How Organizational Culture and Leadership Style Affect Employees Performance of Gender

International Journal of Organizational Analysis
How organizational culture and leadership style affect employees’ performance of genders
Bassem E. Maamari, Adel Saheb,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bassem E. Maamari, Adel Saheb, "How organizational culture and leadership style affect employees’ performance of
genders", International Journal of Organizational Analysis, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2017-1151
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2017-1151
Downloaded on: 07 July 2018, At: 04:44 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:261926 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
Downloaded by Boston College At 04:44 07 July 2018 (PT)
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Short Title: Leadership mediating Organisational Culture to performance of genders
1. INTRODUCTION
The contemporary integration of female workers into the Lebanese workplace has pulled the
attention of the organizations towards the need of amendment in order to embrace this evolution.
Due to the importance of employees’ fit to their commitment toward the organization (Behery &
Paton, 2008), organizational culture is established from the inception phase in the life of any
organization. It develops over time to reach a level of pervasiveness and deployment, making it
one of the most challenging factors to change at a later point. With the advent multi-fold
increased influx of women in the 20th century to the work-force (Igbaria & Baroudi, 1996), the
importance of the culture lies in its setting the framework for a number of variables in the
organization, including performance standards, attitudes (efficiency and/or effectiveness) and
norms of behaviour. These in turn limit the contribution of the lower level leaders and managers
that attempt to apply randomly different styles of leadership, whether transactional or
transformational, to this setting where the norms are already pre-set. Therefore, this study is
seeking to investigate the existence of statistically significant effect of organizational culture on
performance of both genders and whether leadership style can or does mediate this relationship
The organizational culture presents by itself as both an organizational strength as well as a
barrier to development. Its effect may vary between improving efficiency and performance and
hindering the workflow processes. Whereas leadership sets the rules of the game of how
employees relate to each other and to managers, its outcomes provide value to the firm in terms
of commitment, loyalty, and dedication of the team members toward their colleagues, respective
teams, and their leaders. In this organizational setting, in a context where research concerning
consequence and significance of the organizational culture and leadership style on performance
is extremely limited in Lebanon, testing the proposed model earns a higher interest in the
managerial circles.
This manuscript is organized into four sections, namely a review of the available scholarly
literature, followed by the methods used in the study, then the results and their analysis to draw
some managerial implications and conclusions.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Dwelling into the managerial world, and seeing the importance that operational teams dedicate to
performance and the ensuing outcomes, clears the picture for researchers. The compression of
operating costs in a globalized business environment where the firm seeks to satisfy an ever-
changing demand within a highly competitive market, force the today’s organizations to
overlook certain factors. Among these are the effects of organizational culture and leadership
style on performance. The following presents a glance at the scholarly literature on the topics at
1
hand, beginning by organizational culture, followed by leadership style then performance, and
the relationship between these factors.
2.1 Organizational Culture:
Organizational culture or corporate culture is the set of values, beliefs and way of doing things in
an organization. It defines the ambiance in which an employee is working and how he/she should
behave in order to achieve his/her duties (Mgbere, 2009), and his/her awareness of what is
occurring in the organizational environment (Hofstede, 2011). It has also an impact on decision-
making, level of authority, and agency theory in organizations (Childe et al. 2016). Therefore,
this aspect of the organization has become widely important and interesting in order to measure
its abilities to innovate and adapt to the change of the cultures and how it affects its performance
(Mgbere, 2009). The national and societal culture of the country affects organizational culture
(Hofstede, 2011). According to Hofstede’s and Trompeneaars’ Model there are measurable
dimensions for the society’s culture that can influence and shape individuals’ values and norms
who are the founders, employees, and costumers of the organizations. Values represent the
corner stone and the supreme part of organizational culture (Hogan & Coote, 2014). But at the
gender level, this performance is reported to vary largely despite the many attempts to provide
for equal opportunity. The explanation could be referred to the discriminatory prevailing attitude
at the human capital level (Glass & Cook, 2016; Sidani, 2016; Salloum, Azzi, Mercier-Suissa, &
Khalil, 2016; Tlaiss & Kausser, 2011; Gneezy, Niederle, & Rustichini, 2003). As a result,
women still “face a ‘glass ceiling’ that prevents them from reaching top level management”
(Salloum et al., 2016; Igbaria & Baroudi, 1996, p. 109). Women constitute a resource, which is
not efficiently used in organizations and it is time to decide how best to organize this human
resource. Since the corporate culture constitutes a boundary for both the employee and the
manager that control and limit their behaviours; therefore, the performance of the employee or
the manager is affected by the extent to which they are integrated, and to extent to which they fit
within that organization’s culture (Lysons, 2000). The employees’ success within corporations is
measured by their capability to adjust their behaviour in order to fit in the corporate culture, and
is becoming an important determinant of the employee’s satisfaction and productivity (Davis &
Landa, 2001). Mgbere (2009) reports that the relationship between the corporate culture and the
performance is positive. For one, the performance of a company is highly related to the
company’s culture if it has a strong culture that is well integrated and based on strong beliefs and
values (Deal & Kennedy, 1983; Denison, 1990; Kotter & Heskett, 1992) and for two, employees’
job satisfaction is related to their perception of the own fit with the organizational culture
(Behery & Paton, 2008). But when it comes to study the effect of corporate culture on economic
performance Mgbere (2009) cited Siehl and Martin (1990) who report a modest positive
relationship between these two factors. Moreover, Behery & Paton (2008) report a positive
relation between the organizational culture and the job satisfaction, resulting in boosted
employee performance. Furthermore, their study took place in Dubai (non-westernized country)
to prove that this westernized hypothesis is also valid in a non-westernized environment, thus
concluding that organizational culture affects organizational and individual performance.
2
In addition, Bakar and Abdul Latif (2008) concluded that there are four types of corporate
cultures. They are: competitive culture, entrepreneurial culture, bureaucratic culture and
consensual culture. They argued that both the entrepreneurial culture and the consensual culture
achieve the highest correlations between the other cultures. However, only entrepreneurial
cultures show a statistical significance on the overall job performance. Thus, an organization that
strives to improve its employee's job performance should inculcate innovative culture that
creates an exciting and dynamic environment in which entrepreneurial and ambitious people
thrive in this environment.
Furthermore, Yiing and Bin Ahmad (2008) cited in their article that the organizational culture
plays an important role in generating commitment and enhancing performance (Dubey et al.
2016; Lok & Crawford, 2001; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982) and he posed
some studies that show a strong positive relationship between the supportive and innovative
cultures and the job satisfaction and commitment while the bureaucratic culture had a negative
relationship with the job satisfaction and commitment (Silverthorne, 2004; Abdul Rashid,
Sambasivan & Johari, 2003; Brewer & Clippard, 2002; Lok & Crawford, 2001; London, Larsen
& Thisted, 1999; Krausz et al., 1995; Brewer & Weber,1994; Brewer, 1993; Trice &
Beyer,1993; Kratrina, 1990; Wallach, 1983).
Pool (2000) argued how some work environments cause stress for its employees. Executives may
form high levels of stress in carrying out requirements. This is why they must be considerate
when distributing work assignments within the prevalent organizational culture. In addition,
accelerating changes must fit the organization's culture to reach successful business goals
strategically. This, keeping in mind that organisational culture is affected by gender
predisposition (Madsen et al. 2005; Goulet & Singh, 2002; Kirchmeyer, 1995) and incompatible
values or interests of individuals leads to organizational conflict ending up with the
accommodation of the weakest party. Joiner (2001) also discusses job-related stress in her
article. It is defined as an interactive imbalance between the individual and the individual's work
environment (French et al., 1974). From this we conclude the necessity of a tap down
organizational evolutionary change starting with a new organizational culture that commits all
members equally to its body resulting in a win-win strategy.
2.2 Leadership Style:
Leading is the art of communicating a clear vision and empowering employees towards
organizational goals. Mgbere (2009) defines Leadership as the ability to work with a group of
people (employees) to achieve a goal (Northouse, 2015; Fry, 2003; Robbins and Coulter, 2001;
Lussier, 1990). He also points to the fact that the leadership style affects performance (Sauer,
2011; Fry, 2003; Bycio, Hacket & Allen, 1995; Bass & Avolio, 1990). Although “no gender
differences in leadership style are found” (Engen, Leeden & Willemsen, 2001, p.581), in today’s
environment where cultures are changing rapidly due to globalization, leaders play a definitive
role in helping the corporate entity to adapt to this new changing culture (Fiedler, 1996;
Hennessey Jr., 1998). Culture is expressed either implicitly through communicating information
or explicitly through rules and regulations (Hofstede, 2011). While reports that males score high
3
on individualism and masculinity whereas females score high on power distance and long-term
orientation (Alanezi & Alansari, 2016), evidence from Europe shows that women’s delineation
and critical thinking boosts creativity and widens the panorama of decision making
(Christiansen, Lin, Pereira, Topalova, & Turk, 2016), leaving a strong impact on female
directors’ performance in China (Liu, Wei, & Xie, 2014).
According to Chen (2004), recent organizational crises have emphasized the need for leadership
and personal commitment, which has become more critical for organizational success (Selznick,
2011) irrespective of gender stereotyping (Engen, Leeden & Willemsen, 2001), while the
leaders’ valuation is in itself highly gender stereotyped (Eagly, Makhijani & Klonsky, 1992). In
addition, women are still underrepresented and less likely to be promoted for top leadership
positions (Glass & Cook, 2016; Salloum et al., 2016).
Many models of leadership are incorporated in leadership theories and even if males in the
MENA region have monopolized these models, a further look among other developed societies
might anticipate in resizing the number of female leaders in the Arab countries (Sidani, Konrad,
& Karam, 2015). Sidani (2016) sees that the change can occur gradually whenever cultural and
institutional factors welcome this fair participation and unprejudiced opportunities for working
women.
The study of leadership has been developed over the last 100 years (Bass, 2000). The impact of
leadership style on corporate culture and its challenges to adapt to any new culture highlights the
importance of having a more dynamic understanding for the role of organizational leaders and
culture in ensuring the organization’s present and future success (Ehrhart, Schneider & Macey,
2013; Mgbere, 2009).
Furthermore, Cuong and Swierczek (2008) report that Leadership competencies consist of 8
skills; Peer, Leadership, Conflict Resolution, Information Processing, Unstructured Decision
Making, Resource Allocation, Entrepreneurial, and Introspection.
From the motivation based leadership theories emerged Transformational leadership (Liden,
Wayne, Liao & Meuser, 2014; Yukl, 1997), Transactional leadership (Piccolo, Bono, Heinitz,
Rowold, Duehr & Judge, 2012; Bass & Avolio, 1994), Path-goal leadership (Fry, 2003; House,
1996; House & Mitchell, 1974), and Charismatic leadership (Fry, 2003; Conger & Kanungo,
1998; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; House & Howell, 1992; House, 1977). Transformational
leadership on one hand is defined in terms of the leader's effect on followers; where employees
feel trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect toward the leader (Liden, Wayne, Liao & Meuser,
2014; Yukl, 1997). Transactional leadership, on the other hand, emphasizes on the exchange or
transaction that takes place between colleagues and leaders, and leaders and followers (Bass &
Avolio, 1994; Piccolo, Bono, Heinitz, Rowold, Duehr & Judge, 2012). Path goal leadership
motivates employees by selecting the appropriate behaviour for each situation (supportive,
participative, or achievement-oriented) as well as providing all the employees needs along their
path towards the goal (Fry, 2003; House, 1996; House & Mitchell, 1974), And finally,
Charismatic leadership requires certain talents such as the ability to influence and inspire others
towards ideological goals and moral values where followers are willing to mitigate with these
4
values and to go beyond their duties (Fry, 2003; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir, House, &
Arthur, 1993; House & Howell, 1992; House, 1977).
Mgbere (2009) notes the complexity of the research on the relationship between the corporate
culture, leadership style and corporate performance due to the multiplicity of cultures to which
the organization’s members belong, and this situation makes the role of the leader harder and
more difficult to define, and to relate it directly to the corporate performance (Brown, Pearson,
Braithwaite, Brown & Biddle, 2013). Davis and Landa (2000-2001) support the existence of a
relationship between the leadership style and performance, and they refer in their article to
Duxbury and Higgins' (1991) research that shows the impact of a supervisor who follows the
controlling style which results in undermining the employees’ effectiveness, as opposed to the
impact of a supervisor who follows the supportive style and which results in developing more
effective employees. To positively utilize the leader’s position and its impact on employees’
performance, the leader in the first place should fit into the organization’s culture, and his
leading style should be adequate to the circumstances of the organization as well as to its culture.
This combination will empower the positive relationship between the leadership style and the
performance (Fullan, 2011; Lee, 2008; Yiing & Bin Ahmad, 2008). The gender inequality in the
number of female upper-level manager is thus attributed to ‘gender connotations’ (Cooper
Jackson, 2001) and to the lack of appropriate style of leadership at the female leaders (Engen,
Leeden & Willemsen, 2001). Thereby, “the more instrumental, task oriented, autocratic styles
are therefore often referred to as masculine leadership styles and the interpersonal-oriented,
charismatic, and democratic styles as feminine leadership styles” (Engen, Leeden & Willemsen,
2001, p.582). But whether these affect performance remains to investigate.
2.3 Performance
Employee performance can be defined as the activities that are formally recognized as part of
the job and that contribute to the organization's goals (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). There are
two dimensions of performance: an action dimension known as the behavioural aspect and an
outcome dimension known as the performance aspect (Roe, 1999; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler &
Sager, 1993; Campbell, McHenry & Wise, 1990). In this paper, the behavioural aspect of
performance is considered to be consistent with the work situation and job specifications, which
then turns into the means of achieving organizational goals and objectives, that is, the outcome
dimension or the performance aspect.
Employee performance is the building block of an organization since the progress of an
organization is a collective effort of all its members (Isaac Mwita, 2000). The main purpose of
any organization is to maximize productivity, decrease employee turnover, and increase
employee retention (Mowday, Porter & Steers, 2013). So, in order to reach organization’s goals,
managers need to focus on factors that affect the performance of employees at the workplace,
and hence increase the productivity (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). At the beginning of
their career, males and females show no remarkable disparity in the level of their performance,
however with time gender differences become visible (Van Den Besselaar & Sandström, 2016;
Tlaiss & Kauser, 2011) when uncontrolled situations such us discrimination (Mills, 2017),
5
constricted collaboration, motherhood, and cramped conditions emerge (Larivière, Vignola-
Gagné, & Villeneuve, Gelinas & Gingras, 2011). Yet, gender diversity increases the financial
performance of organizations (Christiansen, Lin, Pereira, Topalova, & Turk, 2016).
Consequently, the factors that lay the foundation for high performance must be analysed and
addressed meticulously by the organizations to ensure organizational success, including both
main factors; organizational culture and leadership style.
2.4 Effect of Organizational culture on Performance
Early researchers believed that there is a relationship between organizational culture and
organizational performance. Magee (2002) argues that since organizational culture is inherently
connected to organizational practices (Rofcanin, Las Heras, & Bakker, 2017; Zain, Ishak &
Ghani, 2009); it is manifested by the collaborative circumstances between the different units of
the organization (Hofstede, 2011). Therefore, organizational performance relies greatly on
organizational culture. The fact that attitudes are part of the organizational culture and part of the
employees’ performance will straighten out the relation between organizational culture and
performance. The relation between belief, participation, and performance is associated by the
organizational culture (Debusscher, Hofmans, & DeFruyt, 2017; Dubey et al., 2017). According
to Tseng (2010), an adhocracy culture has a greater effect than clan and hierarchy culture on
corporate performance, because it creates a comfortable environment for creativity and
innovation.
According to Slocum and Hellriegel (2009), organizational culture can boost performance in a
large scale and the culture of an organization allows the employees to be acquainted with both
the firm’s history as well as current methods of operation (Awadh & Alyahya, 2013; Zain, Ishak
& Ghani, 2009). Moreover, Kozlowski & Klein (2000) report that an organization is a
consciously coordinated system where characteristics of individuals, groups, and organizations,
interact with each other, and where the effective interaction among them highly depends on
organizational culture that shapes the individual performance leading in most of cases, that high
performers are more appreciated and promoted than low performers (Cross et al., 2000).
Furthermore, the mutual benefit relationship between an organization and its employees supports
this idea, where we find that all organizations are thriving to recruit high performing individuals
in order to meet the organizational objectives and achieve competitive advantages. Gender
variance in performance result either from gender quality differences or gender bias (Van Den
Besselaar & Sandström, 2016). Because most of higher positions and those related to authority
and power are still more dedicated to men (Van Den Besselaar & Sandström, 2016), rigorous
comparison of gender performance is not always viable (Abramo, Cicero, D’Angelo, 2013).
Therefore, employees need supportive organizational cultures to promote both genders with
similar opportunities (Van Den Brink, Brouns, & Waslander, 2006) to help them reach individual
and cumulative departmental objectives.
Many researchers consider individual factors (i.e. ability and effort) to be of great importance to
highlight the link between organizational culture and employee performance (Gardner &
Schermerhorn, 2004; Schermerhorn & Nyaw, 1990). According to Furnham and Gunter (1993),
6
organizational culture is the internal integration and coordination between a firm’s operations
and its employees. Internal integration can be described as the societal interaction of new
members with the existing ones, creating the boundaries of the organizational feelings of identity
among staff and commitment to the organization. The shared system, which forms the basis of
communication and mutual understanding in the organization is created and supported by the
culture and if the organizational culture fails to fulfil these functions at a satisfactory level, the
culture may have a significant negative influence on the efficiency of the employees (Awadh &
Alyahya, 2013; Furnhum & Gunter, 1993).
A strong organizational culture supports adaptation and develops the organization’s employee
performance by motivating employees toward a shared goal and objective, although some
scholars report a neutral effect (Behery & Paton, 2008). Nevertheless, coaching, equal
opportunities, status, expectations (Kalhoff, Younts, & Troyar, 2011), and pay policy based on
employee characteristics and performance, (Austen, Jefferson, & Preston, 2013) enhance
employee behaviour over the long run (Kalhoff, Younts, & Troyar, 2011). Finally, shaping and
channelling employees’ behaviour to that specific direction should be at the top of both
operational and functional strategies (Daft, 2010). Although organizational culture has no direct
impact on the financial performance (Yesil & Kaya, 2013), but recently evaluating the intangible
assets such as employees, systems, and culture became part of the balanced scorecard of
companies that seeks competitive advantage in a dynamic environment (Awadh & Alyahya
2013; Kaplan & Norton, 1996). Starbucks coffee company, with more than 2500 worldwide
stores, relates its success to employees’ performance and believes that employees work best with
customers when they are better treated (Flamholtz & Randle, 1998). A firm’s mission reflects its
ultimate long-term objective, which is accomplished by conducting integrated operational and
behavioural activities. A firm’s performance improves if it has a clear sense of purpose and
commitment towards its mission. A successful and well performing organization defines its
organizational goals as the report card of its forthcoming (long term) future (Hamel & Prahalad,
1994; Mintzberg, 1987; Ohmae, 1982). Chatman, Polzer, Barsade & Neale (1998) postulate that
organizational culture has a considerable effect on work processes and outcomes. Moreover,
organizational culture shapes the way employees operate and interact with each other in an
organization, and affects their self-perceptions, post-task assessment and performance (Beyer,
1990). The cultural model comprises various norms, beliefs, values, rituals and symbols that
govern the operating style of the people within a company. The corporate culture holds the
workforce together and provides a direction for the company. The world is changing and culture
has to adjust accordingly (Awadh & Alyahya, 2013; Hofstede, 2011). In times of change, the
biggest challenge for any organization may be to change its culture, as the employees are already
accustomed to a certain way of doing their routines (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998)
and this brings us to the irreplaceable role of leadership along with the rehabilitation of
organizational culture (Awadh, & Alyahya, 2013). Thus, the need to study whether the
relationship stands and whether it is gender differentiated.
2.5 The Effect of leadership on Performance
7
Leadership is a process based on social influence in which the leader strives for the voluntary
participation of subordinates in order to achieve organizational goals. A leader is a person who
motivates others to act, so as to carry out specified objectives. According to Maslow’s theory
motivation depends on the hierarchy of needs of individuals regardless of their gender.
Organizations need effective leaders, leaders who understand the convolutions of the rapidly
changing global environment (Kim & Yoon, 2015; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996). A structured
task and a leader with a good relationship with the employees are the perfect combination to
generate high effectiveness on the part of the employees (Boehm, Dwertmann, Bruch, & Shamir,
2015).
Leadership styles could be divided into four main types: autocratic, democratic, laissez-faire and
human relations. An autocratic leader (dictator) is a leader who has the notion of controlling all
decisions, often outlining the means of how to achieve targets. Such a leader uses fear and
control to lead employees. Democratic leaders on the other hand, would involve group members
in decision-making activities. The laissez-faire approach encourages independence of followers
and rarely contributes to the processes that generate output. Finally, a human relations leader
emphasizes on people more than he emphasizes on performance (Skakon, Nielsen, Borg, &
Guzman, 2010; Misumi & Peterson, 1985; Gastil, 1994).
Several studies examined the effect of the different leadership styles on employee performance.
(Chen, 2004; Fry, (2003). Motivation enhances performance (Fry, (2003). Therefore, leader’s
gender plays a significant role in fluctuating performance since their capability of interaction and
motivation differ (AlAnezi & Alansari, 2016; Rice, Richer & Vitters, 1979).. Moreover, Kaur
(1993) reports that most Indian managers prefer the autocratic style and
that employees in the observed organizations are highly committed to their organizations, highly
satisfied with their jobs, and their performance is high (Kaur,1993). A number of studies carried
out in the Arab world suggest that leadership in the Arab cultures fosters consultative and
participative tendencies (Alnuaimi, 2013). According to this study, the influence of Islamic and
tribal values and beliefs on leadership cannot be denied, since both Islamic and tribal laws
underpin consultation in all aspects of life (Boussif, 2010). Based on gender’s performance in
working and conflicts conditions; leadership competencies such us relational and interpersonal
skills are more likely related to the quality of female leaders, whereas strategic planning and
decision making are mainly male’s leadership skills (Almaki, Silong, Idris, & Wahat, 2016).
However, the various positions held by outstanding female leaders (Irene Rosenfeld, Indra K.
Nooyi, Drew Gilpin Faust, etc.) can change the equation and consider culture the key reason
holding back women from leadership positions. Moreover, scholars highlight the relationship
between leadership and employee job performance within an organization. While management
by fear can create tensions that might produce the desired result in the short term, it is unlikely
that success will be sustained, whereas leaders who create a trusting open environment where
information is shared create an organization that can rise to any challenge (Jing & Avery, 2008).
A particular style of leadership may not always motivate good performance. Varying the
leadership styles according to the different situations is recommended and each leader must be
8
able to know when to exhibit a particular approach and with w-hom. No one-leadership style is
ideal for every situation; a leader may have knowledge and skills to act effectively in one
situation but may not emerge as effective in another (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee,
2013). Employees consider transformational leadership style part of an innovative culture that
provides the suitable climate for creativity (Kim & Yoon, 2015) and boosts performance
(Boehm, Dwertmann, Bruch, & Shamir, 2015). And from the employees’ perspective, what they
see leader’s behaviour builds their perception of the person-leader, and on this perception, they
build their own feedback, cooperation level and adjustment to the work environment and its
demands. The essence is not whether one specific leadership style is better to be applied than the
others, but rather to test whether the way the leader deals with the employees (style) reflects in
their performance of their work tasks., taking into account the individual preferences of
leadership styles.
As a result of the above discussion of the reviewed literature a gap is identified in the body of
knowledge, where the relationship between organizational culture and employees’ performance
could be both direct and indirect (as mediated by leadership style). Where most of the reported
studies report one relationship only between organizational culture and employees’ performance,
or on between leadership style and performance, this paper investigates both relationship
simultaneously, as both direct, and as mediated by leadership style. To address this gap, the
researchers are suggesting the following hypotheses to test (see Figure 1 below):
H1 : Organizational culture positively affects employees’ performance.
H2 : Leadership style mediates the relationship between organizational culture and
employees’ performance.
Figure 1 – Suggested Model
3. METHODOLOGY
This study’s philosophy follows the positivist theory which underlines observational information
and investigational work to identify noticeable regularities. It follows the deductive approach to
research aiming at postulating hypotheses and testing them for the purpose of amending or
modifying available theories. Moreover, the study uses a survey as a tool popular among
business researchers and respondents as well, to collect data about the respondents a leadership
style, and relies on data from the operational records of the companies surveyed in assessing
employees’ performance. This strategy allows for a faster and cheaper data collection process
than other strategies, while permitting the selection of the sample (random or other) to measure
for a set number of variables while controlling for others. The researchers opted for the use of
the survey technique, choosing a quantitative approach for their cross-sectional study. The
collected data is then analysed for the purpose of identifying results, or trends in the observed
sample (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).
9
For the purpose of this study, a questionnaire is prepared in four sections. The first comprises of
four demographic questions aimed at capturing the respondents’ gender, age, education and
tenure, where all the targeted sample is of employees in the service sector. To avoid the issue of
predictive validity, the researchers used scales that are already tested and validated. The second
part is composed of twelve measure items that focus on organizational culture, and borrowed
from a commonly used survey and adapted for the purpose of this study
(http://implementer.com/implementer/newtools/ orgcultquest.html). The third part of the
questionnaire is made up of six questions on performance, and used to compare results with
actual operational data, and the last part is composed of ten questions taken from the Humming
Network’s questionnaire for performance assessment (http://humming.net.au/questionnaire.pdf).
Moreover, and as the purpose of the study is to assess the impact of organizational culture (if
any) on both leadership style and performance, as well as the effect of leadership style on
performance, the leadership style questionnaire targeted the population of employees in the
service sector, as applied in the field of Lebanon using a questionnaire developed by Palgrave
(http://www.palgrave.com/uploadedFiles/Leadership _Style.pdf) and published by Northause
(2015).
The survey tool was piloted using a small hard-copy of the questionnaire on a group of 37
employees working in 2 different service firms in order to assert easy of understanding, language
simplicity and clarity of job at hand. For the sampling process, the researchers analysed the
population at hand. The total population is estimated to be 110,000 employees. The researchers
visited 72 firms in total, and distributed a total of 550 questionnaires through email lists received
from a network of 40 medium-sized service companies whose top management accepted to
participate in the study. Then the researchers visited these firms again, met with the Human
Resources (HR) managers to put in place the data collection process, allowing for confidentiality
and anonymity of the data collected, whereby the respondents received an email directly from
the researchers and responded on-line. In selecting the sample, the researchers put a number of
criteria. First, the respondent needed to have a personal email at work. Second, the respondent
should have an adequate mastery of the English language to be able to fill the questionnaire.
Finally, for privacy and adequacy of data collection, the respondents needed to have access to the
internet from their own private work-station. The respondents received an email directly from the
researchers and responded anonymously online or through printing their responses and
depositing them in unmarked envelops in the HR from where the researchers collected them in
person.
The received 407 responses from the forty firms in different geographic locations spanning a
wide coverage of the country (3.7‰, of total population). Out of the received responses a few
proved to be missing data, thus the final number of usable responses was 400.
The researchers entered the data to SPSS 22 in order to facilitate data entry and data cleaning.
Then, a number of statistical tests were run on the data. The first test was0 the CFA test run on
the data of parts 2, 3 and 4 of the questionnaire. The results show that the questionnaire is valid
as is. Moreover, the KMO results were .911, .828, and .676 respectively, with Sig.= .000 for all.
10
Finally, the scale reliability is analysed through the Cronbach’s alpha test which results are .842
for OC, .546 for leadership style and .843 for performance. Second, analysing the data, the
researchers found that age group distribution of the respondents who voluntarily contributed to
the study is mainly young. In fact, the first age group (aged 18-25) represents 51.0% of the total
sample, while 32.0% are from age 26-35, and 8.5% from the group of age 36-45, 6.8% aged 46-
55 and only 1.8 are older. This is in line with the population demographics in a country where
the demographic distribution pyramid is wide-based. Second, the gender of the respondents is
207 males (51.7%) and 193 females (48.3%), which is close to the national gender distribution of
46.5% males and 53.5% females. Third, as for the educational level of the respondents, the
sample is composed of a majorly educated group where 61.0% hold a bachelor’s degree
(BA/BS); 21.5% hold a Masters’ degree and 4.8% hold higher level degrees; leaving only 5.3%
with high school education or less and 7.5% of sophomore, Baccalaureate or technical/vocational
degrees. Finally the tenure of the respondents as highlighted by the results received show that
the majority have less than five years of work-experience with the current organization (59.0%);
13.8% have 6 to 10 years; 10.8 have 11 to 15 years; 8.3% each have 16 to 20 and 21 or more.
4. RESULTS
For analysing the respondents’ replies the data is used to run a correlation analysis using SPSS
22. The results reveal a number of interesting relationships. First, gender is positively weakly
correlated with tenure, organizational culture and performance. This means that for females:
tenure is longer (r=.258; Sig.=.000; p<.01); organizational culture is more important (r=.103;
Sig.=.000; p<.05); and performance of females is higher (r=.258; Sig.=.000; p<.05). Second,
age is negatively weakly correlated with gender (r=-.145; Sig.=.000; p<.01) meaning that there
are more young female employees in these firms than there are males. Moreover, age is
positively but weakly correlated with both performance (r=.138; Sig.=.006;p<.01) and leadership
style (r=.119; Sig.=.017; p<.05), which shows that the older employees are more sensitive to the
style of leadership applied in the organization, and respond with increased performance on the
job. Third, tenure is positively weakly correlated with organizational culture (r=.133; Sig.=.008;
p<.01), performance (r=.176; Sig.=.000; p<.01), and leadership style (r=.154; Sig.=.002; p<.01).
Fourth, organizational culture is strongly positively correlated to performance (r=.736;
Sig.=.000; p<.01) but very weakly to leadership style (r=.086; Sig.=.087; p<.05). Finally,
performance is weakly positively correlated to leadership style (r=.206; Sig.=.000; p<.01).
Furthermore, a regression analysis was run in order to identify the explanatory power of the
different variables of the suggested model. Using SPSS 22 the postulated relationships are tested
independently (see Figure 2 below), then using the ‘Enter’ function, the model was tested. The
results show that organizational culture does affect employees’ performance (R2=.540;
Sig.=.000), allowing us to accept the first hypothesis (H1). When leadership style is ‘Entered’
into the regression, adjusted R2 increases slightly (2%) (from R2=.540, to .560, with Sig.=.000).
This allows us to accept our second hypothesis (H2) in general. The formula for the straight
line equation is as follows:
F(Performance) = (.445)Organizational Culture + (.157)Leadership Style - 3.853
11
Figure 2 – Regression Analysis results
Regression analysis is also used, using the Process Macros technique and Hayes, to investigate
the hypothesis that Leadership Style mediates the effect of Organizational Culture on
Employees’ Performance (See Appendix). Results indicate that Organizational Culture is not a
significant predictor Leadership Style, b=.0483; SE=.0282; p=.0871, and that Leadership Style is
a significant predictor of Employees’ Performance, b=.1571***; SE=.0364. These results do not
fully support the mediation hypothesis as Organizational Culture is still a significant predictor of
Employees’ Performance after controlling for the mediator Leadership Style, b=.4455***;
SE=.0205. Approximately 2% of the variation in the dependent variable (Employees’
Performance) is accounted for by the predictor (R2=.0218). The indirect effect is tested using a
bootstrap estimation approach with 400 samples. These results indicate the indirect coefficient is
not significant, b=.0759; SE=.0058, 95%, CI=-.0013 .0219. Employees’ Performance is

associated with approximately 0.168 points higher Employees Performance scores as mediated
by Leadership Style.
Moreover, in order to analyse for gender-related variance in performance, the researchers ran
two tests. First, a hierarchical multiple regression and second, correlations and linear regression
analysis after performing a data split. First, the Hierarchical Multiple Regression is used with
the predictor independent variable (Organizational Culture) as reported by Behery and Paton
(2008); Lok and Crawford, 2001; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; and Peters and Waterman (1982).
Leadership is entered as a ‘Next’ variable and Performance as a dependent. Moreover, the
demographic variable ‘Gender’ is also entered as a ‘Net’ variable to test what Madsen et al.
(2005), Goulet and Singh (2002), and Kirchmeyer (1995) report to be a predisposition effect.
The results of the show that gender’s effect on the variability of the results is insignificant
(R2=.000; Sig.=.816); whereas organizational culture explains 54.2% (R2=.542; Sig.=.000) and
leadership style improved variability of the independent variable by 2% to 56.2% (R2=.562;
Sig.=.000). Second, the results of the correlations’ test clearly show the existence of gendered
variances in perceptions and employees’ beliefs (see Table 1 & 2). In addition to the
demographic variables’ correlation relationships with the different factors under consideration,
OC is highly correlated to Performance for both genders at slightly different levels (R2Male=.774;
Sig.=.000; p<.01; R2Female=.700; Sig.=.000; p<.01), the same applies to the correlation between
OC and Leadership style (R2Male=.039; Sig.=.576; R2Female =.132; Sig.=.06); and performance and
leadership style (R2Male=.151; Sig.=.029; p<.01; R2Female=.257; Sig.=.000; p<.01).
Table 1 – Correlation Results by Gender
Moreover, the regression results of the testing of the model with data split by gender resulted in
slight variations in the statistical outcome (see figures 3 and 4) and the following two different
formulas of the straight line.
12
FMale(Performance) = (.466)Organizational Culture + (.133)Leadership Style - 3.774
FFemale(Performance) = (.425)Organizational Culture + (.183)Leadership Style - 3.936
The results show that male respondents emphasize more on OC while their female counterparts
stress more on leadership style, which allows us to accept the second hypothesis, that the
relationship is gender affect.
Figure 3 – Regression Analysis results – Males
Figure 4 – Regression Analysis results - Females
Table 2 – Regression Results by Gender
5. ANALYSIS
The results of the data analysis reveal some important factors that should be further highlighted.
First, analysing the results for gender, the relationship between gender and tenure shows that the
female employees have a higher tendency to remain tenured on the job. Adding the result that
the respondents’ age is negatively correlated with gender, i.e. there are more male older in age
than females on the job, while also having more young females than males. This shows that the
job market is accepting higher level of females in entry level jobs whereas the majority of those
tenured are males. Moreover, the relationship of gender with organizational culture clearly
shows that the female employees embrace organizational culture to a higher extent, and also
perform better than their male counterparts. The reasons behind this female adaptation to the
organizational culture might be socially implied, in a majorly paternalistic society, the manager
is a male figure who plays or fits in the role/figure, enjoying a team of subordinating employees.
Second, the relationship between age and performance is positively correlated. As a rule of
thumb, older employees should know the job better due to their learning curve and work
experience, and this is also confirmed by this field exercise. However, what is an unexpected
result is that older employees are exerting behaviours affected by the leadership style, whereas
with expectations of maturity and wisdom, one would expect otherwise. Thus, senior employees
are showing more resistance rather than adaptability to the leadership style used their respective
leaders. This pushes the researchers to believe that managers need to build on this conceptual
finding in providing further training and development of employees’ skills in addition to an
organizational culture of acceptance, adaptation and diversity. This unexpected result that older
employees are more affected by their superior’s leadership style than younger ones raises a
question concerning work-experience, social intelligence, and work-environment dynamics that
need further investigation.
Third, the relationship between tenure and organizational culture traditionally follows the logic
of longer in the company, better adapted to its culture, and better serving as ambassador for its
dissemination. Moreover, the positive correlation of tenure and performance at work is no news
in the academic field. However, relating tenure to leadership style is arguable as managerial
practices are rarely cited as a main or primary reason for tenure. In spite of this, it is to the
advantage of the leader to work with a more coherent and motivated team, as compared to a
13
group of people who happened to be there. Managers should take into consideration this fact
when introducing new leadership and provide the in-coming leader with a glimpse of historic
information on the team for better readiness and adaptability on the leader’s side too.
Fourth, a stronger organizational culture of efficiency and accomplishments, where management
seeks to find reasons to reward pre-approved standards or behaviour leads to better compliance
and adaptation to the peer stream of thought and behaviour. This allows new-coming staff to
blend in faster and giving management the advantage of a homogeneous workforce or team that
allows for higher work outputs. Moreover, the leadership style that encourages a culture of
efficiency and accomplishment finds himself leading a more efficient team that has a certain zeal
toward challenging jobs, and that naturally ends up providing a higher performance level.
Fifth, a strong organizational culture typified by a specific leadership style will affect the
performance of the many who do not champion this same style. The results of such beliefs may
generate either a less motivated work behaviour with less performance and zeal, or with
employees reaching a plateau at which development and performance are out of the frame.
Finally, analysing for the gendered effect, the results vary slightly among the genders in different
dimensions. The differences are attributed to general gender issues and behavioural conducts.
The introduction of the leadership style for both males and females, increases fit of the model
explaining the effect of OC on performance by approx. 9% for males and 5% for females.
6. IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

This study is the result of a thorough scientific process and its results span across both academic
and practical worlds. Therefore, in the following we present a number of managerial
implications, study limitations and suggestions for future research.
Building on the field study results reported here-above, a number of implications are worthy of
mention. First, managers should devise coaching and reward programs that are fairly attractive
to both genders independently of each other. These programs should take into consideration the
gender and age factors in order to entice and motivate younger employees to perform better.
Today’s young members of the work-teams are better networked, more informed and ambitious,
probably have their different respective agendas and goals, that thereby need to be aligned with
those of the organization using tools that are more interactive, flexible, and customized. Second,
the human resources function in an organization, along with its upper management levels, should
put forth plans to strengthen their organizational culture’s desirable norms, values and beliefs,
using different art-facts, stories, rituals, routines, events, meetings, newsletter, web-sites, or other
means, while also aligning the organizational culture with the company’s vision, mission, values,
and long-term strategic goals. To do so, plans must be carefully developed and unfolded, using
different targeted diffusion media and support programs that can attain the specific gender/age
groups of employees and potential hires. The result of a pervasive positive culture is reported in
the literature to improve performance and tenure, and thus warrants the efforts and costs of such
a plan to disseminate the culture to a higher pervasiveness level. Third, creating a strong culture
in the organization through unified norms, values and beliefs, improves both employees’
14
efficiency and effectiveness, communication and mutual understanding. Moreover, it helps
mainstream those members of the team who are either accidental or from different cultural
backgrounds, into a workable middle-point at which work-flow and processes improve. This
step inherently means on the other side of the coin, that the organization may shed or that some
employees may elect to withdraw, creating an excessive resource leakage beyond the normal
attrition rate, and that the human resources department should take into account in their
recruitment plans and activities. Fourth, initiating, building and enhancing a strong culture within
an organizational setting creates a sense of belonging, a feeling of similarity, and unity among
employees, in addition to the core belief of organizational ownership. This ownership feeling by
itself generates a performance efficiency as employees begin to associate themselves with their
organization, and their well-being and future career plans with those of the organization’s
development and well-being. Therefore compensation plans with profit sharing or similar tools
pay prove to be effcient. Fifth, a strong organizational culture would also mean a certain agreed-
upon leadership style, that is probably cascaded down through the managerial ranks, but also a
style that everybody is used to adapt-to and adopt. In the long-run this will inhibit change,
diversity and independent thinking, thereby generating managers who only think inside the box.
Sixth, a coupled performance and organizational culture of efficiency at the work-place, if not
paralleled with a proper leadership style that fosters positive results, will only result in partial
improvements in the big picture (not exceeding 20.6% as the study results show). Therefore, the
leader selection process should look into different techniques and multi layers of assessment,
including more modern tools, such as psychometric tests, 360 degrees evaluation, in addition to
better leadership preparation stages in training and skilling, in personality and role adaptability,
decision-making processes and tools, as well as efficient communication techniques, all of which
may help facilitate the process and determine effective roles of genders in the organization.
Seventh, the study’s implications on the academic environment and body of knowledge relate to
the change in the environment. In fact, and as witnessed in the literature, leadership style has
been looked at for the last few decades as a major contributor in affecting employees’
performance. However, revisiting the leadership style with a new model and a sampled new
generation of dot.coms and stay-connected employees, the results of this study clearly show that
this impact is out-grown by another trend that we suggest to name ‘The system trend’, among the
new generation of white-collar employees. Thus, further research is suggested to investigate
what factors do truly matter for this generation of young adults, leading to policy changes that
are definitely warranted in light of the above results. The effect of this system acceptance on the
performance of employees takes us back to the discussion of open and closed organizational
systems and whether one is better than the other.
The study has a number of limitations. First, the sampling process and sample selection
(convenience) took more effort from the researchers to avoid falling into sampling bias. The
researchers surveyed employees of companies to which they have access or contact with a top
manager authority figure or a managing partner, and as many refused to collaborate or take part
in the study, this increased the cost in both time and money. Second, electing to use a specific
15
set of criteria in sampling might have resulted in eliminating a meaningful different direction in
the results, but it helped preserve the generalization of the results. Third, the study only covers
the service sectors, which raises questions on replicability of the study in other sectors and
generalizability of results. Finally, the number of measure items in the questionnaire was large,
therefore the researchers’ initial plan to also assess the personality trait of respective the
respondent’s leader was not done. The reason for not extending the personality trait section is the
researchers’ fear that respondents might misunderstand the survey as being initiated by upper
management to assess lower level managers.
This study opened the door for future research on the relationship between the ever present
debate on employees’ performance and leadership style, adding a third dimension, i.e.
organizational culture, at a time when organizational culture is becoming more unified as a result
of both globalization and standardization, and the constant strive of organization to improve
efficiency and conflict resolution through managing teams’ emotional intelligence. The effect of
social media, comments, sharing and venting, along with a broad unified education world-wide
are another stream of anticipated future brick to add in the academic literature, especially with a
growing trend among the new generation (The Dot Com generation) of white collar employees
who have a different perspective to life.
REFERENCES:
Abdul Rashid, Z., Sambasivan, M., & Johari, J. (2003). The influence of corporate culture and
organisational commitment on performance. Journal of management development, 22(8),
708-728.
Abramo, G., Cicero, T. and D’Angelo, C. A. (2013). Individual research performance: a proposal
for comparing apples to oranges. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 528–539.
AlAnezi, A., & Alansari, B. (2016). Gender differences in Hofstede's cultural dimensions among
a Kuwaiti sample. European Psychiatry, 33, S503-S504.
Almaki, S.H., Silong, A.D., Idris, K., & Wahat, W. A. (2016). Effective Leadership Practices of
Muslim Women Academic Leaders. The Social Sciences, 11(9), 2217-2229.
Alnuaimi, S.S. (2013). Effective leadership in implementing change in Arab culture: the case of
the Abu Dhabi police. PhD Dissertation presented at Manchester Metropolitan
University, May-2013. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2173/324755
Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding organizational culture. Sage.
Austen, S., Jefferson, T., & Preston, A. (2013). Contrasting economic analyses of equal
renumeration: the social and community services (SACS) case. Journal of Industrial
relations 55(1), 60-79.
Awadh, A.M., & Alyahya, M. S. (2013). Impact of organizational culture on employee
performance. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(1), 168.
Bakar, R.A., Salleh, A.L and Ling, L.C.(2008). 'How We Do Things Around Here': Implications
of Corporate Culture On Job Performance. The Business Review, Cambridge 9(2), 339-344.
16
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership
Studies, 3, 18–41.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1990). The Implication of Transactional and Transformational
Leadership for Individual, Teams, and Organizational Development, Research in
Organizational Behavior, 4, 231-272.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Behery, M.H. & Paton, R.A. (2008). Performance Appraisal-Cultural fit and Organizational
Outcomes within the U.A.E. Journal of American Academy of Business, 13(1), 166-176.
Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 59(5), 960-970.
Bigliardi, B., Ivo Dormio, A., Galati, F., & Schiuma, G. (2012). The impact of organizational
culture on the job satisfaction of knowledge workers. Vine, 42(1), 36-51.
Bin Ahmad, K.Z & Yiing, L.H..(2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the
relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment and between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal. 30(1), 53-86.
Boehm, S. A., Dwertmann, D. J., Bruch, H., & Shamir, B. (2015). The missing link?
Investigating organizational identity strength and transformational leadership climate as
mechanisms that connect CEO charisma with firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly,
26(2), 156-171.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
Boussif, D. (2010). Decision-making styles of Arab executives: insights from
Tunisia. Communications of the IBIMA, 1-10.
Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social
cognition, 11(1), 150-164.
Brewer, E. W. and Clippard, L. F. (2002), Burnout and job satisfaction among student support
services personnel. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(2), 169–186.
doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1022
Brewer, M. B., & Weber, J. G. (1994). Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup
social comparison. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(2), 268-275.
Brown, H. E., Pearson, N., Braithwaite, R. E., Brown, W. J., & Biddle, S. J. (2013). Physical
activity interventions and depression in children and adolescents. Sports medicine, 43(3),
195-206.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80(4), 468-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.468
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A Theory of Performance.
In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Employee Selection. New York: Jossey-Bass.
17
Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population
of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 313-575.
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling
similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work
processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(3), 749-780.
Chen, L. Y. (2004). Examining the effect of organization culture and leadership behaviors on
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance at small and middle-
sized firms of Taiwan. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 432-438.
Christiansen, L., Lin, H., Pereira, J., Topalova, P. B., & Turk, R. (2016). Gender diversity in
senior positions and firm performance: Evidence from Europe. IMF Working Paper,
16(50). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2759759
Cooper Jackson, J. (2001). Women middle managers’ perception of the glass ceiling. Women in
Management Review, 16(1), 30-41.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal
and relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(4), 791-808.
Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2014). Organization development and change. Australia: Cengage
Learning.
Cuong, D.M and Swierczek, F.W (2008). Corporate Culture, Leadership Competencies, Job
Satisfaction, Job Commitment, and Job Performance: A Comparison of Companies in
Vietnam and Thailand. Journal of American Academy of Business, 13(l), 159-165.
Daft, R.L. (2010). Organizational Theory and Design. South Western Cengage Learning.
Davis, T., & Landa, M. J. (2000). Changing dynamics: How workforce culture can boost
corporate performance. CMA Management, 74(10), 26-29.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture: A new look through old lenses. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 19(4), 498-505.
Debusscher, J., Hofmans, J. and DeFruyt, F. (2017). The multiple face(t)s of state
conscientiousness: Predicting task performance and organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Research in Personality, 69(), 78-85. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.009
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. Oxford: John Wiley
& Sons.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Helo, P., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S. J., & Sahay, B. S. (2017).
Explaining the impact of reconfigurable manufacturing systems on environmental
performance: The role of top management and organizational culture. Journal of Cleaner
Production, doi; 10.1016/jclepro.2016.09.035
Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. A. (1991). Gender differences in work-family conflict. Journal of
applied psychology, 76(1), 60-74.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1(1), 3-22
Ehrhart, M. G., Schneider, B., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture: an
introduction to theory, research, and practice. London: Routledge.
18
Engen, M. L., Leeden, R., & Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context and leadership styles: A
field study. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74(5), 581-598.
Fiedler, F.E. (1996). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the
future. Administrative science quarterly, 41(2), 241-250.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D.C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects
on organizations. West Publishing Company.
Flamholtz, E.G., & Randle, Y. (1998). Changing the game: Organizational transformations of
the first, second, and third kinds. Oxford University Press.
French, J. R., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In Coping
and adaptation (p.316-333). New York: Basic Books.
Fry, L.W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 693-
727.
Fullan, M. (2011). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their
organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Furnham, A., & Gunter, B. (1993). Corporate Assessment: Auditing & Company Personality.
London: Routledge.
Gardner, W. L., & Schermerhorn Jr, J. R. (2004). Unleashing Individual Potential: Performance
Gains Through Positive Organizational Behavior and Authentic Leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 270-281.
Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and
autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25(3), 384-410.
Glass, C., & Cook, A. (2016). Leading at the top: Understanding women's challenges above the
glass ceiling. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 51-63.
Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments:
Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049-1074.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of
emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Goulet, L. R., & Singh, P. (2002). Career commitment: A reexamination and an
extension. Journal of vocational behavior, 61(1), 73-91.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Hennessey, Jr.J.T. (1998). "Reinventing" government: Does leadership make the
difference?. Public Administration Review, 58(6), 522-532.
Hofstede, G. (2011). “Dimensionalising cultures: the Hofstede model in context”, Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1-26.
Hogan, S. J., &Coote, L.V., (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test
of Schein's model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609-1621.
19
Huey Yiing, L., & Zaman Bin Ahmad, K. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational
culture on the relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment
and between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 53-86. doi:10.1108/01437730910927106
Isaac Mwita, J. (2000). Performance management model: a systems-based approach to public
service quality. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(1), 19-37.
Igbaria, M., & Baroudi, J. J. (1995). The impact of job performance evaluations on career
advancement prospects: An examination of gender differences in the IS workplace. MIS
Quarterly, 19(1), 107-123.
Jing, F.F., & Avery, G. C. (2008). Missing links in understanding the relationship between
leadership and organizational performance. International Business & Economics
Research Journal (IBER), 7(5), 67-78.
Joiner, T.A. (2001). The influence of national culture and organizational culture alignment on
job stress and performance: Evidence from Greece. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
16(3), 229-242. doi:10.1108/02683940110385776
Kalhoff, W., Younts, C. W., & Troyar, L. (2011). Do others’ views of us transfer to new groups
and tasks? An expectation states approach. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(3), 267-290
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management
system. Harvard Business School Press.
Kaur, R. (1993). Managerial styles in the public sector. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
28(4), 363-368
Kim, S., & Yoon, G. (2015). An Innovation-Driven Culture in Local Government: Do Senior
Manager’s Transformational Leadership and the Climate for Creativity Matter?. Public
Personnel Management, 44(2), 147-168.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Managing the work-nonwork boundary: An assessment of organizational
responses. Human Relations, 48(5), 515-536.
Klein, K.J., & Kozlowski, S.W. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter John, P., & Heskett James, L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York:
The Free Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kratina, S. H. (1990). Organizational culture and head nurse leadership: the relationship to
nurses' job satisfaction and turnover in hospital settings (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia
State University-College of Education).
Krausz, M., Brandwein, T., & Fox, S. (1995). Work attitudes and emotional responses of
permanent, voluntary, and involuntary temporary ‐ help employees: an exploratory
study. Applied Psychology, 44(3), 217-232.
20
Larivière, V., Vignola-Gagné, E., Villeneuve, C. Gelinas, P., & Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex
differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Quebec university
professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483–498.
Lee, H. Y. (2008). The association between organizational culture and leadership behaviour and
organizational commitment, job satisfaction and employee performance-A Malaysian
perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of Malaya).
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving
culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 57(5), 1434-1452
Liu, Y., Wei, Z., & Xie, F. (2014). Do women directors improve firm performance in China?.
Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 169-184
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating
role of job satisfaction. Journal of managerial psychology, 16(8), 594-613.
London, M., Larsen, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999). Relationships between feedback and self-
development. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 5-27.
Lussier, R. N. (1990). Human relations in organizations: A skill-building approach. Irwin
Professional Publishing.
Lysons, K. (2000). Concerning corporate culture. The British Journal of Administrative
Management, (34), 1-4.
Madsen, S. R., Miller, D., & John, C. R. (2005). Readiness for organizational change: Do
organizational commitment and social relationships in the workplace make a
difference?. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 213-233.
Magee, K. C. (2002). The impact of organizational culture on the implementation of
performance management (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Dissertations and Theses
database (UMI No. 3047909).
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on
subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 545-559.
Mgbere, O. (2009). Exploring the Relationship between Organizational Culture,Leadership
Styles and Corporate Performance: An Overview . Journal of Strategic Management
Education, 5(3/4), 187-201.
Mills, A.J. (2017). Studying the Gendering of Organizational Culture over Time: Concerns,
Issues, and Strategies. In Albert J. Mills (Ed.), Insights and Research on the Study of
Gender and Intersectionality in International Airline Cultures, Emerald Pubishing,
pp.71 – 91.
Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy (pp. 66-75). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Misumi, J., & Peterson, M. F. (1985). The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership:
Review of a Japanese research program. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2), 198-
223.
21
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (2013). Employee—organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Ohmae, K. (1982). The mind of the strategist: The art of Japanese business. Boston: McGraw-
Hill Professional.
Peters, T. J., Waterman, R. H., & Jones, I. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from
America's best-run companies. New York: Harper Business.
Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., & Judge, T. A. (2012). The
relative impact of complementary leader behaviors: Which matter most?. The leadership
quarterly, 23(3), 567-581.
Pool, S. W. (2000). Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension in measuring
outcomes among business executives. Journal of Management Development, 19(1), 32-49.
doi:10.1108/02621710010308144
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and
business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the
future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787.
Rice, R.W., Richer, L.S., & Vitters, A.G. (1979). The Impact of Male and Female Leaders on the
Group Performance, Morale, and Perceptions of West Point Cadets. STATE UNIV OF
NEW YORK AT BUFFALO.
Robbins, S. & Coulter, M. (2015). Management, 14th ed.. Boston, Pearson Higher Education.
Robbins, S., Judge, T. A., Millett, B., & Boyle, M. (2013). Organisational Behaviour. Australia:
Pearson Higher Education AU.
Roe, R. A. (1999). Work performance: A multiple regulation perspective. International Review
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14(January), 231-336.
Rofcanin, Y., Las Heras, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2017). Family supportive supervisor behaviors
and organizational culture: Effects on work engagement and performance. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 207-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000036
Ruiz, C. E., Wang, J., & Hamlin, R. G. (2013). What makes managers effective in
Mexico?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(2), 130-146.
Salloum, C. Azzi, G., Mercier-Suissa, C., & Khalil, S., (2016). The rise of women and their
impact on firms’ performance. Int. J. Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 27(2/3), 213–
246.
Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574-587.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods in Business, 5th ed..
Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Limited.
Schermerhorn, J. R., & Nyaw, M. K. (1990). Managerial leadership in Chinese industrial
enterprises. International Studies of Management & Organization, 20, 9-21.
Sidani, Y. M. (2016). Working Women in Arab Countries: A Case for Cautious Optimism. In
Handbook on Well-Being of Working Women (pp. 689-701). Springer Netherlands.
22
Siehl C, Martin J. (1990). Organizational culture: a key to financial performance? In: Schneider
B, editor. Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; p. 241–281.
Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders' well-being, behaviours and
style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of
three decades of research. Work & Stress, 24(2), 107-139.
Selznick, P. (2011). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New Orleans,
Louisiana: Quid Pro Books.
Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on
organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 25(7), 592-599.
Slocum, J. W., & Hellriegel, D. (2009). Principles of organizational behavior. South-Western
Cengage Learning.
Tlaiss, H., & Kauser, S. (2011). The impact of gender, family, and work on the career
advancement of Lebanese women managers. Gender in Management: An International

Journal, 26(1), 8-36.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Trompenaars, A. (1993). The seven cultures of capitalism. Value Systems of Creating Wealth in
the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. New
York: Currency Doubleday.
Tseng, S. M. (2010)."The correlation between organizational culture and knowledge conversion
on corporate performance." Journal of knowledge management 14(2), 269-284.
Van Den Besselaar, P., & Sanström, U. (2016) Gender differences in research performance and
its impact on careers: a longitudinal case study. Scientometrics, 106(1), 143-162.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1775-3
Van den Brink, M., Brouns, M. & Waslander, S., (2006). Does excellence have a gender? A
national research study on recruitment and selection procedures for professorial
appointments in the Nether- lands. Employee Relations, 28(6), 523–539.
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training &
Development Journal, 37(2), 28-36.
Yesil, S., & Kaya, A. (2013). The effect of organizational culture on firm financial performance:
Evidence from a developing country. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 81, 428-
437.
Yiing, L.H., & Bin Ahmad, K.Z. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the
relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment and between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 53-86. doi:10.1108/01437730910927106
Yukl, G. (1997). Effective leadership behavior: A new taxonomy and model. In Eastern
Academy of Management International Conference, Dublin, Ireland, June.
23
Zain, Z.M., Ishak, R., & Ghani, E.K. (2009). The influence of corporate culture on organisational
commitment: A study on a Malaysian listed company. European Journal of Economics,
Finance and Administrative Sciences, 17(17), 16-26.
http://implementer.com/implementer/newtools/orgcultquest.html. Accessed April 25, 2015.
http://humming.net.au/questionnaire.pdf. Accessed on April 25, 2015.
http://www.palgrave.com/uploadedFiles/Leadership_Style.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2015.
24
Table 1 – Correlation Results by Gender

Male Female
Correlation of Variables 2 2
R Sig. R Sig.
Age & Tenure .646** .000 .441** .000
Age & Organizational Citizenship .015 .836 .208** .004
Age & Performance .040 .572 .287** .000
Age & Leadership Style .130 .061 .106 .141
Education & Tenure .177* .011 .038 .604
Education & Performance -.0 08 .911 .212** .003
Tenure & Organizational Citizenship .006 .936 .309** .000
Tenure & Performance .055 .435 .335** .000

Tenure & Leadership Style .072 .305 .258** .000
Tenure & Democratic Leadership .058 .407 .152** .035
Tenure & Autocratic Leadership .049 .480 .252** .000
Organizational Citizenship & Performance .774** .000 .700** .000
Organizational Citizenship & Leadership Style .039 .576 .132 .068
Performance & Leadership Style .151* .029 .257** .000
*p<.05 **p<.01
Table 2 – Regression Results by Gender

Regression R R2 Sig. SE F
A OC & Perf .774 .599 .000 3.129 306.264
B OC & LS .039 .002 .576 4.523 .314
Male
C LS & Perf .151 .023 .029 4.884 4.814

C’ Mediation .783 .614 .000 3.078 162.078
A OC & Perf .700 .490 .000 3.806 183.516
Female
B OC & LS .132 .017 .068 4.837 3.379

C LS & Perf .257 .066 .000 5.151 13.462
C’ Mediation .719 .517 .000 3.712 101.883
Figure 1 – Suggested Model

Figure 2 – Regression Analysis results
R= .086
R2= .007
Sig.=.087
Leadership style
Organizational
culture R= .206
R2= .400
Sig.=.000
R= .736
R2= .541
Performance
Sig.=.000
Figure 3 – Regression Analysis results – Male Respondents
R= .039
R2= .002
Sig.=.576
Leadership style
Organizational
culture R= .151
R2= .023
Sig.=.029
R= .774
R2= .599
Performance
Sig.=.000
Figure 4 – Regression Analysis results – Female Respondents
R= .132
R2= .017
Sig.=.068
Leadership style
Organizational
culture R= .257
R2= .066
Sig.=.000
R= .700
R2= .490
Performance
Sig.=.000
/* PROCESS for SPSS 2.16.3 */.
/* Written by Andrew F. Hayes */.
/* www.afhayes.com */.
/* Copyright 2012-2016 */.
/* Online distribution other than through */.
/* www.afhayes.com or processmacro.org is not authorized */.
/* Please read the documentation */.
/* available in Appendix A of */.
/* Hayes (2013) prior to use */.
/* www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 */.
/* Documentation available in Appendix A of http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3 */.
preserve.
set printback=off.
Matrix
Notes
Output Created 05-SEP-2017 16:13:34
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data File 400

Syntax matrix.
get dat/file = */variables = DV IV M
/names = vnames/missing = 9999.
compute ninit = nrow(dat).
get dat/file = */variables = DV IV M
/names = vnames/missing = omit.
get tmp/file = */variables = DV /names
= yname/missing = omit.
get tmp2/file = */variables = IV /names
= xname/missing = omit.
get tmp/file = */variables = M /names
= mnames/missing = omit.
get tmp/file = */variables = w999999t
z999999t v999999t q999999t.
compute wname=tmp(1,1).
do if (wname = ' ').

compute wname = 'xxx'.
end if.
compute zname=tmp(1,2).
do if (zname = ' ').
compute zname = 'xxx'.
end if.
compute vname=tmp(1,3).
do if (vname = ' ').
compute vname = 'xxx'.
end if.
compute qname=tmp(1,4).
do if (qname= ' ').
compute qname = 'xxx'.
end if.
compute n = nrow(dat).
compute p0=-.322232431088.
compute p1 = -1.
compute p2 = -.342242088547.
compute p3 = -.0204231210245.
compute p4 = -.0000453642210148.
compute q0 = .0993484626060.
compute q1 = .588581570495.
compute q2 = .531103462366.
compute q3 = .103537752850.
compute q4 = .0038560700634.
compute badend = 0.
compute priorlo = -9999999.
compute priorhi = 9999999.
compute criterr = 0.
compute cluster = 0.
compute clsdmy = 0.
compute jndich = 0.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:05.27
Elapsed Time 00:00:05.43
Run MATRIX procedure:
************* PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.16.3 ******************
Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3
**************************************************************************
Model = 4
Y = DV
X = IV
M = M
Sample size
400
**************************************************************************
Outcome: M
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.0856 .0073 21.8251 2.9411 1.0000 398.0000 .0871
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 30.5080 1.1505 26.5172 .0000 28.2462 32.7698
IV .0483 .0282 1.7150 .0871 -.0071 .1037
**************************************************************************
Outcome: DV
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.7496 .5620 11.5096 254.6633 2.0000 397.0000 .0000
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant -3.8531 1.3897 -2.7726 .0058 -6.5852 -1.1210
M .1571 .0364 4.3167 .0000 .0856 .2287
IV .4455 .0205 21.7005 .0000 .4051 .4858
******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS *************************
Direct effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
.4455 .0205 21.7005 .0000 .4051 .4858
Indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
M .0076 .0058 -.0013 .0219
Partially standardized indirect effect of X on Y

M .0015 .0011 -.0002 .0042
Completely standardized indirect effect of X on Y

M .0123 .0093 -.0020 .0352
Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y

M .0168 .0127 -.0027 .0478
Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on Y

M .0170 .0132 -.0027 .0502
R-squared mediation effect size (R-sq_med)

M .0218 .0181 -.0037 .0673
Normal theory tests for indirect effect

Effect se Z p
.0076 .0049 1.5581 .1192
******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *************************
Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals:

5000
Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95.00
NOTE: Kappa-squared is disabled from output as of version 2.16.
------ END MATRIX -----
restore.

How Organizational Culture and Leadership Style Affect Employees Performance of Gender

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Organizational Culture and Leadership Style Affect Employees Performance of Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Short Title: Leadership mediating Organisational Culture to performance of genders

Figure 1 – Suggested Model

not significant, b=.0759; SE=.0058, 95%, CI=-.0013 .0219. Employees’ Performance is

Table 1 – Correlation Results by Gender

6. IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

advancement of Lebanese women managers. Gender in Management: An International

Table 1 – Correlation Results by Gender

Tenure & Performance .055 .435 .335** .000

Table 2 – Regression Results by Gender

C LS & Perf .151 .023 .029 4.884 4.814

B OC & LS .132 .017 .068 4.837 3.379

Figure 1 – Suggested Model

Figure 2 – Regression Analysis results

Figure 4 – Regression Analysis results – Female Respondents

Output Created 05-SEP-2017 16:13:34

Input Active Dataset DataSet1

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data File 400

get dat/file = */variables = DV IV M

/names = vnames/missing = 9999.

compute ninit = nrow(dat).

get dat/file = */variables = DV IV M

/names = vnames/missing = omit.

get tmp/file = */variables = DV /names

get tmp2/file = */variables = IV /names

get tmp/file = */variables = M /names

get tmp/file = */variables = w999999t

z999999t v999999t q999999t.

do if (wname = ' ').

compute wname = 'xxx'.

do if (zname = ' ').

compute zname = 'xxx'.

do if (vname = ' ').

compute vname = 'xxx'.

do if (qname= ' ').

compute qname = 'xxx'.

compute priorlo = -9999999.

compute priorhi = 9999999.

Elapsed Time 00:00:05.43

Run MATRIX procedure:

************* PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.16.3 ******************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

.0856 .0073 21.8251 2.9411 1.0000 398.0000 .0871

******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS *************************

Partially standardized indirect effect of X on Y

Completely standardized indirect effect of X on Y

Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y

Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on Y

R-squared mediation effect size (R-sq_med)

Normal theory tests for indirect effect

******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *************************

Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals:

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

NOTE: Kappa-squared is disabled from output as of version 2.16.

------ END MATRIX -----

You might also like

* PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.16.3 ******

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS *****

ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *****