Next Article in Journal
Emergent Strategy in Higher Education: Postmodern Digital and the Future?
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Inclusive Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Role of Job Crafting
Previous Article in Journal
Self vs. Other Raters’ Assessment of Emotional Intelligence in Private and Public Hospitals: A Comparative Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Holistic View of Intuition and Analysis in Leadership Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/admsci12040195
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on Employees’ Performance: The Contingent Role of Institutional Theory

by
Osama Khassawneh
1,* and
Hamzah Elrehail
2
1
Lazaridis School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON N2L 3C5, Canada
2
Department of Leadership and Organizational, Abu Dhabi School of Management, Abu Dhabi 999041, United Arab Emirates
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 195; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195
Submission received: 10 November 2022 / Revised: 30 November 2022 / Accepted: 8 December 2022 / Published: 15 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Leadership Effectiveness and Development)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to examine the moderating role of institutional theory in the association between participative leadership style and various outcomes, such as employee loyalty and job performance in organizations. A cross-sectional research design was employed, where data were gathered from 347 participants from all managerial levels in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The findings demonstrated how the level of complexity of the institutional theory reduces the positive relationship between participative leadership style and employee loyalty, negatively affecting job performance. The current study contributes to the existing leadership literature by showing that participatory leaders do not behave similarly across various degrees of institutional theory complexity. The findings suggest that the higher the complexity of institutionalism, the wider the gap between leaders and subordinates, so implementing the participative style may become problematic in some circumstances.

1. Introduction

The participative leadership style demonstrates several conceptualizations, including delegation, joint decision-making, and defined participation. Similarly, Somech (2005) defines participative leadership as making a decision jointly or demonstrating a shared influence in determining superior and subordinate through the hierarchy. As such, the focus of participatory management has become the sharing of power and decision-making allocation. Participative decision-making has been studied as a formal strategy for the direct participation of groups, wherein, in insignificant matters, group participation is considered relevant and influences the group’s decisions (Dolatabadi and Safa 2010; Mohammad et al. 2021). Decision-making participation leads to augmented social capacity, with the quality of decisions influencing an increase in employee motivation, work-life quality, the work environment, and professional training in a successful organization (Chan 2019; Ghaffari et al. 2017; Lumbasi et al. 2016). Odoardi et al. (2019) state that the organization and individual outcomes are affected by participative decision-making and this influence can be attributed to augmented employee motivation levels. The quality of decisions is improved through employee participation in the decision-making process, as this helps the supervisor develop an insight into the core issues in a problem situation. Several scholars (Lythreatis et al. 2019; Raineri 2016) argue that this involvement enhances employees’ propensity to follow managerial decisions with loyalty. Participative managers value employees’ opinions and perspectives and seek their input and suggestions (Rana et al. 2019; Khassawneh and Abaker 2022). Furthermore, participative leaders motivate their employees to develop learning through information acquisition, sharing, and connecting as well as seeking new opportunities (Benoliel and Barth 2017; Mohammad and Khassawneh 2022).
Organizational communication scholars are significantly intrigued by the institutional perspective. According to Lammers and Garcia (2017), institutional theory elucidates the requisite regulations and rules that are necessarily abided by organizations seeking support and legitimacy. This perspective has emerged as a necessary imperative, considering every nation-state, industry, and the various rules and requirements that today regulate the sector. Irrespectively, the paper puts forth a discussion on the critical intersection between institutional theory and organizational communication. According to Cardinale (2018), individuals’ communicative behavior in organizations or groups primarily constitutes the focus of corporate communication, that is, their use of language and social interaction, which align coordinated action to achieve a common goal. As such, one can safely deem the larger institutional landscape to fall outside the confines of organizational communication.
Several studies have focused on job commitment, performance, and satisfaction parameters directly resulting from leadership influences (Belias et al. 2022; Budak and Erdal 2022). This paper conducts a descriptive study of the moderating institutional theory in UAE organizations in the context of participative leadership style and several outcomes, including employee loyalty and job performance (Khassawneh 2018; Mohammad 2019).
This study employs an institutional theory to obtain insight into the participative leadership style and how various practice adoptions influence it in the context of organizational performance. According to Bitektine et al. (2018), research focusing on institutional theory is scarce, with nonexistent empirical work despite its significant potential value in behavioral research. Correspondingly, this study attempts to fill this gap by testing the moderating role of institutional theory on the relationship between participative leadership and associated outcomes, such as employees’ loyalty and job performance. The paper’s ultimate aim and contribution are that a more empirical study of the interplay among institutional theory, participative leadership, employees’ loyalty, and job performance is required to verify this premise, which has never been examined in an Arabian context.

2. Theoretical Background

According to Bell et al. (2018), when a leader involves and consults with their subordinates to resolve an issue and decide the corrective action, it is referred to as participative leadership and is also referred to as shared influence or joint decision-making (Mwaisaka et al. 2019; Vance 2016), wherein the decision-making process demonstrates the incorporation of the perspectives by the supervisor. Thus, Hayat et al. (2019) claim that a supervisor gives subordinates a certain degree of workplace responsibility in this leadership style. Extensive empirical research in diverse cultural and industrial contexts is available, focusing on participative leadership’s positive impact on work outcomes (Tang 2019; Fatima et al. 2017; Huang et al. 2006; Somech 2003); more specifically, increased and improved organizational commitment (Salahuddin 2010), voice behavior (Fatima et al. 2017), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Huang et al. 2006), and job performance (Huang et al. 2006)
According to Sax and Torp (2015), the process wherein subordinates are consulted with a focus on their perspective before the leaders’ decision-making is termed “participative leadership”. Moreover, the concept relates to delegation, consultation, consensus, and involvement (Khassawneh and Abaker 2022; Sarti 2014).
The outcomes related to participative leadership demonstrate that employees show higher organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and performance when they perceive their managers as adopting consultative or participative leadership (Iqbal et al. 2015). Because of the consultative nature of participatory leadership, employees have a greater chance of being exposed to organizational and managerial values. In addition, these employees are inclined toward higher loyalty, commitment, and involvement than employees with a directive leader (Locke and Anderson 2010). Similarly, employees tend to be more committed to decisions when participating in decision-making. Consider, for example, the frontline employees in banking services. Since these workers are in direct contact with customers, they are more cognizant of customer needs than managers. This example clearly illustrates the significance of employees’ participation in the decision-making process. Managers who aspire to motivate their employees to share their commitment to service quality can benefit from the outcomes of participative leadership, like increased commitment, involvement, and loyalty among employees (Jain and Chaudhary 2014).
Organizational and institutional theories provide a rich and complex view of organizations. Herein, normative pressures influence organizations, which may result from internal and external sources (Heugens and Lander 2009). Moreover, according to Heikkila and Isett (2004), mechanisms and processes such as operating procedures, professional certifications, and state requirements sometimes work as guiding pressures wherein the organization’s focus is drawn away from task performance. Because of these legal aspects of adoption, institutional environments develop isomorphism, increasing the likelihood of survival. Correspondingly, Nielsen and Massa (2013) state that the rapid spread of institutional theories of organization evidences the significance of imaginative ideas resulting from theoretical and empirical work. On the same line, an increased number of organizational researchers are expected to be interested in institutional theories, with the better specification of indicators and models concomitant with increased traction on this concept. The institutional theory is complex in a single statement, as it leverages and optimizes the typically neglected assumptions at the core of social action. As such, this paper sheds light on making the institutional theory more accessible (Santos and Eisenhardt 2005). The review is initiated by briefly describing the two current theoretical approaches to institutionalization in organizations, then identifying the central concepts’ indicators and transitioning to a review of empirical research. The study culminates with a discussion on the (i) intersection points with other organization theories and (ii) the “new institutionalism” in economics and political science (Khassawneh and Mohammad 2022a; Suárez and Bromley 2016; Huang et al. 2011).
The institutional theory focuses on the more complex and durable facets of social structure and is used in sociology and organizational studies. It views the procedures by which structures, such as plans, regulations, customs, and routines, come to be formed as the supreme standards for social conduct. The creation, diffusion, adoption, adaptation, decline, and disuse of these characteristics over time and space are all explained by various aspects of institutional theory. A developing viewpoint in sociology and organizational studies that (Powell and DiMaggio 1991) refer to as “new institutionalism” rejects the rational-actor models of classical economics. It instead looks for cognitive and cultural explanations of social and organizational events by considering the characteristics of supra-individual units of analysis that cannot be reduced to aggregations or direct outcomes of people’s characteristics or motivations.
Let us start by exploring the intersection between participative leadership and employee loyalty, considering the institutional context as a moderator. Several scholars have focused on the association between participative leadership and employee loyalty, inferring a positive intersection, including (Suharti and Suliyanto 2012; Rok 2009; Sorenson 2000).
Participative leadership style claims that participatory leaders tend to focus on the growth and well-being of subordinates, which can be attributed to their sensitivity to subordinate needs. As a result of their interpersonal relationship with their subordinates, leaders influence an increase in employee loyalty.
However, legal and social policies, among other barriers, may disrupt participative leaders’ adaptation to subordinates’ expectations and needs. The influencing process demonstrates diverse dynamics based on the extent of “high” or “low” policies and regulations in an organizational ecosystem (Khassawneh and Mohammad 2022b; Lok and Crawford 2004). Thus, with restrictions based on policies or corporate cultures, leaders’ interaction with their subordinates becomes curtailed. Along the same lines, the degree of interaction between the leaders and the subordinates can be impacted by the institutional context, as leaders can only spend limited time with their subordinates. There are several outcomes associated with stricter institutional factors. For instance, complex institutional factors might limit the ability of participative leaders to show trust in their subordinates; limited opportunities to respond positively. Moreover, it can limit the scope of leaders’ responsibilities to support their subordinates when they experience setbacks (Bitektine and Haack 2015).
The extent of their influence on their subordinates creates a more significant social distance, which can be attributed to leaders’ homogeneous treatment of subordinates and less individualized attention (Lok and Crawford 2004). Furthermore, it may limit the ability to help and assist subordinates with setbacks and problems.
These determinants lead to significant differentiation in subordinate membership in either the in-group or the out-group. More specifically, the relationship between participative leaders and subordinates is significantly weak. It only pertains to minimum trust, interaction, and support-based change, which can only be classified as economic change (Mulki et al. 2015). Conversely, a sense of community is built by participatory leaders within more flexible institutional factors by establishing and maintaining a positive working relationship based on trust and caring. It could be claimed that diversity exists even in mature institutional contexts, even though institutions are more likely to support and sustain complex HR systems (Haak-Saheem et al. 2017a).
On the other hand, it may be argued that when institutions are less efficient, firms have more incentives to come up with their solutions (Diab 2022). As a result, it could be argued that combinations of HR practices may compensate for systemic shortfalls; for example, limitations in national training systems may make internal HR development more critical; however, skill shortages may intensify poaching unless firms doing the training and development devise supportive reward systems to retain the people they have invested in. In turn, such behaviors can be copied, providing tried-and-true recipes for succeeding in challenging situations. In other words, groups of HR practices may produce better results in the UAE (Haak-Saheem et al. 2017b; Powell and Colyvas 2008). Hence, we suggest the following hypothesis (see Figure 1):
Hypothesis 1.
More complex institutional context attenuates the positive relationship between participative leadership and employee loyalty.
According to Cook et al. (2013) social exchange theory, subordinate job loyalty should be accompanied by an increased subordinate performance at an organization. In the context of subordinate performance, the leader and the organization are positively impacted by augmented employee loyalty. Several empirical studies have inferred a significant positive association between employee loyalty and job performance. For example, Joshi et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis on 190 samples with a combined N of 64.516 and estimated the mean correlation between employee loyalty and job performance to be 0.40. According to Cooper et al. (2019), the correlation between the two variables in a more recent meta-analysis of 69 samples was inferred at 0.40.
Moreover, the broader social psychology literature also highlights a positive association between employee loyalty and work performance. According to Fleischman et al. (2017), employees deemed to have a negative attitude are inclined to engage in behaviors that oppose it, and vice versa.
Thus, the study proposes a positive association between employee loyalty and job performance.
Hypothesis 2.
Employee loyalty is associated with higher levels of subordinate performance.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample and Participants

The study participants were full-time employees of large organizations in the UAE. We distributed the survey to 32 companies in the UAE. These companies run businesses in the service industry, including eight banks (88 employees), six hospitals (76 employees), ten hotels (96 employees), and eight insurance companies (87 employees). We targeted 500 employees but were able to collect 347 responses. The respondents were full-time employed. The data were obtained from leaders and subordinates at various organizational levels. We chose the service sector because the UAE is heavily reliant on it. The leader sample entailed 67 members, of whom 34.5% were males. The leaders’ mean age was 41.6 years, with an average education of 15.7 years. They were hired as general managers, directors, area managers, department managers, assistant managers, supervisors, and team leaders. The subordinate sample entailed 280 participants, of whom 34.8% were males. Their mean age was 34.4 years, and their average education level was 15.7 years. They perform different jobs: administrators, customer service representatives, accountants, HR officers, and bookkeepers.
During the study, we were given access to the organization’s structure, study participants, and their contact details, i.e., respondents’ email addresses. For ethical reasons, the identity of the respondents was maintained anonymous, and completed questionnaires (82.6%) were returned directly to the researchers. An electronic medium was used for data collection to share the questionnaires during work hours, and informed consent was included in the questionnaire.

3.2. Instruments

With this study, we conducted a pilot study to ensure that the study methodology aligns with the study focus. In the pilot study, we evaluated the instruments, the distribution of questionnaires, and the data collection procedure. After this, minor alterations were made to the tools before they were shared with the study participants.
To assess the work performance, each supervisor considered the subordinates using a five-item performance rating scale developed by (Liden and Graen 1980) (sample items: “Overall Present Performance” and “Future Expected Performance”, anchors: 1 = unsatisfactory 7 = outstanding). The survey included the overall performance indicators (e.g., the speed of getting the task done, the customer satisfaction level, the number of functions, and complaints). The collected responses to these five items were summed to offer a performance measure for each subordinate. Moreover, to reduce the common method bias that could probably result from self-reported measures, we used two sources (i.e., leader and subordinate self-report) on the ratings.

3.3. Institutional Factors

The leaders reported the volume and degree of restriction of institutional factors for their companies. Each subordinate finished the following instruments: This 30-item version of the participatory leadership survey, based on the format proposed by (Ramli and Desa 2014), was used to assess the eight parameters of standing back: forgiveness, courage, empowerment, accountability, authenticity, humility, and stewardship. The subordinates were asked to share their responses on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scholars to date have developed at least seven multidimensional and two one-dimensional measures, such as those developed by (Park et al. 2016; Ogbeide and Harrington 2011; Elele and Fields 2010), for participative leadership. However, as regards their robustness, several scholars (e.g., Khassawneh 2018; Stirna et al. 2007; Parnell et al. 2002) have argued that instruments constructed to measure the multidimensional structure of participative leadership are collapsed into one and do not hold across several samples. An employee loyalty questionnaire, based on the format propounded by (Yee et al. 2010), was used to measure loyalty via a three-item scale: “All in all, I am loyal to my job”, “In general, I like to stay here”, anchors: 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree somewhat 3 = slightly disagree 4 = neither agree nor disagree 5 = slightly agree 6 = agree somewhat, and 7 = strongly agree. Overall, employee loyalty was measured using the index. Several studies have reported the adequacy of the employee loyalty scale in reliability and validity analysis (Rice et al. 2017; Khassawneh and Mohammad 2022a).

3.4. Control Variables

In the current paper, the control condition used was gender. According to Bernerth et al. (2018), female leaders are expected to be more understanding, helpful, sophisticated, and sensitive to others’ feelings. The other control variable was age, attributed to Newey and Stouli (2018) inference that younger supervisors show higher engagement in relationship-oriented activities than older supervisors. Another control variable was education, as underpinned by Nielsen and Raswant (2018), who found that a more personal, individualized, and cooperative leadership style is displayed in individuals with higher educational qualifications. We also considered the years of experience as a control variable. However, there was no relationship between the years of experience and the leadership style. Moreover, the analysis controlled for institutional factors and participative leadership when testing the hypothesized relationship between employee and job performance, exploring alternative explanations for the relationships outlined in our hypotheses.

3.5. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

MPlus was used to test the degree of match or alignment between the predicted interrelationships and the variables with the interrelationships between the observed interrelationships to estimate the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA results inferred the following results: CFA provided an excellent fit to the data (χ2 (682) = 1037.55, p < 0.05; RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.95; NNFI/TLI = 0.96). Corresponding to the results of (Keith and Reynolds 2018), CFA demonstrated an excellent model fit compared to the results with frequently used rules of thumb.

4. Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. The results show a significant and positive relationship between participative leadership and employee loyalty (R = 0.39, p < 0.01) and a positive co-relationship between employee loyalty and job performance (R = 0.17, p < 0.05). Cronbach’s multi-item scales are listed on the primary diagonal of the correlation matrix. The α coefficients fell into an acceptable range for all the variables of interest (0.74 to 0.95).

Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses

The nested nature of the study data (i.e., individuals nested within leaders) necessitated testing our hypotheses using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). Before advancing with these analyses, we estimated unconditional models (null models) for employee loyalty and job performance. The results did not indicate significant between-supervisor variability in employee loyalty; however, they did reveal significant between-supervisor variability in supervisor ratings of performance (τ00 = 0.26, p < 0.01), thus underscoring the appropriateness of HLM. We present the results of these analyses in Table 2 and Table 3. In step 1 of Table 2, we entered the independent variable, participative leadership. In step 2, we entered the moderating variable, institutional context. In step 3, we entered the product terms “participative leadership” and “institutional context”. According to the findings, the relationship between participative leadership and employee loyalty was significantly (=−0.04, p < 0.05) moderated by institutional context and this confirm hypothesis 1. We used the HLM two-way interaction tool to determine the significance of the simple slopes. The findings show a positive relationship between participative leadership and employee loyalty only when institutional context constraints are lower (=−1.07, p < 0.001). In contrast, the relationship with a higher degree of institutional context restrictions was not statistically significant (=0.40, n.s.), implying that institutional context represents a boundary condition under which participative leadership relates to employee loyalty. Finally, the results in Table 3 support hypothesis 2 by indicating a positive relationship between employee loyalty and job performance (=0.18, p < 0.05). Concerning the control variables, we note that, as shown in Table 3, neither the leader’s years of education (=0.01, n.s.), the subordinate’s age (=0.00, n.s.), nor the leader’s gender (=−0.07, n.s.) were significantly related to employee loyalty and this confirm hypothesis 2.

5. Discussion

Improved employee loyalty can lead to higher job performance levels. The current paper explored the moderating role of the institutional context of multifocal effectiveness outcomes in participative leadership. The HLM analysis results show that institutional context significantly moderates the relationship between participative leadership and employee loyalty, and this was evident through the weakening impact of higher institutional context levels on the participative leadership and employee loyalty relationship (Zijl et al. 2021). Instead, fewer institutional contexts demonstrated significant relationship levels between participative leadership and employee loyalty (Chang et al. 2021). It was only in situations when the leader had fewer institutional contexts. A likely consequence of employee loyalty is, in turn, higher levels of job performance from the subordinates (Khassawneh et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2022; Pollermann and Fynn 2021).

5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications

Organizational context is a significant variable influencing behavior at the workplace (Ngugi 2019) and leadership behavior and outcomes, specifically (Palihakkara and Weerakkody 2019). When speaking to leaders in large organizations in the UAE, we have learned that a significant institutional context characterizes this type of organization. Institutional context causes distance between leaders and subordinates and limits the participative leaders’ possibility to influence their subordinates, probably due to the inability to support associates. As stated by Gandolfi and Stone (2018), a leader’s effectiveness is contingent on matching the degree of support that aides expect of their leader. Furthermore, leaders will enact different behaviors depending on the context in which those behaviors occur, Gandolfi and Stone (2018). Hence, institutional context limits participative leaders’ possibility to energy on coaching subordinates for innovative performance or providing them with essential support. Restricted institutional context represents an obstacle when implementing participative leadership in organizations and is detrimental to leader outcomes.
Arguably, the competence and commitment of the subordinate may influence the obstructive impact of the institutional context for participative leadership. According to Kimura and Nishikawa (2018), in an organization, the need for a leader’s support/supervision is governed by the availability and access to several organizational systems and processes, as well as the subordinate’s competence and commitment. Thus, depending upon these leader “substitutes”, leadership may be unnecessary. This argument is supported by Opeke and Oyerinde (2019). In their research on situational leadership theory, they state that for a competent and motivated subordinate, delegating leadership style is favorable. In addition, participative leaders may be accorded opportunities for managing larger institutional contexts when assistants conduct simple, repetitive tasks. As such, the competence and commitment of the subordinate should constitute the focus of future research in line with task characteristics to explore, under such conditions, the suitability of participative leadership.
Moreover, the moderating role of institutional context has been studied in this paper. It has a specific relevance with its emerging significance. An increasing focus on policies, rules, and other social settings in organizational settings positively impacts the augmentation of institutional context (see Mohammad and Khassawneh 2022; Peters 1999). The study infers that the larger institutional context adversely impacts the positive intersection of participative leadership with employee loyalty, resulting in poor employee performance. On these lines, the current paper studies the presumed effectiveness of several contemporary organizational change processes, such as reducing restrictions in the institutional context for leaders.
Considering the intersection between participative leadership and employee loyalty, the trends identified in this explorative paper bring an essential boundary condition to the forefront. It reveals that only in conditions demonstrating less institutional context the leader shows increased loyalty among the subordinates in participative leadership, thus suggesting better efficacy of limited institutional context with more flexibility to the participative leader to provide focused support for their needs.
In other words, a narrower institutional context would allow for: (i) higher involvement of subordinates in decision-making, (ii) better explanation of organizational decisions, and organization expectations. Correspondingly, the HLM analysis illustrated a proportional relationship between participative leadership, employee loyalty, and job performance. However, according to Currie et al. (2009), in scenarios wherein there is no opportunity for a decrease in an institutional context, the subordinates can be supported by the participative leaders. Ensuring the availability of increased opportunities for the leader to support subordinates in participative leadership, with a narrow institutional context, can result in improved employee performance that can be attributed to competency enhancement through coaching and feedback (Khassawneh and Mohammad 2022b). Furthermore, distinct roles can be accorded to the subordinates by their participative leaders, allocating variable service diverse types to their coworkers, like peer recognition. The OCB concept propounded this approach and can improve coworkers’ performance (Mohammad et al. 2021; Jung and Yoon 2012; Cortes and Herrmann 2021). This approach can also increase the capacity of participative leadership to support more prominent subordinates.

5.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This paper provides a robust understanding of the study focus, as we sourced work performance ratings from diverse containers for the parameters of (i) supervisory rating of subordinate’s work performance, (ii) subordinate rating of participative leadership, and (iii) employee loyalty. The data were studied to identify trends by cross-referencing with the third data type of institutional context. Thus, as Spector (2006) supported, the multi-source data application ensured that the common method variance effect was minimized. In addition, the standard method bias can be minimized with a guarantee of anonymity, as per Du et al. (2005). The same was accorded to all the study participants, including the leaders and subordinates.
The current paper presents a limitation of reliance on a cross-sectional measurement design. The survey methodology, concentrated on a single time for surveying a significant number of leaders and subordinates, tested the validity of our research model. This approach limited causal inference of causal relationships, excluding alternative causal ordering. This phenomenon has been observed in a previous study conducted by Flory et al. (2014), which showed that subordinate employee loyalty is associated with work performance. Irrespective, the inference is aligned with the research focus, thereby suggesting that a subordinate’s commitment underpins performance, contrasting the hypothesis that organizations are motivated by a subordinate’s performance to invest in gaining his loyalty (Ineson and Berechet 2011). Correspondingly, it is recommended that longitudinal data should be applied in future research to facilitate an improved evaluation of the impact that participative leadership has on work performances and related aspects. It can be attributed to the fact that the manifestation of participative leadership is known to be time-consuming.
The current study presents another limitation: most participants were women, even though the survey inferred a relatively high response rate. Thus, the exclusive reliance on a UAE sample with 60% women may limit the generalizability of the results. At the same time, it is also essential to note that the control variable gender was not related to any of the outcomes. In addition, the results were achieved in a particular cultural environment (UAE organizations) and might need help to be easily transferred.
It is recommended that future research assess and subsequently ensure that the research model is generalizable and applicable to cross-cultural contexts. Therefore, it becomes essential that future studies consider multiple and disparate factors, including culture, gender, and organizational type spanning across geographies, economies, and industries. Moreover, it is suggested that different gender distribution ratios should be considered for better generalizability of our hypothesized relationships. As such, it would be interesting to observe the outcomes of studies focusing on hypothesized relationships at the group level through experimental and longitudinal data within the context of cross-cultural scopes. Future studies would be worth looking at leaders’ cultural backgrounds and investigating how this could affect the outcomes.

6. Conclusions

The leadership framework of participative leadership has garnered extensive empirical focus underpinned by its generalizability and applicability to diverse organizational frameworks. The concept of participative leadership is underscored by the fundamental belief of leadership to be openly and genuinely expressive of the thought processes to ensure the prioritized accomplishment of each subordinate. Such an approach leads to work outcomes that are ethical and positive. This paper explored and evaluated participative leadership, focusing specifically on the institutional context trends evident within the organizations with a larger perspective on the broader organizational premises. The report offers initial insight into the positive intersection between employee loyalty and participative leadership that is reduced because of the impact of institutional context, thereby adversely affecting subordinates’ performances.
In combination, the study infers that institutional context degrees depict variable operational functionalities of participative leaders. Thus, indicating that leaders and subordinates are distanced from each other because of the influence of institutional context. Furthermore, institutional context affects the evident behavior types of leadership, thereby manifesting challenges in aligning the decisions with the prioritizing needs of the subordinates. Therefore, the paper will serve as a significant scholarly reference to gain insight into the effects and impacts of institutional context on the association and interaction between participative leaders and their subordinates.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.K. and H.E.; methodology, O.K. software, O.K. and H.E.; validation, O.K. and H.E; formal analysis, O.K. and H.E; investigation, O.K. and H.E.; resources, O.K. and H.E.; data curation, O.K. and H.E; writing—original draft preparation, O.K. and H.E.; writing—review and editing, O.K. and H.E.; visualization, O.K. and H.E.; supervision, O.K.; project administration, O.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the or Research Ethics Committee of University of Fort Hare’s (protocol code MUR 39 1SZIN65).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Belias, Dimitrios, Ioannis Rossidis, Christos Papademetriou, and Christos Mantas. 2022. Job satisfaction as affected by types of leadership: A case study of the Greek tourism sector. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 23: 299–317. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, Clement, Nicole Dodd, and Themba Mjoli. 2018. The Effect of Participative and Directive Leadership on Team Effectiveness among Administrative Employees in a South African Tertiary Institution. The Social Science Journal 55: 81–91. [Google Scholar]
  3. Benoliel, Pascale, and Anat Barth. 2017. The implications of the school’s cultural attributes in the relationships between participative leadership and teacher job satisfaction and burnout. Journal of Educational Administration 55: 640–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bernerth, Jeremy B., Michael S. Cole, Erik C. Taylor, and H. Jack Walker. 2018. Control variables in leadership research: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Management 44: 131–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bitektine, Alex, and Patrick Haack. 2015. The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multi-level theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review 40: 49–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bitektine, Alex, Jeff Lucas, and Oliver Schilke. 2018. Institutions under a microscope: Experimental methods in institutional theory. In Unconventional Methodology in Organization and Management Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–67. [Google Scholar]
  7. Budak, Olkan, and Nurgül Erdal. 2022. The mediating role of burnout syndrome in toxic leadership and job satisfaction in organizations. The South East European Journal of Economics and Business 17: 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cardinale, Ivano. 2018. Beyond constraining and enabling: Toward new micro foundations for institutional theory. Academy of Management Review 43: 132–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chan, Simon Ch. 2019. Participative leadership and job satisfaction. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 40: 319–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chang, Yi-Ying, Che-Yuan Chang, Yang Cheng Kuang Chen, Yi-Tai Seih, and Su-Ying Chang. 2021. Participative leadership and unit performance: Evidence for intermediate linkages. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 19: 355–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cook, Karen S., Coye Cheshire, Eric R. W. Rice, and Sandra Nakagawa. 2013. Social exchange theory. In Handbook of Social Psychology. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 61–88. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cooper, Harris, Larry V. Hedges, and Jeffrey C. Valentine, eds. 2019. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cortes, Andres Felipe, and Pol Herrmann. 2021. Strategic leadership of innovation: A framework for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews 23: 224–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Currie, Graeme, Andy Lockett, and Olga Suhomlinova. 2009. Leadership and institutional change in the public sector: The case of secondary schools in England. The Leadership Quarterly 20: 664–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Diab, Ahmed. 2022. The institutional logic of localization programs in GCC developing countries. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing 6: 1616–21. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dolatabadi, H. Rezaei, and M. Safa. 2010. The effect of directive and participative leadership style on employees’ commitment to service quality. International Bulletin of Business Administration 9: 31–42. [Google Scholar]
  17. Du, Jianzheng, Guoxiang Zhao, and Jinping Liu. 2005. Common Method Biases in Measures. Psychological Science 28: 420–22. [Google Scholar]
  18. Elele, Joyce, and Dail Fields. 2010. Participative decision making and organizational commitment. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 17: 368–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fatima, Tasneem, Mehwish Majeed, and Imran Saeed. 2017. Does Participative Leadership Promote Innovative Work Behavior: The Moderated Mediation Model. Business & Economic Review 9: 139–56. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fleischman, Gary M., Eric N. Johnson, Kenton B. Walker, and Sean R. Valentine. 2017. Ethics versus outcomes: Managerial responses to incentive-driven and goal-induced employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 158: 951–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guillon, Olivia, and Cecile Cezanne. 2014. Employee loyalty and organizational performance: A critical survey. Journal of Organizational Change Management 27: 839–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Gandolfi, Franco, and Seth Stone. 2018. Leadership, leadership styles, and servant leadership. Journal of Management Research 18: 261–69. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ghaffari, Sara, J. Burgoyne, I. Mad Shah, Mohammad Nazri, and J. S. Salah Aziz. 2017. Investigating the mediation role of respect for employees on the relationship between participative leadership and job satisfaction: A case study at University Teknologi Malaysia. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Science 11: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  24. Haak-Saheem, Washika, Tamer K. Darwish, and Amjad D. Al-Nasser. 2017a. HRM and knowledge-transfer: A micro analysis in a Middle Eastern emerging market. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 28: 2762–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Haak-Saheem, Washika, Marion Festing, and Tamer K. Darwish. 2017b. International human resource management in the Arab Gulf States–an institutional perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 28: 2684–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hayat Bhatti, Misbah, Yanbin Ju, Umair Akram, Muhammad Hasnat Bhatti, Zubair Akram, and Muhammad Bilal. 2019. Impact of participative leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of trust and moderating role of continuance commitment: Evidence from the Pakistan hotel industry. Sustainability 11: 1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Heikkila, Tanya, and Kimberley Roussin Isett. 2004. Modeling operational decision making in public organizations: An integration of two institutional theories. The American Review of Public Administration 34: 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Heugens, Pursey PMAR, and Michel W. Lander. 2009. Structure! Agency! (and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal 52: 61–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, Xu, Kan Shi, Zhijie Zhang, and Yat Lee Cheung. 2006. The impact of participative leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: The moderating role of organizational tenure. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 23: 345–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huang, Xiaowen, Joseph C. Rode, and Roger G. Schroeder. 2011. Organizational structure and continuous improvement and learning: Moderating effects of cultural endorsement of participative leadership. Journal of International Business Studies 42: 1103–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ineson, Elizabeth M., and Gabriela Berechet. 2011. Employee loyalty in hotels: Romanian experiences. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 10: 129–49. [Google Scholar]
  32. Iqbal, N., S. Anwar, and N. Haider. 2015. Effect of leadership style on employee performance. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review 5: 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jain, Ajay, and Shikha Chaudhary. 2014. Leadership styles of bank managers in nationalized commercial banks of India. PURUSHARTHA-A Journal of Management, Ethics and Spirituality 7: 98–105. [Google Scholar]
  34. Joshi, Aparna, Jooyeon Son, and Hyuntak Roh. 2015. When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal 58: 1516–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jung, Hyo Sun, and Hye Hyun Yoon. 2012. The effects of emotional intelligence on counterproductive work behaviors and organizational citizen behaviors among food and beverage employees in a deluxe hotel. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31: 369–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Keith, Timothy Z., and Matthew R. Reynolds. 2018. Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. New York: The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Khassawneh, Osama. 2018. An Evaluation of the Relationship Between Human Resource Practices and Service Quality: An Empirical Investigation in the Canadian Hotel Industry. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK. [Google Scholar]
  38. Khassawneh, Osama, and Mohamed-Osman Shereif Mahdi Abaker. 2022. Human Resource Management in the United Arab Emirates: Towards a Better Understanding. In HRM in the Global South. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 103–28. [Google Scholar]
  39. Khassawneh, Osama, and Tamara Mohammad. 2022a. Manager Sense of Envy and Employee Overqualification: The Moderating Role of Job Outcomes. Advance Sagepub. Preprint. Available online: https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.20330820.v1 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  40. Khassawneh, Osama, and Tamara Mohammad. 2022b. The Influence of Work Diversity on Organizational Performance in the Hospitality Sector in the UAE: The Moderating Role of HR Practices. Advance Sagepub. Preprint. Available online: https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.20330850.v1 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  41. Khassawneh, Osama, Tamara Mohammad, and Rabeb Ben-Abdallah. 2022. The Impact of Leadership on Boosting Employee Creativity: The Role of Knowledge Sharing as a Mediator. Administrative Sciences 12: 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kimura, Takuma, and Mizuki Nishikawa. 2018. Ethical leadership and its cultural and institutional context: An empirical study in Japan. Journal of Business Ethics 151: 707–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lammers, John C., and Mattea A. Garcia. 2017. Institutional theory approaches. The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liden, Robert C., and George Graen. 1980. Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of Management Journal 23: 451–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Locke, Connson C., and Cameron Anderson. 2010. The downside of looking like a leader: Leaders’powerful demeanor stifles follower voice in participative decision-making. In Academy of Management Proceedings. Briarcliff Manor: Academy of Management, vol. 2010, pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lok, Peter, and John Crawford. 2004. The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Journal of Management Development 23: 321–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Lumbasi, George W., George O. K’Aol, and Caren Akomo Ouma. 2016. The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on the Performance of Coya Senior Managers in Kenya. Available online: http://erepo.usiu.ac.ke/11732/3074 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  48. Lythreatis, Sophie, Ahmed Mohammed Sayed Mostafa, and Xiaojun Wang. 2019. Participative leadership and organizational identification in SMEs in the MENA Region: Testing the roles of CSR perceptions and pride in membership. Journal of Business Ethics 156: 635–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Mohammad, Tamara F. 2019. Human Resource Management Practices and Organisational Performance of the Healthcare Sector: An Empirical Study in Jordan. Doctoral dissertation, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mohammad, Tamara, and Osama Khassawneh. 2022. The impact of humor on work efficiency at workplace: An empirical examination in tourism and hospitality sector in The United Arab Emirates. Journal of Business Strategy Finance and Management 4: 91–110. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mohammad, Tamara, Tamer K. Darwish, Satwinder Singh, and Osama Khassawneh. 2021. Human resource management and organisational performance: The mediating role of social exchange. European Management Review 18: 125–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mulki, Jay P., Barbara Caemmerer, and Githa S. Heggde. 2015. Leadership style, salesperson’s work effort and job performance: The influence of power distance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 35: 3–22. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mwaisaka, Davidson Mghanga, George K’Aol, and Caren Ouma. 2019. Influence of participative leadership style on employee job satisfaction in commercial banks in kenya. European Journal of Business and Strategic Management 4: 23–45. [Google Scholar]
  54. Newey, Whitney, and Sami Stouli. 2018. Control variables, discrete instruments, and identification of structural functions. arXiv arXiv:1809.05706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ngugi, Rosemary Wambui. 2019. Factors influencing behavour on attitudes towards households’ food choices in Kiambaa Sub-County, Kiambu County, Kenya. Doctoral dissertation, Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya. [Google Scholar]
  56. Nielsen, Richard P., and Felipe G. Massa. 2013. Reintegrating ethics and institutional theories. Journal of Business Ethics 115: 135–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nielsen, Bo Bernhard, and Arpit Raswant. 2018. The selection, use, and reporting of control variables in international business research: A review and recommendations. Journal of World Business 53: 958–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Odoardi, Carlo, Adalgisa Battistelli, Francesco Montani, and José M. Peiró. 2019. Affective Commitment, Participative Leadership, and Employee Innovation: A Multilevel Investigation. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 35: 103–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Ogbeide, Godwin-Charles A., and Robert J. Harrington. 2011. The relationship among participative management style, strategy implementation success, and financial performance in the foodservice industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 23: 719–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Opeke, Rosaline Oluremi, and Oluwatosin Fisayo Oyerinde. 2019. Leadership Style and Institutional Effectiveness of Polytechnic Libraries South-West, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  61. Palihakkara, N., and W. A. S. Weerakkody. 2019. The impact of employee happiness on organizational citizenship behavior: A study of executive level employees in selected mobile telecommunication companies. Kelaniya Journal of Management 8: 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Park, Jungwon, Keon-Hyung Lee, and Pan Suk Kim. 2016. Participative management and perceived organizational performance: The moderating effects of innovative organizational culture. Public Performance & Management Review 39: 316–36. [Google Scholar]
  63. Parnell, John, Shawn Carraher, and Kenneth Holt. 2002. Participative management’s influence on effective strategic diffusion. Journal of Business Strategies 19: 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Peters, Ronald M. 1999. Institutional context and leadership style: The case of Newt Gingrich. New Majority or Old Minority, 43–68. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pollermann, Kim, and Lynn-Livia Fynn. 2021. Performance of LEADER–explanatory variables for outputs of a place-based and participative approach. Paper presented at Regional Studies Association, Annual Conference 2020: Transformations: Relational Spaces, beyond Urban and Rural, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  66. Powell, Walter W., and Jeannette A. Colyvas. 2008. Microfoundations of Institutional Theory. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism 276: 298. [Google Scholar]
  67. Powell, Walter W., and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds. 1991. Introduction. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–38. [Google Scholar]
  68. Raineri, Andres. 2016. Leaders’ Induced Justice Climate as mediator of Participative Leadership and Team Learning. In Academy of Management Proceedings. Briarcliff Manor: Academy of Management, vol. 2016, p. 16432. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ramli, Aznarahayu, and Nasina Mat Desa. 2014. The relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment: The Malaysian perspectives. International Journal of Management and Sustainability 3: 111–23. [Google Scholar]
  70. Rana, Rozmina, George K’aol, and Michael Kirubi. 2019. Influence of Supportive and Participative Path-Goal Leadership Styles and the Moderating Role of Task Structure on Employee Performance. Available online: http://erepo.usiu.ac.ke/11732/5046 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  71. Rice, Bridget, Kathy Knox, John Rice, Nigel Martin, Peter Fieger, and Anneke Fitzgerald. 2017. Loyal employees in difficult settings: The compounding effects of inter-professional dysfunction and employee loyalty on job tension. Personnel Review 46: 1755–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rok, Boleslaw. 2009. Ethical context of the participative leadership model: Taking people into account. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society. Corporate Governance 9: 461–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Salahuddin, Mecca M. 2010. Generational differences impact on leadership style and organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Santos, Filipe M., and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 2005. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science 16: 491–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sarti, Daria. 2014. Leadership styles to engage employees: Evidence from human service organizations in Italy. Journal of Workplace Learning 26: 202–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sax, Johanna, and Simon S. Torp. 2015. Speak up! Enhancing risk performance with enterprise risk management, leadership style and employee voice. Management Decision 53: 1452–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Somech, Anit. 2003. Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: A multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 24: 1003–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Somech, Anit. 2005. Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly 41: 777–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sorenson, Ritch L. 2000. The contribution of leadership style and practices to family and business success. Family Business Review 13: 183–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Spector, Paul E. 2006. Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods 9: 221–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Stirna, Janis, Anne Persson, and Kurt Sandkuhl. 2007. Participative enterprise modeling: Experiences and recommendations. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 546–60. [Google Scholar]
  82. Suárez, David F., and Patricia Bromley. 2016. Institutional theories and levels of analysis: History, diffusion, and translation. In World Culture Re-Contextualised: Meaning Constellations and Path-Dependencies in Comparative and International Education Research. London: Routledge, pp. 139–59. [Google Scholar]
  83. Suharti, Lieli, and Dendy Suliyanto. 2012. The effects of organizational culture and leadership style toward employee engagement and their impacts toward employee loyalty. World Review of Business Research 2: 128–39. [Google Scholar]
  84. Tang, Keow Ngang. 2019. Leadership Styles and Organizational Effectiveness. In Leadership and Change Management. Singapore: Springer, pp. 11–25. [Google Scholar]
  85. Vance, DaShaune L. 2016. The Relationship between Participative Leadership Style and Employee Satisfaction with Possible Moderators of Emotional Stability (Neuroti-Cism) And Years of Experience. Nashville: Trevecca Nazarene University. [Google Scholar]
  86. Wang, Qiang, Hong Hou, and Zhibin Li. 2022. Participative Leadership: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 924357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Yee, Rachel WY, Andy CL Yeung, and TC Edwin Cheng. 2010. An empirical study of employee loyalty, service quality and firm performance in the service industry. International Journal of Production Economics 124: 109–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zijl, Alissa Lysanne van, Brenda Vermeeren, Ferry Koster, and Bram Steijn. 2021. Interprofessional teamwork in primary care: The effect of functional heterogeneity on performance and the role of leadership. Journal of Interprofessional Care 35: 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 12 00195 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed Theoretical Model.
Figure 1. Proposed Theoretical Model.
Admsci 12 00195 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations.
VariablesMeans (SD)1234567
Years of Education for Leaders15.7 (1.80)
Age of Subordinate41.6 (7.74)0.33 **
Gender of Leader a0.69.9 (0.57)−0.18 **0.03
Participative Leadership 3.72 (0.63)0.080.050.07(0.91)
Institutional Context13.55 (8.08)0.40 **−0.020.05−0.07
Employee Loyalty7.14 (1.09)0.06−0.02−0.030.39 **−0.00(0.74)
Job Performance 6.31 (1.15)0.27 **0.17 *0.090.28 **0.15 **0.17 *(0.95)
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; a 0 = Male 1 = Female; Note: N = 267. Cronbach’s as is displayed on the primary diagonal.
Table
Table 2. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses.
Table 2. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses.
VariablesEmployee Loyalty
Step 1Step 2Step 3
Intercept5.28 ***5.28 ***5.27 ***
Years of Education for Leader0.020.010.01
Age of Subordinate−0.00−0.00−0.00
Years of Experience0.010.020.02
Gender of Leader a−0.08−0.08−0.07
Participative Leadership0.80 ***0.80 ***0.77 ***
Institutional Context 0.000.01
Participative Leadership X Institutional Context −0.04 *
Model deviance χ2388.94388.91383.96
Decrease in Deviance: Δχ2 b 0.035.75 *
* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001; a 0 = Male 1 = Female; b The full ML estimator was applied to compute this decline in deviance. (Δχ2) This can be measured by stating effect size in multi-level modeling. Note: N = 267. Non-standardized coefficients are displayed.
Table
Table 3. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses.
Table 3. Results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses.
VariablesJob Performance
Intercept5.94 ***
Years of Education for Leader0.14 *
Age of Subordinate0.00
Years of Experience0.02
Gender of Manager a0.08
Participative Leadership0.18
Institutional Context 0.02
Employee Loyalty 0.18 *
Model Deviance χ2357.73
* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. a 0 = Male 1 = Female; (Δχ2) can be measured to state effect size in multi-level modeling. Note: N = 267. Non-standardized coefficients are displayed.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khassawneh, O.; Elrehail, H. The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on Employees’ Performance: The Contingent Role of Institutional Theory. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195

AMA Style

Khassawneh O, Elrehail H. The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on Employees’ Performance: The Contingent Role of Institutional Theory. Administrative Sciences. 2022; 12(4):195. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khassawneh, Osama, and Hamzah Elrehail. 2022. "The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on Employees’ Performance: The Contingent Role of Institutional Theory" Administrative Sciences 12, no. 4: 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195

APA Style

Khassawneh, O., & Elrehail, H. (2022). The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on Employees’ Performance: The Contingent Role of Institutional Theory. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop