See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290797675

Leadership Styles, Employee Turnover Intentions and Counterproductive Work

Behaviours

Article · February 2016

CITATIONS READS

16 17,271

1 author:

Albert Puni
University of Professional Studies
26 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

THE ESSENTIAL COMPETENCIES OF CROSS CULTURAL MANAGEMENT: A CRITICAL REVIEW View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Albert Puni on 17 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 www.ijird.com January, 2016 Vol 5 Issue 1

ISSN 2278 – 0211 (Online)

Leadership Styles, Employee

Turnover Intentions and Counterproductive Work Behaviours
Dr. Albert Puni
Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, University of Professional Studies, Accra, Ghana
Collins B. Agyemang
Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, University of Professional Studies, Accra, Ghana
Dr. Emmanuel Selase Asamoah
Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, University of Professional Studies, Accra, Ghana

Abstract:
We have examined the relationship between leadership style, employee turnover intentions, and counterproductive work
behaviours using a cross sectional survey design by purposively sampling eight (8) branches of one of Ghana’s premier banks
and conveniently selecting 170 respondents. Data was solicited by means of questionnaire adapted from Simon and Oates (2009)
measured on five (5) point Likert- scale and analysed using inter-correlation matrix to establish the relationship between the
study variables. The result showed a significant positive association between autocratic leadership style, employee turnover
intentions, and counterproductive work behaviour but exposed significant negative connection between democratic leadership
styles, employee turnover intentions, and counterproductive work behaviours. Laissez faire leadership style indicated significant
negative relationship with turnover intentions but significant positive correlation with CWB implying that subordinates under
laissez faire leaders will show less turnover intentions but more CWBs due to the apathetic attitude showed by the leader.
Employee under autocratic leaders are more prone to CWBs and intentions to quit job mainly as a result of the leaders over
emphasis on production than people. Workers under democratic leadership style are less likely to involve in turnover intentions
and CWBs due to the collective decision-making approach of the leader. The study recommends leadership training in team
building and participatory decision making competence of leaders to minimize employee turnover intentions and CWBs.

Keywords: Leadership styles, employee turnover, counterproductive work behaviours

1. Introduction
Leadership shape organizations strategies, their execution and effectiveness by inspiring employees to execute task beyond expected
organizational targets thereby achieving organizational stated objectives. In the same vein, poor leadership style shape employee
loyalty to stay or quit the job or even engage in Counterproductive Work Behaviours (CWBs). Outcomes such as employee turnover
intentions and CWBs resulting from poor leadership style carry negative connotations on the ability of leadership to motivate and
retain employees resulting in abysmal organizational performance (Bruursema, 2004).
In retrospect, employee turnover refers to the rotation of workers around the labor market between organizations, jobs and
occupations; and between states of employment and unemployment (Abassi and Hollman, 2000). Excessive employee turnover cause
organizations to incur significant direct and indirect costs. These costs are most often related to recruiting, selecting, placing, inducting
training, developing replacement staff and damage control resulting from brands damage. High turnover rates have been associated
with decreased customer satisfaction, productivity, future revenue growth and profitability. Staff turnovers also affected quality of
work, administrative costs, and staff morale due to increased workload and resentment among remaining employees who must assume
additional duties and disaffection cause to customer and organizational members as a result employee turnover (Simons, 2009).Many
companies are concern about the costs of employee turnover resulting from leadership failures and how it affects the bottom line
particularly job loss among the older and experience work force. Experienced workers at any age can cost 50% or more of the
individual’s annual salary in turnover related cost with increased costs for jobs requiring specialized skills, advanced training or
extensive experience, which are qualifications often possessed by 50-plus workers.
Similarly, CWBs are deliberate violations of organizations internal rules and policies by an individual or a group that may jeopardize
the well-being of the organization or its citizens (Robinson and Bennett 1995). CWBs are a set of distinct acts that share the
characteristics that they are volitional as opposed to accidental or mandated and harm or intend to harm organizations and/or
organization stakeholders, such as clients, co-workers’, customers, and supervisors (Fox, Spector and Miles, 2001).Examples of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 1

 www.ijird.com January, 2016 Vol 5 Issue 1

CWBs are fidgeting with phones instead of working, abuse of the organization’s internet by the downloading of Mexican soap operas,
pornographic videos, and pictures. Others include physical assault, substance use, fraud, lateness, refusing to co-operate, lying,
withholding of effort, verbal abuse, sabotage, giving away of company property, embezzling money, taking kickbacks, taking
unauthorized long break, absenteeism and stealing or theft (Bennett, and Robinson, 2000; Gruys, and Sackett, 2003).Reports have it
that CWBs cost US businesses approximately $50 billion annually and may account for as many as 20% of failed businesses
(American Management Association, 2002).Further, according to a recent survey, approximately25% of companies have fired
employees for misuse of the Internet (American Management Association, 2002).
Empirically, critical studies involving CWBs have analyze its influence or effect on productivity, organizational citizen behavior,
work stressors, emotions, and personality traits and sometimes the relationships between these variables (Bruursema, 2004, Bennett,
and Robinson, 2000).Scarcely has the issue of leadership style which starts the culture formation process by imposing leadership
assumptions and expectations on followers been considered in the discussion. Additionally, though leadership style and employee
turnover have been extensively researched, barely has leadership style been considered with employee turnover and CWBs together in
the literatures reviewed so far. To bridge the gap in the literature this paper aims at providing an empirical examination between these
variables to ascertain their relationship.

2. Objective of Study
The main objective of this study is to examine the relationship between leadership style, employee turnover intentions, and
counterproductive work behaviours in one of Ghana's premier banks.

3. Literature Review
Leadership is a process of having remarkable influence on subordinates in which they are motivated to achieve specified targets
beyond what is expected and group maintain cooperation for sustainable development Yukl (1994). Fry (2003) emphasized that
leadership is a strategic process of offering inspiration to enhance the employee’s potential for growth and development by the leader.
Similarly, Northouse (2004) asserts that leadership is where any individual influences a group of people to achieve common goals.
The contribution by these researchers to the concept of leadership points to the fact that leadership is a positive but persuasive
(influential) action which generates inspiration among followers and directs effort towards accomplishing specified individual, team,
and organizational objectives. Leadership is indispensable in business, political, educational, and social organizations for the
attainment of goals. Several views have been expressed on leadership but most leadership theorist agrees that the traits, style, and
contingency theories dominate the leadership literature (House and Aditya, 1971). The interest in leadership research by
organizational researchers particularly in leadership style since it started in 1945 among researchers of the Ohio University has gained
tremendous momentum with increasing need for leaders who will exhibit the appropriate style toward organizational success.

3.1. Leadership Style

Autocratic leadership style, also called coercive or dictatorship, involves the manager retaining as much power and decision-making
authority as possible. The focus of power is with the leader and all interactions within the group move towards the leader (Mullins,
1999, Puni, Ofei and Okoe, 2013). The leader unilaterally exercises all decision-making authority by determining policies, procedures
for achieving goals, work task, relationships, control of reward, and punishment (Mullins, 1999). The autocratic leaders believe
mainly in the rules and regulations, rewards and punishment as motivation. The subordinates carry out the leader’s directives without
question(s) and there are no groups inspired decisions. The leader centralizes authority indecisions making and supervises work in
close detailed manner than in general form. The autocratic leadership style is useful for new untrained employees who do not know
which tasks to perform or which procedures to follow and effective supervision can be provided only through detailed orders and
instructions. Also, in situations of short-term projects with a highly technical, complex or risky element which must be completed in
exact specifications, when there are work environments where spans of control are wide and hence the manager has little time to
devote to each employee. Finally, it is useful in industries where employees need to perform low skilled, monotonous and repetitive
tasks with generally low levels of motivation (Currivan, 1999).The basic assumption underlying autocratic leadership style is based on
the premise that people are naturally lazy, irresponsible and untrustworthy therefore leaving the functions of planning, organizing, and
controlling to subordinate would yield fruitless results (Puni, Ofei and Okoe, 2013). The leader without the involvement of people
should accomplish such functions.
Democratic leadership style emphasizes group and leader participation in the formulation of the policies that serve as guidelines for
the organizational operation. In democratic leadership style, the leader takes into consideration the wishes and suggestion of members
as well as those of the leader (Hackman and Johnson, 1996). It is a human relation approach where all members of the group are seen
as important contributors to final decision and to improve the quality of the decision. In this type of leadership style, power and
authority are derived from the governed. The democratic leadership does not only increase job satisfaction by involving team
members, but it also helps to develop people's skills and promotes teamwork. Mullins (1999) is of the view that democratic leadership
style focuses more on people and there is greater interaction within the group. The leadership functions are shared with members of
the group and the leader is part of the team (Mullins, 1999). Similarly, Luthar (1996) and Wilson, George, Wellins and Byham (1994)
concurred that the principles of democratic leadership is friendliness, helpfulness, and the encouragement of participation. In the same
vein, McGregor (1960) also described this leadership style as benevolent, participative, and believing in people. The philosophical
assumption underlying democratic leadership style is that naturally all people are trustworthy, self-motivated, like responsibility and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 2

 www.ijird.com January, 2016 Vol 5 Issue 1

challenging work and so encourages organizational conditions to foster teamwork, high performance and satisfaction. The emphasis of
this leadership style is on performance and people.
True laissez-faire is in fact “non-leadership” because the leader has almost no influence over the group(Bass, 1999). This makes it
difficult to distinguish the leader from the followers. According to Yukl (1994)laissez-faire leadership style is probably a descriptive
ideal that does not really exist. This is an effective style to use when employees are highly skilled, experienced, and educated or when
employees have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own. Also in situations where outside experts such as
staff specialists or consultants are being used, and finally when employees are trustworthy and experienced. The philosophical
assumption underlying laissez-faire style is that naturally human beings are unpredictable and uncontrollable and trying to understand
people is a waste of time and energy. Under the style, the leader tries to maintain a low profile, respects all divisions within the
organization, tries not to create waves of disturbance, and relies on the few available loyalists to get the job done (Northouse,
2007).Laissez-Laissez-faire leader lives and work with whatever structure put in place without any suggestions or criticisms. Goals
and objectives are established only when necessary and required. Such leader shuns decision-making as much as possible, and would
like to avoid communication but communicates only when needed. Thus, the business of employee development is not a concern to
the laissez faire leader, who believes that employees can take care of themselves. The main emphasis of this leadership style is neither
on performance nor people. Goals and objectives are established only when necessary and required. The leader is not control-frisk and
abdicates controlling to employees. He or she shuns decision-making as much as possible and would like to avoid communication but
communicates only when needed.

3.2. Employee Turnover Intentions

Employee turnover refers to the rate of movement of employees in and out of an organization (Armstrong, 2006). Salaries and
conditions of service, job performance, career growth, work environment, job satisfaction, supervisory style, promotional
opportunities, employee commitment and many other factors play a significant role in shaping employee turnover. Employee turnover
is the outcomes of a number of push and pull factors that come into play during the course of employment relationship. As noted by
Jafari (2011) “in the turnover process everyone usually points out one factor for their turnover choice, but there are always more
factors that works as push-cart or driving force for turnover intentions”. Moyinhan and Pandey (2008) have revealed that the gamut of
factors that influence turnover intentions in organizations can be categorized into three distinct categories; a) External environmental
factors –this is where economic conditions are responsible for driving and shaping employee turnover across the labour industry; b)
Individual factors – employee specific factors that shape turnover decisions. Examples include age, length of service with the
organization, gender, race, family responsibilities, education, personality, and other personal considerations; c) Organizational factors
- these refers to organizational policies and practices suchas opportunities for progress, supportive management, supportive human
resource policies, organizational culture and other factors.

3.3. Counterproductive Work Behaviour

CWBs can be described as voluntary behaviours, because individuals choose to engage in these deviant behaviours consciously.
Hackman and Johnson (1996) assert that CWBs are more likely to be influence by individual’s personality traits than by ability
factors, which has been supported by several previous researches (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Douglas & Martinko, 2001). Again,
Hackman and Johnson (1996) distinguished between interpersonal and organizational CWBs. Interpersonal CWBs are behaviors
directed at others in the organization such as bosses, coworkers, or customers that are intended to provide emotional or physical
discomfort or harm. Organizational CWBs are actions directed toward the organization that are harmful to its legitimate interests.
According to the Social Exchange Theory (SET) individuals form relationships with others and maintain it only because they want to
increase their benefits (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1972). The theory predicts that individuals who perceive that they are receiving
unfavourable treatment are more likely to feel angry, vengeful, and dissatisfied. Consistent with the norms of reciprocity, when
individuals are dissatisfied with the organization or their boss, they may reciprocate with negative work behaviours such as
withholding effort, arriving late at work, taking longer break times, and leaving early. Additionally, individuals may exchange their
dissatisfaction with co-workers by engaging in counterproductive behaviours directed at them, such as playing mean pranks, cursing at
them, or even sabotaging their work.

3.4. Leadership style, Employee Turnover Intentions and CWB

The nature of leadership influences individuals’ intention to leave or stay in an organization or engage in CWBs. Mbah and Ikemefuna
(2011) assert that poor relationship leadership style; a product of autocratic leadership style or production centred leadership flair
serves as one of the main important reasons why employees leave their jobs or resort to deviant behaviours. Similarly, antagonistic
relationship between leaders and subordinates can cause employees to lose commitment and satisfaction with their jobs. Morrow et al.
(2005) are of the view that the number one reason people quit job is that their bosses treat them poorly. Those who remain in their jobs
working for poor bosses have lower job satisfaction, lower commitment, psychological distress and subsequently high turnover
intentions.
Additionally, strict employee supervision act as an extrinsic factor and a “dissatisfier” as well as a “demotivator” to employee
retention and satisfaction. Gwavuya (2011) affirms that incompetent leadership results in poor performance, high levels of stress, low
commitment, low job satisfaction, high turnover intentions, CWBs. Consistently, leadership in organizations plays significant roles in
employee motivation and retention especially if employees “receive regular positive feedback and recognition”. A supervisor’s

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 3

 www.ijird.com January, 2016 Vol 5 Issue 1

positive attitude toward subordinate employees improves the employees’ attitudes toward work, their leader, and the organization. In
turn, the employees develop intrinsic motivation and a good match between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation results in job
satisfaction and a stronger propensity to stay with the employer. Callier (2011) is of the view that participatory decision making is one
of the measures by which management can minimize employee turnover intentions and CWBs. Participation is a process in which
decision-making is shared among individuals who are not generally considered to have equal status in the organization and it is a
function of democratic leadership style (Wagner, 1995). The outcomes of participatory leadership style are numerous but notably are
employee motivation and reduction in turnover intentions and CWBs (Wagner, 1995).
Job satisfaction, which is a factor of quality management in organizations, is yet another critical factor in shaping employee turnover
intentions and CWBs (Liden & Maslyn, 1994). As noted by Callier (2011) in the United States alone, 77% of employees are unhappy
with their current jobs and are considering leaving for better alternatives. Numerous research results show that job satisfaction is found
to be significantly and negatively related to turnover intentions on a consistent basis (Callier, 2011). Closely tied to the concept of
commitment is the influence of employee-organization fit in shaping turnover intentions. Research has revealed that the extent to
which employees identify themselves with their organization has a positive impact on their level of satisfaction and thereby their
organizational attachment and intention. The fit between an employee’s values and the values of the organization might provide the
employees with a certain degree of comfort and identification with the organization thereby minimizing stress and the desire to leave
(Zeffane, 1994; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1992). Base on the linkages between leadership style indicators, employee turnover intentions
and CWBs, the researchers proposed the following hypothesis;
• H0 :Autocratic leadership style will not correlate significantly with turnover intentions
• H1 :Democratic leadership style will not correlate significantly with turnover intentions
• H2:Laissez faire leadership style will not correlate significantly with turnover intentions
• H3 :Autocratic leadership style will not correlate significantly with CWB
• H4 :Democratic leadership style will not correlate significantly with CWB
• H5 :Laissez faire leadership style will not correlate significantly with CWB

4. Methodology
A descriptive cross-sectional survey method was employed in this study to investigate the relationship between leadership style,
employee turnover intentions and CWBs. This method was suitable because it enabled the researchers collect data at a single point in
time from individuals with different characteristics to establish connections between leadership styles indicators (autocratic,
democratic and laissez faire leadership), employee turnover intentions and CWBs. The study therefore adopted a quantitative research
approach.
The research targeted employees of one of Ghana's premier banks (Access Bank Ghana Limited) ranging from first-line supervisors to
corporate officers. Non-probability sampling methods were used to select 8 branches out twenty-six (26) branches of the bank in
Accra and Tema Metropolis. The study area was selected because about 70% of the bank's branches reside in this two metropolis
(www.daisnet.com). Convenience sampling strategy was then employed to select participants for the study since the researchers were
interested in both leaders and subordinates of the bank. Data was then collected by administering questionnaires to 175 employees in
the eight (8) selected branches. The research recorded a 97% response rate of respondents surveyed since 170 questionnaires were
retrieved.
The questionnaires were adapted from Simon and Oates (2009) which the measures were assessed using Likert–type scales. The study
instrument recorded alpha Cronbach coefficient of 0.79. The questionnaire was divided into section A-D with section A constituting
items on demographic, section B leadership style, section C turnover intentions, and section D counterproductive work behaviours.
Ethical considerations were adhered since respondent’s voluntary participation in the research was stated on the questionnaire.
Respondents were made aware that there were no foreseeable risks, discomfort or adverse effect in participating in the research.

5. Results and Discussions

In examining the relationship between leadership style, turnover intentions and counterproductive work behaviours, a descriptive
statistics and a Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient were performed. Table 1 below shows a summary of mean and
standard deviation of indicators of leadership styles, turnover intentions, and CWBs. Overall, the descriptive statistics indicates a
mean between 14.21 and 10.79 and a standard deviation between 5.68 and 1.96 for all variables.

Variables Mean SD N
Autocratic leadership 14.21 1.96 170
Democratic leadership 12.06 2.11 170
Laissez faire leadership 10.79 3.27 170
Turnover intentions 14.23 4.15 170
Counterproductive work behaviour 12.55 5.68 170
Table 1: Summary of Means and Standard Deviation
Source: Survey Data 2015

Table 2 also indicates summary of inter-correlation matrix among components of leadership style, turnover intentions and CWBs.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 4

 www.ijird.com January, 2016 Vol 5 Issue 1

Variables 1 2 3 4 5
1. Autocratic leadership - - - - -
2. Democratic leadership -0.60** - - - -
3. Laissez faire leadership -0.24** 0.21* - - -
4. Turnover intentions 0.66** -0.59** -0.52** - -
5. Counterproductive work Behaviour 0.24** -0.18* 0.14 0.25** -
Table 2: Inter-correlation Matrix among the Study Variables
**p < .01, *p < .05, N = 17
Source: Survey Data 2015

5.1. Autocratic Leadership Style and Employee Turnover Intentions

The results from the Pearson r test as presented in Table 2 above indicates that there is a significant positive relationship between
autocratic leadership style and turnover intentions [r (170) = 0.66, p< .01]. The outcome implies that the higher the perception of
autocratic leadership styles by employees, the higher their intentions to quit. Hence, the prediction that H0: Autocratic leadership style
will not correlate significantly with turnover intentions, is rejected, rather the alternative hypothesis that ‘Autocratic leadership style
will correlate significantly with turnover intentions’ is supported. The outcome is not surprising because autocratic leadership style
places more emphasis on performance and low emphasis on people. The focus of control is with the leader and all interactions within
the group move towards the leader (Mullins, 1999). The leader unilaterally exercises all decision-making authority by determining
policies, procedures for achieving goals, work task, relationships, control of reward, and punishment (Mullins, 1999). Wilson et al
(1994) concurs that autocratic leader relies heavily on authority, control, power, manipulation and hard work to get the job done. In
the autocratic leadership system, formal centralized structures, procedures, processes and mechanism are clearly defined and are
enforced to ensure that subordinates do their jobs efficiently within the rules. The finding is consistent with Callier (2011) and Mbah
and Ikemefuna (2011) who pointed out that employee consider alternatives and leave an organisation if they are not typically
considered in decision-making processes (a component of autocratic leadership). Similarly, the outcome is in support of the Social
Exchange Theory (Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965) which predicts that individuals who perceive that they are receiving unfavourable
treatment are more likely to feel angry, vengeful, dissatisfied and have the intention of leaving the organisation for another.

5.2. Democratic Leadership Style and Employee Turnover Intentions

In the case of democratic leadership style the Pearson r test in Table 2 show a significant negative relationship between democratic
leadership style and turnover intentions [r (170) = -0.59, p< .01]. The relationship was negative meaning that the more employees
perceive their leaders to be democratic, the less they have the intention to quit. The hypothesis that ‘Democratic leadership style will
not correlate significantly with turnover intentions’ is accepted. Implicitly, decision-making in a democratic system is decentralized
and flexible with clearly defined responsibilities and an open participative work environment. Punishments as a form of reprimand are
the last option and high performance is recognized and rewarded. Conflicts are openly confronted by addressing the causative factors
and not personalities (Puni et al, 2013).This finding corroborates other studies like Zeffane (1994) Hrebiniak and Alutto (1992) and
Gwavuya (2011) who all agreed that employees are willing to stay with a particular organisation if they are consistently given
feedbacks on their performances and also their inputs are considered in the process of decision making.

5.3. Laissez Faire Leadership Style and Turnover Intentions

With regards to laissez leadership style and turnover intentions the Pearson r test indicates that there is a significant negative
correlation between the two variables [r (170) = -0.52, p< .01]. This implies that subordinates under a laissez leadership style will have
less turnover intentions due to the fact that this particular leadership style has less influence on subordinates in terms of how decisions
of the leader affect employees’ turnover intentions. Since the laissez leadership style does not involve excessive controlling of
subordinates it makes it easy for employees to have discretion over their jobs hence engage in less turnover intensions. Hence the null
hypothesis that laissez faire leadership style will not correlate significantly with turnover intensions is accepted.

5.4. Autocratic Leadership Style and CWB

For autocratic leadership style and CWBs the Pearson r test revealed a significant positive relationship between the variables [r (170) =
0.24, p< .01]. The hypothesis that H3: Autocratic leadership style will not correlate significantly with CWBs, is rejected. This means
that the higher the perception of autocratic leadership style by employee, the higher they engage in CWBs. Hence the alternative
hypothesis that ‘There will be a significant correlation between autocratic leadership style and CWBs’ is supported. The outcome is
consistent with Marrs (2000) who found that verbal aggression from supervisors is associated with higher levels of deviant acts
(CWBs) on the part of organizational members and is associated with higher levels of intentions to leave the organization. Further
support of the link between autocratic leadership style and CWBs was the study of Penney (2003) who found a correlation of .468
between self-reports of experienced incivility and self-reports of CWBs. The finding also supports the Norm of Reciprocity
(Gouldner, 1960) which explains that when individuals are dissatisfied with the organization or their boss, they are likely to
reciprocate with negative work behaviours such as withholding effort, arriving late at work, taking longer break times, leaving early,
and so on.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 5

 www.ijird.com January, 2016 Vol 5 Issue 1

5.5. Democratic Leadership Style and CWB

In the case of democratic leadership style and CWBs the Pearson r test showed a significant negative relationship exists between
democratic leadership style and counterproductive work behaviours [r (170) = -.18, p< .05]. The relationship was negative indicating
that the more workers perceive their leaders to engage in democratic leadership style, the less they engage in counterproductive work
behaviours. Therefore, the alternatives hypothesis that H4There will be a significant correlation between democratic leadership style
and counterproductive work behaviour of employees’ is supported. The finding concurs with Rishipal (2011) who discovered that
democratic leadership style fosters high productivity, good worker attitudes, punctuality and better work quality. Also other researches
have confirmed that because democratic leadership relates positively with subordinate satisfaction, motivation, and performance it
reduces CWBs (Bass, 1999; Wofford, Whittington, & Goodwin, 2001).

5.6. Laissez Faire Leadership Style and CWB

With regards to laissez leadership style and CWBs the Pearson r test indicates that there is significant positive correlation between
laissez faire leadership style and CWBs [r (170) = 0.14, p< .05]. The result implies that subordinates under a laissez leadership style are
more likely to engage in CWBs. Thus the null hypothesis that H5: Laissez faire leadership style will not correlate significantly with
CWB is rejected. The study result is consistent with Skogstad et al, (2007) who confirmed that laissez faire leadership was positively
correlated with role conflict, role ambiguity, and conflicts among co-workers resulting in employee disaffection and causing
subordinate to reciprocate with CWBs.

6. Conclusion and Recommendation

The study settles that autocratic leadership style induces turnover intentions and counterproductive behaviours among employees than
democratic and laissez faire because of the over reliance on production instead of people. In the case of democratic leadership style,
employees were found to have less turnover intentions and counterproductive work behaviours because of the co-operative flair of the
leader whiles laissez faire leadership style produced less turnover intentions but more counterproductive behaviours due to apathetic
nature of the leadership style. The researchers therefore recommend the adoption of democratic decision-making practices in
organizations by including subordinates in decision making process thereby increasing self-belonging drive and commitment of
employees towards organizations objectives. The above can be achieved by training leaders in team building and participatory
decision making exercises.

7. References
i. Abbasi, S. M. & Hollman, K. W. (2000). Turnover: The Real Bottom Line. Public Personnel Management, 29, 333-342.
ii. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American
Psychologist, 57, 1597-1611.
iii. Armstrong, M. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (10 ed.). London: Kogan Page.
iv. Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol 8, No 1, P 9-32.
v. Bennett, R. J.& Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 349–360.
vi. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and sons.
vii. Bruursema, K. (2004). Leadership Style and the Link with Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB): An Investigation
using the Job-Stress/CWM Model. Unpublished Thesis Presented to the University of South Florida.
viii. Callier, H., 2011. I want to quit: A closer look at factors that contribute to the turnover intentions of state government
employee. Local Government Review, 43(2), pp. 110-122.
ix. Currivan, D. B. (1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models of employee turnover.
Human resource Management Review 4:495-524.
x. Douglas, S. C. & Martinko, M. J. (2001). Exploring the role of individual differences in the prediction of workplace
aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 547-559.
xi. Emerson, R. (1972). Exchange theory, Part II: Exchange relations and networks. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch Jr., & B. Anderson
(Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (pp. 58–87). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
xii. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 335-352.
xiii. Fox, S., Spector, P.E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behaviour in Response to job stressors and organizational
justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 59, pp. 1-19.
xiv. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The leadership quarterly, 14 (6), pp. 693–727.
xv. Gould, S. (1979). An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement. Academy of Management Review, 4, pp. 53-62
xvi. Gouldner, A. W. (1960) The Norm of Reciprocity: A Prelinary Statement. American Sociological Review 25, pp. 161-178.
xvii. Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality counterproductive work behaviour. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11 (1), 30-42.
xviii. Gwavuya, F. (2011). Leadership influences on turnover intentions of academic staff in institutions in Zimbabwe. Academic
Leadership Journal, 9(1), pp. 1-15.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 6

 www.ijird.com January, 2016 Vol 5 Issue 1

xix. Hackman, M. Z. & Johnson, C. E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective (2nded.). Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press. Incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387-1419. Iran: Islamic Azad University Branches.
xx. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23 (3), pp.
409–473.
xxi. Hrebiniak, L. & Alutto, J. (1992). Personal and role related factors in the development of organisational commitment.
Administrative science quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 555-572.
xxii. Jafari, A., 2011. Prime and subprime factors of employee voluntary turnover in the boom phase of industry: Empirical
evidence from banking sector of Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(15), pp. 6408-6414.
xxiii. Levinson, H. (1965) Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 9,
pp. 370-390.
xxiv. Liden, R. & Maslyn, J., (1994). Multidimensionality of leader -member exchange: An empirical assessment of through scale
development. Journal of Management, 24(1), pp. 43-72.
xxv. Luthar, H. K. (1996). Gender differences in evaluation of performance and leadership ability. Autocratic vs. democratic
managers. Sex Roles, 35 (5–6), 337–361.
xxvi. Marrs, M. E. M. (2000). Antecedents and outcomes of verbal aggression in the workplace. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61, 681.
xxvii. Mbah, S. & Ikemefuna, C. (2011). Job satisfaction and employee turnover intentions in Total Nigeria plc. Lagos international
journal of humanities and social science, 2(14).
xxviii. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
xxix. Morrow, P. et al., 2005. The role of leader-member exchange in high turnover work environments. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 20(8), pp. 681-694
xxx. Moyinhan, D. & Pandey, S., 2008. The ties that bind: Social networks, person -organisation value fit and turnover intention.
Journal of public administration research and theory, Vol. 18, pp. 205-227
xxxi. Mullins, L. J. (1999). Management and Organizational Behaviour. London: Financial Times.
xxxii. Northhouse, G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oak, London, New Delhi, Sage Publications, Inc.
xxxiii. Northhouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership Theory and Practice. Pastoral Psychology, 56 (4), pp. 403–411
xxxiv. Puni, A., Ofei, B. and Okoe, F. A. (2013), The effect of Leadership Styles on Firm Performance in Ghana. International
Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 6(1)
xxxv. Rishipal (2011), Introduction to Training and Development, Major ways to develop an individual, Training and Development
Methods, Sultan Chand & Son’s, Ch.1, pp. 17
xxxvi. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviours A multi-dimensional scaling study.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, pp.555-572.
xxxvii. Simon, O. (2009). How do you lead? Handbook of Leadership: a survey of the theory and research. New York, Free Press.
xxxviii. Skogstad, Anders; Einarsen, Ståle; Torsheim, Torbjørn; Aasland, Merethe Schanke; Hetland, Hilde (2007), The
destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behaviour; Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol 12(1), pp. 80-92.
xxxix. Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 1 (38), pp. 152-172.
xl. Wilson, J. M., George, J., Wellins, R. S., & Byham, W. C. (1994). Leadership trapeze: Strategies for leadership in team-
based organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
xli. Wofford, J.C., Whittington, J. L. & Goodwin, V. L. (2001). Follower motive patterns as situational moderators for
transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, pp. 196-211
xlii. Yukl, G. A. (1994; 2005). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
xliii. Zeffane, R. (1994). Understanding employee turnover: The need for a contigency approach. International Journal of
Manpower, 15(9), pp. 22-37.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Page 7

View publication stats