THE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE STYLE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF LEADERSHIP
Date Issued
2005
Date
2005
Author(s)
Tsai, Ching- Hsiang
DOI
zh-TW
Abstract
The theory of leadership has been developed for a pretty long time. It is solid in foundation, and effective in application, as has been proved in military units and large enterprises. In recent year, it has also begun to prevail in government agencies and non-profit organizations. The judiciary is a pretty conservative system, where nobody in the past would challenge the chief prosecutor’s power of unitary command. Now it is time to reconsider the relationship between the chief prosecutor and prosecutors. This paper mainly analyzes the possibility of applying the newly emerging theory of leadership to the prosecution branch of the judiciary and the study of the relationship between the style and effectiveness of leadership.
The study is the first to apply the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), which has been corroborated by scholars at home and abroad, to the prosecution system. It is meant to achieve four objectives: First, it seeks to understand whether the leadership in the first instant prosecutors’ offices belongs to the transformation type, transaction type or laissez-faire type, and what is most suitable type for a prosecuting organization. Second, it explores the relationship between the style of leadership and its effectiveness in a prosecutors’ office, that is, its effect on the “extra effort”, the “effectiveness”, and the “satisfaction”. Still, what is the perception discrepancy between the leader and the led with regard to the style of leadership? Does the discrepancy affect the effectiveness of leadership? In the end, the study assesses the effectiveness of the leadership on personnel doing different work—prosecutors doing their work more independently or administrative officials doing their work more submissively—as far as the “extra effort”, the “effectiveness”, and the “satisfaction” are concerned.
The study sent out 839 questionnaires to the chief prosecutors and prosecutors working in the first instant prosecution offices, of which 537 copies have been filled and returned, with 481 valid. The questions are divided into three categories on ten hypothetical topics. They are designed to verify the effectiveness of leadership style in a prosecutors’ office and to see whether it is affected by the differences of perception and the nature of work. The following conclusions are drawn from the analysis:
1.Transformational leadership and transactional leadership are mutually supportive rather than repulsive. If the chief prosecutor can alternate the two types of leadership, he can achieve the expected result with half the efforts.
2.It is true that the style of leadership will affect its effectiveness. A comparison shows that the transformational leadership and the transactional leadership are positive whereas the laissez-faire leadership is negative.
3.There are marked differences between the chief prosecutor’s assessment and a prosecutor’s assessment on the style of leadership. Whether it is transformational leadership or transactional leadership, the chief prosecutor’s assessment is always higher than that of a prosecutor’s. However, if the chief prosecutor adopts the laissez-faire leadership, there is no remarkable difference in the assessments made by the chief prosecutor and the prosecutors.
4.There is a marked difference between the chief prosecutor and the prosecutors with regard to the effectiveness of leadership. The chief prosecutor thinks that under his or her leadership style the prosecutors will work extraordinary hard and more effectively and will give a higher satisfaction, but the prosecutors think differently.
5.The perception difference between the chief prosecutor and the prosecutors may also affect the effectiveness of leadership. The greater the difference, the less the prosecutors are willing to work extraordinary hard, and also the lower the satisfaction will be. Therefore, the chief prosecutor should try to narrow the gap of perception.
6.With regard to the style and effectiveness of the chief prosecutor’s leadership, the divisional chief prosecutor, the prosecutors, and the administrative officials of the same prosecutors’ office hold remarkably different views. The chief prosecutor therefore, should take note of the difference and adopt different types of leadership. This is to say, he or she should adjust the proportions of the transformational leadership and the transactional leadership and, more important, avoid the laissez-faire leadership.
Subjects
檢察一體
檢察長領導風格
轉換型
交易型
放任型
檢察長領導效能
額外努力
效能
滿意度
認知差異
不同工作性質
transformational leadership
transactional leadership
laissez-fair leadership
extra effort
effectiveness
satisfaction
Type
other