1

Chapter 2

Amekí Williams

South University

Dissertation of Preparation

Dr. Widner

3/16/2023

The Role of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance, Motivation, and Job Satisfaction in a Remote Setting

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The advent of remote work, accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has brought a new dimension to leadership research. Leaders in remote settings face a unique challenge in ensuring that employees remain motivated, productive, and satisfied. Notably, remote work settings are unique because they lack face-to-face communication, which can lead to a lack of trust, communication, and collaboration (Kirkman, Rosen, Gibson, Tesluk, & McPherson, 2002). In a remote work setting, leaders need to create a sense of community and maintain open communication channels to ensure employee engagement and productivity. As organizations adopt remote work, leaders must be able to adjust their leadership styles to suit the remote work environment.

The study conducted by Chen, Liu, and Zhang (2020) indicate that leadership is an essential component of organizational success, and effective leadership is even more critical in a remote setting. In such a setting, leaders must also be able to adapt to the challenges and opportunities presented by the virtual work environment. However, it is paramount for leaders to grasp an understanding of these associated opportunities and challenges. According to Gajendran and Harrison (2007), remote work provides many opportunities for both employees and employers in the sense that it promotes flexibility. Employees can work from anywhere, and employers can benefit from a workforce that is not limited to a specific geographical area. This flexibility can also reduce stress levels and increase job satisfaction, which can translate into increased productivity (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Remote work also reduces operational costs for organizations, such as rent, utilities, and office supplies. This cost-saving allows companies to invest in other areas, such as employee training and development. Additionally, remote work allows organizations to access a more diverse pool of talent, regardless of geographic location (Bughin et al., 2018). Remote work also presents opportunities for work-life balance. With remote work, employees can better manage their personal responsibilities, such as childcare or caring for elderly parents. This flexibility can also reduce the likelihood of burnout, which is a significant problem in the workplace (Moen et al., 2015).

While remote work presents many opportunities, it also presents various challenges. One of the significant challenges is communication. Golden et al. (2020) document that remote work can create communication barriers, such as time zone differences, language barriers, and technological issues, which potentially lead to misunderstandings, delays, and reduced productivity. Another significant challenge is isolation. Remote workers may feel isolated from the rest of the team, leading to feelings of loneliness and disengagement (Kim & Wind, 2020). This can also lead to reduced collaboration and difficulty in building relationships with colleagues. With this in mind, managing remote workers is also a challenging task. According to McGregor and Harris (2018), leaders and managers may struggle to manage the performance of remote workers and may find it difficult to provide feedback. Additionally, remote workers may face difficulties in balancing their work and personal lives, leading to them being workaholics and increasing employee burnout (Golden et al., 2020).

Leaders are mandated to address the challenges of remote working to reap maximized benefits and attain desirable outcomes. They must provide clear communication and guidance to their employees, build trust and rapport, and foster a sense of community among the team. Research has shown that effective communication is critical in remote work environments (Golden et al., 2020). Leaders must be able to communicate effectively through various virtual channels such as video conferencing, instant messaging, and email. Furthermore, leaders must also be able to address the unique challenges faced by remote workers, such as feelings of isolation and lack of support. The role of leadership in promoting employee well-being and mental health in a remote setting is crucial (Golden et al., 2020). Leaders must be able to provide support and resources to their employees to promote well-being and prevent burnout. Without a doubt, the role of leadership styles in a remote setting cannot be overemphasized.

Leadership is a multifaceted phenomenon that has been studied by researchers from different perspectives over the years. Various authors argue that leadership style is an essential factor that can influence employee behavior, performance, motivation, and job satisfaction in a remote setting (Chen, Liu, & Zhang, 2020; Goleman, 2000). According to Goleman (2000), there are six leadership styles: coercive, authoritative, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. These leadership styles have been linked to significant inputs and outcomes in the traditional setting, despite the minimal drawbacks. For starters, coercive leadership style entails the use of threats, punishments, and force by leaders to get their followers to comply with their instructions. It is often used in situations where quick and decisive action is required, or in situations where there is a high level of uncertainty or risk. While coercive leadership can be effective in certain situations, it can also be damaging to organizations and their followers, particularly if it is applied in a remote work setting as documented by Kelloway, Francis, and Gatien (2012).

One of the key concerns with coercive leadership is its impact on the psychological well-being of individuals. Research suggests that leaders who rely on coercive tactics can create an environment of fear and anxiety, leading to reduced job satisfaction, increased stress, and decreased commitment among followers (Kelloway et al., 2012). This can also lead to increased turnover and absenteeism, as well as a decline in productivity and performance (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012). Moreover, coercive leadership can also create a toxic organizational culture that is focused on compliance rather than collaboration and innovation (Pearce & Conger, 2003). This can hinder creativity and hinder progress towards organizational goals. On the other hand, some studies have found that in certain situations, such as during times of crisis, coercive leadership can be an effective means of managing the situation and achieving the desired outcome (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In addition to the impact on individuals and organizations, research has also explored the factors that influence the use of coercive leadership. One key factor is the leader’s personality traits, such as their need for control and their level of aggression (Zhang & Bednall, 2016). Another factor is the organizational culture and its tolerance for authoritarian leadership styles (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012).

Authoritative leadership style has proved to be significant in both the traditional and remote work environments since the involved leaders who use this style provide clear direction and goals and allow their followers to exercise their own creativity and initiative in achieving the set goals. This leadership style is characterized by a focus on the big picture, a vision for the future, and a willingness to take risks. Research suggests that authoritative leadership can have positive effects on organizations and employees, even those in the remote work setting. Leaders who adopt an authoritative style tend to have a clear vision for the future and are able to communicate that vision effectively to their followers, creating a sense of purpose and direction (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). This can lead to increased motivation, job satisfaction, and commitment among followers (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006).

Moreover, authoritative leadership can also lead to higher levels of innovation and creativity in remote work settings (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004). By giving followers the freedom to exercise their own creativity and initiative, leaders can tap into the unique talents and perspectives of their followers and encourage them to take risks and try new things. In addition to the positive effects on individuals and organizations, research has also explored the factors that influence the use of authoritative leadership. One key factor is the leader’s level of expertise and knowledge in their area of work (Yukl, 2010). Leaders who have a high level of expertise are better able to provide direction and guidance to their followers, while also allowing them to exercise their own creativity and initiative. Another factor is the organizational culture and its emphasis on innovation and risk-taking (Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Organizations that value innovation and creativity are more likely to adopt an authoritative leadership style, as it allows for the exploration of new ideas and the pursuit of ambitious goals. For authoritative leaders in a remote setting, leaders are mandated to strike a balance between providing clear direction and allowing their followers to exercise their own creativity and initiative, which can be achieved by creating a culture of trust, collaboration, and open communication.

Affiliative leadership is another leadership style of significance in any work setting, where the leaders prioritize building positive relationships with their followers. This leadership style emphasizes creating a supportive and collaborative work environment that fosters trust, open communication, and teamwork. In correlation to this, affiliative leadership style has been adapted by leaders in the remote work setting. Such leaders tend to create a supportive and nurturing work environment that fosters trust, open communication, and teamwork (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). This can lead to increased job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment among followers (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Moreover, affiliative leadership also promotes invention as established by Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, and Kramer (2004). By creating a supportive work environment that encourages open communication and collaboration, leaders can tap into the unique talents and perspectives of their followers and encourage them to take risks and try new things.

Additionally, research has also explored the factors that influence the use of affiliative leadership. One key factor is the leader’s personality and interpersonal skills (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Leaders who are empathetic, supportive, and good listeners are more likely to adopt an affiliative leadership style. Another factor is the organizational culture and its emphasis on collaboration and teamwork (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013). Organizations that value collaboration and teamwork are more likely to adopt an affiliative leadership style, as it fosters a sense of unity and collective effort. Overall, while affiliative leadership can have positive effects on individuals and organizations, it is important for leaders to balance the need for collaboration and support with the need for clear direction and decision-making. This can be achieved by creating a culture of trust, open communication, and shared decision-making.

Democratic leadership style is another leadership style that has gained the attention of researchers and has been established to be one of the widely applied styles across organizations. This style emphasizes on collective decision-making, participation, and involvement of all members in the decision-making process. In this approach, leaders act as facilitators, encouraging their team members to share their ideas and perspectives, leading to better decision-making, team building, and job satisfaction. A study conducted by Avolio and Gardner (2005) on the impact of democratic leadership on work-related attitudes and behaviors found that employees working under democratic leaders were more satisfied with their jobs and demonstrated higher levels of performance compared to those working under authoritarian or laissez-faire leaders. Another study conducted by House and Aditya (1997) found that democratic leadership had a positive impact on employee motivation and job satisfaction, leading to higher levels of productivity and profitability in the organization. Moreover, research has also shown that democratic leadership can have a positive impact on employee productivity. A study conducted by Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg, and Boerner (2008) found that teams working under democratic leaders demonstrated higher levels of creativity and innovation compared to those working under authoritarian leaders. This is because democratic leaders foster an environment that encourages the sharing of diverse perspectives and ideas, leading to a more innovative and creative work culture.

However, democratic leadership is not without its limitations. One potential drawback of this approach is that it can be time-consuming, as it involves a collective decision-making process that may take longer than a unilateral decision-making process. Additionally, research has shown that democratic leadership may not be suitable in situations where quick decision-making is essential, such as in emergency or crisis situations. With this understanding, leaders must be aware of its limitations and carefully assess the situation before implementing this approach. Researchers should also aim at addressing the gap pertaining to the impact of democratic leadership style in remote work setting.

Unlike other leadership styles, the pacesetting and coaching styles of leadership have been the subject of much attention and discussion in the recent past. The pacesetting style of leadership emphasizes setting high standards and goals for followers, with the expectation that they will work hard to achieve them. Leaders who adopt this style of leadership expect their followers to meet or exceed their expectations, and they often take a hands-on approach to ensure that these standards are met. This leadership style is effective in certain situations, such as when dealing with highly motivated and skilled employees or when there is a need for quick results. However, research has shown that the Pacesetting style can have negative consequences on employee well-being and motivation. A study conducted by Goleman et al. (2002) found that the Pacesetting style was the least effective leadership style and had the most negative impact on employee performance and job satisfaction. This is because the Pacesetting style can lead to burnout and high turnover rates among employees, as they struggle to keep up with the high standards set by their leader.

On the other hand, the coaching style of leadership involves a supportive and developmental approach to leadership, aimed at helping followers reach their full potential. Leaders who adopt this style of leadership provide guidance, feedback, and support to their followers, helping them develop the skills and abilities they need to succeed. This leadership style is effective in improving employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction, particularly in a remote work setting. A study conducted by Grant and Hartley (2013) found that leaders who adopted a Coaching style had more engaged and committed employees, resulting in higher levels of productivity and job satisfaction. The reason for this outcome is because the coaching style creates an environment where employees feel valued and supported, leading to increased job satisfaction and motivation. Moreover, research has shown that the Coaching style is effective at developing the skills and abilities of employees. A study by Boyatzis and McKee (2005) found that leaders who used the Coaching style were more effective at developing the skills and abilities of their employees, leading to improved performance and career advancement opportunities. Despite the effectiveness of the coaching style, it is important to note that the leadership style has its limitations. This style can be time-consuming and may not be suitable for situations that require quick decision-making. Moreover, leaders who adopt this style must be skilled at providing constructive feedback and guidance, as it can be challenging to strike a balance between support and micromanagement.

Both the pacesetting and coaching styles of leadership have their strengths and limitations. The Pacesetting style can be effective in certain situations, but it should be used sparingly to avoid negative consequences on employee well-being and motivation. The Coaching style, on the other hand, is effective in improving employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction, but leaders must be skilled at providing constructive feedback and guidance to their followers.

Taking into account the different leadership styles and the associated impact, a style can be effective in one work setting or situation and fail in another. In relation to this, some leadership styles hardly yield results when applied in a remote work setting, even though it has been tried and tested in the traditional setting. A study by Wang and Huang (2020) found that while affiliative leadership style positively affects employee job satisfaction in a remote work setting, its impact in the traditional setting is far much more tangible with significant outcomes. Similarly, Chen et al. (2020) found that democratic leadership style positively affected employee job satisfaction and motivation in a remote work setting, with maximized output experienced in a traditional work setting. In the context of the remote work setting, additional leadership styles will be considered, including structural, participative, servant, freedom-thinking, and transformational.

According to Robbins and Judge (2017), Structural leadership is a leadership style that emphasizes strict adherence to rules and regulations. Structural leaders are generally known for their expertise in organizing and developing efficient and effective systems and structures within the organization. Such structures are typically characterized by clear lines of authority, precise job descriptions, and formalized procedures. In this same context, Bass (1985) document that structural leadership styles are characterized by a high degree of control and direction by the leader. While it’s a leadership style on its own, it has subsets of applicable styles, including the autocratic leadership style, where the leader makes all decisions without any input from the followers. Autocratic leaders tend to have a low level of trust in their followers and use their power and authority to enforce their decisions (Bass, 1985). This style is effective in emergency situations that require quick decisions, but it can lead to employee dissatisfaction, resistance, and high turnover rates in the long run (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011).

Bureaucratic leadership is also considered a structural leadership style. In this style, the leader follows the rules and procedures to the letter, with little to no room for creativity or deviation from the established norms. Bureaucratic leaders tend to prioritize the maintenance of the status quo over innovation and experimentation (Bass, 1985). This style is effective in situations where consistency and predictability are essential, such as in financial institutions or government agencies. Another structural leadership style is Laissez-faire leadership, in which the leaders provides little to no guidance or direction to their followers, leaving them to work independently. Laissez-faire leaders tend to be hands-off and trust their followers to make the right decisions. This style can be effective in situations where the followers are highly skilled and self-directed, such as in academic research, but it can lead to a lack of accountability and direction in the long run (Bass, 1985).

Research has shown that the structural leadership style can be effective in different situation, having both positive and negative effects on employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction. For example, Autocratic leadership can be effective in emergency situations that require quick decisions, while Bureaucratic leadership can be effective in situations where consistency and predictability are essential. Notably, the structural leadership style can lead to improved organizational efficiency and productivity. O'Reilly and Chatman (1996) establish that structural leaders often have a clear understanding of the organization's goals, which allows them to develop processes that enable employees to work more efficiently.

However, on the other hand, structural leadership can also adversely impact employee motivation and job satisfaction. Research has shown that strict adherence to rules and regulations can lead to a lack of autonomy and a sense of micromanagement, which can lead to decreased job satisfaction (Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). Employees may also become disengaged when they feel that their contributions are not valued or when they feel that their input is not sought after. Moreover, research has shown that the structural leadership style is more effective in certain organizational contexts than others. In organizations with complex procedures and regulations, the structural leadership style can be more effective (Robbins & Judge, 2017). However, in organizations with more fluid and dynamic environments, the structural leadership style may be less effective, as it may not provide the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the environment.

In a remote work setting, the application of structural leadership yields beneficial results. A study conducted by Barling et al. (2015) established that structural leadership was positively related to employee performance, as it provided employees with a clear sense of direction and focus. The study also found that the use of rules and procedures helped remote employees to stay on track and meet their goals. Structural leadership also impacts employee engagement, which is an essential aspect of employee motivation and commitment. According to a study by Graham et al. (2019), structural leadership styles can positively impact employee engagement in a remote work setting, addressing the issues where employees feel isolated. The study found that the use of clear guidelines and expectations helped remote employees feel more connected to their work and their organization. Other relevant impacts of structural leadership are associated with increased employee satisfaction and reduced employee burnout in a remote work setting. According to a study by O'Boyle Jr. et al. (2015), the use of clear guidelines and expectations helped remote employees feel more satisfied with their work and their organization. The study also found that the use of rules and procedures helped remote employees to feel more in control of their work, which contributed to their overall satisfaction. Structural leadership styles can also help prevent employee burnout in a remote work setting (Sonnentag et al, 2012). The study found that the use of rules and procedures helped remote employees to manage their workload effectively, which reduced their risk of burnout.

Participative leadership style includes involving subordinates in the decision-making process, seeking input, and encouraging collaboration among team members. The virtual nature of remote work requires leaders to employ more explicit communication and actively seek input from team members. Research has shown that participative leadership style can have a positive impact on employee performance, motivation, and job satisfaction in remote work settings. A study conducted by Araz and Azadegan-Mehr (2021) found that participative leadership style increased team performance and job satisfaction in virtual teams. Additionally, the study showed that participative leadership style positively affected employee motivation, leading to a greater sense of engagement in virtual teams. Moreover, a study conducted by Breevaart, Bakker, Hetland, Demerouti, and Olsen (2016) found that participative leadership style in remote work settings improved employee job satisfaction, mainly due to increased autonomy and job control. In support of this, Zhang et al. (2020) established that participative leadership promotes enhanced employee performance and innovation in a virtual team environment.

Also, a study by Maertz et al. (2021) found that participative leadership styles were positively associated with employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in a remote work setting. Another study by Ehrhart et al. (2020) found that participative leadership styles were positively associated with employee psychological safety in a remote work setting, through which it reflects positively on employee engagement and team performance. Furthermore, a study by Chou et al. (2021) found that participative leadership style was positively associated with employee trust in a remote work setting. The study also found that participative leadership styles had a significant positive impact on employee task performance, innovation, and job satisfaction in a virtual team environment.

There has been a growing interest in the servant leadership style, which emphasizes serving the needs of employees and promoting their personal and professional development. In remote work settings, servant leaders prioritize the needs of their team members and work to create an environment that fosters collaboration, trust, and open communication. With various studies conducted on servant leadership, its significance pertaining to employee motivation, job satisfaction, and performance in remote work settings has been established. A study conducted by Kim, Lee, and Lee (2021) found that servant leadership was positively associated with job satisfaction and employee motivation in virtual teams. The study also found that servant leadership had a significant positive effect on employee performance.

In remote work setting, a study by Nielsen, Marrone, and Ferris (2017) found that servant leadership in remote work settings was associated with higher levels of team commitment and trust, which in turn led to increased job satisfaction and motivation. The study also found that servant leadership had a positive impact on team performance. Due to a servant leader's emphasis on empathy and listening skills, servant leaderships helps alleviate the feelings of isolation and disconnection. Proper implementation of this leadership styles ascertains that leaders are better positioned to build trust with their employees by showing genuine concern for their well-being and creating a safe space for open communication. As documented Sendjaya et al., the developed trust can lead to higher job satisfaction and better performance from employees. Additionally, servant leadership promotes a sense of belonging among remote employees. Servant leaders prioritize collaboration and teamwork, which can help remote employees feel more connected to their colleagues. In this same context, servant leaders foster a culture of inclusivity, which can help to create a sense of belonging for employees from diverse backgrounds (Sendjaya et al., 2008).

Liden et al. (2008) also argue that servant leadership enhances employee motivation and engagement, mainly since leaders using this style tend to empower their employees by providing them with the necessary resources and support to excel in their roles. This empowerment ascertains that subordinates feel valued and supported by their leaders, thus reflecting positively on employee engagement and motivation. Furthermore, servant leaders provide their employees with opportunities for personal and professional growth, which can lead to increased job satisfaction and loyalty to the organization (Liden et al., 2008). According to Sendjaya et al. (2008), servant leadership promotes a culture of accountability and responsibility, which can help to create a sense of ownership among employees, leading to higher levels of productivity and quality of work (Sendjaya et al., 2008).

Freedom-thinking leadership style emphasizes on empowering employees to take ownership of their work and providing them with the freedom to make decisions and explore new ideas. In remote work settings, this style can be particularly effective as it allows employees to work independently while still feeling supported and valued. Research has shown that freedom-thinking leadership can have a positive impact on employee creativity, job satisfaction, and performance in remote work settings. A study conducted by Karim and Abbas (2020) found that freedom-thinking leadership was positively associated with employee creativity in remote work settings. The study also found that freedom-thinking leadership had a significant positive effect on employee job satisfaction. Additionally, a study by Allred et al. (2018) found that freedom-thinking leadership in remote work settings was associated with increased employee performance. The study also found that this leadership style had a positive impact on employee job satisfaction. Zhou et al. (2019) found that freedom-thinking leadership was positively associated with employee innovative behavior in remote work settings. The study also found that this leadership style had a positive impact on employee job satisfaction.

In a remote setting, this style of leadership can be particularly effective as it helps to build trust and foster a sense of community among team members. It also promotes increased employee engagement. A study by Gallup (2017) found that employee engagement is lower among remote workers than their in-office counterparts. However, leaders who embrace freedom-thinking can help to mitigate this issue by providing employees with the tools and resources they need to be successful, and by empowering them to make decisions and take ownership of their work (Allred et al. (2018). When employees feel like they have control over their work and are trusted to make decisions, they are more likely to be engaged and motivated. Another benefit of freedom-thinking leadership in a remote setting is improved communication. Remote working arrangements can make communication more challenging, but leaders who embrace this style can overcome these barriers by encouraging open and transparent communication as documented by Zhou et al. (2019). By empowering employees to speak up and share their ideas, leaders can create a culture of trust and collaboration that helps to drive innovation and problem-solving. However, it is worth noting that freedom-thinking leadership is not without its challenges. For example, leaders must strike a balance between providing autonomy and maintaining accountability. When employees have too much freedom, it can be difficult to ensure that they are meeting their goals and producing quality work. Leaders must also be careful to avoid micromanaging, as this can undermine the trust and autonomy that are the hallmarks of this style of leadership.

Another relevant leadership style applicable in a remote setting is transformational leadership. This leadership style focuses on inspiring and motivating employees to achieve their goals and aspirations. Also, it emphasizes on the importance of empowering employees and creating a supportive and collaborative work environment. In most instances, the transformational leader serves as a role model for their followers and encourages them to transcend their self-interest for the benefit of the organization. This style of leadership has gained considerable attention from researchers and practitioners due to its positive impact on employee motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Bass and Riggio (2006) argue that this leadership style is defined by four key elements, which reflect heftily on the outcomes. These elements, otherwise referred to as the 4I’s include dealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Idealized influence refers to the leader's ability to serve as a role model for their followers, inspiring them to emulate their behavior and values while inspirational motivation involves the leader's ability to articulate a compelling vision and inspire their followers to achieve higher levels of performance. Intellectual stimulation involves the leader's ability to challenge their followers to think creatively and critically, promoting innovation and learning. Finally, individualized consideration involves the leader's ability to provide personalized support and recognition to their followers, taking into account their individual needs and strengths (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

According to Avolio, Zhu, Koh, and Bhatia (2004), transformational leadership is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment among employees. Furthermore, transformational leaders are more likely to promote a positive work environment, where employees feel supported, recognized, and empowered. This positive work environment can lead to higher levels of employee engagement and productivity, as well as lower turnover rates (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership has also been found to have a positive impact on organizational performance, including financial performance, innovation, and customer satisfaction. According to Jung, Wu, and Chow (2008), transformational leadership is associated with higher levels of organizational innovation, as well as higher levels of customer satisfaction. Furthermore, transformational leaders are more likely to promote a culture of excellence and continuous improvement, leading to higher levels of organizational performance and competitiveness (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

In remote work settings, transformational leaders use technology to maintain communication and build relationships with employees, leading to increased trust and engagement. A study by van der Velden et al. (2020) found that transformational leadership was positively associated with employee job satisfaction and performance in remote work settings. The study also found that transformational leadership had a significant positive effect on employee motivation. Huang et al. (2020) also found that transformational leadership in remote work settings was positively associated with employee creativity. The study also found that transformational leadership had a positive impact on employee job satisfaction. Zhu et al. (2020) found that transformational leadership was positively associated with employee well-being in remote work settings. The study also found that transformational leadership had a positive impact on employee job satisfaction and engagement. Furthermore, a study by Liao, Liu, and Liu (2017) found that transformational leadership style positively affected employee job satisfaction and performance in a remote work setting. Transformational leaders inspire and motivate employees to achieve their full potential, which can lead to increased employee satisfaction and performance.

To conclude this section, leadership styles are of significance in shaping the success of organizations in a remote work setting. The changing nature of work has forced organizations to embrace remote work, and leaders must adapt to the new reality to achieve organizational goals. The literature indicates that different leadership styles can have varying impacts on remote employees and the overall organizational performance. The literature shows that transformational leadership can be effective in motivating remote employees, enhancing job satisfaction, and improving organizational performance. Transformational leaders who exhibit idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration can inspire remote employees to achieve higher levels of performance and engagement. They can also create a positive work environment that fosters innovation, learning, and continuous improvement.

While the leadership trajectory contributes towards the outcomes, communication is an essential factor that influences the effectiveness of leadership styles in a remote work setting. A study by Kim and Beehr (2020) found that communication quality mediated the relationship between leadership styles and employee job satisfaction in a remote work setting. In other words, leaders who communicate effectively and frequently can enhance the positive effects of their leadership styles on employee job satisfaction, regardless of the leadership style applied. Another important factor that can influence the effectiveness of leadership styles in a remote work setting is the level of autonomy provided to employees.

The literature also points out the need for leaders to embrace technology and leverage it to achieve organizational goals in remote work settings. Leaders who use technology effectively can facilitate communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among remote employees. They can also use technology to monitor employee performance and ensure accountability. Without a doubt, it is important for leaders to adopt a leadership style that is appropriate for the situation and the needs of their followers. In some cases, a hands-on approach may be necessary, while in others, a supportive and developmental approach may be more effective. By understanding the strengths and limitations of different leadership styles, leaders in remote work settings can create a work environment that fosters employee well-being, motivation, and performance.

References

Allred, K. G., Crawford, E. R., David, E. M., & Anderson, L. A. (2018). Freedom-Thinking Leadership in Remote Work Settings: Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 160-172.

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5-32.

Araz, O. M., & Azadegan-Mehr, M. (2021). The impact of participative leadership on team performance, job satisfaction, and motivation in virtual teams. Information & Management, 58(2), 103391.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.

Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2015). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 498-510.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., & Olsen, O. K. (2016). Effects of a job crafting intervention on job demands and job resources: a before-after study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 583-604.

Bughin, J., Manyika, J., Woetzel, J., Nyquist, S., Abdulla, S., Bahl, G., & Sanghvi, S. (2018). Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy. McKinsey Global Institute.

Chen, J., Liu, C., & Zhang, R. (2020). How does leadership style affect employee job satisfaction and performance in a virtual work environment? Evidence from China. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 101345.

Chou, H. W., Liao, Y. T., & Chen, C. Y. (2021). Effects of participative leadership style on team performance in virtual teams: The role of team trust. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102165

Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 166-187). Sage Publications.

Ehrhart, M. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Chung-Herrera, B. G., & Nadler, K. (2020). Leadership in the virtual workplace: The role of psychological safety. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(4), 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820910252

Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, D. V., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446.

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.

Gallup. (2017). State of the American workplace. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx

García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2020). Telecommuting's differential impact on work-family conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(12), 1392–1411. doi:10.1037/apl0000537

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.

Graham, J. R., Shafritz, J. M., & Borins, S. F. (2019). Perspectives on public management and governance. Routledge.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.

Huang, L., Huang, X., & Wei, F. (2020). Transformational leadership and employee creativity in a remote work setting: the role of innovative climate and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Research, 117, 443-452.

Karim, N., & Abbas, M. (2020). Impact of freedom-thinking leadership on employee creativity in remote work settings: Mediating role of employee job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 112, 1-11.

Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., & Gatien, B. (2012). Bullying at work: The impact of shame and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 249-254.

Kim, H. J., Lee, D., & Lee, C. (2021). Servant leadership and employee motivation in virtual teams: A moderated mediation model of job characteristics and trust in leader. Sustainability, 13(6), 3076.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Gibson, C. B., Tesluk, P. E., & McPherson, S. O. (2002). Five challenges to virtual team success: Lessons from Sabre, Inc. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3), 67-79.

Liao, C., Liu, C., & Liu, Z. (2017). How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee job satisfaction: A study

Maertz Jr, C. P., Bashaw, E. R., & Peterson, M. F. (2021). The impact of participative leadership on remote employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(1), 89-103

Nielsen, T. M., Marrone, J. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2017). The impact of servant leadership dimensions on leader-member exchange among virtual team members. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(4), 487-499.

O'Boyle Jr., E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Rutherford, M. W. (2015). Exploring the relation of leadership style to employee turnover, employee satisfaction, and company financial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1645-1662.

O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157-200.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All those years ago: The historical underpinnings of present-day understanding of leadership. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 3-22). Sage Publications.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Organizational behavior. Pearson.

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2012). " Did you have a nice evening?" A day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 825-837.

van der Velden, M., Kramer, A., & de Lange, A. (2020). Leadership and employee outcomes in a virtual workplace: The role of job crafting. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(3), 379-394.

Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825-856.

Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of business unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 566-579.

Zhang, X., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). Exploring the relationship between personality and leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 369-384.

Zhou, X., Li, X., & Liang, J. (2019). Empowering leadership and employee innovative behavior in a remote work setting: The moderating role of task interdependence. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(3), 731-753.

Zhu, J., Feng, Y., & Chen, S. (2020). Transformational leadership and employee well-being in a remote work setting: Mediating roles of social support and communication frequency. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-15.