Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Although leadership has been the subject of research in various areas in the social sciences, consensus regarding its definition has not been reached. One of the reasons for this lack of consensus stems from the differences in the reflection and priority of leadership in different areas, i.e., the concept of leadership is shaped according to the meaning attributed to it by individuals, similar to the shaping of concepts such as democracy, love and peace (Nourthouse, 2010). In other words, leadership is ‘similar to beauty; it is hard to define, but you know it when you see it’ (Bennis, 2003).

Leadership is a concept related to management science and working life as well as to psychology , sociology and similar sciences (Şişman 2011), and it is possible to discuss four components of leadership : (1) leadership is a process , (2) it is required to create impact, (3) it is emergent in groups, and (4) it requires drawing attention to common goals (Nourthouse, 2010). Kouzes and Posner (2002) discussed leadership in five fundamental practices: (1) being a role model , (2) being a source of inspiration for a shared vision , (3) managing a process , (4) motivating others and (5) providing encouragement .

2 Concepts of Leadership

The origins of the terms leader , leadership and lead are from the Anglo-Saxon term ‘lead ,’ which means a road, a path or the route of a ship at sea. To go, to travel or to lead or to have done so are the causative forms related to the verb ‘leaden’. The ‘ship’ suffix in ‘leadership ’ stems from the term ‘shape’, which means to give shape to something. As demonstrated by the root of the word, leadership is a concept that can be related to a journey (Adair, 2012). For this reason, a leader is a person who leads the path for the persons with whom she/he travels. This steersman metaphor remains valid today despite different views on the precise role of leaders. It is possible to use two groups to describe those who argue for this metaphor : (1) those who view leaders as the persons moving chess pieces on a human scale and (2) those who see leaders as the people who convince others to join in the journey by addressing their collective imagination. While the first type of leader can generally only mobilize people, the second type of leader motivates employees to commit their loyalty in the fullest sense in a large-scale way (Vries, 2007).

Leadership is such a concept that, when examined from different perspectives , can be analyzed in different forms and defined various ways. Generally, it is possible to list four components of leadership (Nourthouse, 2010):

  • Leadership is a process : Leadership exists through the dual interaction between a leader and his/her followers . In other words, the leader is the one who both influences and is influenced by his/her followers . This component underlines that leadership is regarded as both a linear effect and an interaction process .

  • Leadership requires effect: This component is the sine qua non of leadership , as it is not possible to mention leadership without the effect. Maxwell (1993) stated that although everyone has an idea of the definition of leadership , few people actually grasp it, and although many people aspire to be leadership , few manage to become leaders. As a summary of his 40 years of leadership studies, he defined leadership as impact—neither more nor less. This impact is the ability to attract followers (Maxwell, 1993).

  • Leadership is emergent in groups: This component describes the setting in which leadership emerges. Leadership involves having a specific group reach a common goal . This specific group can be a small group, a task team or a large group. In any case, the leader is responsible for influencing the group in consideration of the shared common goals.

  • Leadership requires drawing attention to common goals: A leader is the person who directs the energy of group members to realize common goals. In this sense, the leader must propose goals in a clear, understandable and transparent manner and ensure that they are acceptable for all group members. In addition, she/he must arrange activities that enable the clear understanding of these common goals by all members.

According to Palestini (2009), the first responsibility of a leader is to create a realistic vision , and the second responsibility is to express gratitude. Palestini argued that a leader must be the servant of the servants between these two responsibilities. In this context, Palestini underlined that being a leader means that having opportunities that can make a significant difference in the lives of followers ; in short, the leader addresses the heart of the matter and alleviates pain rather than creating it. Robbins and Judge (2012) defined leadership as the ability to influence a group in achieving its goals and vision . The source of this impact either can be a formal right extended to administrative positions in the organization or can emerge simultaneously. In this context, not all executives are not expected to be leaders, and not all leaders should be executives (Koçel, 2005). These two styles of leadership shall be conceptualized as follows (Nourthouse, 2010):

  • Assigned Leadership : This type of leadership evolves based on a formal position held within an organization. Examples of this type of leadership include team leaders, executives, department heads and principals.

  • Emergent Leadership : This type of leader is considered to be effective and influences the group through his/her natural abilities and behaviors despite lacking the power of position obtained from a formal assignment. Leadership that emerges naturally rather than through assignment leadership is more realistic.

The relationship between leadership and power is fundamental to the conceptualization of leadership . If we are to define power as the capacity or potential for impact (Nourthouse, 2010), then leadership can be defined as using power to reach the common goals set for group members (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As power is a relational concept, it emphasizes the relationships among individuals. In this sense, it is meaningless to call someone powerful on an individual level and associate him with others (Koçel, 2005). Furthermore, there are many different classifications with respect to the source of power that leaders hold. In this sense, the most widespread classification in the literature is French and Raven’s classification (1959):

  • Referent Power : This type of power is related to the love that a leader shows to followers and how they view him/her. For example, the power that a teacher holds that is appreciated by his/her students is referent power .

  • Expert Power : This type is related to the competence and ability of a leader with respect to followers . For example, the experience of a tour guide in a foreign country is his/her expert power .

  • Legitimate Power : This type defines the legal power that a leader holds because of his/her status. The authority that a judge exercises in the courtroom is an example of legitimate power . Reward -based Power: This type of power refers to the capacity to support others by rewarding them. For example, an executive may reward a high-performing employee with a bonus.

  • Coercive Power : This power refers to the capacity to punish others. For example, a coach who does not include a player in the next game because she/he performed poorly is exercising this power .

3 Leadership Approaches , Theories and Styles

From a historical development perspective, numerous approaches and theories based on these approaches have been developed to explain the nature of leadership . We can state that each approach or theory has brought about a different perspective in terms of the conceptualization of leadership . The trait approach, behavioral approach, situational approach and contemporary approach complement one another chronologically and are all valid in certain ways.

3.1 Trait Approach

The trait approach, which we refer to as the first approach to leadership , is one of the approaches that scientists became interested in at the beginning of the twentieth century. This approach is based on the assumption that a number of characteristics that are either inherent or subsequently gained shall make them powerful leaders. For this reason, the theories proposed by this approach are called great man theories in the literature (Nourthouse, 2010; Palestini, 2009).

This approach aims to explain why some people can be influential leaders while others lack this ability on the basis of individual characteristics (Keçecioğlu, 1998). This approach involves examining which individual characteristics contribute to making a great leader and emphasizes a number of personal characteristics. In his research, Stogdill (1948, 1974) proposed the most widely used leadership characteristics by combining studies undertaken to determine the characteristics of influential leaders from 1904 to 1974. The most referenced personal characteristics in the literature are enumerated as follows (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004):

  • Intelligence: Numerous studies have found a positive relationship between leadership and intelligence. Zaccaro et al. (2004) asserted that leaders have a higher level of intelligence than those who are not leaders. Strong verbal abilities, judgment ability and emotional intelligence are the intellectual abilities that make an individual a powerful leader .

  • Self-Confidence : A characteristic that helps an individual to become a leader is self-confidence . This characteristic is related to the skills and abilities of a person lacking self-doubt. Self-confidence is related to a person’s belief and feeling that she/he can appropriately and effectively influence others.

  • Decisiveness : A common characteristic of many leaders is their decisiveness , which involves the capacity to struggle against obstacles and the decision to achieve a task . Its components are determination, power and initiative (Nourthouse, 2010).

  • Consistency : This important leadership characteristic reflects honesty and reliability. With no contradictions between his/her statements and actions , this type of leader inspires confidence in others. This confidence gives power to the leader in affecting and mobilizing followers (Woolfe, 2002).

  • Sociability : An important personal characteristic is sociability , which is the tendency of leaders to seek and find appropriate social relationships. These types of leaders are sensitive to the needs of others and interested in their welfare.

3.2 Behavioral Approach

By the mid-twentieth century, interest in great man theories had decreased gradually. It became more commonly accepted that leadership , which had been explained only through individual characteristics, is actually a more complex process . Stogdill (1948) stated that an individual cannot be a leader simply by possessing certain leadership characteristics and that there is no single form of leadership that is valid in all cases. The behavioral approach was found to have an increasing impact in leadership studies during that period. The basis for the behavioral approach is the assumption that leaders have two different types of behavior. These dual behavior types are based on studies undertaken at the Ohio State and Michigan Universities.

One of the first studies that contributed to the development of behavioral leadership theory is the leadership studies undertaken at the Ohio State University. Studies conducted on many military and civilian directors sought to determine how followers defined leaders. These studies concluded by identifying two dimensions defining leadership behavior : (1) initiating structure and (2) consideration (Palestini, 2009).

  • Initiating structure : This dimension primarily involves the activities involved in the realization of a goal. For example, it could be stated as follows: ‘by any means necessary, and the rest is mere details’. This dimension involves such behaviors as the completion of work on time, goal establishment, the organization of group members, the determination of the communication system, the determination of periods related to work and the provision of direct instructions (Koçel, 2005).

  • Consideration : This dimension involves behaviors such as confidence and respect that a leader instills in his/her followers as well as making connections with followers . Followers see a leader as the representative of their requests and needs. This dimension is an expression of a more humanistic approach to leadership behaviors.

Research undertaken at Michigan University also contributed important studies within the scope of behavioral approach to determine leadership behaviors. These studies defined two types of leadership behavior as a result of studies of small groups: (1) employee oriented and (2) production oriented .

  • Employee oriented : This type of leadership behavior underlines the extent of the strong humanistic relations that a leader establishes with followers . A leader perceives followers as humans rather than as machines and positions his/her behaviors by considering their personal needs and interests (Nourthouse, 2010).

  • Production oriented : This type of leadership behavior emphasizes the technical and production dimension of work. A leader sees followers as machines that must be successful to realize organizational goals.

The results and assumptions reached by these studies at Michigan and Ohio State Universities were converted into a matrix known as the leadership grid by Blake and Mouton (1964). The details are presented in Fig. 1 (Nourthouse, 2010), and the behaviors of the leaders are explained below.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Blake and Mouton’s leadership grid matrix

Full size image

Thus, leaders exhibit two types of leadership behavior according to the grid developed by Blake and Mouton (1964): (1) production oriented and (2) human oriented . In addition, each dimension is divided into nine sections displaying the degrees related to leadership types. According to this matrix , various leadership types can easily be identified. While the 9.1 type of executive heavily emphasizes production and results, the 1.9 type of executive emphasizes the feelings of his/her followers . By contrast, a 5.5 type of leader finds a balance between these two extreme behavior types and emphasizes both the goals and feelings of his/her followers and thus finds a middle ground. This grid may help leaders to conceptualize their leadership behaviors and raise their awareness .

3.3 Situational Approach

The situational leadership approach is relevant to those who claim that personal traits and behavioral approaches are insufficient to explain the nature of leadership and the description of powerful leadership . The situational leadership approach is based on the 3-D administrative style theory of Reddin (1967). Hersey and Blanckhard (1969) developed the situational leadership theory based on Reddin’s theory. As can be understood from its name, this leadership approach aims to describe leadership behavior in different situations. Thus, different situations require different leadership behaviors. In this respect , a powerful leader thoroughly analyzes situations or the requirements based on conditions and positions his/her leadership style according to those requirements. Two dimensions of a leader ’s behavior come to the fore: (1) directive behavior and (2) supportive behavior. Hersey and Blanckhard (1969) identified four different leadership styles by converting the two dimensions of leadership behavior into a coordinate system on a vertical and horizontal axis. These researchers argued that powerful leadership can be attained through the harmony between the four development levels of followers and the four leadership styles.

3.3.1 Contingency Theory

The contingency theory that Fiedler (1964, 1967) proposed was one of the first theories based on the situational leadership approach, and this leader matching theory aims to match leaders with adequate situations. This theory asserts that powerful leadership is based on the harmony among the leadership style , time and setting. The reason that it is termed contingency theory stems from the attempt to adjust leadership styles according to the present situation and the description of this adjustment (Nourthouse, 2010).

Fiedler (1964, 1967) developed this theory by examining numerous leaders working in different areas, primarily those working in the military field. Fiedler aimed to identify which type of leadership is effective for certain situations or conditions by examining the leadership styles displayed in their working conditions . In short, contingency theory is a theory concerned with the relationship between styles and situations. The contingency theory model of Fiedler (1967) is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Fiedler’s contingency model
Full size table

The situational variables in Fiedler’s theory (1964, 1967) are determined as follows:

  1. 1.

    Leader - member relations: This situational variable is related to the group atmosphere. If there is a relationship based on trust and respect between a leader and followers and if the leader is accepted by the followers and the followers feel commitment to and confidence in the leader , then the group atmosphere is positive. In the opposite case, the group atmosphere is negative. Leader-follower relations are defined as strong when the group atmosphere is favorable and weak otherwise.

  2. 2.

    Task structure: This variable is related to the degree of structure of the work that is performed. In a structured task , the goal and work are communicated in an open and clear manner, and responsibilities are defined. The sound definition of tasks provides the leader with an opportunity to obtain effective and full control; the opposite of this situation leads to ineffectiveness and inadequate control.

  3. 3.

    Position power : This variable is related to the capacity of a leader to reward or punish followers , i.e., the authority power . If a leader has a high level of position power , then she/he can recruit, discharge or reward individuals, whereas a leader with little position power does not have sufficient authority to perform such activities.

As a result, two types of leadership styles are defined: (1) task motivated and (2) relationship motivated leadership styles. Task -motivated leaders primarily focus on the realization of organizational goals, while relationship-motivated leaders focus on developing close interpersonal relationships with their followers . Fiedler (1967) attempted to determine leadership tendencies based on the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) Scale that he developed; leaders with lower grades on this scale are task motivated, and those with higher scores are relationship motivated.

3.3.2 Path-Goal Theory

Path-goal theory is related to how leaders motivate their followers to achieve specific goals. This theory was first found in the works of Evans (1970) and House (1971); thus, this theory is considered to have been developed by Evans (1970) and House (1971).

Path-goal theory underlines the relationship between a leader ’s style and the employees and work setting characteristics. Based on principles of the situational approach, path-goal theory argues that followers should be motivated to fulfill the determined goals (Nourthouse, 2010). A path describes a road used by ovine animals such as goats and sheep. In this sense, researchers such as Adair (2012) who attempted to define leadership with the shepherd metaphor noted that leaders have the task of finding the most appropriate path for followers . The leader is the individual who clearly proposes the path that leads to the goal, removes obstacles on the path and persuades followers to head for the path she/he has determined and motivating them.

This theory is also based on the assumption that leaders exhibit two types of dialectic behavior: (1) instructing-supportive and (2) success oriented -participatory behaviors (House & Mitchell, 1974). These types are identical to the leadership styles used in research based on the behavioral approach. In this theory, the characteristics of followers determine how they interpret the behavior of the leader . Some of the characteristics of followers are listed below (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974);

  • Commitment : Because these followers are dependent on their leader , they require support. Because they work in an uncertain setting, they also require a ‘telling’ leadership style . The leader must clarify and explain the appropriate path to his/her followers .

  • Control desire : This desire has both internal and external dimensions. Followers who believe in internal control hold themselves responsible for everything that they face in their lives, while those believing in external control relate the occurrences in their lives to fate, fortune or other external forces. A participatory leader is more effective for followers with internal control. Because these followers feel responsible for the work that they perform, participation in the decision -making process motivates them. For followers who have external control, a telling leadership style is more suitable because they believe events are controlled by external forces.

  • Self-competence perceptions : This characteristic is related to the perceptions of followers regarding whether their self-competences are sufficient to fulfill the assigned tasks. When their perceptions of their own capability increase, their need for telling leadership decreases.

3.3.3 Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership understanding is a form of leadership understanding that has gained great importance and interest in contemporary administrative theory and research. This leadership concept was first proposed by the political scientist Burns (1978). According to this approach, leaders determine their own values that will direct their actions and the values of other individuals in the organization; thus, they develop a common and conscious behavior and action style. Transformational leaders are interested in the essence of leadership and delegate authority to other people (Owen, Hodgson, & Gazzard, 2011).

As a popular theory, transformational leadership has been the subject matter of many studies since the 1980s, and one can currently find numerous studies of this form of leadership . For this reason, transformational leadership has a central place in the literature on leadership (Nourthouse, 2010). Bass and Riggio (2006) stated that the popularity of transformational leadership stems from its emphasis on internal motivation and the development of followers , and they view this form of leadership as a change and transformation process for followers . Transformational leadership is related to emotions , values, standards and long-term goals.

Burns (1978) defined leadership in two different dimensions: (1) sustainer leadership and (2) transformational leadership . Sustainer leadership emerges as a result of the exchange between followers and the leader as a reflection of the reciprocal interest between them. An example of sustainer leadership is the following statement of politicians before elections designed to win votes: ‘if I win the elections, there will not be any new taxes’ (Burns, 1978). Similarly, the provision of rewards and premiums for employees by executives to encourage greater production is related to sustainer leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). There is an exchange between a leader and followers in terms of votes based on taxes and more product premiums that leads to the emergence of sustainer leadership . However, it should be recalled that the lack of one exchange object can leave a leader in a difficult position .

In contrast to sustainer leadership , transformational leadership is related to improvements in the performance and potential of followers . Transformational leaders have strong values and ideals; they transform themselves and transform their followers in accordance with their own changes. The strong communication between followers and leaders results in increased levels of motivation and moral value for both parties. Mahatma Gandhi is a classic example of this type of leader . Gandhi fed and developed the hopes and needs of millions of people, thus transforming them (Nourthouse, 2010), and this situation made victory inevitable. The transformational leadership model is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Transformational leadership model
Full size table

Transformational leadership involves improving the performance and potential of followers . A person who chooses transformational leadership should be capable of organizing one’s internal values and ideals and mobilizing his/her followers by motivating them. Table 2 indicates which leadership factors are associated with each leadership dimension . The first four factors are related to transformational leadership , and the next two factors are related to sustainer leadership . The last factor refers to a leadership factor that provides an alternative to these two leadership styles. It is possible to explain these factors as follows (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Hoy & Miskel, 2010; Nourthouse, 2010):

  • Idealized effect: This factor is related to the extent to which a leader is a role model for followers . Followers know their leaders very well and greatly envy him/her because the leader has substantial moral and ethical standards and thus implements actions appropriately.

  • Inspirational motivation: This factor includes behaviors that can be inspirational for followers , including the expression of high expectations , the use of symbols to provide focus for followers and correct behavior sampling (Owen et al., 2011). In practice, the leader uses a number of symbols, and his/her emotional charisma motivates followers in line with the targeted success by to consider beyond their personal interests (Nourthouse, 2010).

  • Intellectual stimulation: This factor pertains to the organization of necessary intelligence to enable followers to become creative, problem-solving individuals (Owen et al. 2011). This type of leader supports his/her followers to gain new perspectives and encourages innovative pursuits within an organization.

  • Individual support: This factor is related to the personal support and interest shown by leaders to their followers . Such leaders thoughtfully listen to and care about their followers and consider their personal needs and interests. Such behaviors promote the formation of a supportive atmosphere in an organization.

  • Conditional reward : This factor relates to sustainer leadership and reflects the conditional utilitarian approach shared by a leader and his/her followers . The leader gives rewards to his/her followers to reach the specified goals and in turn expects followers to be more active. Pertinent examples include employers providing rewards and politicians asking for votes.

  • Management by expectations : This leadership factor involves such behaviors as corrective criticism, negative feedback and negative reinforcement. Such behaviors can be either active or passive. An active leader monitors his/her followers to control behavior by preventing the violation of rules and offering constructive criticism. A passive leader intervenes if the targeted standards are not met or if a problem occurs.

  • Non-sustainer: This type of leader does not assume any responsibilities, postpones decisions, never provides feedback and makes little effort to address the needs of his/her followers . There is no exchange with followers . This type reflects the case in which there is no true leadership .

Since the 1990s, new theories have emerged based on situational leadership in leadership studies: distributive leadership (Elmore, 2000; Gronn, 2000, 2002; Spillane, 2005), ethical leadership (Brown & Trevino, 2006), cultural leadership (Sergiovanni & Starrat, 1998), spiritual leadership (Fry, 2003) and authentic leadership (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011), among others. These leadership theories offer different formulas for the formation of powerful leadership by developing different perspectives on the nature of leadership .

In the first study of distributive leadership , Gibb (1954) stated that distributive leadership has a group feature. Leadership —when viewed from a distributive perspective—is a system composed of the resultant interaction among the leader , followers and situations. In this sense, the system consisting of the interaction among the leader , followers and situations means more than the sum of each component ; thus, they should be evaluated and understood together. Therefore, the situation does not have a clear independent effect on the behavior of a leader from the distributive leadership perspective because the behavior of the leader stems from this interaction . The relationship between situations and behaviors is dual from a distributive leadership perspective. In this dual relationship, behaviors transform situations, and situations activate or limit behaviors (Spillane, 2005, 2006).

Ethical leadership expresses rules about what must be done rather than rules about what must not be done (Rubenstein, 2003). In the ethical sense, a leader must respect and serve others; she/he must be fair and must demonstrate behaviors such as honesty and building community. The leader must show that she/he is listening to his/her subordinates even if they have opposing ideas by conveying empathy and warmth. Similarly, she/he must act in a consistent manner and is expected to behave consistently and treat all employees equally. For an ethical leader , being honest is not simply telling the truth; she/he must also be open to others as much as possible and be sensitive to their feelings and thoughts. Finally, as mentioned in the definition of leadership , all employees must collaborate to attain a common goal . The ability to forming a community that shares values and beliefs with an organization in attaining the same goal is among the fundamental behaviors that an ethical leader must demonstrate (Nourthouse, 2010).

Cultural leadership involves forming, developing and protecting cultural values in an organization (Sergiovanni & Starrat, 1998). However, it is not easy to determine the scope of cultural leadership behavior because it may not be feasible to identify a single culture upon which the organization is based or to maintain and form the basis for a behavior style because it must be determined what culture is—as culture is complex and specific to each individual society. Studies on culture and leadership around the world identify different leadership behaviors in different cultures. However, these studies cannot offer us a single theory to explain the leadership process or leadership styles. Nevertheless, the findings obtained in these studies can help leaders to understand their own cultural prejudices and priorities. In addition, such findings can provide an understanding of what it means to be a good leader in the cultural sense. The understanding of culture that leaders develop and the differences in understanding of this concept will encourage them to be more empathetic toward employees and the organization from other cultural contexts and promote the use of a clear communication style (Nourthouse, 2010).

There are different views of spiritual leadership . Fleming (2004) regarded spiritual leadership as an entirely worldly effort, whereas Thompson (2004) viewed spiritual leadership as a type of leadership that focuses on the organizational sense. Fry (2003) noted that individuals must meet certain basic needs in leading their lives and regarded spirituality as a basic need that must be met. Sanders, Hopkins, and Geroy (2004) defined spiritual leadership as a type of leadership that provides employees with a sense of working for a goal, developing commitment and sensemaking, and increasing labor productivity through organizational spirituality. In addition, spiritual leadership is the sum of all efforts involving the feeling of organizational spirituality by employees, forming a sense of unity in the workplace through devotion and providing meaning to their work.

Authentic leadership which is based on positive psychology , has emerged as a leadership behavior because of the decrease in the prevalence of ethical behavior in organizations and in the popularity of ethical leadership . Essentially, an authentic leader can be defined as an individual who is devoted to his/her values, beliefs and attitudes and to himself/herself in an integrated approach. The authentic leader behavior must reflect his/her own goals and values to employees while promoting transparency . An authentic leader is expected to show behaviors that will contribute to and strengthen the positive atmosphere in an organization in accordance with the goals of the organization and the development of positive relationships with employees (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Kesken & Ayyıldız, 2008; Klenke, 2007).

4 Leadership Effects in Organizational Outcomes

The main reason for the intensive research on the concept of leadership and the various approaches and theories is that the results are either directly or indirectly observed in organizations. A leader and his/her behaviors affect the performance of employees, job satisfaction , perceptions of justice , sense of trust toward one another and toward the organization, and—more essentially and generally—the culture and atmosphere that determine the entire dynamic of an organization.

It is difficult to determine the individual or organizational impact of leadership . Beginning with the criteria for the effectiveness of leadership proposed by Yukl (2010) might be useful in explaining the impact of leadership on organizations with complex and specific structures. In addition, a certain perspective on leadership and effectiveness can hinder determination of the impact of leadership on organizations. For example, a leader who is showing behaviors in favor of increasing organizational productivity may lack the qualifications expected from him/her in human relations, or a leader who emphasizes positive behaviors in human relations may be associated with decreased organizational productivity . In this respect , it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of a leader in terms of organizational outcomes from an integrated perspective and to discuss the impact of the leader in the organizational sense while considering the human factor.

Among the determinants of a leader ’s effectiveness include his/her performance in promoting attainment of the goals of an organization. Performance is a concept that is used often in the field of human resources management ; however, a consensus has not yet been reached regarding its definition and boundaries (Çalık, 2003). Performance is defined as job completion or the degree of success shown in a job. In its simplest meaning, performance is the contribution of an employee to the goals of an organization (Bass, 1985).

Two dimensions of performance are (1) individual and (2) organizational performance . From the individual perspective, performance evaluation is related to the measurement of success of employees working in an organization, and from the organizational perspective, performance refers to the activities completed and the goods and services that the organization produces based on criteria such as prudence, productivity and effectiveness (Köseoğlu, 2005). One of the factors that affect performance from both the organizational and individual perspectives is the leadership behaviors of management (Bass, 1985). Existing studies propose a relationship between the leadership behaviors of managers and the performance of employees (Friedkin & Slater, 1994; Ishikawa, 2012; Jung, Moon, & Hahm, 2008; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Rowold, 2011; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011).

One of the other ways that a leader can influence organizational outcomes is observed in the perception and attitudes of followers toward leadership . This impact is reflected as employee satisfaction, commitment to and trust in their organization. An employee who is committed to his/her organization, who trusts the organization and who is satisfied with the organization is expected to have the greatest contribution to the organization. For this reason, the perception and attitude of a leader toward his/her followers with respect to organizational outcomes is among the important indicators of the leader ’s effectiveness . Trust is present an individual believes that the behaviors of another person will develop in a manner that meets his/her expectations without any pressure while showing openness without the need to defend his/her own actions (Curral & Epstein, 2003). Additionally, trust is one of the important components of effective relationships (Clarke, 2002). Lewicki, McAllister, and Bies (1998) defined organizational trust as a state that arises when an individual is certain about how the organization’s practices and policies will affect him/her and supports these practices even in cases involving risks. The feeling of trust that emerges naturally generates commitment . Mayer and Allen (1991) identified commitment as a behavior that shapes the relationship of an employee with his/her organization and that aids him/her in making the decision to be a permanent member of the organization, which is also addressed as a necessary relative power in terms of the key organizational output supporting the effectiveness of the leader in the integration of the individual with the organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Another important indicator of the effectiveness of a leader in terms of organizational output is job satisfaction . Job satisfaction is related to an employee ’s general attitude toward all job components, regardless of whether she/he loves his/her job (Shields, 2007; Shraibman, 2008). In this sense, job satisfaction is the combination of (1) emotional, (2) cognitive and (3) behavioral characteristics (Wilson, 2009). According to certain definitions, job satisfaction refers to how happy a person is while performing his/her job duties (Wray, Luft, & Highland, 1996). The ambiguity in what makes a person happy and to what extent that would make another person happy is indicative of the difficulty of defining the concept of job satisfaction . Schultz and Schultz (2005) and Verner (2008) defined job satisfaction as the positive and negative emotions that an individual has toward his/her job. In short, employees’ feelings of satisfaction, commitment and trust are primarily related to the perceptions and attitudes toward their leaders. By contrast, negative organizational outputs may occur in the form of absenteeism, burnout , slow work output and various cases of sabotage.

Another impact of leadership is measured by the contribution to group processes. The foremost question that must be answered involves the collaboration and persuasiveness of a leader in reaching the goals specified for group members. A leader can reach these aims by displaying supportive behavior to solve the problems of their followers or to make decisions or resolve conflicts with the aim of increasing the efficiency of the organization (Hoy & Miskel, 2010; Nourthouse, 2010; Yukl, 2010). Adair (2004) identified the most important actions of the leader as follows: (1) delegating authority , (2) being inspirational, (3) establishing a team, (4) serving as a role model , and (5) being accepted by members. Hoy and Miskel (2010) defined leadership as a social process affecting the interpretation of the internal and external issues of group members, goal setting , the arrangement of activities, individual motivation and abilities, power relations and shared goals. The authors also noted that leadership is a social impact process that makes no assumptions regarding the goals and results affecting initiatives composed of both logical and emotional components. Good leaders have the power to change organizations, whereas very good leaders have the power to change individuals because the hearts of organizations are individuals. Particularly in places such as schools, simply by changing an individual , one can promote a substantially positive culture that encourages development and growth (Hoerr, 2005).