re-
Heller R, Bono ED, Humphrey A 2007. Creating Action trieved on 22 November 2013).
Management: How to Win With Teams. Thinking Richter G 2018. Antecedents and consequences of lead-
Managers Special Report. United Kingdom: Heller ership styles: Findings from empirical research in
Management Ltd. multinational headquarters. Arm Forc and Socie,
Iqbal N, Anwar S, Haider N 2015. Effect of leadership 44(1): 72-91.
style on employee performance. Arabian J Bus Man- Sagie A, Zaidman N, Amichai-Hamburger Y, Te’eni D,
ag Review, 5(5): 1-6. Schwartz S 2002. An empirical assessment of the
Kim M, Beehr TA 2018. Empowering leadership: Lead- loose-tight leadership model: Quantitative and quali-
ing people to be present through affective organiza- tative analyses. J Organ Behavior, 23: 303-320.
tional commitment? Inter J Hum Resou Manage- Sarkar M, Ray A 2017. Emotional intelligence and team
ment, 1-25. effectiveness: A study among correctional officers of
LaFasto F, Larson C 2001. When Teams Work Best: 6,000 West Bengal. Inter J Ind Psychol, 4(3): 150-161.
Team Members and Leaders Tell What it Takes to Shuffler ML, DiazGranados D, Salas E 2011. There’s a
Succeed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. science for that: Team development interventions in
Lee A, Willis S, Tian AW 2017. Empowering leadership: organizations. Curr Directio in Psychol Scie, 20(6):
A meta-analytic examination of incremental contri- 365-372.
bution, mediation, and moderation. J Organ Behav, Somech A 2005. Directive versus participative leader-
39(3): 306-325. ship: Two complementary approaches to managing
Lewis MW, Welsh MA, Dehler GE, Green SG 2002. school effectiveness. Educ Admin Quart, 41: 777-
Product development tensions: Exploring contrast- 800.
ing styles of product management. The Acad Manage Somech A 2006. The effects of leadership style and
J, 45: 546-564. team process on performance and innovation in func-
Litwin GH, Stringer RA 1968. Motivation and Organi- tionally heterogeneous teams. J Manage, 32: 132-
zational Climate. Boston: Harvard University Press. 157.
M¹czyñski J, Su³kowski L 2017. A seven nation’s study Somech A 2010. Participative decision making in schools:
of leadership attributes. Polis Psycholog Bullet, 48(2): A mediating-moderating analytical framework for
307-314. understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educ
Mahembe B 2010. The Relationship between Servant Admin Quart, 46: 174-209.
Leadership, Team Commitment, Team Citizenship Somech A, Wenderow M 2006. The impact of partici-
Behaviour and Team Effectiveness: An Exploratory pative and directive leadership on teachers’ perfor-
Study. Master’s Thesis, Unpublished. South Africa: mance: The intervening effects of job structuring,
University of Stellenbosch. decision domain, and leader-member exchange. Educ
Mohiuddin ZA 2017. Influence of leadership style on Admin Quart, 42: 746-772.
employees’ performance: Evidence from literatures. Student Guide 2018. Your Future Begins Today. South
J Mark and Management, 8(1): 18-30. Africa: University of Fort Hare.
Mroz JE, Yoerger M, Allen JA 2018. Leadership in work- Verma N, Rangnekar SN, Barua MK 2016. Exploring
place meetings: The intersection of leadership styles decision making style as a predictor of team effec-
and follower gender. J Lead and Organis Stud, 25(3): tiveness. Inter J Organis Analys, 24(1): 36-63.
1-14.
Newman A, Rose PS, Teo ST 2016. The role of partic- Paper received for publication on June 2014
ipative leadership and trust-based mechanisms in elic- Paper accepted for publication on December 2016

View publication stats