characteristics of crisis and decision making styles

3 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size Report
the AVEs were greater than .7071, suggesting that all latent variables (dimensions) ...... Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRISIS AND DECISION MAKING STYLES AMONG LEADERS IN THE JORDANIAN CIVIL DEFENCE: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF LEADERSHIP STYLES

By

ABDULLAH ABBAS AL-KHRABSHEH

A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of The Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, College of Graduate Studies, Universiti Tenaga Nasional

2014

ABSTRACT

The Jordanian Civil Defense (JCD) officers and employees face many difficulties and risks while performing their duties during crises such as firefighting, drowning, landslides, traffic accidents and others. The multiplicity of risks to the civil defence officers highlight the importance of optimal and effective decision making by the leader who is tasked with overall management of a particular crisis. It is reported that mortality rate of the (JCD) employees during crisis were18 employees during 2000-2013, and injuries had reached 42 cases during the same period. Whereas, the leaders (officers) in the JCD are responsible in providing protection to the individuals under their care, the statistics suggest that there seems to be a lack of awareness among these leaders (officers) concerning the influence of the characteristics of the crises on their decision-making styles that effect safety of the employees. The objective of this study is to explore the quadratic relationship between the characteristics of crisis and decision-making styles and the mediating role of the leadership styles on this relationship among leaders in the Jordanian Civil Defense. A survey was conducted on 345 officers and 502 employees in 157 directorates of the Jordanian Civil Defense. Data were collected via questionnaire and a matching procedure was done for 302 pairs of officers and employees. WarpPLS version 3.0 structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data and nonlinear relationships between the variables based on four main hypotheses.

The results show the significant quadratic relationships between characteristics of crisis and decision-making styles as well as leadership styles. The mediating effect of leadership styles on the relationship between characteristics of crisis and decisionmaking

styles

was

also

significant. This

study

adds

to

the

body

of

knowledge regarding the mediating role of leadership styles in enhancing and improving decision-making styles. This study provides managerial implications for the Jordanian Civil Defense officers to vary their leadership styles when dealing with different crisis situations.

ii

DEDICATION

To my wonderful parents whose immeasurable love and blessings inspire me and enlighten my way in life

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the Name of Allah the most Gracious the Most Merciful Praise be only to Allah, The Almighty, for His Bounty and Blessings upon us, and peace upon Prophet Mohammed, his companions, and his followers until the last day.

First of all, the successful completion of this work is due to nothing and no one but Allah’s (S.W.T) grace and guidance. Despite this humble accomplishment, I can only pray and hope that Allah (S.W.T) will forgive me for my work and judgment for their imperfections.

I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Prof Zainal Ariffin Ahmad for their guidance, suggestions, comments, and patience that he has offered me from the early stage of this thesis to the very day that it is completed. I cannot imagine producing this work, improving my knowledge and skills along the way if not for His blessings and grantings of good health, rationale mind and sincere dedication.

Last but never least; I owe my family my utmost gratitude. I am truly indebted to my beloved and respected parents for their unremitting love and attention to my wellbeing and to my progress in my education. I also have my brother and sisters to thank for their love, support and faith in me and my undertakings.

iv

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis, submitted to Universiti Tenaga Nasional is in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, has not been submitted as an exercise for a similar degree at any other university. I also certify that the work described here is entirely my own, except for excerpts and summaries which sources have been appropriately cited in the references.

This thesis may be made available in the university library and may be photocopied or loaned to other libraries for the purposes of consultation and reference.

Abdullah Abbas Al-kharabsheh

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. ii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................. iv DECLARATION ......................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... x LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Problem Statement.................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 12 1.4 Research Objectives ............................................................................................. 12 1.5 Significance of the Study...................................................................................... 13 1.5.1 Theoretical Contributions .......................................................................... 13 1.5.2 Practical Contributions............................................................................... 14 1.6 Definition of Key Terms ...................................................................................... 15 1.6.1 Decision Making Styles ............................................................................. 15 1.6.2 Leadership Styles ....................................................................................... 16 1.6.3 Characteristics of Crisis ............................................................................. 16 1.7 Overview of the Thesis......................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 18 2.1 Decision Making .................................................................................................. 18 2.1.1 Definition of Decision Making Styles ....................................................... 20 2.2 Decision Making Models...................................................................................... 40 2.2.1 Contingency Model in Decision Making .................................................. 21 2.3 Theories of Decision Making ............................................................................... 22 2.3.1 Theory of Decision Making ...................................................................... 23

vi

2.4 Decision Making in Crisis .................................................................................... 27 2.5 Crisis..................................................................................................................... 31 2.5.1 Characteristics of Crisis ............................................................................. 34 2.6 Leadership ............................................................................................................ 36 2.6.1 Definition of Leadership ................................................................................... 37 2.6.2 Leadership Styles .............................................................................................. 38 2.7 Leadership Styles in Crisis ................................................................................... 45 2.8 Empirical Studies on Crisis and Decision Making ............................................... 50 2.9 Empirical Studies on Leadership Styles and Decision Making Styles ................. 51 2.10 Empirical Studies on Crisis and Leadership Styles ............................................. 53 2.11 Empirical Studies on Leadership Style as a Mediator ........................................ 53 2.12 Gaps in the Literature ......................................................................................... 55 2.13 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................... 57 2.14 Hypotheses development .................................................................................... 59 2.14.1 The Relationship Between Characteristics of Crisis and Decision Making Style .......................................................................................................................... 59 2.14.2 The Relationship between the Characteristics of Crisis and the Leadership Style ........................................................................................................ 59 2.14.3 The Relationships between the Leadership Style and the Decision Making styles ........................................................................................................................... 60 2.14.4 Mediation Effect of Leadership Style ............................................................. 61

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY 3.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 63 3.1 Research Approach............................................................................................... 63 3.2 Time Horizon ....................................................................................................... 64 3.3 Population and Unit of Analysis........................................................................... 65 3.3.1 Sampling ........................................................................................................... 65 3.3.2 Sampling Size and Technique ........................................................................... 66 3.4 Survey Design ...................................................................................................... 67 3.4.1 Variables and Measures .................................................................................... 68 3.4.2 Leadership Styles .............................................................................................. 69 3.5 Instrument Translation ......................................................................................... 73

vii

3.6 Pilot Study ............................................................................................................ 74 3.7 Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 75 3.8 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 76 3.8.1 Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................... 76 3.8.2 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) ............................................................... 76 3.8.3 Partial Least Squares ......................................................................................... 77 3.8.4 Assessment Model ............................................................................................ 80 3.9 Mediation Effect (Isolation Methods) .................................................................. 82 3.10 Summary ............................................................................................................ 84

CHAPTER 4 - FINDINGS 4.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 85 4.1 Profile of the Respondents…………………………………………………….122 4.2 Measurement Model ............................................................................................. 88 4.3 Structural Equation Modeling .............................................................................. 92 4.4 Mediation Effects ............................................................................................... 105

CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 111 5.1 Recapitulation of the Study’s Findings .............................................................. 111 5.2 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 112 5.2.1 Characteristics of Crisis and Decision Making Styles .................................... 112 5.2.2 Characteristics of Crisis and Leadership Styles .............................................. 114 5.2.4 Leadership Style Mediates the Relationship between Characteristics of Crisis and Decision Making Styles .......................................................................... 120 5.3 Implications of the Study ........................................................................................ 121 5.3.1 Theoretical Implications of this Study ............................................................ 121 5.3.2 Practical Implications of the Study ................................................................. 123 5.4 Limitations of This Study ................................................................................... 124 5.5 Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................ 125 5.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 126

REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 128

viii

LIST OF APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Page

APPENDIX A - English Version Questionnaire ..................................................... 142 APPENDIX B - Arabic Version Questionnaire ....................................................... 150 APPENDIX C - Permission Letter from Jordanian Civil Defence .......................... 157 APPENDIX D - Frequencies Table for Profile of Respondents .............................. 159 APPENDIX E - Frequency Table for Profile of Respondents (Leaders) ................ 163 APPENDIX F - Frequency Table for Profile of Respondents (Employees) ............ 166 APPENDIX G - General SEM Analysis Results ..................................................... 169 APPENDIX H - The Indirect Effect for Transformational Leadership Style .......... 179 APPENDIX I - The Indirect Effect for Transactional Leadership Style ................. 183 APPENDIX J - The Quadratic and Liner Relationship between Variables ............. 187

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Page

2.1: Theory of Decision Making ................................................................................ 24 2.2: Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 58 3.1: Mediation Effect ................................................................................................. 83 3.2: Multiple Mediation (Warp3 Pls) ......................................................................... 84 4.1 Theoretical Model (Warp 3 Pls)........................................................................... 93 4.2: Relationship Between Time Pressure and Comprehensive Decision Making Style .............................................................................................................. 95 4.3: Relationship Between Time Pressure and Restrictive Decision Making Style. .................................................................................................................................... 96 4.4: Relationship Between Response Uncertainty and Comprehensive Decision Making Style…………………………………………………………………

132

4.5: Relationship Between Response Uncertainty and Restrictive Decision Making Style. .......................................................................................................................... 98 4.6: Relationship Between Time Pressure and Transformational Leadership Style. . 99 4.7: Relationship Between Time Pressure and Transactional Leadership Style ...... 100 4.8: Relationship Between Response Uncertainty and Transformational Leadership Style.......................................................................................................................... 101 4.9: Relationship Between Response Uncertainty and Transactional Leadership Style ....................................................................................................... 102 4.10: Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Comprehensive Decision Making Style. ............................................................................................ 103 4.11: Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Restrictive Decision Making Style. ........................................................................................................... 103 4.12: Relationship Between Transactional Leadership and Comprehensive Decision Making Style. ........................................................................................................... 104 4.13: Relationship Between Transactional Leadership and Restrictive Decision Making Style. ........................................................................................................... 105 4.14: Mediation Model For Transformational Leadership Style ............................. 107 4.15: Mediation Model For Transactional Leadership Style ................................... 108

x

5.1: The Quadratic U Relationship Between Restrictive Decision Making Style and Characteristics of Crisis. .......................................................................................... 113 5.2: The Quadratic (Inverted U) Relationship Between Comprehensive Decision Making Style and Characteristics of Crisis. ............................................................. 113 5.3: The Quadratic Relationship Between Transformational Leadership Style and Characteristics of Crisis. .......................................................................................... 117

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Page

1.1 The Evolution of The Jordanian Civil Defense...................................................... 3 1.2 Lists of Accidents Involving Jordanian Civil Defence Personnel ......................... 5 2.1 Decision Making Models ..................................................................................... 21 2.3 Summary of Characteristics Of Crisis From Previous Studies ............................ 36 3.1 Population and Sample In Jordanian Civil Defence ............................................ 65 3.2 Transactional Leadership Style ............................................................................ 70 3.3 Transformational Leadership Style ...................................................................... 70 3.4 Characteristics of Crisis ....................................................................................... 72 3.5 Decision Making Style ......................................................................................... 73 3.6 Summary of Instrument For Variables Used In This Study................................. 73 3.7 Response Rate ...................................................................................................... 75 4.1 Officers Respondents Profile ................................................................................ 86 4.3 Combined Loading and Cross-Loading For Initial Model (46 Indicators) .......... 89 4.4: Square Roots of Average Variance Extracted And Latent Variable Correlation 91 4.5 Latent Variables Coefficient ................................................................................ 92 4.6 Mean And Standard Deviation For Latent Variables ........................................... 94 4.7: Summary of Path Coefficients and P Values Between Latent Variable ........... 105 4.8: Indirect Effect For Mediation (Leadership Style) ............................................. 108 4.9 Summary of All Hypotheses Testing In This Study .......................................... 109

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CC

Characteristics of Crisis

LS

Leadership Style

DMS

Decision Making Style

TP

Time Pressure

RU

Response Uncertainty

TF

Transformational Leadership

TS

Transactional Leadership

CDM

Comprehensive Decision Making

RDM

Restrictive Decision Making

SEM

Structural Equation Modeling

APC

Average Path Coefficient

AVE

Average Variances Extracted

ARS

Average R-Squared

AVIF

Average Variance Inflation Factor

AVEs

Square Roots of the Average Variances Extracted

VIF

Full colinearity

JCD

Jordanian Civil Defense

xiii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0

Introduction

This first chapter comprises several sections. Section one presents the introduction to the study; section two discusses the background of the study; section three highlights the problem statement; section four lists the research questions; section five notes the research objectives; section six elaborates on the significance of the study; section seven defines the key terms; and finally the last section deals with the overview of the thesis.

1.1

Background of the Study

Many countries have dedicated civil defense forces for the purpose of protecting civilians from military attacks and for rescuing people after widespread catastrophes. Most of these civil defense organizations are managed by the government of a Particular nation but some of them might also be organizations composed mainly of volunteers. Blanchard (1992) define civil defense is that it refers to the system of measures, usually run by a governmental agency, to protect the civilian population in wartime, to respond to disasters, and to prevent and mitigate the consequences of major emergencies in peacetime. The term “civil defense” is now used increasingly (Barbera, Anthony, Shaw et al., 2010).

It is no wonder, therefore, that its origin is in wartime efforts by governments and volunteers to organize air-raid warnings, develop and maintain bomb shelters, and install public alarms and sirens for alerting civilians. The structure of civil defense 1

became more elaborate and organized during the Cold War (1948-1989). At this time its primary task in developed nations was to help relocate large civilian populations in the case of an imminent nuclear attack (Alexander, 2002).

Anderson (1970) defines Civil defense actions and measures are typically administered by the combined military and paramilitary personnel who adhere to well-formed military regulations (Alexander, 2002). Due to the fact that its strategic plans are kept confidential as to safeguard them from a potential foe, such a force is not restricted to the usual criteria for accountability and freedom of information like the majority of other public organizations. This implies that the civil defense runs the risk to become mildly manipulated for public domination. The top secret strategic agenda aimed at managing the public can be used discreetly to stifle public protests against democratic or human rights violation. Thus, put simply, the same civil defense which primary task is to give protection to the public can easily serve as an instrument to govern the civilian population and further safeguard the state or the government interests (Alexander, 2002).

The Jordanian Civil Defense (JCD) is the formal and regulatory organization, within the Supreme Council of Civil Defense, which is concerned with the protection of citizens and preservation of properties from probable dangers. It is tasked to deal with routine accidents, handle emergency situations, and rescue civilians in the event of disasters through self-prevention measures and protective actions (General Directorate of Civil Defence, 2008). The Jordanian Civil Defense has its origins during the time of the Jordan East Emirate in 1950. Its subsequent evolution is discussed in detail in Table 1.1.

2

Table 1.1: The Evolution of the Jordanian Civil Defense Years

Evolution

1950-1960

The Jordanian Civil Defence traces its origin during the time of the Jordan East Emirate. In the beginning it was staffed by a small number of civilian teams who were employed in the Amman municipality. They possessed only basic equipment for fire-fighting operations. At this time, Civil Defence committees were founded all over the kingdom of Jordan, in the capital, districts, provinces, and counties in order to handle civil Defence activities.

1960-1970

1970-1980

1980-1990 1990-2000

During this period, the number of staffs was significantly increased. They were properly trained through effective exercises to hone their skills for civil defense functions and to be able to manage crisis situations efficiently. At this time, the Public Security organization was responsible for their supervision and training. The Civil Defence Department (The General Directorate of Civil Defence) was formed and tasked with preparing itself to handle its responsibilities, under its jurisdiction, effectively. To achieve this goal, the directorate trained, organized, and prepared the human resources at its disposal. It began to procure and assign vehicles, equipment, devices, and materials, on a periodic basis, so that all necessary duties could be fulfilled and it could be ready for any disaster. Following the procurements and trainings, the directorate expanded its operations by establishing new civil defence stations in the cities and in major population centers. The Civil Defence was completely separated from the Public Security Department financially and had its own budget. The government set up directorates, sections, and buildings (to serve as civil defence centres). Many office buildings were set up in different locations according to the significance of the area and the population size. The government, through its efforts which lasted more than one decade, was able to supply and assign all the essentials (human and material resources, equipment, buildings, and vehicles) to ensure full functionality of the Jordanian Civil Defence. It was also able to set the necessary measures and regulations so that civil defence could uphold its duties in a systematic manner.

An effective civil defence force is able to do its tasks and address crisis situations efficiently and help with rebuilding with minimal loss in life and property. To attain such efficiency, the Jordanian Civil Defence prepared flexible contingency plans which can adapt to the changes and developments in a population centre. It has also taken steps to identify the probable and efficient ways to mobilize its various concerned departments and institutions, and to harmoniously coordinate their efforts in order to accomplish the goals. Source: The Jordanian Civil Defence (2013) 2000-2013

According to the National Information Technology Center (2010), the functions of JCD include: providing, supervising, and organizing siren systems against air raids; checking the readiness of public shelters; detecting, locating, and marking explosives 3

and alerting public security forces for blockading the region and the army for bomb disposal; helping in the detection of chemical or radioactive contamination in cooperation with relevant authorities; evaluating the location for the establishment of gas stations, liquefied gas distribution agencies, and their storehouses in accordance with practiced self-protection and prevention conditions; training voluntary teams on civil defence actions from both public and private sectors all over Jordan; and finally checking the availability of self-prevention and protection techniques, sirens, and fire-fighting systems in commercial and industrial establishments.

The annual statistics for 2012 which was published by the Jordanian Civil Defence cite that its operational services – fire-fighting, search and rescue, and ambulance – handled around 140,000 emergencies. Approximately 80% of the total emergencies were managed by the ambulance service. The fire-fighting and the search and rescue services each dealt with 10% of the remaining cases. The risk assessment profile for Jordan emphasizes that the major risk factors which threaten the populace of Jordan include drought, floods, traffic accidents, fires and explosions, as well as hazardous chemical spills from transport accidents. Among these factors, fires and explosions are a top priority in this country. The most common type of fire is the wildfire which affects mostly farmland or woodland areas and make up about 36% of the total fire related disasters. This is followed by house fires which constitute around 20% of the total cases of fire. A significant portion of all fires, about 30%, which include 18% of the house fires and approximately 36% of the wild fires, are caused by children (Jordanian Civil Defence, 2012).

In the course of their duties, individuals working in the Jordanian Civil Defence are exposed to various risks which might lead to long-term psychological and physical disorders. Most of the time, the civil defence employees are forced to work

in

hazardous conditions such as fires, landslides, explosions, chemical leakage, exposure to deadly infections, and physical injuries caused by traffic accidents of high speed ambulances. Table 1.2 illustrates the list of civil defence personnel who were affected by various types of dangers while diligently performing their 4

routine jobs from 2000 to 2013. The multiplicity of risks to the civil defence officers highlight the importance of optimal and effective decision making by the leader who is tasked with overall management of a particular crisis.

Table 1.2: Lists of Accidents Involving Jordanian Civil Defence Personnel Type of accident Drowning Suffocation Traffic accident Fire Fuel Tank explosion

Mortality 3 1 7 4 3 18

Injuries 6 8 28 42

Source: Jordanian Civil Defence (2013)

Pearson and Clair (1998, p. 60) defined the crisis as “characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and means of resolution, as well as by a belief that decisions must be made swiftly” (Jaques, 2007). Driver, Brousseau, and Hunsaker, (1998) Characteristics of crisis also known as environmental load is any event in the surrounding which increases an individual’s sense of pressure or stress, such as time pressure and uncertainty,(Brousseau, Driver, Hourihan and Larsson ,2006). Billings, Milburn, and Schaalman (1980) proposed that time pressure and response uncertainty are two characteristics of crisis that can affect decision making. Billings et al. (1980) argued that leaders have to take decisions under uncertainty and time constraints in the event of a crisis. Boin, Hart, and McConell (2009) claimed that the decisions made under crisis conditions have associated uncertainties since there is limited time for consultation and reaching agreement with advisors, colleagues, and others who are normally involved in the decision-making processes.

Hadley, Pittinsky, Sommer, and Zhu (2011) claimed that leaders who handle crisis situations experience tremendous amounts of pressures due to time constraints. This mainly happens because they usually have insufficient time to acquire, secure, and process the relevant information effectively. Slatter (1984) stated that surprise, short decision time, and a high threat to priority objects are the three main factors of a 5

crisis which can heighten the stress and anxiety experienced by the managing organization or the team leaders concerned. However, only a few qualitative studies have linked characteristics of crisis to decision making styles, for example Edland and Svenson (1993), Maule, Hockey, and Bdzola (2000), and Rastegary and Landy (1993). Therefore, the first gap identified by the researcher in the existent literature is the lack of empirical studies on the link between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles of the leaders involved.

In 2010, the General Manager of JCD, Lieutenant General Staff Awad Salem announced that the Council of Ministers made a decision to increase the salary especially of JCD staff members given the many dangers they face when handling crisis situations. He also mentioned that two important roles of these officers were to achieve good results while protecting the people working under them and to decrease property loss and fatalities when dealing with a crisis. According to Sjöberg, Wallenius, and

Larsson (2006), the leadership displayed in the event of a very

complicated and stressful rescue operation is influenced by the leader’s subjective opinion. His appraisal of the situation and what is at stake, for instance the lives of human beings and the manageability of the situation, are very important factors which influence his decisions. In addition, Cook, Sutton, and Useem (2005) suggested that three factors—lack of proper preparation, acute stress, and ambiguous authority-can result in suboptimal decisions by leaders during fire-fighting situations. They argued that the decisions made by leaders under crisis situations are taken to accomplish three main objectives: safety, speed, and suppression (technical decision). As defined by Cook et al (2005), suppression applies when the leaders must decipher the crisis and gather the largest amount of information about the crisis and try to disentangle it the soonest possible. This can be done by acquiring and analysing precise data, assign people and resources to tasks that matter and are deemed necessary, implement it at the right time, and focus on the goals of the enterprise irrespective of personal concerns which are integral to the curriculum. These objectives are also the prime factors which influence decision making by JCD officers under crises situations.

6

Previous studies linked leadership style to crisis (Sheaffer, Bogler, and Sarfaty, 2011) or crisis situation (Sjoberg, Wallenius, and Larsson, 2011; Sjöberg et al., 2006; Leonard and Howitt, 2010; Larsson, Haerem, Sjöberg, Alvinius, and Bakken, 2007). However, only one study by Pillai and Meindl (1998) found a negative relationship between crises and leadership style a greater sense of crisis among followers was associated with reduced perception of leader charisma. Therefore, this researcher observed that there was a lack of studies addressing the relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the leadership styles .This is the second gap found by the researcher in the extant literature.

Kouzes and Posner (2007) demonstrated that in ambiguous circumstances, like a crisis, the relationship-oriented leaders function well and possess loyal followings due to the fact that they are usually participative, open, and tend to provide their followers with motivation to resolve problems in innovative ways. However, Heath (1998) opposed this and reasoned that the centralized authority allows for fast decision making and comprehensive grasp of the crisis and this type of leadership is inherently task oriented in nature. Fiedler (1967) put forward some seminal suggestions regarding transactional and transformational leadership styles. He claimed that transactional leaders give highest priority to the accomplishment of the task at hand since they are task oriented. They give only secondary priority to maintaining and developing good interpersonal relations. On the other hand, transformational leaders are more relationship oriented. He further stated that under very stressful conditions leaders, just like normal people, concentrate on their main priorities which vary for transactional and transformational leaders. Fiedler further pointed out that under moderate stressful situations, leaders who are relationship oriented focus on both nurturing the interpersonal relationships and accomplishing the task. This is very typical of the transformational leadership style. He therefore suggested that a leader must change his leadership style to task oriented so that the group under his supervision can achieve its targets. So, this researcher, after extensive literature review and research work and based on Fielder’s observation above believes that there is a nonlinear relationship between leadership style and different crisis situation. However, this has not been proven by research.

7

Vera and Crossan (2004) suggested that to have a successful outcome in crisis situation one must pick an appropriate leadership style specific to the situation. The wrong selection of style can make the actions of the leader ineffective. Kelly (2005) argued that the most effective leadership style in times of crisis is transformational leadership because leaders who employ this style are quick to respond to the change. In contrast, Hutton (2004) supported the idea that the transactional leadership style will reflect positively on the outcome when dealing with crisis and argued further that the transactional style is associated with rigid structure that closely supervises employees. Thus, he concluded that the transactional leadership style enabled the organization to carry out more complex operating procedures compared to any other style. Bass (1998) added to these claims and proposed that an effective leader for most situations is one who can seamlessly combine both task and relation oriented to get the job done. This claim implies that the style of transactional leadership may be very effective during a crisis situation but it might not be applicable and very effective for different types of changing circumstances unless it is integrated with transformational leadership. Bass (1998) further claimed that in the task of making decisions, the leader must balance between decision making and being relationship oriented, which is the concern for safety of the individuals working under them.

Jadwinski (2006) argued that designating an appropriate leadership style for crisis could improve a leader’s decision making, and could result in decreased property loss and fatalities. He further maintained that different leadership styles produced different outcomes suited for different times and situations. Tatum, Eberlin, Kottraba, and Bradberry (2003) stated that transformational leaders appear to prefer the comprehensive style whereas transactional leaders prefer the restrictive decision making technique. Further, Tatum et al. (2003) pointed out some of the advantages of transformational leadership over transactional leadership. They claimed that transformational leaders usually utilize a wide range of information sources in order to come to a decision, e.g. mapping the strategic direction for their company. This means that they can make a more comprehensive decision based on this approach. Transactional leaders, on the other hand, are task oriented and constantly aim for rapidly completing the job at hand and moving on to a new one. This approach usually restricts the amount of varied information they get to use in making their 8

decisions and therefore their decisions may not be always very comprehensive (Driver et al., 1990; Tatum et al., 2003). This study, therefore, will further explore Tatum’s et al. (2003) arguments in the light of the leadership in the Jordanian Civil Defence.

According to Bennis and Thomas (2002), leaders cited for excellent performance during times of crisis have demonstrated strong functional skills in the areas of adaptive capacity. This capacity refers to the ability of an individual to engage others in a shared meaning, be a distinctive and compelling voice for the organization or the nation, and inspire a sense of integrity and value. Vera and Crossan (2004) argued that to have a successful outcome in a crisis situation one must pick an appropriate leadership style specific to the situation because selecting the wrong leadership style could make the actions and measures taken to be ineffective. Jadwinski (2006) argued that designating an appropriate leadership style for a particular crisis situation could improve a leader’s decision making and could result in decreased property loss and fatalities.

He further claimed that

different leadership styles produce different outcomes, and are suited for different times and situations. Berson and Avolio (2004) argued that designating leadership style for specific crisis situations will help increase trust in the leader, build self and collective efficacy, and allow the leader to make the right decisions often with very little information. This means that there is no single leadership style appropriate for all situations and that for the leaders to be more effective when dealing with crises they must be able to change their leadership style based on the situation (Tseng and Cho, 2009).

1.2

Problem Statement

The Jordanian Civil Defence employees face many difficulties and risks while performing their duties during different crises such as fire, drowning, landslides, traffic accidents, and others. It was reported that the mortality among the Jordanian Civil Defence was 17 employees during the 2000-2012 period, and the job related injuries reached 42 cases during the same period. Cook et al. (2005) argued that 9

three factors—insufficient preparation, acute stress, and ambiguous authority—can result in suboptimal decisions by team leaders in crisis situations. This can cause death and injuries as in the case of the South Canyon fire in 5th – 6th July, 1996 were covered approximately 127 acres as there 14 men and woman lost their lives from fire- fighters. Although the leaders in the JCD are responsible for providing protection to the individuals under their care, the statistics suggest that these civil defence leaders were unaware of the way the particular characteristics of

crisis

affected their decision making and leadership styles.

Scenario: On July 14, the officer was informed by the Operations Room of Civil Defense on the case of two people who fell in an ancient hole in an abandoned area of Swaileh capital Amman and the Operating Room informed the nearest Civil Defense center. The officer moved to the site of the hole, and when they reach the site, there were a lot of people gathered at the well. The officer on site needed to inform the diver to prepare for the descent. It was known that the hole contained toxic gases and constitutes risks to the diver; also the entrance of the hole was very narrow that it did not allow a diver to dive down with special services equipment. However, the officer ordered the diver to descend down the hole as soon as possible and gradually the diver went down into the well. He did and could not communicate with the officer after 25 minutes. This suggested that the diver has died. The officer was held responsible as he was the one who had issued the order to the diver , without collecting enough information about the nature of the incident the time, the (wrong) decision was made leading to the death of a non-officer serving the Civil Defense (MJCD,2013).

According to Driver et al. (1998), environmental load is anything in the environment that increases a person’s sense of pressure such as time pressure and uncertainty. These, they claimed, can affect decision making. Billings et al. (1980) called these environmental load, namely time pressure and response uncertainty, as the characteristics of crisis. They claimed that this could affect the decision making

10

process and style of the leader. Therefore, in this study, environmental load is also referred to as the characteristics of crisis.

Driver et al. (1998) and Brousseau and Driver (2010) highlighted the fact that the style of decision making of a leader was dependent upon the particular crisis situation. Therefore, when the environmental load changes (e.g. additional stress, time pressures), the resultant decision style also varies. According to the researcher’s understanding of Driver et al. (1998) theory, there is a quadratic relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making style used by the concerned leader. If the environmental load is very high or if it is very low, leaders typically utilize the restrictive decision making style. When the environmental load is moderate, leaders often use the comprehensive decision making style. However, this has never been proven empirically as mentioned earlier it is the first gap identified in the relevant research literature by this researcher.

Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich (1985) argued that attributions to leadership should be higher in conditions of crisis downturn and crisis decline. They expected that this relationship was quadratic rather than linear. Situational Leadership Theory states that no single leadership style is “best”; rather a leader should adopt a style which strikes a balance between task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership and is apt for the given circumstance. Situational leadership is more about changing the style of the leadership to fit the situation. Tseng and Cho (2009) reasoned that the mark of an effective leader is that he or she is able to adapt to the situation and change the leadership style to best tackle the changes in the environment.

In this study, the researcher considered the leadership style as a mediating variable based on the claims and findings of previous researchers (Fred, Wu, and Lucy, 2004; Hur, Berg, and Celeste, 2011; Panagopoulos and Dimitriadis, 2009; Tyng Wang and Sheng Lee, 2013). Further, Ferres, Travaglione, and Connell (1998) suggested that the transformational leadership style mediates the associations between antecedents and results. According to Vera and Crossan (2004) and Paul 11

and Ebadi (1989), for a successful outcome in crisis we must pick an appropriate leadership style specific to the situation, and selecting the wrong leadership style could cause ineffective leadership or lead to property loss or fatalities as suggested by Jadwinski (2006). Based on the researcher’s observations, the leaders of the JCD tend to be more transactional during crisis. Choosing the appropriate leadership style when dealing with crisis will reflect positively on the outcome, therefore, the researcher will use leadership style as a mediator. Furthermore, the researcher has found no studies which investigated whether leadership style was a mediator between characteristics of crisis and decision making. This is considered by the researcher to be the third gap in the relevant literature.

Therefore, this study will investigate the relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles among leaders in the Jordanian Civil Defence. Additionally, the mediating role of leadership styles between the characteristics of crisis and decision making styles will be investigated.

1.3

Research Questions

This research seeks to answer the following questions: 1. Is there a quadratic relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles among Jordanian Civil Defence leaders? 2. Is there a quadratic relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the leadership styles among Jordanian Civil Defence Leaders? 3. What is the relationship between leadership styles and decision making styles? 4. Do leadership styles mediate the relationship between the characteristic of crisis and the decision making styles among Jordanian Civil Defence leaders?

1.4

Research Objectives

The primary goal of this study is to explore the relationship between the characteristics of the crisis and the decision making styles and also the mediating 12

roles of the leadership styles in this relationship among Jordanian Civil Defence leaders. Specifically this study aims to accomplish the objectives below: 1. To explore the quadratic relationship between the characteristics of the crisis and the decision making styles among Jordanian Civil Defence leaders. 2. To explore the quadratic relationship between the characteristics of the crisis and the leadership styles among Jordanian Civil Defence leaders. 3. To verify the relationship between leadership styles and decision making styles. 4. To explore the mediating role of the leadership styles on the relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles among Jordanian Civil Defense leaders.

1.5

Significance of the Study

1.5.1 Theoretical Contributions

Firstly, this study will make significant contributions to the knowledge related to decision making and crisis. This study intends to validate the quadratic relationship between the characteristics of crisis and decision making styles as suggested by Driver et al. (1998). A crisis situation usually comprises factors like time pressure, uncertainty, complexity, and the potential for important (often negative) consequences. These result in the creation of high environmental load. When the environmental load, also known as the characteristics of crisis, is very high or very low, many people utilize the restrictive decision making style as suggested by Driver’s theory. When the environmental load is only moderate, however, most individuals use the comprehensive decision making style. This implies that there is a quadratic relationship between characteristics of crisis and decision making styles. However, this has never been proven empirically, hence it is the first gap in the existent literature identified by the researcher.

Secondly, this study will also contribute to the body of knowledge in the areas of leadership styles under crisis situations. This study intends to show that the quadratic relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the leadership styles is valid. 13

This was first suggested by Jadwinski (2006), who called for research on when and under what criteria leadership style should shift from transactional leadership to transformational leadership. However, this has never been proven empirically which is identified as the second gap in the research literature.

Thirdly, this study proposes that leadership styles mediate the relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles. Based on the researcher’s own observations, the leaders of the JCD tend to be more transactional during crisis. Paul and Ebadi (1989) suggested that the best way to achieve good results when dealing with crisis is by selecting a leadership style specific to the situation. Ferres, Anthony, and Connell (1998) claimed that the transformational leadership style mediates the associations between the antecedents and the results. However, the researcher found that there is a lack of studies on the leadership style as a mediator between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles. This constitutes the third gap in the published literature.

1.5.2 Practical Contributions

The importance of this study also lies in its practical contributions to the Jordanian Civil Defence when dealing with crisis. The nature of their work entails that JCD leaders and officers face risks while dealing with different types of crises. This study will shed light on the most effective decision making styles to be employed during times of crisis. It will also help the JCD officers by making them aware of how their leadership style affects their decision making in different crisis situations. As previously pointed out, the researcher has observed that the leaders in the JCD tend to be more transactional and restrictive under stressful and crisis situations. Vera and Crossan (2004) argued that there was no leadership style fit all the situation and to be more effective it must be changed to adapt to the particular crisis situation. Fiedler (1967) had previously reasoned along this line and claimed that within an organization, a decision making style which is effective in some particular situation may not be successful in other situations.

14

This study will shed light on the JCD officers’ preferred leadership and decision making styles and see how they must change the styles depending upon the characteristics of the crisis situation. Jadwinski (2006) argued that designating an appropriate leadership style for crisis could improve a leader’s decision making thereby minimizing property loss and fatalities. This study will help JCD officers to achieve a good result when dealing with crisis by selecting a suitable leadership style and an appropriate decision making style specific to the situation. This will be done by shifting from one style to another based on the situation at hand.

1.6

Definition of Key Terms

1.6.1 Decision Making Styles

Driver (1979) very aptly defined decision making style as the pattern which an individual habitually used for making decisions.

1.6.1.1 Comprehensive

Driver et al. (1990) classify the integrative and systemic styles into category called “comprehensive” which refers to a person who uses large amounts of information and multiple solutions to a problem.

1.6.1.2 Restrictive

Driver et al. (1990) that classify the decisive, hierarchic, flexible into category called “restrictive” which refers to a person who use a minimum amount of information and single solution to a problem.

15

1.6.2 Leadership Styles

Hollander (1978) defined leadership styles as the most typical characteristics across many circumstances.

1.6.2.1 Transactional Leadership Style

Bass and Avolio (1995) defined transactional leadership style as exchange of rewards and promises of rewards between the leader and his followers based on the follower’s performance.

1.6.2.2 Transformational Leadership Style Transformational leadership behavior is defined as the leaders’ degree of a possibility to increase abilities, aspirations, by encouraging their followers to make sacrifices to accomplish organizational goals (Bass, 1990).

1.6.3 Characteristics of Crisis

In this study, characteristics of crisis refer to environmental load which can be defined as any factor in the environment which increases a person’s sense of pressure such as time pressure and uncertainty (Driver et al. 1998). Billings et al. (1980) proposed that time pressure and response uncertainty are two characteristics of crisis that can affect decision making, and these two environmental loads will be investigated in this study.

1.6.3.1 Time Pressure The difference between the amount of time available and the amount of the time required to solve the task (Rastergary and Landy, 1993). 16

1.6.3.2 Response Uncertainty

Uncertainty can be defined as the lack of sufficient and necessary information for making a good decision (Kuipers, Moskowitz, and Kassirer, 1988).

1.7

Overview of the Thesis

This chapter has put forward the overview of the introduction, the problem statement, the research questions, the research objectives, and the significance of the study. The key terms have also been operationally defined. The remainder of this thesis has been organized in the following manner:

Chapter two focuses on the overview of the existent literature which deals with the concepts of decision making styles, leadership styles, and characteristics of crisis. This chapter ends with the theoretical framework and hypotheses development. Chapter three outlines the research methodology, the sample, the instrument, the measure used, and the data analysis techniques. Chapter four gives a detailed profile of the respondents and a descriptive analysis of the responses. The results of the hypotheses testing and analysis are recorded. Finally, chapter five deals with the discussion and conclusion of this study. This chapter includes the discussion of the findings in line with the objectives of this study, implications of the study, limitations of the research work, and suggestions for further research.

17

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0

Introduction

This chapter reviews the extant literature related to the current research. It focuses on the characteristics of crisis, leadership styles, and the decision making process from both theoretical perspectives and empirical research. It also discusses the relationships among these variables as surmised by different researchers. chapter comprises several

sections:

The

introduction, decision making styles,

characteristics of crisis, leadership styles, and knowledge gaps in the existent body of research. It outlines the theoretical framework and the hypotheses, and finally concludes with a summary.

2.1

Decision Making

The simplest definition of “decision” is the choice made between two or more options, or an answer to a question (Rowe, Boulgarides and McGrath, 1984). Hammond (1990) argued that the ability to make decisions basically correlated with the options at hand.

Simon (1997) defined decision making as the process by which an individual selects an option which has the promise of fulfilling his/her goals. According to Mintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret (1976), decision making may be progressive or incessant, comprising chronological or rational processes. Moreover, Streufert and Streufert (1978) argued that information, vital to decision making, is categorized by an organization or firm based on the principle of information management. Rowe and 18

Mason (1987) after extensive research, described the decision making process as a method which involves intellectual efforts such as processing, deciding, perceiving, and judging. Weiss (1983) on the other hand, defined the decision making process as an intellectual task which includes individual awareness, philosophy, and information. Michael and Steven (2007) defined decision making process from a slightly different angle by stating that it involved making a selection from a set of potential alternatives and achieving the chosen option. However, all decisions have time range or prospect. Farid, Osamah and Aljoundy (1991) demonstrated through their research and findings that decision making involves the selection of different actions and scenarios in order to fulfil certain objectives or to achieve a number of goals. Additionally, Krumboltz and Hamel (1977) argued that the process of decision making involved a sequence of steps which are employed by a person to determine, establish, test, and evaluate a scenario based on the information gathered. Wickens, Lee, Uu and Becker (2004) supported the idea that decision making is a task that requires an individual to choose one of a number of options or alternatives based on certain amount of available information and under the effects of context, uncertainty, and a time frame.

The beginning of the 20th century witnessed the dawn of studies and research efforts related to decision making and leadership styles. Between the 1940’s and the 1950’s, voluminous research was carried out in the arena of decision making, within the context of psychology, mostly in relation to leadership and cognition. In the 1960’s, however, there was a shift in the focus of most research studies. Many researchers started to investigate deeply the theme and principal ideas behind decision making and the leadership styles employed by individuals in various leadership positions. Driver and Streufert (1969) were among these pioneers who established a methodical approach to examining the information processing, decision making, and problem solving abilities of leaders. From their extensive research they were able to formulate a model concerning decision making and leadership styles. Table 2.1 in subsection 2.2 list some of the important models of decision making which were proposed between 1960 and the early 2003.

19

2.1.1 Definition of Decision Making Styles

Driver (1979) defined decision making style as a pattern of thinking and style which an individual uses out of habit for making decision. Some researchers elaborated on this notion of an individual’s habits. Harren (1979) mentioned that the individual’s style of decision making is an individual feature for conceiving and responding to a task of decision making. Moreover, Scott and Bruce (1995) defined decision style as a pattern of learned response which is employed by an individual in making a decision or when confronted with a difficult situation. They argued that the decision style employed was not dependent on the personality of an individual; rather it was a habitual reaction. Rowe and Mason (1987), on the other hand, defined decision style from a slightly different perspective. They elaborated that a decision style is the process by which an individual processes available information in order to come to a conclusion and make a decision. They elaborated that the decision style is a cognitive process which relates an individual’s personality to his/her self-concept, values, and needs. Sternberg and Zhang (2001) described decision styles as an identification of characteristic personality, behaviour, or type. Accordingly, all throughout the present study, the researcher will use the definitions of decision making style formulated by Driver (1979) in order to shed new light on the personal styles employed in decision making processes.

2.2

Decision Making Models

There are no limits to the number of decision-making models which may be developed. Each model can be ‘tailored’ to fit a set of purposes and promote the model builder’s own discipline. Models which have a solid foundation on chief assumptions, and comprise all the major ingredients and features are very effective in understanding the intricate nature of the decision making process. These characteristics enable such models to accurately reflect multidimensional as well asmono-dimensional views on decision making. They also consist of a typical medium through which they demonstrate the eclectic and the interdisciplinary features involved in the process of decision making by the management or leader. 20

After reviewing the relevant and extant literature on decision making models, the researcher found that many models are in common use. A summary of these models is given in Table 2.1. Since there are many related models, the researcher only reviewed the most commonly-used and widely-cited models and will expand out the contingency model in decision making by vroom and yetten (1973) it was as it was the most relate to study dependeng on situational condition of the crisis.

Table 2.1: Decision Making Models Decision Making Models Rational model Expected utility model Administrative model Bounded rationality model Dynamic decision-making model Political model General model of decision-making Garbage-can model Contingency model of decision-making Rational choice model Rational economic model Ethical decision making model The recognition primed decision-making Barnard’s model of decision making The Decision style inventory Typology of the decision making style The synoptic model Distributed decision making model

Year 1944 1944 1958 1960 1962 1963 1964 1972 1973 1977 1979 1984 1986 1995 1995 1995 1998 2003

Authors Neumann and Morgenstern Neumann Morgenstern March and Simon Simon Edwards Cyert and James Gore Cohen, March and Olsen Vroom and Yetton Janis and Mann Simon Rest Klein, Orasanu, Calderwood Barnard Rowe, Boulgarides, McGrath Scott and Bruce Dearlove Schneeweiss

Source: Articles by the authors.

In this study, the researcher will adopt the contingency model as it lends focus on the contingency model depending on the prevailing external environment when the decision or judgment is made.

2.2.1 Contingency Model in Decision Making (Vroom and Yetton, 1973)

The contingency model was developed by Victor Vroom and Phillip Yetton (1973). They based their model on another very popular model in the field of contingency

21

leadership. Most researchers consider the contingency leadership approach as one of the best methods for decision making. The situation-dependency (contingency) phenomena are not independent of each other. Rather, they may take place simultaneously. They can be broadly categorized into five types. The first one is the time contingency approach where varying decisions or judgments are made and various mental processes employed. This leadership style depends upon the time at which the decision or judgment is made. The effects of time constraints and the resultant pressure or stress on decision-making and judgment are considered in this approach. The second one is the procedural contingency approach. This type of approach depends upon the procedure used to make the relevant decision or judgment. The third is the descriptive contingency approach. This phenomenon depends on the descriptive nature of the information which is essential for making the best decision or judgment. The fourth type is the external environment contingency approach. This contingency phenomenon depends on the external environment prevalent when the decision or judgment is made. Finally, the fifth type is the internal condition contingency which depends on the internal conditions prevalent when the decision or judgment is made (Allwood and Selart, 2001). The next section the researcher only reviewed the most commonly-used and widely-cited theories and will expand out the Driver’s theory in decision making by (Driver’s 1979) it was as it was the most relate to study depending on situational condition of the crisis.

2.3

Theories of Decision Making

Several theories have been posited to illustrate and explain the decision making process.

In this section, the researcher highlights some of the relevant theories

from the research literature which may lend support to the theoretical framework of this study. The main theories on decision making and the authors are listed in Table 2.2.

22

Table 2.2: List of Decision Making Theories Cited in Literature Decision Making Theories Utility Theory Bayesian Theory Classical Decision-Making Theory Bounded Rationality Theory Behavioural Theory Contingency Theory of decision making Theory of Decision Making Prospect Theory Normative Decision Theory Regret Theory Image Theory Decision Field Theory Game Theory

Year 1944 1950 1954 1955 1963 1973 1979 1979 1980 1982 1990 1993 1994

Authors Neumann and Morgenstern Wald Edwards Simon Cyert and March Vroom and yatton Driver Kahneman and Tversky Pitz and Harren Bell Beach Townsend and Busemeyer Osborne and Rubinstein

Source: Articles by the Authors. In this study the researcher will employ the Driver’s theory to elaborate on the relationship between the environmental load and decision making style which is suitable for this study.

2.3.1 Theory of Decision Making (Driver, 1979)

Driver (1979) suggested the maximizer-satisfier model of decision making, which is in fact a contingency model related to the search for information. Psychological research undertaken by Driver over several decades revealed that there were two major and different types of decision styles, namely the satisfier and the maximizer. They also concluded that there were many decision styles within these two b r o a d categories (Driver and Streufert, 1969; Driver, 1979; Driver et al. 1998).

The decision making style can be defined as a set of learned patterns or habitual actions which are employed in making decisions. These are derived from the fundamental difference in the information collected and how these are used b y different individuals (Driver, Svensson, Amato and Pate, 1996). Driver argued that two factors can influence the decision styles. The first one is the use of information 23

and can be explained as the amount of information actually considered when making a decision. In the satisfying mode, the minimum amount of information needed is employed and a decision is made based on this information. In the other mode known as the maximizing mode, all appropriate and relevant information is validated. The second factor is focus, which describes the number of solutions considered in order to make a decision. The uni-focus mode, a special variant of the focus dimension, is used for specifying only one type of action. In contrast, the multi-focus mode employs information to come up with several different alternative solutions to the problem at hand. Uni-focused mode is mostly used by individuals who possess limited ideas and information in handling a problem. On the other hand, multi-focused mode of decision making is employed by people who can find many pros and cons in every state of affair or course of action. Driver (1990) went still further with his analysis of the decision making styles and categorized them into decisive, flexible, hierarchic, integrative, and systemic as shown in Figure 2.2.

Brousseau, Driver, Hourihan and Larsson (2006) elaborated on the five decision styles originally proposed by Driver (1979) as follows: The decisive style uses the minimum amount of information and allows for the derivation of solutions at a rapid pace. In general, the decisions made using this style are not revoked once they are made. Loyalty and honesty are the exclusive features of this style, which is further distinguished with people who value speed, action, consistency, and efficiency. Once a plan is set, the people using this style adhere to it and proceed accordingly. In dealing with others, people following this style value brevity, loyalty, clarity, and honesty. Time is valuable in this style (Brousseau et al., 2006).

Unifocus

Decisive

Hierarchic Systematic

Multifocus

Flexible

Satisfier

Integrative

Maximizer

Figure 2.1: Theory of Decision Making Source: Driver (1979)

24

The second type, known as the flexible style, also involves rapid execution of a decision. However, it concentrates more on adaptability. The available information is dissected into many suggestions or meanings. The most vital feature of this style is that any selected option which does not function as expected is immediately replaced by an alternative. Thus, this type of decision style is inherently flexible. Since all options are kept open by the individuals who follow this style, there is no chance of being trapped in a commitment to follow a single course of action. The flexible style, like the decisive style, concentrates on speed. However, in the former, the emphasis is on adaptability. Once solving a problem, an individual adopting the flexible mode will obtain only enough data to select a line of attack and rapidly change course if there is need to (Brousseau et al., 2006).

The third style, called the hierarchic style, requires large amounts of information in order to assess the problem at hand. The style preaches the meticulous construction of a very accurate and detailed plan for solving a particular issue. The main benefit of this mode of decision making is the quality of the results it can achieve. This style formulates associations based on mutual respect and trust, and the people who adopt this style maintain long-term friendly relationships with their colleagues. Therefore, another merit of this decision making approach is the face-to-face interactions that are grounded on relational orientation. Individuals in the hierarchic mode do not jump to conclusions. Rather, they analyse a very large amount of information and expect the others to participate challenging their decisions, analyses, and views as required. From the hierarchic point of view, decisions ought to stand the test of time (Brousseau et al., 2006).

The integrative style is the fourth kind of decision making style which has a high information demand. This demand arises from the need to assess the circumstances of interest. Leaders who employ this mode of decision making look at a problem from various angles and try to come up with a list of alternative solutions. As such, this style requires exploration and creativity, and therefore the plans and methods are not everlasting. They are usually changed depending on the scenario. The integrative style, as its name implies, is suitable for working in groups. Trust and 25

cooperation are the major factors. People who use this style do not necessarily search for one optimum solution. Their tendency is to mould any circumstance of concern quite broadly, considering a myriad of elements that can overlap with additional related situations. As a consequence, they take decisions that are defined broadly and which consist of various courses of actions. When working with other people, the integrative decision makers prefer lots of inputs and are happy to examine a broad range of perspectives, including those which contradict with their own, before reaching to any conclusion. Decision making for the integrative decision maker is not an incident but rather a process (Brousseau et al. 2006).

The last category is the systemic style. It is a combination of the hierarchic and the integrative styles. Driver et al. (1990) simplified this somewhat sophisticated set of decision styles by combining the hierarchic, the flexible, and the decisive styles into one class known as the “restrictive” style. Driver et al. (1990) also combined the systemic and the integrative styles into one category called the “comprehensive” style.

Driver et al. (1998) also looked into the effects of crisis or environmental loads on decision making. They defined environmental load as any phenomenon in the surrounding which increased an individual’s sense of pressure. Common environmental loads include time pressure and response uncertainty. After the definition and classification of the environmental loads, Driver et al. (1998) further elaborated that if the environmental load was high or low in intensity, then leaders usually employed the restrictive decision making style. However, when the load was moderate, their theory suggested that the comprehensive decision making style was preferred by most leaders. From their observations and analysis, therefore, Driver et al. (1998) suggested that the type of decision making style used was contingent upon the particular situation at hand and also varied with any change in the environmental load (e.g. additional stress, time pressures, et cetera.). Based on this idea, they were able to determine a nonlinear relationship between the characteristics of the crisis and the decision making style employed.

26

In other words, when a leader has enough information and some alternative solutions, that is moderate environmental load, he/she will tend to use the comprehensive decision making style. In contrast, when sufficient information and alternative solutions are unavailable--a case of high or low environmental load--most leaders prefer the restrictive decision making style.

2.4

Decision Making in Crisis

Fiedler (1967) argued that a particular decision making style which is effective in an organization under certain circumstances, may not be very suitable for other situations. Therefore, he highlighted that there is no single decision making style which is appropriate for all situations. Cook et al. (2005) further highlighted that inadequate preparation and training, acute stress, and ambiguous authority during a crisis situation can result in suboptimal decisions being made by a leader. Sayegh, Anthony and Perrewe (2004) formulated a conceptual model of managerial decision making process which emphasized the impact of emotions on an intuitive decision making process under crisis conditions. They elaborated that an emotional response is a necessary and inevitable component of a ‘‘rational’’ decision making process, specifically in situations involving crisis within an organizations. Additionally, they argued that the emotional response to a crisis situation may be the key component in a manager’s successful utilization of tacit knowledge and intuitive decision making strategies.

Sommer and Pearson (2007) also investigated decision making styles employed by management teams in an organization under crisis situations and formulated a theoretical model involving creative decision making. For their research, they acquired information from 191 individuals in 37 management teams. These respondents

participated

in

multi-hour,

multi-phased

organizational

crisis

simulations in Canada and USA. Their findings demonstrated that crisis management teams made creative decisions when they were familiar with the solutions to the problems, had faith in their co-workers, and possessed a tendency to be creative. 27

Schraagen and Ven (2008) formulated a critical thinking method which helped to facilitate the reasoning process and make it more explicit and robust by tying it to specific hypotheses. They tested their new technique by observing the decision making process of 60 respondents. Initially they explained to the participants how innovate techniques could be used to improve the decision making process during crisis situations. Then they collected data as the respondents made decisions under simulated organizational crisis conditions. They found that the participants could make better decisions by employing their critical thinking method, especially in crisis situations where they are susceptible to make biased decisions.

Rosenthal and Hart (1991) highlighted some essential aspects of crisis management and the management of expert advice. In their seminal paper they pointed out important points about the behaviour of the decision makers under conditions of stress and why it must be taken into account. During this phase of their investigation they acted as the management experts. Subsequently, they reversed their roles and analysed the dynamics of the experts and the way they gave advice during crisis situations. During this second phase of their investigation they acted as the crisis managers. Dinur (2011), on the other hand, explored the idea and role of “common sense” and tried to distinguish it from “uncommon sense” as applied to decision making by managers. Further, they established the ideas behind MCS (common sense) and MUS (uncommon sense), as well as O and M errors. His label situational behavior an “O” (Organic) Error; that is, the error of using an organic decisionmaking processes (and therefore MUS) to solve a mechanistic problem. “M” (mechanistic) error occurs when managers try to use standard procedures in situations with low task certainty. They concluded that from a purely mechanistic perspective, MCS was the most appropriate method in situations of high task certainty. MCS helps to make decisions under relatively certain conditions and uses a particular type of analytical framework which incorporates experience, past practices, and decision processes. It is therefore accessible and primarily mechanistic in nature.

28

The main idea behind the mechanistic MCS is that during a crisis situation the manager considers himself or herself as the main driving force for solving a particular problem. This means that the manager is the internal locus of control (Rotter, 1990) as he or she possesses the requisite knowledge, training, and skills for tackling the issue. MUS, on the other hand, helps to make decisions when there is an element of uncertainty in the task involved (i.e. insufficient amount of knowledge and/or frameworks of analysis). It preaches the use of intuition, creativity, and imagination in addressing a problem. In MUS scenarios, managers themselves do not possess the required level of knowledge or expertise in the relevant problem area and therefore have no basis for making the decisions.

Ijaduola (2007) investigated decision making processes in a completely different type of organization—schools. He found that the relationship between decision-making strategies and crisis management, as employed by single-sex and mixed-sex school principals, was not significant.

Santen, Jonker and Wijngaards (2009) suggested that the most effective way for making decisions during crisis conditions, in the context of bureaucracy or politics, was to use an integrative negotiation approach. This helped to develop a shared mental model for making the best decisions. This, they highlighted, was the reason why the Command and Control approach did not work effectively in the context of a bureaucratic political crisis situation. Moreover, they pointed out that in such context, the decision making process under crisis conditions resembled a negotiation process. Based on their research they concluded that an assertive and cooperative approach was the most suitable method of decision making under crisis situations for these scenarios.

Dearstyne (2007) reviewed and analysed the interviews of New York City Fire Department’s (FDNY) officials after the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001. He looked into how FDNY had used vital information during this major crisis situation. .From his analysis, he gained insight into the optimal use of information by the emergency 29

services to make life and death decisions under critical conditions. He, however, concluded that the interviews did not provide definitive answers to certain critical questions like the timeliness of the order to evacuate the towers.

Pearson and Clair (1998) elaborated that the central elements which define crisis (high stakes, urgency, and ambiguity) also seriously restrain the capability of individuals to evaluate information and effectively take decisions. Burke and Miller (1990) suggested that in vague situations, decision-makers are inclined to use intuition in combination with rational analysis. Also Khatri and Ng (2000) suggested that both the rational and the intuitive processes are equally significant for effective strategic decision making. Intuition enables us to synthesize separate experiences and data bits into an integrated image. In crisis conditions, professionals encounter crucial scenarios of decision making that require split second action. The pressures of making life-impacting, timely, and

informed decisions establishes an

environment needing immediacy and common information as those described by Argyris and Schön (1978) in action learning circumstances. In addition, Boin et al. (2009) argued that the decisions taken under crisis conditions encircle uncertainty. There is limited time for consultation and reaching an agreement with ones advisors, colleagues, and other experts who are normally involved in the decision making process.

Naglewski (2006) suggested that in decision making process, the decision maker selects a number of reactions demanding broad thinking, foresight, experience, confidence, and specialized skills. He further stated that “whereas some people seem to have an innate ability to make effective crisis decisions, others, equally qualified, fail” (Naglewski, 2006. p. 48). In this section the researcher has reviewed literature on the decision making process and the different styles, and has explored some of the related models and theories. In the next section, the researcher will relate decision making to the characteristics of crisis, which is the main focus of this study.

30

2.5

Crisis

The word “crisis” does not possess a uniform or clear conceptual content. Rather, there are many and usually mutually diverging interpretations. From an etymological perspective, the word crisis derives from the Greek language. In ancient Greek this word is used to mean “decision” or “judgment,” namely, the critical moment that specifies further negative or positive development of the situation. The core of concept of the word “crisis” then indicates that the persons involved must make a decision but that a decision has not been made yet (Greene, Lee, Trask and Rheinscheld, 2000). The root word of “crisis” is from the old Greek word “krisis”, which means “decision”. In early Greek writings the term was used to describe a political conflict or to elaborate on the developmental process of an ailment . The word was then almost forgotten for several centuries until the concept was brought back in the study of political economy. Ever since, the concept of crisis has been used increasingly in disparate disciplines like economics, political science, philosophy, psychology, history, and public health (Pauchant and Douville, 1993). Currently, crisis mainly suggests decision, ability to discriminate or discrimination, judgment, choice. However, it also signifies clarification, conflict resolution, and exit (Milašinović and Kešetović, 2008) in day to day language. The Longman Dictionary provides the following definition for crisis: “a turning point in the course of anything; uncertain time or state of affairs, moment of great danger or difficulty” (Longman, 1978).

Hamblin (1958) stated succinctly that a crisis is a type of critical or emergency situation in which everyone involved faced a common threat. Fink (1986) elaborated that crisis is any action that can increase in intensity, fall under tight government and media scrutiny, interfere with ordinary business operations, and influence the bottom line and image of an organization. Pauchant and Mitroff (1992) looked at crisis from a different perspective. They argued that crisis is a disruption or disturbance which physically affects a system as a whole and threatens its fundamental assumptions, its subjective sense of self, and even its existence. Barton (1993, p. 2) Stated that crisis

31

“is a major, unpredictable event that has potentially negative results which may significantly damage an organization and its employees, products, services, financial condition, and reputation. ” Crisis is “a situation faced by an individual, a group or an organization, which they are unable to cope with, by the use of normal routine procedures and, in which stress is created by sudden change” (Booth, 1993, p. 86).

Darling (1994) defined crisis as a time of uncertainty and instability in the state of affairs in which there is an impending decisive change. This change can either have the possibility of a negative (undesirable) outcome or have the potential for a positive (highly desirable) result.

Lerbinger (1997, p.4) described crisis as “an event that brings, or has the potential for bringing, an organization into disrepute and imperils its future profitability, growth, and possibly its very survival.” Pearson and Clair (1998, p.60) defined crisis as a “low-probability, yet high-impact incidence which threatens the viability of an organization and is distinguished with ambiguous causes, effects, and means to resolve, besides by belief that decisions ought to be taken swiftly”. According to Wilcox, Ault and Agee (1998, p.180), the optimum definition of crisis is the definition provided by Pacific Telesis, which is Pacific Bell’s parent company. This definition states that “an extraordinary event or series of events that adversely affects the integrity of the product, the reputation or financial stability of the organization; or the health or well-being of employees, the community, or the public at large” can be considered to be a crisis. Kash and Darling (1998) defined a crisis situation as any unexpected and unforeseen occurrence which has the potential of harming employees, customers, or even the public. Additionally, it may cause businesses to shut down, disrupt operations, or threaten the reputation of an organization. Ray (1999) conceptualized crisis in a more mundane and practical manner. He defined it as any phenomenon which results due to organizational fallacies. Finally, Boin (2009) defined crisis as a state or situation which incorporates threat, urgency, and uncertainty.

Before proceeding further, a distinction can be made between crisis and disaster. A 32

crisis situation results essentially due to such problems as inefficient management structure and practice or failure to adapt to a change. Therefore, it is partly selfinflicted. In contrast, a disaster is a situation or occurrence when “an enterprise is confronted with sudden unpredictable a catastrophic change over which it has little control” (Faulkner, 2001, p.135). Also crisis is ‘‘any action or failure to act that interferes with an organization’s on-going functions, the acceptable attainment of its objectives, its viability or survival, or that has a detrimental personal effect as perceived by the majority of its employees, clients or constituents’’(Faulkner, 2001, p.136). A crisis can also be defined as a situation which has “a high degree of instability and carries the potential for negative results that can endanger the continuity of the organization”(Klann, 2003, p. 4).

Gilliland and James (2005) defined crises as situations or events conceived as difficult in an intolerable manner that overstep the available resources of an individual and his/her coping mechanisms. Also, a crisis can be thought of as some event, usually unexpected or sudden, that interrupts the normal institution’s operations or educational mission and jeopardizes the personnel’s well-being, financial

resources,

properties,

and/or

reputation

of

the

organization

(Zdziarski,2006). Cooper (2007) argued that crisis represents an opportunity for intervention, a moment at which the outcome, for good or bad, might be influenced. Moreover, Coombs (2011) stated that crisis is the perception of an unforeseen phenomenon which poses threat to important expectancies of an organization’s stakeholders and can have significant negative impact on an organization’s performance.

Billings et al. (1980) conceptualized crisis as having five major characteristics, namely: response uncertainty, time pressure, the element of surprise, importance of resolution, and frequency of occurrence. Kent (1963) reviewed the characteristics of the crises that are employed in the sociological and psychological research and concluded that: (a) crisis is acute, not chronic, though the crisis length is commonly unspecified; (b) crisis results in behavioural changes that are often pathological like scape-goating, frustration, and inefficiency; (c) crisis threatens the objectives and 33

goals of the individual concerned; (d) crisis is a relative matter, i.e. what is crisis for one party may not be a crisis for the other one; and (e) crisis leads to tension in the organization, including anxiety and physical tension.

2.5.1 Characteristics of Crisis

Characteristics of crisis refer to environmental load which is any stimulus in the Environment that increases a person’s sense of pressure such as time pressure and uncertainty (Driver et al.998). Billings et al. (1980) conceptualized crisis as having five major characteristics: response uncertainty, time pressure, element of surprise, conflict resolution, and frequency of occurrence. They further proposed that time pressure and response uncertainty is two characteristics of crisis that can affect decision making.

Pearson and Clair (1998) highlighted that the decision maker faces abnormal challenges when his/her organization is in crisis: (1) flow of information is sporadic and rapid; (2) many stakeholders get involved; (3) the time resource is limited; (4) the crisis may be anticipated but can also be unforeseen; and (5) despite the fact that timeliness is fundamental, the quality of the decisions cannot be sacrificed for speed.

The features of a technological crisis condition often result in substantial stressors for a crisis manager for instance: severe threat to human lives, important values, politics, ecology, finance et cetera. In classical western management of crises: (1) the values are usually prioritized in the order: man, environment, and material, i.e., “people before property;” (2) a complicated combination of infrequent events; (3) limited control; (4) great uncertainty; (5) limited information; and (6) pressure of time (Pearson and Clair, 1998). Stressful interactions amongst leaders and employees can lower their crisis management capacities, and hence their abilities to stop catastrophic series of events from developing. The decision makers themselves can be exposed to physical danger where fear of failure, stress of responsibility, and lost or reduced control over a circumstance that may be changing rapidly are often experienced. 34

The decision maker can be pushed to select from among the evils since there are no available solutions which produce no harm at all. He or she experiences intensely limited information to base decisions on, disagreements and non-rational interactions with superiors, colleagues, or subordinates, which may all intensify the burden. Media stress, to a growing extent is an additional and sometimes significant element in the overall critical situation (Pearson and Clair, 1998).

According to Huy (1999), the main characteristics of organizational crises are: (1) high levels of ambiguity or vagueness with unknown effects and even causes; (2) limited probability of incidence; (3) unfamiliar and unusual events; (4) quick response requirements; (5) serious threats to the well-being of the organization and its stakeholders; and (6) a problem requiring decisions which will lead to negative and/or positive change. Thus, crisis may be best described as a unique and rare event (Sniezek, Wilkins and Wadlington, 2001) bringing unexpected life-threatening and time-pressured (McKinney, 1993) sequence of incidents and demanding prompt decisions from the management or leader. Additionally, the immediate consequences of crises spread out quickly to other people and areas (e.g., potential for aggressiveness and violence, shortage of supplies, panic, et cetera). Quick action is critical in order to restrict the amount of damage.

Crises are also characterized by

uncontrollability, where many outcomes of crises may be partially affected (Sniezek et al. 2001) but not fully controlled.

Having reviewed the phenomenon of crisis and its different definitions and characteristics as shown in Table 2.3, the researcher identified some common characteristics used by the different authors, specifically time pressure and response uncertainty. Therefore, the researcher adopted Billings et al. (1980) conceptualization of characteristics of crisis which combines the characteristics of crisis into two important ones: time pressure and response uncertainty. In the next section, the researcher will relate the characteristics of crisis to leadership styles employed, which is the primary focus of this study. The features of crises include uncertainty where not much is understood about the situation or event to be able to find a suitable action to take and know what concomitant results that action would bring; threat to 35

properties, a possibility that human life or possessions are, or would soon be, lost (Sniezek et al. 2001).

Table 2.3: Summary of Characteristics of Crisis from Previous Studies

Response Uncertainty Time Pressure Element of Surprise Conflict Resolution Frequency of Occurrence

2.6

Pearson & Clair(1998) √ √ √

Huy (1999) √ √ √

Sniezek et al (2001) √ √

McKinney (1993) √ √





Billings et al.(1980) √ √ √ √ √

Leadership

Leaders have to make numerous decisions every day when handling crises. Seldom does a day pass without the media showing stories about leadership. The term leadership is one of the world’s oldest notions. In ancient times, words carrying the meanings of “military commander,” “head of state,” “proconsul,” “principal,” “king or “chief” were quite common in most communities. These expressions used to differentiate the rulers from the other members of the communities (Bass, 1997). Mainly, the term “leadership” was first used in Anglo-Saxon heritage countries (Bass, 1997) and it only appeared in Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century. Leadership is one of the world’s oldest and most contemporary issues. Fisher (1999) highlighted a paradox related to leadership by stating that the majority of the professionals cannot lead and meantime they are not willing to follow. Kotter (1988) defined leadership as the process of directing and steering a group in one direction, mostly through non-coercive ways. Great leaders are even on high demand nowadays since societies and technologies are becoming more and more advanced. The raging business environment creates the need for leaders who can tackle the challenges and satisfy the demands of the organizations. The study of leadership has moved increasingly, since the late 1940s, towards an understanding of the leadership styles (Bryman, 1992).

36

2.6.1 Definition of Leadership

The scientific literature offers numerous definitions for leadership that vary between the different groups of researchers. For example, Gardner (1990) defined leadership as the process of influencing the activities of a group or an individual in terms of their actions associated with achievement of goal in given situations. In another example, (Bryman, 1992, p.2) defined leadership as “a process of social influence whereby a leader steers members of a group towards a goal”. Jaques and Clement (1994) defined it as process wherein a person sets the goals or directions for others and directs them to proceed with him/her together in that direction with commitment and competence. Bennis and Goldsmith (1994) described leadership as what the leaders do, like acting with competence and integrity, demonstrating the present, drawing picture of the future, and interpreting reality. According to Lunenburg and Ornstein (1996), a leader does not exist in solitude. They need followers so as to practice their authority and influence them in the process. In addition, Gerber,Nel, and Dyk (1996) defined leadership as an interpersonal process whereby leaders steer groups’ and individual’s activities in the direction of a purposeful pursuit of specified objectives under particular conditions through effective communication. Lastly, Vecchio (1997) described leadership as the process whereby leaders influence the values, attitudes, and behaviours of others in relation to organizational aims and objectives.

According to Daft (1999), leadership can be defined as the influence between leaders and followers where both have shared purpose/value and desires to change. AdeyemiBello (2001) explained that the style of leadership was one area which received substantial attention in the leadership literature. The leadership styles commonly described in the relevant literature is situational, charismatic, directive, autocratic, afflictive, democratic, participative, consultative, and coercive (Bass, 2008; Goleman, 2000; Jung and Avolio, 1999). According to Northouse (2007), leadership is a process by which an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. According to Lundgren (2010), leadership comprises three factors: the leader, the followers, and the interaction between the two.

37

2.6.2 Leadership Styles

Hollander (1978) has elaborated that leadership styles are referred to the most common characteristics across the circumstances. In this study, the researcher adopted Hollander's (1978) definition as it focuses on the style of the leader in multiple conditions. Northouse (2004) shared a common opinion that a leadership style is nearly equivalent to the way how leaders influence their subordinates. Casimir (2001) and Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001) on the other hand, defined the style of leadership as relatively stable pattern of behaviour exhibited by leaders. Coleman (2005) defined leadership styles with respect to influence, specifically, in the sense of who is the one exerting influence, for what it is exerted, and what are its results. Leadership styles, therefore, represent important aspects of leadership as a whole (Muhammad, Isa, Othman and Rahim, 2009). However, the exact definition of leadership style is very complex and defining leadership style has overwhelmed the literature, much like the issue of defining leadership. Leadership style can be defined as emphasis patterns indexed by the intensity or frequency of certain leadership attitudes and the behaviors which the leaders associate with the various leadership functions (Zaccaro, Rittman and Marks, 2001).

Avolio and Bass (2005) argued that leadership style comprised transformational and transactional leadership styles. Transactional leadership focuses on the exchange of rewards and promises of rewards for good performance between the leader and his followers. It is, therefore, responsive to the immediate self-interests of followers. Transactional leadership is measured by three criteria: contingent reward leadership, management by exception (active), and management by exception (passive). In contrast, transformational leadership focuses not on exchange of rewards for obtaining desired performance from the followers, but rather in developing them intellectually and inspiring them to transcend their own self-interests for a higher collective good. Transformational leadership is measured by five criteria: idealized influence (attributed) idealized influence (behaviour), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

38

2.6.2.1 Transformational Leadership Style

Transformational leadership behavior is defined as the leaders’ degree of a possibility to increase abilities, aspirations, by encouraging their followers to make sacrifices to accomplish organizational goals (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership concept was introduced by Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) in order to differentiate this style from the other prevalent leadership styles. The uniqueness of this style of leadership is that the transformational leader empowers his/her followers and encourages them to do more than what is normally expected of them. The most broadly researched version of the transformational leadership theory was espoused by Bass (1985) who clarified that transformational leadership materializes: when leaders widen and inspire their followers, when they make their followers realize the importance of the group’s overall goals, and when they motivate their followers to pursue the interests of the group over their own self-interests. Bass (1990) elaborated that, in essence, the transformational leader instigates and nurtures a deep seated commitment to the aspirations of the organization in the hearts of his followers through empowerment and inspiration. (Gary, 2006) further highlighted the processes by which a transformational leader accomplishes this: (1) providing their followers with awareness on the importance of the outcomes of the stipulated tasks, (2) directing followers in the direction of levels of performance exceeding the established standards of the group or organization, (3) motivating higher-order intrinsic wants and needs, and (4) concentrating on empowerment of their followers rather than dependence (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Furthermore, according to Burns (1978), the transformational type of leadership is evident when leaders and their followers get each other involved in such a way as to bring one and the other to high levels of morality and motivation. A transformational leader is a leader who can boost the levels of his/her followers’ awareness and interests in the organization or group, raises the levels of each follower’s confidence, and attempts to move followers’ concerns from existence only to growth and achievement (Bass, 1985). As a consequence, followers or subordinates of a transformational leader are motivated and strive to perform better than what is expected of them. They are fuelled by the feelings of admiration of; trust in; and respect and loyalty to the leader. The transactional and transformational leadership styles have been studied in many 39

empirical studies ever since Burns (1978) first presented these descriptions in his discussion of political leadership. Burns categorized leaders as either transactional or transformational, whereas researchers like Bass (1985) considered leadership as a continuum with transactional leadership on one end and transformational leadership on the other end. Transformational leaders usually elicit higher positive emotions and motivation from their followers through developing and representing inspiring visions of the future (Bass, 1997). These leaders expend extra effort by further boosting the levels of confidence of their subordinates and by raising the values of outputs for those subordinates (Bass, 1985). Because of these positive effects of transformational leadership, it has become the most widely researched leadership style in recent times and the volume of studies related to it is greater than those for all other types of leadership combined (Judge and Piccolo (2004).

The latest version of the transformational leadership theory comprises four dimensions:

individualized

consideration,

idealized

influence

(charisma),

inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Individualized consideration, the first of four dimensions, implies that the leader provides coaching and encouragement, mentorship, and support to the followers in order to ensure his/her undivided attention to their needs and concerns. This group of leaders both realizes and shows acceptance of differences between the desires and needs of their followers. These leaders develop and empower their followers by developing and sustaining a two-way style of communication (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998), assigning tasks, and monitoring the performance of the followers in the tasks in order to determine if, and when, additional support may be required (Behling and McFillen, 1996).

The Idealized influence, which constitutes the second dimension, is the element of charisma

in the transformational leadership style wherein the leader is admired,

respected, and eventually transcribed by his/her followers (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass and Avolio, 1994). A charismatic leader appeals to the emotions of his/her followers and boosts identification with him/her by showing convictions (Judge and Piccolo, 1994) such as moral and ethical conduct and the values of integrity. Tracey 40

and Hinkin (1998), highlighted that one of the major components of idealized influence is development and communication of common visions and views. Visions inspire the followers to accept a typical futuristic position. This is accomplished when the follower can align his/her personal values and self-interests with those of the group or the leader.

Hater and Bass (1988) postulated that inspirational motivation, the third dimension in transformational leadership, is similar to idealized influence. Inspirational motivation stresses passionate communication of inspiring and appealing organizational vision with the followers. By modelling suitable behaviours and using symbols to concentrate the efforts of the followers (Bass and Avolio (1990), a leader with inspirational motivation communicates optimism about attainment of the future goals, challenges the followers with sublime standards, and imparts meaning to tasks. Judge and Piccolo (2004) elaborated that leaders displaying inspirational motivation show commitment to the shared visions and goals so as to inspire their followers to strive for a better future (Stone, Russell and Patterson, 2003).The leaders establish relationships with their followers by employing bilateral communication styles which engenders strong ties between the followers and their leaders, and thus brings about a shift from the pursuit of personal interest to communal goal.

On the other hand, intellectual stimulation, the final dimension, is a transformational leadership behaviour which enhances the awareness of the followers about dilemma and encourages them to think about familiar and old issues from new standpoints (Bass, 1985). A leader who employs intellectual stimulation challenges presumptions, takes risks, demands his/her followers’ ideas, and motivates creativity in them (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Such a leader does not criticize the mistakes of his/her followers publicly but rather encourages creativity in problem solving while stressing rationality in the decision-making process (Bass, 1990).

Berson and Avolio (2004) elaborated that transformational leaders form relationships 41

with their subordinates; communicate clearly the main visions and goals of the organization to their followers; and influence their employees to help achieve those goals, especially during times of crisis. Also, Kelly (2005) argued that the most effective leadership style in times of crisis is the transformational leadership style. This is because leaders who employ this style can adapt to changes very rapidly. (Bass, 1985) also supported this conclusion and added that transformational leadership is most suited for handling critical situations because it demands that the concerned leader peruse his/her surrounding for additional support and find innovative solutions. In this study, the researcher will use Bass and Avolio (1995) definition of transformational leadership as the guiding definition for the research on transformational style of leadership.

2.6.2.2 Transactional Leadership

Bass and Avolio (1995) defined transactional leadership style as the exchange of rewards and/or the promises of reward for good performance between the leader and his/her followers. On the continuum of leadership styles, the transactional leadership style is at the opposite end from the transformational leadership style. The transactional leadership style, which is thought to be more common than the transformational leadership style (Burns, 1978), is defined as a process of exchange whereby the leader recognizes the needs of the followers and thereupon defines relevant exchange processes to satisfy his/her expectations as well as the needs of the followers. The style of transactional leadership describes those leaders who motivate and guide their followers toward established aims and objectives by clarifying the task and role requirements, and by employing contingent rewards as a motivational tool (Robbins, 2003). Accordingly, it is anticipated that the leadership style results in follower’s compliance; however, because the transactional leader’s emphasis is on providing his/her followers with something which they want in return for something which the leader wants, the transactional leadership style does not have the potential to create high commitment and enthusiasm amongst the followers (Bass, 1985).

The transactional leadership style is distinguished with a general tendency of 42

avoidance of risk (Yammarino, Spangler and Bass, 1993). Some of its other aspects include: (1) rewards and punishments, (2) dependence on completion of tasks, and (3) a hierarchical authority. Tracey and Hinkin (1998) and Bass (1985) clarified that a transactional leader serves to specify and effectively communicate the roles and task requirements for the subordinates and the rewards associated with their successful completion. In return, the followers strive to show good performance and achieve the set targets. Clarification supplies the followers with the necessary confidence required to accomplish their tasks and enables them to conceive how their needs can be satisfied by acceptable performance. This imparts adequate value to the prescribed result for the follower and enables the efforts needed to achieve the outcomes.

The transactional leadership style is actually internally oriented with strong accentuation on control (O’Regan and Ghobadian, 2004). This leadership style essentially provides a solid structure that supervises employees quite closely. The heightened supervision often implies better safety records and enables the organization to conduct more sophisticated functions than with the other leadership styles (Zohar and Luria, 2004). Transactional leaders are “by the book,” which means that an organization knows in an exact manner where the transactional leader is standing. In critical times this can be advantageous for subordinates since the employees will be able to know how their manger will tackle the circumstances of concern (Hutton, 2004; Curtis, 1996). The transactional leader tends to follow standard operating procedures and stay on target, thus making these leaders a good match for the public service organizations (Curtis, 1996). These leaders control vagueness by formalizing teaching (Vera and Crossan, 2004). Therefore, this leadership style suits most of those situations in which the organization has better standard operating procedures (Athanasaw, 2003).

The transactional leadership style consists of two important aspects: contingent reward and management-by-exception, which is either passive or active (Bass and Avolio, 1990). Bass (1985) differentiated these two aspects or dimensions based on the leader’s level of engagement with his/her followers and on the activity level. The 43

contingent reward dimension involves a clarification of the leader’s expectations and of the tasks which must be completed in order to obtain the rewards. Additionally, this dimension of transactional leadership style uses incentives to uplift the motivation levels of the followers. The contingent reward element of leadership entails that both the leader and his/her followers construct an agreement as to the recognition of acceptable performance and the commensurate rewards. Essentially, the transactional leader adopts the contingent reward option to establish constructive transactions with his/her followers in order to realize the organizational goals.

Management-by-exception concerns the degree to which the leader enforces the rules and regulations in order to prevent mistakes and the extent to which he/she takes corrective actions on the basis of the previously established leader-follower transaction results (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). The transactional leader who practices management-by-exception concentrates on the mistakes of the followers and only intervenes if the work standards have not been fulfilled. Active management-byexception entails active monitoring by the leaders of the performances of their followers so as to detect deviations from the standards before the deviations grow into problems (Hater and Bass, 1988). In contrast, leaders who practice passive management-by-exception wait until behaviours of their followers create problems before taking actions to mitigate the situation and preserve the performance standards. In both cases of management-by-exception, the leader emphasizes on employment of tactics such as negative feedback, punishment, and discipline to enforce the desired levels of performance (Bass and Avolio, 1993). The most effective leader should be capable of choosing the right leadership style and element for the emerging circumstances (O’Regan and Ghobadian, 2004). If the transformational leadership style offers vision for the organization, then the transactional leadership style provides the framework for achievement of this vision (Vera and Crossan, 2004).

Hutton (2004) and Curtis (1996) further suggested that transactional leaders learn exactly where they stand in crisis. Critical times, this can be advantageous for subordinates since the employees will be able to know how their manager will tackle 44

the circumstances. Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) elaborated on this claim and suggested that transactional leadership style establishes clear standards and expectations of performance when the condition is unpredictable, difficult, and stressful. Hutton (2004) and Zohar and Luria (2004) argued that the transactional style was associated with rigid structure which closely supervised employees. This, they highlighted, allowed the leader to enable the organization to carry out more complex operating procedures compared to all other leadership styles.

Thus, according to the discussions above, one of the main qualities of an effective leader is to be able to judge which leadership style (transformational or transactional) is appropriate for a particular scenario. Sarros and Santora (1995) supported this view and demonstrated that both styles of leadership are important in enabling positive and acceptable employee performance. Bass (1998) also supported the idea of changing leadership styles by stetting that an effective leader harmoniously integrated both task and relationship oriented leadership approaches.

Vera and Crossan (2004) did further research and connected relation or task oriented leadership styles to transformational and transactional leadership styles, respectively. Their findings and those of Bass (1998) implied that transactional leadership style was very suitable for a critical or crisis situation. However, it may not be the most effective style unless integrated with the transformational leadership style depending upon the scenario. Vera and Crossan (2004) further elaborated that a leader can be transactional, transformational, both, or neither because transformational leadership style builds on the transactional leadership style and also on contingencies. In this study, the researcher will use Bass and Avolio’s (1995) definition of transactional leadership style.

2.7

Leadership Styles in Crisis

Yukl (1989) suggested that there exists no individual leadership style that fits all organizations, contexts, or situations. Rather than continuously employing a single 45

style, an effective leader may demonstrate various leadership styles fitting different circumstances. Meindl et al. (1985) argued that attributions to leadership should be higher in conditions of crisis downturn and crisis decline; hence this relationship was expected to be quadratic rather than linear. Goleman (2000) argued that the best leader was one who had more than four styles of leadership (and sometimes even more) and who knew when to switch from one to the other effectively and efficiently. This type of effective leadership may be the deciding factor behind the survival of a company during times of crisis. Halverson, Holladay, Kazama and Quiñones (2004) supported this observation and elaborated that both attributes, the charisma of a leader and the commitment of his/her followers to the goals of the organization, have significant impact specifically during crisis situations. Tushman and Charles (1996) also found that the good performance of an organization in times of crises usually depended on the leadership abilities of a charismatic leader. Additionally, Wooten and James (2008) reasoned that leadership is vital to an organization because in critical situations the leader needs to employ different skills, abilities, and draw on personal characteristics and personality traits which enable him/her to plan effectively and respond to the particular crisis appropriately. Heath (1998) reasoned along a slightly different line and maintained that the centralized authority in any organization facilitated fast decision making and comprehensive grasp of the crisis scenario.

Vera and Crossan (2004) argued that there was no single leadership style appropriate for all situations and that selection of the wrong leadership style led to negative results in crisis. Crisis leadership, therefore, denotes a set of actions undertaken by a leader to bring about immediate change in people’s behaviour and beliefs as well as to achieve needed outcomes (Gardner, 1995). In a crisis situation, a leader provides “stability, reassurance, confidence, and a sense of control” (Lussier and Achua, 2004, p. 382). Thus, the traits of leaders and their relations with their followers may be predictive of their individual actions in a crisis. Leaders who demonstrate strong ties with their followers somehow perform differently than those whose bonds with their followers are weak (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). Kouzes and Posner (2007) further demonstrated that in vague situations like a crisis, the relationship-oriented leaders function well and possess loyal following because they are usually participative, 46

open, and tend to provide their followers with motivation to resolve problems in innovative ways. This explanation fits well with the contingency theory of leadership whereby Fiedler (1967) suggested that the first priority of task oriented leaders is task accomplishment and the second priority is good interpersonal relations. Fiedler argued that during crisis periods both leaders and people focus on their main priorities in order to accomplish the job, i.e. they employ transactional leadership style. He further elaborated that when the situation involved moderate levels of stress effective leaders focused on both the development of interpersonal relations and the accomplishment of the tasks at hand, i.e. they employed transformational leadership style. He then concluded that leaders must therefore change their leadership style according to the situation.

The Situational Leadership Theory follows a similar line of reasoning and state that there is no single "best" leadership style for all situations and so leaders should employ a combination of both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership style befitting a particular situation. Therefore, situational leadership encourages variation of the leadership style to fit a specific scenario. Tseng and Cho (2009) also concurred with the basic tenet of the situational leadership theory and added that an effective leader must change his/her leadership style based on the circumstances and when the situation changed, he/she should change the leadership style employed accordingly.

Sjöberg et al. (2006) suggested that leadership in high stress and complicated rescue operations can be thought of as a causal process comprising three broad time- related categories. The pre-operation routine work condition influences the leadership during an actual rescue operation. This in turn influences the post- operation day to day working conditions. The everyday working conditions deal with training and exercises, previous mission experiences, personal knowledge of co- actors, and the overall climate of the organization. During a complex rescue operation, the effectiveness of the leader depends upon how well he/she can understand what is at stake (human lives) and how to manage the situation so that the task is achieved with minimal loss. To understand leadership in crisis situations, Sjöberg et al. (2006) 47

studied the stress reactions among the rescue commanders, their leadership behaviour, and their managerial routines. From their analysis they noted three problem areas: role shifts du ring long-lasting operations, staff work, and practical routines. Finally, Sjöberg et al. (2006) elaborated that the post-rescue operation situations included the leader’s evaluation of the outcome, organizational climate, and post-crisis stress reaction.

Further, Sjoberg et al. (2011) elaborated that the most essential elements in understanding the outcomes of a high stress rescue operation were: pre-rescue organizational climate, positive stress reactions, and personal knowledge of the coactors during the event. The rescue situations where the leader believed that the crisis could not be resolved with the given resources were given lower ratings, irrespective of whether there was any danger to human life. The strength of the controllability aspect of a crisis situation was evaluated from the perspective a professional actionoriented identity.

Larsson et al. (2007) performed a qualitative study based on grounded theory. For their research, they interviewed 17 Norwegian officers who were involved in managing and overseeing crisis situations in peacekeeping missions. From their results, they developed a theoretical understanding of indirect leadership in extremely stressful situations where the principal focus is peacekeeping and the safety of the people concerned. Peacekeeping missions are nowadays fraught with clear and present danger and effective leadership is required for ensuring the survival of the peacekeeping officials. From their theoretical understanding, Larsson et al. (2007) were able to develop a model which consisted of three principal categories: Situational Characteristics, Organizational Characteristics, and the Commander’s Intent. Another category which was related to these was Subordinates’ Appraisal or Sense making.

After analyzing of the theoretical foundations, Larsson et al. (2007) concluded that during a very stressful and critical situation, such as a riot, the strict adherence to the 48

formal chain of command is impractical. Local or personal initiatives by the lower echelons are absolutely essential in these types of crisis situations, but for this to happen competent officials and a trustful organizational environment are needed. Leonard and Howitt (2010) developed further ideas about leadership under crisis conditions, concentrating on the political leadership and decision making functions which are entrusted on officials who are at the centre of concern during a crisis.

Kahai, Sosik and Avolio (2003) supported that by changing their leadership styles the leaders can affect their followers. Goleman (2000) believed that the leaders who can manifest more than a single leadership style contribute more effectively to the success of their organizations. Liu, Lepak, Takeuchi, Sims and others (2003) underline that different groups of employees are differently managed and that they may hence need different styles of leadership. According to Oshagbemi and Ocholi (2005), leaders of organizations exhibit and practice a broad variety of leadership styles in their organizations. Yukl (1989) supports that match between organizational norms and culture and leadership styles are a major prerequisite for successful realization of the goals of the organization. McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) agreed that a leader’s leadership style is especially important for the achievement of the goals of the organization and for stimulating better performances in their subordinates. Dulewicz and Higgs (2005) viewed that the relation between a leader’s style and the organization in which he/she works are very important and related. On the other hand, Jung and Avolio (1999) have found that the style of leadership may correspond to varying effects on the levels of performance and motivation of the subordinates in the organization.

Jadwinski (2006) elaborated that an appropriate leadership style for crisis could improve a leader’s decision making and significantly reduce property loss and fatalities. He further highlighted that different leadership styles produce different outcomes and are therefore suited for different times and situations. Also, Berson and Avolio (2004) argued that a designated leadership style for crisis builds trust in the leader; enhances self and collective efficacy; and allows the leader to make the right decision, often with very little information. 49

Bass (1998) from his research made some striking observations. He stated even well respected and charismatic leaders, who have absolute devotion and love from their followers, may be ineffective under certain different conditions. From this it can be concluded that some leadership styles, no matter how effective under certain specific situations, may be completely ineffective under other scenarios. Tseng and Cho (2009) argued that an effective leader should be able to change his/her style of leadership in order to suit the requirements of the situation. Based on established literature and personal understanding, the researcher was able to conclude that the right leadership style is absolutely essential when dealing with crisis and obtaining positive results.

2.8

Empirical Studies on Crisis and Decision Making

Many researchers studied have decision making in crisis such as Rosenthal and Hart (1991); Sayegh et al. (2004); Schraagen and Ven (2008); Sommer and Pearson (2007); Ijaduola (2008); and Dinur (2011). Their studies focused on decision making as independent variable and crisis as the dependent variable; however, in this study, the researcher focused on the characteristics of crisis as the independent variable and considered decision making styles as the dependent variable.

Only few studies can be found which studied characteristics of crisis and its relationship to decision making. Maule et al. (2000), for example, performed an experimental study on 107 students at the University of Leeds. They studied the influence of three broad factors which determined the effect of time-pressure on decision-making. These factors were: affective state, information-processing strategy, and task structure. They found that time pressure significantly reduced the quality of the decision made by the subject as limited time was available for thoroughly weighing all the alternatives. Edland and Svenson (1993) also studied the characteristics of an individual under time pressure and its influence on the control of technological systems. They arrived at a similar conclusion on the negative effects of time pressure on decision making. They suggested that time pressure can influence the quality of decision making because limited time is available for 50

thinking through various possible an action. Rastegary and Landy (1993) suggested that uncertainty also has a major role in increasing the stress level during a decision making process and thereby impacts performance.

Enander, Hede and Lajksjö (2009), in their qualitative study, asked 16 chief officers who were present during the 2004 tsunami to reflect upon the tensions between everyday circumstances and crisis needs. They were also asked to weigh such factors as: legislation and practices as a support or hindrance, and human vulnerability versus coping resources. Manager characteristics, the societal context within which the event occurred, and crisis characteristics all influenced this evaluation process. The researchers also identified specific stressors such as the fact that the leaders themselves were personally affected by the storm, the complicated decisions that they were required to make, the uncertainty involved in the whole crisis situation. The researchers concluded, that based on their observations, they were able to see crisis management, decisions, and actions which were formed from the evaluation sphere and the influencing factors.

Although there are some insightful studies, the researcher, after a thorough literature search, was able to identify that there was a serious lack of empirical research investigating the relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making process.

2.9

Empirical Studies on Leadership Styles and Decision Making Styles

Tambe and Krishnan (2000) in their quantitative study involving 98 officers analysed the relationship between their decision making process and the transformational leadership style used. From their extensive quantitative analysis they determined that transformational leadership was correlated positively with the rational style of decision making and negatively related to the avoidant decision making style. Eberlin and Tatum (2008) performed a similar research involving 261 participants who were asked to read articles in which hypothetical managers were given different roles. The 51

articles referred to two leadership styles, i.e. the transformational and the transactional type, and two decision making approaches, i.e. the comprehensive and the restrictive styles. The participants were then asked to rate the managers in the vignettes. It was found that managers or leaders who employed the transformational leadership style were give high ratings on social justice, whereas managers who followed the transactional leadership style were given high ratings on structural justice. Similarly, managers portrayed as employing the restricted decision making style received lower ratings on social justice compared to managers who were depicted as using the comprehensive decision making approach. The conclusion of the researchers was that the justice ratings were considerably affected by the style of leadership and decision making applied by the managers.

The same researchers addressed the relationships among leadership, decision style, organizational justice, and social responsibility on a previous paper (Tatum and Eberlin, 2007). The authors presented a model of these dynamic relationships and demonstrated how the model operated in a variety of organizations (e.g. small business, large corporation, government agency, et cetera.). They also highlighted that the characteristics of transactional leaders were related to the less comprehensive decision making style, whereas the characteristics of transformational leaders were more closely linked to the less restrictive decision making style. In other words, transactional leaders demonstrated the propensity to employ strong restrictive decision making styles in contrast with transformational leaders who usually applied a strong comprehensive decision making approach. This was also collaborated by the previous work of Tatum et al. (2003). Kedia, Nordtvedt and Pérez (2002) analysed the reasons behind the success of multinational firms and the leadership styles they employed. They suggested that to achieve success in the international business arena, an organization needed to find a compatible fit between its international strategy and the decision making process and leadership styles employed by its top management.

After extensive review, the researcher found that the relationship between the leadership styles and the decision making styles employed by leaders has been thoroughly investigated and established in the existent literature.

52

2.10 Empirical Studies on Crisis and Leadership Styles

An some search of the extant literature shows that previous studies mostly investigated the role and effect of leadership style during crisis situations (Sheaffer et al. 2011). Others studied in detail about crisis situation and critical events (Larsson et al., 2007; Leonard and Howitt, 2010; Sjoberg et al., 2011; Sjöberg et al., 2006). However, only one study was found which linked crisis situation to leadership style (Pillai and Meindl, 1998). In this unique research work, the authors performed empirical study on 596 managers in order to better understand the relationship between leadership styles and critical scenarios. Based on their research, they suggested that crisis and charismatic leadership were negatively correlated, i.e. an increased sense of crisis or a heightened feeling of stress among the followers was correlated with reduced perceptions about the charisma of a leader. However, this seminal work is the only one in literature on such an important topic. This suggests that there is a serious dearth of studies on this topic.

Sheaffer et al. (2011) in their quantitative study asked 231 senior Israeli officials to evaluate, based on their past experience, the degree to which leadership attributes, masculinity, propensity for risk taking, and decision making style affected the perceived crisis proneness. From their findings the researchers suggested that masculinity was associated positively with perceived crisis proneness, while transformational leadership was negatively associated. They also found that the participative decision making style and the passive management technique both predicted a greater extent of perceived crisis proneness, just like risk taking propensity. Therefore, based on Pillai and Meindl's (1998) findings, the researcher has decided to use characteristics of crisis as an independent variable.

2.11 Empirical Studies on Leadership Style as a Mediator

Walumbwa, Wu and Ojode (2004) demonstrated how the conceived instructor leadership style mediated the students’ gender-effectiveness in an instruction based relationship. Their results indicated that both the male and the female students made 53

unfavorable evaluations of the Instructors who showed negative management- byexception. These instructors were viewed as unsatisfactory, not capable of inspiring extra efforts, and ineffective. Overall, the study’s outcomes revealed that favorable evaluations, by male and female students, alike, was attainable in cases of contingent reward, transformational leadership behaviours, and active management- byexemption styles. In addition, Hur et al. (2011) showed that the transformational leadership style mediated the relations between emotional intelligence and each of the service climate and leader’s effectiveness.

Panagopoulos and Dimitriadis (2009) investigated similar integration of leadership style and emotional intelligence in the case of sales and marketing companies. They hypothesized that transformational leadership style could mediate the relationship between behavioural control and the main performance measures of sales persons. This hypothesis was supported by their research results. Moreover, it was found that behavioural control influenced the transformational leadership behaviours positively, which, consequently, improved the organizational commitment, the level of satisfaction with supervision, and the performance of the sales personnel. On the other hand, Ferres et al. (1998) suggested that the transformational leadership style mediated the associations between the antecedents and the results.

Tyng, Wang and Sheng Lee (2013) also investigated the mediating effect of leadership style. They examined the relationship between upward influence and organizational learning culture, and explored the mediating effect of leadership styles (transformational and transactional) on the relationship. The data for this research was collected from public financial sectors in Taiwan through 56 valid questionnaires. From the data obtained, the researchers concluded that: (1) a positive correlation exits among upward influence, leadership style, and organizational learning culture; (2) a low positive correlation exits between destructive behaviors and key leading, as well as between destructive behaviors and organizationally beneficial behaviors; and (3) leadership style mediates the relationship between upward influence and organizational learning culture.

54

These studies proved that the leadership style could be used as a mediator, and therefore, in this study, the researcher will use the leadership style as a mediator between characteristics of crisis and decision making style.

2.12 Gaps in the Literature Hadley, Pittinsky, Sommer and Zhu (2009, p. 5) stated “there is very little research about the specifics of how leaders effectively respond to a crisis and how the capabilities of the leaders can be assessed in advance of a crisis occurring”. Similarly, Schoenberg (2004) affirmed that many articles have been written on leadership, crisis preparation, crisis management, and the tactical elements involved in addressing a crisis scenario, but very little research exists on the skills and expertise needed to succeed as a crisis leader. A crisis requires swift and decisive decision making, yet many leaders do not have the necessary skills or experience to make those decisions. Inevitably, every organization will face a crisis and its leaders will be expected to respond effectively to the crisis.

Jadwinski (2006) mentioned that there is need in future research to determine when and under what criteria the leadership style in crisis should shift from transactional to transformational. Tseng and Cho (2009) highlighted that there is extensive research regarding leadership styles, yet leadership under certain special scenarios (i.e. crisis situations) has not been studied in detail. There is, therefore, insufficient knowledge about the type of leadership style which leaders employ under critical conditions. This observation is supported by Wooten and James (2008) who argued that there were very few studies on identifying crisis leadership, its competence, and management during crisis. Pei-Fan Tseng (2009) highlighted this same fact that although there is a huge amount of research literature on the ways to handle crisis and the recommended strategies to be employed in such a situation, there is little on the type of leadership style which should be used during a crisis.

According to Bennis and Thomas (2002), leaders cited for excellent performance 55

during times of crisis have demonstrated strong functional skills in the areas of adaptive capacity, the ability to engage others in a shared meaning, a distinctive and compelling voice for the organization or the nation, and a sense of integrity and values. Hadley et al. (2011) pointed out the difficulty in making decisions under crisis. They elaborated that leaders managing a crisis situation experience extreme time pressure and generally do not have the requisite time or resource to obtain, secure, and evaluate all the necessary information effectively. However, though this topic is very important, only a handful of qualitative studies have linked the characteristics of crisis to decision making, such as the work done by Edland and Svenson, (1993), Maule et al. (2000), and Rastergary and Landy (1993). Therefore, the first gap identified in the existent research literature is the lack of studies linking characteristics of crisis to decision making style.

Previous studies have linked leadership style to crisis such as Sheaffer et al. (2011) or crisis situation such as Sjoberg et al. (2011), Sjöberg et al. (2006), Leonard and Howitt, (2010). Fiedler (1967) argued that no single leadership style was universal, i.e. applicable for all situations. Therefore, the Situational Leadership Theory recommends the use of a balance between task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership styles to handle a specific situation effectively. In other words, situational leadership is flexible and allows the leader to change his/her leadership style in order to fit the situation. This idea of situational leadership is also supported by Tseng and Cho (2009) who elaborated that the effective leader is one who can change his/her style of leadership to adjust with the situation. They further added that such leaders kept track of the situational development and changed their style concurrently with the change in the situation.

Fiedler (1967) investigated more on the type of leadership used in crisis. He suggested that task oriented leaders prioritize the accomplishment of a job as the first priority. Their second priority involves building and nurturing healthy interpersonal and work relations with their subordinates. Fiedler further elaborated that when people are under extreme stress, they generally concentrate on their main priorities, i.e. to get the job done. This natural tendency of most leaders is a demonstration of 56

transactional leadership style. However, Fiedler added that under moderate levels of stress, relationship oriented leaders give equal importance to both interpersonal relationship development and accomplishment of the tasks. This is a demonstration of the transformational leadership style. He then recommended that leaders must change their leadership style to task oriented in order to accomplish the goals of the whole group. So based on the researcher’s understanding that there would be a quadratic relationship between leadership style and different crisis situation.

As mentioned earlier, there is a lack of research on crisis and leadership style under crisis. Only one study has linked crisis to leadership style which was done by Pillai and Meindl (1998). Therefore, the researcher, in this study, concluded that there is a significant lack of research on the link between the characteristics of crisis and the leadership style employed.

2.13 Theoretical Framework

As evident in the literature review, there are many studies which linked decision making to crisis; however only few qualitative studies have linked characteristics of crisis to decision making (Edland and Svenson, 1993; Maule et al. 2000; Rastergary and Landy, 1993). Unlike these previous studies Pillai and Meindl (1998) studied crisis in a quantitative study. In this study, the researcher adopted Billings' et al. (1980) characteristics of crisis (response uncertainty and time pressure) as the independent variable and Driver’s et al. (1998) decision making styles (comprehensive and restrictive) as the dependent variable. According to Driver’s et al. (1990), transformational leadership theory suggests that transformational leader is one who makes use of a variety of relevant information from different sources when making decisions in an organization (Tatum,2003). Therefore, these types of leaders demonstrate a more comprehensive decision making style (CDM). Transactional leaders, in contrast, make swift decisions and subsequently focus on the next task. This makes them restrict the amount of information they use to make a decision (Driver et al. 1990; Tatum et al. 2003).

57

Eberlin and Tatum (2008) and Tatum et al. (2003) elaborated on the relationship between leadership styles (transformational, transactional) and decision-making styles (comprehensive, restrictive). In this study, leadership styles is considered as a mediating variable as supported by Walumbwa et al. (2004), Hur et al. (2011), and Panagopoulos and Dimitriadis (2009). The relationships between these variables are shown in the theoretical framework in Figure 2.3. Driver’s et al. (1998) theory of decision making explains the relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles, whereas the Situational Leadership Theory explains the relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the leadership styles.

Given that Driver’s et al. (1998) theory of decision making style and the transformational

leadership

theory that

support

the

relationships

between

characteristics of crisis and decision making style and leadership styles with decision making styles which are dependent on the situation, the contingency theory of leadership is deemed to be the most appropriate underlying theory in this theoretical framework to explain these relationships. Fiedler (1967) argued that when leaders and people under stress, they concentrate on their first priorities to get the job done

which

is

transactional

leadership

then

relation-oriented

which

is

transformational leadership. Fiedler further argues that in moderate situation, relationship oriented leaders focus on both interpersonal relations and task accomplishment during decision making which is transformational leadership.

Figure 2.2: Theoretical Framework

58

2.14 Hypotheses development

2.14.1 The Relationship between Characteristics of Crisis and Decision Making Styles

Many researchers have reviewed the relationship between decision making and crisis, such as (Scherman and Ven, 2008; Sommer and Pearson, 2007; Sayegh et al. 2004; Rosenthal and Hart, 1991; Kassam, Koslov and Mendes, 2011; and Dinur, 2011). However, the researcher found only a handful of studies which looked into the link between characteristics of crisis and decision making styles from a qualitative perspective. Some of these works include those done by Edland and Svenson (1993), Maule et al. (2000), and Rastergary and Landy (1993). Unlike the previous studies, based on Driver’s et al, (1998) this study will focus on the quadratic relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles. It is posited that:

H1: There are significant quadratic relationships between the characteristics of the crisis and the decision making styles. H1a: There is a significant quadratic relationship between time pressure and comprehensive decision making style. H1b: There is a significant quadratic relationship between time pressure and restrictive decision making style. H1c: There is a significant quadratic relationship between response uncertainty and comprehensive decision making style. H1d: There is a significant quadratic relationship between response uncertainty and restrictive decision making style.

2.14.2 The Relationship between the Characteristics of Crisis and the Leadership Styles

Previous studies have been conducted which linked leadership style to crisis (Sheaffer et al. 2011) or crisis situation (Larsson et al. 2007; Leonard and Howitt, 2010; Sjoberg et al. 2011; Sjöberg et al. 2006). However, only one study linked crisis 59

to leadership style, namely the work of Pillai and Meindl (1998) that studied 596 managers and argued that crisis and charismatic leadership have negative correlation: a greater sense of crisis and stress among followers were associated with reduced perceptions of leader charisma. Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich (1985) argued that attributions to leadership should be higher in conditions of crisis downturn and crisis decline. They expected that this relationship was quadratic rather than linear. So, it is posited that:

H2: There are significant quadratic relationships between the characteristics of crisis and the leadership styles. H2a: There is a significant quadratic relationship between time pressure and transformational leadership style. H2b: There is a significant quadratic relationship between time pressure and transactional leadership style. H2c: There is a significant quadratic relationship between response uncertainty and transformational leadership style. H2d: There is a significant quadratic relationship between response uncertainty and transactional leadership style.

2.14.3 The Relationships between the Leadership Style and the Decision Making styles

Previous studies (Eberlin and Tatum, 2008; Tatum et al. 2003) found that transformational leaders tend to prefer comprehensive decision making style, whereas transactional leaders tend to prefer restrictive decision making style. Tatum and Eberlin (2007) highlighted that the characteristics of transactional leaders are associated with a less comprehensive decision making style and transformational leaders are associated with a less restrictive decision style, whereby the characteristics of transactional leaders are associated with a strong restrictive decision style and transformational leaders are associated with a strong comprehensive decision style. So based on these observations, the researcher posits that:

60

H3: There are significant relationships between leadership styles and decision making styles. H3a: There is significant relationship between transformational leadership style and comprehensive decision making style. H3b: There is significant relationship between transformational leadership style and restrictive decision making style. H3c: There is significant relationship between transactional leadership style and comprehensive decision making style. H3d: There is significant relationship between transactional leadership style and restrictive decision making style.

2.14.4 Mediation Effect of Leadership Style

In this study, leadership styles is posed as a mediator between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles based on previous studies by Walumbwa et al. (2004), Hur et al. (2011), Panagopoulos and Dimitriadis (2009), Ferres et al. (1998) and Tyng Wang, Sheng Lee (2013). Vera and Crossan (2004) argued that to have a successful outcome in crisis one must pick an appropriate leadership style specific to the situation and that selecting the wrong leadership style could lead to management failure. In addition, Paul and Ebadi (1989) suggested that the best way to achieving a good result when dealing with a crisis situation is by selecting a leadership style appropriate to that situation. In addition Ferres, Travaglione, and Connell (1998) suggested that the transformational leadership style mediates the associations between antecedents and results. Therefore, it is posited that:

H4: Leadership styles mediate the relationships between characteristics of crisis and decision making styles. H4a: Transformational leadership style mediates the relationships between characteristics of crisis and decision making styles. H4a1: Transformational leadership style mediates the relationship between time pressure and comprehensive decision making styles. H4a2: Transformational leadership style mediates the relationship between time pressure and restrictive decision making style. 61

H2a3: Transformational leadership style mediates the relationship between response uncertainty and comprehensive decision making style. H2a4: Transformational leadership style mediates the relationship between response uncertainty and restrictive decision making styles. H4b: Transactional leadership style mediates the relationships between characteristics of crisis and decision making styles. H4b1: Transactional leadership style mediates the relationship between time pressure and comprehensive decision making style. H4b2: Transactional leadership style mediates the relationship between time pressure and restrictive decision making style. H4b3: Transactional leadership style mediates the relationship between response uncertainty and comprehensive decision making style. H4b4: Transactional leadership style mediates the relationship between response uncertainty and restrictive decision making style.

2.15 Summary

This chapter covers the literature review supporting the basis of this research study. It also helps to provide the theoretical and empirical evidences needed to support all the hypotheses. By adopting the framework presented in Figure 2.3, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the characteristics of crisis and the decision making styles. It will also investigate the mediating role of the leadership styles on the relationship between characteristics of crisis and decision making style.

62

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.0

Introduction

This chapter describes and justifies the methodology used in the study. It comprises several sections. Section one presents the introduction, section two details the research approach, section three describes the sample population and the unit of analysis, section four discusses the sampling, section five elaborates on the survey design, section six explains the variables and the measures used, section seven explains the instrument of translation, section eight covers the pilot study, section nine explicates the data collection, section ten explain the mediation analysis method, and lastly, section eleven summarizes the chapter.

3.1

Research Approach

According to Avison and Fitzgerald (1995, p.63) ‘‘methodology is a collection of procedures, techniques, tools and documentation aids but a methodology is more than merely a collection of these things. It is usually based on some philosophical paradigm; otherwise it is merely a method, like a recipe’’. Bryman and Bell (2007) mentioned that research methodology is vital to any study in order to identify the hypotheses and the significance of the work relative to the research’s objectives and development.

This study is based on a positivistic paradigm which uses the quantitative method. Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe (2002) elaborated that the positivist paradigm should look for the salient facts, try to determine any existent causality and/or 63

fundamental laws behind the event, reduce the phenomenon to its simplest constituents, formulate hypotheses, and finally, test them. The preferred method for achieving such positivistic goals is to incorporate operationalizing concepts. This enables the researcher to measure and evaluate the phenomenon by sampling large sets of data or populations.

The research strategy uses the deductive process and therefore starts from generalization and leads to the formulation of the hypotheses. This type of deductive reasoning functions by narrowing the concept from the more general to the more specific. Usually, in such a process, the researcher starts by developing a general theory from his/her observations on the phenomenon of interest. It is then narrowed down to more specific hypotheses which can be tested. Further specification is done when observations are collected to test the hypotheses. This approach ultimately results in hypotheses which can be tested with specific data for a validation (or refutation) of the original generalized theory (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991).

A cross-sectional study method for data collection was chosen over a longitudinal one because of the difficulty in getting the same participants over large time scales as the latter entails. However, a cross-sectional study is not without its limitations. One limitation is the inability to establish cause and effect relationship directly and the reliability and the accuracy of the retrospective data is always questionable (Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill, 2000). Nonetheless, a cross-sectional study usually has the advantage of having a much more diversified sample than a longitudinal study, and therefore, the findings are more generalizable (Saunders et al., 2000).

3.2

Time Horizon

According to Sekaran (2003), a study is considered to employ the cross-sectional method when the data are collected at one given point in time. For this study, the data was acquired from early August 2012 until October 2012.

64

3.3

Population and Unit of Analysis

The population for this study consisted of all officers and employees of the Jordanian Civil Defence directorates distributed throughout Jordan. According to the statistics concerning the JCD employees in 2012, there are 1,400 leaders (officers) and 10,000 employees in 157 civil directorates, departments, and civil defence centres located all over the region of Jordan, as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Population and Sample in Jordanian Civil Defence Leaders (Officers) Employees Total Source: Jordanian Civil Defence (2012).

Population 1,400 10,000 11,400

Sample 302 370 672

The unit of analysis for this study is the leaders who are known as officers in the JCD. These leaders are assigned the job to manage crisis situations pertaining to civil defence and their responsible for making the right decisions so as to reduce the loss of lives and property, and to protect the individuals who work under them. In this study, the researcher wanted to investigate the leader’s decision making styles and the employee’s perception of their leaders’ leadership styles as well as the characteristics of crisis faced by their leaders.

3.3.1 Sampling

This study focuses on the top and mid-level leaders (officers) working in the JCD, such as managers, assistant managers, and heads and assistant heads of the various departments. The reason for choosing these respondents is due to the fact that they are actively involved in the decision making processes during crisis situations. The JCD is an essential service for meeting the different crisis situations in Jordan and is therefore considered an appropriate entity for conducting this research.

65

3.3.2 Sampling Size and Technique Cooper and Schindler, (2008, p.717), defined sample as a “group of cases, participants, events, or records consisting of a portion of the target population, carefully selected to represent that population”. According to Sekaran (2003), the sample studied in a research is essentially a subset of the population under investigation. Thus, the sample comprises several members selected from the population.

In this study, the leaders answered the questions about their decision making styles, whereas the employees answered questions regarding the leadership styles of their concerned leaders under crisis situations. According to Sekaran (2003), there are two sampling techniques. The first technique involves the researcher knowing the actual number of the population; the usable method then is called the probability sampling technique. The second method is applied when the researcher does not know the actual number of the population. This method is called the non-probability sampling technique (Sekaran, 2003). As the researcher of this study is cognisant about the entire population of interest, this research employs the probability sampling method.

According to the JCD (2012), the total population of this study was 1,400 leaders and 10,000 employees. From this population, the researcher decided to survey 302 respondents, who are leaders, as the representative sample in the leader category of the relevant population. This study also looked into the perceptions of the employees about their leaders’ leadership styles during crisis scenarios and the characteristics of the crisis. For the employee category, the researcher selected 370 people from a population of 10,000 employees according to the small-sample techniques suggested by Krejcie and Morgan (1970).

Based on the goal of this study, the researcher selected the respondents of the sample based on the simple random sampling technique. The officers and the employees 66

were chosen at random regarding of their rank using same random sampling technique. In addition the main benefit of this technique is that each member of the population has an equal chance of being chosen. This means that it guarantees that the sample chosen is representative of the entire population (Elder, 2009). In turn, the statistical conclusions drawn from the analysis of this sample will therefore be valid. The researcher listed the leaders and the employees before putting their names in the box and they have been chosen at random from each center involved.

Furthermore, in order to avoid common method variance, that arises from use of single respondent or rater, item similarity and response format similarity the data consisted of self- reported information and were collected by using the same questionnaire during the same time period. This is the essential mandate of the crosssectional data collection design. The common method variance is related to the measurement method rather than the constructs of interest. If this method is not followed in a cross- sectional study, the data collected may result in systematic measurement errors and incorporation of bias in the estimates made for the true relationship among the theoretical constructs. Method variance can, therefore, either inflate or deflate the relationships observed among the research constructs and thereby lead to errors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff, 2003). Therefore, the researcher use subordinates as a source of information on leadership styles, and crisis to reduce CMV through the use of multiple raters as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003).

3.4

Survey Design

This study used questionnaires in order to gather data from the respondents. This questionnaire relies on published and validated scales of three measures: leadership styles, decision making styles, and characteristics of crisis.

67

3.4.1 Variables and Measures

There are three variables in this study, namely: characteristics of crisis as the independent variable, decision making styles as the dependent variable, and leadership styles (transformational and transactional leadership styles) as the mediator variable. The measurements of these three variables were performed according to the recommendations from various sources as follows:

(1) The measurement scale of the leadership styles included 32 questions. Twelve questions were used to measure the transactional type of leadership style and 20 questions were used to measure the transformational type of leadership style. All questions used the format of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Avolio and Bass (1995).

(2) The measurement scale of the decision making styles was adapted from Eberlin and Tatum (2008). Three questions were used to measure the comprehensive decision making style and three others were used to measure the restrictive decision making style.

(3) The measurement for the characteristics of crisis was adapted from (Billings et al. 1980). Four questions were utilized to measure the time pressure and four others were used to measure response uncertainty.

(4) General information of the respondents, including eight questions dealing with gender, age, rank, current marital status, education, position and working experience, and nature of work were also included.

68

3.4.2 Leadership Styles

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5) was formulated by Bass (1985) in order to discriminate between transactional and transformational leadership styles, and a combination of both leadership behaviours. Based on the feedback from researchers, Bass and Avolio (1995) developed an extension to their earlier model of transformational and transactional leadership and called it MLQ5 rater from 5XShort. This latest version of MLQ rater from 5X-Short includes nine factors of leadership, which have been grouped into three dimensions: transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. In this study, the researcher only focused on the transformational and transactional leadership styles as most of the previous studies did not use the laissez-faire leadership.

The MLQ rater from 5X-Short consists of thirty two items. All thirty two items are arranged on a Likert 5 point scale as follows: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree. There were also eight sub dimensions: idealized influence (attributed) idealized influence (behaviour), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, transactional leadership comprising contingent reward, management by exception (active), and management by exception (passive). For this study the researcher focusing to investigate only transformational and transactional leadership style as a latent variable. The researcher emailed the authors to request their permission in using these tools for conducting research.

3.4.2.1 Transactional Leadership Style

Transactional leadership style is operationalized as the exchange of rewards and promises of rewards for employees’ performance between a leader and his/her followers (Bass and Avolio, 1995).

69

Table 3.2: Transactional Leadership Style Statement My leaders fail to interfere until the problems become serious My leader waits for things to go wrong before taking action My leader holds strongly to the fact that if it isn't broke, don’t fix it My leader demonstrates that problems must become chronic before they are solved Action My leader focuses his/her attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards My leader gives his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures My leader keeps track of all mistakes My leader directs individual attention toward failures to meet standards My leader provides the individuals with assistance in exchange for their effort My leader discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets My leader makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved My leader expresses satisfaction when he meets expectations Source: (Bass and Avolio, 1995).

3.4.2.2 Transformational Leadership Style

In this study, the researcher operationalized transformational leadership style as the degree to which a leader’s behavior could increase the abilities, aspirations, and motivation levels of his/her subordinates in order to sacrifice their self-interests for accomplishing the organization’s goals (Bass, 1990).

Table 3.3: Transformational Leadership Style Statement My leader re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate My leader seeks differing perspectives when solving problems My leaders look at the problems from many different angles My leader suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assigned tasks My leader talks optimistically about the future My leader talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished My leader articulates a compelling vision for the future My leader expresses confidence that goals will be achieved My leader spends time teaching and coaching My leader treats one as an individual rather than as a member of the group My leader considers the individuals to have different needs, abilities and aspirations My leader helps individuals develop their strengths

70

My leader talks about important values and beliefs regarding education My leader specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose My leaders considers the morale and ethical consequences of decisions My leader instills pride in the individuals for being associated with him My leader goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group My leader displays a sense of power and confidence My leader acts in ways that build my respect Source: Bass and Avolio (1995).

3.4.3 Characteristics of Crisis

In this study, the researcher operationalized the characteristics of crisis as environmental loads (i.e. time pressure and response uncertainty). This was based on the findings of Billings et al. (1980) who proposed that time pressure and response uncertainty were two characteristics of crisis which could affect the decision making process of a person in leadership position. As per this viewpoint, the characteristics of crisis can then be defined as any factor in the environment which increases a person’s sense of pressure and stress (Driver et al., 1998). The researcher adapted the questions originally developed by Billings et al. (1980) to be more appropriate for the current research. Four items were used for time pressure and four more were used for response uncertainty. These items were arranged on a five point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree.

3.4.3.1 Time Pressure

Time pressure can be viewed as a kind of psychological urgency felt by a person on account of having insufficient time to complete the required tasks. It can therefore be defined as the difference between the amount of time available and the amount of the time required for solving a particular problem (Rastergay and Landy, 1993).

3.4.3.2 Response Uncertainty

Response uncertainty arises when there is insufficient information available to

71

completely predict the outcomes and the consequences of a response, and therefore an attendant confusion in the decision to be made (Kuipers et al., 1988).

Table 3.4: Characteristics of Crisis Statement My leader is surprised when he\she faces uncertainty during crisis My leader experiences stress when he\she faces uncertainty during crisis My leader makes sound decisions when he\she faces uncertainty during crisis My leader makes timely decision when he\she faces uncertainty during crisis My leader makes swift decisions when he\she faces crisis Time pressure affects my leader to make decision during crisis My leader experiences anxiety when he\she faces crisis The lack of information affects my leader during crisis

Variable

Response Uncertainty Time Pressure

Source: Adopted from Billings et al. (1980).

3.4.4 Decision Making Styles

In this study, the researcher operationalized decision making styles as the pattern of thinking and behaviour that an individual habitually follows in making a decision (Driver et al., 1979). Based on the work of Eberlin and Tatum (2008), the researcher adopted six items for decision making styles of which three items were used for comprehensive decision making style and three others were used for restrictive decision making style. These six items were arranged based on the five point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree.

3.4.4.1 Comprehensive Decision Making Styles

In this study, the researcher operationalized decision making style as the integrative and systemic styles into a category called “comprehensive”. Based on Driver et al. (1990) this type of decision making style is employed by an individual who analyses large amounts of information and weighs multiple alternatives before deciding on a particular solution to a given problem. 72

3.4.4.2 Restrictive Decision Making Style

Decision making styles which can be described as decisive, hierarchic, and flexible were operationalized and classified by the researcher into the general category called “restrictive” decision making style.

Based on Driver et al. (1990) this type of

decision making approach is used by an individual who uses a minimum amount of information to arrive at a single solution to a particular problem.

Table 3.5: Decision Making Style Statement I use maximum information to decide during crisis I uses a comprehensive set of inputs during crisis I incorporate multiple solutions in making decision during crisis I focus on a single solution during crisis I restrict the amount of information used to decide during crisis I use a small number of inputs during crisis Source: adopted from Eberlin and Tatum (2008)

Variable Comprehensive Decision Making Style Restricted Decision Making Style

Table 3.6: Summary of Instrument for Variables Used in This Study Variable

Sources

Variable

No. of Items

Decision Making Styles

Eberlin and Tatum (2008)

Comprehensive

3

Restrictive

3

Time pressure

4

Characteristics of Crisis

Billings, et al (1980)

Response Uncertainty

4

Transformational

20

Transactional

12

Leadership Styles

3.5

MLQ-5 (Bass and volio, 1995)

Likert Scale

α

1-5

.84

1-5

.68

1-5

.90

Instrument Translation

Since the original instruments were written in English but as the study was conducted in Jordan, therefore, the instrument was translated into Arabic for better comprehension by the respondents. The following steps were taken to develop the 73

questionnaire. First, the researcher formulated a draft questionnaire in English. Second, the draft questionnaire was reviewed by three Jordanian academics who graduated from England. Third, the final English version of the questionnaire was translated into Arabic by the translation legal office (The Leadership office for legal translator). Fourth, the researcher had the official translated copy reviewed by five academics that are bilingual in Arabic and English. These academics reviewed both the Arabic and the English versions of the questionnaire to ensure that the translation was equivalent. Finally, some amendments were made to the Arabic version of the questionnaire based on the reviews of three of these Arabic Linguists. The resulting Arabic questionnaire could therefore be regarded as being the closest in meaning to the original English version as possible. Additionally, for the sake of consistency as suggested by Behling and Law (2000) and (Brislin, 1980) the same layout in the paper, order of questions, and number of pages were used as in the original English version.

3.6

Pilot Study

The use of a pilot study was “intended to reveal errors in the design and improper control of extraneous or environmental conditions” (Cooper and Schindler, 2008). The number of respondents to be included in a pre-test can range from a minimum of twenty respondents (Robson, 2000) up to a maximum of 100 respondents (Cooper and Schindler, 2008) without regard to the statistical makeup of the test group.

The researcher distributed the Arabic version of the questionnaire randomly to 100 students and academic staff at the crisis and disaster management department in Prince Hussein bin Abdullah Academy of Civil Protection. After the questionnaires were filled out, the researcher collected the questionnaires personally. The pilot study was mainly performed to validate the survey instrument.

Subsequent analysis of the response data from the pilot study resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of .80 based on standardized items. Cronbach’s Alpha scores of .60 74

or better are considered in literature to be sufficient in justifying the validity of the survey instrument (Bartee, Grandjean, and Bieber, 2004). The responses from the pilot study were used to improve the clarity of the individual questions and their formats. These adjustments further improved the validity and reliability of the survey instrument, ensuring that the questions would, in fact, produce the data necessary to support the research. Out of the 100 questionnaires, 60 questionnaires were returned but 10 of these were not filled properly. Therefore the remaining 50 questionnaires were used in the pilot study. After reviewing the returned questionnaires, minor corrections were made to the wordings of some of the questions before the final questionnaire was made. The summary of the questionnaire distribution for the pilot test is given below: Table 3.7: Response Rate Questionnaires sent Returned and usable Returned but unusable Not returned Response rate

3.7

100 50 10 40 50%

Data Collection

The researcher sought the permission from the Director-General of the Jordanian Civil Defence Lieutenant General Talal Abdullah Al-Kofahi in June 2012 for an approval letter to conduct his research. With this letter, the questionnaires were distributed and collected by the researcher. The researcher distributed the questionnaires to all the 157 country directorates of the JCD. In each directorate, two officers and two employees received the questionnaire and sometimes more than two by two. Also, the researcher selected the day which was suitable for meeting all the officers and employees at the same time (each directorate has one day of the week for change of shift).

At the end of this collection period, the researcher was able to obtain 502 questionnaires from the employees and 345 questionnaires from the officers (leaders). The matching was done for the questionnaires that were answered by one officer and

75

one non-officer. However, after the matching was done, it was found that 43 officers and 200 employees could not be matched and had to be excluded from this study.

3.8

Data Analysis

3.8.1 Descriptive Statistics

The results of the survey were manually entered into SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences; version 20) for data analysis. Additionally, several descriptive statistics were run to identify the sample population. The data analysis required the researcher to run descriptive statistics based on gender, age, education, job, experience, rank, and marital status. Univariate analysis (mean, standard deviation, and frequencies) was used to characterize the sample. These measures ensured the appropriate selection of the statistical analysis procedures and allowed for the characterization of the sample in terms of socio-demographic factors.

3.8.2 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a generalized term which is used to refer to a category of multivariate statistical methods. In this approach the relationships between the latent variables are approximated, usually, as path coefficients (or standardized partial regression coefficients). Usually, each individual latent variable, in SEM, is evaluated using multiple indicators, although some special cases may use only a single indicator (Kock, 2010).

SEM is considered a second generation data analysis method. The versatility of this method is that it enables the researcher to find answers to a set of questions simultaneously through the modelling of different relationships at the same time. These relationships can be modelled by many different independent and dependent constructs within the same model (Bagozzi and Fornell, 1982; Gefen, Straub, and Boudreau, 2000). SEM techniques can be covariance-based, such as that used by 76

LISREL, or variance-based such as that used in Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis. The following section describes the characteristics of the covariance-based SEM and PLS.

According to Lei and Wu (2007) Covariance-based SEM possesses several constraints which make it inappropriate for some specific research studies. It requires normality, and generally requires a large size for the sample. In addition, it also requires reflective variables. Reflective variables are those in which the indicators are considered to be influenced by the latent variable. In contrast, formative variables are those that have indicators which cause the latent variable. This kind of variable can only be used in variance-based SEM (Haenlein and Kaplan, 2004). In covariance- based SEM, therefore, analyses tend to be confirmatory. This dictates that for effective SEM analysis, one must have strong underlying theory and measures that have been thoroughly studied in the past (Chin and Newsted, 1999). Typically, in covariance based SEM the parameter estimates of one part of the model can be influenced by miss pacifications on other parts of the model because it is a “full information approach”. However, this is rarely seen to take place as it is a problem which can be countered by strong theory (Chin and Newsted, 1999, p.311).

3.8.3 Partial Least Squares

According to Ringle and Sinkovics (2009), PLS is a variance based SEM analysis technique. This algorithm has certain features similar to both linear regression and covariance-based SEM. In PLS, the overall model comprises an inner model and an outer model. The inner model has the relationships between the latent variables. The outer model, on the other hand, consists of the relationships between the latent variables and their manifest variables. In other words, the outer model refers to how each set of indicators relates to the latent variable. The algorithm works sequentially by first estimating the outside model. Subsequently, the inside model is approximated. Therefore, it is similar to running a number of regressions. After estimation of the models, the PLS provides coefficients which can be interpreted just like those in a covariance-based SEM. 77

Variance-based SEM is a multivariate analysis technique that has some common similarities with covariance-based SEM but it is different in a sense that it builds on techniques, such as resampling, which do not necessitate any parametric assumptions to be fulfilled (Rencher, 1998). The variance-based SEM is more adaptable when the requirement of the multivariate normality is not met in a dataset (Chin, 1998). The Partial Least Squares (PLS), a second generation multivariate variance-based technique helpful in estimating the parameters of a structural model, was developed by (Wold, 1975). for circumstances where data cannot cater for the restrictive assumptions of the covariance-based SEM techniques (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982). PLS can be executed as a regression model or alternatively as a path model. WarpPLS, a nonlinear variancebased structural equation modeling software tool that adopts the PLS regression algorithm to implement variance-based SEM, was adopted in this study.

According to Birkinshaw, Morrison and Hulland (1995), the main purpose of using PLS is for prediction. Additionally, it is applicable in research which is still at the initial stage of theoretical development. In addition, Pinto, Escudero and GutıCilla (2008) Indicators used in PLS algorithms can either be reflective or formative. Formative variables are those variables which are considered to load strongly on a construct. In this type of variable, the paths which connect the construct and the indicators are directed towards the construct. Sample size requirements for PLS are also different than for a covariance based SEM analysis. In general, PLS usually works better with a smaller sample size. However, it can process a larger number of indicators. Therefore, PLS can be used when the data does not follow any normal distribution and/or does not possess independence criteria (Chin and Newsted, 1999; and Gefen et al., 2000). Chin and Newsted (1999) elaborated that PLS application is sufficient when: a researcher is trying to make predictions; the research is about a relatively recent or changing model; the model is very complicated and incorporates a large number of indicators or latent variables; there is a requirement for formative indicators; or when the data concerned does not meet the usual normality, independence, and sample size requirements of other methods. Pinto et al., (2008) mention that PLS parameter estimates better reveal the strength and direction (i.e., positive vs. negative) of the relationships among variables compared to correlation coefficients’’ (p. 28). 78

Henseler et al. (2009) PLS method can be implemented either as a regression model or as a path model. The software used for data analysis in this study is WarpPLS (SEM software) that conducts structural equation modeling using a PLS regression algorithm. This software is different from other software in that it is able to identify nonlinear relationships among the latent variables of the model. The software can conduct a Warp PLS regression, robust path analysis, or a standard PLS regression analysis. The most stable method should be used to analyse the data. Significantly different results using a bootstrap and a jackknifing technique can be an indicator of instability (Kock, 2009).

This study used SPSS version 20, and WarpPLS to analyse the data. SPSS was used to analyse the descriptive data, whereas PLS tools were used to identify nonlinear (WarpPLS) relationships among the latent variables by estimating the coefficients of the paths as well as the regression between latent variables. In the analysis, the constructs are called latent variables. SEM is used to test for significant factors and relationships among constructs within the research domain of interest. SEM will be used to develop the analyses that will help answer research questions one and two. SEM tests and estimates relationships, and can be used in exploratory or confirmatory modelling (Khanlarian, 2010). Henseler, Ringle and Sinkovics (2009) highlight that SEM allows the user to construct latent variables and calculate weights, loadings, and factor scores using a least squares minimization algorithm. As previously mentioned, the weights and the loadings of a model with latent variables constitute the outer model. On the other hand, the path coefficients among the latent variables make up the inner model. The outer model confirms that the items measure the constructs appropriately, while the inner model focuses on identifying the paths or relationships between the constructs in the model. The outer model provides evidence of significant factors in the learning environment, whereas the inner model indicates which relationships are significant. The outer model validates that the constructs are measured appropriately and the inner model reveals the path relationships between these constructs. Together, they provide an appropriate analysis technique to answer research questions.

79

Kock (2012) highlighted that WarpPLS can be used to compare models in order to determine which one has a better fit. This fitness checking is accomplished with the original data and then by using the model fit indices. WarpPLS offers three “goodness of fit” scores, these are: APC (average path coefficient), ARS (average R-squared), and AVIF (average variance inflation factor). Kock (2010) suggested that the P-values for both the APC and the ARS should be lower than .05. This indicates that the relationships within the model are significant at the .05 level. He also recommended that the AVIF be lower than 5, which denotes an acceptable level of multicolinearity in the model.

AVIF (average variance inflation factor) this is a measure of the degree of multicollinearity among variables, including both indicators and latent variables. With latent variables, colinearity can take two main forms: vertical and lateral colinearity. Vertical, or classic, colinearity is predictor-predictor latent variable colinearity in individual blocks. Lateral colinearity is a new term that refers to predictor-criterion latent variable colinearity; a type of colinearity that can lead to particularly misleading results. Full colinearity VIFs allow for the simultaneous assessment of both vertical and lateral colinearity in an SEM model (Kock and Lynn, 2012).

3.8.4 Assessment Model

The assessment of the model done through the PLS analysis normally adheres to a two-step process that is done as the measurement model and the structural model assessments (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, and Mena, 2012). The assessment of the measurement model looks into the validity and reliability of the relationship between the LV and associated observable variables, while the assessment of the structural model takes into account the relationships between constructs (Hair, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2011).This research has employed WarpPLS 3.0 for the model analysis.

Two different types of measurement models (outer model) namely the formative and reflective models are used. Assessing their quality necessitates the application of 80

various criteria and methods (Hair et al., 2011).Based on the model used in this research the reflective measurement model seeks to evaluate both the reliability and validity, and two major criteria for conducting such an evaluation are composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) (Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt, 2013).

Many relationships between variables in the real world are nonlinear in character. This is especially true for relationships among behavioural variables which follow a pattern known as the U-curve (or inverted U-curve). This kind of nonlinear U shaped relationship always has an output variable with an extreme point, i.e. a maximam or a minimum. This type of relationship is sometimes known as the Jcurve pattern in disciplines of economics and health sciences. The term “U-curve” is therefore applied to mean a nonlinear relationship and the representation is in the form of sections of a U curve. As such, this type of curve encompasses all noncyclical nonlinear relationships among variables. Relationships which can be represented by the U curve include the logarithmic, hyperbolic decay, exponential decay, exponential, and quadratic relationships, et cetera.

For analysis of such relationships, many algorithms are available, such as: Warp3 PLS Regression, Warp2 PLS Regression, PLS Regression, and Robust Path Analysis. The Warp2 PLS Regression algorithm tries to identify a U-curve relationship between latent variables. If such a relationship is detected, the algorithm changes (or “warps”) the scores of the predictor latent variables so as to better reflect the U-curve relationship in the estimated path coefficients in the model (Kock, 2012a). is essential as both fitness indices are evaluated as averages of other parameters. The software also used the model fit indices which are of three types: average path coefficient (APC), average R-squared (ARS), and average variance inflation factor (AVIF). In case of the APC and the ARS, the algorithm also provides the corresponding P values. These P values are calculated through a complex process that involves resampling estimations combined with Bonferroni-like corrections (Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1991). 81

After the calculation of the P values and model fit indices, interpretation of the results are carried out. This depends upon the goal of the SEM analysis. If the main objective is testing the hypotheses then each arrow symbolizes a particular hypothesis. In this case the model fit indices are not so important. However, if the primary aim of the analysis is to determine whether one model has a better fit with the original data than another, then the model fit indices are an essential set of measures related to the model’s quality. When evaluating the model fit with the data, the following criteria are recommended. First, the P values corresponding to the APC and the ARS must both be lower than 0.05; i.e. they must have a significance level of 0.05 or higher. Second, it is preferable to have the AVIF value lower than 5. Typically, the addition of new latent variables into a model increases the ARS, even if those latent variables are weakly associated with the existing latent variables in the model. However, that will generally lead to a decrease in the APC, since the path coefficients associated with the new latent variables will be low. Therefore, the APC and the ARS counterbalance each other and can only increase simultaneously when the latent variables, which are added to the model, increase the overall predictive and explanatory quality of the concerned model (Kock, 2009). As a rule of thumb, a model is considered to be robust, i.e. its predictions fit the observations very well, if p