The Role of Procedural Justice and Leadership Style on the Quality of Leader- Member Relationship among Secondary School Teachers in Ibadan North Local Governement Area, Oyo State, Nigeria

Nwosu Hope Nwachi*; Abel Chibuzo Obosi; Casper Chinomso Okezie; David Philip Uche; Chioma Helen Isaac
Psychology Department, Faculty of Social Science, University of Ibadan
*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2023.101021

Received: 08 October 2023; Accepted: 14 October 2023; Published: 17 November 2023

ABSTRACT

In the present study, the role of procedural justice and leadership styles on the quality of leader-member relationship was explored. Through a cross-sectional survey design, data was collected from 119 (males = 50, females = 69) secondary school teachers in Ibadan, Nigeria, using a random sampling technique, with a mean age of 32.26 years. From a multiple regression analysis, findings showed that procedural justice (β = .268, t=3.150, p<.0l) and Leadership style (β= -.293, t= -3.454, p<.0l) independently predict quality of leader-member relationship. In addition, procedural justice and leadership style jointly predict leader-member relation (F (2,116) =12.762, R=.180, R²=.166, p<.0l). Through a t-test analysis, it was reported that there is no significant influence of procedural justice on the leader-member relation of respondents (t (117) = 1.85, p>.05). Through a t-test analysis, it was observed that there was a significant influence of leadership style on the leader-member relation of respondents (t (117) = -3.64, p<.05). Furthermore, it was observed that respondents’ sex, age, religion, and ethnicity jointly predicted quality of leader-member relationship (F (4,144) =3.047, R=.311, R²=.097, p<.05). Going by these findings, the researchers recommended that trainings and teaching of procedural justice and appropriate leadership styles should be encouraged among members of position of authority in the organizational setting. And such trainings should consider the socio-demographic characteristics of the target population for a better efficacy of research intervention.

Keywords: Procedural Justice, Leadership Style, Leader-Member Relation.

INTRODUCTION

Humans are valuable assets that contribute to the wellbeing of any people-based system. Their perception of fairness and satisfaction with their leaders probably lead to organizational prosperity, while the opposite may create unhealthy work environment and lead to unwelcome consequences – e.g., conflict (George, 2005). It is assumed that leaders are bounded by the scarcity of their time and resources to form relationship of different qualities with their subordinates (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Unfortunately, discrimination in the treatment of subordinates is anticipated to provoke feelings of resentment and unfairness between employees (Al-Zubiu, 2010).

In Nigeria where organizations are in the phase of metamorphosis/globalization, it is imperative to notice that most organizations lack quality leader — member relationship and this has affected the economy negatively. Human beings are social beings in the sense that none can survive in isolation, it is very essential to maintain quality relationship among people. In the organizational settings, for productivity to be achieved, there must be cooperation among the members of the organization, this can be between a superior and subordinate, and employer to employees. The efficiency and effectiveness of any organization lie on the quality of Leader — member relationship. Lack of quality leader- member relationship can easily be noticed in most organizations in Nigeria, there is a high level of competition, (real or perceived), this tends to create unnecessary and unhealthy rivalry, and this in return leads to lack of cooperation in organizational settings hence contributing to poor production, stagnation, and organizational decadence.

Though many researchers have been done on Leader — member relationship, this study is aimed to unravel the role of procedural justice and leadership style on the quality of leader- member relationship among private and public-school teachers in Ibadan.

The following research questions were formulated to guide the study:

1. Is there significant influence of procedural justice and leadership style on the quality of leader- member relationship among private and public schools’ teachers in Ibadan?
2. Will there be a joint influence of procedural justice and leadership style on the quality of leader — member relationship among private and public schools’ teachers in Ibadan?
3. Will there be joint and independent effect of socio demographic factor (age, gender, marital status, and religion) on the quality of leader member relationship among private and public-school teachers in Ibadan?

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a cross sectional research design because teachers from different schools were sampled, in which the demographic variables were also sampled. The study was carried out at three Private Secondary Schools and three Public Secondary Schools in Ibadan, Oyo State. These schools were selected using systematic Ballot system. The school teachers were selected using random sampling techniques in which teachers were chosen randomly by walking up to any teachers to solicit for his/her attention. These teachers were of three private and three public secondary schools. A total of one hundred and twenty (120) participants were sampled and used for the study. Their Sex revealed that 50(42.0%) were Male while 69(58.0%) were Female. Respondents’ mean age was 32 years. Their Religion affiliation showed that 86(72.3%) were Christians 30(25.2%) were Muslim, 2(1.7%) were Traditional worshippers, and 1(0.8%) was of other religion. Respondents’ ethnicity revealed that 75(63.0%) were Yorubas, 34(28.6%) were Igbos, 3(2.5%) were Hausa and 7(5.9%) were of other ethnic groups.

A standardized questionnaire was adopted for this study, this questionnaire was divided into four sections, which included:

Section A: This section measured demographic variables such as Age, Sex, religion, and Ethnicity.

Section B: The quality of leader-member relationship was measured in this study using a 12-item scale (LMX) developed by Liden & Meslyn (1998), with four dimensions measurement namely, Affect, Loyalty, Contribution, and professional respect. And it is on a Likert Format, with 1=Strongly Disagree (SD), 2=Disagree (D), 3=Undecided (U), 4=Agree (A), and 5= Strongly Agree (SA). In this study a cronbach Alpha of LMX dimensions was as follows: .93,.89,.80 and .62 for affect, Loyalty, contribution, and professional respect respectively.

Section C: Procedural justice was measured with procedural just scale which is of 9 items developed by Breshear et al. (2002). The response format was 1=Strongly Disagree (SD), 2=Disagree (D), 3=Agree (A),4=Strongly Agree. In this study the Cronbach Alpha was .94 and item-to-total correlations for all nine items were .74 and above.

Section D: Leadership style was measured with 51 item scale by Jolanta (2014) developed in Wroclaw University of Technology, Poland, in 2014 and the scale of 6 segments of leadership style was obtained. They are: (1) Structuring, (2) Autocratic, (3) Participative, (4) Machiavellian (5) Rewarding (6) Distant.  Participants responded on format of Yes/No response.

A total of 120 questionnaires were collected and the collected questionnaires were subjected to statistical analysis.

The collected data was first checked for its adequacy and then analysed using the statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 20.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 1: Demographics of the respondents.

To answer the formulated research questions, hypotheses were also formulated and tested at 0.05 level of significance.

Hypothesis one: Procedural justice and leadership style will independently and jointly predict quality of leader-member relationship. The result is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of multiple regression showing the independent and joint prediction of procedural justice and leadership style on quality of leader-member relationship.

From the result shown above, it is observed that Procedural justice (β = .268, t= 3.150, p<.0l) and Leadership style (β=-.293, t= -3.454, p<.0l) independently predict quality of leader-member relationship. In addition, Procedural justice and Leadership style jointly predict sexual risky behaviour (F(2,116)=12.762, R=A80, R²=.166, p<.0l). This suggest that the multiple regression coefficients of the two models (Procedural justice and Leadership style) showed the relationship strength 42.5% on quality of leader-member relationship, also, these variables jointly accounted for 18.0% variance in quality of leader-member relationship while the remaining 82.0% variances are attributed to other alienated factors which are not considered in this study. Hence, the result support the hypothesis and therefore the hypothesis one is accepted.

Hypothesis two: respondent high on procedural justice will significantly have higher quality of leader-member relationship. The result is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of t-test showing the differences in the levels of procedural justice on quality of leader-member relationship.

The result above negates the alternate hypothesis (t (117) = 1.85, p>.O5). The mean score of respondents with high procedural justice (Mean=45.32, SD=10.92) was higher than respondents with low procedural justice (Mean=42.27, SD= 6.97) on quality of leader-member relationship. Therefore, hypothesis two was rejected.

Hypothesis three: respondent high on leadership style will significantly have higher quality of leader-member relationship than respondent with low leadership style. The result is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of t-test showing the differences in the levels of leadership style on quality of leader-member relationship.

The result above support the hypothesis (t (117) = -3.64, p<.05). Although, the mean score of respondents with high leadership style (Mean= 40.59, SD=10.04) was lower than respondents with low leadership style (Mean=46.33, SD= 7.07) on leader-member relationship. Therefore, hypothesis three was accepted.

Hypothesis four: demographic factors will independently and jointly predict quality of leader-member relationship. The result is presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Summary of Multiple Regression Showing the independent and joint prediction of demographic factors on quality of leader-member relationship.

From the result shown above, it will be observed that while Age (β = -.174, t= -1.910, p>.05), Religion (β = .136, t= 1.513, p>.O5) and Ethnicity (β = -.140, t= -1.531, p>.05) did not independently predict quality of leader member relationship, Sex (β = -.189, t= -2.1 18, p<.05) independently predict quality of leader-member relationship.

In addition, Sex, Age, Religion and Ethnicity jointly predicted quality of leader- member relationship (F (4,144) =3.047, R=.311, R²=.097, p<.05). This suggest that the multiple regression coefficients of the four models (Sex, Age, Religion and Ethnicity) showed the relationship strength 31.1% on quality of leader-member relationship. Also, these variables jointly accounted for 9.7% variance in quality of leader-member relationship while the remaining 91.3% variances are attributed to other alienated factors which are not considered in this study. Hence, the result partially supports the alternate hypothesis and therefore hypothesis for was accepted.

DISCUSSIONS

The first hypothesis stated that the procedural justice and Leadership style will independently and jointly predict quality of Leader- member relationship. The findings are in line with Volmer et al. (2011), who investigated the relationship between procedural justice and leader- member exchange. The result showed that there was an effect of procedural justice and Leader- member relationship. Furthermore, the findings are also in line with investigation of Greenberg (1986). Greenberg found out that Leader- member relationship is dependent on the Leadership style.

The third hypothesis stated that respondent high on Leadership style will significantly have higher quality of Leader- member relationship than respondent with low leadership style. The result supported the work of Schyns & Wolfram (2008), which found put that interpersonal relationship between a leader and subordinate depends on the leaders Leadership style. An authoritative leader may not have a good relationship with his/her subordinates. Ayman & Korabik (2010) perceived Leadership style to be a reciprocal process of social influence, in which leaders and subordinates influence and interact with each other to achieve organizational goals.

The fourth hypothesis stated that demographic factors will independently and jointly predict the quality of Leader- member relationship. From the result, it was observed that while Age, Religion, and Ethnicity did not independently predict quality of leader- member relationship, Sex independently predict quality of leader- member relationship. Sex, Age, Religion and Ethnicity jointly predict quality of leader- member relationship. However, Ethnicity, marital Status, Age and Religion has been reported to influence leader directly or indirectly- member relationship (Goodin, 2010; Shaw et al., 2011).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this study, it was concluded that there was joint influence of Leadership style and procedural justice on the quality of Leader- member relationship. It is also concluded that respondent high on leadership style have higher quality of Leader- member relationship. Moreover, the joint effect of Age, Gender, Religion and Ethnicity has influence on the quality of Leader- member relationship. However only Gender independently predicted the quality of Leader- member relationship, while Age, Religion and Ethnicity did not independently but jointly predict the quality of Leader- member relationship. Thus, based on the findings, this study recommends that training should be encourage from time to time to improve interpersonal organizational relationship, to develop soft skills such as communication and to identify appropriate Leadership styles that suits an organizational goal and at the same time create a perceived fair work environment atmosphere.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Zubi, H.A (2010). A study of relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction. International journal of Business and Management,5 (12), 102-1 09. Retrieved from http ://ccsenet. org/journal /index .php/ijbmlarticle/view/8495.
2. Aziri, B. (2011). Job satisfaction: A literature Review Management Research and Practice. Vol 3 (2011), 77-86.
3. Donneli, M; Yukl, G; & Taber, T. (2012). Leader behavior and LMX: a constructive replication. Journal managerial psychology 27(2), 143- 154.
4. George, R.T; & Hancer, M. (2005). Leader- member exchange quality: an empirical investigation in restaurants. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 3(2), 85-99.
5. Goodin, E. R. (2010). Temporal Justice. Journal of social policy. 39 (1),1-16.
6. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of management Review, 12 9-22.
7. Judge, T.A; & Bonoj. E. (2000). Five- factor model of personality and transformational leadership Journal of Applied psychology, 85(5),75 1-765.doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.85.5.751.
8. Schyns, B; & Wolfram, H.J. (2008). The relationship between Leader- member exchange and outcomes as rated b leases and followers. Leadership and organization Development journal, 29(7), 63 1-646.
9. Shaw, J.B; Erickson, A; & Harvey, M. (2011). A method for measuring destructive Leadership and identifying types of destructive leaders in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 575-590.doi: 10.10 16/j.leaqua.20 11.05.001.
10. Volmer, J; Niessen, C; Spurk, D; Linz A; & Abel A.E. (2011). Reciprocal Relationships between Leader- member exchange (LMX) and job Satisfaction: A crisis-Lagged Analysis, Applied psychology: an International Review, 0(0),1-24, D0I: 10.111 1/j.1464- 0597.201 1.00446.x